Google is in a unique position to test the compatibility of something like a browser, given that the company has servers that spend their days indexing the entirety of the internet. You’d think it wouldn’t be too hard to pull from that index and produce a reasonable set of test cases for Chrome.

Plugins like Flash just work, which is nice, but not all websites play nicely with Chrome. Take a look at NVIDIA’s Force Within download page:

The download box won’t load and you’re out of luck with Chrome. Fortunately the NVIDIA example is the exception, for the most part Chrome has been working just fine for me. How about all of you?

Chrome passes the Acid2 test, but gets a 74/100 in the Acid3 test. That’s compared to 78/100 for Safari, 13/100 for IE7 (Wikipedia lists it as a 14 but I was unable to get anything higher than 13) and 71/100 for FF3.

At least Chrome does better than IE7 in the Acid3 test:


Final Words

In short - I like Chrome. It’s small, quick, efficient, and my only major complaint is that there’s no OS X version yet. As much as I hate having an overly crowded market, it’s the results of this sort of competition that truly beget innovation.

Google has played nice in the market for some time, but its competitors can’t stand idle. Bring on IE8, FF4 and Safari 4, because honestly there is a lot of sense in some of the features Chrome brings to the table.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • cousin333 - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link

    First of all, Chrome looks good. I like it's clean and simple design. With default design, I must add, while 1, so far it cannot be changed 2, other browsers can be heavily costumised (hence simplified). I'm usually using Opera, with a costume interface without search field and menu bar, consisting of 3 navigation buttons, the Trash button, and a button for the whole menu. And of course, URL and tab bar. That's all. I do have titlebar, but using a 70% sized skin, I have more space in Opera than in Chrome.

    One thing is sure: Chrome IS fast (most of the time), and starts fast (although the latter one doesn't bother me, I don't start my browsers too often). JS also seems pretty fast. Not much to comment here.

    It seems however, that poeople at Google sit down and looked at the other browsers to decide, what function to take from them as their "innovation". Let's see:

    - processes for each tab
    - URL domain name highlighting

    - download statusbar
    - adding bookmarks
    - password manager

    - WebKit :)
    - the way tabs can be rearranged
    - speed and simplicity (UI and lack of settings)
    - the way of autocomplete of URL-s, so that the first suggestion is used by default

    Opera (more comment here):
    - Speed Dial (Opera uses fixed sites, Chrome goes with most visited sites, I found Chrome' solution to be disturbing and somehow illogical, while it listed also about:memory for me)
    - tabs over URL bar (I found it more logical than the opposite)
    - "multi-level back" can be reached by clicking and holding mouse over Back button for a while
    - downloads go to a new tab (can be reached with Ctrl + J) not a new window
    - full history search
    - undockable tabs

    Other common functions
    - inline find (this is actually not a copy from Opera, but it's the only browser comparable to Opera regarding speed, I especially liked the hits marked on the scrollbar)
    - intelligent URL bar (QuickFind, Awesomebar, OmniBar, ... whatever) I guess Opera's and Firefox's solution is better than OmniBar, and it looks a bit ugly to me (or just don't feel right)
    - adding new searchfields (Chrome tried to be simple, but it became a bit frustrating. Opera and Firefox is better in that field)

    What I've missed:
    - ad-block feature (hence understandable from a company making money from online advertising)
    - RSS reader (I guess they will use their own online Google Reader thingy)
    - very few costumisation possibility
    - mouse gestures
    - lack of commonly used context menu entries
  • cousin333 - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link

    Uuups, I've missed one of my points - about this article:
    Although Opera has a small marketshare, it would be nice of you to - at least - mention it, for, as you can see - Chrome includes many cool features taken from Opera. You stealed from Opera it's rightful marketing opportunity (at the right of being an innovator).
  • jtleon - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link



  • HKPMACK - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link

    Google is not creating a browser to do us any favors.
    Did you guys even look at the original license?">

    The big reason google wants to control your browser is to make sure you can't bypass its advertising... they want you to use chrome because Firefox has Ad-Blockers... they want to track your browsing habits.

    If they OWN the browser they get to do that way more and you can't stop them.

    BTW, to those who don't believe it... Google already changes the license in just a few days after the "public outcry".
    So, whats the big deal?

    Frankly, I am disgusted by both the voracity of the license and the fact the license "changes" are "retroactive" and not requiring ANY notification.

    If google can make sweeping license changes that to remove the bad language ie to paraphrase "they own all content we submit..." then they can also ADD new language later on... using the same "we have the right to make changes... so look here... and make sure each time you browse, that we did not just steal all your intellectual content."

    Forget it.

    In fact, I am so outraged by licensing stance that google chose, (NOTE per their own reps they use similar language for ALL their products)... that I have decided to switch my browser's home page to

    Google should DUMP the browser market... its quite clear that their intentions are not in my best interest.
  • HKPMACK - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link

    Oh and here's some more on it...">

    Again... they just "changed" their license without any notification.

    And they can update it too, just like Microsoft wanted to do with their OS...

    NO thanks Google.
  • deeznuts - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link

    Excellent article on Chrome, I like the browser it is quite fast. However, today I noticed my fans started blaring at work. Looked up task manager, and my CPU is at 70-90% capacity constant. Not sure what it is, I go to processes, and chrome is the culprit. I noticed I had two tabs on NFL.COM. I close those two, and everything is back to normal. I open IE7, go to NFL’s site again. At first the cpu usage spikes but then it drops down to normal. I open the sites again with Chrome, and the usage spikes but stays up.

    Can anyone else try NFL.COM and see if it's giving them fits?
  • Mr Roboto - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link

    Aren't Opera and Chrome both using Webkit? I think Anand is trying to show the memory footprint of each different type of rendering engine.Therefor Opera isn't needed as it's base is the same as Chrome.
  • cousin333 - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link

    No, Opera always used it's own rendering engine. Today, it's named Presto.
  • Yongsta - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link

    Chrome is pretty awesome. It fly's on my home desktop (Q6600, 4GB Ram). However on my desktop at work (Barton 3200, 1GB Ram) it becomes very slow when I have multiple tabs open (and processes). So, I'll stick to Firefox 3 at work.
  • ChronoReverse - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link

    I notice that with somewhat heavy browsing, it'll often grind the system for a bit. Usually after opening and closing various tabs.

    It also doesn't help that flash runs really slow for some odd reason.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now