Do we really need another browser?

Hey Josh,

I am an MCSE in NT 4.0, 2000 and 2003 and use Microsoft technologies extensively every day.  I've dabbled in Linux and in Mac's, but truly believe the Microsoft platform is the strongest for my needs.  

I read everything I could about Chrome, and was quite dismissive - until I started using it today.  And I am absolutely blown away by the speed, the ease of use and the way it 'just works'.  It makes IE 7 (even the upcoming IE8) look like a bloated behemoth by comparison.  Even simple things like the Options menu is so much easier and better laid out in Chrome.

So yeah, I've switched from the IE 8 beta I was using to Chrome on all my machines and have been very happy with it.  My only problem with Chrome is that I can only use OWA light on my Exchange servers as Microsoft requires IE.  Yet isn't this an example of Microsoft 'forcing' users into adoption for a 'better' experience?

Definitely worth trying, and in my opinion this won't be 'doomed to a marginal user base' - sure it will probably take more market share from Firefox than IE initially, but Google have really developed a fantastic product that's worth checking out.

Cheers,

Bartek

Simple answer.....

No, we don't.

Although everyone has the ability to make one, there is enough troubles getting sites optimized for IE, FF, Safari.....sometimes you just have to say "enough".

With a crappy browser with a huge market share i.e. Internet Explorer, yes we DO need a better and more efficient browser that is Google Chrome!

"I also think they would eventually take the browser and make so that it provides a “better” experience than other browser with its many web apps that would “force” users into adoption."

ha ha - isn't that the aim of all web browsers? To give users a better experience?

But seriously, you obviously haven't properly researched what Chrome is. It's architecturally different to Firefox in a way that Firefox would have to be rewritten from scratch to implement the changes that Chrome brings.

Google have also recently extended their contract and commitment to Mozilla, and Mozilla are free to use any of Chrome's open source code to improve Firefox.

As for the web community, Chrome uses the Webkit rendering engine which is what powers Safari, (and also iPhone and Android) so if your site works with Safari it will work with Chrome.

But your last sentence sums up your feelings for Google. Your opinion is obviously biased against Google so you seem to have more of a problem with Google in general rather than their new browser. Get over it.

You mentioned that you are comparing Chrome beta 1 to IE8 beta 1. I'm curious as to why you are not using IE8 beta2? In my experience so far it is much faster and compatible with all the sites I have visited.

I downloaded Chrome and have compared it for 5 hours on 34 different sites opening them on identical monitors connected to identical video cards in the same system. At this point, I have not found any speed advantage at all.

The options dialog box by comparison with IE8 beta2 in my opinion is no better either.

The only thing I do like is the tabs being up in the translucent application border area which is kind of cool but nothing more than a cosmetic difference.

The ironic part is when you you read the "why we built a browser" link on the Chrome site it says that "What we really needed was not just a browser, but also a modern platform for web pages and applications, and that's what we set out to build"!

I don't think the folks developing Firefox, IE, Safari, or Opera would consider their work outdated by any stretch of the imagination. And when you read on in their description, you see that they are talking about features that IE8, and the most current version of Firefox offer.

So my question is, what was the point? I think Josh's assessment hits it right on the nail. This isn't about what was needed by virtue of everyone else doing it badly or not at all. It's about Google trying to maintain it's dominance in search by offering a browser that they percieve fulfills their vision of the future yet currently offers no advantages.

Google has proven itself to be a superior search engine but has consistently failed to provide online applications (or otherwise, with the exception of possibly Google Earth, which they bought) that spark the imagination of the general population. A one trick pony keeps coming up time and time again everywhere you read articles about this company.

I will continue to follow the development of Chrome but for now, I see no compelling reason to move from IE8 beta 2.

I agree with all of the original post with the exception of the last two paragraphs.  The truth is there’s a lot of legacy code in IE and Firefox and they are both VERY ugly when you look underneath.  Google has, apparently, built a real modern browser, from the ground up, that does things in a smart way—like no other browser does today and, IMHO, this is a bit refreshing.

Make no mistake about it; this IS a Google Apps delivery vehicle.  At the same time though, it looks like it could shape up to be the best browser out there.  The market will decide.

Okay, IE is being updated with new versions now and IE 8 is hands down the best version MS has ever shipped but let's be serious.  Firefox is the best web browser out there today.  Google just extended their contract with Mozilla until 2011.  Google is not unhappy with Mozilla.  They are simply saying, hey what about this?  

And now everyone will take notice and I'm sure that both Mozilla and Microsoft will take a look at what Google has done and consider what they can do to make their respective browsers better.  Mozilla does things very deliberately and when they ship a version of Firefox, it is exactly what they want it to be.  They are not moving too slow, they move faster than IE that's for sure.  I think the partnership with Google is strong and if you want to have conspiracy theories about secret hidden agendas Google has in releasing Chrome, go ahead.  But the fact of the matter is that it will increase competition and innovation in the browser field.  I like Chrome but I will stay with Firefox.  

IE is the last resort for the tech people I know, everyone uses Firefox if they can and I have found that the only people who use IE are those who don't know much about computers, those who don't care, those who don't look into the other options, or those who are MS fanboys.  

If it wasn't for Mozilla we'd still be stuck with IE6, and who knows what Chrome will mean for the future, even if Google is doing it for selfish reasons.

The other benefit of Chrome is that it's open-source, something MS hates but is realizing as a serious threat to their business.  If MS would embrace open-source they'd be better off for it, but I'm not sure they will.  What's better about Firefox and Chrome is that we can all look at the code and say this sucks, this is good, what about this.  True, international community involvement in the project... not "this is what you get - deal with it."

No, we don't need another browser.

I've only yesterday been engaged in a kind of argument on aerotaskforce about Google, and the Vista start menu search button being removed for no other reason than Google wanted it gone.

I'm very seriously considering jumping ship from my GMail account to another provider and boycotting Google products and services altogether, this is because I'm sick of the monopolistic practices they have.

I use IE and Firefox, both have their uses and I use them both roughly equally.  I have no favourite.  My search box in IE is set to Live, sometimes Cuil but I still find myself going to google.com to search for stuff.  It's like they've got us all brainwashed.

You know things have gone too far when their name becomes a verb!

Boycotting Google could be like giving up a vice, you suddenly discover that life, rather than stop altogether, actually improves without it.

I thought I would toss in my few cents on this.  First off let me say that, believe it or not, I am glad that Google created Chrome.  Do I use it?  No, actually it doesn't work on my OS.  I have looked at it on other computers who can run it on their OS and it did seem a bit faster and I liked that it wasn't 'cluttered', which is one of the reasons why the Google search engine first gained dominance.  (You could easily search instead of having to dig through all the crap on yahoo, msn, and other search engines.)  I am glad that Google created Chrome simply for the sake of competition.  Competition is ALWAYS a good thing and will force other companies including Microsoft to continue to innovate.  And, as always, the free market will decide.  But, that said...

Do not think that Google has 'good intentions' with Chrome.  Obviously it's a Google apps delivery mechanism (if you don't see that no one can help you out of your delusion) but that's not necessarily a bad thing per se.  To address Bartek's original comment no, the fact that you have to use OWA light isn't MS forcing people to use IE.  It's that they were able to add functionality INTO IE that allows them to provide the amazingly cool interfaces that OWA brings you.  (Outlook Web Access for Exchange server, especially 2007 does amazing things for a web interface.)  It's not an anti-competitive practice, it's a 'we control IE so we can add cool components that let us make our enterprise apps even cooler.'

Lastly, Google is the company that I trust the least.  Sure, Apple lies all the time and the media and tech press let them get away with it.  They've been lying for a decade and gotten away with it.  (Remember the 'fastest computers on the planet' ad campaign by Apple?  Ever look up the stats Apple posted for the tests?  Intel proc's with disabled hyper-threading, disabled cache, etc.  If their proc's really were so much faster, why did they switch?)  Google on the other hand isn't open about what they do.  They claim to have this happy go lucky, we love everyone PR BS, including how they're out trying to protect the internet.  When, in reality, they are funding groups looking to subvert freedom on the internet.  Look it up, Google is funding groups attempting to shut down ISP's and turn it over to the government.  I don't know about you, but that's a very scary thought.

Finally (sorry this has gotten long) what company has made money off the web browser?  I thought that concept died over a decade ago.  Just like open source will be (please, someone tell me how 'open source' makes money?) that's a fad that died a decade ago as a feasible business.  All browsers are FUNDED by other companies, they don't actually generate revenue.  So, if Google wants to hemorrhage MORE cash on another 'free' product, I welcome it.  Less money for them to use to subvert our freedoms.  Like all socialists they want more power and control.  Let em' try.

This has been a good read!  I think I am on the fence, as it sounds like some of the rest of you are.  I think Chrome will be great for creating competition, and hope to see the idea of each tab having it's own process getting incorporated into Firefox.

Let's face it, Google does just about everything excellently.  However, once they start doing "everything", I am worried about them becoming the next evil, big s/w company.  I'm sure Chrome will evolve into a nice browser, but don't think I'm moving away from Firefox anytime soon.

I honestly haven't seen anything that special about Chrome's speed.  It might be faster at JavaScript than FF right now, but when FF 3.1 comes out, FF will be right there with it.

Freestone,

In no way is this about hemorrhaging cash.  It’s about controlling the main gateway/portal/application to the Internet and ensuring Google’s applications work well.  Microsoft didn’t create IE because they’re nice guys; they created IE to maintain their monopoly as they feared losing their captive audience to Netscape.  Google is doing this to improve the performance/impact/future value of their offerings—and, in the process, they’ve created a better mousetrap.

Hi Bink, I actually agree with you.  It is about creating a portal that will let their apps work well, and you are absolutely correct Microsoft didn't make IE to be 'nice guys.'  Quite the opposite in fact as you state, they are a business, and are in the business of making money and increasing/holding market share.  I completely disagree about this nonsense of them 'maintaining their monopoly' since they've never had one.

That said, I don't know if it's Google or just the media in general that tries to give Google this "we're out to help everyone" bs image but at least MS has never tried to hide the fact that they are a business out to make money.  If Google was more honest and open, I would have far less problems with them.

It inspired me, this conversation, to completely dump Google.  I'm officially now boycotting all of their products and services.  If anyone's interested I've started a blog on what it's like to live without Google at choccystarfish.spaces.live.com (Josh feel free to remove the link if you wanna, it's your site here after all).  I thought it might be interesting to keep a journal about just how dependent and tied in to Google we (for that read I) really am.

Between you and me I think it'll go, "Another day without Google... big deal, I'm still doing all the same things I did before."

Wow, what a great thread!  I haven't yet had a chance to try Chrome, but plan to do that this weekend.  I'm looking forward to it!  As for some of the technical details, people might want to do a little research.  IE8 uses separate processes for tabs, so this feature is unique to Chrome, nor did Google have it first (from a release standpoint).

It's interesting how the release of a piece of software can turn the discussion into a debate over the merits of a company.  Google deserves a lot of credit for maintaining a likeable image in spite of its tremendous growth.  People just want to like Google and its products.  They were late to the search game, but they nailed it on the head and essentially weaned us off our dependence on portal sites.  Gmail was a late-comer to the email game, but people clamored to get Gmail addresses.  You can't buy that kind of brand equity.  

If I were to depict Google artistically, I'd draw a picture of an innocent-looking little girl casting a huge, kinda scary-looking shadow on the wall behind her.  Google's maintained a fun, friendly image with its cartoonish fonts and colors, childish name ("google"), best-place-to-work-winning campus, and start-up-like spirit.  However, Google is an incredibly influential company (culturally, financially, and even legally) and has proven to be a formidable competitor to Microsoft, the competitor of all competitors.  Ironically, the company's overwhelmingly predominate source of revenue is ads, an industry which often is characterized as deceptive, if not downright untrustworthy.  

Yet people still love Google.  I'm not saying they shouldn't or that Google is evil or anything like that.  I just find it to be a fascinating business case study.

Typo in first paragraph.  That should be, this feature ISN'T unique to Chrome...