dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5203
share rss forum feed


jabarnut
Light Years Away
Premium,MVM
join:2005-01-22
Galaxy M31
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to ashrc4

Re: Google Chrome Now the No. 1 Browser in the World

Interesting timing with this thread. I've had 4 browsers on all 5 of my machines for quite some time.
I recently removed Chrome from three of them because I realized I never used it. (No other particular reason, really...sometimes I get bored and start going crazy uninstalling programs that have sat around and done nothing for several months).
I like to 'tweak' a lot, and Chrome just doesn't cut it for me.
Opera is still my favorite and I use it 90+% of the time....blazing fast (at least for me), and configurable enough to satisfy me.
Privacy and security ? lol
Of course, much depends on the person behind the keyboard, but generally speaking, your so called 'security and privacy' went out the window a long time ago...on many levels, not just 'browsing' the web'. Welcome to the new world.
Just enjoy the browser you like the best...life is way too short.
Personally, I don't care what the number one browser in the world is.
I only care what the number one browser for me is.
--
I had a life once.....now I have a Computer and a Modem.


rv65
Premium
join:2008-08-02
USA!!!!
kudos:1
reply to ashrc4
There is Iron for those who value their privacy.


jabarnut
Light Years Away
Premium,MVM
join:2005-01-22
Galaxy M31
kudos:2
reply to ashrc4
If you truly value your privacy, the only way to achieve that these days is to probably find a place to live deep in the mountains or on some deserted island, with no computer, no phone, no electricity (smart meters, ya know?), no nothing.
And even then, some military/government satellite would probably be watching you and snapping close up photos to be sure you weren't plotting something bad.
--
I had a life once.....now I have a Computer and a Modem.


ashrc4
Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia

1 edit
reply to rv65
said by rv65:

There is Iron for those who value their privacy.

Privacy can not be achieved simply by using a default browser.
alterations and add-ons are needed to improve it.
As for the ISP side of things.

"Since the Patriot Act broadly expanded the power of the government to issue National Security Letters demanding customer records, more than 200,000 have been issued.".......from 2000 to 2011.

That's pretty slim pickings to be worried about the gov side of things and that No. includes others not just ISP's

»www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0···llenges/
--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. "Now is the not right time to stop folding."


chrisretusn
Retired
Premium
join:2007-08-13
Philippines
kudos:1
reply to ashrc4
That's nice that StatCounter reports Chrome as #1. I use Firefox and have extensions installed to block StatCounter......
--
Chris
Living in Paradise!!


Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
reply to OZO

Re:  

said by OZO:

said by Maxo:

There is no proof that Chrome secretly tracks anything, and if it did such proof would not be that hard to find.

Yes, indeed. It's not hard to find...

Google has included a lot of user tracking abilities in Chrome. Chrome sends details about its usage to Google through both optional and non-optional user tracking mechanisms. See details here: Google Chrome - Usage tracking.

Thanks for providing a link that shows that the tracking Google does with Chrome is not a secret. To find secret tracking you would need proof of tracking that goes beyond what was mentioned in that document.
So show me tracking that Chrome does secretly or concede the point.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.blogspot.com

»www.facebook.com/maxolasersquad


Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
reply to KodiacZiller

Re: Google Chrome Now the No. 1 Browser in the World

said by KodiacZiller:

Rightly so in some cases, but not in regard to Chrome. It is a 100% open source browser (just like Firefox). It would be pretty hard to hide some nefarious world takeover plot in the code.

Chromium is a 100% open-source browser. Chrome is Chromium with proprietary code added in. Mostly flash and codecs, but some other stuff too, like PDF rendering. It would be possible to hide tracking in those proprietary bits, but it's almost certain that if it existed it would be found quickly and that would legitimately ruin trust in Chrome. The risk to Google would far exceed the benefit.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.blogspot.com

»www.facebook.com/maxolasersquad


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2
reply to jabarnut
said by jabarnut:

If you truly value your privacy, the only way to achieve that these days is to probably find a place to live deep in the mountains....

Hey! I resemble that remark!

...with no computer, no phone, no electricity (smart meters, ya know?), no nothing.

Well almost...

And even then, some military/government satellite would probably be watching you and snapping close up photos to be sure you weren't plotting something bad.

Well they're not doing that yet (as far as we know) but soon

Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!


KodiacZiller
Premium
join:2008-09-04
73368
kudos:2
reply to Maxo
said by Maxo:

said by KodiacZiller:

Rightly so in some cases, but not in regard to Chrome. It is a 100% open source browser (just like Firefox). It would be pretty hard to hide some nefarious world takeover plot in the code.

Chromium is a 100% open-source browser. Chrome is Chromium with proprietary code added in. Mostly flash and codecs, but some other stuff too, like PDF rendering. It would be possible to hide tracking in those proprietary bits, but it's almost certain that if it existed it would be found quickly and that would legitimately ruin trust in Chrome. The risk to Google would far exceed the benefit.

Yes, you are right about Chromium. This is why I suggest people use it (instead of Chrome itself) if they are really worried about Google (Iron offers no advantages over Chromium). With all the paranoid people out there, such tracking would have been discovered long ago in the code, I can assure you.

I personally have no problem with automatic updates. If I were Google, I would do the same thing. Too many people out there are clueless and don't know how or care to update. Then their box gets owned and they blame Google. This is one of the reasons Google bundles Flash -- so they can keep control of its security updates (since it has obviously has a pretty bad security record). As far as I know, Flash can easily be disabled, so I don't see really what the hoopla is about.

And, yes, I agree that Flash is closed-source binary blob POS. But unless you don't want to be able to view online videos, we are pretty much stuck with it for the time being. Google has the opt-in HTML5 program on YouTube which is nice, but it still doesn't cover all videos. Go anywhere else besides YouTube, and 90% of the time videos are encoded for Flash. I really wish Flash would die and HTML5 would take over, but we aren't there yet.
--
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999


goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big
reply to chrisretusn
said by chrisretusn:

That's nice that StatCounter reports Chrome as #1. I use Firefox and have extensions installed to block StatCounter......

I block StatCounter too. Guess the numbers mean the blocking works. heeeeeeeee Which would be yet another argument against using Chrome, since apparently it doesn't.

But my larger point is, I don't trust any program that silently updates itself without my input, and I don't trust Google products because they've been demonstrated time and again to ship data home. If millions of other people don't care, well, millions of people do all sorts of silly, self-destructive things. Just because they do doesn't mean I have to.


therube

join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to Mele20
quote:
As for sandboxing the tabs that is a horrible idea because of the immense amount of RAM used to do that

I'm not so sure that is an issue necessarily.
When I first ran Chrome (the other day), I purposely opened a number of Youtube videos (among other items), & when I looked at (Process Explorer), I saw Chrome had quickly taken up all kinds of memory, far more then I would have expected.

And I saw each tab listed individually & the memory usage of each tab. Found that interesting. And then also noted that when I closed a particular tab, I could see its task die & the associated memory released. So closing a number of large memory using tabs, my total memory usage declined substantially.

And then closing all the video clips & only opening more textual based pages, memory usage seemed reasonable.

Suppose there is some overhead associated with the sandboxing (i.e. each tab you open), but would not think it to be too bad? (Haven't looked to see what a blank tab consumes, yet.)

quote:
and the HORRIBLE CLUTTERING of Task Manager with 60-70 tabs listed separately! You can't find anything in Task Manager if Chrome/Iron is running.

On first usage, found the individual tab listings interesting. Hadn't actually thought about my more typical usage (could be in the hundreds of tabs) & how that would look in TM.

quote:
it is not necessary to squander RAM like that
Again, not sure that is an actual issue?

quote:
the worst thing about Chrome is that it is too bare bones
My impression too.

quote:
The extensions leave much to be desired.
Tried loading the extensions page last night, but for whatever reason it would not connect. And without having extensions like I'm used to using, Chrome would be a no-go.


therube

join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to jabarnut
quote:
find a place to live deep in the mountains

There are bunker busters for that.
quote:
or on some deserted island
And nukes will handily cover that situation.


Martinus
Premium
join:2001-08-06
EU
reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:

You couldn't pay me to use Chrome.

Who would? Google, perhaps?


Martinus
Premium
join:2001-08-06
EU
reply to jabarnut
said by jabarnut:

If you truly value your privacy, the only way to achieve that these days is to probably find a place to live deep in the mountains

Walden Pond sounds like the right place. Damn...no WIFI?


MacGyver
Don't Waste Your Energy
Premium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Canada
kudos:2
reply to El Quintron
Celeron M, 2006 vintage.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by MacGyver:

Celeron M, 2006 vintage.

I'm not running any machines that old with Windows, but I'm surprised there's that much of a difference.

Thanks for the reply,
EQ
--
Everything in moderation... Including Moderation --Oscar Wilde


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
reply to ashrc4
said by ashrc4:

quote:
"Tech-savvy Internet users tend to prefer Chrome, however, due to its minimal user interface and loading speed."

Thanks... I love a good joke.


jabarnut
Light Years Away
Premium,MVM
join:2005-01-22
Galaxy M31
kudos:2
That is kind of amusing, actually.
I mean, if I were 'Tech-savvy', I think I'd like more than just a 'minimal user interface'.
One of the reasons I got rid of it on three machines, was there just weren't enough bells and whistles to play around with. So I would think those Tech-savvy people out there would be even less impressed than I was.
--
I had a life once.....now I have a Computer and a Modem.


sdfjdshfhjsd

@threembb.ie
reply to Mele20
Once again, turning off Google Chrome auto-updates: »dev.chromium.org/administrators/···-updates


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
or just use the PortableApps.com version

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
said by GlennAllen:

or just use the PortableApps.com version

? Never heard of that. But then I am a desktop person.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
Not sure what you mean--all of the applications at PortableApps.com are for Windows desktop/notebook installs; they're just "portable". As such, Google Update is not part of the Chrome Portable install since it would have to be installed locally as a service.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
Yeah, those are for using on other computers not on your own computer.


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

1 recommendation

Portable apps are all I use on my own--or any--computer whenever possible, which is almost all the time.


lordpuffer
RIP lil
Premium
join:2004-09-19
Rio Rancho, NM
kudos:2
Reviews:
·CableOne
reply to ashrc4
I run Chrome on 2 Macs and a PC. Fx crashes constantly on my Macs, so I trashed it. I do though have Fx installed on my PC as my secondary browser.

But then, I'm not paranoid about Chrome like some. I think that some people are too worried about things in depth that are not worth worrying about.
--
"Panama Red Is Back In Town" - The New Riders of the Purple Sage


EGeezer
zichrona livracha
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Callcentric

1 edit
reply to Mele20
Portableapps.com has been around for years, but seem to be a niche product for people who want basic function and/or portable applications.

There's nothing to stop a user from using them on his own system rather than limiting them for public or guest PC use. I use portable apps on my home system.

I like the fact that I don't have update or other services for them running on my system. I can remove the USB and the app is gone.

However, cache data may still be stored on the PC for some applications. I believe that's a complaint against Iron browser..

From what I can tell from reading and experience, portable Firefox does not leave any cache data on the system.

If one wishes, one can install and run portable apps in a folder on the system rather than from a flash drive or other external device.

q.v »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PortableApps.com


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

1 recommendation

You can also enhance an application's security by installing it to a TrueCrypt drive (mount as needed)--for example, encrypted email using Thunderbird with Enigmail or using Firefox for banking etc.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:16
reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:

Yeah, those are for using on other computers not on your own computer.

I use it on my own computer (actually multiple computers of mine since it's on a SpiderOak cloud drive) for browser testing. Makes it nice to have multiple versions can all work from a single browser folder that only had to be installed once.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:

Yeah, those are for using on other computers not on your own computer.

Portable applications are for use on your own computer. Majority of applications, I use on my computers, are portable.

My definition of portable applications is simple. Portable applications don't use registry for keeping their configuration settings (they use configuration file/s in local folder) and don't dump files (logs, caches) spreading them whenever they want (e.g. in %TMP%, or APPDATA folders). Therefore, you may move them to any location on your computer or to another computer and still be able to use them as you wish. And that's why folks call them "portable", not because they're designed specifically for portable computers.

Portable applications don't need any installation procedure. Usually all you need to do is to unzip its package into a folder and start using them right away.

There are applications, that are designed to be portable from the beginning (and I like those very much) and those, that can't do it and require special environment to run in the portable mode. One of the environments that could be used to run any application in portable mode is SandboxIE (or any similar tools). Another approach is to use API, developed by developers of PortableApps.com. It does similar thing (from point of view, defined in my 2nd paragraph above). You run a launcher, that starts the actual program and program runs within that environment, which allows to keep settings in local folder(s)...

Now, you may want to know, that Chromium can be used in portable mode without running any launchers or sandboxes. The simple trick is to start it with -user-data-dir="Path" option in its command line. Then all configuration settings will be used from that folder. For example, make a shortcut like this one:
C:\Chromium\chrome.exe -user-data-dir=".\chrm" -single-process
When you click on it, shortcut will run Chromium in a single process mode and use chrm sub-folder for its configuration and caches. In registry it will make only record about its last rum time. But configuration will be kept in that folder. Then you may move C:\Chromium folder to any other place on your computer (just fix shortcut at the same time) and it will run without any changes.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

55711579

join:2010-07-23
reply to ashrc4
Google Chrome is my fav browser, because it's the fastest browser I ever used.