• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Google Chrome

Well, I guess GoogleUpdate.exe disappears after some amount of restarts. Some point between my last post and this one, GoogleUpdate.exe got deleted from the Chrome install folder and the msconfig entry for run at startup disappeared and the process is no longer to be found at startup.

I'm satisfied now, but it certainly would have been better if the user had the option to explicitly force the removal of the tool instead of it just silently disappearing.
 
I am digging this Chrome. I really like how they stuck the tabs way up on the tittle bar and the status bar comes and goes as needed. Gives us more room.
 
Since I auto-hide by taskbars, this thing is full screen (always on top) so my toolbar is behind it... It gets annoying when I want to access a program or something... Anyone know how to make this not always on top?
 
It doesn't have some "Always on top" default that I can see. If I enlarge it (the Maximize button or double click the Title bar) it just goes to maximized and that's it. It's not "full screen" meaning it bleeds over the Taskar itself (which I have set to "Keep the Taskbar on top of other windows" anyway.

Not sure what people keep talking about with the "full screen" thing because it doesn't do that, and it doesn't stay "Always on top" either. I can put it behind other windows just by bringing them into focus... weird. I just made my Taskbar Autohide, maximized Chrome, and the Taskbar still comes up on top of it when I move to the edge of the screen.
 
i really like all the features about chrome havent really had it that long to not like anything (except for the lack of customizability) but that i am sure will come with time. Just looking forward to what the future brings for chrome
 
So I tried Chrome with an "open mind", and I guess I just don't get it. What's supposed to be so much better than other browsers out there? Render speed is bullshit, there, I said it. It's entirely irrelevant whether something renders in 7.1 seconds or in 6.7 seconds, the "OMG CHROME IS SO FAST!"-bandwagon is seriously overloaded.

I am equally annoyed with the people who complain that Chrome is using X more MB (or X less MB) than some other browser. If the end-user is in a position that he or she needs to keep and eye on, and count, a dozen MB of memory usage, then the problem is with the end-user, not the application.

So then, what's left? Threaded tabs! Awesome! or is it? I don't know what kind of hacked up systems the average user is utilizing, but in years on Windows as OS, I don't recall my browser crashing (neither IE, nor FF).

What else? Uhm ..., nothing?
I really don't see any functionality reason to switch to Chrome (even if it had all the add-ons that FF has). I can't help but think that there's somewhat of an Apple mentality developing; I am using Google not because it's actually better, but because it's Google, and Google is cool, no matter what they do.

The whole "it's just the beginning", "there is so much potential", etc. etc., yeah sure, the beginning of what? The potential for what? It's a browser, it works, that's just about all there is to it. It's not revolutionary, and it's not all that good when compared to other browsers. Once the novelty wears off, it will be difficult for it to become more than just any other number of hyped up browser projects that faded into obscurity (that browser that starts with F, Frock, Frack, something like that, hyped to no end, and subsequently vaporized).

Edit: Flock, that's the browser I was talking about.
 
Hmm, the concept of each tab as a separate process is interesting...

Though from a technical standpoint it seems unnecessary to me if it's gonna come at the cost of a larger memory footprint. After all, a massive amount of work went into reducing the memory footprint from FF2 to FF3, this almost seems like a step backwards... Though I realize keeping each tab in a process also minimizes some memory usage over time as Chrome's able to more easily release some memory, but restarting FF by closing it and telling it to save your tabs accomplishes the same. :p

I realize it's a beta but the interface (or lack thereof) is kinda off-putting. FF's interface is no huge highlight but the amount of customization possible thru add-ons is gonna have a lot of us locked unto FF for a while... There's habits I just can't see myself willingly breaking for now, heh. Scrolling from tab to tab when I put my mouse on the tab bar ( miniT(tabscroll) ), holding right click + wheel scrolling to zoom into images (ImageZoom), seeing a nice clickable preview of all my tabs when I Ctrl+Tab (Tab Catalog), meh.

Nothing I couldn't overcome but everyone has their own list of stuff they'd rather hold unto I'm sure. I know Chrome's also open source and all this stuff will be forthcoming, but what's the one big reason for people to actually switch? FF and even IE are slated to receive similar JavaScript rendering updates soon aren't they? So that just leaves the tab/process handling as far as I can see..
 
Joe Average said:
It doesn't have some "Always on top" default that I can see. If I enlarge it (the Maximize button or double click the Title bar) it just goes to maximized and that's it. It's not "full screen" meaning it bleeds over the Taskar itself (which I have set to "Keep the Taskbar on top of other windows" anyway.

Not sure what people keep talking about with the "full screen" thing because it doesn't do that, and it doesn't stay "Always on top" either. I can put it behind other windows just by bringing them into focus... weird. I just made my Taskbar Autohide, maximized Chrome, and the Taskbar still comes up on top of it when I move to the edge of the screen.
Click to expand...

doesn't work for me... are you using vista? because I am. All my toolbars are set to 'always on top'
 
but in years on Windows as OS, I don't recall my browser crashing (neither IE, nor FF)
Click to expand...


Really? I dont know how many times FF 3.0 crashed on me before I finally updated it. And IE was even worse.
 
It might be the fastest browser I've used yet. It renders even faster than Opera, it seems.
 
Well I call...

SHENANIGANS!!!

on any individual that says they've never experienced a crash using IE or Firefox. I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe it, unless of course they just fired either them up for the first time ever like 5 mins ago and they're still staring at the IE or Mozilla default home pages. ;)

The primary reason for the separate processes for the tabs is simple:

If one gets fucked up (errant Flash applet coded badly, Javascript issues with loops, etc) you don't have to worry about that one tab bringing the whole house of cards tumbling down. Might seem useless to those persons that are used to having a session manager, but even so, it is useful in many ways, that being just one of 'em.

People that delude themselves into thinking "I don't have any problems with my computer" usually end up being taught that all those little oddball quirky things that happen so frequently aren't supposed to happen at all and would definitely be problems. If they don't know they're not supposed to happen in the first place, they assume they're "normal operation" for the machine and the OS.

Which of course means they're wrong, they just don't know it till someone edjumicates 'em.
 
Thuleman said:
So I tried Chrome with an "open mind", and I guess I just don't get it. What's supposed to be so much better than other browsers out there? Render speed is bullshit, there, I said it. It's entirely irrelevant whether something renders in 7.1 seconds or in 6.7 seconds, the "OMG CHROME IS SO FAST!"-bandwagon is seriously overloaded.

I am equally annoyed with the people who complain that Chrome is using X more MB (or X less MB) than some other browser. If the end-user is in a position that he or she needs to keep and eye on, and count, a dozen MB of memory usage, then the problem is with the end-user, not the application.

So then, what's left? Threaded tabs! Awesome! or is it? I don't know what kind of hacked up systems the average user is utilizing, but in years on Windows as OS, I don't recall my browser crashing (neither IE, nor FF).

What else? Uhm ..., nothing?
I really don't see any functionality reason to switch to Chrome (even if it had all the add-ons that FF has). I can't help but think that there's somewhat of an Apple mentality developing; I am using Google not because it's actually better, but because it's Google, and Google is cool, no matter what they do.

The whole "it's just the beginning", "there is so much potential", etc. etc., yeah sure, the beginning of what? The potential for what? It's a browser, it works, that's just about all there is to it. It's not revolutionary, and it's not all that good when compared to other browsers. Once the novelty wears off, it will be difficult for it to become more than just any other number of hyped up browser projects that faded into obscurity (that browser that starts with F, Frock, Frack, something like that, hyped to no end, and subsequently vaporized).

Edit: Flock, that's the browser I was talking about.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you tested Chrome, but try this: open oh I don't know.... 70-80 pages at once (just open all your bookmarks or something), and see how the browser behaves.

Now try the same thing in Firefox.

See the difference? Chrome is fast. I'll stick with Firefox for MANY reasons, but Chrome is fast. :)
 
Thuleman said:
I can't help but think that there's somewhat of an Apple mentality developing; I am using Google not because it's actually better, but because it's Google, and Google is cool, no matter what they do.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm just not getting why people are gushing over this half finished beta.
 
Well in the last 5 minutes, I have been happy with it. I intend to use it alot more, to get used to it and see the bugs. Liking it though.
 
pigster said:
I agree. I'm just not getting why people are gushing over this half finished beta.
Click to expand...

Beta means nothing. Look at Firefox prior to release. They are just sourcing 'us' to get feed back faster than a dozen or more exclusive beta testers.
 
At first I was like "YES! THIS ROCKS!" then I noticed you have to enter incognito mode every time you want it to NOT remember your history and so forth...I'll wait until I dont have to do incognito every time.
 
MrFace said:
At first I was like "YES! THIS ROCKS!" then I noticed you have to enter incognito mode every time you want it to NOT remember your history and so forth...I'll wait until I dont have to do incognito every time.
Click to expand...

It is very unlikely that this will ever change. Most people want their browser to remember their most visited sites etc.
 
BronxBartoni said:
Really? I dont know how many times FF 3.0 crashed on me before I finally updated it. And IE was even worse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, FF3 did crash for me a few times initially (particularly on other systems besides my own), but after the first update or whatever it seems as stable as ever... I probably don't see it crash more than twice a week, and it definitely handles memory and leaving multiple windows w/dozens of tabs open for a long time much better than FF2 (which didn't crash much on me either, but FF3 seems more adept at recovering my tabs when it does).

I haven't used IE in a while, maybe since version 6, I'm not sure... But when I switched to FF 2-3 years ago or whenever it was, IE would crash half a dozen times on a daily basis. I'm sure it's gotten much better on that regard though, but it was horrible for a much longer period of time than Firefox ever was.

Joe Average said:
The primary reason for the separate processes for the tabs is simple:

If one gets fucked up (errant Flash applet coded badly, Javascript issues with loops, etc) you don't have to worry about that one tab bringing the whole house of cards tumbling down. Might seem useless to those persons that are used to having a session manager, but even so, it is useful in many ways, that being just one of 'em.

People that delude themselves into thinking "I don't have any problems with my computer" usually end up being taught that all those little oddball quirky things that happen so frequently aren't supposed to happen at all and would definitely be problems. If they don't know they're not supposed to happen in the first place, they assume they're "normal operation" for the machine and the OS.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I just don't see the need for having the tabs on a separate process if averting a complete crash is the main upside to it... Even on the rare occasion that Firefox does crash it recovers pretty quickly and re-opens all the tabs with whatever I had typed within them, etc. I say bring on real memory torture tests between Chrome/FF. Open up a dozen pages or more, leave 'em open for 6 hours, etc. I wanna see how the memory usage while keeping that stuff open and after closing some (and all) of it goes then.

Now, if putting each tab in a different process is essentially what allowed them to make the browser more multi-threaded, then yea, that's a nice upside when opening several pages at once, etc... I'm just not sure it's all tied directly, maybe someone w/more technical knowledge can enlighten us.
 
This is a bit odd to say the least..

http://gizmodo.com/5044871/google-c...create-using-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emails

11. Content license from you

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. This license 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.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
 
yea, i read about that earlier today, I dont like the wording, and if it isnt rectified soon then google browser can kiss my ass.
 
GN85 said:
open oh I don't know.... 70-80 pages at once (just open all your bookmarks or something), and see how the browser behaves. Now try the same thing in Firefox. See the difference?
Click to expand...
Is it customary for anyone in the real world to actually have 70-80 pages open...ever? I start having panic attacks when I have more than four tabs going in Firefox (I like to keep it down to two or three). I don't even have 70 websites that I regularly visit nor 70 bookmarks!

Yeah, so, okay, great -- Chrome and WebKit do a great job of keeping things neat and keeping things fast when pushed to the absolute limit, but so what? Does this matter in your daily life? Does this matter for web developers? If not, what's the real advantage?

Go ahead and give Chrome the nod for pulling it off and all, but don't actually expect anyone to really, truly give a damn ;)
 
GN85 said:
I don't know how you tested Chrome, but try this: open oh I don't know.... 70-80 pages at once (just open all your bookmarks or something), and see how the browser behaves.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely didn't open 70 pages, but then again, I never do.
However, I'd be tempted to say that if you even attempt to open 70 pages where half of them have Flash objects, then Chrome will be brought to it's knees (just as any other browser, save FF with Flashblock).

The bottom line really is that Chrome isn't innovative, it isn't special, it's basically the worst browser for most all real world scenarios. I can't help but think they only reason they let it out now is to steal some show from IE8 (which is quite good, but still lacks what makes FF simply the best choice).
 
9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content.


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. This license 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.



This is why context is important! You can't just read one section.
 
Thuleman said:
Yeah, I definitely didn't open 70 pages, but then again, I never do.
However, I'd be tempted to say that if you even attempt to open 70 pages where half of them have Flash objects, then Chrome will be brought to it's knees (just as any other browser, save FF with Flashblock).

The bottom line really is that Chrome isn't innovative, it isn't special, it's basically the worst browser for most all real world scenarios. I can't help but think they only reason they let it out now is to steal some show from IE8 (which is quite good, but still lacks what makes FF simply the best choice).
Click to expand...

Maybe if you run out of system resources or bandwidth, but the whole point of threaded tabs is that one doesn't affect the other.

Of course, it isn't a very practical browser atm, and I'll keep using Firefox because it has all the features that I need, but I would really welcome the kind of performance that Chome is offering right now in Firefox. The biggest annoyance for me in Firefox is its slowness. Quicktime hangs, the whole browser hangs. You open too many tabs, it hangs. It shouldn't be this way, and Google has coded its browser to prevent this from happening.

In a real world scenario, Chrome does suck, but only because of a lack of features that make other browsers better. No one can deny that it beats the other big browsers in the performance & speed department.
 
I downloaded Chrome today and the first thing I noticed is that there is no middle-mouse button scrolling. This is a must for me :( I already switched to firefox until someone knows how to get middle-click and scroll to work.

Its a new fast browser, even than firefox.
 
Sagan said:
I downloaded Chrome today and the first thing I noticed is that there is no middle-mouse button scrolling. This is a must for me :( I already switched to firefox until someone knows how to get middle-click and scroll to work.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by that. Mine works fine. I didn't have to do anything. Scrolling, middle click to open new tabs, all work.
 
Sagan said:
I downloaded Chrome today and the first thing I noticed is that there is no middle-mouse button scrolling. This is a must for me :( I already switched to firefox until someone knows how to get middle-click and scroll to work.

Its a new fast browser, even than firefox.
Click to expand...

Same here, middle click works to open links and stuff, but scrolling wont work.

Scrolling as in, you click the middle mouse button and you have auto scroll up or down, i should add scrolling manually by using the wheel works, but auto scrolling doesnt work.
 
I'll be avoiding this program entirely. I don't trust Google, and I don't understand why most of you seem to.
 
ScretHate said:
I'll be avoiding this program entirely. I don't trust Google, and I don't understand why most of you seem to.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't we trust google? Is there some reason not to? Do we really need to trust them in order to use a web browser?
 
Archer75 said:
Why wouldn't we trust google? Is there some reason not to? Do we really need to trust them in order to use a web browser?
Click to expand...
Google keeps too much data and there's no way to tell what they do with it. I don't wish to contribute to their massive database.

We obviously have a different way of approaching trust. You seem to trust everything unless it gives you a reason not to, whereas I distrust everything unless it gives me a reason to trust. I find that my method is safer and more in line with the nature of the world.
 
phide said:
Is it customary for anyone in the real world to actually have 70-80 pages open...ever? I start having panic attacks when I have more than four tabs going in Firefox (I like to keep it down to two or three). I don't even have 70 websites that I regularly visit nor 70 bookmarks!

Yeah, so, okay, great -- Chrome and WebKit do a great job of keeping things neat and keeping things fast when pushed to the absolute limit, but so what? Does this matter in your daily life? Does this matter for web developers? If not, what's the real advantage?

Go ahead and give Chrome the nod for pulling it off and all, but don't actually expect anyone to really, truly give a damn ;)
Click to expand...

I don't know about 70-80, but 30-50 is common for me when I'm doing research on two different things at the same time and I have to walk away then come back to do something else, etc. Usually a dozen tabs a window... Although Chrome's main advantage in this regard would be in opening that many tabs/pages at once (where it's multi-threaded nature would thrive), which is less common, or when dealing w/crashed tabs...

Opening them progressively I don't see how it'd be much faster than Firefox, and it remains to be seen how well it really handles memory thru prolonged use. Other than that, I agree, I don't yet see the big upside to the way it handles tabs in separate processes. I'm sure there's ways to make FF or any other browser more multi-threaded without necessarily having each tab in it's own process, which might be the best of both worlds. The browser shouldn't be crashing very often in the first place, period, and FF doesn't.
 
ScretHate said:
Google keeps too much data and there's no way to tell what they do with it. I don't wish to contribute to their massive database.

We obviously have a different way of approaching trust. You seem to trust everything unless it gives you a reason not to, whereas I distrust everything unless it gives me a reason to trust. I find that my method is safer and more in line with the nature of the world.
Click to expand...

Then you better get off the Internet like, yesterday, bub. Because everything that leaves your LAN and touches the "public" Internet is monitored in this day and age. If you're going to be paranoid, you can't do a half-ass job of it, it's either be all out paranoid and lock yourself in your house forever, or participate and be done with it.

Geez... all you absolute privacy mongers... you have a lot to learn, kids.
 
A healthy dose of paranoia never hurt anyone... There'd be a SH**LOAD less phishing and scamming going on if people were a tiny bit more paranoid online and used better judgment in general.

Just can't buy into the illusion that you'll ever be completely secure from any threat/snoop, because you won't, obviously. Google does get a pass in this regard, I don't think there's any way to deny that... They've got one of the largest data gathering operations going right now, and leveraging that is what they're all about.

You may not be able to avoid contributing to that altogether, though you can always mitigate it or at 'least choose who you'll be trusting with your data or who you'll tolerate to monitor your info. :p Right now Google's the most popular choice because they haven't screwed up in a big way, yet.
 
Joe Average said:
Then you better get off the Internet like, yesterday, bub. Because everything that leaves your LAN and touches the "public" Internet is monitored in this day and age. If you're going to be paranoid, you can't do a half-ass job of it, it's either be all out paranoid and lock yourself in your house forever, or participate and be done with it.

Geez... all you absolute privacy mongers... you have a lot to learn, kids.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but the issue of privacy on the internet is not as black and white as you seem to think it is. Strides are being made in the realm of internet privacy every day--for example the tor project (http://www.torproject.org/). I don't think the notion of total anonymity is that far-fetched, but I will concede that it is currently unattainable. However, I will continue to take privacy into consideration when choosing which applications I use and my actions on the internet.

And I would wish you would not address me as, "kid," for I'm an adult. A certain level of civility is necessary when communicating ideas with others.

Also, to be consistent with your views, shouldn't you use your real name instead of the anonymous pseudonym, Joe Average?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top