Google Chrome Browser

[Swilly]

Funk said:

Swilly said:

I'm chroming..... have i just invented that term

It is spell checking this as i type too

Something Firefox has done for ages..!

I use FF3 but have not noticed that...

On a seperate note, im assuming it will be possible to change the skin....

Im not an IT geek like you guys so such things take me longer to figure out

[dilbert]

It lasted 20 mins for me.

You can google in the URL edit box, but you can't Wiki without going through Google like you can in IE, and FF.

A bigger window is nice, and it's simple which is also nice (way better than all those IE options), the analysis tool is nice too, but the search thing, that's just too simple for me. There's no spell check either!

I also noticed some visual bugs, in the browser pane, but I suppose it's still in beta so it's forgivable, especially compared with IE7 when that was beta (seemed more like alpha)!!!!

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 3rd September 08:51

[Chris Type R]

dilbert said:

It lasted 20 mins for me.
There's no spell check either!

Spull chek seeems to werk for me.

[_dobbo_]

The good stuff under the surface is interesting but if that's all Chrome brings to the table then it isn't enough.

For me the ad blocker and lack of other essential plugins will prevent me using it. If/when they become available, I'll maybe revisit chrome.

By which time I'd imagine Mozilla will have added per process tabs to firefox!

[dilbert]

Chris Type R said:

dilbert said:

It lasted 20 mins for me.
There's no spell check either!

Spull chek seeems to werk for me.

I didn't look that hard, so maybe it did.
I'm not quite sure how I'd manage without a spellcheck in IE.

[clonmult]

Just tried this at work - it requires XP SP2 or Vista. Works laptop is restricted to XP SP1

[Muncher]

Mouse middle click for scrolling didn't seem to work.

[_dobbo_]

Nice to see the same clause in the EULA that Pistonheads tried to introduce and quickly had to remove because of the screams of protest.

Chrome EULA said:

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

[beanbag]

_dobbo_ said:

Nice to see the same clause in the EULA that Pistonheads tried to introduce and quickly had to remove because of the screams of protest.

Chrome EULA said:

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

That's an unequivocal no use policy for my system them.

Welcome back firefox!

[69 coupe]

It's Okay, faster than ie7, not sold on it yet, had it lockup a few times.
I think the Chrome has some pitting.
Needs more polish

[Mr Will]

Just fired it up for testing here and have not used it enough to form a definate view yet, but my first outstanding impression is that it is really effing fast (on PH on my machine at least)

[pikey]

What's with all this negativity? It's great! A significant step forward that raises the bar for the other main players.

I suggest people who've tried it for 20 minutes, had a glance and decided it's crap try it for a little longer.

Have a read of this http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/ - it's a very different browser.

[pikey]

Mr Will said:

Just fired it up for testing here and have not used it enough to form a definate view yet, but my first outstanding impression is that it is really effing fast (on PH on my machine at least)

Effing fast on mine too!

[J111]

pikey said:

What's with all this negativity? It's great! A significant step forward that raises the bar for the other main players.

I suggest people who've tried it for 20 minutes, had a glance and decided it's crap try it for a little longer.

Why ? The EULA throws 'don't be evil' to the wolves, and it'll be a while before there are add-ons which make it anything like as good to use as Firefox. Yes it's faster, and the tab separation would be great, if it worked, but it doesn't. A Javascript or Flash crash brings the whole browser down every bit as comprehensively as it does in FF.

[xiphias]

Having not tried it yet as I'm Mac based, I am intrigued by the way tabs are individual processes - I have quite a few issues where one flash script brings the entire os almost to a halt and I can't close the specific tab I know is causing it.

Anyone know if it has passed the Acid2 test?

[pikey]

J111 said:

... the tab separation would be great, if it worked, but it doesn't. A Javascript or Flash crash brings the whole browser down every bit as comprehensively as it does in FF.

Hence beta testing - those features work faultlessly on mine (Vista SP1)

[ginettag27]

pikey said:

What's with all this negativity? It's great! A significant step forward that raises the bar for the other main players.

I suggest people who've tried it for 20 minutes, had a glance and decided it's crap try it for a little longer.

Have a read of this http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/ - it's a very different browser.

It can't do what I want it to do, therefore I've dropped it, if it alters in the future I may look at it again... That's not being negative that's being realistic! I like some of the innovative features, the layout is interesting, but I've got FF 3.0 installed and have a couple of add-ons that I just can't do without now. Google knew about the existence of FF add-ons before launching so why not crib some of those and include the more popular ones? An oversight IMHO.

[beanbag]

xiphias said:

Having not tried it yet as I'm Mac based, I am intrigued by the way tabs are individual processes - I have quite a few issues where one flash script brings the entire os almost to a halt and I can't close the specific tab I know is causing it.

Anyone know if it has passed the Acid2 test?

It passes it 100%, but that's unsurprising since it uses WebKit for page rendering.

I'm checking Acid 3, but the website seems to be down right now....

Acid 3 update! I just scored 76/100 in the test.

Edited by beanbag on Wednesday 3rd September 12:57

[pikey]

ginettag27 said:

Google knew about the existence of FF add-ons before launching so why not crib some of those and include the more popular ones? An oversight IMHO.

I did think that. Perhaps it's an early beta characteristic - ie. just include the basics at this stage?

[JohnnyPanic]

pikey said:

ginettag27 said:

Google knew about the existence of FF add-ons before launching so why not crib some of those and include the more popular ones? An oversight IMHO.

I did think that. Perhaps it's an early beta characteristic - ie. just include the basics at this stage?

Yep a lot of people seem to be forgetting that it's a BETA! It's much better than a lot of beta software I've tried in the past.

As for the add-ons (genuine question here) - how many that people use are provided by FF and how many by third party developers? Given that the beta of chrome was only released yesterday I think the thirdy parties should be given a little bit of time to do their dev! These are the kind of people the beta is for I think. It's not ready for full release and to take on the major browsers yet, because, well ... it's not ready!