Jack Schofield picks up on Paul Thurrot’s question about whether there anything original in Google Chrome?:
"All of the features here are present in existing browsers, all of them. So what does Google really bring to the table?"
The problem with questions like this is that they fundamentally misunderstand what makes software good or bad. The same question is often posed by people looking at Mac and Windows, with much the same conclusions: look at a side-by-side feature comparison between the Mac and Windows, and you’ll probably conclude that Windows has "more features".
And for lots of technology journalists, more features = better, because they operate a check-list approach to reviewing.
Jack (and Paul) are correct, there are very, very few features in Chrome which are original. But that doesn’t matter, because the overall design of it shows a really lovely economy which makes it a treat to use.
I spent half of last night playing with Chrome on my Advent 4211, and on a 10in screen Chrome is by far the best experience of any browser I’ve come across. Chrome uses space well, implementing tabs which feel like they use far less room on a small screen than either IE or Firefox. Even on the 1.6GHz Atom, it’s very fast, with none of the sluggishness I associate with its competitors.
In short, I’m sold. While Chrome may not have lots of original features (or even lots of features at all) it Just Works, and nicely.