Google Chrome 3 review

By Benny Har-Even,
Rating:
Rollover a thumbnail and a toolbar pops up at the top. You just simply click the pin to keep it in place, or click on the ‘x’ to remove it, or click and hold to drag it around. The recent bookmarks have all been moved, while if you choose to you can display the recent pages as a list rather than a grid. Also new is a Chrome ‘tip’, which defaults to hitting ‘F6’ to place the cursor in the search bar – which is a typically handy speed-optimising tip.
The Omnibox, which is Chrome’s single home for entering web addresses and searches now adds ‘contextual icons’, which appear as you type, giving you a visual clue as to where your previous searches are located. This is a nice touch as the single box approach can makes things a little confusing.
Other than that, there’s nothing else that’s different on the surface, which does suggest that that the move to an all-new version number is a bit of a stretch. It certainly seems odd that there’s still no RSS reader feature built into the browser – go to IT PRO in Firefox and you’ll get an orange RSS feed button – but there’s still nothing like that present in Chrome.
Also absent are the plug-ins and extensions that are so beloved of the Firefox community and can make all the difference to many users. However, Google has just recently added support for extensions to the developer preview version of the browser – so it should, hopefully, make it into the next release of Chrome.

While the flexibility of Firefox is still a glint in Chrome’s mainstream eye, it has to rely on its pure speed to entice the attention-deficient that are the world’s web users. If you’ve got a taste for speed, Chrome could well turn out to be one of your best friends. In the Sunspider benchmarks, which test JavaScript performance and are freely available for anyone to try, Chrome has extended its lead by some margin, giving us a score of 750ms – an improvement over the beta which came in at 950ms. In this case, lower is better.
These stats make for an interesting comparison to the latest version of Firefox (3.5.3), which posted a comparatively sluggish 1,735.6ms - some 1.24x slower. Opera 10, which arrived just recently, takes an age at 5,324.6ms. Internet Explorer 8, meanwhile, is positively glacial at 7270.2ms, nearly 10 times slower than Chrome 3. Safari 4 (531.9.1) uses the same Webkit rendering engine as Chrome and so comes in at a very respectable 930.8ms.
You may also like...
Sponsored Links
advertisement
You may also like...
Latest Networking News
Cisco posts bumper results amidst restructure
The networking giant impresses analysts with solid profit and record revenue.
Latest Networking Analysis & Insight
Welcome to the stay-at-home Olympics
Inside the Enterprise: The Government has warned of disruption, and the Civil Service is practising working from home. Could IT yet save businesses from chaos on an Olympian scale?
advertisement
Most popular
- Ubuntu vs. Windows 7 on the business desktop
- York researchers heat storage to speed up data
- BlackBerry Bold 9790 review
- OneNote hits Google?s Android
- O2 trials Olympic-scale remote working
- Will someone rid me of these troublesome Macs?
- Lenovo beats expectations again
- Who to trust after the VeriSign hack?
- Google to promise fairness after Motorola buy
- Report: Google cloud storage coming soon
Register for IT PRO
You'll get exclusive member benefits including free whitepapers, downloads, Webinars and weekly newsletters full of the latest IT PRO news, reviews, insight and expertise.






Threads were invented for a reason ...
Another review that misses something that is interesting me. We have a mixed site: some new(-ish) machines, some old ones, some that are antiques. Chrome is only faster (in my testing)on multi-core processors - on single-core processors - it seems slower than Firefox (with all the extensions stripped out) on single core processors. This does seem to make sense .. process switches are always going to be much more expensive than thread switches with only a single core, but I would like to see this confirmed by someone with more experience in testing browsers. Does it matter? All machines will be multi-core (sometime) soon. I'm not sure, but it does occur to me that at the moment Chrome is one of the few apps to use multiple processes 'aggressively'. Suppose, in some hypothetical future, more apps are doing this and there isn't always an 'idle' core sitting around waiting to pick up your context switch? How does that change the picture?
By Ashley on Friday Oct 2