Never miss an update Follow AppleInsider
Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 08:08 pm
Google Chrome browser updated for Apple's Retina display MacBook Pro
Google Chrome users with Apple's next-generation 15-inch MacBook Pro can now take advantage of the high-resolution Retina display with their browser.Google announced on its Chrome blog on Tuesday that the latest "Stable" release of its browser adds support for high-resolution Mac Retina displays. The software is now available for download from Google's website.
The search giant first announced in June that it was working on adding high-resolution support to its browser for Retina display Macs. Chrome stood out as one popular software choice that looked particularly poor on the Retina display MacBook Pro.
Released at the Worldwide Developers Conference in June, the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display has a screen resolution of 2,880 by 1,800 pixels. Optimized versions of Apple's own software for OS X, including its Safari Web browser, became quickly available, while some third-party applications took more time.
Chrome and Valve's Steam were singled out by AppleInsider in its own review of the MacBook Pro with Retina display. While Chrome has now been updated for the Retina display, Steam and other popular applications, like Adobe Photoshop, have yet to be updated.
On Topic: MacBook Pro
- Deals: dozens of new MacBook Air and MacBook Pro Retina configs at lowest prices anywhere
- Gazelle sees 171% spike in MacBook trade-ins ahead of WWDC
- B&H Photo celebrates release of iPhone and iPad apps with exclusive MacBook deals
- Amazon sells out of entry-level 13" Retina MacBook Pro amid rumors of slimmer model
- Dual-mic MacBook Air expected at WWDC, legacy MacBook Pro to remain without update
Previous Comments View All
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number.
In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly.
There are definitely too many versions in a hurry but It was NOT the ONLY part of the release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number.
In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly.
Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number.
In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly.
I have no problem with them doing versions in that way. There really is no good way to choose when a primary, secondary , tertiary, etc. version should be changed. Do you measure the amount of effort? The time? The cost? UI changes
The number of lines changed?
In the end what it comes down to is if the browser is good and if it's better than the previous version it's replacing. On top of that, when it comes to something users spend so much time using any way to make them aware that they should have the best version for their chosen the better, but with Chrome that's a moot point as the updates are seamless.
Just to be clear the 15-inch MacBook Pro display resolution is of 1440 x 900 by default, and can be upped at 1920 x 1200.
Quote:
Hmm, excepting that they don't advertise any version number, unlike firefox or others, so your rant is pointless.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number.
In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly.
Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number.
In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly.
What do you mean there's no good way to choose? Everybody else manages to use the convention well enough. Look at Apple's own apps for example - they're mostly in single digit major releases because they follow the industry standard of
Major update . Minor update . Maintenance update (Bug fix or very minor feature)
You can quibble about exactly what goes in each division, but it's generally pretty obvious when an update is major or minor. Even OSX itself follows this pattern pretty consistently, (with occasional exceptions like adding the Mac App Store as a maintenance release).
There's a difference between installing a security patch and upgrading to a new browser engine. I'd want to know which I was doing in advance because sites or plugins I'm relying on might be broken for a while after a major update.
Chrome and Firefox's sudden switch to ludicrous versioning is nothing but a cynical ploy to make themselves seem more mature than IE and Safari (even though they're much younger) because they have bigger version numbers. It's pathetic.
Originally Posted by Sensi
Hmm, excepting that they don't advertise any version number, unlike firefox, so your rant is pointless.
Hmm, excepting that they don't advertise any version number, unlike firefox, so your rant is pointless.
Which certainly explains why every article about this topic except the AI one says "Chrome 21 released" or a variant thereof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
What do you mean there's no good way to choose? Everybody else manages to use the convention well enough. Look at Apple's own apps for example - they're mostly in single digit major releases because they follow the industry standard of
Major update . Minor update . Maintenance update (Bug fix or very minor feature)
What do you mean there's no good way to choose? Everybody else manages to use the convention well enough. Look at Apple's own apps for example - they're mostly in single digit major releases because they follow the industry standard of
Major update . Minor update . Maintenance update (Bug fix or very minor feature)
Yes, there is no good way to define what features or changes fall into the categories you mention. I think Mac OS X updates have been a major undertaking but by your measure they are just getting minor updates (e.g,: 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8). There are others who think they are no more than "service packs" that deserve a tertiary increment.
Quote:
Which certainly demonstrates that most tech so-called editors/journalists are lazy, continually quoting among themselves, or here simply because their source is the developer blog and that they found this meaningless number relevant, yet Google doesn't advertise the Chrome version number.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Which certainly explains why every article about this topic except the AI one says "Chrome 21 released" or a variant thereof.
Which certainly explains why every article about this topic except the AI one says "Chrome 21 released" or a variant thereof.
Quote:
The numbering of Apple's OS X operating system is really a marketing ploy/gimmick.Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Yes, there is no good way to define what features or changes fall into the categories you mention. I think Mac OS X updates have been a major undertaking but by your measure they are just getting minor updates (e.g,: 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8). There are others who think they are no more than "service packs" that deserve a tertiary increment.
Yes, there is no good way to define what features or changes fall into the categories you mention. I think Mac OS X updates have been a major undertaking but by your measure they are just getting minor updates (e.g,: 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8). There are others who think they are no more than "service packs" that deserve a tertiary increment.
If you use the major.minor.maintenance numbering model, there really are three major versions of OS X.
10.0 - Cheetah (2001), the original release
10.4 - Tiger (2005), the first version that eventually supported x86-based architecture (starting with version 10.4.4)
10.6 - Snow Leopard (2009), the last version that supported PPC-based architecture, and what Apple called a total "under the hood rewrite"
So theoretically, Tiger should have been OS 11.0 (or XI) and Snow Leopard should have been OS 12.0 (or XII). Thus Lion would have been 12.1 and Mountain Lion would be 12.2.
Curiously, the three versions are four years apart. There was only 10.5 Leopard that released between Tiger (2005) and Snow Leopard (2009), but we know now that the iPhone operating system (now known as iOS) development sapped a lot of engineering resources away from the Mac OS X group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
The numbering of Apple's OS X operating system is really a marketing ploy/gimmick.
If you use the major.minor.maintenance numbering model, there really are three major versions of OS X.
10.0 - Cheetah (2001), the original release
10.4 - Tiger (2005), the first version that eventually supported x86-based architecture (starting with version 10.4.4)
10.6 - Snow Leopard (2009), the last version that supported PPC-based architecture, and what Apple called a total "under the hood rewrite"
So theoretically, Tiger should have been OS 11.0 (or XI) and Snow Leopard should have been OS 12.0 (or XII). Thus Lion would have been 12.1 and Mountain Lion would be 12.2.
The numbering of Apple's OS X operating system is really a marketing ploy/gimmick.
If you use the major.minor.maintenance numbering model, there really are three major versions of OS X.
10.0 - Cheetah (2001), the original release
10.4 - Tiger (2005), the first version that eventually supported x86-based architecture (starting with version 10.4.4)
10.6 - Snow Leopard (2009), the last version that supported PPC-based architecture, and what Apple called a total "under the hood rewrite"
So theoretically, Tiger should have been OS 11.0 (or XI) and Snow Leopard should have been OS 12.0 (or XII). Thus Lion would have been 12.1 and Mountain Lion would be 12.2.
I would argue that there are different defining moments of the Mac OS X even though I like the numbering of 11 and 12, but that's the point, it's all philosophical with no real definition. This sort of stuff is also debated in anthropology (note: used as an umbrella term for all its subfields which include archeology and linguistics) as to when one thing stops and another begins.
Latest Apple Headlines
-
Researchers crack default iPhone Personal Hot passwords in under a minute
~34 minutes ago -
Apple wins $30 million iPad contract from LA school district [u]
~1 hour ago -
Apple patent chief departs amid major ongoing IP lawsuits
~3 hours ago -
Apple TV update adds HBO Go, WatchESPN & more channels
~4 hours ago -
Leaked schematics reveal what case makers expect Apple's low-cost iPhone & 'iPhone 5S' will look like
~6 hours ago - more...
Want to write for AppleInsider? Submit your application now!
Lowest Prices Anywhere!
| Model | Price | You Save |
|---|---|---|
| 11"1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $964.18* | $34.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,206.68* | $42.32 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,400.68* | $48.32 |
| 11" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,691.68* | $57.32 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,352.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,643.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,497.00* | $52.00 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,788.68* | $60.32 |
* price with Promo Code:
APPLEINSIDER01
|
||
| Click for even more configurations | ||
| Model | White | Black | |
|---|---|---|---|
| iPad mini (WiFi only) | |||
| 16GB WiFi |  |
$329.00 | $329.00 |
| 32GB WiFi | |
$429.00 | $429.00 |
| 64GB WiFi | |
$529.00 | $529.00 |
| iPad mini (WiFi + 4G) | |||
 |
 |
 |
|
| 16GB 4G White | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G White | $559.00 | $539.99 | $559.00 |
| 64GB 4G White | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
| 16GB 4G Black | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G Black | $559.00 | $539.99 | $539.99 |
| 64GB 4G Black | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number.
In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly.