Google Chrome- any thoughts?

[david uk]

I've always used IE, but have just started giving Google Chrome a try.

On the one hand I really like it as it looks clear and uncluttered, and above all seems to work more quicly than IE.

The one thing I am missing though is the tab thing in IE8 which makes it easy to keep several windows open at the same time and flit between them quickly and easily.

Does anyone know if there's anything similar in Chrome that I have missed?

many thanks :)

[Marcia Drummergal]

Seems to me that Janis mentioned she has it and likes it....a pretty good recommendation!

Marcia :) PS I don't know about the tabs since I haven't tried it.

[Dee]

I haven't tried Chrome either, but according to Google's page (http://www.google.ca/chrome/intl/en/features.html?hl=en&brand=CHMI) about it there are tabs:

Search and navigate to web pages from the same box
Arrange and organize tabs however you wish — quickly and easily
Get to your favorite websites with just a click, from the thumbnails of your most visited sites in the New Tab page

[Roady]

David,

I just started using it more recently though I'm still switching between Chrome, foxfire, and IE 7. For the Chrome tabs go up to the wrench at the top right and click on the drop down-there you can click on "tab" for a new one. Hope that helps.

Roady

[david uk]

Actually, I've found a quick way of opening a new tab- click on the + sign on the right of the tab you're looking at and it immediately opens a new one. Simillar to IE only quicker. I like :)

[David_Gardiner]

I had Chrome installed for a while but I stopped using it because in some situations, when there is a small 'window' open on the screen (like the one they give you when you're reading or answering a letter using webmail) the right hand (up,down) scroll bar doesn't appear, so that there is no way to read down to the bottom of the letter. It's not a major problem but since I already have three other browsers installed (Explorer, Firefox and Opera), none of which give me this problem, I just don't use it now. I find Firefox about the best all round.

[paularoid]

I can't run it because it requires at least service pack 2 or it won't even install. The system that I'm using at the moment can't be upgraded to that because it's proprietary. <shrug> I could run it on one of my other systems but I'm really happy with what I've got now. <shrug two> If I want speed or privacy then I run K-Meleon. If I want convenience and/or whistles and bells then I run Firefox.

[David_Gardiner]

I've never come across a system that simply couldn't be upgraded. Without the service packs your system will have all kinds of security vulnerabilities. Are you sure? Is it XP? You can simply download the service packs from Microsoft and install them, you know. You don't need any extra discs or the like. The only circumstances in which you can't download and install things that I know of is if you don't have 'administrator privileges' or something – that is if you are one of several users and not the one in overall charge. Have you tried and failed, or has someone simply told you you can't do it?

[paularoid]

I've never come across a system that simply couldn't be upgraded.Obviously you've never dealt with a -truly- proprietary system before. HP (Hewlett Packhard) and Compaq (now virtually the same due to a merge) are notorious for that. A number of other companies are that way too. IBM used to be that way until they finally got it through their heads to loosen up a bit because of lost revenue. Tandy computers were that way with their dedicated EEPROM systems and I expect that's why you don't see them on the market anymore. I should explain that in the case of most "proprietary" systems it's not necessarily the machine that can't handle it but rather it's the mucked up version of Windoze that they ship with it that's proprietary. The only way to get past that is to do away with their version of Windoze and replace it with a clean copy straight from Micro$hit. Many times when you install service packs on a proprietary version of Windon't it will "break" it to the point that things just don't work anymore. The operating system that I'm using at the moment came with the (Gateway) computer. Service packs were attempted and failed. Consultation with Gateway Tech Support confirmed all this. Service packs or any other updating of Windoze breaks their version of it,.... at least on this particular model anyway.


Without the service packs your system will have all kinds of security vulnerabilities.Which is why it's nice to have and use things like firewalls, antivirus programs, malicious IP address blockers, etc. etc. If the baddies can't get in then they can't do any nasty things to your system.


Are you sure?Yes. See all previous.


Is it XP?Yes. Home version.


You can simply download the service packs from Microsoft and install them, you know.I'm well aware of that. I'm a "professional". I do this for a living believe it or not. :p


You don't need any extra discs or the like.Even though I don't "need" them as you say (I'll point out where some -do- indeed need them later.) I have both service packs 2 and 3 on a CD to install without the need to tap into Windoze update. Not -all- computers have access to the internet and have the ability to tap into Windoze update. Some systems are or never were meant to have internet access. For those systems one has to have the discs or similar from which they can update those systems. The reason for updating is so that nasties from external sources (like CD's, thumbdrives, etc.) don't foul up the system. Also, if you're an administrator in charge of a whole bank of systems for whatever company, it's a heck of a lot easier to go to each system with an update CD and update them rather than having them all tap into Windoze update. You just go right on down the line and update the whole lot of them all at once.


The only circumstances in which you can't download and install things that I know of is if you don't have 'administrator privileges' or something – that is if you are one of several users and not the one in overall charge.See immediately previous. Not all systems have or are meant to have access to download things. Also see even more previous regarding proprietary versions of Windoze. You patch 'em, you break 'em.


Have you tried and failed, or has someone simply told you you can't do it?Both. HP, Compaq, and Tandy are (or were) the worst offenders. Dell -used- to be but they woke up to the fact that people caught on and didn't like it so they were losing money. They (Dell) pretty much acquiesced and stopped doing that to their systems. They (Dell) had one model that was hardwired to fry the motherboard if anybody got inside and started messing with things,.... like installing more RAM. It was boobytrapped. If you weren't an "authorized" Dell tech and didn't have the instructions on how to get past the boobytrap then you'd fry the motherboard and end up spending a lot more for the repairs than if you had just knuckled under and had an authorized Dell Tech install the new RAM that you -could- have bought down the street for a fraction of the cost.

Any other questions? :D




.

[David_Gardiner]

Goodness. Things are even worse than Marvin the Robot (my hero and role model) would have us believe. Sounds as if it would be worth getting one of those OEM copies of XP they sell on the Internet and starting again. There must be loads of software you simply can't run without the Service packs.

[paularoid]

Goodness. Things are even worse than Marvin the Robot (my hero and role model) would have us believe. Sounds as if it would be worth getting one of those OEM copies of XP they sell on the Internet and starting again. There must be loads of software you simply can't run without the Service packs.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3431/3210499139_a2534c4fd5.jpg
Actually I've got a (legit) copy of WinXP Pro (and numerous other copies that may or may not be legit :rolleyes:) so it's not a problem really. It just so happens that most if not all of the things that I -wish- to run don't require any of the service packs. I don't -wish- to run Chrome or anything else that -requires- anything other than the basic components of Windoze so no big loss.

In my opinion (be it correct or not) something that -requires- the use of the bloat of the service packs is a cop-out on the part of the programmers and the instigators of the program(s) in the first place. It's a reliance on the good coding/programming skills of others rather than being a good coder yourself. Just my opinion for what it is or isn't worth. Having to rely on the safety of the service packs is lazy coding/programming.

[Wildflower Fever]

I just installed Chrome, and thus far I do like the fast launch and faster page loading. However, I've always enjoyed my McAfee Security package that includes Site Advisor. This shows a red, yellow, or green color for each page that has been sufficiently tested. This doesn't sync up when I use Chrome as my browser, so I'm wondering in paranoid way if my overall security may also be compromised when surfing with Google Chrome. Can anyone explain to somewhat of a novice how I can feel secure that my security is still working, or is it just that it's installed and updating on my computer so it should still catch things?
Thanks...

[paularoid]

I just installed Chrome, and thus far I do like the fast launch and faster page loading. However, I've always enjoyed my McAfee Security package that includes Site Advisor. This shows a red, yellow, or green color for each page that has been sufficiently tested. This doesn't sync up when I use Chrome as my browser, so I'm wondering in paranoid way if my overall security may also be compromised when surfing with Google Chrome. Can anyone explain to somewhat of a novice how I can feel secure that my security is still working, or is it just that it's installed and updating on my computer so it should still catch things?
Thanks...
I can't address any of this specifically because I haven't paid much attention to Chrome since I found out that (at least at first) it was spying or reporting back to Google virtually every move that the user made. Chrome was reporting back to Google with every single move you made on the internet. As soon as I found that out and found out that it required more than I had at the moment (at least service pack 2) I just blew it off and haven't paid attention to it since. I don't know if these things are still true and if they've fixed things in these regards but you might want to consider it.

At this very moment I'm using K-Meleon and it doesn't report back anything to anybody if you don't want it to. You might want to give it a try. You can find it here (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/):

http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/

It's lean, mean, and fast.

All that said and done, it should be noted that it was Micro$oft that originally made the claim of Chrome's spying activities be they correct or not.

http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstechnica/index/~3/4bdTXNQtbuE/microsoft-google-chrome-doesn-your-privacy-microsoft-google-chrome-doesnt-respect-your-privacy.ars

If you want to use Site-Advisor in Chrome then here's (supposedly) how to do it:

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/13393/add-siteadvisor-to-google-chrome/




.

[aabram]

Really like it now. At first I thought it was slow and it seemed to freeze on me abit. But now it seems better than Firefox

Love Annabel x