Sorry, but that this included third party software, intentional termination to prevent resource exhaution and unstable hardware was not evident in the sentence:
"crash rates for the the renderer process (i.e. web content process) are almost half that of 32-bit Chrome"
That sort of implied (to me) that this was a measure of instability of Chrome, not of the surroundings.
Users generally don't know or care if the issue is a bug in Chrome or not. To them the problem is just that Chrome is not working. So, we try to fix it where we can. We have code in Chrome to block third-party hook DLLs that we've identified as making the the browser unstable. We have watchdog code to prevent excessive resource consumption and hangs caused by misbehaving web content or plugins. And while we can't fix bad hardware, we do have signals that attempt to narrow it down as a cause.
That's not to say that some portion of crashes in Chrome are not caused by our own bugs that slipped through our various QA and testing processes. Certainly, those do exist, but in terms of crash rates they are dwarfed by the causes I listed previously.
Well it is trying to render the web, which is no small feat in itself given that rather creative ways in which people construct web pages. One of the more complex parts of a web crawler is the part that tries to extract from the "html" the actual content on the page :-) That some pages render at all is pretty amazing to me.
"crash rates for the the renderer process (i.e. web content process) are almost half that of 32-bit Chrome"
That sort of implied (to me) that this was a measure of instability of Chrome, not of the surroundings.