editorial
Report a problem

Google Chrome out for one day, already reasons to avoid

Marshalus   on 03 September 2008 - 16:21 · 88 comments & 45294 views

Advertisement (Why?)
As we reported yesterday, Google has released the first beta of their new web browser, Google Chrome. Within a day of its release, there are already a couple of points that users should be cautioned of before using this new browser.

The first, is the popular "carpet bomb" vulnerability that still exists within Chrome, as pointed out on our forums by our member matessim. This vulnerability allows malicious websites to drive by download and execute programs on your machine. Our visitors may remember the uproar that this same vulnerability caused for Safari users, and that Apple patched the carpet-bombing issue with Safari v3.1.2. Chrome is vulnerable to this exploit because it is based on the same engine, WebKit 525.13, and Google did not patch or update the engine before releasing the software.

The other, and less technical, problem with Chrome exists in its EULA. More specifically, the point that would seem to give Google rights to anything you post on the Internet while using their browser, mostly in conjunction with the promotion of its services.

Update: Google has rectified the EULA issue.


"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." Not exactly something you're used to seeing in a web browser's license agreement.

There is also the point that Google reserves the right to automatically update and install Chrome. Interesting, "the software which you use may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Google. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new software modules and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Google to deliver these to you) as part of your use of the services." ... so says the EULA.

Now we're all used to seeing automatic update functions built into software. It seems that almost anything you install these days has one. However, very few demand that I install their updates. What if I don't want to because the new version includes a bug or breaks something else on my computer? Although, one would hope that they'd use this automatic update feature to fix the flaw pointed out above.

View: Google Chrome EULA

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 88 additional comments
(2 replies) #1 Marshalus on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:24
BTW, just in the interest of full disclosure, I have not used Google Chrome... nor do I intend to until these issues are corrected.
#1.1 bob_c_b on 05 Sep 2008 - 14:42
Just say no to WebKit.
#1.2 PsykX on 06 Sep 2008 - 04:12
Yeah, say no to Webkit, because Google is using a really old version of it!
And say no to all the new ones too, because... well, because!
#2 XerXis on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:27
when reading the eula it seems like they took the eula of one of their services (like gmail) and didn't change it for use with a desktop application
(2 replies) #3 - jigz - on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:31
mmm its in beta for a reason......
#3.1 Marshalus on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:34
I was going to put this in the article, but didn't. That is no excuse for EULA and massive security holes that have been known for weeks if not months to target the framework your product is based on. I could understand if this was a new hole that didn't effect other browsers, but its the same one that Safari dealt with already that Google repackaged and redistributed to an unknowing public.

Besides, everything Google puts out is in beta.
#3.2 +TCLN Ryster on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:35
(Marshalus said @ #3.1)
Besides, everything Google puts out is in beta.

Yeah, it's a handy excuse for them (and the apologists) to use when Google's stuff doesn't work right.
(2 replies) #4 39 Thieves on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:36
Might want to check out the privacy policy as well.

Oh, and I'm posting this from Chrome. Guess I like to live dangerously.
#4.1 Beastage on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:53
(39 Thieves said @ #4)
Might want to check out the privacy policy as well.

Oh, and I'm posting this from Chrome. Guess I like to live dangerously.


Yeap, tho you might want to microwave your hard drive the RIAA are already on their way.


Anyway, I tried and uninstalled, pointless to bother with it imo , but it is nice that Google does the Apple trick and sticks an update service in your PC that you have to remove manually.
#4.2 sphbecker on 03 Sep 2008 - 18:25
but it is nice that Google does the Apple trick and sticks an update service in your PC that you have to remove manually.


Better than the Adobe trick where they include their update code in every product with no way to disable globally or through policy.
#5 HalcyonX12 on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:40
Google doesn't have rights to everything you post using its browser, the EULA states quite clearly that the data you post to their services that Chrome makes use of (such as the address bar searching, etc) will be submitted to google and they can do stuff with it. This is all stuff that has been in the privacy policies of their web services since forever.

There are other versions to avoid it though, such as the fact that it installs some update software that doesn't uninstall when you remove the browser...
(2 replies) #6 diabulos on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:04
Actually, you may be wrong on that one....

Section 9.4 of the EULA says:

9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.

So you may think, great, I own my stuff, even if it is not registered (as usual on copyright practice) then you go to 11..:

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.

Which completely cancels out the first! there is no qualifier here, you retain all the rights but you grant us use of it for free...that is what is saying, so you are granting google use of that lovely picture you send to Aunt Clare, which you also have in istock, for free. As you read 1.1...

1.1 Your use of Google�s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the �Services� in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google. �Google� means Google Inc., whose principal place of business is at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States. This document explains how the agreement is made up, and sets out some of the terms of that agreement.

you realize that software is part of the services, hence chrome is within the sphere of this, not only Gmail, et al. It also means google has a right to use emails of yours and publish them......if they wish....and then of course the grand section...

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

You may own your content, but as long as you used the services (this includes you google doc spreadsheet with your trading secrets) Google can do what it likes with it.....it does not even tell you that it has to tell you...you just granted it to them.....

Nice.
#6.1 HalcyonX12 on 03 Sep 2008 - 23:09
Oh well, it's a EULA from their services But it doesn't stand for use of the software, it's a mistake
#6.2 undu on 04 Sep 2008 - 11:33
(HalcyonX12 said @ #6.1)
Oh well, it's a EULA from their services But it doesn't stand for use of the software, it's a mistake
But people don't realise it's not meant to be there and it's going to be removed, or just uses it to bash google.


On a sidenote: the default directory of chrome is NOT the desktop, so people who run it as provided won't notice this problem.
(3 replies) #7 SVG on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:08
People trust Google even after so many instances of them being the Big Brother of the internet.. Its just remarkable :\
#7.1 BigBoy on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:27
The great double standard...

If Microsoft tried to pull some crap like this, people would be screaming bloody murder.
#7.2 SVG on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:43
(BigBoy said @ #7.1)
The great double standard...

If Microsoft tried to pull some crap like this, people would be screaming bloody murder.


A company with a fruity rainbow coloured logo seems harmless to people I guess
#7.3 C_Guy on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:15
Is that why Apple switched their logo?
#8 RAID 0 on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:25
The other, and less technical, problem with Chrome exists in its EULA. More specifically, the point that would seem to give Google rights to anything you post on the Internet while using their browser, mostly in conjunction with the promotion of its services.


That's weak. I was thinking about trying Chrome, but now... not so much.
#9 Izlude on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:29
Sounds scary. Can anyone show us an example of the work that google has reproduced from someone's email/posting etc? I'd seriously like to see it, because that's very scary.

Well anyway, I don't think they'll care much about reproducing my digimon fan fictions. Who cares.
#10 +Tikimotel on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:44
All your posts are belong to us!!!
#11 Rohdekill on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:58
A company notorious for capturing, holding and profiling users....and you want me to download the browser now too so they can capture even more? Not to mention the problems listed in the origional post.

Okay. I get the joke.
#12 OuttaControlX on 03 Sep 2008 - 18:01
Looks to me like it will be a great lite browser with plenty of features, but i will wait for a few more betas and official releases before i use it
(2 replies) #13 DARKFiB3R on 03 Sep 2008 - 18:09
"Are you sure you want to uninstall Google Chrome, was it something we said?"

**** yeah, see ya.
#13.1 Michael1406 on 03 Sep 2008 - 22:23
(DARKFiB3R said @ #13)
"Are you sure you want to uninstall Google Chrome, was it something we said?"

**** yeah, see ya.
I lol'd when I just installed, perhaps they knew.
#13.2 +Odom on 04 Sep 2008 - 09:37
I lol'd when I uninstalled...
#14 bluarash on 03 Sep 2008 - 18:37
It's not going to matter. It is based on website, yet lacks the hideous interface on Windows (Safari). This is Google we are talking about. This software in all purposes was made for their services (Gmail, Google Docs). The Mac and Linux versions will be released. Issues with the EULA will be "solved." Java script bugs will be fixed.

I almost feel sorry for Opera and the lesser browsers. I don't really see issues with Internet Explorer and Firefox loosing significant market share. Yet... A plug-in API and three stable platform releases later and I would be worried. It likely will happen.
(1 reply) #15 ozulus on 03 Sep 2008 - 18:47
paranoid ppl <.<
#15.1 solardog on 03 Sep 2008 - 18:58
Not paranoia, its black and white, right in front of your eyes. I usually would have the same reaction, but this is different.
(1 reply) #16 Nexus- on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:05
ok but since its open source couldn't you compile the new webkit fixes into chrome and release it?
#16.1 39 Thieves on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:15
LOL, sure, you could. Questions are, do you know how, and would you want to?
(1 reply) #17 king_of_hearts on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:14
brb.. tinfoil hat.
#17.1 Magallanes on 05 Sep 2008 - 02:22
Just keep you near of a water source such a lake, and, this is important, avoid any crop field.

#18 C_Guy on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:18
"The other, and less technical, problem with Chrome exists in its EULA. More specifically, the point that would seem to give Google rights to anything you post on the Internet while using their browser, mostly in conjunction with the promotion of its services"

This will be shocking only to those with extremely limited experience in technology. To the rest of us, this is absolutely expected of Google.

A great testament to their "do no evil" motto.
#19 auutumn on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:31
Chrome has potential but only if Google revisits and updates their EULA; I for one will NEVER use this browser knowing that Google will give advertisers my info.
#20 ReverendTom on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:44
"The Privacy Policies of Gmail or other services apply when you access them, no matter which browser you use."
#21 +chorpeac on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:52
Hahaha, now instead of people adding a signature tag line like " Posted while mobile", "Sent from my iPhone", or something similar it will be something like "Posting made possible by Chrome", "Thought of while using Chrome", "Created with the help of Big Bro Chromagnum" hahaha
#22 bmaher on 03 Sep 2008 - 20:11
By the way, if you want to kill Google's updater, just stop it starting up from within msconfig.

Fairly sneaky tactics by Google, I must admit .
(1 reply) #23 CyberWolf on 03 Sep 2008 - 20:11


OMG WOW!!! Most of you need to log off, take off the tin foil hat, and go get some sleep.

Wait! Right now Google agents are looking over the entire web for posts made with chrome so as to steal them and reproduce them later. Muwahaha

I mean really, small amounts of info to gear ads, big frigging deal. Do you use Gmail... We can read your mail... email admins have that power...

Go read the Eula for the OS you are posting from, the word program you wrote your resume in, or the other browsers your surf your bank account in.

Every time you type in a search in Google, or any other search engine, you are handing over your info. Search habits of a people with in a certain geographic area. Now they can gear ads to you with out specific details.

This stuff has been going on long before chrome. It's common practice.

I for one love chrome. Its won me over. Fast, minimal, and stable. Yeah there is a bug which will be patched. I mean after all this is a working beta release. My chrome will update itself when the new release comes. Built in auto update for the win.


CEO Google
Eric Schmidt
#23.1 koppit on 04 Sep 2008 - 02:07
It's a vicious world out there, but it'll win people over eventually, just like gmail did
#24 RGadelha on 03 Sep 2008 - 20:24
Great, #23!
Microsoft's gonna start doing that obligatory automatic update thing in XP, and it's an OS.
I'm in love with Chrome right now and if it's everything they talk about in the comic book, and a lot of that I can see that's true, oh god, I'm in heaven!
(2 replies) #25 Jbenisek on 03 Sep 2008 - 20:52
hey poor video playback.

can some explain bookmarks vs favorites?


#25.1 Jebadiah on 04 Sep 2008 - 00:00
Same thing.
#25.2 CyberWolf on 04 Sep 2008 - 01:48
Favorites are commonly visited sites, like Neowin.

Other bookmarks is where you hide your porn connects. Actually less visited sites. I have about 12 favorites, and 40 not so favorites. The 12 I keep handy right across the top, the other 40, out of the way.
(1 reply) #26 RangerLG on 03 Sep 2008 - 20:55
WebKit 525.13


Webkit is already up to version 525?
#26.1 simon360 on 03 Sep 2008 - 22:06
It's a build number, not a version number

There aren't specific versions, just build numbers afaik. They do have a strange way of doing the numbers, though.
(2 replies) #27 Jbenisek on 03 Sep 2008 - 20:55
Oh sweat LORD why isn't there a 64-bit version of Flash out yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone have any idea's on making Chrome work in 32-bit mode so I can install flash and use it on a 64-bit system?
#27.1 CyberWolf on 04 Sep 2008 - 01:50
I am running chrome 32bit on Vista Ultimate 64bit with 32bit flash and it works with out any issues.
#27.2 Jbenisek on 04 Sep 2008 - 15:59
It downloaded and installed the plug-in 4 or 5 times saying it was finished but never worked, seems fine now.

ALSO THIS WEBSITE LOADS VERY VERY SLOW ON Chrome, it gets stuck after the 2nd part of the home page. Anyone have this?
#28 RGadelha on 03 Sep 2008 - 21:11
@ #27,
Are you on Linux?
If yes click here.
#29 RGadelha on 03 Sep 2008 - 21:13
Sorry, there is no Chrome for Linux yet.
(1 reply) #30 TC17 on 03 Sep 2008 - 22:25
The browser is incredibly stupid also. Its way too plain, and they have the stupid scroll wheel going the OPPOSITE way. It should be scrolling like any other browser does (it should scroll down when you move the wheel down... not up).
#30.1 koppit on 03 Sep 2008 - 23:52
(TC17 said @ #30)
The browser is incredibly stupid also. Its way too plain, and they have the stupid scroll wheel going the OPPOSITE way. It should be scrolling like any other browser does (it should scroll down when you move the wheel down... not up).


I'm not quite sure what you mean - it works fine for me? Plus I love the plain, I make my OS look as simple as possible every time I reinstall.
(7 replies) #31 Airlink on 03 Sep 2008 - 23:11
Well DUUUHHHHHH!!!! It's the first release of a long Beta cycle. Of course it has bugs and flaws. What part of BETA don't you understand?
#31.1 hagjohn on 03 Sep 2008 - 23:39
It has been 2 years.

I really like the browser but I'm not liking what I'm seeing in the browser. I mean, how can Google think that anything I do, they can basically take. If I do any investing/banking/medical or other highly personal info, Google then can come in and take the info? And just how do they know what "info" was typed in the browser to, well, steal it? It doesn't even sound legal or ethical, IMO. It would certainly stop me from using this.

*** this message is owned by Google ***
#31.2 Turge on 04 Sep 2008 - 01:12
(hagjohn said @ #31.1)
It has been 2 years.
*** this message is owned by Google ***
#31.3 Turge on 04 Sep 2008 - 01:21
(hagjohn said @ #31.1)
It has been 2 years.
*** this message is owned by Google ***




By the way, I found this in my front yard after I installed Chrome...

#31.4 39 Thieves on 04 Sep 2008 - 01:40
(hagjohn said @ #31.1)
It has been 2 years.

I really like the browser but I'm not liking what I'm seeing in the browser. I mean, how can Google think that anything I do, they can basically take. If I do any investing/banking/medical or other highly personal info, Google then can come in and take the info? And just how do they know what "info" was typed in the browser to, well, steal it? It doesn't even sound legal or ethical, IMO. It would certainly stop me from using this.

*** this message is owned by Google ***


It's their cookie-cutter EULA. They're altering it for Chrome.
#31.5 RGadelha on 04 Sep 2008 - 01:45
(Turge said @ #31.3)
By the way, I found this in my front yard after I installed Chrome...

How did you get that??? I've installed Chrome but nothing...
I want it for my front yard too, and back yard, side yard, top yard, bottom yard...
#31.6 CyberWolf on 04 Sep 2008 - 01:54
(Turge said @ #31.3)
(hagjohn said @ #31.1)
It has been 2 years.
*** this message is owned by Google ***




By the way, I found this in my front yard after I installed Chrome...



WOW. They only put a Google patch on all the shirts I own.


#31.7 XeonBuilder on 06 Sep 2008 - 05:18
(Turge said @ #31.3)
(hagjohn said @ #31.1)
It has been 2 years.
*** this message is owned by Google ***




By the way, I found this in my front yard after I installed Chrome...




(3 replies) #32 Ghil on 04 Sep 2008 - 02:03
well at least they reacted today and are fixing it, retroactively.
#32.1 39 Thieves on 04 Sep 2008 - 03:21
Don't think they expected this sort of response...or this many tinfoil hats...
#32.2 Marshalus on 04 Sep 2008 - 03:28
(Ghil said @ #32)
well at least they reacted today and are fixing it, retroactively.


Source?
#32.3 39 Thieves on 04 Sep 2008 - 03:41
(Marshalus said @ #32.2)
(Ghil said @ #32)
well at least they reacted today and are fixing it, retroactively.


Source?


Uh, this?
#33 FredEx on 04 Sep 2008 - 04:42
I could not install it. I run the exe and it installs the updater, but the program is nowhere to be found.
(1 reply) #34 CounterStrikeSourceAddict on 04 Sep 2008 - 07:45
and which browser doesent have security flaws...i think google hit the mark with this one...the speed is fantastic...does everything a basic browser should do...plays media,ssl/hhtps, spell check, multi-threaded...for a newbie at this game i think google hot the spot now they just need to throw in some customization options, maybe publish a sdk for third party plugins, and then your set!

rock on google!
#34.1 +Cy Bones on 04 Sep 2008 - 09:57
Agreed on the speed - it really does seem to fly on my machine compared to fx3.1 and IE8 (beta2).

I doubt I will end up using it as my main browser but it definately as potential.
(1 reply) #35 cork1958 on 04 Sep 2008 - 09:56
Other than the fact it's Google, and I'm NOT one it fanboys, this thing is just plain fugly, and I usually don't give a rip about looks. Bookmarks are totally ignorant. 4 processes just to run a browser? Rediculous. Auto update stuff, no way, ain't happening on my machines.

Installed and uninstalled within 10 minutes!
#35.1 iron2000 on 04 Sep 2008 - 10:04
Didn't notice the GoogleUpdate.exe.
Ok, its going off my PC.

Don't like having extra stuff too.

I hope other browsers will adopt some of the ideas of Chrome though.
#36 +.Aaron on 04 Sep 2008 - 10:42
After reading this, I will never install this crap on my PC. This now makes me want to avoid using Google for everything.
#37 MiG- on 04 Sep 2008 - 11:15
Someone download the Source, Re-Compile, bring it out with a slightly different name and scrap the EULA.

Easy eh?
#38 RanCorX2 on 04 Sep 2008 - 12:18
thought it was a rubbish browser, firefox, even internet explorer are better. seems about as tacky as that safari junk.
(1 reply) #39 seebaran on 04 Sep 2008 - 14:18
Not a fanboy...but I LOVE this browser. Nothing is without its flaws, but hot dang it's quick. Just some wish list items:

- I'm anal about capitalization of words on context menus. Whose idea was it to type successive words without capitalizing the first letter?!

- Add additional selections to the right-click menu like Refresh and Add Bookmark.

- Add a Google Sign-In Manager. I'd like to utilize Google Bookmark service instead of locally-stored bookmarks.
#39.1 Ogmius on 04 Sep 2008 - 14:32
Its probably so fast cos your browsing google cache instead of the internet... being that google has the whole internet cached its almost like the real thing

Last edited by Ogmius on 04 Sep 2008 - 14:54
#40 matessim on 04 Sep 2008 - 17:34
Ooo so glad my post was featured ;P.
anyway, Cheers.
Google 142, Firefox 1
about time
#41 wst50 on 04 Sep 2008 - 17:43
I just realised that V8's efficiency will improve browser-eating rickroll speed immensely.
#42 RGadelha on 05 Sep 2008 - 02:27
No RSS support or am I missing something?
#43 Don Matteo on 05 Sep 2008 - 04:18
Chrome is just as feature packed as a naked Firefox. Love how people compare 0.2.149.27 to a 3.0.1 or a 9.52 or whatever Opera is these days.
#44 auutumn on 05 Sep 2008 - 16:40
Google is becoming suspicious in my mind and that's not good. If the EULA language comes back in any form, I will never use Chrome and almost certainly never trust Google again.
(1 reply) #45 solardog on 05 Sep 2008 - 19:39
Tried it, Google installer setup in my startup programs list...BYE-BYE! Gone. Oh and guess what, its still there in startup after you uninstall Chrome. I don't care what it is, when I uninstall something I expect it to be GONE! I'm not as mad as it seems, I just hate that tho...especially a file sitting in startup without asking me if I might want to leave that there for future installs or whatever... just ask..or SUCK! Not mad...wheres that friggin flip off smiley!

Last edited by solardog on 05 Sep 2008 - 19:49
#45.1 jankob on 24 Sep 2008 - 08:56
(solardog said @ #45)
Tried it, Google installer setup in my startup programs list...BYE-BYE! Gone. Oh and guess what, its still there in startup after you uninstall Chrome. I don't care what it is, when I uninstall something I expect it to be GONE! I'm not as mad as it seems, I just hate that tho...especially a file sitting in startup without asking me if I might want to leave that there for future installs or whatever... just ask..or SUCK! Not mad...wheres that friggin flip off smiley!


I install it today and unistall it today - all gone. Maybe version I used was updated beta (c;
(1 reply) #46 Midnight Mick on 05 Sep 2008 - 20:22
I don't think this needs tp be stickied anymore does it?!
#46.1 39 Thieves on 06 Sep 2008 - 00:33
Well, judging from the number of downloads of Chrome that have been reported, and the number of page hits probably being generated as a halo effect of that mass interest...you do the math. This'll probably be stickied until sometime in October...
#47 Skynetfuture on 05 Sep 2008 - 23:59
i know it ! Google and there evil info harvester (read :chrome .)!
(1 reply) #48 Timble on 06 Sep 2008 - 09:28
I'm an experienced Web designer who's used Windows from 3.1 to Vista, and who's tried countless versions of Netscape, IE, Firefox, Opera and even Safari over the last 10 years. Until now I've been a FF3 user who used IE7 frequently as well.

I was as worried as you were by the content of that Google EULA, but was not surprised to later learn it was a mistake. A bit of an embarrassing blunder for Google, but certainly not the deliberate subversiveness you all thought it was.

As for the looks, I like Chrome because I think Firefox is ugly (in its default theme) and I've been waiting years for a browser that's as pretty, smooth and uncluttered as Chrome is. I love the subtle bluish white texture of the navigation bar, the subtle animations when you move tabs and things, and the transparent window title (yes, I'm using Vista which is also very nice). So we all differ on what we think of the appearance, which just shows our diversity really. Of course, FF has customisable themes which is good, but it's even better for me that Chrome suits my preferences without even trying!

On engine, I'm disappointed - annoyed even - that Google haven't fixed the carpet bomb flaw, but when they do very soon, the whole argument of this article will be null and void. OK, leave this browser for now if you like, but when it's matured a little bit, I think you might want to reconsider. I never thought I'd be using what is effectively Safari, but Chrome gives us Safari's fantastic speed (it really is wonderful) but without Safari's drawbacks (horrible anti-aliasing and a silver Mac-like interface that fits with Windows' look and feel about as well as a square peg in a round hole).

Finally, on features - it is of course an early beta, but already its feature set is not far off the other major browsers, and is ahead in some ways. That's impressive. I can happily live without RSS and things for now. Print Preview would be nice too, but I'm sure many of these things will come in time. I look forward to seeing how this develops.

Last edited by Timble on 06 Sep 2008 - 09:35
#48.1 joker999 on 06 Sep 2008 - 23:38
Good point, however
Options -> Minor Tweaks -> tick "Ask where to save each file before downloading"
To save yourself
#49 jankob on 24 Sep 2008 - 08:52
[img]it looks pretty, BUT:

- why does it install itself in C:\Documents and Settings\User\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe[i] ? What's wrong with "Program files"?

- why does it run 3 chrome.exe processes at once?

- did they really fix the bug?


I need more pros for using it. Until then, FF RULES!

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)