Google Chrome

[Qlimax]

I particularly find it faster, and surprisingly not as many bugs at first. Then again, I don't know how many security flaws there are. I like the feel though.

Google.com/chrome

Your .02

[defactoman]

I just downloaded it, and it's amazingly fast. I love it already.

[Anozireth]

I'm curious why they went with that name. Firefox's internal content management system is already called chrome. Seems like you would pick something else. ?(

[heyaz]

Man I thought Opera was fast until I used Chrome. And if you read the comic they put out, or you're interesting in programming at all, you can appreciate it even more. Every tab and plugin is a separate process in the OS, so individual tabs can crash, or even individual plugins like Flash and have no effect on th rest of the browser. Every tab is completely sandboxed which allows for some security benefits. It's fully multithreaded as well - no more hanging processes because javascript never returned control to the browser. And when you close a tab you kill a whole process, so all the memory is relinquished, unlike Firefox's fragmentation issues where closing a tab doesn't necessarily free the memory it was using.

Bye Firefox... you bloated, slow, crash prone garbage

[d0z3rr]

Did a side by side comparison between Chrome and IE7 just now. Opened up a bunch of different tabs with websites that had a high amount of content (flash animations, images, other crap , goat porn). With about 6 tabs open Chrome used 9mb less than IE. But it was always 9mb, even after opening the second tab. They used the same right off the bat....not sure what IE is doing with that 9mb.

Chrome loaded just as fast as IE, no different there at all.

After closing all the tabs Chrome did indeed go back to using ~15mb of RAM, whereas IE lingered around 130mb. But when you have 4gb of ram, who frickin cares.

An interesting note, once 6 tabs were open, chrome had two processes that constantly used 20 and 13% of my cpu. So two websites were causing it to do that, whereas IE was right around 1% (if that).

It's a nice alternative I guess, but I'll stick with IE seeing as Chrome wasn't mind blowingly amazing or anything. But good on Google for joining the browser wars.

[Anozireth]

It will be interesting to see how widely this is adopted. I'm sure it will garner a few percentage points of the market quickly thanks to early adopters and having the Google name on it, but I think that long term it will have a hard time denting IE. I regularly see users using outdated versions of IE, so if they can't even update that, I don't see how they can be expected to switch browsers on their own.

[Thaeds]

It will be interesting to see how widely this is adopted. I'm sure it will garner a few percentage points of the market quickly thanks to early adopters and having the Google name on it, but I think that long term it will have a hard time denting IE. I regularly see users using outdated versions of IE, so if they can't even update that, I don't see how they can be expected to switch browsers on their own.

Cause the link to get Chrome is on the Google main page, and it is the easiest thing ever to install.

People who might not go out looking for something better may still use it when it's handed to them.

[fpanko]

The browser seems pretty decent.

Has anyone looked at it's terms of service though?
Google is saying that anything you do through it, like edit a blog, gives them rights to it to do whatever they like. Including reuse it where ever they like.




If you're like every other geek, you were one of the many people who downloaded Google Chrome within minutes of it's 3:00PM EST release today. There's no doubt about it -- Chrome is ridiculously faster than Firefox and IE. But you, like virtually every computer user out there, probably didn't even bother to gloss over the Chrome Terms of Service.
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. 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.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

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.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

In other words, by posting anything (via Chrome) to your blog(s), any forum, video site, myspace, itunes, or any other site that might happen to be supporting you, Google can use your work without paying you a dime. They can go and edit it all they want. Even further, you're claiming that you have the power to grant these rights. So the people who work for Conde Nast (Wired, Arstechnica), TechCrunch, Gawker, any of the other big web publishers, or a university where the employee is performing research probably can't agree to the Chrome ToS because these people most likely don't have the right to give a license to the intellectual property (IP) they produce.

Most likely your employee or student agreement requires that your employer/university exclusively owns all IP that you make during your time there. Many employment contracts require that the employee signs away exclusive rights to all IP they create during work hours and anything created off hours related to their employer's business. Students get their class credits and the university typically gets copyrights to any writings and exclusive patent rights to any research and inventions. In essence, many content creators (news writers, song writers, artists, copy editors, musicians, students) cannot legally agree to these ToS because they'd be in breach of their employment/student contracts.

Further, you probably can't use your company or school email with Chrome, because your company probably exclusively owns your email, and you can't give away a license to something you don't own. You also can't make representations to Google that you have the power to license this IP if you don't.

For those of you who are thinking this applies only to Google sites like blogger and gmail, read section 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.

Since Chrome is a Google product/software, then it is part of the "Services". The content you post to any site is thus subject to Section 11 licensing because the content you post is something "which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services".

And for the record, Microsoft tried this years ago with MSN messenger, where MS got an irrevocable perpetual license to all IP that passed through MSN messenger, and the net basically revolted. AOL did this too with AIM.

There are some people who have claimed that this is standard legal jargon for every piece of software. Not only is that simply not true, no clause even close to that is in the Firefox terms of service.


Read the rest of the article here:

http://tapthehive.s483.sureserver.com/chrome.html

[Piros]

Ill stick with Firefox ... why use something that isnt broken

[Awbee]

Does not work for me period on this machine. "Aw,Snap!"

[Otlecs]

Interesting stuff.

I just don't trust Google in any way shape or form, so I'll be sticking with IE as my Windows-based browser for the foreseeable future (yes... I trust Microsoft more than I trust Google... don't be evil? pffft....).

[Piros]

Interesting stuff.

I just don't trust Google in any way shape or form, so I'll be sticking with IE as my Windows-based browser for the foreseeable future (yes... I trust Microsoft more than I trust Google... don't be evil? pffft....).IE? Why not firefox .... IE .... is the devil in binary code

[iztehzha]

The terms has already been changed..

There is serious security flaws in Chrome (even though, I use it anyway..).. There is a rootkit-like, problem in the browser atm.. If you script it right, you can make it install programs through your ram.. Just a headsup!
I got the news, but its in danish.. If you want me to paste it anyways, I can do it..

[Otlecs]

IE? Why not firefox .... IE .... is the devil in binary code
IE just works. All the time. I never, ever, get to a site and have problems in the same way as I do with other browsers.

I'm big on technology, but when it comes to something as stunningly simple as a web browser I'd need a really compelling reason to swap. And there isn't one. Not for me :)

[Freddman]

I tried it, i found it new and fresh, but then i saw that it constantly tried to run Google Installer, and i almost always had 2-3 processes of Gooogle Chrome running while MF only has one .exe running, and the lack of a "Home" button is really annyoing, sense you have to open up a new tab to get to the "last visited" page. Iv now gone back to Firefox.