While I think that Google Chrome isn't a bad browser, not at all, who really is so concerned about speed these days that 25% really matter?

^I Agree. What's the point?
Someone will argue "efficiency of the system as a whole will have an aggregate effect that is measurable and highly valuable"...blah blah blah, it's just a few seconds!

I want compatibility...it doesnt work on any of our company web programs.

its understandable to want your browser to open when you click on it, but the competition is trying to go into the hundredth of a second just to prove a difference.

Browser startup time should be improved. Same for downloads. Web pages don't take very long at all to load. Then again, clicking back on Opera makes me thinks twice... that's friggin' quick! Still, I can't help but awe at Firefox's options... and I hate having the tabs at the top (what a stupid idea... who thought of that!?)

Anyway... I won't use Chrome because of the processes that stay on even when the browser isn't. That, and Google watches people, and I'm not really ok with that.

^^ I agree with ya there, picket. I tried the original Chrome for a day, and uninstalled it an hour later.

I won't be trying this. I don't like Google and Chrome.

I installed the first beta when it came out.. I used it for a day or so then went back to FF and IE7 work work.. The following week they locked it down so that Chrome will not even work on a computer joined to our domain.. Its on my quick launch and I click it accidentally from time to time and I get the "Windows can not open this program due to a software restriction policy..."

Speed is important and difference can be very noticeable.
Chrome is extremly efficient at startup and page load.

But, I think the whole thing here for Google is to offer a platform that can handle fast and reliable DOM change, something that current browsers are very weak to process.
Modify the DOM and it can take forever for the engine to refresh the display. With the widespread of AJAX and rich client desktop like Widget, it becomes a necessity.

Speed and Chrome makes sense for the next generation of very rich Web Application that will match or even surpass their desktop counterparts.
We are talking here of applications with tons of JavaScript, CSS 2.1, AJAX, DHTML, and Vector Graphics like in FLEX, Silverlight, SVG.

In my work, we are migrating a very rich ERP desktop application to the web and do see better perf with Chrome than desktop, while IE and FF are slower.

If Google wants to take over Office & Windows from Microsoft, they need something like Chrome.

people, GET IT STRAIT!! google has been offering freeware and services. they have had success for the last couple years, but their a million miles away from touching the multi billion dollar industry microsoft ownes. google as we know it wouldn't exist without MICROSOFT, heck the whole software world as we know it wouldn't exist without microsoft. i am NOT a microsoft fanboy, all you have to do look at is the developement of the industry days since DOS to see microsofts influence is way beyond google.

cheepstuff, I mostly agree with what you said.
But we could also say the same for Microsoft. They would not exist as we know without IBM, Apple and Xerox PARC.

Moreover, Windows is a response to Macintosh,
C# and .NET is a response to Java,
It took a lot of time for Microsoft to accept Internet,
SQLServer just catched up with other RDBS like Oracle,
Office has competitors that do mostly the same job
...

That Microsoft is the number 1 software company today, doesn't prove it will be number one in 50 years. They officially said several times that Google was their first and most important competitor in the future.

Anyway, what is your point ?
That Google shouldn't release a new version of their browser because Microsoft is Number 1?
That no company should try to compete with Microsoft?

Standards compliant should be goal #1, however, that being said, speed becomes increasingly important as web complexity evolves, which can be seen when trying to get IE to run anything modern and having to wait 20+ seconds.

@vincent67
their is nothing more important to any industry than competition. normally competition increases the quality and decreases the price of products. i just don't like how people look at what google has done in the last 2+ years and saying it is a serious competition to MS.
"If Google wants to take over Office & Windows from Microsoft, they need something like Chrome."
i know it is a hypothetical statement, but MS makes almost every software component that is used in the average office computer. when someone says google is competing with microsoft, it seems like he/she is seriously jumping the gun and looking way into the unforseable future.
i don't intend to tear into people who use crome ( i'm using it right now), nor am i impleing the market shouldn't have competition. it is wrong to make predictions about google out performing MS google is so small and young. google has been developing a program to brouse the internet while MS has gone into deeper stuff like OS manufacturing and improved it with for years. if google one day creates an OS i would definately be interested in it.

Microsoft apologist, cheepstuff said:

But thousand of companies are competing today with Microsoft !!!
How can you be so ignorant!

STEVE BALLMER

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass [...] igref.mspx

Clearly, Microsoft said several times they see Google as their biggest competitor in the future. WAKE UP!
Plus Microsoft is very young too!
Plus, who cares if a company is young or old?
General Motors or IBM are much older, does it change anything?

I still don't understand what you are trying to show cheepstuff.
That Google shouldn't try to attract Microsoft customers with a new generation of online Application?

Plus, the key component in the future might be the browser itself, not the OS any more...

vincent67 i am sorry if i had outraged you in any unforgivable way. by competition, i meant serious head to head company battle, as people i know have portrayed that word. i don't mean something like one company passively selling a similar product. one such hard core competition is between AMD and Nvidia. there have been extreme price-cuts by both companies, and if you haven't noticed, the internet is full of advertisements be both companies trying to campiegn to be dominant. in many opinions i have heard, that was the sense of the word being portraid.

its called induction. with induction your going from specific to general. the longer a company has stably been around, the more likley it is that it will be around. that is not to say that it will be around forever because induction also tells you that nothing lasts forever.


if you actually bothered to read my posts you would already know my opinions on that



now thats more like it!