See, children; this is why you don't use a browser for normal web activities the first day it has been released.
And the ToS is evil, good thing I don't intend on using Chrome!
SuperAntx wrote:
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. 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. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services. Apparently it was a copy-and-paste error, that section has been revised to: <font style="background:#223867;padding:5px;display:block;margin: 10px;border: 1px solid #263f82">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.</font> Personally, for a first version, they could have done worse. I like how they have done what they have in now, so I'm just waiting for them to add more. There do seem to be some problems for certain systems, but I have yet to run into any of them. I've got four youtube movies playing at once, no slow-downs or anything. Hopefully they'll work out the kinks for wider system compatibility--that is what a beta is for, after all. | |
Kakashi24142 wrote:
And I've gotta, say it is going to be very helpful for web programmers. Adding yet another browser to the mix to cater for design wise, does everything but be helpful... It's hard enough getting a single layout to agree on Firefox and Internet Explorer let alone the rest of them. Another web-browser is just annoying. Especially since it's Google. They're taking over the world people, and all of you Aye-Sayers are helping them! | |
Tiberath wrote:
They're taking over the world people, and all of you Aye-Sayers are helping them! At least they're designing their applications properly. =P | |
Tiberath wrote:
Kakashi24142 wrote: I'm pretty sure his comment is aimed at V8. Besides that, Chrome uses Webkit and should render very close to, if not exactly the same as Safari. | |
Alathon wrote:
I'm pretty sure his comment is aimed at V8. Besides that, Chrome uses Webkit and should render very close to, if not exactly the same as Safari. This is all I'm saying about V8.  | |
Eich also praises Chrome. He says that the V8 JavaScript engine is "very-well engineered" and he describes the multiprocess design as "righteous".
I suppose we'll see how things pan out in 6 - 12 months; theres more to V8 than the SunSpider benchmark reveals, when combined with Chrome and multi-processing architecture. | |
Google's not taking over anything but the advertising business, because that's all they want. Everything they do is to enhance their advertising business, either in the shortrun or longrun.
Chrome will never have the market share of Firefox or IE. The simplest reason is that IE come preinstalled, so most people just use it. And those who actually care, have already installed Firefox. Chrome has to be more than better than Firefox and IE to gain any notable market share. | |
It's important to note that Google has said that this change is retroactive for people who downloaded it while the language was still in.
The problem is that EULAs are complicated works that are normally just built from a quick template by a lawyer. I doubt more than just a few people actually read that EULA. Sure, it should have been redflagged before it even hit the public, but I put the blame right on the lawyer and managers. It was a stupid mistake, but I do believe it was a mistake. | |
Danial.Beta wrote:
Google's not taking over anything but the advertising business, because that's all they want. Everything they do is to enhance their advertising business, either in the shortrun or longrun. I believe that is true for now. However, Google also heavily invests in tracking. Who knows what fruit that tracking will yield in a few years? Chrome will never have the market share of Firefox or IE. The simplest reason is that IE come preinstalled, so most people just use it. And those who actually care, have already installed Firefox. Chrome has to be more than better than Firefox and IE to gain any notable market share. I believe Chrome can easily have the market share of Firefox... by taking the Firefox users. I'm using Chrome right now, and once the plug-in architecture is fully accessible and begins receiving Firefox ports, I think many Firefox users will jump on the bandwagon primarily because of the memory leak issues still present in Firefox 3, as well as when Firefox occasionally just seizes during execution of some site code. As far as IE goes - that may be true. However, Google has the single biggest advertising portal in the world BESIDES the OS, but even more importantly: they have the most AGILE advertising portal... Microsoft hasn't taken steps to be able to easily advertise and change advertisement in the OS because the advertisement mechanism just doesn't exist! Google's homepage, however, can be changed on a whim to push their new browser as much as they would desire to. Google quite literally has the upper hand on market exposure, because Microsoft simply doesn't have the agility to bring a product, product updates, and targeted advertisement to bear quickly and efficiently. | |
I have a feeling that, by the time Chrome is up to par with Firefox in terms of stability and function(including addons that many of use consider "must have"), Firefox will match Chrome in the majority of features that Chrome has on it.
The single biggest thing Firefox could do to match Chrome is multithreaded processes. It's not quite as nice as standalone sandboxed processes for every tab, but it will give the same performance gains. And in the end, that's all users want. I haven't had a single security problem on Firefox, so I'm not rushing to the multiprocess system yet. It would be a nice stability and RAM gain, but FF3 does pretty good with memory management, far better than FF2. I just don't think Chrome is a big enough step up for people to mass migrate from Firefox. | |
Tiberath wrote:
They're taking over the world people, and all of you Aye-Sayers are helping them! Imagine a world run by software engineers and a world of intense advertisement... say "hello" to education and economic reform, progress, and the age of electronics. Say hello to the future! | |
Yeah. I was excited about Gmail when it came out, because of the overwhelming size of the space and the numerous features it had that simply blew away all the other online email providers. Chrome, though, I see more as a novelty than anything I'd be enthusiastic about using. It's got some nice things, but so does every other browser out there. I am very much not impressed with the privacy it lacks, the way it auto-completes things you've typed, saves searches you've done or makes your home page list all your popular websites. Things like that will drive me away post haste. Yeah, incognito mode is there, but I shouldn't have to hide from my own computer! Just because you may think I want to advertise what I do online unless it's naughty doesn't make it true. I don't want anything I do online to be reflected in my browser, unless I specifically place it there.
I'll stick with their search and email, but Chrome ain't winning me over, and I doubt it'll ever top FF for sheer popularity. | |
The sad part is, that's truer than you may want it to be.
Welcome to Corporate Earth. Over 6 billion served! | |
Xooxer wrote:
Chrome, though, I see more as a novelty than anything I'd be enthusiastic about using. It's got some nice things, but so does every other browser out there. It's in the same boat as GTalk. It works very well but everyone already has something else that does just as much if not more. There's just no reason to switch. | |
In the case of Google Talk, it's the "and more" that makes me not use it. In the case of an IM client, I want 1 thing:To send and receive messages. When you load it down with a million options, buttons, and flashing colors, you simply muddle up the process.
In a web browser, this is mostly true as well, that's why I like the Chrome interface, but there are many features that enhance web browsing that don't require extra interface, and that's what Chrome is currently missing. It renders web pages and not much more. Until it has a strong extension architecture, I couldn't hope to replace Firefox with it. | |
except if I understand right, they only used some firefox code, but they used webkit as the rendering engine, the same backend as Androids (Google's mobile phone OS in case you didn't know) browser.
which is also the same rendering engine that the iphone's/ipod touch's browser and safari use | |
chrome is much faster then internet explorer, both in install and uninsall
it looks better, while not feeling as out of place as safari, and it does not screw with the layout in a way that would annoy me (I'm talking about the top unmovable address bar, and the menu underneath it in IE7 while chrome lacks a menu and makes the layout somewhat consistent except for tabs but they while changed, actually work in Google's case as a good change, moving them from the bottom to the top) | |
This is entirely incorrect. The file automatically downloads, but does not execute. This security flaw requires you to actually click the download to run it, which means its not a serious security flaw (Although it is a security flaw).