Google Chrome |OT|

tirminyl said:
There is a known issue with this most recent dev version that they stated a fix is coming for soon. It's so annoying though :lol
Click to expand...

posting again for new page

D4Danger said:
dev 9.0.597.16 released. mouse scrolling fixed
Click to expand...

restart Chrome if you haven't already.
 
I JUST RECEIVED MY GOOGLE LAPTOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOLY SHIT PICTURES WILL BE UP WHEN I GET HOME!!!!! HOLY FUCKING SHITTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Edit: DAMMIT! wrong chrome thread.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Welp back to firefox then. :[
I really like Chrome too.
 
Jtwo said:
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.
Click to expand...
It works fine when you turn on hardware acceleration.
 
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.
 
Stumpokapow said:
I have hardware acceleration on on my PC, Chrome 8, and it handles gifs like a pound of shit. :/
Click to expand...
My MacBook Pro (2010) handles them like FireFox does. That is to say, fine and dandy. You need the right video card.
 
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.

screenshot20101210at517.jpg



Opera

Note the temp in the top bar and the CPU usage on the drop-down.

screenshot20101210at548.jpg



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?
 
Pctx said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

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)

a0wgvm.png

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
 
There is an Opera beta, opera 11. Apparently its pretty damn quick too.

And flash sucks, period.


On every operating system.


In every browser.


On every machine.
 
Threi said:
There is an Opera beta, opera 11. Apparently its pretty damn quick too.
Click to expand...

Ah right, well mine is a 10.x release, so i guess that'd be stable


I should point out i haven't tested out 10.2, but since 10.1 was matching opera, I assume 10.2 would only be the same or better, so there was no point testing it
 
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.
 
Kuran said:
Where are you guys getting version 9 etc of Chrome? I downloaded the public beta and I'm still at 8.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's the same Flash plugin file that every other browser uses. I don't get why Chrome would use it differently than Opera and Firefox.
 
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.
 
I asked before but I don't think anyone replied.

How exactly do you go about making an app to be included in the Chrome app store? Can anyone do it? I really want a NeoGAF app.
 
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.
 
Also, did anyone download the Netflix "app"? Of course it just takes you to the Netflix site, but the address bar is blank, and the tab says "chrome-extension://aofn......" and it shows up under my Chrome extensions even though it isn't an extension...
 
Xater said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was hoping these apps would update with a number in the corner of the tab indicating new messages or something. Right now I have Gmail and Tweedeck pinned but don't know if I have new messages, so you go back to just using extensions or desktop versions.
 
tirminyl said:
Yeah, I was hoping these apps would update with a number in the corner of the tab indicating new messages or something. Right now I have Gmail and Tweedeck pinned but don't know if I have new messages, so you go back to just using extensions or desktop versions.
Click to expand...

Well that sucks. If they can somehow get notifications in then I would probably prefer it over the Air client.
 
tirminyl said:
Yeah, I was hoping these apps would update with a number in the corner of the tab indicating new messages or something. Right now I have Gmail and Tweedeck pinned but don't know if I have new messages, so you go back to just using extensions or desktop versions.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Futureman said:
I asked before but I don't think anyone replied.

How exactly do you go about making an app to be included in the Chrome app store? Can anyone do it? I really want a NeoGAF app.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with a bookmark?

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:
What's wrong with a bookmark?
Click to expand...

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.
 
The only App I tried out and thought was pretty cool is Wikihood. That only exists otherwise on iDevices afaik and the presentation is pretty cool.
 
So some people here wanted a webapp of the gaf. I basically have one done and written I just have to submit it. I'm allowed to do this right?
 
kaskade said:
So some people here wanted a webapp of the gaf. I basically have one done and written I just have to submit it. I'm allowed to do this right?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see this.

If the GAF mobile site is allowed, I don't see why any other reformatting of GAF wouldn't be.
 
I've been considering using Google Chrome for awhile, so I decided I was gonna test it out today but I noticed there is like 3 current versions of it...which version should I use?
 
Dug said:
I've been considering using Google Chrome for awhile, so I decided I was gonna test it out today but I noticed there is like 3 current versions of it...which version should I use?
Click to expand...
See here. An explanation of the four channels. I downgraded from Dev to Beta, Dev is great but got a little to unstable for me.
 
Dug said:
I've been considering using Google Chrome for awhile, so I decided I was gonna test it out today but I noticed there is like 3 current versions of it...which version should I use?
Click to expand...
There's actually 5.

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.
 
Jasoco said:
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.
Click to expand...
Beta is still 8. Google doesn't move the versions in sync.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
11K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
1K
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
19K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
Straight & Alternative |OT|
37
6K
Astral Dog replied
|OT| Post-March Wrestling Thread
2 3
132
18K
NickFire replied
Top Bottom