Dedicated to my late brave, beautiful and silly mummy, Debra Ross. I love you mumster.

Skip navigation

Google Chrome goodness!

It seemed less than 5 years ago after Microsoft’s dominance over Netscape that the browser wars were over and innovation was all but dead. What a glorious time to be alive now!

Ah yes the intertubes are all abuzz with Google’s release of it’s Chrome web browser. As soon as the initial reaction of "oh no, not ANOTHER browser to test documents in!" quickly faded, my curiosity and general love of Google products took over and I went to their website to download the first beta, and to see how it compares with my beloved Camino.

As far I as I can tell given the limited information available (and feel free to corrrect me if I’ve made a mistake!), Google Chrome is based on Webkit, the rendering engine Apple adopted from the KDE Konqueror project. This is of course the same rendering engine used in Apple’s Safari web browser and Nokia’s Symbian browser amongst others.

Google Chrome in the Mac OS X dock

Unfortunately for me, Chrome currently is for Windows only, and it has to be XP or Vista as well; my Windows 2000 virtual machine on my MacBook Pro couldn’t even feel the love. Given it is a very early beta that’s understandable though, and Google has stated that support for Mac and Linux is in the pipeline. As I’ll elaborate further below, whether this means the support of the latter OS and presumably X11 will mean I’ll be able to run it on FreeBSD or not will be interesting to see.

I’m going to come right out and admit it now: the user interface of the Chrome browser is just gorgeous. For the first time in a while, I’m ready to admit that another group or company has been able to beat Apple on appearance in a competing software product. Safari and Camino with the UnifyCamino plugin on Mac look swisher than Firefox, but Chrome looks even better!

Google Chrome running Mac OS X
Google Chrome running in Mac OS X

ASIDE: The above image is a shamefully misleading use of the Unity feature of VMware Fusion which allows applications running inside a Windows XP or Vista virtual machine to appear as though they’re running on the Mac desktop.

Chrome uses the same rough layout for the widgets and URL bar as Opera with the tabs positioned at the top. This has always made visual sense to me, because the displayed URL would obviously be different for each tab! In place of a menu bar, the Google folks opted for two discreet buttons on the right hand side which expose lists of options and functions. While I think the layout of these popup menus are a bit on the cluttered side, it’s certainly a slicker approach when compared to Internet Explorer 7’s cluttered and visually unappealing smorgasbord of widgets beside the tab bar.

This layout style is remarkebly efficient and uses far less screen real estate than Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox in their default configurations. Not only that, but it actually looks like a next generation browser compared to Firefox 3.0’s dissapointinly old fashioned style, or Interent Explorer 7’s horrible layout! The widgets are a bit big though, I’m hoping in the final release there will be an option to scale them down as you can in Firefox, Camino and Safari.

In terms of features it certainly is lacking when compared to Firefox, but then again Phoenix and Firebird lacked features in their early releases too. Whether or not Google allows third party developers to create plugins or whether this will just be a delivery mechanism for Google services will be interesting to see. I’m really looking forward to seeing how they utilise my Google Calendar, Maps and Gmail!

Google Chrome's Incognito mode
Google Chrome’s Incognito mode

One feautre I think is very swish is the "Incognito" mode, similar to Safari’s "Private Browsing" mode in that it stores no information about anything you do in the session once you close it. This means you can browse to sensitive sites with confidence such as internet banking and por… uh… recipie sites for grilled cheese which you don’t want others to see.

It will be interesting to see what effect Chrome has on Firefox’s still growing market share. Unfortunately a very significant portion of people who run Windows see Interent Explorer as "the internet" and don’t even know you can swap it out. People who know enough about browser software probably are using Firefox now, and they’re the ones who’ll be checking out and using Chrome. Then again, Google has shown time and time again that it’s capable of generating interest in it’s products outside the core of computer savvy users. Perhaps Firefox will take a hit.

Of course the thing I’ll be looking at closely is the licence it will be released under, and specifically the way in which others will be able to access the code. Some sites are reporting that Chrome will be an open source browser, but others I read claim that only the underlying guts of the application will be open source and the interface will be closed, ala Mac OS X. If it’s the former, as a FreeBSD user I’d be delighted to compile it for use on my machine if they don’t supply native FreeBSD binary downloads, if it’s the latter I guess I’d be stuck with using the Linux version with FreeBSD’s Linux Compatibility Layer which would be workable, but less than ideal, especially when browsers such as Opera officially support FreeBSD, and Firefox and Konqueror can both be compiled and natively run.

The Google Chrome user interface
The Google Chrome user interface

ASIDE: My caesar salad just arrived! I never used to like anchovies; actually I used to HATE anchovies, but now I just can’t get enough of them! What salads have to do with a Google browser I’m not sure, but since when have I let relevency get in the way of what I’m discussing here?

For what it’s worth, the first thing I tried with the Windows version of Chrome I downloaded was trying to get it to run under Wine: for those who don’t know Wine is a project working towards complete and free implementation of the Windows API so regular Win32 applications can run in Unix-like environments. In FreeBSD 6.3-Stable and NetBSD 4.0 virtual machines on my MacBook Pro it spat out a list of errors relating to drawing elements on the screen from what I could gather; perhaps you Linux folk might have more success. If you’ve got it running under Wine, I’d love to hear about it!

All in all I’m very interested to see where this Google Chrome whatnot goes. I’m not sure whether I would personally use it as my day to day browser (LONG LIVE CAMINO!) but more software in the browser ecosystem can only be a good thing, especially when it comes to getting people off Internet Explorer. Perhaps Firefox’s market share may suffer slightly, but such is the nature of competition, and more is good!

Drive letters in Mac OS X

While sitting at the Boatdeck Cafe in Mawson Lakes, I was approached by a bloke who said he had just switched his Windows laptop for a MacBook, and he had a question about drive letters in Mac OS X. I’ve been asked this question many, many times before so I figure many switchers must be having this problem, so I’m posting about the issue here.

ASIDE: Isn’t it funny how Mac people are generally more willing to talk to other Mac people in cafes and whatnot compared to Windows users? I can’t imagine many Windows users saying "I noticed you’re using a Dell, could I ask you some quesions about how to use the taskbar?"

The other funny thing is, I don’t know why this is! Is it just because Macs are less common, or that if you see a Mac user you can be fairly confident they’re running the same software as you? Or is it some psychological Steve Jobs thing?

Mac OS X is the default operating system shipped with new Macs, and it has it’s heritage in Unix. Like other Unix-like OSs such as Linux, Mac OS X does not use drive letters to reference mounted drives: instead it uses essentially virtual directories for each drive located on the primary "root" directory. This would be equivalent to drive c: in DOS.

Windows 2000 Explorer showing drives, for comparison
Windows 2000 Explorer showing drives, for comparison

For example, on Windows if you wanted to reference the notepad.exe in the Windows folder on your primary hard disk, and another file on your optical drive, the addresses would typically look something like this:

C:\Windows\system32\notepad.exe
D:\Folder\Another\chuckpeddle.txt

On a modern Mac, your primary hard drive is typically the one where you have Mac OS X installed. Therefore, all drives you have mounted on your Mac will not only appear on your Desktop, but will be found within their own virtual folders in the hidden Volumes directory on the primary hard disk, which is ALWAYS referenced with a single forward-slash /.

Leopard Finder showing the hidden /Volumes directory
Leopard Finder showing the hidden /Volumes directory

Here are some examples. The first is the address of a file in our Applications folder on our primary hard drive, the second is a CD-ROM we’ve inserted, and the third is a USB key:

/Applications/TextEdit.app
/Volumes/Microsoft Office 2008/Installer.app
/Volumes/Ruben Memory Key/homework.txt

Notice how the virtual directories which are named after the volume essentially replace the drive letter used on Windows, DOS, CP/M etc. In the first example we didn’t need to reference the Volumes folder because it’s on our primary hard disk. Mac OS X also uses forward-slashes instead of back-slashes (just like a URL) just like other Unix-like systems.

The only caveat to this system is that Apple intentionally hides the /Volumes folder by default. To view it in the Finder, navigate to the Go menu and enter /Volumes.

Of course you can also fire up your /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app and enter cd /Volumes, then ls to list the contents.

My favourite free Windows 2000 security tools

Windows 2000-tanIn this second post in my unintended short series on how to use Windows 2000 in a virtual machine (for pesky software you can’t run under Wine on your efficient Unix-like machine or your beautiful Mac), I’m looking specifically at security software. If you use Windows all the time you probably already know about these, this is specifically for people who don’t really use Windows unless absolutely necessary!

Service Pack 4 Network Installer
This absolutely goes without saying! I much prefer downloading the so-called Network Installer and running it separately, that way if in the future you need to re-apply it or even install it on another system you don’t have to download files again.
Rollup Update 1
Download and run this after you install Service Pack 4, and you’ll get all the updates that were released up to September 2005. You’ll still have a lot more patches to install when you run Windows Update afterwards, it bit will go much faster.
Avast Antivirus or AVG Antivirus
Both of these freeware virus scanners are world class, fast, lightweight and miles better than any of the really expensive utilties such as Norton. AVG uses less system resources, but I like the way you can set Avast to update itself and its definitions automatically. Up to you, they’re both fantastic. My only suggestion if you choose Avast would be to uncheck the "Skins" feature in the installer, the normal interface is the best.
Spybot - Search and Destroy
I’ve always preferred it to Lavasoft’s AdAware; I’m not sure whether it’s the cute message to his wife in the installer, or its no-nonsense interface :-). The latest versions even include a feature called TeaTimer which runs in your system tray and warns you when any application is attempting to edit the registry, very nice!
TrueCrypt
A very slick and easy way to create encrypted virtual folders, or you can use it to encrypt your entire drive, on the fly. According to some basic benchmarking by Steve Gibson on the Security Now podcast/audio magazine/New Time Radio programme, the latter method in fact even makes your drive perform better than without it! If you’re running Windows 2000 within a virtual machine on Mac OS X it provides a great way to secure your virtual disk image without having to keep it within an encrypted DMG image as I used to do. And it’s Free and Open Source!
GRC freeware tools
If you’d rather not poke around and change registry settings or hidden system files yourself, Steve Gibson has bucket loads of freeware software tools that can do more things than I have time to post here. Most of them can be downloaded, used once and archived, no need to install which is nice.

Windows 2000 security apps in action

Making restitution for my Vista post

On April fools day I had noticed many people on Twitter were saying how they hated news stores and blog posts that were blatantly fabricated in a vein attempt to be funny. As I never like to irritate people, especially with fake blog entries, I tried my hand at posting a fake blog entry review of Windows Vista. Dave Wares and Sharon in Singapore saw right through me, but I did get one serious post!

Anyway to make amends and restitution for that post that made me feel downright ill after reading, I thought I’d post a screenshot and a brief summary of the only remaining Windows version and machine that I do actually still use: Windows 2000 Professional in a virtual machine on my MacBook Pro!

Windows 2000 Professional with SP4 and RU1 in a VMware Fusion virtual machine on OS X Leopard

Unfortunately as resilient as the Wine compatibility layer is becoming, there are some Windows applications that just don’t like being run on anything other than Windows. Surprisinly a lot of this stuff I get comes from my uni (argh), sometimes they’re small utilities that only run on Windows… and then there’s Solitaire.

The advantage of running Windows 2000 instead of XP (or heaven forbid the Vista trainwreck!) in a virtual machine is that you can reserve a tiny sliver of RAM for it and only 1 CPU core and it will still perform very, very well. This is especially useful when you’re on a laptop: running XP or Vista alongside Mac OS X on battery power is not very fun or pratical!

Another consideration with Windows that makes 2000 useful is the commonly known fact that Windows installations degrade in performance over time to the point where it’s just better to reformat your machine and reinstall Windows. With a Windows 2000 virtual machine file, the entire operating system is contained in a disk image thats only a few hundred megabytes. Compared to 1 or 2 gigabytes for Windows XP or the ridiculously bloated size of a Windows Vista install, it means it’s a cinch to backup a fresh install of 2000 and restore it whenever you want.

Windows2000-tan and Firefox-tan, how super duper kawaii!
Even Windows2000-tan admits Firefox-tan is better!

As someone who grew up using various flavours of Windows from 3.x to XP before I made the final switch to Mac OS X, FreeBSD and Linux, I say without reserve that the Windows 2000 interface is still the best that Microsoft came up with. Luna on Windows XP looked childish and the Vista interface can cause serious eye damage for a laundry list of reasons.

And the final reason why Windows 2000 is more bearable than XP or Vista? No product activation! That’s right, as a legitimate licence holder I’m not treated like a criminal every time I have to restore an image! It’s so refreshing!

In my next post I’ll be listing some of the software I use to make Windows 2000 more bearable and feel more like a real OS, such virtual desktops, snapping windows, SSH clients and whatnot, if you’re forced to use a flavour of Windows at some point.

Just bought VMware Fusion

A couple of days ago I finally gave in and purchased a copy of VMware Fusion. Having used the demo versions of Parallels Desktop and Fusion on my MacBook Pro I decided VMware’s product was much more suited to my needs. Parallels seems to be great for running Windows, but my main use is for FreeBSD and other Unix-like development which Fusion has better native support for (official additions for FreeBSD and Solaris anyone?). And with a special offer of $39.00 for first time beta purchases before the final version came out I figured it was the best choice. I should have taken a PR course at university instead.

So now I have the final, official retail release of VMware Fusion running on my MacBook Pro, and I’m loving it. Having a dual core processor with VT support really kicks some serious virtual arse.

Below is a screenshot of fresh virtual machines running OpenBSD 4.1 sitting at the shell, NetBSD 3.1 with a basic OpenBox window manager session, ReactOS and an installation of Windows 2000 Professional humming along:

VMware Fusion

I do admit I do run a purchased, fully licenced copy of Windows 2000 as a virtual machine to run a few apps that don’t work so well on Wine, and for testing of my websites using Internet Explorer 6. Windows XP and Vista just add useless features and require more system resources, so 2000 works just nice. Well, as nice as Windows can.

Below is a screenshot of AutoPatcher running under Windows 2000 using the Unity feature of Fusion which makes it look as though Windows applications are running on the Mac OS X desktop. I much prefer to use AutoPatcher than Windows Update because it means I don’t have to run Internet Explorer to use it, and I don’t call home to Microsoft.

VMware Fusion

And here it is running in it’s own window. I actually think I prefer having it this way:

VMware Fusion

I just love having virtual machines. I can tinker away with really fascinating operating systems and learn so much, without stuffing up anything when I do something wrong. It’s great for sand boxing, and it also allows me to run a scaled down FreeBSD machine with just the bare basics so I can study without distractions. Not to mention compiling applications for different platforms… the possibilities are so exciting!

Or maybe I’m just easily excited ;).

Operating Systems Ranked

I’m sure if you’re anywhere near as obsessed about operating systems as me you would have seen this graph from the ComputerWorld website floating around before, but I thought I’d post it anyway:

02_introchart.jpg

While as a 6 year user of Apple I agree with the placement of Mac OS X, I’m not sure I really agree with some of these other rankings. I really don’t think Windows XP improved usability over Windows 2000; in fact (as anyone who reads this blog knows) I still use Windows 2000 for my Windows apps because I think it’s more stable, usable (and easier on the eyes) than XP. And I think Vista is a hell of a lot worse than both of them… having to wait 10 seconds for a new Windows Explorer window to appear just so it can have some tizzy eye candy? How does that improve usability?!

And what’s with BeOS? Sure it didn’t have many drivers but it was surely more usable than that. And is CP/M really that much worse than DOS? It sure as hell seemed more reliable to me than DOS! And where’s Amiga Workbench? It would have to have at least a 6.5 ;). Or GeOS for the Commodore 128? Ah to hell with it, what about the BASIC interpreter for the VIC-20? Okay, scrap that last one.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree with these rankings.