Yeah, I was afraid that would happen. I couldn't find (yet) what engine Chrome is running on. They should use Gecko (FF rendering engine).

Haven't tested the browser (yet), but I really don't like they don't apply to the Web standards (too).

You disappoint me o-holy Google

i tested our most complex ajax application that took forever to get working in ie and ff and it works straight out of the box. if you code to standards first and revisit ie afterwards you will be fine. chrome and ff i trust will be standards compliant first and foremost.

Personally I don't mind that much. I tested a few of the applications we wrote here and the differences are minor. So yes, more work, but I'm payed to do it so...
We didn't take safari into account yet, but I guess that for the people who did, it will be a small step because chrome is using webkit? Or am I wrong?
And I'm so blown away by chrome's performance that I look forward to get an official go to develop web applications for it.

...and opera and safari?

Saluti
BES

it is surely more work for the designers now, another browser to check.
i tested it today and did identify a few minor things, but apart from that i feel it would good well.

Janko, Chrome uses WebKit so you should experience very little difference (if any) if you already test using Safari.

Um, yea, I always test in safari :[

Hmmm I was thinking the same thing, yet more time for testing!!

I came to say the same thing as others: You obviously don't test on Safari.

As a developer, I look forward to more browsers that follow the standards.

As a designer, I cringe at the thought of more hacks for browsers that don't quite follow the standards.

At least they used WebKit instead of rolling their own.

I'm not that worried. I've always written code according to web standards, and Webkit is one of the most compliant engines out there.

I downloaded it and have been testing it on various websites and such. I haven't seen too many issues other than it doesn't seem to handle Flash content well. It will load it but in most of the sites that I've visited (some with just minor ads), it took a while for it to load the content. In addition, I noticed that sites with a number of Flash ads and content appear to cause issues with some of the JavaScript too.

Beyond that, I don't see too much differences between Chrome and Safari as far as rendering. I don't know if it'll be a major player (or a Firefox killer like I've seen a few news threads about); however, it has some promise. I'll be curious to see if this crazy media coverage will assist it or not.

While Chrome does run on WebKit, Mr. Hicks has already covered a little bit of the differences a browser can make even while using the same rendering engine.

I think another browser coming into the market right now is a horrible idea. We're over saturated with browsers and can't even get some decent standards and rendering in place before hand.

But then again, if it wasn't so hard to make things pretty and unique online, would our current pride of skill to manipulate and workaround issues be marginalized to WYSIWYG editors?

Graphic designers would rejoice in being able to pursue their craft fluidly into the web while most HTML/CSS bandits would end up realigning and redefining their skills.

Just a though.

Isn't IE8 moving toward using the agreed upon web standards? Here's to hoping Google does too.

One bonus of doing most of my developement for internal use is that we only really care if it supports IE. FireFox support is nice to have, but not required.

I think yes, it will be a headache! another browser to test on. Because simply Chrome will not replace other browsers. And yet you have to support it, because users will grow by time. Especially they hit a good start in my opinion. Myself I liked it.
And it still Beta...

What people are missing about the release of Chrome is that it is a beta, Google's philosophy being 'release early, release often'.

The best feedback is user feedback when building a piece of software, and much like the development of Gmail making Chrome a great browser is going to take some time. No browser has ever been perfect on launch. No browser will. Safari lacks adequate debugging tools. Firefox 3 crashed with the latest Firebug and also hogs up to five hundred megs of RAM. Internet Explorer is a blasphemous bastard for too many reasons.

So Chrome isn't the answer to all of our browser woes - suck it up, give feedback, and give patience. You're all jumping to conclusions on something that is a work in progress and released early specifically so you can help turn it into something worthwhile for the internet community.

I really wish they would have used Gecko. Limiting the browsers to one or two main engines would make everything so much simpler, instead they added more traffic to a third. Sigh..

We tested several web-apps and found the javascript blew up quite often (and we're using JQuery). Also, there were a number of rendering errors (fonts were all mangled and borders were weird in some places).

Frankly I'd like this browser to just die...

I find it weird that most comments are about yet another browser to support, when what they really mean is yet another rendering engine. But to me it's not another rendering engine.

At this moment (and in the past) I think you should build to best browser(s) / rendering engine(s) available and try how it looks in IE.
That means developing against Safari and Firefox. Than I usually test it in Opera and find not many things wrong. Than I get a big mug of coffee and try it out in several flavours of IE. I usually get some more coffee.
Google Chrome uses the same rendering engine as Safari (I know they are version carpetbombing behind) but it renders the same. Testing will be on the same level as Opera.

The JavaScript side of things could be different yes. Google Chrome has it's completely new V8 engine for that. Apart from maybe differences in code interpretation you could come across surprises because the code is executing so fast.
This could mean extra testing and extra development time, but I expect that any differences will soon be picked up by Google and or the major libraries to cater for that.

I expect not too much difficulties from it all.

I wrote something about that "head ache" approach of yours here; ra-ajax.org/...he-open-web-and-open-standards.blog
But basically to sum it up it says that if you get a headache it's because you deserve it ... ;)

@marco => Google Chrome was built from scratch. This basically means that although it would be fair to expect standards compliance, the rendering engines for CSS and Javascript should not be expected to follow other browsers. Not even those that make a developer's life easier (like Firefox!).


Take a look => googleblog.blogspot.com/.../...ake-on-browser.html

chrome beautiful, clean, simple, fast and powerful, but i stay use firefox with plugins.

Personally...use Chrome when you just need another browser if you have multiple accounts on things and you need the accounts at the same time...wich is rare. Besides that, I think its best to drop Chrome, use IE for some stuff that doesn't quite work out for Firefox, and have everyone convert to Firefox since how I see it have done the best job as far as all browsers go.

As for web designing, do pretty much the same...make the site in the long run compatible with Firefox and state, 'SIT RUNS BEST WITH FIREFOX! DOWNLOAD NOW FOR FREE!'

Google's Chrome browser is absolutely a good thing. Here's why...

JavaScript as a language was doomed to have memory leaks until the Browsers they ran on were doing proper garbage disposal of objects. And neither IE or Firefox were doing this. Chrome offers a browser that does. It is a marked improvement that guarantees JavaScript will be a viable language for stable Rich Internet applications on par with Flash, and Silverlight.

Chrome installs about as easily as one of Google's toolbars. Users who have not tried Firefox will be willing and will try Chrome. This will give the W3C more leverage to endorse standards. Google is likely to keep Chrome a very standards compliant browser. And just by being available, it forces other Browsers to go this route.

Plus Chrome is Open Source. What they've spent money to do will be and is freely available to other companies and developers. Since they use Webkit, it's likely that Safari, the iPhone, and Andriod Phones will all share similar engines for rendering HTML and JavaScript.

Trust me... ...It's a good thing.

Go to BrowserShots to alleviate your cross-browser development woes. They already have Chrome in it.
http://browsershots.org/

I think GChrome is cool, very fast and it seems to render very much to the level of Safari, but without the drop shadows. So far, my projects are fine (sans shadows), but it does lack a lot of stuff that other more mature browsers have that we need day-to-day just to get things done -- plugins, add-ons, etc.

Keep in mind that it's beta (like so many of their products) and it will improve and evolve over time. It would be nice to have a version on my Mac as well as the PC, but that's another issue... They are very responsive to bug reports, so I would encourage folks to submit 'em if they're legitimate -- they actually get back to you within 24-48 hours, but I'm not sure how long it'll take to fix 'em.

It's great to have another browser that can do CSS 3 as well -- think of the time that'll save. Remember, IE just plain sucks and has been sucking for years. Now that they're losing market share they want to finally show some love to the community and users they've ignored for so long? I've got two words for them and they're not, "thank you!"

Think aboout this as well... IE7 is CSS 2.1 compliant, and IE 8 not much better imo. Do you read yesterdays news? I mean why bother with either of them?

We now have stable and dependable browser choices -- just like moving back to Mac, it's about a more efficient, better quality, and safer, user experience.

First everybody ho is working in pc is paranoid thats why don't wory.

I tested Cheromo and I thing its not so diffucult to understand what they make.For fey days ago google,amazon and some another web engineers has tolked about the web standarts.I thing they will make every thing better for us...

I think we must happy for it.

people use ie6 and ie7 becouse come from satndart windows package. Most of them nerver heared of firefox.

Most people that using ie6 and ie7 don't know there is a difference between browsers.

But they know google very well. I see a chance on this. may be google make them awere of that they have an option.

Im not a fan of Googles Chrome im going to stick to Firefox for the time being!

I'm quite happy with the speed, as it embeds webkit, however, due to unknown reason, the javascript performance when using JS Framework does not satisfies me. Lagged and slow..

Right now, I'm debugging my webs on Mac [ Safari, Opera, Firefox ] and VMWare Windows [ Safari, Opera, Firefox, IE6, Chrome ]

So far, Chrome still obeys my CSS codes