Google Chrome Beta

Opie said:
Loving this browser. Very quick and it renders my office's Outlook Web Access by far the quickest and best compared to FF3 (doesn't work) and IE8 (makes me log in twice to access mail).

It also draws crash.net, probably the slowest, most ad-bloated site I regularly visit better than twice as fast as FF3.

Color me impressed.
Click to expand...

+1 on the Outlook web access speed. If there's a speed test that makes chrome shine (pun intended) its gotta be Outlook web access. IE8 is extremely slow at this and FF is not much faster, but Chrome renders the page almost instantly.
 
Google = data whores

They can take that EULA and jam it up their collective a$$.


This post was made from Firefox:)
 
This browser is so awesome. I don't care if they hog my anonymous data. They deserve it. Quality product!
 
I tried Chrome for about 20 minutes, realized the Internet sucks without AdBlock and similar add-ons, and went back to firefox.
 
I was just skimming through the rest of the pages since my original comment on Chrome's speed, but I'm reading through the EULA right now, and

1) I did find this in the clause, to hopefully put some folks at ease:

"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."
Click to expand...

"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."
Click to expand...

The uh, fantastic blog managed to nip that first sentence out, the whole "Retain copyright and any other rights you already hold"

"8. Content in the Services

8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All such information is referred to below as the “Content”.

8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement."
Click to expand...

I've also conveniently retained the bullets for these points. If you will notice that the content from point 11 (The scary part) is laid out in point 8. It's not as scary as it's made out to be. Sounds to me basically if you upload some goofy pictures of you sans pants on facebook through Chrome, Google has the right to use the picture to promote chrome, and that's about it. I imagine you would retain your natural rights of privacy concerning sensitive information.

But I'm not a lawyer, just connecting the logic dots.
 
First off, of course it doesn't have any addons, its a brand new BETA! I remember when firefox was still a baby browser and had very few addons/extensions.

Overall, chrome does have that slick feel of being very fast due to its snappy interface. Webpages load very fast for me on average, but it may just be an illusion based on the way google loads pages (seems to instantly pop up with text, then images and embedded objects follow). I don't like the fact that it doesn't have built in RSS management, that definitely needs to be integrated into the browser. That's one of my firefox favs is being able to have RSS on the bookmarks toolbar and look at all current feeds easily and quickly. also, the download status bar disappears on me, i can't figure out how to make it stay on. also, opening a new window doesn't create a new process, only when you start surfing onto websites does a new process get created. seems as if the default start pages are managed by a single process. viewing source is also by far the easiest of all browsers. i also really like the ability to quickly and easily move tabs in and out of windows. I've never seen anything like this that performs at this speed, its crazy how instant it is. as far as im concerned theyre headed in the right direction--so long as they include built in RSS and more options.
 
Until I can subscribe to a feed which pushes down lists of known adverts, which it can dynamically strip out the page, I'll be using firefox, that's really all I care about.
 
i have no interest in chrome at all.. as others have said, ff3 is mature at this point and has everything we need..
 
1. I see no Linux version.
2. I still don't like their EULA.
3. Firefox does everything I need it to and the price is right.

Why should I change?
 
After a day or so of using it, I like it, but the whole bookmark thing is still bothersome. I wish there was a little Book Icon next to the Tools and Control tabs that would open the bookmark menu. I don't want to have to mess with hotkeys and menus to access the bookmarks without the toolbar open.

I am a big proponent of keyboard-less browsing, so it's almost a deal breaker. I assume there will be a plugin to fix it. I wish I could write my own.... :-(
 
if IE5 or IE6 was an antitrust suite, then what does this spying browser that copyrites everything as theirs?
 
Techx said:
i have no interest in chrome at all.. as others have said, ff3 is mature at this point and has everything we need..
Click to expand...

Chrome needs something spceial..some extremely useful feature that can not be found in other browsers. Otherwise only those who want to use it because it's "new" will stick with it. Right now, the two main points appear to be that it's supposedly faster, and that tabs are separate processes.

Faster? What kind of websites do you people visit and what are your system specs? I haven't found any page that loads or displays slowly (unless there's a lot of data to download over my 2Mb connection) even with my older X2 system, using either Safari, IE, FF or Opera (for the ~2 minutes I could stand using it). If anything, very rapidly scrolling up and down on a page with lots of images, Flash animations etc., Chrome seemed slightly update its window than FF.

The separate processes thing is a good idea, but doesn't really affect me. FF3 has almost never crashed for me and I use Free Download Manager so even if it did crash, it wouldn't stop my downloads. However, moving forward with manycore systems and probably more CPU intensive web content in the future, this kind of makes sense. But who knows what features IE, FF etc. will have in 3 years?

What else is there to make me want to switch? I'll stick with FF until another browser with this "killer feature" shows up.
 
Casus said:
The uh, fantastic blog managed to nip that first sentence out, the whole "Retain copyright and any other rights you already hold"
Click to expand...
All that sentence means is that you don't lose the right to do as you wish with your own data - it doesn't stop Google doing what they want with it, in accordance with the authority you've given them by agreeing to 11.1. And the condition "This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services" (the "Services" being collectively Google's "products, software, services and websites" under the terms of the EULA) effectively means that Google can do whatever they want with content created by you, as long as it serves their own business interests (and why else would they want to use it)?
 
jroe52 said:
if IE5 or IE6 was an antitrust suite, then what does this spying browser that copyrites everything as theirs?
Click to expand...

Everything is a conspiracy theory. I personally thought the post a few pages up explained the EULA just fine.

I suppose on the internet though we should all be paranoid.
 
Installed, tried it..uninstalled.

I love gmail and google, but this doesn't work for me. I am a fan of the "Pretty" and this browser just isn't. I will stick with FF myself, google should have done themselves a favor and just folded Mozilla under them if they wanted a browser.
 
If Google built it from the ground up, I would be impressed.
But it just using Webkit for the back end. So really the only differences will be Google specific additions.

Safari uses Webkit.

As well as many Linux browsers, Konquerer (KDE), Epiphany (Gnome).
 
I downloaded it last night and was impressed with the speeds. While on break at work today I read the EULA. Needless to say I am uninstalling it once I get home. Thanks Google!
 
Everyone keeps saying they are impressed with speed. Where?? I did a lot of comparisons, I barely noticed any difference compared with firefox. Placebo effect or can someone point to some pages where this speed difference is that evident.
 
Pages that use Javascript heavily like OWA as someone mentioned. I find it to be much faster rendering GMail and my RSS reader as well (NewsGator web.)

I think everyone is missing the point of Chrome. I don't think Google intends for this to be a browser that competes for share. They are looking to make web applications look and feel and operate like desktop applications. If you want to see the point of Chrome take an app you use like Gmail and make an application shortcut for it, then use it through that. Continue to use Firefox for 'regular' browsing. Having GMail segmented from my browser for reliability and having access to it without all the extra browser stuff in the way is really nice.
 
Steve said:
I made a video of IE8 - Firefox - Chrome side by side after using Chrome for about an hour or so...sloooowwww


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhJ2itHUi1o
Click to expand...

It's funny after I posted a comment over at YouTube saying that this video is fake, because you slowed the frame-rate of the video down to purposly show Chrome in a bad light, that the comment has now been removed... WTF!!!

So I will see if my comment gets deleted from here as well...

Your video is deliberatley tampered with, by slowing down the frame-rate, just as the screen goes black after you hit Chrome's refresh button, to supposibly show us that Chrome is slower than the other browsers you tested it against.
 
I installed Chrome yesterday, posted picture of my new born baby and NOW THE BABY IS MISSING!!!!


;)



On a related not, that Chrome slowdown I had is gone after inunstalling and reinstalling it.
 
Steve said:
I installed Chrome yesterday, posted picture of my new born baby and NOW THE BABY IS MISSING!!!!
Click to expand...

Google will take over the world with a toddler army :eek:

They have already started recruiting.

 
From the front page:

Google is backtracking on Chrome’s terms of service agreement claiming that they just used a universal / generic ToS that is used for any number of the company’s projects. Google says it is working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Chrome terms of service.

"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products," Google said in a statement provided to CNET News. "Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service."
Click to expand...
 
All this is separate from the issue of what information Google plans to store on its servers. Provided that users leave on the auto-suggest feature in Chrome and have Google as their default search provider, Google has the right to store any information typed into Chrome's Ominibox, which serves as both search bar and address bar. The software maker told CNET News it plans to store about 2 percent of all such data, along with the IP address of the computer that entered the information.
Click to expand...

So it seems they still do, but it isn't as OVER EXAGGERATED everyone thought it was.
 
mryerse said:
Doesn't seem to work really well with Facebook. Might have limited AJAX support.
Click to expand...

Hmm... works perfect with Facebook over here. I'm using the new Facebook layout, are you?

Steve said:
Well, I am seeing like 10 - 15 second load times for a page versus 2 seconds for IE8 and Firefox. I am on a 10Mbps / 1Mbps cable connection.
Click to expand...

That's odd. For me it's at least as fast as Firefox. Very snappy indeed.
 
Chrome is faster on my machine than FF2 and IE7.
I like the way I can grab tabs and move them to the other screen and then put them all back together.
Sometimes when I am surfing and I want to compare two pages at the same time, I'll have to open up another FF2 browser or open up IE7, and then copy the link.
 
schulzpm said:
Pages that use Javascript heavily like OWA as someone mentioned. I find it to be much faster rendering GMail and my RSS reader as well (NewsGator web.)
Click to expand...

Well I must be lucky in that my FF is lightning fast. I did side by side compares including gmail. Google might have loaded the initial page 1/10 of a second quicker, but all message accesses after that were instant on both. When I clicked on my google reader from there, it was a tenth faster on Firefox.

I deleted it now, because it is pointless without a lot more functionality, but I didn't see any speed increase that I will miss.
 
Is google really storing all the sites you go to on their servers and such? Are they continuing the trend they started with YouTube?

I dunno, i love google, but i dont want any single corporation to have that much data on my life...

Ill probably pass if thats true
 
What's "spreading" around pretty thick are people's misunderstandings of a clause in the EULA that makes it seem as though Google is going to rape every single person that uses Chrome of every byte of data they encounter while using that browser.

Obviously, not even Google could do that, nor would they care to do that, so it's FUD, plain and simple.

It's funny to me how people just constantly bash things like EULAs and ignore them for their own selfish purposes, but when someone else has one that supposedly infringes on personal rights, man what a fucking uproar it causes. Amazing how that works.
 
Using it now it looks promising.

But it is having issues with multiple screens with different resolutions.

Running 14" 19:9 notebook with a 19" 4:3 LCD and when ever I full screen the 19" it scales to the 14" because it is the primary screen.

A few Sharepoint issues but it is faster for sure.
Some work apps don't work Quality Center/Testdirector and ITG/PPM.
 
stevedave said:
Using it now it looks promising.

But it is having issues with multiple screens with different resolutions.

Running 14" 19:9 notebook with a 19" 4:3 LCD and when ever I full screen the 19" it scales to the 14" because it is the primary screen.

A few Sharepoint issues but it is faster for sure.
Some work apps don't work Quality Center/Testdirector and ITG/PPM.
Click to expand...

Were you on Attack of the Show yesterday? There was video viewer thing that they had on with the same "Stevedave" name. I immediately recognized your name (because it's 2 first names afterall!) searched your [H] posts, but you hadn't mentioned anything about Chrome until now. :D
 
Well I tried Chrome for our in house web application that relies heavily on javascript and Java itself for printing. When I tried to print, our app could not even recognize that Java was installed on my PC. This is definitely still BETA.
 
Update: As of 2 p.m. PT, it looks like the terms have changed. Section 11 now reads simply: "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."
Click to expand...

good job. this is what it should have said from the beginning.
 
gtg465x said:
That's odd. For me it's at least as fast as Firefox. Very snappy indeed.
Click to expand...

I just posted earlier saying that the problem went away after I reinstalled Chrome. It is a BETA anhow so I don't know why I am expecting anything other than a BETA. I'm a dork :p
 
Actually, there is, but it requires a specific beta build of Sun's Java sooo...
 
Casus said:
I was just skimming through the rest of the pages since my original comment on Chrome's speed, but I'm reading through the EULA right now, and

1) I did find this in the clause, to hopefully put some folks at ease:


The uh, fantastic blog managed to nip that first sentence out, the whole "Retain copyright and any other rights you already hold"
Click to expand...

9.4: "We don't have unlimited rights to any of your data except for the data we mention in 11 (I.E: All of it). Even though we'll give ourselves rights to do whatever we want with your data under 11, we're not obligated to protect your copyrights while we're at it."

11.1: This is the infamous Section 11. The first sentence that was omitted does not mitigate its impact. All it does is say that you don't lose your copyrights in the process -- you just give Google license to ignore them. So it's still your data, but they can still do whatever they want with your data.



Casus said:
I've also conveniently retained the bullets for these points. If you will notice that the content from point 11 (The scary part) is laid out in point 8. It's not as scary as it's made out to be. Sounds to me basically if you upload some goofy pictures of you sans pants on facebook through Chrome, Google has the right to use the picture to promote chrome, and that's about it. I imagine you would retain your natural rights of privacy concerning sensitive information.

But I'm not a lawyer, just connecting the logic dots.
Click to expand...

8.1: "Anything you access through our browser is the responsibility of the person that posted it. If you find kiddy porn, Google isn't responsible."

8.2: "Anything you access through Chrome is not yours (it's ours). You may not modify, distribute, etc. (Even though we give ourselves the right to do so)."

Basically, 8.2 explicitly does not give you the rights Google is granting itself.


That Google has since reneged on Section 11 is a very clear sign that even they knew what it meant. They tried to slip it by us, and we caught them red-handed. Them amending it is an appropriate apology, but they're still slime and I still won't use their spyware browser.

To all the talk of FUD going around: Just because they're not doing it doesn't mean they can't. As has been said before: Even if Chrome doesn't phone home, they wrote a EULA stating they could, and that's wrong. Enforceable or not, they tried to insert legalese saying they own all your data. That is the fact of the matter, and it's a red flag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top