Google Urges UserstTo Update Graphics Drivers
Old graphics drivers could be the cause of your browsing crashing, says Google.
In a blog post, Google told developers that those fancy WebGL and GPU acceleration features (such as HTML5 video) have a side effect. Users are suddenly seeing many more browser crashes. Google identified "old" graphics drivers as the cause for these crashes, which means that Chrome is explicitly asking for current drivers. "Because stability is one of Google Chrome’s core principles, we’ve recently become stricter about requiring up-to-date drivers and graphics hardware by adding ranges of old drivers to Google Chrome’s software rendering list," product manager Henry Bridge wrote.
At the same time, Google is asking developers to make sure that web pages that take advantage of GPU acceleration should be working for browsers and old hardware as well. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch: Bridge noted that users with outdated drivers cannot expect the same performance as they would get with new drivers. In the future, Google intends to address these issues and "hopes" that it can extend hardware acceleration "to more and more users."
- Testdrive: Chevy Cruze + Low Tech = 58 MPG
- Intel Completes Acquisition of McAfee
- Verizon to Switch to Tiered Plans this Summer
- Former UK PM Killed Steve Jobs' Knighthood?
- 21 Malware Apps Google Removed From Android
- Apple Announces iPad 2 with Dual-core Processor
- Internet Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
- Rescue-bot Uses Kinect to Find Victims
- Havok Tech Coming to PlayStation Phone Games
- Motorola Xoom Costs $360 to Build; Sells at $799
- Netflix, eShop Coming to 3DS This Summer
- Electro Ice Cream Maker Goes Portable
- Video: Prospero the Farming Robot
- Report: BlackBerry PlayBook to Launch April 10
- Some Galaxy S IIs Will Have Tegra 2 Chipsets
- Beijing to Track Cell Phones for Traffic Data
- LG Optimus Pad Priced at €899 in Germany
- MODLI: Endless Lighting Variations
- Solar Pyramid Concept Powers 250 Homes
WOW. Title fail.
Fix it...
we had a good day today eh toms?
double title failures?
Like I said in the other one, editor was probably making poop. That's okay, everyone does it.
This sounds like Google made an oopsie, then tried to cover it up by skirting the blame while they fix it.
This sounds like Google made an oopsie, then tried to cover it up by skirting the blame while they fix it.
This sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about
@typo lunatics:
Does it REALLY have that much of an impact on you? Get a grip, typos happen and for some reason or other they occasionally are not caught. Want some cookies for spotting them?
i never update graphics drivers unless something is broken.
this isnt a driver fail, this is chrome not being well made for older drivers.
@alidan
and i never download windows update until i get hacked.....
@Taryth: It's not just a matter of some of us being grammar nazis; when I hadn't even clicked the link and knew it was a Douglas Perry article there is obviously something wrong. I mean, these are paid writers. They could re-read their articles ONCE at least.
This sounds like Google made an oopsie, then tried to cover it up by skirting the blame while they fix it.
Google is simply telling you how to fix a problem that they didn't cause. Since when is it Google's fault that your video drivers are buggy? At least they didn't say we're viewing the page wrong.
how about they just quit putting up flash ads and filling the screen with them. i don't buy a $300 video card for it to run ads in my face!
i should make a script app that changes all the ads to porn or pictures of kittens and puppies. i'd probably have more money then zuckerberg if i did.
This sounds like Google made an oopsie, then tried to cover it up by skirting the blame while they fix it.
When Google designs their software to follow API specs, and the implementation of that spec is broken (ie: a lot of stuff in DirectX), its not their fault. Wine for Linux has a heck of a time with windows DirectX implementations since a lot of them are broken in certain ways they have to try emulating.
@typo lunatics
How about just coming across as professional and not like some slacker who halfasses everything. It doesn't take that long to proof one's work. Hell, Word would have caught the error above.
To the grammar nazis, due to postings from jane, we know that they have a very limited number of characters to put the title in to. Could it be that they couldn't think of how to reword the title and still have it clear, and since it was only one character too long, they opted to puropsely delete a space as that was the best option given limitations they had to work within? I know I've done the same. I don't know what the limit is, nor am claiming that this is in fact what happened, but I am willing to give him the benifit of the doubt, as that was the first thing I thought when I saw the title.
ahh hell, never mind, I just noticed the extra "t"
UserstTo?
PROOF READ FOR &@#$ sake! This is just unprofessional...
need i say more?
lawl... half the time i go to help somebody with a computer running crappy its cause all of thier drivers are out of date, thier virus protection is old and they have malware... and windows isn't updated cause "what do you mean i shoudl update when windows says to i just exit out of all that"
I think there are some people here who only come here to try and complain about grammar and spelling. They made a mistake...is the cursing and caps lock really needed?
At least I know the person behind the key board isn't "Watson" or "Skynet". To err is human to forgive is divine..
Damn! They aren't even an operating system or 3D game and they are making equipment requirements??? Next thing... Google search requires Quad-Core with 8Gig of Ram and 2Teras of disk space. Ummmm... Hey Google Chrome, how about modding and refining your code for better compatibility.
@starryman
This has move has less to do with Chrome's performance as an application of an O/S and more to do with Chrome's performance in allowing web developers to do more. Let me see if I can help. This isn't about hardware requirements. This is about merging hardware and browser technology to catapult the web from image and text to 3 dimensional applications and a web centric world. Logistically, this centralizes power (through data organization) which is Google's business goal.
The problem is that right now Google has to convince users to take every step. The steps they are taking is an effort to integrate and create a dependency on their browser. Short term this is very good for the user. Google has enormous capital, gives most of its products for free or a very modest fee, and propels innovation.
As a side note: Long term this is very trusting. Who is to say they will give up the power in the future if they change the status quo? (i.e. charge money; in lieu of their advertising business crumbling for example). Whenever you create power structures you have to be ready for the consequences, both good (organization and advancement) and bad (dependencies and demands). One solution to the problem is open source, but it isn't the cure all to the problem, but that's another long story.
@starrymanThis has move has less to do with Chrome's performance as an application of an O/S and more to do with Chrome's performance in allowing web developers to do more. Let me see if I can help. This isn't about hardware requirements. This is about merging hardware and browser technology to catapult the web from image and text to 3 dimensional applications and a web centric world. Logistically, this centralizes power (through data organization) which is Google's business goal. The problem is that right now Google has to convince users to take every step. The steps they are taking is an effort to integrate and create a dependency on their browser. Short term this is very good for the user. Google has enormous capital, gives most of its products for free or a very modest fee, and propels innovation. As a side note: Long term this is very trusting. Who is to say they will give up the power in the future if they change the status quo? (i.e. charge money; in lieu of their advertising business crumbling for example). Whenever you create power structures you have to be ready for the consequences, both good (organization and advancement) and bad (dependencies and demands). One solution to the problem is open source, but it isn't the cure all to the problem, but that's another long story.
You write elegantly and hit it on the nose.
1. "Logistically, this centralizes power (through data organization) which is Google's business goal. "
Nobody wants or needs centralized power or data aggregated by one company. Google will pay for this dearly.
2. "Google has enormous capital, gives most of its products for free or a very modest fee, and propels innovation. "
This is where the public is under a cloud of Google mania. It is not free and it is not a modest fee. Privacy and independence is priceless. Google steals something that is not tangibly priced in the market and users will soon understand this.
3. "The steps they are taking is an effort to integrate and create a dependency on their browser."
A browser is no longer a browser if it controls every aspect of the users input which is then recorded by a third party with questionable TOS. The browser is now a terminal again.
Open Source! Open Source! = Independent Thinking and Living
The benefits to the public is too great in their eyes. i can list each products benefits and problems. The average Jo is going to choose the benefits every day of the week. They would rather have youtube + google maps than protect their search fields. Especially if all the search field information is geared to streamlining the experience. Yes you run the risk of giving Google too much power, but the masses have always failed in that direction. All the benefits are concrete, all the problems are abstract. Until abstract problems start becoming concrete, the masses won't care one straw.
@typo lunatics
Actually, I'm more amazed by the fact that they haven't fixed it yet.
It obviously does look more professional without typos, and so comments pointing them out should be welcomed, but we don't have to be jerks about it.
Well said out of the way.