Does Google's Chrome Need More Polish?
Page 1 of 2
GMail has been in beta for five years. Chrome went "gold" after four months. Is it ready?
It's not too often Google shocks people these days, but declaring its Chrome browser a finished, 1.0 product after only four months was sure one of those moments. Google, the land of the perpetual beta (five years and counting for GMail, three years for Docs), declared the bits golden code after 100 days of public consumption.
As late as last month, according to a release from the testing firm uTest, Chrome was plagued with a fair number of bugs, more so than even the Firefox 3.1 and Internet Explorer 8 betas. In a "Bug Battle" between the three beta browsers, testers found 297 in Chrome, 207 in Firefox 3.1 and 168 in IE 8.
He said the view around the office is mixed. "We have people in our office who use it and swear by it, and at the same time we've had people use it and say 'I'm going to wait for the next version comes out'," said Johnston.
Johnston's own view is that Chrome is solid, but it was following a well-worn path. "I would say it's important to note that IE is on version eight and Firefox is on version three, and if we go back in time to when those apps were at the 1.0, 1.1 stage, Chrome is far and away ahead of where those things were when they launched, for obvious reasons. They have taillights and experience of where those guys were to follow," he said.
Imad Mouline, chief technology officer for Gomez, a Web traffic monitoring and analysis site, was also surprised at the short beta cycle, but he echoed Johnston's view that Chrome is fairly mature for its young age.
"From a performance perspective, and I can only speak to the performance perspective, it's doing as well or better than a lot of the browsers out there," he told InternetNews.com. "I cannot speak to the compatibility or the number of bugs. Once people decide to use it, to visit real sites, it's performing pretty well."
Gomez measures the performance of a browser at a site, such as load times, rendering time and rendering accuracy. Mouline said he noticed some very strange swings between the last beta version and the 1.0 code, pushed live last week.
"It's not necessarily consistent. With some pages for some sites, the beta is still quite a bit faster than the final code, while with other sites, it's the other way around," he said. The final code could be as much as 50 percent faster than the beta code, or vice versa, the beta code was 50 percent faster."
Next Page: Why bother?