  koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | GoogleUpdate.exe And let's not forget about this little undocumented beauty which doesn't even get uninstalled if you remove Chrome.
Our Security forum guys are going to have a field day with this one.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
|
 |  DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | Re: GoogleUpdate.exe You can uninstall Google Update....
It's used to deliver updates to the Google Apps you have on your PC. Talk, Picasa, Maps....ect.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
|
| | | | Re: GoogleUpdate.exe said by DaSneaky1D:You can uninstall Google Update.... It's used to deliver updates to the Google Apps you have on your PC. Talk, Picasa, Maps....ect. And the Google Toolbar also uses Google Update. | |
|
|  birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:5 | GoogleUpdate.exe also has an options panel where you have to click to display the normally obscured Advanced Options, where one of them is "Upload non-personal aggregate data" clicked by default. At least when I updated GoogleEarth.
Too bad there's nothing that says *what* is being uploaded. If they just wanted to know what someone is searching for, why do they need my computer to tell them? Can't they aggregate their data at their server?
Internet is making me think more "Luddite" and starting to trust Google less and less. | |
|
| |  rcdaileyDragoonflyPremium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA | Re: GoogleUpdate.exe The Updater also defaults to automatically update installed software, so you might want to change that option in the Advanced panel to either "notify" of updates or to check manually only and not get any notification. Most applications have a "check for updates" or the like in the Help panel, so there's really no need for automatic updates. For a browser, however, automatic updates might make sense from a security standpoint, so you get an update whenever there is a security issue discovered. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by birdfeedr:Internet is making me think more "Luddite" and starting to trust Google less and less. Google's business model is data mining, they had almost no ads, and they offer stuff for free. I doubt they subsidize free services with adwords money. | |
|
| ausdog
join:2001-03-29
Catawba, NC | To get Java to run in Chrome you have to enable Mozilla Family in Java Applet in Control Panel. | |
|
| ausdog
join:2001-03-29
Catawba, NC | PS. To get Java to run in Chrome you have to enable Mozilla Family in Java Applet in Control Panel. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Pretty Nice While I have been rooting for the browser's demise because of having to code around "yet another browser," Chrome seems to stick to Firefox's JS implementation. Maybe it is not so bad.
My biggest gripe so far is that I cannot get anti-aliased fonts to work like they do in IE.
--
"At the moment of conception." | |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 |  So far so good
The only annoyance I have so far is that I hate the pop-up status bar when you hover over a link and I don't like the bookmark management system.
I've been using it almost exclusively for the past 24 hours and I think it's a great first effort. It's simple, clean, and functional. IE 7/8 and Firefox have always seemed cluttered to me, so Chrome is refreshing.
The terms of service to me are a non-issue. I have no illusion of privacy online and treat everything I do as such.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | Wouldn't Know There's no Linux version yet. | |
|
|
2 edits | Re: Wouldn't Know Or OS X either
No ad blocking capability is a no starter for me. I have ads blocked in FF and IE7.
Also the javascript engine, while VERY fast is having problems on some sites.
And the scroll bar when using the touchpad on my laptop won't scroll up. But the wireless USB mouse works fine.
They have 6 months of development to do yet before I would even consider using it on a regular basis. | |
|
| | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Wouldn't Know Hey Tk, you're not alone on the mouse problem - although my T60 isn't affected - Google is aware of it. There's a lengthy post in the Google Groups about it.
The no ad blocking is an annoyance, but not really that big of a deal for me. I don't visit sites that have annoying ads and I'd like the site owners where I visit to earn a buck. I can see how some people would hate it though so I'm sure a plugin will come along soon.
On what sites is JS wonky for you? I do a LOT with JS and I haven't had any issues.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | | Re: Wouldn't Know said by Matt:On what sites is JS wonky for you? I do a LOT with JS and I haven't had any issues. I can't give you instances now. But when I tested out Chrome yesterday, the problems cropped up in the interaction between Flash player and a script. The Flash player wouldn't start automatically and even when clicking on the flash frame, it wouldn't respond. But that page worked OK in FF. I don't have the page, because when I close my browsers I wipe out history , cache, etc.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Wouldn't Know said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Matt:On what sites is JS wonky for you? I do a LOT with JS and I haven't had any issues. I can't give you instances now. But when I tested out Chrome yesterday, the problems cropped up in the interaction between Flash player and a script. The Flash player wouldn't start automatically and even when clicking on the flash frame, it wouldn't respond. But that page worked OK in FF. I don't have the page, because when I close my browsers I wipe out history , cache, etc. I gotcha. I had weird problems with Flash too. It's like the flash plugin had to initialize to work properly. The first flash page I tried to view was all screwy. Things were misplaced and broken into sections. I closed Chrome and re-opened it and flash worked properly and has ever since.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Wouldn't Know said by Matt:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Matt:On what sites is JS wonky for you? I do a LOT with JS and I haven't had any issues. I can't give you instances now. But when I tested out Chrome yesterday, the problems cropped up in the interaction between Flash player and a script. The Flash player wouldn't start automatically and even when clicking on the flash frame, it wouldn't respond. But that page worked OK in FF. I don't have the page, because when I close my browsers I wipe out history , cache, etc. I gotcha. I had weird problems with Flash too. It's like the flash plugin had to initialize to work properly. The first flash page I tried to view was all screwy. Things were misplaced and broken into sections. I closed Chrome and re-opened it and flash worked properly and has ever since. I did finally run across one I can document.
Signing in to my Hallmark.com account. It just locks up after providing sign in data and hitting submit. But that works fine in FF & IE.
I also found a description online of someone else with this problem. »expertlancer.com/google-chrome-m···essions/
P.S.> I sent off the bug report to Google development team for the hallmark.com problem.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Wouldn't Know
Hallmark.com Sign In |
said by fAcEtIOUs:I did finally run across one I can document. Signing in to my Hallmark.com account. It just locks up after providing sign in data and hitting submit. But that works fine in FF & IE. I also found a description online of someone else with this problem. » expertlancer.com/google-chrome-m···essions/ Weird. I just signed in fine. The sign in didn't pop up in a window though? I also don't have the problems with Facebook the author mentions?
I wonder if there are a couple different builds of Chrome floating around out there? I'm running 0.2.149.27.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | | | |
3 edits | Re: Wouldn't Know said by Matt:said by fAcEtIOUs:I did finally run across one I can document. Signing in to my Hallmark.com account. It just locks up after providing sign in data and hitting submit. But that works fine in FF & IE. I also found a description online of someone else with this problem. » expertlancer.com/google-chrome-m···essions/ Weird. I just signed in fine. The sign in didn't pop up in a window though? I also don't have the problems with Facebook the author mentions? I wonder if there are a couple different builds of Chrome floating around out there? I'm running 0.2.149.27. I just solved this problem.
1st - I have the same release of Chrome you do.
2nd - I had chosen the option in Chrome to restrict how 3rd party cookies can be used. When I changed that to "Accept ALL cookies", it all worked OK.
But I do like to restrict 3rd party cookies. So I still consider this a bug because I restrict 3rd party cookies in IE and FF and it worked OK there.
I'll have to submit the bug report to Google again with comments on the 3rd party cookie involvement.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| | | | | | | I havent tested Chrome, so I can't speak from experience. However, one would think a deep pocket company like Google would thoroughly test this out before releasing it. Maybe they are Microsoft Junior int he Making. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Wouldn't Know Yeah, because this isn't like, a beta release or anything. | |
|
| | | | | | |
3 edits | Re: Wouldn't Know Well I know its a beta, but still. Wouldn't YOU WANT your best foot forward when launching something new to the public? I would, beta or not. I've never understood why companies fail to optimize their products, so Betas serve more as a proving ground than as a let's go back to the drawing board stage. It'd be much nicer for a company to say, HEY this product WORKED pretty well as we thoroughly tested it. Here you try and see, but you probably won't encounter too many issues. We've already done most of the leg work. Unfortunately, these days, companies tend to rush half finished add unproven products out. I guess its a lot cheaper to have the public beta testers tell you the flaws, than pay the coders to trial the things out themselves. Economics I guess. I'm just pointing out my view none the less.
P.S. Betas are good for UI suggestions, I agree. However, I still don't agree about them being the basis for one having to fix 10,000 various flaws. I think companies should do that work prior to release and give their best foot forward as I stated. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Wouldn't Know I see your point, however this is where your argument falls flat: Google Chrome is open source software. I understand that's not an excuse for "bad software", but the wonderful thing about that is if you'd like, you can create your own version of Chrome using their code, and there's things like bug reports: »code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list
I agree that Chrome has a way to go before it becomes my main browser of choice (mainly extension functionality), but for first hearing about it this past weekend, it's not looking bad so far. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Wouldn't Know Well, I know it is open source, which allows one to customize it. Still, should one be left REDOING everything do to numerous bugs and flaws? Open source is a great concept and builds community around a program. Still, open source shouldn't be used as a ploy to skipping out on the job. I still think companies need to do more to show their best foot forward when showcasing stuff. I mean, would you want GM to beta a new car that looks good, but the breaks don't always work or it fails to start randomly? Then, GM puts this car to market, telling the consumers you need to check these and other bugs. Have fun? The same goes here, even if its just for show, you want it to be the best show ever. Google and companies can do more to help make their new software less buggy and more of an experience. Once again, my view. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Wouldn't Know Well, that's kinda why Google doesn't build cars. You're kinda stretching it, don't you think? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wouldn't Know it was KINDA an example only KINDA with the cars. I wasn't stretching just saying that in business, one should always try to show their best side. The better the first impression (beta or not) the more people you win over instantly. First impressions count for everything in life, whether or not we like to admit to it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Google has right in their promo that they can only test so much automatically. The did as much automated testing as they could to the browser but they couldn't automate something like the hallmark.com login. That is where the beta comes in. Did you forget to read about it before trying it? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wouldn't Know That's the thing, automated. Then they handed it over as a beta to the public. As I said to boot, if I owned Google and I wanted to make a splash, I'd go well ABOVE the automated and have staff test it out for a bit and write down problems. The better you make it before launch (beta or otherwise) the more it shows in your favor. First impressions count and they are the thing that win people over IMMEDIATELY. How many times in life have you gone to a place, had a bad feeling, and LEFT. Everyone has done that. People see this NEW search engine being riddled with problems, and they figure why not stick to time tested ones. Firefox is a great browser, and IT ONLY has 20 percent share of the market. Hence, for Google to win people over, I'd say they'd been better making this beta more of an "experience" than simply find our problems for us type deal via open source community. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  TomClancyFreedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | I wouldn't care if the car was a beta or not if GM offered cars for free I would take and test it but unfortunately they don't unlike Google Chrome which is FREE!
--
Freedom isn't free! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wouldn't Know Well Tom,
You're a brave man. If someone offered you an UNTESTED car, you'd really accept. Hell, I know who to call when I want a crash test dummy!! Your career future is looking bright as a dare devil. | |
|
| |  bubi73
join:2004-02-03
Mundelein, IL | said by fAcEtIOUs:Or OS X either No ad blocking capability is a no starter for me. I have ads blocked in FF and IE7. Also the javascript engine, while VERY fast is having problems on some sites. And the scroll bar when using the touchpad on my laptop won't scroll up. But the wireless USB mouse works fine. They have 6 months of development to do yet before I would even consider using it on a regular basis. I guess it's time to break out the old Proxomitron! | |
|
| |
| | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Wouldn't Know I'm too lazy and/or stupid.
--
I thought I made a mistake once but I was wrong | |
|
| | | rcdaileyDragoonflyPremium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA | Re: Wouldn't Know How can you be lazy and/or stupid and also use linux as your regular OS? | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Wouldn't Know said by rcdailey:How can you be lazy and/or stupid and also use linux as your regular OS? Oh, Linux isn't that hard anymore.
--
I thought I made a mistake once but I was wrong | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
| Wouldn't matter no working browser for linux.
For the website:
Note: There is no working Chromium-based browser on Linux. Although many Chromium submodules build under Linux and a few unit tests pass, all that runs is a command-line "all tests pass" executable.
| |
|
| | Thanks, but no thanks. I like some of Google's products for the desktop, but I don't see any reason to try their new browser any time soon. Like my philosophy (and many others') about waiting for bugs to get stamped out of operating systems and general software, I will wait until the software is further refined.
As for the claim it runs JavaScript faster than IE or Firefox, who really cares? I doubt many people experience a bottleneck waiting for their browser to run JavaScript. And this is coming from someone who generally considers themselves to be willing to live on the cutting edge.
Firefox works just fine... even if JavaScript is slowing us both down. 
--
Never knock on Death's door. Ring the bell and run, he hates that. | |
|
| MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Thanks, but no thanks. said by JohnQPublic:As for the claim it runs JavaScript faster than IE or Firefox, who really cares? I doubt many people experience a bottleneck waiting for their browser to run JavaScript. And this is coming from someone who generally considers themselves to be willing to live on the cutting edge. Believe it or not, rich web apps or ASP (application as a service) platforms that rely on AJAX are severely limited by ancient Javascript engines in IE and Firefox. The Google V8 engine really is revolutionary because it offers multi-threading ... right now Javascript can't execute on more than one processor or processor core.
While I agree that for a user of Google Maps, or GMail, or (insert home user AJAX app here) it's not a big deal, it is a big deal on the business side of things.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
|  Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:10 | quote:
I like some of Google's products for the desktop, but I don't see any reason to try their new browser any time soon.
I think its crap to be honest. | |
|
 gimme5
join:2002-12-23
Kissimmee, FL | I like it I've been trying it out since yesterday, and so far, I really like it. Simple, fast. | |
|
|
| | Linkline DSLR speed test Locked up the Google Chrome until it was done. Rated a speed of 4Mbps. Something with how it was receiving the data from the speedtest, dunno.
Speedtest.net didn't have that issue; it rated my correct downstream of ~15Mbps. | |
|
| | The real question The real question to me is simply, why did Google feel compelled to create yet another web browser, especially in light of the recent push by Microsoft to deliver on standards compliance. If we accept that everybody is moving to embrace web standards, then the need for a Google browser makes even less sense; their services should work equally fine on everything.
The only answer that makes sense here is this browser is designed to push Google services, and most probably, add another wiretap into the browsing habits of the users of said services. The TOS hints at this pretty openly.
It seems that for whatever reason, Google gets a pass when it comes to reality checks. Reality is this is a business, they aren't making a browser to "better the web" out of the pure goodness of their hearts. They see some way push their stuff and collect more behavioral data out of this. I for one went from a Google fan back in the day when it was just their search engine, to a Google skeptic in recent days as I see more and more and more behavioral data collection, to now an anti-Google user who dropped using their services and their search engine over privacy concerns. I don't do anything I'm "scared" of anybody finding out about, so lets not do the whole "only people with something to hide would be afraid" song and dance. I just don't like the idea of Google following me around like a Private Eye anymore than I liked the idea of my ISP allowing NebuAd to collect my traffic and "tailor" the web experience to me. Sorry but there are less intrusive alternatives out there.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." | |
|
| | | Re: The real question While I agree with your concerns of privacy matters -- I am as well, in your first paragraph, it makes little sense to suggest Google shouldn't put out a browser in regards to compliance. Google has a platform to comply to, if it wants to cater to certain users (their choice), and while Microsoft has a play in web standards, it does not run the internet. | |
|
|  KoilPremium
join:2002-09-10
Irmo, SC | Yeah, because they haven't made a ton of other web based apps...this whole browser thing is completely out of left field.
Next thing they're going to make is like a...I dunno..like an email app or something even though MS and Mozilla have perfectly fine apps out there already....OH and then some kinda crazy picture service thing, or maybe some blogger software....man, these guys have some nerve! | |
|
|  buckinghamBuckingham Pa
join:2005-07-17
Buckingham, PA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by BillRoland:The real question to me is simply, why did Google feel compelled to create yet another web browser, especially in light of the recent push by Microsoft to deliver on standards compliance. If you look at this closer, Chrome isn't just a browser...it's an Internet focused operating system. Think about those implications. | |
|
 Woody79_00I run Linux am I still a PC?Premium
join:2004-07-08
united state | bleh I personally will not be using chrome. The TOS are broad and giving someone exclusive royalty free acess to your intelectual property is just a bit too much to swallow...i mean even Microsoft doesn't go that far...
I put IE Beta 2 on here yesterday, and I must say. Microsoft has got a clear Winner!
This is the best IE release since 4.0! absolutly superb
My W3C valid web site renders "perfectly" using Ie8 standards mode view, no longer do i have to work around IE..the same standards pages reder correctly.
IE8 alos loads pages very fast.
Ie8 also has a much improved garbage collector and feels even more snappy than Firefox 3 or Safair...it uses much less memory over time. i have been on youtube, and other java/flash heavy sites since "yesterday" probably aboput 500 page views and ie8 beta 2 is only using about 55-65 MB of ram...thats going to be very tough for folks to beat.
Once this thing goes final...i think it is going to be a major winner..not to mention the new private browsing features, web slices, and activies and new and improved context menus just exteand IE's functionality.
I of course made an image of my drive before installing ie8 and when it goes final i will revert to the back up and install fresh...but i must say...Google chrome which i tried has a "very long way" to go to catch up with Ie8
I'd say IE8 and firefox 3 are on equal ground as the top 2 browsers, with Opera following a close 3rd...i just don't see Google comparing
Besides, why did google renew their agreement with Mozilla and then do this? is Chome using Gecko? or Webkit? what engine is it using? i assume its not using Trident(IE's engine) so what exactly is it using? i was just curious if anyoine knew | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | What a dog I love how they say it is fast, yeah if you don't want to see anything.
Ad blocking doesn't exist, in fact on certain Google Web partners it REPLACES ads with Google ads. WTF!
Flash Handling sucks.
Spyware/Adware built in, with no uninstall after you remove the program.
Tabbed browsing is now multiple processes using pig.
Java load, huge.
Chrome, no thanks....I'll stick with a non-adaware based browser. | |
|
| | Built in Key logger Google told Cnet News.com that they plan to store data you type into the auto complete.
--
Email/MSN: Michael at hardwaregeeks.comAIM: MikeR35292 | |
|
| | | Re: Built in Key logger said by HardwareGeek:Google told Cnet News.com that they plan to store data you type into the auto complete. They already backed down on that:
»news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031···1_3-0-20
Google said on Wednesday that it plans to alter contract terms that gave the search provider broad rights to use anything entered into its new Chrome browser.
"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products," Google said in a statement provided to CNET News. "Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service."
As first noted by CNET News on Tuesday, Chrome's End User License agreement appeared to give Google a perpetual right to use anything one entered into the browser. Section 11 stated that although users retain copyright to their works, "by submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."
Google said the change, once it is made, will apply retroactively to anyone who has downloaded the browser.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
 Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA | Good read over at Neowin.
»www.neowin.net/news/main/08/09/0···to-avoid
Security issues and minor bugs aside, I can expect this with any new beta browser. It's the Eula that scares me. I will steer clear from this one for sure.
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."  | |
|
| |  With Chrome, You Give up IP Rights
That about killed it for me. More on that thread here:
»www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-···oad.html | |
|
| |
| | Changed the EULA Looks like the did fix the EULA
Now reads
11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. | |
|
| | Not want Won't let me download a full installer package. Only allows a tiny starter file to downloads, installs from web.
I gave in and allowed that, and it installed the program in some weird-ass place in which NO OTHER apps are installed: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Application Data
It also installed a bunch of crap in my PAINT SHOP PRO plugins folder, in a subfolder called GEARS. What the hell?
After install I couldn't move the program and make it work. I hosed it out of the system. It was too headstrong and ill-behaved. Maybe I'll check it out later when there's a portable version. | |
|
 Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Head-to-head test: Chrome vs. IE 8 said by infoworld.com :
They're back! Just when you thought the "browser wars" were over, with the two camps – Microsoft and Mozilla.org – settling in for a kind of intransigent détente, along comes Google to stir things up all over again. Clearly, Google is unhappy with the current state of browser geopolitics and feels it needs to roll its own in order to ensure a robust base for its myriad hosted applications (that is, Gmail, Google Docs, and so on).
»www.infoworld.com/article/08/09/···s_1.html
Both browsers are much more resource intensive than single
process browsers like Firefox and IE 7, but Google's
offering outbloats IE 8 by 55 MB (267 MB in the tests for
Chrome, 211 MB for IE 8).
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
1 edit | Installed then uninstalled Yep,
That's how long it lasted on my machine. Long enough to install, see it was running 4 freaking processes, then almost immediately uninstalled. It is beta, but crap beta. Bookmarks are ignorant.
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
|
| | | Re: Installed then uninstalled I just want a simple bookmark button, or a drop down list, or something. The default bookmark bar just takes up way too much realestate. After messing with it for 20 minutes, I could hide the bookmark bar but that's about it.
It's definitely borked in my opinion. | |
|
 JehuPremium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2 | Googleupdate.exe Can someone explain to me why the mysterious googleupdate.exe, which lurks, uninstallable through "add-remove programs", and is called at machine start-up, is not being heraled as a Trojan Horse? | |
|
|  a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
| YAWN!!! Can't we all just go back to using Mosaic or Netscape? Ahhh the good ol' days...
Wonder if there are any more FTP mirrors for Mosaic, I want a copy...
--
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste
My Location: /universe/earth/north-america/USA- fsck that!!! | |
|
| | Less abrasive version released The portable version is out. GOOGLE for it. It plays much nicer. No GOOGLE UPDATE lurking around. No files installed in weird places. Just unRAR the prog into the folder of your choice and run it.
I'm impressed with its rendering speed. Not impressed with much else. Imported bookmarks are incomplete. It grabbed about half my Firefox bookmarks at random. The bright blue interface is annoying, and the available "skins", such as they are, don't really change or improve much.
Bookmark storage and maintenance is truly a primitive horror, and there's no way to easily access bookmarks without the intrusive bar. The level of customization is far too low. I'd like buttons for making text bigger and smaller, as I can with an extension in FIREFOX. All CHROME has is the usual keyboard shortcut.
Even though it's stable, CHROME is, as yet, no functional substitute for FIREFOX 2. FIRFOX 3 sucks, though... | |
|
|
|
·
