Chrome browser: Only 'good paint'!

Google's new browser, with the name Chrome, has many points that a browser should have today: sleek design, support for opening multiple pages on the tab bar and offering many ways to help customers control their own Internet settings. my private.

However, some initial tests have shown this 'beta' version, which failed to fulfill the goal set by Google: Demonstrating superiority to Microsoft's latest Internet Explorer version.

Chrome is a new challenge to Internet Explorer, although Microsoft's browser is used by three-quarters of the world's web surfers. However, it can also be considered a challenge for Microsoft's office suite, because what Google really wants to do is turn this browser into a stable and flexible platform that can do everything. We want to do for a computer, from typing, emailing to photo editing.

To reinforce this, Chrome is designed to handle JavaScript in a more advanced way than other browsers. JavaScript is one of the technologies used to make Web pages more interactive and more like desktop software applications. Google's word processing and spreadsheet programs use this technology, but JavaScript is also widely used by Web sites to make things less refined, like drop-down menus.

At first glance, Google's focus on JavaScript seems very reasonable. JavaScript can take up a lot of computer power, and if a Web site using this technology is ineffective, it can crash a browser. One of the many things that Chrome promises is: if a browser tab is suspended, it won't drag the entire program.

Photo: Reuters .

Chrome also has a lot of design differences compared to Internet Explorer and Firefox, such as putting the tabs up. That's a good point, but this browser is what makes analysts bother. And that is also the point that makes Chrome's attention to JavaScript ineffective.

When working, article authors often use Firefox to open about 40 or 50 tab bars on different windows depending on their topics. Frequently, Firefox slows down all other applications on my device and then "fades" completely.

At first, the writer thought the culprit was JavaScript, and blocked it all. But this work has no effect, the browser is still "frozen".

It turns out that the culprit is not JavaScript, but another technology used by the Web to increase interactivity: Adobe Systems' Flash plug-in. It's a program - in - the program used to run YouTube videos and the annoying 'splash' pages that these sites use to dazzle you before you can do anything useful.

Flash is a huge resource for Firefox, taking all the processing time to nothing for other programs. It does that even if you don't do anything. As simple as opening a YouTube page on the screen will also draw the power of your computer's central processor. It is a brutal act of a browser software. That is my computer, and I want to reclaim it.

Fortunately, there is a small add-on program for Firefox that allows users to block Flash files automatically when downloading a web page, and it turns Firefox into an efficient, stable browser.

What about Chrome? This browser is also having trouble with that problem. It allows Web sites running Flash to take advantage of your computer resources. It doesn't use as much CPU resources as Firefox, but in a more serious way, because unlike Firefox, there's no way to block Flash from running. Chrome's control tools are quite 'sketchy', perhaps because it's still a 'beta' version.

On the plus side, Chrome allows you to 'diagnose' the problem of running plug-ins automatically easily, because it tells you exactly what pages are using resources. If I could do this with Firefox, I would probably have saved months with browser troubles.

So which browser is good after all? Internet Explorer 8 beta, just released last week.

When running a video file of YouTube on a 3-year-old laptop using XP operating system, Firefox takes up 95% of CPU time.

With Chrome, this number is 60% - still too much. Especially when Google owns YouTube! Do you think it should work better on that page.

Internet Explorer is amazing, only a few%.

When I gave each browser 8 web pages, some heavy pages with lots of Flash and images, Firefox took 17 seconds and ended with the CPU running at 50%. That means it takes up half of the processing power, even if I don't see any page.

Chrome downloaded faster, with only 12 seconds, but the CPU had to operate at 40%.

Internet Explorer 8 takes 13 seconds, but the CPU almost doesn't need to work.

In conclusion, Chrome's performance seems a bit better than Firefox, but in fact it is not useful, because it lacks a large array of third-party add-ons like Flashblock - which increase Customizable features of Firefox. With time this point will probably be resolved, but at this point, I recommend Internet Explorer.