Google Chrome

Nick Job's picture

Anyone else loving Google Chrome or is it just me?

Nick Job's picture

(Sorry if you're on a Mac.)

Dan B.'s picture

Finally something that does not get in your way! But I have discovered one thing I don't like about it: it does not let me click the scroll wheel and then go up or down the page by just moving the mouse (if that makes sense).

Nick Job's picture

You're right, it doesn't. They're sure to iron that out though.

AndrewSipe's picture

Where are the AD BLOCKING features?

aluminum's picture

"Where are the AD BLOCKING features?"

;o)

Ray Larabie's picture

I switched after 1 hour of using it. Uninstalled Firefox. A few glitches here and there but it's worth it.

Miss Tiffany's picture

So no one minds the EULA?

cuttlefish's picture

They've already backed down on Section 11 of the EULA.

Miss Tiffany's picture

Ah good. That is the bit that really had me wondering. I will probably try it once it is available for the mac, but more than likely I'll stick with Safari. The design is a little elementary for my taste.

jasonc's picture

so far the only think i miss in it vs. Firefox is the spell check. Google seems to identify mis-spellings, but doesn't give you options to fix it. Firefox lets you right click the mis-spelled word, and select from most likely options.

Jason c

AndrewSipe's picture

I like overriding default fonts and you can't really do that well in Google Chrome. Currently, I'm running pages in FF with Cambria and I love it!

I've come to the conclusion that Chrome is really a stripped down version of FF. But really until they add ad blocking, I'm not jumping onboard. Plus, I really love FF, there are so many great things and I only expect more from it in the future.

James Arboghast's picture

Yepp. I'm using Chrome right now. It runs rings around Firefox and IE, both of which will probably slip into decline as a result. Haven't really read the EULA yet. I switched strate from IE to Chrome. Never bothered with Firefox because it never offered a significant enuff advantage over IE to make it worthwhile. Both IE and Firefox have major shortcomings.

Anybody want to post a comparison of Chrome to Safari and Opera?

j a m e s

James Arboghast's picture

@Darrel: Where are the AD BLOCKING features?
What ads? I'm not getting any ads in Chrome.

j a m e s

aluminum's picture

"I’ve come to the conclusion that Chrome is really a stripped down version of FF."

Well, it's based on WebKit, so it's more related to Safari than Firefox.

Google has been (and will continue to be) a major financier of Firefox, so it's an odd decision on their part. The theory that makes the most sense to me is that Google Apps depends heavily on JavaScript and the current crop of browsers just suck at that, so they thought the easiest solution would be to just write their own browser.

Chrome, for the most part, is Google's Operating system for Google applications. If you are an avid user of Gmail, Google docs, Google sites, Google calendar, Google reader, Google etc, then Chrome is the browser for you.

If not, there's probably not a really strong reason to bother with it at this point.

"It runs rings around Firefox and IE, both of which will probably slip into decline as a result."

It'll probably chip away at Firefox's share, but probably won't have much effect on IE. Anyone that uses IE isn't the kind of user that's even aware that the web browser is actually a piece of software that they can choose alternative for.

"What ads? I’m not getting any ads in Chrome."

That wasn't me that mentioned the ads. I just thought it was a funny comment (google makes money via web ads).

AndrewSipe's picture

James, I asked "where are the ad blocking features". And I'm still asking. Google Chrome has a lot of nice features, but I've gotten pretty a accustom to FF and I don't see me switching to Chrome right out of the gate. There are bound to be missing features and bugs and I'm anticipating that. So, I'll just wait and see what happens next.

paul d hunt's picture

it seems chrome combines the good features from ff and ie, i haven't found the bad yet, but will be sure to post back once i find them.

Tim Ahrens's picture

I tried Chrome and it feels nice but, as others remarked, where is the ad blocker?
I don't mind static ads but I simply can't stand it when anything moves while I am reading the news or so.
So, no flash blocker, no Chrome for me. Unfortunately. I will give it another try as soon as there is a flash blocker available.
Also, as this article points out, flash often uses more resources that you could ever save with Chrome.

James Arboghast's picture

Asvetic, Darrel, sorry, my goof.

@Darrel: Anyone that uses IE isn’t the kind of user that’s even aware that the web browser is actually a piece of software that they can choose alternative for.

I've been an IE user from the very beginning of the popular internet, and I've been trrying all kinds of browsers ever since, yet I always went back to IE because it works well enuff.

Tim, guys, peeples, Chrome doesn't have an ad blocker because it doesn't need one. The ad blocking is built into the thing, which is why you don't have an option to turn ad blocking on or off. Ads are blocked permanently. I'm not getting any ads where I don't want them in Chrome. The proof is in the pudding. Don't assume Google are going to the use the same software and interface model as IE, Firefox and all the others, because Google are well-known for their intuitive approach to software and application design.

I mean, I'm a gmail user, and I wouldn't even consider going back to any other kind of email client, especially not a stand-alone desktop-based proggie like Outlook and its ilk, because gmail is so intuitive and simply anticipates what people need it to do automatically. compared to gmail, I would describe Outlook as a hopeless, outmoded, time-wasting, unintuitve, stupid, badly-constructed, over-complicated piece of junk.

j a m e s

metalfoot's picture

James,
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about Outlook.

(I use Thunderbird, myself)

AndrewSipe's picture

I'm not alone in thinking Chrome is missing a few features:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10033296-2.html

aluminum's picture

"And I’m still asking."

Oh! Sorry, I thought you were joking.

If they add it, it'd be interesting, but given that Google's primary income comes from web ads, I find it hard to believe they will put too much effort into allowing you to block them using their own browser. ;o)

That said, Chrome is open source, so give it a week and I'm sure someone will have a solution.

"I’ve been an IE user from the very beginning of the popular internet, and I’ve been trrying all kinds of browsers ever since, yet I always went back to IE because it works well enuff."

Sure. That's kind of my point. Anyone that's fine using IE probably has no incentive to bother using anything else.

AndrewSipe's picture

Nope, not joking. I'd say I'm a proponent for free internet. It's becoming a life blood for so many organizations and communities (ahem, Typophiles), that to not have internet access is almost a crime.

But, I don't have free internet. I have to pay for it, like most other people. However, I'm also subjected to a constant stream of advertisements... I feel the same with television. You have to pay for the service (if you have anything more than an antenna, which will eventually be gone soon too) and yet you're forced to watch commercials ad nauseam.

So, I would prefer to have a program that can atleast filter out a large chunk of that noise and leave the more important features available.

There are many arguments for and against, and I'm aware of that. It's just, I'd prefer to have a choice in the matter. Right now, Google isn't giving me that choice.

They might be open source, but until they allow plug-ins/add-ons that support my choices, I'm not jumping on board.

I prefer FF over IE because it's a forward moving application. They're trying to be open to all features of the web. IE makes small waves, but it's still a locked-tight box with little expandability. It all comes down to choices. Some people like the freedom of choice, some don't care, and some just want things to be as simplistic as possible.

aluminum's picture

I completely understand what you're saying, Asvetic. I'm just pointing out the irony of Google developing a browser with built in web advertising blocking, as their primary source of income to pay for things like developing a browser comes from web advertising.

FTR, I'm completely on your side in regards to open/free/community internet. I'm very tired of paying the cableco/telco monopolies for the 'honor' of their incredibly crappy customer service and crazy pricing.

oprion's picture

Spellchecker (working in both English and Russian), DownThemAll and Web Developer plugins. Once chrome has these, I'll consider switching. For now, I'll stick to Firefox.
_____________________________________________
Personal Art and Design Portal of Ivan Gulkov
www.ivangdesign.com

Tim Ahrens's picture

Hmmm, so Chrome may have a built-in ad blocker, but does it also block Flash ads?
To me, that is exactly the crucial point.

billtroop's picture

Trust Tiffany to go straight for the EULA - - that was a brilliant find! It's a very significant moment - - that Google is capable of even getting near such an atrocious EULA means the idealistic days are over -- really, truly, over. We could be watching the birth of a new MS, and it will require constant user-policing to make sure this doesn't happen anytime soon.

The great thing about Chrome -- and about IE 8 -- is that they try to keep each tab or window an entirely separate process -- this is really big news because it means that -- unlike any other browser -- a single errant tab won't take the entire browser down.

So far, Chrome is implementing this concept more rigidly and more thoroughly (and more effectively) than Microsoft.

The downside in both cases is huge memory footprints and startlingly high thread counts. You'll need twice as much memory for either as you did for previous generations of browsers. If you have the memory and processor power, Chrome has by far the most persuasive architecture of all the browsers.

1/3 gig to run 10 tabs. What about 20? 30? All of a sudden, 4GB of memory is beginning to look like 4MB of memory. I've never understood why a browser takes up so much memory -- what is it but a hypertext interpreter after all? Yet the programmers at both MS and Google seem to have the same message: to advance the architecture means having even more memory.

So how will Mozilla react?

Thomas Phinney's picture

I've been using Chrome as my primary browser since Tuesday now.

Plus: Blazingly fast. Very stable. Each tab is a process. Minimal "chrome" to clutter the UI (making the name rather ironic).

Minus: Not being able to override fonts in web pages. Imported bookmarks end up in a *sub-menu* of the bookmarks, with no apparent practical way to move them all out to the main level.

Overall: Thumbs up, but with significant reservations. But still about the most impressive pre-1.0 "beta" app I've used.

T

AndrewSipe's picture

Not being able to override fonts in web pages.

I noticed that too.

In FF I run everything in Cambria now. Love IT!

Sebastian Nagel's picture

for me, as I am not using googles web-apps heavily, chrome is a very impressive but stripped down browser (or should we say operating environment?), resulting in a stripped down web experience for me. I can't influence how web content is presented to me (filtering, re-styling, adding additional information, ...), which is a killer feature of firefox to me.

If
... there were more preferences to set
... there was an addon system
... it was not google watching every step you take with UIDs, cookies etc.
(... it adjusted it's look to the native UI of the operating system running on)
(... googleupdate.exe phoning home 2x/h, whether chrome is running or not)
it would be my favourite browser. Too many ifs at the moment.

Theunis de Jong's picture

... [If] it was not google watching every step you take with UIDs, cookies etc.

There was a big outcry when MS was accused of doing this. They backed down, and I've never heard it mentioned again -- until now!

(What's the current status of their user profile mining?)

javaboy7962's picture

I have every major browser on my Toshiba Satellite A215 laptop, running Vista Home Premium.

I prefer Firefox 3 for most things, but Safari for Windows is by FAR the most stable. Chrome is okay, but I haven't used it that much because I am so big on FF3 and Safari Win.

I keep IE7 around for my boyfriend to use and for watching movies on Netflix.

I also have Browzar, the free "private" browser, which in itself is pretty good.

I just don't see the need for Google to come up with a new browser, except for the fact that they seem to be creating more and more stuff that would be a vital part of their own OS.

- Gmail
- Blogger
- Documents
- Calendar
- Desktop
- Chrome

My suspicion is that they are amping up their products to be a new free OS on par with Linux. They probably are cultivating these new applications and generating all this buzz to lure people from other systems. I already use two different Gmail accounts, write in documents, etc.

I would wager that within five years Google will have a new OS and make it big with users turned off by the people turned off by the exclusivity of MS and Mac and target a new cult of tech-savvy youth and millennials. I wouldn't even be surprised if they started manufacturing manufacturing their own devices.

aluminum's picture

"I just don’t see the need for Google to come up with a new browser"

They've pretty much said why: all current browsers have really crappy memory handling when it comes to JavaScript execution.

But you are correct, this is pretty much the Google OS that has been rumored from what I can tell.

Some think it might become an actual full-fledged OS as you state. I'm not convinced yet, but things like their Cell Phone 'OS' Android is a convinced argument for it...

Sharon Van Lieu's picture

After Google eased up on the eula, I reinstalled Chrome. I had the same problem as Thomas as far as bookmarks on my laptop, but they were imported from Firefox correctly on my desktop. So I installed Firefox 3 on my laptop, reinstalled Chrome and my bookmarks imported properly - showing correctly in the bookmarks toolbar.

Sharon

alexfjelldal's picture

.........................................................
Bison Design
Spön

Lodus411's picture

I'd have to say i love Chrome. I switched after I read the online comic they offered. It was a great way to really understand what makes Chrome an actual contender in the browser world. You can find the Chrome Comic here:

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

@oprion

"Spellchecker (working in both English and Russian), DownThemAll and Web Developer plugins. Once chrome has these, I’ll consider switching. For now, I’ll stick to Firefox."

Chrome actually does have spell checker built in as well. :)

Theunis de Jong's picture

I'll hold off until it checks facts as well.

dali137's picture

Ah Google... I think this may be the turn for the worse in your scheme to rule the world or at least the internet... jk.

I won't be using Chrome after reading this...
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39176/108/

Thomas Phinney's picture

My computer is full of all sorts of sensitive information, and my hard drive is encrypted and protected in multiple ways. As long as Google Chrome's indexing is on my local hard drive, I have no problem with it.

T

aluminum's picture

dali:

"the browser was indexing information from HTTPS sites"

HTTPS would be a network transfer protocol, while the browser cache would be a local computer behavior.

That article seems to be describing the functionality of the local browser cache and spinning it as a security hole.

Granted, having data like this in the local cache is certainly an issue, but not really something that is unique to Chrome.

paul d hunt's picture

i promised to post back once i found problems and i've had a big, annoying one recently. it seems that yahoo mail no longer plays nicely with google chrome. i'm not sure if that has to do with changes yahoo has made or what, but chrome seems to choke on yahoo mail and on hotmail. i find this a big drawback for using this browser.

Thomas Phinney's picture

Yeah, I found that as well. I can view Yahoo mail fine, but not reply. :(

I also had a problem for a while with my WordPress admin functions where they stopped working in Chrome, but somehow that resolved itself.

Basically, I need to keep an alternative browser around "just in case," but I am still using Chrome as my primary browser. However, if one of the misbehavior problems involved a site I used all the time, I'd have to abandon Chrome.

T

Nick Job's picture

Thomas and Paul
My Yahoo doesn't work great with Chrome either. Hmmmmm. If you can't use Hotmail or Yahoo Mail on Google Chrome then you have to stop using it and use another browser or get a googlemail account. Do you see what I'm saying? Wait, there's a knock at the door...

Sye's picture

i use chrome at work all the time and love it! i can't wait for the mac version, then i'm set for home at well!

russellm's picture

dali137 I won’t be using Chrome after reading this...

I laughed when I clicked your link. The article about how Chrome is a personal security nightmare is flanked by big colourful ads for Google Chrome. :o)

-=®=-

paul d hunt's picture

@thomas yeah, the reply thing is the problem i've been noticing most. even composing emails. good thing i use other clients for most of my correspondence. also, i find switching to yahoo mail classic and back quicker than firing up a new browser, but it's still a pain.

Sye's picture

cause i use gmail i've had no email probs.

i hadn't seen those wordpress bugs you mentioned either...

maybe i', just blind or lucky...

Syndicate content Syndicate content