Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

Summary: Chrome's a little slower, but still faster than the rest and it's still the browser to beat.


Say hello to Chrome 16: Google's lastest browser.

Say hello to Chrome 16: Google's latest browser.

Mozilla, bless its heart, keeps trying to make Firefox relevant again with its speedy update schedule, but it just hasn't been working out. Google, on the other hand, with its new Chrome sweet 16 release keeps getting better than ever.

No, there's nothing new in capital letters in this release. It's still fast, but not as fast as it once was, and it includes a couple of nice, useful improvements. Under the hood, as always, there are several important security improvements.

If you haven't tried Chrome yet, here are the basics. The Chrome Web browser has a minimalist interface. Instead of a tool-bar, the basic interface has a combination address and search bar, the Omnibox, at the top with tabs above that. The handful of visible control buttons consist of Back, Forward, a combined Stop/Reload button, and a preferences wrench icon. That's it.

If you add extensions, they'll appear as icons on the right of the Omnibox. If you like having lots of tool-bars and endless interface tweaking power, Chrome is not for you. If you want a clean, fast Web browser Chrome is for you.

That's not to say you can't add a lot of extra stuff to Chrome. The whole point of a Chromebook, for example, is that you can do pretty much anything you need to do on a computer with just a Web browser and a bunch of cloud-based applications and extensions. To find these with Chrome, head over to the Chrome Web Store.

Which of the big five Web Browsers is the Best? (Review)

Chrome 16 does come with two new features that you might like. The first is you can now print any Web page to any Google Cloud Print printer you're allowed to use. Cloud Print is a Google service you can use that enables you to turn any printer into an Internet-connected printer. You control who can print to your Cloud Print-connected printers.

With Chrome, you can now print across the Internet.

With Chrome, you can now print across the Internet.

The second, and this one at this point I don't see as being that useful, is you can sync multiple users to one copy of Chrome. So, for example, you can have multiple people via their Gmail accounts, running their own Chrome settings. So, for example, when I log into my Google account on my laptop's copy of Chrome, I get my applications, bookmarks, and settings. When my buddy logs in, she'll get her settings.

So far, so good, but, there's no security between logins. She can see all my settings and I can see hers. You may be OK with that, but I'm not and I can't see it in a work environment where people share PCs. Once they have some rudimentary security between sessions I'll find this feature much more useful. You may find it useful now.

To use this multi-user function, go to the wrench icon, Personal Stuff, and you'll see a new option: Users. Once there, slect the add a new user and your friend or co-worker be up and running in a minute.

Chrome 16 won't let you run out-of-date applets unless you tell it to.

Chrome 16 won't let you run out of date applets unless you give it express permission to run them.

Thinking of security, besides the usual array of security fixes that any browser gets with a new release, Chrome now won't let you run any out of date plug-ins unless you explicitly agree to let it run. So, for example, if you try to run an old copy of Flash, you must, on every page, agree to let it run. Considering how many security problems can be laid to the door of browser plug-ins these days, I think this is a good move. I'd like to see other Web browser developers adopt this policy.

Moving along to the basics, Chrome is still great at observing Web standards. Like almost all modern browsers, it gets a perfect score on the Acid 3 compatibility test, which checks how well a browser complies with various Web standards such as CSS, JavaScript, and Extensible Markup Language (XML),

On the HTML5 Test, which checks to see how compliant the Web browser is with the HTML5 Web page standard, Chrome 15 scored 344 out of a possible 450. The next best is Firefox 8 with a score of 314.

When it comes to performance, I ran Chrome against latest releases of Firefox, 8.01, and Internet Explorer, 9.08, on a Gateway DX4710 Windows 7 SP1 test box. This PC is powered by a 2.5-GHz Intel Core 2 Quad processor and has 6GBs of RAM and an Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) 3100 for graphics. It's hooked to the Internet via a Netgear Gigabit Ethernet switch, which, in turn, is hooked up to a 60Mbps (Megabit per second) cable Internet connection.

For my first test, Chrome went up against the others on Mozilla's Kraken 1.1 benchmark. In Kraken, which like most Web browser benchmarks measures JavaScript performance, lower scores are better. Here, Chrome left Firefox and IE in the dust with a score of 3990.9ms. Firefox came in next with a score of 6792.9ms followed by IE with an awful 16,630.7ms.

Google has its own JavaScript V8 Benchmark Suite, where higher scores are better, Chrome, to no surprise, won again. This time it scored 7,661. Firefox came in next at 3,775, with IE behind it with 2,193.

On the grand-daddy of JavaScript tests, SunSpider 0.9.1, where lower results are better, Chrome didn't do that well. IE won with a score of 252.6ms, Firefox came in second with 303.5ms, and Chrome came in last with 319.7.

On the Peacekeeper Web browser test suite, which looks at JavaScript performance and beyond to HTML5 compatibility, video codec support and other Web browser features as well, Chrome won again. On this benchmark, where higher is better and Chrome once more won out with a score of 2,673. Firefox and IE were both far behind with scores of 1,699 and 1,626 respectively.

What it all means in the final number-crunching is that Chrome 16 is actually slightly slower than Chrome 15. Still, generally speaking it's still faster than the other major Web browsers, experts agree that it's the most secure Web browsers, and its features make it the best of the current Web browsers. Put it all-together and Chrome at its sweet 16th release is still the Web browser to beat.

Related Stories:

Google wants you to buy a Chromebook: Should you? (Review)

The Chromebook at work (gallery)

New study claims that Chrome is the most secure browser

Is Firefox toast?

Which of the big five Web Browsers is the Best? (Review)

Topics: Open Source, Browser, Google, Microsoft, Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

    Who cares about this useless speed stats and experts agree that IE9 is THE SAFEST brower and is best integrated into Windows with websites acting like apps, with jumplists etc.

    Chrome has ZERO presence in corporate environment and there are plans to adopt it in the near future. With Office365 kicking google apps where it hurts, its a tough future for Chrome.

    When IE10 is out, the browser wars will probably be over once again.
    • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?


      With all due respect, many organizations I have talked with are looking at numerous new browsers (now that they have gotten tough with their old app designers and made them update IE6 applications to work on IE8+, Firefox and Chrome).

      Chrome is the best browser out there right now. I do NOT want my browser to be 'integrated' with the OS, I want it to pretty much stand alone and not touch the rest of the operating system (other than to read from files) so that virus-infections without user interaction are basically impossible.

      Chrome and Firefox are the best for that. Firefox is a little better with NoScript, Ghostery and AdBlock added, but out of the box Chrome is the best.
      • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

        What you posted about IE was true, if it runs on Windows XP. IE on Windows Vista and W7 runs in a sandbox. For some reason, the Mozilla team don't take advantage of Windows sandbox, as companies as Google or Adobe does. For that reason, I prefer IE9 and Chrome over FF.
      • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

        Sorry, double post...
      • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

        @Lerianis10 I have read recently that many who have tried Google's cloud apps or were contemplating them. Have chosen not to. A large metro city that was using Google apps had to quit because Google would not guarantee security. Don't let any of these Google fans fool anyone. Cloud apps are not for everyone. Especially those in enterprise and government who value security.
  • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

    The only thing that has been keeping me from Chrome, is that it has Google's name on it.

    Plus, the AdBlock for this browser stinks, compared to Firefox's. It misses some ads, and worse yet, can't (or won't) block those God-awful ads plastered into YouTube videos.
    The one and only, Cylon Centurion
    • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

      @Cylon Centurion

      You are right that nobody should be using Google spyware. But, if you can get over the ridiculous tabs on top structure, and lack of flexibility, try Chromium. It is open source and, I think, does not have the spyware imbedded. You can add Ghostery, Disconnect, Not Script, etc. to protect yourself from other spyware.
  • FF is faster than Chrome, perceptibly.

    I've spent a day or two using Chrome but keep returning to FF.
    Annoying things like 'single-click' to select all in the url bar and automatically opening a link to a new tab and setting focus to the tab don't work in Chrome.

    It's also particularly disturbing how Google decided to underwrite a study that supports Chrome as being the most secure browser.

    Some of you know how I feel about that. I will spare you today.

    I am staying with FF running in an LSM sandbox. Hats off to the Mozilla Firefox Team.
    Dietrich T. Schmitz *Your
    • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

      @Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate
      I'm staying with Chrome and IE9 with their built in sandboxes (no need to configure LSM) on Windows 7. Hats off to Google and Microsoft for creating great browsers and to MS for creating a fantastic OS.
      • Opera still rock


        aside from Sandboxing capabilities, me thinks Opera > Chrome/FF just because it has more throughtful functionality built in (e.g. better tab/session support)
    • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

      @Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate

    • I only hope FF can remain relevant against Goliath money

      @Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate

      What they did to spruce things up in the browser sphere circa 2004-05 with orphaned Netscape bits should never be forgotten.
  • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

    "it???s actually a little slower this time." (summary)
    "It???s just faster than ever" (2nd paragraph)

    Unbiased review as always by Google fanboy sjvn.
    • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?


      Time SJVN and Chrome got a room.
  • We've danced this dance before but you continue to spew FUD

    "On the HTML5 Test, which checks to see how compliant the Web browser is with the HTML5 Web page standard"

    No, that is not what HTML5Test does. Not even the authors of the HTML5Test claim that. HTML5Test tests an arbitrary collection of features that the HTML5Test team feels like testing:
    "The HTML5 test score is an indication of how well your browser supports the upcoming HTML5 standard and related specifications. Even though the specification isn't finalized yet..."
    So the results of this test are completely meaningless.

    "Google has its own JavaScript V8 Benchmark Suite, where higher scores are better, Chrome, to no surprise, won again."

    The test results of a test written by a browser company are meaningless. MS's tests show that IE is the fastest. Big deal. Meaningless.

    "experts agree that it???s the most secure Web browsers"

    No. Experts paid by Google agreed to release a study showing that Chrome was the most secure. Nice try at slipping that one through. I won't allow your dishonesty to stand unchallenged.
    • For the record, Chrome is my favorite browser

      That still doesn't mean I'm blind to the facts. What's your excuse?
    • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?


      Nobody cares about sjvn with chrome test anymore. It wasn't the first time people (myself included) telling him that HTML5test is a TOTAL FAILURE for html5 testing.

      Everytime he saw Google Chrome release a new version he just pull out the same word template, update it, publish it and collect paycheck.
      • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?


        And because ZDNet bloggers get paid by the response traffic they generate, our comments increase his pay.

        As an unbiased journalist, SJV-N is a failure. As a writer who expresses his opinions, he is a successful blogger.
    • RE: Review: Chrome, the Sweet 16 Web Browser?

      @toddybottom Agreed, and "experts" claimed IE 9 was the most secure browser, last time I heard - probably MS paid experts, but even so.
  • Secure? No way!

    Secure? You're joking. It's spyware! In fact, it's a keylogger. Every keystroke you type into that "Omni" box goes straight to Google.
    Anne Nonymous