29 replies to this topic

[armondtimesbelize]

I’m not suprised by this. Chrome auto updates itself without my consent (although I did consent for it to autoupdate in the EULA ) and the installation is so force (like not being able to customize anything…). Things like that are usually signs that the company’s attitude towards the costumer is less that perfect.

Big corporations, that’s what you get. At least it’s open source, so it’ll probably fare well (if google doesn’t manage to tank the whole thing). It’s not like browsers that don’t have a operating system to support them have many chances in the market without open source…

So tell me what you think about this latest Google Freeware Browser.

[EdgabtheGreat]

I just downloaded it and it's really fast compared to IE7 I think I'm converted. I'm going to give Opera a try and see how it meeasures up

I wonder if these browsers can be managed via group policy, I know firefox has a group policy managed version called Firefox Frontmotion.

Edited by EdgabtheGreat, 12 September 2008 - 01:47 PM.

[rayzoredge]

So far the browser is pretty good in my opinion. I haven't had to download any plugins, I haven't had any real hassles, and I like some of the features that even Firefox lacks (like the ability to control tabs and memory management, changing a tab into a window, etc.) What I'm not liking is the look of the browser... it looks like a Fisher Price deal. Even the logo is kind of kid-like, but maybe that was the look that they were going for. I like how the address bar only highlights the domain and for the most part, only goes to the domain when you begin typing in the address of a website. (Firefox remembers names of websites so that's not all that new.) Sites show up fine and not garbled (so far) or out of place. I feel like I'm running this fullscreen all the time... Chrome is invisible as a browser by default, maximizing viewing space. The options are rather limiting though... which is a good and bad thing, considering there's less to tweak and consequently, less to mess up.

Basically, it reminds me of Firefox (since it kind of is like Firefox) but with some better features. Not bad for beta at this point in time.

Can't wait for skins, at the very least. So far, I'm still using Chrome at work, so I guess that says something in itself. Won't use it at home until RC, though.

[EdgabtheGreat]

I also like the way Chrome automatically brings up domains.

I have had a look around and it doesn't seem that you can control Chrome or Opera using Group Policies, there doesn't seem to be a .adm template for them.
So I guess I'll have to stick with IE and Firefox for now. Have to keep in-line with company policy.

[rayzoredge]

Just noticed something funny... figured I'd share.

[daftpunk]

armondtimesbelize, on Sep 12 2008, 01:40 PM, said:

I’m not suprised by this. Chrome auto updates itself without my consent (although I did consent for it to autoupdate in the EULA ) and the installation is so force (like not being able to customize anything…). Things like that are usually signs that the company’s attitude towards the costumer is less that perfect.

Big corporations, that’s what you get. At least it’s open source, so it’ll probably fare well (if google doesn’t manage to tank the whole thing). It’s not like browsers that don’t have a operating system to support them have many chances in the market without open source…

So tell me what you think about this latest Google Freeware Browser.

i hate google chrome so i stick with firefox forever!

[Juxt]

Pros:
Very Lightweight
Chrome's new Javascript engine is very fast
Incognito Mode(aka porn mode)
Each tab is a separate process which means when one tab crashes, not all of them do like in Firefox

Cons:
No add-ons

I don't think I could notice a difference in speed, so the add-ons make me stick with Firefox. And Firefox doesn't crash enough for me to switch over for the tab process thing.

[varalu]

The google chrome browser is good... But still lots of things have to be added to the box fr it to catch up with the big players in the market. It has just started... so we can expect a lot of new features getting added to it in the days to pass.. having my fingers crossed. Also, its very fast and cool.

I don think its going to be a big blow to IE... because they will not shift that easily. Its only the people who are using firefox, will be shifting. Basically the power users. Lets wait and see how the browser usage trend changes in the future.

[pedro-kun]

Google Chrome has the potential to become the best browser there is... First, Google had the guts to do what all the other ones didn't: pick up the good things from every other browser and build a new browser based on all of the good things they caught... Also, they released the code for free!. However, there's still a lot of work to be done... especially in single-core machines (like mine, since I am no speed-freak), Chrome has a very slow performance when handling flash-heavy sites like deezer! (even youtube causes it to freeze momentarilly).

Also, memory consumption is pretty high, but I guess that would be a side-effect from the all the sandboxes... pretty neat, though. Even being a memory-hog, Chrome is a fast memory-hog :p

Another defect... Chrome has no support for animated PNGs nor animated SVGs, which is kind of going backwards in features, relatively to Opera (which supports APNG and ASVG) and Firefox (which supports APNG). It would be nice if it passed the Acid3 when it is done, too...

Aside from these minor annoyances, Chrome really makes browsing comfortable... But it's not ready (it's a beta, lol!)

[rayzoredge]

Just sharing more pictures...

I found this one by Stumbling:

[Juxt]

Oh yeah, there is no comparison between Chrome and Firefox/Internet Explorer, but the Firefox Beta and Internet Explorer beta are almost on par with Chrome. I'd pull up some articles I read before, but I'm too lazy.

[pedro-kun]

Just a tiny detail... don't you people know how to use thumbnails? I'm viewing the forum in a 1440x900 display (unusual for me) and images can't fit in the screen... Even though Opera can fit the image to the screen (and I'm sure some firefox extension does it too), people could simply post the images in thumbnail form, and people wanting to actually see them would click the thumbs. That saves some people the trouble of getting an horz-scrollbar and also the scrolling part (to get past the image).

Remember that some people (especially those with computers not made for gaming), tend to have smaller screens, and use resolutions like 1024x768. It's just irritating when I see images *in a forum* that are bigger than my screen. Please don't do that. It's really not funny nor pretty.

EDIT: Everything said in this reply was the result of a hot-head and some safe browsing (no javascript). I apologize everyone who may have felt offended by this :)

Edited by pedro-kun, 15 September 2008 - 08:24 PM.

[rayzoredge]

pedro-kun, on Sep 15 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

Just a tiny detail... don't you people know how to use thumbnails? I'm viewing the forum in a 1440x900 display (unusual for me) and images can't fit in the screen... Even though Opera can fit the image to the screen (and I'm sure some firefox extension does it too), people could simply post the images in thumbnail form, and people wanting to actually see them would click the thumbs. That saves some people the trouble of getting an horz-scrollbar and also the scrolling part (to get past the image).

Remember that some people (especially those with computers not made for gaming), tend to have smaller screens, and use resolutions like 1024x768. It's just irritating when I see images *in a forum* that are bigger than my screen. Please don't do that. It's really not funny nor pretty.

Sorry... I simply just hotlink the images and slap [img] tags on it. (I don't actually make up the HTML to put up the image, and I'm not hosting the images on ImageShack to provide for a thumbnail.) Firefox and Chrome (or Trap17?) automatically shrinks it to size and displays the forum properly. I just shrunk my resolution back down to 1024x768 just to see how you were seeing it and it still shrinks the image automatically for me with the option to click to enlarge.

If there's a way to do it on Trap17 without too much trouble, do tell. Sorry for the frequent image-posting.

Edited by rayzoredge, 15 September 2008 - 08:03 PM.

[pedro-kun]

rayzoredge, on Sep 15 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

Sorry... I simply just hotlink the images and slap [img] tags on it. (I don't actually make up the HTML to put up the image, and I'm not hosting the images on ImageShack to provide for a thumbnail.) Firefox and Chrome (or Trap17?) automatically shrinks it to size and displays the forum properly. I just shrunk my resolution back down to 1024x768 just to see how you were seeing it and it still shrinks the image automatically for me with the option to click to enlarge.

If there's a way to do it on Trap17 without too much trouble, do tell. Sorry for the frequent image-posting.

Sorry if I did sound like I was a little mad, rayzoredge. After all, this "rant" wasn't supposed to be a rant at all (i just got carried away, not a pretty good day today :s). But after enabling javascript for trap17's forums, I realized that this is a severe defect in the forum itself. So, this post is instead targetting the developers behind trap17... Even though javascript resizing is good because it saves the trouble of having to waste some space in thumbnails, users like myself, who use noscript, don't get the resizing at all... and it looks *bad*. I know, I know, i just have to "turn on javascript for trap17" and it'll all work. Which I did, of course... But still, I think it is pretty bad to leave such core layout features to the scripting engine which may not be available to all :)

Sorry for the people who posted the big images with nothing bad in mind. In fact, I encourage posting images! I like posts with them... still, I prefer thumbnails. However, as it is, it wasn't the users' fault (neither was it my fault... I didn't know that the forum required javascript for reducing the images' size)

sorry for all the trouble :x

Also, sorry for the off-topic generated. :)

Edited by pedro-kun, 15 September 2008 - 08:25 PM.

[rayzoredge]

NoScript is an awesome extension for Firefox... which makes me wonder what Chrome features to detect and combat malicious scripts...

The sandboxing feature will keep things to just one process so that you can kill things safely, but what if you don't know to kill it? Not everyone will be able to recognize a worm threat...

Anyone know of any sites that purposefully has malicious script to "attack" a client for the sole purpose of testing browser security?

[pedro-kun]

rayzoredge, on Sep 15 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

NoScript is an awesome extension for Firefox... which makes me wonder what Chrome features to detect and combat malicious scripts...

The sandboxing feature will keep things to just one process so that you can kill things safely, but what if you don't know to kill it? Not everyone will be able to recognize a worm threat...

Anyone know of any sites that purposefully has malicious script to "attack" a client for the sole purpose of testing browser security? :P

You could always ask that to NoScript's creator eheh :p

As for the security in Chrome, it is virtually the same as any default install of firefox or safari (using chrome and webkit from those browsers, respectively). Still, I'd like to see some adblocking in Chrome (even though I support ads, I don't really like those that become really intrusive and stuff like that. Flash ads aren't good, too... they slow sites down). I'd like to see a NoScript equivalent in Chrome as well, but with granular control like the one that Opera offers (per-site settings regarding javascript, css, plugins, etc).

I asked NoScript's author if he was ever gonna make NoScript able to perform these kinds of custom blockings and he said that he would... However, not until v2.0, at least. Looking forward, though. (especially if Chrome somehow begins supporting firefox's extensions to some degree)

[kudmus]

I only used Chrome for a week and we had to part ways. I did not unistall it but it's no longer my default browser. I t seemed to be too heavy for my gunk-ware laden P3 machine with less than 512MB memory. I think I'll have to try it again when I get a better rig. The thing is resource hungry. It sets the benchmark for what people call a memory hog.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying this is a bad browser coz I think what it does under the hood is worth the resources it will be grazing. I wish they could make it as customizable as Firefox. Until they do that people like me are going to stick to the good old FF.

[miladinoski]

I won't try Google's Chrome until it comes for Linux (which the only OS I use - though yesterday http://is.gd/2FTb CodeWeavers released a free-as-in-beer binaries of Chromium on top of Wine for Linux and Apple's Macs) and thats the time when I'll try it and review it

[rayzoredge]

kudmus, on Sep 16 2008, 09:21 AM, said:

I only used Chrome for a week and we had to part ways. I did not unistall it but it's no longer my default browser. I t seemed to be too heavy for my gunk-ware laden P3 machine with less than 512MB memory. I think I'll have to try it again when I get a better rig. The thing is resource hungry. It sets the benchmark for what people call a memory hog.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying this is a bad browser coz I think what it does under the hood is worth the resources it will be grazing. I wish they could make it as customizable as Firefox. Until they do that people like me are going to stick to the good old FF.

I know that Chrome wasn't exactly much to compare with when it came to being a memory hog, but unfortunately that seems to be the on-going trend with browsers and tabbing, not to mention that Chrome separates each tab as a separate process (to include dependencies for each) and adding new features to better the browsing experience.

I hate how there really isn't a way to make things better without putting more strain on resources... but it is what it is. I'm sure developers aren't too worried about it considering that most everyone is going to be upgrading as time goes on. I don't know of many people that keep their older machines... much less anyone else (in person) that has a machine that has less than 512MB of RAM. I'm sure that in a few years, 2GB will be the new bare minimum.

[galexcd]

What I was really hoping google chrome would be was more than just a browser. I was hoping that this was a browser that would attach itself to your google account, display your google bookmarks, always keep you logged into all of google's services, and perhaps help you sync your google information with your computer. But it turned out that it's just another browser. Now I'm not saying that Chrome is a bad browser, I just had slightly higher expectations when I heard the rumor that google was making their own browser.

[FreedomOverdose]

looks very nice, as i said before. But, it autoupdates , and it needs more add-ons. anyway, it needs some time, and I think we should all give it . Cheers everyone!

[eukristian]

Google Chrome is now my favorite browser . It can be improved but I think it's a bit simpler than Firefox and It's way better than IE 7 .

[saitunes]

From the brief use of it I like it. I'm a mac user so at the moment I'm waiting for the OS X version. For a newly released beta program its pretty good. I like it. (I've use it on the desktop running windows and I liked it). So fingers crossed the mac binary comes relatively quickly unlike qtrax (which is built on songbird) which said a beta release would be out may. Oh well. from this it sounds like something worth waiting for.

Maybe in the near future we might see ads suggesting that google chrome is the way to go, instead of the firefox ads we see.

I still maintain Google should release an OS. I think that would be awesome!

[Evolix]

I don't like Google Chrome. It would be the last web browser I would choose if all the others failed. I think it uses too much cache (I think) when going to a website. (I heard this from someone on another forum, but I'm not sure about it). Yes, it may be open source, but it's not the only browser which is... Mozilla Firefox (the most popular browser ever - I believe) is also open source. Google should not have ever though of making a web browser, I think they should just stick to programs (NOT web browsers), search engine and services.

[xpress]

I am not impressed by Google Chrome. It's not as interesting as I thought. Many called its very light. But I don't think so. It is using approx 20MB for every new tab. And it lacks many features. No options to customize to our needs. No option to block flash content. I think it should have options to disable the plugins it has. May be, future versions include these options and more extensions. Its speed dial is also not good. It keeps adding on its own, and the contents in the dial pad are changing when we go to new sites. Then whats the use with speed dial?
Actually, I am using firefox with AdBlock, and in my Opera also I blocked many adds. When I started using chrome, I was annoyed by the ads and flashes. At present Google Chrome is not even near to the Firefox. May be better than Internet Explorer. Hope future versions of Chrome rocks.