I got home tonight to find my Nintendo Wii flashing an alert at me (it gets updates over a wireless network to my broadband connection).

When I checked the incoming messages, I was informed out that Nintendo have decided to release their Internet Channel for free.

Channels are basically software applications which are installed on the Wii’s hard disc. Some provide access to game data without needing to load the game, while others, like the Internet and Photo Channels offer specific enhancements to the Wii experience.

The Internet Channel is not lightweight – it occupies about 10% of the available storage on the console, probably due to the installation of Adobe’s FlashPlayer. Still, I figured I’d give it a go.

I’d never downloaded anything from the Wii Shop before – next time I’ll be sure to mute the television when I do, since the progress bar involves Mario running and killing a bunch of Goomba’s with a very annoying repeated ‘bling’ everytime he gets one. Thankfully, it didn’t take too long.

Sound is also an issue when using the browser in the channel – there are clicks and twurps as you wave the wand around the page to hover over links and also when scrolling and zooming.

I was surprised to find that the browser was built on top of Opera (I guess, with their relative success on mobile platforms it did make sense for them to be approached for a console browser) – although the only reason you’d know is the badge when you first start and the big ‘O’ on the home button. The rest of the design fits the typical aerogel of the Wii interface.

Web pages load pretty quick, although some elements seemed to take longer to render (for example, the banner up the top). I also didn’t notice any major issues with CSS/HTML breaking. Text is a bit hard to read on my screen, but I have a 15 year old 24″ CRT. However, since the Wii doesn’t have a HD output, standard browsing will likely be problematic on any screen. You can zoom in and the text becomes legible – but this then incurs horizontal scrolling on most sites.

You only have a choice of Google or Yahoo as your in-browser search, but you can use any other search engine as a web page.

Visiting YouTube redirects to the YouTube XL platform, designed for consoles. Image quality is pretty good (the videos I watched were at minimum the same quality as the television itself), but the platform skips frames as a bandwidth saving measure. I have to admit, though, that the movies didn’t pause while the cache was topped up.

For a free browser you can use on your television, I think that this is pretty good. I wouldn’t have downloaded it when it cost 500 points, though (I’m not entirely sure on the dollar to point ratio at the moment, but I think that is about $5-10).

There are a couple of issues – the aforementioned navigation sounds as you use it are a bit annoying. Also, there doesn’t seem to be any parental control for the channel at all – meaning any family member could access any content (not a problem for me – but seeing as I know a number of families with young children and a household Wii, it isn’t ideal for them).

Still – if you have a Wii, and don’t mind it eating 10% of the storage, give it a try. At the least, you can remove and have not lost anything but a little bit of bandwidth for the download.

When I write my own websites and frameworks, especially when they’re using rewritten URLs, I setup the sites to have their own 404 pages, so that people know that the site is there, but that there is a problem with the link they followed.

This just makes sense – since you can’t guarantee that incoming links are correct, and getting a generic 404 error page can make people think that you just don’t have a site at all – whereas seeing a branded error page, maybe with suggested places to find related content on your site, or at least some recourse to indicate a problem to a suitable site contact.

A History Lesson

Now, search engines, browsers and other agents, don’t understand page content, so having a framework simply replace the content with the ‘error’ message isn’t enough to let them know there’s a problem. For that, you should use HTTP response codes – which is where the ‘404‘ actually comes from as this is the numeric code sent to identify a ‘page not found’.

Many years ago (before the days IE6, if you can imagine such a dark age), many sites didn’t really setup these 404 pages (although, a significant proportion still don’t – but the majority do). Instead, rather poor and cryptic default error messages were sent from the web server, which would mean next to nothing to the average user.

So, back then, browser developers would replace almost anything sent from a server that wasn’t accompanied by a ‘good‘ response code with a ‘friendly’ message – usually on the lines of a more expansive message, and even a link to a search engine in some cases.

Most site and framework developers are now, and have been for some time, properly handling URL address and other errors, and the need for browsers to provide the ‘friendly’ message was pretty much removed.

Google Chrome – A little behind?

This, at least, has been my experience with the major browsers for the past few years – they don’t obfuscate what the server is doing.

Until Google Chrome came along, at least. It turns out that Google like their new browser to do what most others stopped doing years ago. On receiving the 404 code from the server, the browser’s default behaviour is to ignore any further content and replace it with Google generated suggestions and search form.

Now, I can see why Google would like this behaviour – any chance to channel someone through their search engine is a chance that someone will follow an advertised link, and then Google get money.

This default behaviour can be turned off from the browser’s options, but it isn’t exactly obvious what is happening nor is the option labelled clearly enough that I was not forced into a short round of ‘click and see if that works’. It is also quite naughty, I think, because there is no indication that a site/server actually responded and that its just a page not found.

Let’s see what Google say.

I just opened the admin pages for a client site in Chrome – and the installed WYSIWYG editor (Xinha) produced this nice little message.

It’s a little worrying that the editor doesn’t recognise WebKit properly (makes me wonder if any of the client users have had a problem running the editor on Safari – although we have had no complaints).

Still, I like the optimistic-realism “I’ll try… it might not work”. In fact, that should probably be the motto of the internet.

Well, guess I’ll have to revert to FireFox for this particular task, anyway.

My Tuesday morning newsfeeds were all a-buzz with the sudden announcement that Google’s long awaited contribution to the flock of intenet browsers would be released in the next 24 hours. It was widely known that Google were working on a new browser, but an accidental early release of some of the promotional material took almost everyone by surprise.

Wednesday morning came around, and my newsfeeds were all a-buzz with a bunch of stories talking about the first impressions of this new browser – mostly positive.

This morning, there were even more newsfeeds. These brought about the more detailed analyses and a few more interesting points about Chrome.

My First Impressions

I downloaded Google Chrome yesterday to take a look. The download itself wasn’t very large, and the installation was extremely fast.
The installer asked me politely if I would like to import everything from Firefox – and it really meant everything. My browsing history, my bookmarks (actually, not so much with the RSS feeds), even saved passwords.

And then I was in the browser – only a couple of minutes after clicking the download.

It certainly seems faster – Google Maps is a notorious resource hog in other browsers, thanks to all the supporting JavaScript that is going on there. It almost seems seamless in Chrome.
The multiprocess aspect of the software helps there – allowing the browser to do other things while waiting for the JavaScript to do its thing. This multiprocess design is also a big plus when it comes to getting a bad page script crashing.
Traditional browsers, like Firefox and Internet Explorer, will completely crash out, forcing you to reload the whole browser and choose between reloading all the previously opened tabs (including the offending page which may or may not crash again) or killing your previous session (very annoying if you were in the middle of publishing something on a message board, for example).
Chrome, on the other hand, just crashes the tab – letting you close it or reload it without affecting anything else.

I can’t see any difference between page layouts in Chrome or Firefox, even with sites that are nasty messes of tag soup, which is certainly a good thing.

Unfortunately, this is a beta release, and Google have quite a way to go before I seriously consider making use of the Chrome as my main browser. I depend far too much on the plugins available in Firefox.

Still, I would recommend anyone with IE to take a good look at Chrome, but maybe hold back for a couple of months before making the switch while Google get the main kinks out.

The Wider Audience

So, how has Chrome been received?

Clicky Web Analytics monitors traffic from around 45,000 websites, and they’re showing almost 3% of the marketshare being taken by Chrome already – almost twice as much as Opera and about half-a-percent less than Safari. Still, it is a long way off from Firefox and Internet Explorer (29.5% and 61% respectively).

Still, 3% in only about 48 hours is a reasonable uptake.

Speed Claims

cnet published the results of a series of JavaScript benchmarks of the mainstream internet browsers almost as soon as the browser was available. While the numbers are impressive (Chrome comes out about 10 times faster than the others), it should bear in mind that all of the benchmark tests are hosts on the Google website.

A few hours later, Ars Technica released some information about Firefox’s new JavaScript engine which is likely to be released with the next major update coming soon.

Licence Problems

There has been a big backlash on the web over some parts of the licence agreement for installing the browser.

It seems that the EULA has suffered copy-and-paste issues, with some of it not making sense, and even giving Google ownership of what you view and do in the browser.
It hasn’t taken Google too long to react, though, and now they have edited the agreement and made this change retroactive.

Final Assessment

Despite this, and a small number of other reported problems Google Chrome obeys alternate CSS, not playing with some Google apps, and a minor security issue, I think that this is a good initial release of the software.

Sure, there are bits missing, such as no plugins, but it is, after all, a beta. Google are up front about this, and are keen to get user feedback so that they can make the next iteration better.

If you want to give it a go, download it from here.