Chrome 2.0: Bam!

No less than the Times has chastised the Chrome team’s marketing efforts, noting unsubtly that for months now we’ve been burying the lead: Chrome’s killer feature isn’t that it’s got an awesome UI (it does) or that it supports new web features…no, the real story that we haven’t been telling well is that it’s wicked fast.

I’m sure all the blags will be a-twitter with this shortly, but Chrome 2.0 is now out to everyone, and it’s even faster. Yes, V8 got even more polish (new compiler infrastructure FTW!), but the big speed news from my perspective comes from other parts of the browser. Chrome 2.0 moves fully away from the Windows networking stack to Chrome’s faster networking infrastructure and includes changes to memory allocation that make the DOM go like hell. There’s lots of great feature work in 2.0, of course, but now’s not the time for us to bury the real story: Chrome, fast as it was, just got even faster. Thanks to silent auto-update, it’ll even make the web faster faster.

Bam!

7 Comments

  1. Nathan Toone
    Posted May 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Well – not quite *everyone*… http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/mac.html

    :)

  2. Chris
    Posted May 21, 2009 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    Still no OS/X?

  3. Posted May 22, 2009 at 1:25 am | Permalink

    Ditto http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/linux.html

  4. Posted May 22, 2009 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    Taskspeed results favour Chrome 1.0 over 2.0, by quite a large margin. Why do you think this might be?

  5. Posted May 22, 2009 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    I don’t use Chrome regularly because

    A) It makes my disk drive sound like a coffee grinder, accessing continuously as long as Chrome is running.

    and B) because I can’t get it to support Google Bookmarks. There may be a way but I gave up looking for it. (Go figure … Google Chrome doesn’t support Google Bookmarks.)

  6. Posted May 22, 2009 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Shane:

    I don’t know, specifically, what would be causing those numbers to turn out like that but I’m guessing it’s some combination of low # of visitors and visitors w/ relatively slow systems. On equivalently fast boxen, 2.0 should be faster. If it’s not, let me know.

    Regards

  7. Posted May 23, 2009 at 4:23 am | Permalink

    Alex,

    I mentioned to Pete a few weeks ago that it would be good to also show the browser sample size in TaskSpeed, as I knew questions like this would be asked.

    I’ll ping him again about it, hopefully it should clear things up.