View Full Version : have you tried google chrome?
i just posted this about google chrome on another forum:
i tried it yesterday but uninstalled it, and after uninstalling it googleupdater was still running so i deleted its folder and stopped the process. the browser had no settings to disable javascript and such as i could see and almost no features, i know it is a beta but this was not good.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
read asap!
thanks for sharing:)
what kind of "terms of service" is that? :flame:
as i said google updater was running after uninstalling chrome and that is unacceptable. i am about to change my startpage to something else than google.
drragostea
2008-09-04, 01:00
Chrome sounds a little shifty, and sneaky after reading the article...
What do they mean when they say provide the content that you submit through their services? What kind of content?
For sure there is a lot of debate about the Privacy policy and License.
Of immediate concern is the vulnerability discovered by researcher Aviv Raff (http://aviv.raffon.net/) shortly after the release of Chrome.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html?tag=mncol;posts
privacy concerns have been addressed!
Think about it. Why would anyone bother to make another browser today, especially one that's just another varient of an existing one at its base?
The only reason I can come up with is they want control of all the information either provided, selected or entered by the user. With Google's already questionable history with respect to privacy, I'm not seeing any valid reason to install another potential set of vulnerabilities, no matter how pretty or fast it might seem.
It's always easy to make a faster browser, just take out half the features and protection, anyone can do it using the Mozilla source in an afternoon.
Guess how I just voted above.
Bitman
i have also noticed that the more i visit a link on the google search results (in ie7) the higher up in the search results they get, it is boring to get the same results everytime, i want to see new sites and not they i visit the most all the time (wikipedia is great anyway:)) i like the google translate service but the search engine is getting boring.
It's always easy to make a faster browser, just take out half the features and protection i am sure this browser gets many security holes. not everyone wish to use flash, java and javascript all the time either. the browser was ugly too.
Think about it. Why would anyone bother to make another browser today, especially one that's just another varient of an existing one at its base?
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9114004
:spider:
spybotsandra
2008-09-05, 11:21
Hello,
We have got a fresh news article on our homepage:
http://www.safer-networking.org/en/news/2008-09-03.html
Best regards
Sandra
Team Spybot
i have an annoying problem, i have always used www.google.no as startpage and have forgotten that www.google.com has more features, it also has more results than www.google.no even when searching on all languages on both sometimes. right now i changed from www.google.no to www.google.com but when opening ie7 i get redirected to www.google.no instead and must click on the "get google in english" to get to the english one, but when deleting my cookies i get redirected to www.google.no again. how do i stop this redirect? i dont get redirected from www.yahoo.com to no.yahoo.com when using www.yahoo.com
do google expect that we store cookies forever to make this working?
I recommend that if you want to try out Google Crome, you should try the unofficial portable version by Carsten Knobloch first :)
Blog post: http://stadt-bremerhaven.de/2008/09/03/portable-chrome-021510/
Download: http://majorgeeks.com/Portable_Google_Chrome_d6041.html
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9114004
:spider:
Though I agree with the article's premise that we're quickly moving towards Web based computing for the masses, I don't believe another browser will have any impact, no matter how much it might enhance the local abilities.
The reason is that to remove the Operating System, you need hardware, a browser alone won't do it. Google might hope that other vendors will adopt their browser, but it's much more likely they'll do the same themselves and create another proprietary browser from the Mozilla base.
It might work as a development strategy though, since they can use the Windows platform as a development base and then eventually remove the need for it. If they could then be in a position to partner with hardware manufacturers they could compete to provide an already functional portable browser.
Personally, I'd expected to see all of the game consoles provide a browser, since these systems are actually much more powerful than most PCs of their generation. For many these would be sufficient to replace their daily use of a PC for email, online personal business and other web based functions.
In a completely home use scenario, where business apps like Word/Excel are rarely needed, the PC is already basically pointless, all most really need is a good browser. I'm already there myself and have been for almost two years, since I only use Office for business purposes, mostly on my laptop.
The missing component here though is a media engine, since getting Adobe Reader (PDF), Video Streaming and at least viewers for most major apps from Office, etc. will also be a requirement for success. You don't need to provide a full featured Office suite or media player, but people will expect to read what comes attached to an email or view their online media. These are other components that come bundled in the OS now or as add-ons that won't be so easy on a closed platform, as the smartphones have already proven.
This is why I believe the first step will be the evolution of other more closed platforms like the gaming consoles, followed by the development of the high-end digital HDTV market which already contains a display. The 'PC' [dedicated display engine with browser] itself is really quite cheap to build if it doesn't require a hard drive (little to no local storage), case or power supply, since these could be provided by the HDTV. It would probably cost less than $100 and could likely perform the control functions for the TV itself, further reducing cost.
I agree that at least 90% of tasks done on computers is web surfing, and with online office suites like Zoho and Google Docs, im increasingly doing everything online. I would love to have a computer that just included a browser, no need for anything else. The problem is, rather than having to buy and upgrade hardware, internet infrastructure becomes the driving factor of speed.
Thinking about it, most things I do on my pc, you can do on the internet - email, instant messaging, documents, image editing
I agree that at least 90% of tasks done on computers is web surfing, and with online office suites like Zoho and Google Docs, im increasingly doing everything online. I would love to have a computer that just included a browser, no need for anything else. The problem is, rather than having to buy and upgrade hardware, internet infrastructure becomes the driving factor of speed.
Thinking about it, most things I do on my pc, you can do on the internet - email, instant messaging, documents, image editing
Out of curiosity, what would you need the online Office suites for? Though I still use this for business, for which I can't use an online service due to security concerns, I have no personal use since email has basically replaced it.
Items like document creation and image editing would be the least useful online due to both performance and possibly privacy. Most everything else is entirely Internet driven anyway, so a client (browser) is all you need.
The average home user doesn't do much editing of either documents or images beyond their personal picture library, which could probably be done with an applet. Most also don't need more than a Wordpad equivalent for document creation like fliers or the kids homework, Office is overkill, so this could be an applet too.
Note that this removes much of the attackable surface from the client as well as the full-featured OS, so there wouldn't be much left worth attacking anyway. The largest concern would become redirection or man-in-the-middle attacks to grab personal info, which already exist today, so browser vulnerability and update would still be important.
Bitman
Lol,I must be the only one who's never heard of Google Chrome before...
Lol,I must be the only one who's never heard of Google Chrome before...
:funny:
How was life living under that rock? :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh:
Not so good.The only thing there to eat was moss. :D:
drragostea
2008-09-08, 23:54
Except one day, Zenobia spots chocolate. :D:
:laugh: :laugh:
Not so good.The only thing there to eat was moss. :D:
LOL :funny:
...and doesn't share any with drragostea. :D:
maybe this is interesting for someone:
"Google fixes Chrome vulnerabilities--but won't say which"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10035004-83.html
drragostea
2008-09-11, 00:05
I do not know the advanced portions and the workings of Chrome, but I do have a general idea of how it works.
I feel it is Chrome is shady... I mean Mozilla, Opera, and Internet Explorer is enough, but why squeeze your way into the browser traffic when there's more than enough?
Chrome is still in it's early stages, so I'll bet it won't be any more "safer" or "developed" as Safari.
-
Zenobia, where's my almond chocolate?