Google Crome - NEW Web browser

[usp8riot]

as far as i know ctrl+enter adds http://www. .com to whatever you have typed in, unless chrome does it differently.

shift+enter does http://www. .net

at least thats how it works in ff & ie

I tried it a few times. Seems to take the first likely site that you have visited and adds those extensions. I suppose that's what he was after.

On an unrelated note, it seems Chrome has a bug with the Vista taskbar autohide is enabled, mousing down to the taskbar won't bring it up. You have to minimize or window-ize Chrome.

 

[BossBorot]

ah good to know. Im still on the edge of dumping it till more features get added though. It seems to me like google coded a great program but hasnt fully gotten to the feature set that it needs to attract more hardcore users

Right now I think it lines up like this

FF3 w/ extentions > opera > chrome > FF3 out of the box > saffari > IE

 

[funnyperson1]

Um...
It really surprises me how many people that love FF do not use opera. Its bascially FF with a ton of extensions already included (ohband a smaller download... nope dont need a double sized addon for Tbird either mail is included in that 6.7MB install size ). Granted older people might not like the switch (opera used to be a paid browser) and some young bucks might not like it, cuz to REALLY get into opera you have to do some coding. But it is all googleable, and anyone that can handle linux can handle customizing Opera.

Then again. Opera never took out a full page ad in a major newspaper and for the longest time had "report as internet explorer" an easy set as default so you can get into all those sites with browser checks. (oh anyone try that yet????)

When Opera 9 came out I gave it a try and really liked the functionality. Unfortunately it crashed on me at least once a day, especially on flash-heavy sites.

 

[jstutman]

I read an article last nite that there is a serious security glitch with chrome. I will see if i can find the article but basically its because they used an older version of webkit. Its java related. Safari had the same issue but patched it.


http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/security_flaw_in_google_chrome.php

 

[I.M.O.G.]

More on that vulnerability here:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1843

 

[curtis1552]

I installed it and told my wife to try it.
She loaded up MSNBC news and commented that the streaming videos looked clearer, and they did.
Overall I'm quite impressed with it, and can't wait for the Linux version to be put out.

 

[xtkxhom3r]

oh man well i hope this gets patched soon cus i really like this browser

 

[Mr.Guvernment]

Since it is open source and you can make things for it... careful!

Mav451 caught this in their EULA

Page 3 of that slideshow they talk about people using it to adopt new ideas.

Meanwhile they think the unassuming public is ignore that blatant line of bull**** hidden in their EULA:

Quote:
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.

And down the drain it goes.

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


So if you plan to use the features they give and add anything - your work is now theirs!

 

[Psychotron]

I like that it seems to be low memory usage.

 

[I.M.O.G.]

Since it is open source and you can make things for it... careful!

Mav451 caught this in their EULA


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


So if you plan to use the features they give and add anything - your work is now theirs!

I am hearing a lot of these sorts of comments, all parroting the same clause in the eula. Its fair to say I'm underwhelmed... Why do I care about a eula? When was the last time anyone bothered to read a eula when they downloaded an application. Eulas are about as weak as they get in court, and this clause bears no weight until its shown to be enforceable. But that's just the start of it... That clause is only dangerous if google tries to foist some sinister interpretation upon someone, and I don't think anyone is qualified to predict googles intent here. Has google commented on this?

I cannot think of any relevant situation in which this has tangible impact for the average user. Even myself, I'm not the average user and even still - what do I do thru my browser that I am protecting? What should I be concerned about that google is going to do to me?

Much ado about nothing if you ask me. And to make sure I'm clear, I'm not exactly contradicting you, I'm just not seeing this eula clause as a big deal. And to your benefit, I've heard droves of people talking about that clause. I would love to understand why.

Or maybe I'm missing the boat. Is the concern that if you extend the browser or develop a plugin, that google will use or take what you develop? Maybe that's what people are worried about. If that's the case, I'd say people just don't understand the mandate or spirit of open source development and licensing.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

I'm testing Chrome 0.2.149.27 right now.

It does seem to be faster, but with OC Forums, it sometimes draws from top to bottom slower and it sometimes freezes when at weather.com when using the Flash-based radar map.

 

[xtkxhom3r]

thats weird it seems to be lightning fast with oc forums for me...

 

[Neuromancer]

Since it is open source and you can make things for it... careful!

Mav451 caught this in their EULA


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


So if you plan to use the features they give and add anything - your work is now theirs!

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_google_have_rights_to_all.php

They fixed it already and went thorugh this a year ago with googledocs had a press release that said basically, the wording they used was to Cover their *** if you share something of yours it gives them permissions to send it to the person you chose.

I can totally see how this can be miscontrued or misused by a large company like google. But i really doubt they are going to share your latest minesweeper score.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

thats weird it seems to be lightning fast with oc forums for me...

It started being faster after I have been using it for a while.

 

[shadin]

You can definitely tell that it's beta but so far everything is working great for me. Seems very snappy and so far it's fairly light on the resources. I'm anxious to see how it develops.

 

[Firestrider]

One thing I don't like about it is that it will always download the file even if I just want the file to open like a WMP file or MS Word file.

Also lack of support for some browser applications..

 

[Neuromancer]

One thing I don't like about it is that it will always download the file even if I just want the file to open like a WMP file or MS Word file.

Also lack of support for some browser applications..

LOL

Are you complaing that it clogs up your default DL directory? Instead of DLing to a temp folder like normally happens when you select open?

 

[citronym]

LOL

Are you complaing that it clogs up your default DL directory? Instead of DLing to a temp folder like normally happens when you select open?

I believe he is just commenting on the fact that you do not have a choice between downloading a file (and saving it to a specific location) and just simply executing the file.

So far I've only tried using Chrome with ~20 tabs. It just keeps squishing the tabs together, it doesn't seem to employ any type of slider or some other means of tab management. Does it behave the same way with 40+ tabs? I will try it again with more tabs when I make it back to the house.

 

[OldSkool]

So far I've only tried using Chrome with ~20 tabs. It just keeps squishing the tabs together, it doesn't seem to employ any type of slider or some other means of tab management. Does it behave the same way with 40+ tabs? I will try it again with more tabs when I make it back to the house.

If you need that many tabs at any time for any reason........seek help!

 

[Firestrider]

I believe he is just commenting on the fact that you do not have a choice between downloading a file (and saving it to a specific location) and just simply executing the file.

This.

That is unless this is a way to simply execute a file with Chrome.