Skip Links

Network World

  • Social Web 
  • Email 
  • Close

More Chrome details, Less Firefox housekeeping

By Mark Gibbs , Network World , 09/25/2008
Gibbs
Newsletter Signup
  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print

Last week I discussed Google’s Chrome Web browser and I got some great feedback and some less so. On the great side was an old colleague from Novell who said it was "by far the most interesting and informed … commentary I have read on Chrome." (I swear I didn’t pay for that.)

On the "less so" side was "Alex" who posted in the Gearhead forum "Your analysis is very basic, but fairly good." Thanks. I think.

Alex added: "I think that Chrome, at least for the first year of its life, is mainly intended for home users." Sorry Alex, but Google’s goal is much bigger than targeting the home consumer market. It is trying to build a platform for running applications delivered by the Web that relegates the operating system to a supporting role (Microsoft should be nervous).

Just think about it. When you can eventually run software as sophisticated as today's personal productivity applications by downloading them through your browser with your data stored in the "cloud", the prevailing user computing model that has been in place for 30 years is no more. Paradigm shift is such an over-used phrase, but that's what Google is trying to achieve.

The deep tech that underlies Chrome that I didn’t have space to go into in my "very basic" discussion is what will drive this new model. For example, Chrome uses multiple processes (one for each tab) instead of multiple threads, which provides better performance and memory management, and should prevent lockups and complete browser crashes due to the contents of a tab crashing. Chrome also has a JavaScript engine that is supposed to be significantly faster than the one in Firefox and much faster than Internet Explorer.

As to overall performance, there have been some interesting, albeit preliminary, tests. For example, a posting titled "Burning Chrome, Screaming Firefox, Lame IE" on the Open-Xchange blog concluded: "Google Chrome does not quite match the performance of Firefox 3, but in numerous tasks performed faster than Windows Explorer 7 … Google has delivered with Chrome a technically up-to-date Web browser, which performs nicely with demanding AJAX applications".

If you want more information about what's under the Chrome hood, check out Google's Chrome comic book (really!) and an interesting Wired article on the history of Chrome.

So, the proverbial bottom line: Don't dismiss Chrome (at least not yet) and don't classify it as another consumer-oriented browser. If Google can pull the browser rabbit out of the beta release hat, then much of what we do with PCs could change significantly. At the very least it could lead to new and improved architectures in other browsers, which would be a good thing in and of itself.

Speaking of browsers, a reader who had just switched to Firefox 3 wrote that when Firefox was running "every couple of minutes there was a flurry of hard drive activity, lasting maybe 10 or 15 seconds … I didn't see any Internet activity taking place, so I'm not sure what was happening, but I didn't like the idea that my drive might be scanned periodically without my knowledge or permission."

Interesting. I queried my friends on the-list-that-shall-be-nameless and a suggestion was made that as Firefox 3 switched from using .ini and .xml files for storing data to using SQLite, this might explain the disk access as housekeeping.

The absence of Internet activity may not be correct though. Both browsers and their myriad extensions are always calling back to their motherships for one reason or another, which will probably also trigger disk accesses. Mozilla recently published an article about Firefox making "unrequested" connections that is worth reading.

The reader has since gone back to "the 'old' 2.0 version of Firefox, which doesn't seem to need all that extra dusting and cleaning!" He added: "I also drive a 19-year-old Volvo station wagon that gets around 24MPG)."

Gibbs gets less than 24MPG in Ventura, Calif. Of course that is gallons of cabernet. Your mileage to gearhead@gibbs.com.

  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print
Comments (8)
Login
Forgot your account info?

I agreeBy Victor on October 2, 2008, 11:12 amI know many people are excited about just running everything in the cloud. But I am bringing more of my services in house. If there is a problem with my mail, I...

Reply | Read entire comment

The more pieces, the more likely something will breakBy Mike.D. on September 29, 2008, 9:29 amFor all you "computing in the cloud" affectionados, when you move the bulk of your computing from your desktop out to something or somewhere else, you move from...

Reply | Read entire comment

agreedBy Anonymous on September 28, 2008, 3:54 amchrome in beta has already outperformed IE7 (not saying much), FF3 and Safari on my end. Im a web developer with 10+ years developing web apps, and In the past week...

Reply | Read entire comment

More then 'fairly' good'By Anonymous on September 26, 2008, 5:39 pmHi, I hope you did not misunderstand me! I liked your analysis! Its was good, but I just wanted to read MORE of it... Todays article should have been a part of...

Reply | Read entire comment

It's quite insteresting to note that the comments are left by peBy Anonymous on September 26, 2008, 11:54 amIt's quite insteresting to note that the comments are left by people whom I wouldn't expect to read such a blog.

Reply | Read entire comment

View all comments

Add comment
Anonymous comments subject to approval. Register here for member benefits.
Have a NetworkWorld account? Log in here. Register now for a free account.

Videos

rssRss Feed