Recommended Posts

Perhaps the best idea is to integrate with the signing process in Vista or XP, the way that Internet Explorer tells the filesystem that executables have been downloaded from the internet and tell the user to move the file into the standard 'zone' before they can be executed.

no supernova, if i wanna install chrome and play with it once every 2 weeks it will use system resources even when i'm not using the browser so 98% of those 2 weeks.

Chrome should be an alpha not a beta, awful installer which doesnt install for me, background process, security vulnerabilities and many other problems and yet they announced it for the world to download, publicised on bbc news and everywhere else.

no supernova, if i wanna install chrome and play with it once every 2 weeks it will use system resources even when i'm not using the browser so 98% of those 2 weeks.

That is true. I didn't think about it that way but as you said, it has vulnerbilities so wouldn't you want it to be up to date the next time you used it? Because some of those may have been fixed by then. You don't want to open up start browsing and get infected when you could have had a newer build.

It also adds 'GoogleUpdate' to the startup items. WTF why can't they get it to update when you launch the browser instead of adding another process. Anyway after reading this thread i've uninstalled it.

I was thinking the same thing. I removed google updater some time ago then noticed it came back on, without me knowing, after I install chrome. I don't need Google Updater running in the background. Why not just have updates from within the browsers..

  • 1 month later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.