Google Chrome 2 30% More Faster

[tittat]

Google Chrome 2,claiming that this version 2.0 is 30% faster than its predecessor. I tried it up and yes it’s even faster than earlier versions.The credit goes to the revised V8 JavaScript engine that processes downloads from multiple pages but allocates resources to most used items.
But i think it consumes more BW(Bandwidth).And for this reason i still stick on with my Favorite browser Mozilla.

Happy Browsing
Enjoy!

 

[fguy64]

Google Chrome 2,claiming that this version 2.0 is 30% faster than its predecessor. I tried it up and yes it’s even faster than earlier versions.The credit goes to the revised V8 JavaScript engine that processes downloads from multiple pages but allocates resources to most used items.
But i think it consumes more BW(Bandwidth).And for this reason i still stick on with my Favorite browser Mozilla.

Happy Browsing
Enjoy!

How did you come to the conclusion that more bandwidth is consumed? I would have though that A web page is a web page, that it doesn't really call who or what is issuing the http request. See my point?

anyways, 30% faster is awesome, I am impressed enough with the speed of the old version.

 

[tittat]

How did you come to the conclusion that more bandwidth is consumed? I would have though that A web page is a web page, that it doesn't really call who or what is issuing the http request. See my point?

I concluded it from my own experience.Not just me, but my friends too felt the same.Yes, as you said a web page is a web page.

 

[kaiweilim]

Do you mean your internet usage bandwidth or the web server bandwidth on the website?

If own internet usage, shouldn't it be unlimited usage?

Regards.

 

[Smith6612]

Do you mean your internet usage bandwidth or the web server bandwidth on the website?

If own internet usage, shouldn't it be unlimited usage?

Regards.

Not everyone on the planet gets unlimited broadband usage (and these ISPs who offer caps and limited internet usage should and must die), unfortunately. Also, I wouldn't doubt that Google Chrome 2 would be using more bandwidth if it is in fact pipelining, but I'm also pretty sure that Google Chrome 2 is still using a lot of cache space like Apple's Safari to boost loading speed.

 

[kaiweilim]

Oh.. I thought that currently it's like everyone is using unlimited bandwidth. I am not so sure whether Google Chrome 2 is really using a lot of bandwidth. Yes it did run faster than Google Chrome 1. But currently beta also tend to have some problem with loading sometimes. I suppose Google Chrome 2 have Gears installed to make it load faster other than the V8 Javascript Engine. The Gears basically Let web applications interact naturally with your desktop, Store data locally in a fully-searchable database, Run JavaScript in the background to improve performance. So it stores some information in your computer. So whenever you reload the same website again, it would be fast.

That's what i think.

Regards.

 

[fguy64]

I concluded it from my own experience.Not just me, but my friends too felt the same.Yes, as you said a web page is a web page.

I'm not a network guru, so if a web page is just a web page, then it is not at all clear to me what you mean by more bandwidth.

It's good that your determination was based on experience, except I'm still curious as to how exactly you made the determination, when I think we all agree Chrome is faster than the competition. Did you actually put a meter on to count the packets or something?

regards.

 

[kobie1]

I didn't even know there was a 2.0, installing it now. Thanks!

 

[fguy64]

I upgraded the other day, didn't see any huge improvements in speed. A few problems relating to HTML forms were solved, but at least one problem was introduced, whereby it has problems remembering default login info when there is more than one account at the same site. But that's nothing to cry about, for sure.

Also worth noting is that it will not remember my Hotmail password under any circumstances. Surprise Surprise. It also works great with Yahoo Games.

 

[tittat]

Did you actually put a meter on to count the packets or something?

regards.

I have logs from my ISP, it shows my usage is higher while using chrome, my interpretation may be wrong though. But I have decided not to use chrome anymore because i have limited bandwidth per month and every extra MB cost me some extra money.

 

[Smith6612]

I have logs from my ISP, it shows my usage is higher while using chrome, my interpretation may be wrong though. But I have decided not to use chrome anymore because i have limited bandwidth per month and every extra MB cost me some extra money.

tittat it sounds like you need to get a new ISP

 

[pceasies]

Most of the bandwidth, if any, is saved from accessing cached files and optimization when using multiple connections to the same server. Google Chrome is a very very browser and fast too. Hopefully addons will be realized soon (without using the startup parameters).

 

[tittat]

tittat it sounds like you need to get a new ISP

haha Not really.BSNL, they are the leading internet service provider in India.Currently i have Home-250 plan, if i choose Home-750 plan i will be getting unlimited bandwidth per month.But the problem is i have not that much money(am a poor fellow).

 

[Zangetsu]

30% faster = 30% more ram consumption which means people have to get more ram

 

[fguy64]

The google people have a sense of humor. Chrome shut down on me this morning. Here is the error dialog that appeared on my screen.

 

[ichwar]

Whoa, you still use Windows 2000?!?

 

[fguy64]

Whoa, you still use Windows 2000?!?

who me? nah, I upgraded to xp a few months ago :biggrin:

I couldn't get onto the house wireless with 2000.

 

[ichwar]

ok, that screenshot you posted just looked like a windows 2000 window.

 

[lala123]

@ichwar: did you forget that Windows XP also have classic 2000 style?

I tested the new Chrome browser, but it's really not that fast. Still slower than my Portable Firefox 3 . My best choice is the Fox, which have a lot of addons and customization.
Recently, I also test the Opera (lastest ver. is 9.64), it work good.

 

[fguy64]

@ichwar: did you forget that Windows XP also have classic 2000 style?

yep. I'm an old school sort of guy, I like simple design. The first XP feature that disappeared was the default desktop of a hilly meadow, to be replaced by solid light gray. Also went to the classic style as you point out, I especially prefer the old Programs menu and taskbar.