Google's new browser, Chrome

[SiriuslyCold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baines93 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't really understand the EULA thingy... Can anyone explain simply?

let me take a shot at it. Google had a EULA template they use for services like YouTube which says whatever content you upload into YouTube they can show anywhere i.e they now own it. In the original release, they just reused this EULA. Now, this obviously cannot apply to Chrome, otherwise everything you do on the net via Chrome belongs to them

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baines93 /img/forum/go_quote.gif How do i update, will it have just done it, or will i have to download an update installer like the Chrome installer exe, or is there an update check hidden in the menu's somewhere.

i think this is hidden in the install (and, I am reading elsewhere, lives even after you uninstall Chrome

)

 

[dvessel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baines93 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't really understand the EULA thingy... Can anyone explain simply? How do i update, will it have just done it, or will i have to download an update installer like the Chrome installer exe, or is there an update check hidden in the menu's somewhere. Matt

Matt, the wording on the license made it sound like anything published through the browser would allow Google unrestricted and royalty free access to your works. In other words, if you upload your family vacation photos to your blog. It would mean that Google could take those photos and repurpose them for their online ads or whatever simply because you used their browser.. It could be anything that passes through the browser.

It was absurd and they knew it. I don't think it was intentional.

You don't have to update a thing. The updated EULA is retroactive so you don't have to worry.

edit:: SiriuslyCold beat me to it.

 

[dvessel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by progo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh blaargh, so we get the unix/linux version last? I hope there will be adblock and greasemonkey scripts readily available by then. Browsing the net (and Head-fi!) basically needs them!

Not necessarily. I haven't read any news on the Linux version but the Mac and Linux versions could be done in parallel. The Windows version was good enough to be released so I'd guess that most of their design decisions were met. Now it's a matter of implementing those designed the best they can on the other platforms with what they did in Windows as the reference.

 

[Dzjudz]

Where the frick does this thing install itself? Can't seem to find it in Program Files...

 

[SiriuslyCold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where the frick does this thing install itself? Can't seem to find it in Program Files...

on your desktop, right click on the Chrome shortcut icon and click Properties, then click Open File Location

 

[xnothingpoetic]

mine is installed under

Users> my profile*> AppData> Local > Google> Chrome

AppData folder may be hidden.

 

[Planar_head]

The funny thing is is that you don't need admin to install this browser

 

[smeggy]

The speed is nice, the memory footprint is nice.
The bugs, inoperable sites and lack of flash/adblockers are stopping me using it. Other than that it's also ugly. I'll wait and see what the release version is like. FireFox is a total memory hog that uses massive amounts of RAM.

 

[Baines93]

Thanks SiriuslyCold & Dvessel, I understand now! Good job I didn't upload my holiday snaps on it when I go home and got Chrome!

Thanks again,

Matt

 

[progo]

I seriously doubt Google would have done anything with them even with the old EULA.

Too much bad publicity if they had.

And for Ffox being a memory hog: software should be using memory more if they could benefit from it in terms of increased speed. It's not a bad thing to use a few (hundred) megabytes to a good use. Obviously Firefox is no innocent in that they still have nasty memory leaks... but I've kept Firefox with many tabs open for days, sometimes for weeks and its memory consumption doesn't raise above certain levels. My system, with 3 GBs of RAM, normally runs with Firefox utilizing only half a gigabyte. So there's still some reserve.

 

[SiriuslyCold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planar_head /img/forum/go_quote.gif The funny thing is is that you don't need admin to install this browser

that makes sense when you see that it's installed in your profile instead of Program Files

It also probably means that if you are sharing a computer, the other user won't be able to see it unless they install a copy of their own

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvessel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not necessarily. I haven't read any news on the Linux version but the Mac and Linux versions could be done in parallel.

Lets hope so!
..and hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.

 

[moshel]

currently using chrome and opera simultaneously. opera doesnt show up some sites properly, like orkut for example.

in chrome u got much more space to view the content due to the minimalistic design. chrome starts very quickly compared to opera. i normally first double click on opera on desktop and then double click on chrome, chrome always opens first.

 

[progo]

^That must be very fast since I can get Opera opened in a tenth of a second! The linux build of Opera must be pretty slick and I do hope they get Chrome optimized in a similar manner. I tried Chrome via a virtual machine and it seems responsive and fast, but the view is distorted since I ran it in VM: it stuttered somewhat.

 

[Zodduska]

Seems like everyone missed Chrome's most appealing feature: "Incognito" *CoughPornModeCough*

Ctrl+Shift+N opens a new window with a shady character wearing a hat in the upper left corner, everything viewed in this mode is forgotten by Chrome after closing the window.

edit: except google search history if you are still logged into a google account (gmail)