Daniel’s Blog

# Google Chrome - My Verdict

19 Responses to “Google Chrome - My Verdict”

1. effzee Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm

   I’m curious to know how you got 46/100 on Acid3 with Opera; I’ve run 9.52 on all platforms and get 83/100 on each.

   Also I would point out that Opera contains more “out of the box” functionality than any of the browsers. For the security conscious, or those who want an assurance of consistent functionality whenever they sit at a PC and use a browser, Opera is hard to beat. 15 seconds to install and you have a wealth of functionality, interoperability of functions and a consistent interface to it all.

   The debate over plugins vs. no plugins continues; for me, with the browser being the exclusive internet portal, it is very important to know that the browser is secure. Plugins (necessarily) defeat security; a rogue plugin can obtain and transmit your data, be part of a botnet or filter and observe your behaviour online. No thanks.

   Nice initial look at chrome; Google’s move here is to build a platform for showcasing their growing portfolio of web apps while ripping just enough features from other browsers to tempt users across. I doubt that chrome will have any real impact on the internet any time soon, unless google come up with another killer app that only chrome will run. Doubtful since a good deal of chrome is built on open-source components used in other browsers, it is lacking in features (though I am sure that will improve) and brings nothing new to the table for that majority of users who really don’t care all that much.

2. Mark Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 8:59 am

   You testing is either fatally flawed, or you have doctored the results. Opera clearly has better Acid3 support than Chrome (84/100).

   Opera 9.52 also passed all 578 of the CSS3 selectors.

   “From the 43 selectors 43 have passed, 0 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 578 out of 578 tests)”

   Flawed or Deliberate?

   Pretty sad when bloggers have to make up results….

3. Mark Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 9:01 am

   In short:

   Opera passes the same amount of CSS3 selectors are Webkit, it’s more Acid3 compliant, it’s more secure, and it’s faster at general Javascript execution (not the BS webkit SunSpider test that’s heavilly weighted at webkits strong points).

4. daniel Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 9:13 am

   Hi all,
   
   The above results are true, not doctored at all. They were tested on my mac. It *could* be that my network was playing up at the time of the tests, which is definitely a possibility as my internet connection was running quite slowly.
   
   Please note that I do love Opera, it is a wonderful browser, and as you have clearly raised a difference in test results I shall run the Opera (on Mac OS X) tests again this weekend in order to find out whether I get the same results again, or whether I was having an internet issue a few days ago. I shall also run the Opera tests on Linux, just to see if there are any differences in results and runtime.
   
   Many many thanks for raising the difference. Please be assured that these tests are impartial/unbiased, and I am just as curious about the results as you are.

   Daniel

5. daniel Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

   I’m sorry guys, no matter how many times I try it I get 47 out of 100 on my Mac’s Opera (version 9.52), see:
   
   
   
   If you know of any reason why this is happening, then I (and other readers) would be very interested in hearing about it.
   
   I’ve seen blog posts about Opera getting 100 out of 100 (e.g. https://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2008/03/26/opera-and-the-acid3-test )… but just can’t reach it myself.

6. KL Says:
   September 6th, 2008 at 12:15 am

   I would like to chime what effzee has said about Opera and Firefox.

   Opera always has, and still leads the browser field by some way in terms of “out of the box” features.
   It’s a little bit of a shame that some of those features aren’t marketed or explain sufficiently to the new users.
   Meaning that many do not use Opera to its full potential either being ignorant that the feature actually exist in the browser, or can’t work out how to implement them.
   I’m no computer expert but I’m no novice either, and have been using Opera for some years now, and even today I am still discovering the odd feature now again that otherwise lay dormant or unused.

   As for the Firefox’s add on system, yep many people like that facility but it does come at a cost, and sometimes that cost is browser stability or even security.
   I am one of those people that neither has the time or inclination to search for suitable addons, or worry about whether this add on will confilct with another, or if the add on has been sufficiently tested against bugs and security exploits.

   Opera’s browser security has always been second to none, and it will appear to continue to be for some time to come particuarly as Opera has now implemented Haute security in it’s 9.5 browsers and above.

   I was reading a posters review on Opera 9.52 on the CNet site just yesterday, she put in the “cons ” that Opera wasn’t supported by McAfee Site advisor, and that she needed that to browse safely.
   Obviously this poster was totally unaware that Opera 9.52 already had an inbuilt security system that would alert her should she try to access a known site that had Malware or was a phishing site, again a users ignorance of what features Opera incorporates.

   As for Chrome, yes its fast, and the sandboxed tab is a plus point.
   However Chrome is very bare bones basic, and the fact that it will eventually have add ons available doesn’t exactly fill me with excitement.

   And oh yes apart from Google’s rather dodgy ownership user agreement, there is the issue of the Google Updater that Google have slipped into every Chrome installation.
   If you unistall Chrome be wary that the said Google updater is not unistalled with it, it remains on your system running each time you run your computer whether you have any Google applications or not!

   So Chrome is really no match for Opera and very few Opera users are likely to switch to it as a primary browser.
   Chrome’s main sucess will probably be in converting IE a share of IE users since many IE users haven’t tried anything other than IE.
   These same IE only users try out Chrome though, because it comes from a big name that they know and think they can trust, Google.

   It’s funny isn’t it that if Opera announced it was launching a brand new revolutionary browser tomorrow, only the Opera faithful and perhaps some interested Firefox users might want to give it a spin.
   When Google announce a new browser everyone wants to give it a spin!

   Opera is no Google giant but may be that’s not such a bad thing!

   Sorry Google : No sale!

7. daniel Says:
   September 6th, 2008 at 12:37 am

   Nice post KL.
   
   I believe that Opera does have more features out of the box than Firefox, and certainly more than Safari and Chrome.
   
   The one thing that I truly feel is, why does it matter what browser you use? Surely it’s the one that you most feel comfortable with that counts…
   
   I personally quite like Firefox, which I switched to a couple of years ago after years of using a combination of Opera and Mozilla Suite. I’m fully aware that Firefox has security flaws, but I choose it because I’m comfortable with the user interaction. This is, of course, likely to change, and I actually doubt that it will change to favouring Google Chrome (certainly not in it’s current state anyway). Also, using the web itself is a security flaw…. most general users of the web aren’t really aware of how many devices their information goes through (even when it’s encrypted)… but that’s a completely different point altogether
   
   Back to browsers, yes, I seriously believe that it doesn’t matter which browser that you use, as long as you are comfortable with it and it does the jobs that you need it to do.
   
   I’d certainly try out a revolutionary browser by Opera if it was released. Opera have always done a wonderful job, and I’m particularly impressed by the Mobile Opera Browser.
   
   I find it a bit disturbing that it’s only Opera-fans that are edging on being anti-Chrome. Is there anyone out there from the Firefox/Mozilla or Safari or Internet Explorer world that would like to complain about Chrome?

   Daniel

8. sylvie chen Says:
   September 6th, 2008 at 3:55 am

   What most people don’t get is that Chrome is a trojan horse to glue your browser event with other Google Services. These include Gmail, Chat, Index, Google Groups, File storage, Picasa, Photobucket and of course Search.

   Feature comparison is irrelevant. All browsers cross fertilize on features such as tabs, plug ins, source inspection and so forth. Google wants to hook you into a browser gateway for web services.

   Remember, they are committed to what they call open source development such as OpenSocial API, Gadgets, and IDE toolkits.

   Once developers know that the browser gateway allows third parties to produce apps that fit this framework, Google can leverage their elementary efforts in web services that mimic what Sun did with Open Office to take away Microsoft’s leverage with it’s Office Suite and MSN Live Web apps.

   This is war, and Chrome is the Trojan Horse. By the way, why does Chrome open up random ports above port 4000? Tracking mechanism?

   Google is interested in a seamless start page, using Chrome to access

9. sylvie chen Says:
   September 6th, 2008 at 3:57 am

   I forgot the most important point. Adsense and Adwords. These can now cross every instance of a Google App starting with your browser page.

10. effzee Says:
    September 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Daniel, may I suggest that you try a clean installation of Opera for your experiments. It seems possible that you may have upgraded an old version on the Mac, which may be causing some issues. Uninstall opera, then remove the .opera profile directory from your home directory. Then install 9.52 again and run it - it should create a fresh profile for you, and all should work as expected. Opera should indeed pass all 578 CSS3 selectors and should score 83/100 or 84/100 on Acid3 dependent on configuration. The 100% Acid3 is available from labs.opera.com but is a custom browser shell for testing their bleeding edge engine (WinGogi) and not an Opera build.

    I agree with Sylvie to an extent; although I don’t buy the trojan horse argument (something so obvious could hardly be a decent trojan!) I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the profit model adopted by google in the latter half of their short life. The “do no evil” pledge is gradually slipping away, my main reason for avoiding gmail (did you all read the fine print on that?!)

    (warning: essay ahead!)

    It is healthy that there are a bunch of browsers out there now, driving competition and improving standards compliance and interoperability for all. Thankfully, gone are the days of IE dominance; now we can choose the tool that provides our portal to the internet. And that’s important for me, since security has always been one of the greatest concerns, and flagrantly disregarded by microsoft through the development of IE and ActiveX. As already pointed out, Opera’s security record is consistently best of class and, in addition, I find Opera software to be one of the most ethically sound internet companies around - a reason that I use the synchronisation feature (a great feature) and my.opera for blogging. The bottom line is, over time I have developed a good deal of trust in how seriously the company takes its responsibility towards its users and supporters.

    For me, this little debate is not about being a ‘fan’ - I use all the browsers for a variety of work, but have settled upon Opera as my default browser. It’s about redressing some balance in terms of the press received by the various browsers, both in the media and across the blogopshere. The problem here (and, sadly, generally) is that when a big corp. like google announce something new in technology, the media whip it up into a frenzy of newsmercials, infotainment etc.. creating the so-called “buzz” around chrome. Heck, I don’t think google really needed to do any marketing at all!! Opera got no mention on (eg) BBC Tech when they announced 9.5, mini 4, 9.0 or mobile 8, despite lobbying from groups of enthusiastic users. Sadly, the cult of celebrity is taking on a new and onerous form, one of “welcome to the elite cool club; you’re wealthy enough so it’s all laid on”.

    Chrome’s only real innovation is the sandboxing of tabs/pages into separate process space, something that has been in discussion over at the opera community for some time - eg: https://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=1515333 Apart from robustness, this opens up all all kinds of possibilities for managing page priorities and resource usage; something that is unlikely to find its way into the Chrome UI but would more likely do so in Opera, given its user base of power-users. Time will tell, but I think the biggest loser in all this will be Safari since the two browsers don’t really have much to tell them apart.

    Google’s plan for world domination gives me cause for concern, as does any plan for world domination for that matter. Although there is nothing illegal or morally reprehensible in what they’re doing, in these days of technology rushing ahead with little time for people to really make sense of it all I find it morally correct to think carefully about the software you use and why, beyond just jumping on a fan-bandwagon. Do your homework. Find out more about the product and the owning company’s agenda. Remember that your choices empower you and others. These are the chief reasons that I refuse to use Facebook and Gmail, and will probably be the reason why I use Chrome only for testing of websites that I develop.

11. ScottHa Says:
    September 7th, 2008 at 6:20 am

    It’s worth noting that IE8 does the same sandboxing/process isolation of Tabs.

12. kristalsoldier Says:
    September 7th, 2008 at 9:49 am

    There must be a problem with your version of Opera or your installation coz I did the Acid Test after reading your blog and the results were 84/100.

    About Chrome, however, is it pretty evident that its development and release by Google has very little to do with ‘ browser’ as such. Google is quite transparent about it. In fact, they say, at some place, that what they are looking to do is to make the ‘browser’ as irrelevant as possible, which explains their minimalistic Chrome. Their target is thus not IE or FF or Opera in the conventional sense. Rather, their target is the OS and considering Windows is THE major player in this, Microsoft is the critical target. But I think the game plan is even bigger than merely targeting one company or another.

    Just think about it Google now has a portfolio of products - Gmail + Google Apps + Gears + YouTube etc etc that are geared (pardon the pun) to encroach upon the traditional space of an OS. Simply put, Google is probably attempting to ensure that the ‘next’ wave of computing practice is, in a manner of speaking, ‘in the cloud’, which immediately renders OS-based computing habits increasingly obsolute. Of course, this is problematic in many ways not least for the fact that the core assumption is that users will have ready and unlimited access to fast-speed broadband, which is not really happening anytime soon - the tech and bandwidth issues are simply too great at the moment. But - and this is a big BUT - what Google is doing is subtly establishing a ‘proof of concept’.

    I would not go so far as to say that Google is planning a ‘world domination’ as one of the posts above has mentioned. I am increasingly, however, coming to the view that Google is now poised to effect a virtual (again, pardon the pun) paradigm change in our computing habits.

    The challenge for other browser developers - FF and Opera (particularly - is how to adapt to this emerging paradigm.

    The challenge for Microsoft (and to a lesser degree Apple) is how to combat and/ or adapt to what is increasingly appearing to be a dramatic, albeit gradual, transformation in mass computing habits. As an aside, isn’t there a project that Microsoft is also working on that takes the ‘cloud computing’ concept as its core?

    This, for better or worse, is my take on Google’s release of Chrome.

    Cheers!

13. NIPfir€ Says:
    September 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    opera needs to be running in it’s default settings,like Firefox safe mode(default stat)

14. Mark Says:
    September 9th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    So not updated the Opera score yet? I can only assume you are a mac/safari lover, and have to doctor any result, much like the FIA and Ferarri…

15. daniel Says:
    September 9th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

    Hi Mark,
    
    Sorry, I’ve just not around to it yet. I know that you are right about the score, and I’m happy to update it… in fact, one moment, just going to install it on my Linux machine.
    
    I’m more of a Linux user these days, here we are, results for a fresh Linux install (64bit version 9.52 on Ubuntu 8.04):
    

    Awesome! 84 out of 100 for the Acid3 test, that’s neat!

    Thank you for highlighting this everyone.

16. Barry Says:
    September 11th, 2008 at 3:24 am

    Browser: SeaMonkey
    Platform: Mandriva Linux 2008.1-Spring (32-bit) 2.53GHz Intel P4 i82845E home-made Desktop
    Version: 2.0a1pre
    Engine: Gecko-1.9.1b1pre 20080910005241
    Acid1 test: Pass
    Acid2 test: Pass
    Acid3 test: 85 out of 100
    CSS3 test: From the 43 selectors 43 have passed, 0 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 578 out of 578 tests)

    Thank-you for the interesting tests. (I ran the Acid3 test about a month ago, and the results were only 68 out of 100. Nice to know SM has improved.) Barry.

17. daniel Says:
    September 11th, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Hi Barry,
    
    Thanks for your SeaMonkey tests! Seems like the developers are doing an awesome job of SeaMonkey also.
    
    I used SeaMonkey for a while a few years ago, I’m glad it’s doing well. Does the new alpha version allow Firefox add-ons, or does it still have it’s own separate add-ons?
    
    Cheers,
    
    Daniel

18. Barry Says:
    September 12th, 2008 at 8:59 am

    Daniel, could you edit this for brevity, please? I am no word smith! Barry.

    “Does the new SeaMonkey-alpha version allow Firefox add-ons, or does it still have it’s own separate add-ons?”

    Yes and No!

    I think the answer is:- Some Add-on extensions have requirements for specific Mozilla-products, some for specific-versions of Gecko core-code, some appear to span all Mozilla-products, and some even span a few other external code-bases as well (KHTML)!

    For all Mozilla-products including Firefox, the product’s Add-on manager looks-for their own specific add-ons, that can only be enabled with the correct product , (Firefox’s is {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}), must-comply with the localisation-version of the Mozilla-product (en-US add-on for en-US product), must-comply with the product’s version-range (which usually equates-to a specific Gecko-core-code-version), and of-course, the Add-on itself must be UA-string-registered for-use on the Gecko code-base (except that many only have an email-address registration).

    Some Add-ons only-run on a particular version of Gecko core-code, while others, like Newsfox, span XPFE-Gecko(1.8.n) up-to the latest XUL/XBL-toolkit-Gecko(1.9.n), but some add-ons are still locked into a particular-product and version?

    The RDF from the NewsFox extension, highlights this product’s Add-on manager’s enablement arrangement:-

    {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
    1.5
    3.0.*

    {92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
    1.0
    2.0a1

    [email protected]
    1.0
    1.0.0.*

    {a463f10c-3994-11da-9945-000d60ca027b}
    1.0.8
    1.2.*

    My current SeaMonkey-2.0a1pre Add-ons are:-
    Calculator 1.1.12
    ChatZilla 0.9.83
    Console² 0.3.9.2
    Diavolo Test 0.61
    DOM Inspector 2.0.0
    English (Australian) Dictionary 2.1.1
    JavaScript Debugger 0.9.87.4
    Lightning 0.6a1 [DISABLED]
    NewsFox 1.0.4b1
    Nightly Tester Tools 2.0.2
    SeaMonkey Debug and QA UI 1.0pre
    SQLite Manager 0.3.9
    Tinderstatus 0.2.10
    XNote 2.1.0
    Yahoo! Mail Notifier 1.0.0.13

    For example, my “SQLite Manager 0.3.9″ Add-on is installed-into SeaMonkey-2.0a1pre/Gecko-1.9.1b1pre/SQLite-3.5.4.2 , and also in Sunbird-0.6a1/Gecko-1.9.0.3pre/SQLite-3.5.9
    But I can’t fathom why the older-Gecko uses a later-version of SQLite, than the newer SeaMonkey/Gecko version, in the same Add-on extension?

    SM-2.0alpha has the same-type of inbuilt Add-on Manager as Firefox-3.0/3.1, which can install from either Internet or local repository. SeaMonkey Add-on update-reminders automatically take-you to the point of pushing the button to install the updates, but also retain user’s authority (cancel, refusal, install from alternate-repository, etcetera).

    I think it boils down to the fact, that Add-ons are mostly open-source, with all the diversity that open-source brings to the table, including cross-operation, locked-in operation, and not forgetting non-operation (at-least, until someone gets around to adapting or fixing them).
    I guess Add-ons are just Add-ons.

    The user cannot easily-view inside the Add-on extension across the Internet, so the Add-on has to be downloaded and viewed-locally, to-view the extension’s internal enabled-application list. Only the better-quality extension’s sites, list all of the enabled Mozilla-products that the extension can run within, even though that information is already-within the Add-on itself. Just simply using the Add-on manager to install the extension will tell you immediately if the product-application is enabled within the extension, by the product refusing to install the add-on without the product’s “” enabling-key-string.

    Mozilla is trying to simplify the conundrum for the end-user by centralising approved-extensions in the Add-ons.Mozilla.Organisation repository, that interrogates the requesting-product’s UA-string.

    The Add-on landscape and its usability, is as wide and diverse as the peoples who created them, and that spans pretty-much everyone on the planet!

    After all that consideration, I think the answer is SeaMonkey allows SeaMonkey-keyed Add-ons, Firefox allows Firefox-keyed Add-ons, etcetera. so although all Mozilla products demand their own keyed Add-ons, the true-constraint is within the Add-on, not within the Mozilla-application product.

19. Barry Says:
    September 12th, 2008 at 9:22 am

    Trying that Newsfox-extension’s RDF-extract again:-
    The RDF from the NewsFox extension, highlights this product’s Add-on manager’s enablement arrangement:-

    targetApplication Firefox
    id {ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
    minVersion 1.5
    maxVersion 3.0.*

    targetApplication SeaMonkey
    id {92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
    minVersion 1.0
    maxVersion 2.0a1

    targetApplication eMusic
    id [email protected]
    minVersion 1.0
    maxVersion 1.0.0.*

    targetApplication Flock
    id {a463f10c-3994-11da-9945-000d60ca027b}
    minVersion 1.0.8
    maxVersion 1.2.*

Leave a Reply