Google Chrome Runs The Internet Gauntlet > Wouldn't Know

Wouldn't Know

reply to Derspankster

reply to Linklist
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!

reply to Linklist

reply to Matt3

reply to Matt3

reply to Linklist

Hallmark.com Sign In

reply to Matt3
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.

reply to Matt3

reply to jc100
Yeah, because this isn't like, a beta release or anything.

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.

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.

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.

Well, that's kinda why Google doesn't build cars. You're kinda stretching it, don't you think?

reply to jc100
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?

reply to Derspankster