-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Google Chrome |OT|
- Thread starter ThatObviousUser
- Start date
Macho Madness
Member
Hasn't updated for me. Any way to force Chrome to update?
TheKaeptain
Banned
I JUST RECEIVED MY GOOGLE LAPTOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOLY SHIT PICTURES WILL BE UP WHEN I GET HOME!!!!! HOLY FUCKING SHITTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edit: DAMMIT! wrong chrome thread.
Edit: DAMMIT! wrong chrome thread.
which1spink
Banned
Can't fucking upgrade from version 7.X to 8.
Instead it gives me an "error 12". It's a known bug but unfortunately it seems like there's no other workaround on Mac than removing chrome and install the new version manually.
Does any Gaffer have the same problem?
Instead it gives me an "error 12". It's a known bug but unfortunately it seems like there's no other workaround on Mac than removing chrome and install the new version manually.
Does any Gaffer have the same problem?
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Is it just me or can chrome 8 on OSX barely handle animated .gifs?
It slows to a fucking crawl even when there is just one.
It slows to a fucking crawl even when there is just one.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Welp back to firefox then. :[
I really like Chrome too.
I really like Chrome too.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Jasoco said:
I have hardware acceleration on on my PC, Chrome 8, and it handles gifs like a pound of shit. :/
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Epix said:
about:flags
jonnybryce
Member
Would just like to say the web store is a bit underwhelming but
-NPR app is amazing
-NYT app is nice
-AOL You've Got News is impressive
It needs to improve. Kinda weak right now.
-NPR app is amazing
-NYT app is nice
-AOL You've Got News is impressive
It needs to improve. Kinda weak right now.
Dreams-Visions
Member
how? I've looked everywhere. and about:labs doesn't work anymore.Jasoco said:
Macho Madness
Member
Dreams-Visions said:how? I've looked everywhere. and about<b></b>:labs doesn't work anymore.
.Stumpokapow said:
If anyone likes being social, you have to get Cortex. Best Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr sharing app I've seen in a while and it's wicked fast!
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/decglnkhpfoocpafihfbeodhgofefaoc#
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/decglnkhpfoocpafihfbeodhgofefaoc#
Dreams-Visions
Member
here's an example of the problem I'm having, which is making it impossible for me to consider committing to Chrome:
streaming video of Day[9] (popular vidcaster for StarCraft II) while using the latest 10.2 beta Flash build (yes, I replaced the stock Flash plug-in in the Chrome package with the new hotness):
Chrome with GPU acceleration enabled (thanks, thewesker)
Note the temp in the top bar and the CPU usage on the drop-down.
Opera
Note the temp in the top bar and the CPU usage on the drop-down.
In this case (as is the norm for my streaming video experience in Chrome), the app uses pushes the CPU up to 35-40% steadily, running the CPU up into and beyond 90C. averaging 95-97C until the fans kick up to compensate. Enabling the GPU did seem to cut the CPU load by about 8%.
After waiting a few minutes for the fans to slow down back to their lowest spin speeds of 2000rpm, I load the same video in the ever-steady Opera. CPU never goes above about 21% (that's damn near 20% less CPU), and results in on average around 20C (or ~68F) difference.
Computer: 2010 MacBook Pro, i7, 8GB RAM, 160GB SSD, both browsers using the same Flash build.
Understandably, this is why I can't use Chrome seriously. Having to manually manage my fans just to watch video in a browser is not something I'm willing to do. Here's hoping either that improves or I figure out something I'm doing wrong.
edit: fun fact- That Opera window has 19 tabs open. It's using only 625MB of memory after a full day. Try that in ANY other browser.
streaming video of Day[9] (popular vidcaster for StarCraft II) while using the latest 10.2 beta Flash build (yes, I replaced the stock Flash plug-in in the Chrome package with the new hotness):
Chrome with GPU acceleration enabled (thanks, thewesker)
Note the temp in the top bar and the CPU usage on the drop-down.
Opera
Note the temp in the top bar and the CPU usage on the drop-down.
In this case (as is the norm for my streaming video experience in Chrome), the app uses pushes the CPU up to 35-40% steadily, running the CPU up into and beyond 90C. averaging 95-97C until the fans kick up to compensate. Enabling the GPU did seem to cut the CPU load by about 8%.
After waiting a few minutes for the fans to slow down back to their lowest spin speeds of 2000rpm, I load the same video in the ever-steady Opera. CPU never goes above about 21% (that's damn near 20% less CPU), and results in on average around 20C (or ~68F) difference.
Computer: 2010 MacBook Pro, i7, 8GB RAM, 160GB SSD, both browsers using the same Flash build.
Understandably, this is why I can't use Chrome seriously. Having to manually manage my fans just to watch video in a browser is not something I'm willing to do. Here's hoping either that improves or I figure out something I'm doing wrong.
edit: fun fact- That Opera window has 19 tabs open. It's using only 625MB of memory after a full day. Try that in ANY other browser.
Makes me wonder though if it's a bad case of the layers. Meaning, default Chrome meant to play with the tweaked version of Flash, running the Beta on top of that, just makes me wonder.
Then again Dreams, I'm assuming you were getting piss poor performance before doing this science experiment?
Then again Dreams, I'm assuming you were getting piss poor performance before doing this science experiment?
Dreams-Visions
Member
out of Chrome? the only performance issue I have is high cpu usage when watching flash videos. I've tried it with the default flash plug-in and the latest one. I've tried the standard public releases and the dev builds. Everything else pertaining to Chrome is snappy and uses little cpu, as expected. it does everything else better than or equal to Safari and Firefox. trails behind Opera a little bit.Pctx said:
the only frustration in my entire Chrome experience is flash playback. the science experiment has been going on ever since my first posts in this thread probably a month or two ago. it's been a consistent complaint. I only now decided to provide a visual image for people to see. hopefully they'll hammer this out.
So I did a quick comparison.. it's not perfect because I wasn't able to find a task manager built into Opera, but I basically took a before (only homepage) and after (same tab - playing blip.tv video) shot of the cpu for Opera
Windows 7 Pro - 64bit - 4GB RAM - Intel Quad Core Q9450 @2.66GHz
Chrome (up-to-date, gpu acceleration enabled, beta build)
Opera (up-to-date, stock, i assume i'm using stable - i don't know if opera has beta builds)
Fake edit: forgot to include task manager headings in the opera screens, so they are:
Image Name | CPU | Working Set (memory) | .. | Memory (Paging) | Commit Size | .. | .. | Description
Taking into account fluctuation as the video streamed, they are pretty much equivalent.. so the difference would either be that flash in chrome sucks on osx, or you have something special installed or doing something different
Windows 7 Pro - 64bit - 4GB RAM - Intel Quad Core Q9450 @2.66GHz
Chrome (up-to-date, gpu acceleration enabled, beta build)
Opera (up-to-date, stock, i assume i'm using stable - i don't know if opera has beta builds)
Fake edit: forgot to include task manager headings in the opera screens, so they are:
Image Name | CPU | Working Set (memory) | .. | Memory (Paging) | Commit Size | .. | .. | Description
Taking into account fluctuation as the video streamed, they are pretty much equivalent.. so the difference would either be that flash in chrome sucks on osx, or you have something special installed or doing something different
Dreams-Visions
Member
I think it's just Chrome on OSX. I think it's flash implementation is flawed.
though I'm really hoping some fellow OSX owners could chime in on this matter.
though I'm really hoping some fellow OSX owners could chime in on this matter.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Kuran said:
beta is pretty much on par with stable these days, if you want a 'conventional' beta, then the developer version (linked in the post above) is the one you want
if you want to try out the equivalent of an 'alpha' build, check out chrome canary (separate install from chrome).. i think that is on v10 atm
http://tools.google.com/dlpage/chromesxs
Dreams-Visions
Member
idk either...but those are the results I got.Jasoco said:
Speaking specifically to the version of flash thats in the Chrome builds, we don't know what the sandboxing is doing to the API calls. Technically it should be the same but I'm wondering if that is what is affecting video performance.
What's interesting though is once Dreams turned that version of flash off and tried 10.2, in theory, flash should be working fine.
I get your argument though that if Flash works fine in Safari, Firefox and Opera, why is chrome being lame about it?
Might be worth it to post up your findings on the Chrome Channel and see what the devs say.
What's interesting though is once Dreams turned that version of flash off and tried 10.2, in theory, flash should be working fine.
I get your argument though that if Flash works fine in Safari, Firefox and Opera, why is chrome being lame about it?
Might be worth it to post up your findings on the Chrome Channel and see what the devs say.
Has anyone here experimented with Tweetdeck for Chrome? It does not seem to notify you in any way when anew tweet arrives, which makes it kinda useless in a tab. Maybe I am just missing something? Otherwise I'll just stick to the Adobe Air version which I can run besides my browser window and see the updates immediately.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
tirminyl said:
To me, the point of a web app is something like Google Docs + offline saving. It's a bunch of html+js+css+ajax+json+other web technologies that can be deployed online or offline and run inside a browser to make an application.
A bookmark to a url anyone can access running on servers that requires an online connection isn't a web app, it's a bookmark. That's why Amazon Window Shopper and NYTimes are stupid. As you point out here, most of the things you would like an online-required web app to do are actually done by extensions, not web apps.
I really don't think the Chrome Web App store will make sense outside of Chrome OS.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
What's wrong with a bookmark?Futureman said:
I'm asking this about the entire store itself as well. Google has to choose one or the other for their ideological classification of web sites.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
I know it really isn't a big deal at all, but I like having the "Apps" section expanded on my new tab page because I like the nice big icons to click on as opposed to the website previews. Having a big NeoGAF icon would be cool. Basically I was just wondering how open it is if someone wants to put an app on the Web Store.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
It's just a link to http://www.wikihood.com/web/.Xater said:
IronFistedChampion
Member
Like when someone tweeds a link to a photo, you click the arrow on the tweet and it shows the pic on the right. It stopped working for me once I upgraded to Win 7.thewesker said:
Jayayess1190
Member
There's actually 5.Dug said:
Normal - Stable build finalized for consumer use
Beta - Features not in the stable that are good enough to try out
Developer - Testing ground for features coming to Beta
Canary - Testing ground for features soon to come to Developer
Chromium - Open-source version where most new features are first tested out
Canary is the only one not on OS X yet and Chromium counts as a separate version and uses a different profile. The other three can be switched between without consequence. I use the Dev build which is currently on 9. Soon it'll go to 10. If the latest stable version is 8, what are the Beta's on now? It used to be 7 was stable, 8 was beta and 9 was dev. I would have thought with 8 being stable, beta would have been 9 and dev would be upgraded to 10. Now I'm all confused.