Google 'pushing hard' to update Chrome for Lion

[darrylyoung]

I'd like to think that this won't start any kind of browser argument or take the thread too off-topic but how many people here prefer Safari to Chrome? I was always a Firefox guy until I tried Chrome about a year ago - since then I've used nothing else. Does Safari 5.1 have any benefits over the latest Chrome build?

 

[schweb]

Other than "Lion ready" and Apple applications, how much software right now uses tech specific to Lion? I'm genuinely curious since I haven't heard of much.

Smultron. There's one.

Actually quite a few document-based apps have already incorporated versions and resume features.

 

[baggss]

Smultron. There's one.

Actually quite a few document-based apps have already incorporated versions and resume features.

Speaking of which, is there an "official" thread around where we can list what Apps work / are compatible with Lion and which are not? If not we might want to have one so folks can go gripe.

 

[schweb]

Not yet, but this site basically has all that and it's where we've been pointing people to...

Mac OS X Lion Application Compatibility - RoaringApps

 

[vansmith]

Smultron. There's one.

Actually quite a few document-based apps have already incorporated versions and resume features.

Good to know. I hadn't heard of much and more specifically, I thought the Smultron project was dead. Learned two things today!

 

[Discerptor]

I'm not mad personally (don't use Chrome nor do I care to), it just seems that a company like Google, who is an Apple developer, could have had their product on the market from day 1. Other vendors who make Mac software, most with far less users or resources than Google, managed to ensure their software was compliant or have some version that took advantage of the new features within 24 hours of Lions launch.

Googles claim of "pushing hard" seems a bit disengenuouse at best.

But... they did have their software up, running and compliant from Day 1. They just didn't make a new release with extra Lion-only features.

 

[schweb]

But... they did have their software up, running and compliant from Day 1. They just didn't make a new release with extra Lion-only features.

Actually no, there was actually a really big bug with full screen mode, it wasn't Lion compatible. It's still technically not compliant. It may work generally, but it's not bug free on Lion.

 

[baggss]

But... they did have their software up, running and compliant from Day 1. They just didn't make a new release with extra Lion-only features.

The comments by schweb aside, if they didn't make use of Lions features then it wasn't really compliant, was it?. It may be "usable" but that doesn't mean it works correctly. I seriously don't see how any vendor who has had sufficient time to bring their software up to full spec compliance but fails to do so can claim to be "compliant".

For what it's worth MS has some issues with Office 2011 as well, although I have heard far fewer gripes about that than I have about Chrome. They are just as guilty considering they have a whole business unit dedicated to just Mac software, which is more than one can say for Google.

 

[Discerptor]

Ah, I wasn't aware of that bug, schweb - my bad, then. It's especially regrettable when you consider that a sizable chunk of Google's employees use Macs at work.

And I'm going to have to disagree with you on that, baggss. iTunes is incapable of letting me control it from an icon in the top-right of the menubar like the mini-player does with the taskbar in Windows (something OS X can do), but I don't say that makes iTunes non-compliant with OS X. There's a difference between compliance and taking full advantage of every feature on a platform. You seem to equate the two, though, so I'm simply going to leave it at that - there's no point in arguing when there's a difference in definitions.