

Chrome 9 Sandboxes Flash and Adds WebGL Support - Garbage
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/12/chrome-9-sandboxes-flash-and-adds-webgl.html

======
peregrine
I wish Google would push Adobe to give us a flash that performs decently on
Linux. The Cr-48 runs absolutely horrible with even basic flash applications.

~~~
there
adobe is pushing themselves

[http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2010/12/flash-player-
for-...](http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2010/12/flash-player-for-chrome-
notebooks.html)

------
nkassis
Yay for WebGL by default, I've been waiting for this for a year. Now I don't
have to get my users to install a beta version of a browser.

------
Legion
For a company that was legendary for their perpetual "beta" web apps, they
sure do increment those release version numbers on their browser awfully
quickly.

~~~
js2
They are just numbers. Here's how it works. The version number is four parts:
major.minor.build.patch.

major.minor are used for each significant release and are set for marketing
purposes. They are currently on a 12-week release cycle, where major is
updated for each cycle.

build.patch are used for engineering purposes. They update the build value
daily on trunk. Periodically, they create a release branch from trunk. On
release branches, the build portion of the version is fixed and the patch
value is incremented daily.

So for example, the upcoming release will be 9.0.597.something. Typically it
takes them a couple weeks to get from beta to stable, so I expect 9.0 stable
to be something like 9.0.597.33.

But, as I said, they're just numbers. :-)

~~~
spydez
I wonder if they'll slow down on the major version now that they've "caught
up" to IE...

~~~
toolate
I can't imagine the branding looks as good for Chrome 23.0 as it does for
single digits. Maybe they'll switch to code names.

~~~
sjs
Version numbers aren't very prominent for "regular" users. I don't think they
really care about branding or marketing the version.

------
riobard
Just tried the Aquarium demo and the system (OS X) became unresponsive…… and
just checked CPU/memory usage: CPU utilization < 10% with 1.2G free memory. So
it must be the GPU since WebGL is hardware-accelerated???

~~~
joakin
Ubuntu with ATI 4 __* perfect here (Fans on in some seconds BTW)

Did you enable the about:flags options? As it says in the page its beta
features, so it wouldnt be strange to behave badly in some ocasions/systems

------
fleitz
The sandbox is highly annoying. I can't attach files when using flash
uploaders. I thought it was just a bug that would go away soon because I'm on
the dev channel.

