Google Chrome Reviews What do u think of Googles latest freeware browser?

[armondtimesbelize 0]

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 0]

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 September 12, 2008 by EdgabtheGreat (see edit history)

[rayzoredge 2]

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 0]

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 2]

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

 

[daftpunk 0]

Im 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 companys attitude towards the costumer is less that perfect.
Big corporations, thats what you get. At least its open source, so itll probably fare well (if google doesnt manage to tank the whole thing). Its not like browsers that dont 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 0]

Pros:Very LightweightChrome's new Javascript engine is very fastIncognito Mode(aka porn mode)Each tab is a separate process which means when one tab crashes, not all of them do like in FirefoxCons:No add-onsI 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 0]

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 0]

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 :pAnother 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 2]

Just sharing more pictures...

 

I found this one by Stumbling:

 

[Juxt 0]

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 0]

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 September 15, 2008 by pedro-kun (see edit history)

[rayzoredge 2]

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 "http://forums.xisto.com/ 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 Xisto?) 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 Xisto without too much trouble, do tell. Sorry for the frequent image-posting.

Edited September 15, 2008 by rayzoredge (see edit history)

[pedro-kun 0]

Sorry... I simply just hotlink the images and slap "http://forums.xisto.com/ 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 Xisto?) 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 Xisto 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 Xisto's forums, I realized that this is a severe defect in the forum itself. So, this post is instead targetting the developers behind Xisto... 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 Xisto" 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 September 15, 2008 by pedro-kun (see edit history)

[rayzoredge 2]

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?