I am easily satisfied with the very best - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Google Chrome for Mac OSX
WEB BROWSERS are a bit like fridges. They do one simple job and no matter how many gadgets and widgets and doodads and thingummybobs you hang on them, they will always just be there to keep your beer cold in one case, and let you at the contents of the world wide web in the other.
We've always found it a bit odd that people are prepared to enter into heated discussions about their favourite flavour of web browser. It's a bit like being passionate about a breakfast cereal, or your favourite type of pencil.
Mac users have been well served in the past with Apple's Safari, which is fast, simple, stable and doesn't constantly nag you to use the company's products and services. It can, however, be a little flaky with some complex sites. The content management system that the Inquirer's team of crack international hacks uses refuses point blank to have anything to do with Safari, for example.
In such cases, most Macolytes will turn to Mozilla's Firefox, which makes a better fist of emulating the functionality of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which seems to be the standard browser model by which most web designs are tested, for some reason.
The fact that most Mac users would rather just not use the Internet at all than have to resort to Microsoft's bloated, overcomplicated and self-serving mess of a browser is testament either to their convictions, or their stupidity. We'll let you decide.
There are of course, dozens of other Mac friendly web browsers out there and the comments section is bound to be full of people howling with derision because we have failed to mention Opera or Sunrise or Seamonkey or Camino or Flock any of the other also-rans, but for our purposes here we are going to discount them as niche offerings made by and and aimed at beardy geeks.
As far as we are concerned there are only three contenders for the King of the Browsers crown - Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer. And since it is quite clear that anyone willing to besmirch their beloved Mac with Internet Explorer is almost certainly clinically insane, we are down to just two.
The third way
Since Tuesday, however, there has been a third viable alternative in the form of Google's Chrome for OSX. It's not quite clear why the company that has dominated the whole Internet search canon for so many years that Yahoo is just a distant memory took so long to come up with its own browser. But the Wintel version has been knocking about as a stable release for just under a year and with the entire source code for Chrome released into the wild as an open source project call Chromium soon after, Linux and OSX versions were eagerly anticipated.
There have been developer builds of Chrome for OSX kicking around for some time now, but Google has finally bitten the bullet and released an official Beta which, although incomplete, gives a flavour of what to expect if the software ever makes it to a full version. And let's face it, Google is well known for dragging its heels when it comes to losing the Beta label on most of its offerings. Having said that, Google is promising to upgrade the Beta release to 'stable' by January 12th 2010.
Having used Chrome on our Mac Pro for a couple of days now, what is becoming clear is that the current release probably doesn't deserve the lofty status of Beta, feeling very much more like an Alpha, not least because some pretty large chunks of the software's functionality is missing.
Despite the fact that there are over 300 plug-ins - or extensions as Google is calling them - available for Windows users, so far the Mac faithful have been left out in the cold, despite the fact that they were included in the developer versions. Also missing from the Beta release are a working bookmark manager, the ability to view PDF files, bookmark synchronisation and 64-bit support. Owners of older Macs will also be disappointed to find that the release is Intel only, not least because there is no port of the Google Native Client which only works on x86 systems. Given that it took over a year to develop this version, the chances of a PowerPC port are, quite frankly, slim to none.
Ignoring these serious shortcomings, and we're sure that many more will emerge over the coming weeks, Chrome does offer some intriguing features and is certainly worth a look. For a start, it's pretty fast. Perhaps not Safari fast, but as with most Beta's this is bound to improve. Installation is as simple as can be, and the installer will happily grab all of your bookmarks, settings and preferences from either Safari or Firefox without breaking stride.
Once launched, the interface is uncluttered and simple with nothing to obscure your view more complex than a single row of bookmarked sites, a single integrated search and address field that Google is calling the Omnibox and a row of tabs which, unlike most browsers, pops out of the top of the main navigation area. Unlike some web browsers - we're looking at you Microsoft - Google doesn't see the need to take up four inches of screen real estate with stack upon stack unnecessary and confusing buttons, icons and search fields.
Opening a new browser window or tab brings up a three by three grid of your most visited sites, rendered in miniature form. Whilst this is nowhere near as pretty as Safari's version, it is considerably quicker to populate. Individual tabs and windows are isolated meaning that the browser continues to work if one tab freezes or crashes, which is a comfort if you find yourself with dozens of tabs open simultaneously, as most users do.
Those of you who feel the need to gussy up your browsing experience can head over to Google's Themes page where you can spend your day staring into the shiny-cheeked, airbrushed within an inch of its life, grinning face of Mariah Carey - our favourite of course - or add any one of dozens of colour schemes ranging from esoteric squiggles to pictures of Porsches or ponies.
Secret agents and one handed surfers can keep their browsing habits incognito with what Google calls Incognito Browsing, but we'll just cut to the chase and call it porn mode. Stealthy surfers will leave no trace as the history is left unaltered and any stray and incriminating cookies are deleted once the session is closed.
Google has definitely gone for a less is more approach with Chrome for OSX. Missing functionality notwithstanding, this Beta feels snappy and simple making casual use a breeze. Power users will be frustrated by the current lack of extensions and what will be seen as essential tools like the ability to manage RSS feeds, bookmark synchronisation and a customisable toolbar. What we have here is a good indicator for things to come from Chrome, but the prospect that many sensible web surfers will turn their backs on the Mac mainstays of Safari and Firefox is doubtful.
The best thing about this Beta release is that it will undoubtedly provide some serious competition for the current incumbents once it is finished, and competition in the browser market can only be seen as a good thing. µ
Share this:
Share
... is the best breakfast cereal. no 2 opinions about that. Just try it.
any chance of chrome on iPhone/Touch? Then I might pick up one.
The writer's ignorance of the nearly decade-long absence of IE from Macintosh computers aside, I was also disappointed that there was no mention of some of the other browser projects happening on Mac OSX.
Having grown tired of Firefox's listless, memory-hogging performance, I recently switched to the faster, sleeker Camino, which boasts a fully OSX native implementation of the same Mozilla rendering engine. I've been using Camino for several months now, and it has nearly everything I liked about Firefox (extensions notwithstanding), but without the sluggishness and bloat. I'd say Camino is comparable to Safari, but much crunchier in terms of configurability and page-rendering ability.
Let's also not forget Opera and Omniweb, both of which are more than viable alternatives for OSX. These apps may not be put out by the biggest names in tech, but they do deserve mention at the very least.
First, as another commenter pointed out, there is no IE for mac any longer. Second, IE holds the crown for two reasons only. Windows owns the market share and IE is included by default. Also, most users don't have a clue and just use the default browser without understanding their are better options out there. FIrefox is a great browser, but it doesn't hold a candle to IE or Safari's speed. All browsers tested, Safari is the hands down best browser with firefox coming in a close second. If you think otherwise, you probably haven't spent much time using a mac. Most mac haters are people who have never used one or used one for only a very short time. If you spend equal amounts of time on both, the typical person chooses the mac.
That was one of the worst articles I've ever read. Not only, as everyone above has pointed out, was it poorly researched, it read like it had been written by a man who'd spent lunchtime in the pub, and then come back into the office a little late having knocked back one too many pints with the barman. Before slumping into his chair and laughing loudly at his own inane comments. Oh wait, that'll mean you ARE a real journalist...
You are posting this on the internet. Why not use it and do a little research?
........ wikipedia if anything ffs.
Get real.
First: IE does not have a Intel version and the last PPC version is (I think) 5.5. All MS products for the Mac are/were crappy. Sadly for some there are difficult replacements (m$ office).
Second: Just because Google puts it out doesn't mean that it has the share that Firefox or Safari have now. That will take time.
Third: The only thing that can make it good and gave it more chances at market share is if it not a resource hog like all/most other browsers.
btw: some of us use more than 1 browser at the same time.
I have not been so annoyed by article as I am now for a very long time.
I am baffled that anyone would let you write about technology in general and browsers specifically. So much bad info here it hurts my head. First of all under the hood safari and chrome both use webkit so if one chokes on a site so will the other. Apart from the browser chrome (cough way to go google on making standardized terms confusing by naming products after them) the only real difference is the javascript engine, and despite your statements to the contrary my profiling has found chrome to be faster. Also how can you suggest using ie on the mac as even a possibility? It has not received an update since roughly 2001 and anyone and everyone has considered it a dead browser for half a decade. If you're going to write articles about web browsers it might be a good idea to try and learn a little about them first.
You cant be serious saying this about Safari: "It can, however, be a little flaky with some complex sites."
You obviously have no idea about web standards. I stopped reading after this worthless line. Get a clue...
You can't understand why people debate web browsers, as if it is like breakfast cereal or a pencil?
Meanwhile, we have Microsoft roaming the planet like an evil beast, ripping up W3C web standards, and making its non-standard browser dominant. It doesn't bother you that one company is attempting to control the world's web standards? That doesn't matter any more than what brand of pencil you use?
If its any consolation, the evil beast of Microsoft is about to step over a cliff (yeay!, the audience cheers). The most popular client for accessing the internet will soon be the mobile device, where thankfully, the beastly Vole is failing with its poisonous proprietary protocols.
In the mobile world, Webkit browsers will dominate, of which both Safari and Chrome and many others are based. Microsoft's Internet Explorer's market share will plummet even more rapidly than its failed Windows Mobile OS, and both will fall over the cliff to their demise.
Talking about Safari, you said "It can, however, be a little flaky with some complex sites". That is not quite true. You mean sites that have been built with Microsoft tools, specifically for Microsoft's browsers.
Web sites that conform to the W3C standards render fine in most browsers, including Safari. The notable exception is Microsoft Explorer. Mac users don't require sites to me "Mac compatible" or "Safari compatible". They just need to be standards compliant.
doesn't even have a Mac version anymore.
is my Firefox.
It's so flexible. I can take it as is, or jazz it up with berries and fruit.
the best breakfast cereal ever.
I think maybe you're overstating the blandness of a browser. For example, if you're in IE 7, there's a great deal that you can't see on the web due to poor coding standards.
I use firefox, but it also serves as my FTP, my web page debugger, and translator. If that were a breakfast cereal, it would also brush my teeth after I ate it.