- Windows only at the moment. Understandable, given the market share stats, but what a pity I can't run it on this LinuxMint laptop. Wondering what underlying runtime they're using: surely one of the key features of Chrome is that it will become a client-side platform. They need to be able to run multiple processes (presumably native processes) to get one process per tab.
- On Windows XP, I found Chrome simply ate CPU cycles. The memory (working set) story wasn't as bad as I had expected (no worse than Firefox, anyway) but the CPU cost meant I was experiencing significant interruptions in other applications. I did experiment a bit, but so far I haven't been able to characterise the circumstances under which I see this.
- Loved the ability to drag a tab out of the frame to create a standalone 'application', e.g. Google Documents or GMail. That works very well.
- Rendering speed seemed higher than Firefox.
- Plugins for sound and video worked for me (e.g. BBC news) but I really didn't set out to test this with different formats.
- The lack of my Firefox add-ins took a little adjusting to! I'm sure this will eventually come.
- The UI is quite bare, but you get used to it. The downloads bar (at the bottom of the screen) is actually rather good - better than FF.
- The search/address bar (can't recall what they call it) is excellent - I found it worked very well for me.
- The fact that Chrome imports history etc. from FF if you want it to (I did) means it does very nearly allow you to pick up from where you left off in FF.
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Google Chrome, Part 2
Mmmm. It all looked so good in the cartoon. The reality isn't quite there yet, but you can see where this is heading, and overall I'm optimistic. Here's a summary: