ive got internet explorer 6. my gf has mozilla, i dont know what the difference is. i can't tell anyway. do you pay for mozilla and fire fox? what should i do?
The most interesting feature is the sandboxing of tabs. This means that when JavaScript, Java, Flash or any of the other Web 2.0 pages you're looking at dies, it will only take down that tab, not the whole browser.
IE8 runs tabs in separate processes already and the crash recovery is pretty cool. The Google browser seems interesting although I'm curious how they can get sandboxing working as they claim on OS's without mandatory access control, unless the entire browser is written in a managed language (which seems unlikely)
The most interesting feature is the sandboxing of tabs. This means that when JavaScript, Java, Flash or any of the other Web 2.0 pages you're looking at dies, it will only take down that tab, not the whole browser.
If this comment had been in an ACDC thread then the possibility of any sort of pants-wetting from karingal taking place goes up a bit ... still doubtful overall though.
IE8 runs tabs in separate processes already and the crash recovery is pretty cool. The Google browser seems interesting although I'm curious how they can get sandboxing working as they claim on OS's without mandatory access control, unless the entire browser is written in a managed language (which seems unlikely)
I hope they improve IE8, it's not doing too good so far:
"Consuming twice as much RAM as Firefox and saturating the CPU with nearly six times as many execution threads, Microsoft's latest beta release of Internet Explorer 8 is in fact more demanding on your PC than Windows XP itself, research firm Devil Mountain Software found in performance tests. According to the firm, which operates a community-based testing network, IE8 Beta 2 consumed 380MB of RAM and spawned 171 concurrent threads during a multi-tab browsing test of popular Web destinations. InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy speculates that Microsoft may be designing IE8 for the multicore future. But until your machine sports four or eight discrete processing cores, IE8 will remain 'porcine,' Devil Mountain's Craig Barth says.""
Sorry I worded that badly. You need to download Java 6.10 from Sun for the ZZ-Emulator to work on WOS. Sun had automatically kept my machine up to date and uploaded 6.7 last week. Chrome requires the less stable 6.10 (search Chrome Help for Java).
I use Firefox but Microsoft could still be in the frame if they have an anonymous mode for browsing. I don't mind the security services reading my emails and watching my surfing but I draw the line at my Local Council listing the URLs I visit.
Ah, Slashdot. Bastion of reliable, unbiased news as always. Any site that claims the number of threads, including ones that aren't actually doing anything, represents a processing overhead deserves an "Epic Fail" on their IT knowledge score.
It's a tad bigger than IE7, but then it does contain extra debugging info. It's also a damn site faster already. And, to be honest, I'd quite happily trade a little RAM/CPU for the significant benefits per-tab process isolation offers (whether that be IE8 or Chrome).
Chrome itself seems pretty cool. It could really do with RSS functionality though, that's about the only thing genuinely missing from it in my opnion.
I'm sure RSS functionality will come - this is a very very early version after all.
I know it's not Linux compatible yet, do you know if it works with Win98? There doesn't seem to be a system requirements page, and clicking on the downloads link just takes me back to the Chrmoe front page.
IE8 runs tabs in separate processes already and the crash recovery is pretty cool. The Google browser seems interesting although I'm curious how they can get sandboxing working as they claim on OS's without mandatory access control, unless the entire browser is written in a managed language (which seems unlikely)
You wouldn't need to write it in a "managed language"; so long as the interpreters die gracefully from errors and each instance is sufficiently isolated, you can write it in such a way that crashing the whole browser is extremely unlikely. The browser infrastructure can provide the mandatory access control for the actual interpreters that run inside it, such as the HTML parser, JavaScript parser et al. I've not found anything about what the claim for external executables like Flash player (perhaps they intend to make their own implementation? After all, Adobe are opening the flash specs). However, forking and running the Flash player in a separate process, and controlling the forked instance via IPC will prevent something like flash from taking down the rest of the browser - the parent process will just see the IPC pipe got broken if flash crashes, instead of the whole browser falling over.
After all - what does a managed language become in the end? CPU instructions. What are managed language interpreters/runtime environments written in? Ultimately, unmanaged languages. So long as they've provided the right infrastructure to gracefully handle and recover from errors in the other components of the browser, they could have written it in assembly language and still have it crash-resistant.
I know it's not Linux compatible yet, do you know if it works with Win98? There doesn't seem to be a system requirements page, and clicking on the downloads link just takes me back to the Chrmoe front page.
It's XP/Vista only atm on Windows. It lets me download it at work on XP, but at home on Win2K it says it's Vista/XP only.
Did you really expect support for a 9-year-old operating system? If you insist on running an old OS (and you're not the only one, I'm rather fond of Mac OS 10.3.9), then your browser of choice, like mine, is Opera 9.5.
If they can support a 7 year old OS like XP, then yes, I would hope that they would support Win2k, like Mozilla did with Firefox 3.
I haven't used Opera in ages, I might give it a try.
It supports different threads for each tab, right? I notice that with older browsers one is not able to open up multiple tabs of say Facebook because the browser already detects you as being logged in under one username.
In the new version of IE on the other hand one can have many Facebook accounts open as each tab is a fresh "connection" ... but why is it that when one is logged into Gmail and has another tab open for Google, the Google tab will none-the-less have you signed in under your Gmail account.
Shouldn't the new Google tab be ignorant of the logged-in Gmail tab? (and how does Google/Gmail circumvent the "fresh tab" (for lack of a better informed terminology) technology?)
At a guess I'd say that GMail uses cookies to determine if you're already logged in at a specific PC/Mac/whatever. You log in, it writes a cookie. Log in again and it checks for this cookie. When you log out the cookie is deleted. At a guess.
Exactly how many Facebook accounts do you have then?
Comments
So better than IE and FF then...
cough
Try getting the Google browser without the google toolbar and spying features.
I might take a look at this Google one ... but I'd probably just look at screenshots of it first along with reading its pros and cons.
If they force the Google toolbar with it then I'm doubtful I'd try it.
IE8 runs tabs in separate processes already and the crash recovery is pretty cool. The Google browser seems interesting although I'm curious how they can get sandboxing working as they claim on OS's without mandatory access control, unless the entire browser is written in a managed language (which seems unlikely)
It might turn out to be the evolution they have promised but it could take some getting used to.
That I like!
Doubtful...
If this comment had been in an ACDC thread then the possibility of any sort of pants-wetting from karingal taking place goes up a bit ... still doubtful overall though.
i've been thinking that too.
I hope they improve IE8, it's not doing too good so far:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/02/1418252
"Consuming twice as much RAM as Firefox and saturating the CPU with nearly six times as many execution threads, Microsoft's latest beta release of Internet Explorer 8 is in fact more demanding on your PC than Windows XP itself, research firm Devil Mountain Software found in performance tests. According to the firm, which operates a community-based testing network, IE8 Beta 2 consumed 380MB of RAM and spawned 171 concurrent threads during a multi-tab browsing test of popular Web destinations. InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy speculates that Microsoft may be designing IE8 for the multicore future. But until your machine sports four or eight discrete processing cores, IE8 will remain 'porcine,' Devil Mountain's Craig Barth says.""
I use Firefox but Microsoft could still be in the frame if they have an anonymous mode for browsing. I don't mind the security services reading my emails and watching my surfing but I draw the line at my Local Council listing the URLs I visit.
Oh god, not another browser. Hope it's never popular. It's bad enough coding for IE and FF without adding something else into the mix :(
Unless ... they've done it right and followed the standards. (Not the Microsoft made up stuff.)
Google get +99.5% of their revenue from advertising. When will they slip adsense onto the pages and profile their users?
There's no such thing as a free lunch...
It's a tad bigger than IE7, but then it does contain extra debugging info. It's also a damn site faster already. And, to be honest, I'd quite happily trade a little RAM/CPU for the significant benefits per-tab process isolation offers (whether that be IE8 or Chrome).
Chrome itself seems pretty cool. It could really do with RSS functionality though, that's about the only thing genuinely missing from it in my opnion.
I know it's not Linux compatible yet, do you know if it works with Win98? There doesn't seem to be a system requirements page, and clicking on the downloads link just takes me back to the Chrmoe front page.
You wouldn't need to write it in a "managed language"; so long as the interpreters die gracefully from errors and each instance is sufficiently isolated, you can write it in such a way that crashing the whole browser is extremely unlikely. The browser infrastructure can provide the mandatory access control for the actual interpreters that run inside it, such as the HTML parser, JavaScript parser et al. I've not found anything about what the claim for external executables like Flash player (perhaps they intend to make their own implementation? After all, Adobe are opening the flash specs). However, forking and running the Flash player in a separate process, and controlling the forked instance via IPC will prevent something like flash from taking down the rest of the browser - the parent process will just see the IPC pipe got broken if flash crashes, instead of the whole browser falling over.
After all - what does a managed language become in the end? CPU instructions. What are managed language interpreters/runtime environments written in? Ultimately, unmanaged languages. So long as they've provided the right infrastructure to gracefully handle and recover from errors in the other components of the browser, they could have written it in assembly language and still have it crash-resistant.
It's XP/Vista only atm on Windows. It lets me download it at work on XP, but at home on Win2K it says it's Vista/XP only.
I've been using it all day and every site I have done works fine.
I suppose it depends how you do your sites? Mine are all DDA compliant so I didn't see there being any problems in the first place.
If they can support a 7 year old OS like XP, then yes, I would hope that they would support Win2k, like Mozilla did with Firefox 3.
I haven't used Opera in ages, I might give it a try.
It supports different threads for each tab, right? I notice that with older browsers one is not able to open up multiple tabs of say Facebook because the browser already detects you as being logged in under one username.
In the new version of IE on the other hand one can have many Facebook accounts open as each tab is a fresh "connection" ... but why is it that when one is logged into Gmail and has another tab open for Google, the Google tab will none-the-less have you signed in under your Gmail account.
Shouldn't the new Google tab be ignorant of the logged-in Gmail tab? (and how does Google/Gmail circumvent the "fresh tab" (for lack of a better informed terminology) technology?)
Exactly how many Facebook accounts do you have then?