Google Chrome Browser
Discussion
Funk said:
_dobbo_ said:
I only installed it to see how some of my websites render.
The fact that without asking it's installed an updater which is now relentlessly trying to get out to the internet does not bode well. Why does the updater need to run in the background at all times - why not just run when it launches like Firefox does?
You've just caused me to check my running processes and what do I find there....? Yup, googleupdater.exe! This is despite having closed and uninstalled the browser entirely. The fact that without asking it's installed an updater which is now relentlessly trying to get out to the internet does not bode well. Why does the updater need to run in the background at all times - why not just run when it launches like Firefox does?
Christ, just fired up WinPatrol and it's added:
* ActiveX control
* Scheduled Tasks entry
Nasty bit of kit, especially as I'VE UNINSTALLED IT...!
Google Update Task keeps your Google software up to date. If Google Update Task is disabled or stopped, your Google software may not be kept up to date, meaning we can't fix security vulnerabilities that may arise, and features in your Google software may not work. Google Update Task uninstalls itself when there is no Google software using it. It may take a few hours for Google Update to detect it is time to uninstall.
So as Chrome is open source, and therefor can be relatively easily checked to see what it's doing, can I assume google updater is also open source? Doubt it.
I'm not "s
gging it off", it's simply not good enough for me to use it - add in the privacy and copyright concerns and I'd rather use Internet Explorer than Chrome, which is something I never expected to say.
I'm not "s
gging it off", it's simply not good enough for me to use it - add in the privacy and copyright concerns and I'd rather use Internet Explorer than Chrome, which is something I never expected to say.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)
Funnily enough, PH seems to run a lot slower for me on Chrome as opposed to FF3.I appreciate the under-the-bonnet stuff, but the slower performance and lack of add-ons (I juat can't live without mouse gestures now!) mean I'll be sticking to FF for now.
pdV6 said:
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)
Funnily enough, PH seems to run a lot slower for me on Chrome as opposed to FF3.I appreciate the under-the-bonnet stuff, but the slower performance and lack of add-ons (I juat can't live without mouse gestures now!) mean I'll be sticking to FF for now.
Chrome is blimmin' quick on my machine.
It's way faster than FF or Opera.
I like the simple design and think I will stick with this.
The Register said:
Astute Reg readers have pointed out a Chrome condition of service that effectively lets Google use any of your copyrighted material posted to the web via Chrome without paying you a cent.
Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA:
11. Content licence from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that 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 licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence 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.
Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich.
Suppose Google does this to material you have posted that's not yours? No problem. It has a get-out-of-jail card signed by you in section 11.4 of the EULA:
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
But you may be posting material via Chrome to your employer's site and it owns the copyright of anything you create in work time. What then if Google adapts, modifies and distributes it? Your fan has brown stuff all over it but none of it sticks to Google.
Back in 2001, El Reg first revealed how Microsoft's new single sign-on Passport, used for all its web services including Hotmail, also appeared to grab your intellectual property. Microsoft issued a reworded Terms of Use a few days later. Similar land-grabs have been attempted other operators including MySpace, amongst others.
Copyright-sensitive sysadms may banish Chrome from their networks because of this. Google's been asked how it fits in with its general 'Do no evil' ethic but wasn't immediately able to respond - because they're not in their office yet.®
Unistalled now.Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA:
11. Content licence from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that 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 licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence 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.
Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich.
Suppose Google does this to material you have posted that's not yours? No problem. It has a get-out-of-jail card signed by you in section 11.4 of the EULA:
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
But you may be posting material via Chrome to your employer's site and it owns the copyright of anything you create in work time. What then if Google adapts, modifies and distributes it? Your fan has brown stuff all over it but none of it sticks to Google.
Back in 2001, El Reg first revealed how Microsoft's new single sign-on Passport, used for all its web services including Hotmail, also appeared to grab your intellectual property. Microsoft issued a reworded Terms of Use a few days later. Similar land-grabs have been attempted other operators including MySpace, amongst others.
Copyright-sensitive sysadms may banish Chrome from their networks because of this. Google's been asked how it fits in with its general 'Do no evil' ethic but wasn't immediately able to respond - because they're not in their office yet.®
Edited by onlynik on Wednesday 3rd September 17:25
onlynik said:
The Register said:
Astute Reg readers have pointed out a Chrome condition of service that effectively lets Google use any of your copyrighted material posted to the web via Chrome without paying you a cent.
Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA:
11. Content licence from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that 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 licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence 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.
Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich.
Suppose Google does this to material you have posted that's not yours? No problem. It has a get-out-of-jail card signed by you in section 11.4 of the EULA:
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
But you may be posting material via Chrome to your employer's site and it owns the copyright of anything you create in work time. What then if Google adapts, modifies and distributes it? Your fan has brown stuff all over it but none of it sticks to Google.
Back in 2001, El Reg first revealed how Microsoft's new single sign-on Passport, used for all its web services including Hotmail, also appeared to grab your intellectual property. Microsoft issued a reworded Terms of Use a few days later. Similar land-grabs have been attempted other operators including MySpace, amongst others.
Copyright-sensitive sysadms may banish Chrome from their networks because of this. Google's been asked how it fits in with its general 'Do no evil' ethic but wasn't immediately able to respond - because they're not in their office yet.®
Unistalled now.Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA:
11. Content licence from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that 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 licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence 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.
Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich.
Suppose Google does this to material you have posted that's not yours? No problem. It has a get-out-of-jail card signed by you in section 11.4 of the EULA:
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
But you may be posting material via Chrome to your employer's site and it owns the copyright of anything you create in work time. What then if Google adapts, modifies and distributes it? Your fan has brown stuff all over it but none of it sticks to Google.
Back in 2001, El Reg first revealed how Microsoft's new single sign-on Passport, used for all its web services including Hotmail, also appeared to grab your intellectual property. Microsoft issued a reworded Terms of Use a few days later. Similar land-grabs have been attempted other operators including MySpace, amongst others.
Copyright-sensitive sysadms may banish Chrome from their networks because of this. Google's been asked how it fits in with its general 'Do no evil' ethic but wasn't immediately able to respond - because they're not in their office yet.®
Edited by onlynik on Wednesday 3rd September 17:25
To a home user, what does it matter?
If it doesn't matter to you then use Chrome by all means.
If all you are doing is reading websites or posting on forums then it's hardly a big deal. If however you produce content that you upload such as images, movies or music, then it should matter to you a great deal.
Upload an image to flickr? Regardless of the copyright, google now can use it.
Write a post on your blog? Free for google to re-use.
Produce a music track and upload it somewhere? That's the soundtrack to the next google TV ad provided by you, free of charge.
Load some images up to photobox for printing? Those are all google's now.
The point is, regardless of how enforceable it is or how likely it is to happen, google has a motto of "Do no evil". If you don't think annexing millions of peoples copyrighted content for no money breaches this, then you appear to be exactly the target market for chrome.
If all you are doing is reading websites or posting on forums then it's hardly a big deal. If however you produce content that you upload such as images, movies or music, then it should matter to you a great deal.
Upload an image to flickr? Regardless of the copyright, google now can use it.
Write a post on your blog? Free for google to re-use.
Produce a music track and upload it somewhere? That's the soundtrack to the next google TV ad provided by you, free of charge.
Load some images up to photobox for printing? Those are all google's now.
The point is, regardless of how enforceable it is or how likely it is to happen, google has a motto of "Do no evil". If you don't think annexing millions of peoples copyrighted content for no money breaches this, then you appear to be exactly the target market for chrome.
Edited by _dobbo_ on Wednesday 3rd September 18:21
It's OK so far. It seems to load pages and images faster than FF 3. If you're a bit of tab monster like me and regularly have 10+ tabs open then I believe it will end up using more memory than firefox due to the way each tab has a separate process.
I'll only start using it when it does ad blocking, including google ad-words blocking as well as mouse gestures and an assortment of other handy addons I use. I'm sure all this will come fairly soon.
I don't understand why people are so worried that google may just possibly be storing some precious browsing habits.. I mean seriously, why do you care? I'm sure I search for some more risque things than a lot of these data-paranoid people and I'm not going apopleptic at the thought that they may be aware of this.
I'll only start using it when it does ad blocking, including google ad-words blocking as well as mouse gestures and an assortment of other handy addons I use. I'm sure all this will come fairly soon.
I don't understand why people are so worried that google may just possibly be storing some precious browsing habits.. I mean seriously, why do you care? I'm sure I search for some more risque things than a lot of these data-paranoid people and I'm not going apopleptic at the thought that they may be aware of this.
Geronimo said:
I don't understand why people are so worried that google may just possibly be storing some precious browsing habits.. I mean seriously, why do you care? I'm sure I search for some more risque things than a lot of these data-paranoid people and I'm not going apopleptic at the thought that they may be aware of this.
That's what they said about 'green taxes' on 'dirty trucks'. And road charging. And ID cards. And anti-terror legislation.It creeps a little at a time. And as others have pointed out, NOTHING you post or view via Chrome belongs to you after you've done so.
Google = evil.
Funk said:
Geronimo said:
I don't understand why people are so worried that google may just possibly be storing some precious browsing habits.. I mean seriously, why do you care? I'm sure I search for some more risque things than a lot of these data-paranoid people and I'm not going apopleptic at the thought that they may be aware of this.
That's what they said about 'green taxes' on 'dirty trucks'. And road charging. And ID cards. And anti-terror legislation.It creeps a little at a time. And as others have pointed out, NOTHING you post or view via Chrome belongs to you after you've done so.
Google = evil.
Very unimpressed...un-installed, and I actually quite liked it.
I like the Bic biro analogy - very good! However, the EULA will change. MS and AOL previously tried precisely that, but were forced to change to something reasonable.
Anyway, as for the product itself - I'm finding more features as I use it more. There's been an awful lot of thought put into it.
PS. To those that don't like it or will never use it, it's still a good thing if it forces the competitors to produce better products. Much like the iPhone.
Anyway, as for the product itself - I'm finding more features as I use it more. There's been an awful lot of thought put into it.
PS. To those that don't like it or will never use it, it's still a good thing if it forces the competitors to produce better products. Much like the iPhone.
pikey said:
JohnnyPanic said:
It's not ready for full release and to take on the major browsers yet, because, well ... it's not ready!
Yeah, but it that doesn't stop the masses from completely sgging it off 
If the expectation is that Chrome will be used by experienced users who'll be more fault tolerant, then why hasn't it been soft launched as a Labs product, rather than being accompanied by all the usual Google new product hoopla ?
As it stands, this looks like an epic failure of marketing, since countless people who are perfectly happy with Firefox, which is produced by developers with a genuine beta testing strategy, will have tried Chrome for 20 minutes then binned it.
Have had a good play with Chrome. S'OK I suppose in the same way that IE, Opera and FF are all OK, but unless you spend you whole life in front of a web browser and the latest gimmick plug-in or shortcut that saves you a fraction of a second is indispensible then I can't see the benefit.
Back to IE for me. Capitalism rules.
Back to IE for me. Capitalism rules.
Edited by Roop on Thursday 4th September 09:11
To be honest I'm not going to install it until the dust settles, and it looks like I made the right decision.
I'm intreagued about the incognito mode. Is this only one tab, or can all tabs run in this mode, thereby being more secure anyway? Surely if you could set it to ONLY run in incognito mode, then that would resolve lots of peoples security concerns?
Just a (simple & niaive!) thought
I'm intreagued about the incognito mode. Is this only one tab, or can all tabs run in this mode, thereby being more secure anyway? Surely if you could set it to ONLY run in incognito mode, then that would resolve lots of peoples security concerns?
Just a (simple & niaive!) thought
neil_bolton said:
What a surprise. I think I gave them a chance and they lost it so Firefox is firmly settled for me.Unfortunately, due to the nature of my job and the business I work in, I have to use Chrome on a daily basis now.....
Fetchez la vache said:
I'm intreagued about the incognito mode. Is this only one tab, or can all tabs run in this mode, thereby being more secure anyway?
It runs in a separate window in which you can have multiple tabs. I don't know if you can get it to run in 'incognito' mode by default though.I've tried it a few times now, it is soo fast but there are a couple of annoying small things. You can't double click the tab bar to open a new tab. This is a habit I picked up from Firefox which is hard to drop - why should you have to click a tiny '+' button.
Secondly, Google doesn't quite trust itself...
Secondly, Google doesn't quite trust itself...
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff