Haven't tried it...

Down loaded it, tried it, deleted it.


Waiting for something other than "Beta".


Edit:  I do not code.  I use Firefox.

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2008-09-02 23:20:18)

The Mac version isn’t out, so I must withhold judgment for now.  I gather Microsoft is pissed because they see it as a serious challenge to IE.  Given that there are so many good alternatives to IE, I don’t know why anyone would use that piece of shit.  Just being a better browser than IE isn’t enough to make it stand out from the pack.

Chrome is fully open source, so once people have had a chance to look through the code if there was some secret Google world domination switch I'm sure it would be discovered sooner or later and revealed to the public, assuming Google assassins didn't murder the discoverer in cold blood before they could upload their floppy to a BBS for the world to see.

Here's a good run-down of what communication there is between the Browser and Google:  http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-ch … unication/

Disclaimer: Matt Cutts does work for Google, he's been sort of an unofficial PR guy for a long time.

If you rely heavily on a lot of Firefox plugins then Chrome is probably not for you yet since no plugin framework has been released as of this version.

For those of you eagerly awaiting Linux and Mac versions, here's the official word:  http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2008/09/p … ities.html

The most useful feature for me so far is the omnibox, but it takes a while for it to get to know you well enough to start anticipating what you're typing.  I usually only have to type in one or two characters now for most sites that I visit regularly.  The Firefox Awesome Bar is similar, but maybe it's just my computer but it's so slow that I can usually type the URL faster than it comes up with a match.

ptah13 wrote:

By the time we decipher the code, Chrome will have already embedded itself in Skynet and it will all be too late.

Well now that you mention it, that does explain the sudden urgency of the super hardon collider experiments.

tojo2000 wrote:

The Firefox Awesome Bar is similar, but maybe it's just my computer but it's so slow that I can usually type the URL faster than it comes up with a match.

The awesome bar works pretty quickly on my machine.

Zookeeper wrote:

Don't you just love how they rely on the blind "I Agree" reflex click?  Remember, Google can use anything you post using Chrome.  Be sure to post lots of midget porn for them to distribute.

That's part of their Universal Terms of Service that's on every Google Product.  "Services" is defined as Google web properties, and that's the same as pretty much every other website.  They're busy updating it to remove the impression, though.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-ch … agreement/

By god, they've Microsoft'd it.

It's over, the Goog has become IBM.

Ever since 3.0 embedded YouTube videos have not worked in Firefox, you had to click through to YouTube to watch anything.  As of the most recent update YouTube itself is giving me nothing but black boxes in Firefox.

Those Netscape/Mozilla bastards have fucked themselves right in the ass one more time.  Chrome, here I come.

*EDIT*  How the fuck do I turn off ads in Chrome?  Holy shit the internet is awash with a bunch of shit.  I haven't seen an ad on a website in six or seven years.

*EDIT2*

NVM, found the extensions.

Last edited by Scotty (2011-03-16 17:36:11)

ptah13 wrote:

By the time we decipher the code, Chrome will have already embedded itself in Skynet and it will all be too late.

Hey Ptah.  What's up.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

That's Ptah v 2008 Beta. I wonder how the new updated Ptah is functioning?

I talked to him about 2 months ago.  He lives an interesting life.

Roger_That wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

By the time we decipher the code, Chrome will have already embedded itself in Skynet and it will all be too late.

Hey Ptah.  What's up.

You're saying hey in response to a comment that's  2 1/2 years old!

You're welcome.

hedgewizard wrote:

I want the last half hour back, and all the time I'm likely to waste later.

178.  Anyone do any better?

*EDIT* Longest path, 71.

Last edited by Scotty (2011-03-18 18:05:10)