Google Chrome is Bloated
Google’s own open source browser Google Chrome released today. I downloaded it and had a good browsing experience . I opened some of the sites and those are being displayed fine . The browser seems quite light while using but in real its not the light browser . Seeing at the installed file size its the most bloated browser i have ever seen . Google Chrome is taking near about 64 MB of space . This much of data was downloaded when i was installing the browser online . Thanks to my 2 Mbps connection otherwise it would take lot of time just to install . Mozilla firefox is taking just 24 MB of hard drive space . The internet explorer size inside the vista Program files folder is just 3 MB ( amazing but i dont belive this . Some other files must have been put somewhere else by windows ) . Opera browser takes just 13 MB of hard disk space in windows .
Download size of Opera browser is just 8.5 MB and that of Mozilla firefox is just 7.8 MB . But Google’s browser download size is 64 MB . And Google Chrome needs you to be online to install the software . There is no standalone install package file for Google Chrome browser . I hope Google will reduce their browser size and release a stadalone install package when Google Chrome gets out of Beta.
I have a plugin installed in my blog which detects Commentators Browser name , OS they are using and Country . But i made a test comment using Google Chrome , from using WIndows Vista . Its normal that the plugin will not identify the browser but what about the operation system its showing me Mac OS X . Is it that Google chrome is emulating Mac OS X when it runs in Windows ? and Oh what the browser uses Safari like base ?
Trackback
RSS Feed
Related Posts you may like to Read...
13 Comments
1.
Hem From 
(INDIA)
Wrote Using 
Safari 525.13 on 
Mac OS X on 03. September 2008 at 6:07 pm
Test comment
2.
Navin From 
(UNITED STATES)
Wrote Using 
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on 
Windows Vista on 04. September 2008 at 8:56 am
This is still in beta, and it’s normal, I guess.
I’ve heard of this a day before on their blog, but didn’t get time to review on it.. will surely do on it.. though..
3.
Sourcemorph From 
(INDIA)
Wrote Using 
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on 
SuSE Linux on 06. September 2008 at 9:04 pm
Chrome installer = 7.35MB.. so people who are not as privileged as you are can download it as well..
Secondly even if it takes 64 mb on ur hard disk (u needn’t put that picture as a proof) its not substantial.. hard disk space/cost is much less than that of ram…
Third its still in beta so it might not show all webpages correctly..
Fourth it google built chrome on kde’s khtml and apple’s webkit so it won’t be surprising that ur plugin (whoa..!) recognized it as apple’s..
Rather than discussing about the innovative stuff done with chrome you gave a rather stupid, baseless and premature judgement… and if u really wanna maintain a techno blog please read some good ones before embarking upon writing one urself…
cheers,
sourcemorph!
4.
zam From 
(INDIA)
Wrote Using 
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on 
Windows XP on 06. September 2008 at 10:25 pm
Hi Hem,
Probably u havent browsed enuf for chrome’s stanalone browser. Its available everywhere, andif u cant find one ask Google search engine and it will lead you to it.
Also its too early to comment on the size as the most important thing is how light is it while runnning and how faster it is while browsing… Whatever may be its plus or minus, this baby is just born… Lets just wait…
Cheers,
zAm
5.
Hem From 
(INDIA)
Wrote Using 
Safari 526.11.2 on 
Mac OS X on 06. September 2008 at 11:00 pm
@ Sourcemorph , When i wrote this, i did search for standalone .. by the way i wrote it the day Chrome got released . Now i can see standalone install packages for Chrome ..
About size it may not matter but its one of the topic when we compare among the browsers.
thanks for the comment anyways
6.
akshay From 
(INDIA)
Wrote Using 
Safari 525.13 on 
Mac OS X on 07. September 2008 at 8:14 pm
Its Very Fantastic Browser ! I Like it Very much
its too faster than any other usual browser …
7.
Roshan Bhattarai From 
(NEPAL)
Wrote Using 
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on 
Windows XP on 08. September 2008 at 11:45 pm
hey man…it’s still in beta phase and I’ve not used it though…I’ll use it after it will come out of the beta version..heard a lot of good thing about it …
8.
hem From 
(INDIA)
Wrote Using 
Safari 526.11.2 on 
Mac OS X on 08. September 2008 at 11:51 pm
Roshan u must have heard bad thing about it here now..
. well i also agree that its good. just wanted to hilight about its bad things
9.
Navin From 
(UNITED STATES)
Wrote Using 
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on 
Windows Vista on 08. September 2008 at 11:56 pm
what I’ve to say is here:
http://www.meroguff.com/2008/09/dissecting-google-chrome.html
I did an honest review on it.
10.
hem From 
(INDIA)
Wrote Using 
Safari 526.11.2 on 
Mac OS X on 08. September 2008 at 11:58 pm
What a coincidence when i got the mail of your comment i was reading your review.. what a coincidence…
11.
ikamat From 
(INDIA)
Wrote Using 
Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.15 on 
Windows XP on 09. September 2008 at 10:17 am
chrome is a very heavy browser
12.
aditya From 
(INDIA)
Wrote Using 
Safari 525.13 on 
Mac OS X on 09. September 2008 at 12:29 pm
ill totaly ugree with this guy “sourcemorph”
i mean.. come on..
i dont think it sdat heavy a browser as its picturised here.
2 b honest, im using a meek 236kbps wireless connection(given d restrictions in my university.. duh!).
n it took only 15 minutes for me to complete the whole installation.. beat dat?
ya, one disappointing feature is, the user has 2 b online for installation..
but again, chrome is still in d beta version. we never know wat all features r up in store!
13.
Danish From 
(INDONESIA)
Wrote Using 
Safari 525.13 on 
Mac OS X on 19. September 2008 at 9:56 am
What a cool information here, I love chrome, but why chrome are sharing information with IE?
mine is about Gadgets review updated daily