Google Chrome 3 review

By Benny Har-Even,
Rating:
Of course, JavaScript isn’t the be all and end all of web browsing, but if you do spend your time in JavaScript heavy sites, such as say, Google’s Gmail, you will certainly notice the difference. In general there’s no doubt that Chrome feels snappy all around the web, and all pages we loaded felt pretty fast.
Chrome 3 now takes in HTML5 video standards. This supposed standard is still up in the air thanks to arguments over the codec, but at least Chrome as a browser now matches up to Firefox in terms of support readiness.
It also turns in a full 100/100 in the Acid 3 web standards compatibility test. But the previous version of Chrome stood up to that test too, so it's little surprise.

Reliability, a major issue previously, appears to have been greatly improved. When we tested the beta, sites were falling over more often than a drunk celebrity on a bender but, after two days of use, we only had one ‘aw snap’ crash to bother us. Chrome loads each tab as a separate process, so if one does go down, it won’t take the whole browser with it. This is a really smart move on Google's part, but it does mean that extra memory is of great benefit.
When it comes to security, Chrome has the basics covered, with SSL support, and a basic phishing and malware detection option available in the Options menu.
With the introduction of Chrome 3, it's clear that Google is making steady and solid progress on making Chrome a damn fine browser. However, there’s no doubt that the lack of plug-ins and extensions means that it’s still a browser to use alongside your main one - probably Firefox - for when you’re feeling a little impatient.
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