backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on Dec 17 at 4:52 PM


Is Google's Chrome (pictured here), fresh out of beta, good to go or going nowhere? Google hopes the former as it tries to stake its claim to MSB: Most Secure Browser. However it has little market share to date, and faces a tough fight ahead.
Google's new browser has been upgraded with a hardy coat of security armor to protect it for the tough fight ahead as it comes out of beta

The browser market is, according to some analysts, saturated.  Firefox is making slow gains and leader Microsoft's Internet Explorer has waned slightly, but the pair holds the vast majority of the market.  Opera also holds a small market share, continuing to eke out gains, as does Apple's Safari browser, buoyed by the increased in MacBook and iPhone shipments.

Coming into this market, Google faced a tough battle with its first browser offering, Chrome.  And while many lauded Google for trying new things with the browser, others criticized it for crashes and lack of certain features found in Firefox.  While Chrome was expected to "kill" smaller browsers like Opera, while stealing market share from the big guys like Microsoft, the opposite actually happened -- Chrome slid from its initial market share, while Opera climbed.

Now at last Google's Chrome browser is out of beta and is a full-fledged product.  However, for a giant used to dominating every field it tries its hand in, the prospect of lack of adoption is a strange one for Google.

In order to try to prevent such an outcome, Google has outfitted the final version of its browser with arguably the toughest security foundation found on the market today.

Firefox and Microsoft's internet explorer, as well as Safari and Opera, invest vast resources in making browsing a secure experience.  However, on a base level these browsers give the browser and its scripts some level of access to the user's computer, putting its file system and hardware at risk.

Google's Chrome takes a different approach, giving each tab and the javascripts in it, its own "sandbox".  By "sandboxing" Google makes sure that scripts and plug-ins are cut off from your computer, essentially negating many common attacks that foil other browsers.

Ian Fette, security product manager for Google describes, "I think Google was very proactive in terms of what we've been doing around trying to help prevent users from being infected with malware.  On the Web browser, we're trying to do everything we can to make sure that users are not becoming affected with malware, and a big part of that is the sandboxing technology."

The mechanism is a second layer of defense, he says, that will prevent the system from harm even if the browser is hijacked.  He states, "It's designed to prevent malware from getting installed on the system, from being able to start again when you close the browser and restart the computer; it's designed to help prevent malware from being able to read files on your file system … it's really a defense-in-depth mechanism."

While ambitious, the armor does have some admitted Achilles’ heels.  First, it depends on Windows APIs for its sandbox approach, so if these could be circumvented, access to the system-at-large might be obtained.  Some legacy systems -- which use file systems like FAT32 that do not have security descriptors -- will not be able to receive the same level of protection from the system.  Other potential gaps are also noted.

Google's Chrome has also been outfitted with other security perks like an Incognito mode, essentially the same as Microsoft's InPrivate mode, nicknamed the "porn mode", featured on Microsoft's upcoming Internet Explorer 8.  The mode, while not fail-safe, makes it so far less cookies and other information is allowed to be stored on your computer.

Google's SafeBrowsing API is used to blacklist known malicious sites.

Mr. Fette feels Google has the edge when it comes to security.  He states, "I think the biggest advantage that we have is that Chrome is the first browser built from scratch after bad guys started exploiting other browsers.  We've had the luxury of looking at the security problems other browser vendors have had, and designing around those from the very beginning."

While Google Chrome may indeed be more secure, the real question is -- will customers bite?



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Chrome is out of beta now?
By Bateluer on 12/12/2008 10:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe its time I give it a try again then. It was underwhelming a few months ago.




RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/12/2008 10:18:48 AM , Rating: 3
Chrome is out of beta, yet Gmail is still in beta. Hmmm...


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By quiksilvr on 12/12/2008 10:52:51 AM , Rating: 4
A little bird told me that Gmail is coming out of beta in '09.


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By Motoman on 12/12/2008 3:57:46 PM , Rating: 4
Dude...animals don't talk. Drugs are bad, m'kay?


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By mezman on 12/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By Smilin on 12/12/2008 10:22:38 AM , Rating: 4
It had a Day 0 vulnerability too didn't it? Not a horrible thing in prerelease but not good. Now that it's "RTM" I'm going to let the blackhat community pound on it a bit before I mess with it.

Frankly I'm pretty content with the browsers already out there. Firefox is nice and it forced IE to get off it's butt. I'm more excited about the next release of these than Chrome.


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By 9nails on 12/13/2008 9:02:11 AM , Rating: 2
Google Chrome didn't have a vulnerability - they spun that and said it was WebKit's fault.

quote:
Frankly I'm pretty content with the browsers already out there. Firefox is nice and it forced IE to get off it's butt. I'm more excited about the next release of these than Chrome.


Now that's the truth! Both Firefox and IE fresh off the download are fairly useless. Browsers need 3rd party before they're useful. But Chrome, even more so. Until an API are well matured with add-on applications and Extensions I'm going to stick with Firefox. Kudo's to them for developing a nice browser, but I get the same web pages and some pretty slick features from the competitors.


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By icanhascpu on 12/12/2008 11:09:28 AM , Rating: 2
imo no browser made today really does what I thought we'd have today. Everything seems to have just halted, and things like tabbed browsing are extreemly rare. Every tiny thing is copied instantly across all browsers, yet poor publishers are stuck with the BS of the subtle rendering differances between each contributing to page bloat.

Its like we are stuck in time for the last fire years and everyone can only focus on security. And we all like our security, dont get me wrong, but what about innovation?

IE: The Average Joe
FF: Plugins!
Opera: Tight code and Fast
Chrome: (perhaps) Fantastic security

Why cant i have one broswer, that I can choose a good looking skin for made by a large community, that also has a huge base of plugins, where the core browser is very tightly and beautifully coded, thats secure, stable, fast.

I use Opera right now. I like how it renders pages. However I hate the fact that the community screams abotu how you can change some obscure option that gives me shit for functionality when i want a FF like plugin.


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By Screwballl on 12/12/2008 2:51:17 PM , Rating: 5
Is there only one OS completely customizable to your taste? Not everyone wants to learn linux coding, so they use prepackaged setups like Ubuntu or Windows or OSX,

Is there only one music playing software? Is there only one image editing software package? People are different and want different things so they base their decisions on what works best for them.

Some are happy with GIMP over Photoshop just from the money standpoint. Some are happy with Songbird (my preference) over Winamp or itunes or WMP.

I like my addons and prefer Firefox which is skinnable and works fast, even on my AthlonXP machine. With my FEBE addon, I can backup my extensions and use them on any of my machines regardless of OS. I also use a bookmark sync program on my local LAN to keep my bookmarks synced on multiple systems, regardless of OS.


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By Kelthuron on 12/12/2008 3:12:30 PM , Rating: 3
For a person who calls him (or herself) "Screwballl" you sure do make more sense than most people I've seen comments from. Someone who actually understands that different people like different things?! ON THE INTERNET!?!? I never thought I'd see the day. I'd rate you up if I could.


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By icanhascpu on 12/15/2008 8:11:41 AM , Rating: 2
I don't agree that its that simple. Windows vs. OS X for example is a huge difference where each application of most given procedures is more of less the same end with a different means.

With browsers today its not like that. The only real difference in taste should be how a browser renders a page, not fully lacking something like addons, or tight code, performance, or security for goodness sake!

Fight now FF is the in-the-know leader due to its addons mainly, its performance secondary and it not being IE along with good rendering ect. Like I said, its the average joe. Its to me, a 5/10 what a browser should be, but seeing as everyone else is 4/10 or less overall its what I choose as well.

You cannot compare it to a music player either. Browsers are so much more than a GUI slapped on a audio codec (or even just a HTML engine).

All in all I think there should be better by now. The biggest advancement in browsing in the last 10 years had been tabs. Come on.


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By Smilin on 12/16/2008 4:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing really that says "fantastic security" about chrome. It's already had many flaws discovered, the new security modes are already available in IE and the rest of it's security amounts to shipping with every useful function turned off.

I think I'm trusting IE and FF on security here. Once you get google reconfigured to have the same features it faceplants on security IMO.

..

In some contradiction to myself it looks like IE got popped with a big one here recently. We'll see how fast MS can get it fixed...I'm betting faster than Google.


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By Smilin on 12/17/2008 4:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
9 days to write a fix, test it and roll it out. Yeah, I'll stick with FF or IE. Google is still figuring how to do this whole software thing.


RE: Chrome is out of beta now?
By BZDTemp on 12/13/2008 10:25:14 AM , Rating: 3
Only if adblock and flashblock is available like in Firefox. The other day I had to use a customer computer with only IE and the amount of ads is bad. The years with adblock and flashblock have totally left me spoiled and there is no going back.


Excellent performance
By subhajit on 12/12/2008 11:12:49 AM , Rating: 4
I have been using the non beta for few hours and the rendering speed is really fast (even without a adblock). Specially the image rendering. This is one area where IE really sucks (Even the new version 8 is nowhere near Firefox, Opera). How come even such a new browser as Chrome does so much better than IE?




RE: Excellent performance
By subhajit on 12/12/2008 11:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
And the biggest negative. Its ridiculously memory hungry. 5 open tabs and it takes around 150 MB ram.


RE: Excellent performance
By JoshuaBuss on 12/12/2008 12:40:09 PM , Rating: 3
why is that bad? do you have something against using your ram?


RE: Excellent performance
By inighthawki on 12/12/2008 1:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well, many home users, last i checked, don't have 4GB of ram with tons to spare. A lot of people have 256MB and 512MB still, so 150MB of that is a pretty huge chunk.


RE: Excellent performance
By rudolphna on 12/12/2008 8:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
then it gets stored in pagefile.


RE: Excellent performance
By subhajit on 12/12/2008 4:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
No, it actually shows some lack of optimization. Browsers are the kind of software which should run well on computers with limited resource. Something like a netbook with 512 MB ram. You don't want something as basic as browsing to be resource hungry. The new Firefox has improved a lot in this area. Also I normally like Google softwares/apps because they are lean and fast with great usability. So it is a bit surprising to me.


RE: Excellent performance
By bob332 on 12/13/2008 5:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
code the mofo in asm.......


RE: Excellent performance
By Fanon on 12/12/2008 2:12:02 PM , Rating: 1
Close a tab and get that RAM back instantly. Try that in Firefox and you'll be disappointed.


RE: Excellent performance
By Screwballl on 12/12/2008 2:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try that in Firefox and you'll be disappointed.


then there must be something wrong with your system or FF install. If I close a content rich tab in Firefox memory usage drops. For example right now with all my addons and fire.fm playing music, it shows ~100MB used, even with 4-5 tabs open I typically never see over 120MB used from Firefox. It always sits from 80-120MB unless a website is not optimized properly and it may cause a memory leak but that is almost non-existent anymore since the FF3 release.


RE: Excellent performance
By Fanon on 12/12/2008 7:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you'll see RAM usage drop; I didn't say it wouldn't. Firefox will not give you back all the RAM for a tab when you close it.

Each tab in Chrome runs in its own process. Kill the tab, kill the process and get all the RAM back. I haven't tested this in IE8, but I assume it'll be the same type of thing because it, too, runs each tab in its own process.


RE: Excellent performance
By Etsp on 12/13/2008 1:38:13 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to be somewhat confused....Putting the tab in it's own process has the benefit of, in the event of a memory leak, getting the memory back that was leaked by that tab.

If there are no memory leaks in a program, then it would be perfectly able to destroy an object(like, a tab) and recover all memory. However, if there was a memory leak, then the garbage-collecting algorithms won't release that memory, and so it will be forgotten by the application, but not the operating system.

Killing the process releases all memory used by that process, period. That is the benefit of Chrome's tabs over Firefox's tabs.

The advantage is only in the event of a memory leak.


Sandboxing
By Spivonious on 12/12/2008 10:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
IE7 does sandboxing if you're running it on Vista. It's called "Protected Mode".

Has Google ever come up with an original idea?




RE: Sandboxing
By cochy on 12/12/2008 10:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
As if IE7 was the first technology to use sandboxing?
As far as I know Chrome was the first browser to integrate a search box into the address box, a feature I kind of like.


RE: Sandboxing
By icrf on 12/12/2008 10:49:50 AM , Rating: 4
You mean like Opera has done since before Firefox existed as a brand?


RE: Sandboxing
By LRonaldHubbs on 12/12/2008 11:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, Opera definitely had that feature first. I also find it to be more useful in Opera since it lets you start your query with a single letter to indicate the search engine you want it to use.

To those who didn't know about this...for example, the query 'y bailout' will return Yahoo! results for the word bailout, 'w UAW' will return wikipedia results for the acronym UAW, and 'e GM' will return ebay results for GM. Ask, Amazon, and BitTorrent all also supported as defaults in Opera. Chrome, at least with default settings, only searches with Google when you use the URL box search.


RE: Sandboxing
By imperator3733 on 12/12/2008 6:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
In Chrome, if you go to a website with a search box and search for something, you can later type the first few letters of the URL, then press tab, and then type your query. It's super easy to do and you don't have to mess with any settings or use a mouse.


RE: Sandboxing
By foolsgambit11 on 12/12/2008 7:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but I can never get it to work with Wikipedia. It either doesn't remember I've searched the site, or it's something about the 'en.' on it, or the search function is on a different server, I don't know.... But Chrome gets confused.


RE: Sandboxing
By imperator3733 on 12/12/2008 8:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
Type "en.wikipedia.org" and search the site. From then on, start typing "en.wikipedia.org" then press tab and type your query. I think there may be trouble if you search from the www.wikipedia.org address (although I just tried searching from wikipedia.org and it worked fine for me...). Try using the 'en.' address.


RE: Sandboxing
By Spivonious on 12/12/2008 1:04:57 PM , Rating: 1
It was the first browser to do so, AFAIK.


RE: Sandboxing
By Smilin on 12/16/2008 4:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. IE did this one first (protected mode)

The "search from the address bar" was also done by IE and FF first although while still in beta. Google gets the credit for doing this one first I guess.


Opera FTW
By voodooboy on 12/12/2008 10:29:51 AM , Rating: 1
I'll take Opera any day of the week. Opera just needs to add a Firefox "Live Bookmark" like feature into it (I don't like the RSS reader built into Opera), give an option to not install stuff like the built-in mail/torrent client etc. and it's the perfect browser for me.

And for those occasional websites that don't play nice with it (and the "Browser Identification" feature doesn't do the trick) , I have trusty old Firefox to fall back on.

And with MS having improved leaps and bounds with IE8 (I actually don't HATE using IE this time around), I don't see the need for Chrome.




RE: Opera FTW
By icrf on 12/12/2008 11:08:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a long time Opera user, and I have to admit, Chrome feels faster. Opera seems like it is less aggressive in its cacheing than it used to be, which probably means it's respecting the "no-cache" requests from sites. I always liked the fact that it ignored them. Browsing was fast and lazy web devs and ad mongers didn't encroach too much to be a problem.

What keeps me with Opera are the mouse gestures. If Chrome had Opera style mouse gestures, I'd jump ship, despite being a proponent of Opera since 2001 or so. Firefox has two plug-ins for gestures, and neither work quite the same (hence, quite "right").


RE: Opera FTW
By voodooboy on 12/12/2008 2:54:56 PM , Rating: 1
Have you tried the Opera 10 alpha? I think it's really fast; as fast as Chrome (if not faster).


RE: Opera FTW
By icrf on 12/13/2008 8:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
Haven't yet, still on 9.6x. I suppose it's about time I upgraded all my browsers. ChrRTM, FF3, Op10A, IE8B. I've given up on Safari and figure since Chrome is WebKit, I don't have to worry about it for testing.


RE: Opera FTW
By Reclaimer77 on 12/13/2008 4:12:42 PM , Rating: 3
I can't believe all these people saying they use Opera. Unless you are a Linux supremist or a fool, there is no reason to use it.

Different doesn't mean better.


RE: Opera FTW
By icrf on 12/14/2008 6:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think that's called a "difference of opinion." If it is actually different, why are you so surprised that some people prefer it?


RE: Opera FTW
By Veerappan on 12/15/2008 9:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
Reasons for me: Stability and speed.

I don't have root on my work machine, and they've got Firefox 2.x installed. It's a 64-bit Sparc Solaris 10 box. Firefox 2.x locks up my window manager on a weekly basis, Opera doesn't. Opera allows you to download/install it into a user's home directory. Opera wins for me at work based on stability/installability alone.

Also, since we've got Firefox 2.x, and not 3 (which I use daily at home), Opera is actually quite a bit faster than Firefox at work (20-30 open tabs, 1GB system RAM). I haven't attempted to compile/install Firefox 3 at work yet, but with Opera I didn't have to. They supplied a tarball w/ a binary and installer that I could install myself without needing to compile.

I love Firefox, and use it all the time at home, but on my work machine it's no contest. If I had root access to the machine, it might make a difference (I could update the machine to the latest version of FF), but I don't, so it doesn't.


Google Chrome
By 2bdetermine on 12/12/2008 4:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Talking about security, why is Google Chrome install in Users\[UserName]\AppData... folder?

I'm going back to IE.




RE: Google Chrome
By foolsgambit11 on 12/12/2008 8:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why not? It's more secure than x:\Program Files. My Chrome install didn't throw up a UI prompt on Vista. That's how little access the program needs, even on install.


RE: Google Chrome
By 2bdetermine on 12/12/2008 10:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
Short answer, security.

What kind of a program that doesn't tell you where it install.

Google Chrome sound like a hacker best friend.


RE: Google Chrome
By jonmcc33 on 12/13/2008 12:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
Never used Linux I take it? How many programs can you install to your Home folder there?


RE: Google Chrome
By Veerappan on 12/15/2008 9:14:13 AM , Rating: 2
As was mentioned in other replies, it's a good thing that Chrome can install into the user profile instead of system-wide. Opera can do the same thing (and I'm hoping Firefox can too). The Opera install I've got on my Solaris 10 machine at work installed into a user-owned folder of my choosing, without needing root access.

In my case at work, it meant that I could install a web browser of my choosing for my work purposes. The Firefox installation that is on my work machine is a Firefox 2.x install. It's pretty slow and not completely stable. I can't say the same about Opera, which I installed myself under my user's home directory, and since which I haven't had my X session lock up a single time (which happened weekly with Firefox 2.x).

If I couldn't install the browser into my home directory, I'd be stuck on Firefox 2.x, and would still have to borrow a terminal from a co-worker every week to SSH into my machine to kill my X process.


Chrome on Incognito Mode
By CurseTheSky on 12/12/2008 1:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome's tips about Incognito Mode:

Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of:

Websites that collect or share information about you
Ok, valid point...

Internet service providers or employers that track the pages you visit
So basically, you're warning people they could still get caught browsing porn at work? What other way are you supposed to take that sentence?

Malicious software that tracks your keystrokes in exchange for free smileys
Smileys? Why so specific?

Surveillance by secret agents
...

People standing behind you
Reminds me of a quote from bash.org...




RE: Chrome on Incognito Mode
By Plague421 on 12/12/2008 2:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
I was under the impression that incognito mode was simply so you could browse the web without it saving any history.

So you could browse the pr0n at home, but the wife or mother (lol) wouldn't see it in the history.

Is this incorrect?


RE: Chrome on Incognito Mode
By diego10arg on 12/12/2008 6:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I use it for.
And I love it.

LOL


RE: Chrome on Incognito Mode
By Hoser McMoose on 12/15/2008 8:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
I browse in Porn Mode 24/7... just in case :)


As long as...
By BigToque on 12/12/2008 10:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
The extra security is great, as long as it doesn't affect the browsing experience.

I just started using AdBlock and NoScript on Firefox, but I honestly find NoScript to be a pain in the ass. Every site I go to I have to spend a few seconds deciding if I should whitelist it. Then I have to decide if the other sites with code being run on the page are also safe to whitelist.

It's a great idea, and I use it because the alternative of not using it is worse; however, I tried getting my mom and sister to use it and you can imagine how well that went over...




RE: As long as...
By CurseTheSky on 12/12/2008 12:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't find ads anywhere near as bad as they were 2-3 years ago. When I used to click on a site and get five pop-ups at a time, it was a problem. When a flash ad scrolled across my screen and made it very difficult to find the close button, it was a problem. It seemed like nearly every site - even the large corporate ones - were like that.

Now that most sites just have a few banners here and there and the occasional semi-intrusive / annoying flash piece, I don't mind as much. AdBlock was ok, but it really didn't seem necessary for me.

NoScript, on the other hand, is great in concept, but I had it installed for all of 10 minutes before I couldn't take it anymore.


RE: As long as...
By Yames on 12/15/2008 2:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
Just this page: 15 sites running 53 scripts; this may increase as those sites may open others.

I will take the small pain in the arse for the security. An add on CNN from a third party could contain a nasty script. I have seen it happen, "But I was only visiting trusted sites."

You can always use the Temporarily Allow All Of This Page if you are having problems with the page.


Adblock for Chrome?
By Bateluer on 12/12/2008 10:49:13 AM , Rating: 3
Does it exist?




RE: Adblock for Chrome?
By Fanon on 12/12/2008 2:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, although not in a form most would like. Private proxy.


By Sunrise089 on 12/12/2008 10:21:57 AM , Rating: 2
Browsers are free, and Firefox 3 is extremely good. Therefore Chrome finds itself in a difficult position - it's neither cheaper nor obviously better than IE. Therefore there is little incentive for people to take the time to install and familiarize themselves with a new browser.




By fishbits on 12/12/2008 11:38:26 AM , Rating: 1
"it's neither cheaper nor obviously better than IE"

Eh, I'd rate Chrome as "obviously better" than IE 7. Much faster, better tabs, better auto-complete, fewer crashes (for me, by far), seperate processes. IE 8? Haven't tried yet. I like Chrome better than Firefox 2 as well (I'm not yet big into plug-ins).

I'll try the newer versions of Chrome's competitors, but the point is that for now there are many users for whom Chrome would be an objective and/or subjective improvement. If the security is best-in-class, then that's yet another factor in Chrome's favor.


Extensions...
By Suomynona on 12/12/2008 11:52:25 AM , Rating: 3
Chrome is fast and has some great features, but it's not going anywhere without supporting extensions. I would switch immediately if it did.




No Google Toolbar Yet
By EntreHoras on 12/12/2008 11:04:11 AM , Rating: 2
Chrome is out of Beta... but no toolbar yet. Please Google, integrate your stuff already!!




"will customers bite?"
By mechBgon on 12/12/2008 11:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
Will customers bite? Well, will Chrome be centrally manageable, enforcable, auditable, updatable and configurable like IE7, IE6 and IE5 are, using Group Policy, WSUS and Baseline Security Analyzer? It may not seem like a major concern to the SOHO user with just a few computers, but that's not the only market out there. ;)




No real advantage
By mfed3 on 12/12/2008 1:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
The whole thing here with Chrome is that it really is fast as hell. Blows Firefox 3 and IE7 out of the water in pure rendering speed. For the average user, this is a great thing. I can see people liking it better than Firefox and never going back.

However, for more technical people, Firefox's real advantage over any browser is its customizability and extensibility with add-ons like ad remover plus etc. From a lot of testing and experience, FF3 is truly no faster or stable than IE, and still doesnt render all pages as they were intended to look, whether or not they abide by web standards.

Personally, I will probably end up using IE8 when it comes to release because it has all the great new features under the hood that are mentioned here about chrome (each tab in a separate process, faster javascript rendering engine, "ghost" mode, and standards compliant rendering.)

On the other hand, there really is no reason to fight for or care about what browser anybody uses. Pick your poison and stfu. We dont need evangelists trying to convince each other what browser to hate or love based on the community or company behind it.

I just hope everyone has learned their lesson about web standards and that we will continue see more great tech developed for the web of the future.




Using it right now
By nevermore781 on 12/12/2008 1:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
I actually like chrome a lot. Its decently fast, renders pretty quick too, js engine could use a little more work as minefield and opera 10 seem faster. I actually have all the browsers on this machine (ie8, chrome, minefield, ff3, opera 10a) and i keep coming back to chrome. I also love how small of a address/title bar chrome uses. It really seems to maximize the viewing space.




Awesome Browser
By Quiescent on 12/12/2008 11:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
Again, I praise for this product. I've been using it since it was talked about the first time on here. I wanted to find a browser for my EeePC that was compact but was easy to navigate through all it's features. This meant that I also did not want to use right click to get to File and whatnot.

Now I even use it on my Desktop. The speed for websites is amazing. Overtime RAM usage is also a BIG plus.

I had an uptime of 8 weeks on my EeePC and had about 10 tabs in Chrome open constantly. This is something to say, considering the problems I had keeping only 3 tabs open constantly in Firefox of any version. My browsing usage would make Firefox eat more RAM over time, and if I were to use it within that 8 week period, I would probably have to restart Firefox 8 times.

To be honest, I would only complain about not having an addon for blocking ads. But only for my EeePC, since the intelligent use of pixels are desperately needed, and not having ads almost as big as my resolution take up the whole screen! Otherwise - no problem, because the ads do not hinder Chrome from loading.

Every time I use firefox, I feel kind of weird using the google search bar at the right, instead of my address bar like I normally do now. I like how it is integrated and even makes suggestions.

And to top it all off: I use The Pirate Bay and Demonoid frequently, and obviously I'm still here, so stop worrying about the FBI or someone else knocking on your door about doing some illegal crap because Google Chrome sees what you're doing!

Another thing that is neither a good thing nor a bad thing is the GoogleUpdate.exe. I do not like it because it's an extra process running constantly. But the good thing is is since I am very picky about how I want my windows to lay out as (Explorer Windows, Google Chrome, Notepad, Calculator, Pidgin, etc) If I were to have to kill Google Chrome just to update, then I would have to close everything after it so I can keep the order of my windows. With this process running, I don't have to worry about it.

Really, I haven't really felt secure enough to install it on my parent's computer, but for my use, I enjoy it, and I recommend it for people who are smart enough NOT TO GO TO WEBSITES THAT ARE LIKELY SUSPICIOUS. kthx




What I want
By henkten on 12/13/2008 11:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome sounds good, I think I'll try it out- but what I'll like to try out more is that sweet Spanish hottie in that t-shirt.





When all is said and done.....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: When all is said and done.....
By austinag on 12/12/2008 10:54:48 AM , Rating: 5
you keep the shirt, I'll take its occupant.


RE: When all is said and done.....
By voodooboy on 12/12/2008 11:28:44 AM , Rating: 5
occupant(s).. ;)


RE: When all is said and done.....
By JS on 12/12/2008 12:15:12 PM , Rating: 5
Cut the "Go" part, and the t-shirt suddenly tells you what to do!


RE: When all is said and done.....
By theplaidfad on 12/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: When all is said and done.....
By Spivonious on 12/12/2008 1:05:44 PM , Rating: 5
A very feminine man...


RE: When all is said and done.....
By theplaidfad on 12/12/08, Rating: -1
By DeepBlue1975 on 12/13/2008 10:12:38 PM , Rating: 1
Of course... You take the breasts out, the long hair, the vagina, and the x chromosome, and voilà: there you have your man.

This procedure works on every girl I know... No kidding.


RE: When all is said and done.....
By shaw on 12/12/2008 3:50:42 PM , Rating: 5
Kinda like Morgan Webb.


RE: When all is said and done.....
By austinag on 12/12/2008 5:49:04 PM , Rating: 5
Ahh, poor Morgan. Be nice to her. it's glandular.

BTW G4 is absolutly worthless. Bring back TechTV!!!


RE: When all is said and done.....
By Souka on 12/12/2008 12:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
So who can find the original pic of that girl?

T-Shirt looks added on... wonder if a nudie pic or other?

Hmmm....


RE: When all is said and done.....
By Screwballl on 12/12/2008 2:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
first one I found was at http://blog.extroverthost.com/
with the directory listing of 2008/06/02252006_google_girl.jpg which means it was edited or taken sometime in 2006.
which leads me to this original posting on seopedia but they do not allow hotlinking (anymore)....
http://www.seopedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/02...

Looking at the dates of when the rest were posted, it seems the seopedia was an original host or at least the earliest source found.... no other information found so far on who exactly she is...


RE: When all is said and done.....
By Lord 666 on 12/12/2008 3:04:25 PM , Rating: 4
Can you tell me who killed JFK?


RE: When all is said and done.....
By 9nails on 12/13/2008 8:53:32 AM , Rating: 4
That was Professor Plum, in the Library, with the Candle Stick.


RE: When all is said and done.....
By pwnsweet on 12/14/2008 9:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
Best.Movie.Ever


RE: When all is said and done.....
By Souka on 12/12/2008 3:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
awesome find man.

How did you manage it?


RE: When all is said and done.....
By nerdboy on 12/12/2008 3:52:19 PM , Rating: 5
Duh he googled it


By Screwballl on 12/12/2008 4:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Duh he googled it


exactly... if you know how and where you can find most anything specific...
just work your way down through the dated listings


RE: When all is said and done.....
By tastyratz on 12/12/2008 6:56:45 PM , Rating: 5
its official.

Dailytech poster = people who REALLY need to get some.


RE: When all is said and done.....
By Bookworm777 on 12/14/2008 12:45:11 AM , Rating: 5
The young lady in question is Melissa Puente, Playboy CyberGirl of the week, November 24th, 2003.

You're welcome!


RE: When all is said and done.....
By tyson766 on 12/16/2008 2:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, thats who she is. Original picture (SFW) can be seen here
http://www2.bnbabes.com/Protected_Sub/images/PL_Me...
along with lots of NSFW ones.


RE: When all is said and done.....
By Jellodyne on 12/12/2008 5:55:03 PM , Rating: 5
Looking for the "I'm feeling lucky" button?


RE: When all is said and done.....
By Iger on 12/15/2008 5:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh, that's the 6!


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki