Author Topic: Google 'Chrome'  (Read 51236 times)

Offline cissepower

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,347
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #120 on: September 10, 2008, 01:15:58 pm »
I've been using Chrome since my FF3 went tits up, still a bit buggy but that is to be expected as its only a beta.

Positives - Speed, Incognito function (great for porn) and especially the speed dial start up home page
~~Justice For The 96, You'll Never Walk Alone~~

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #121 on: September 10, 2008, 01:20:06 pm »
I don't know how you can say it's 'shite' fella, it's clearly not shite. Especially for the casual browser like myself. Are you looking at it from a more technical angle or something?

The problem with that speed dial function is that it shows how much porn information you've been researching. And there's no direct way to delete it. Sadly.

Use the New Incognito Page option and there is no history at all ever.

Offline cissepower

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,347
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #122 on: September 10, 2008, 01:23:15 pm »
~~Justice For The 96, You'll Never Walk Alone~~

Offline iSmiff

  • TECHNOBORE
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,131
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #123 on: September 10, 2008, 02:01:20 pm »
I've been using Chrome since my FF3 went tits up, still a bit buggy but that is to be expected as its only a beta.

Positives - Speed, Incognito function (great for porn) and especially the speed dial start up home page

Google have nothing that isn't still beta, look at GMail, 4 years and still BETA.
STFU and agree with me.

Online Brian Blessed

  • Gordon's ALIVE? Practically Bear Grylls. Backwards Bluesman Bastard.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 44,183
  • Super Title: Feedback Tourist #4
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #124 on: September 10, 2008, 04:30:50 pm »
I'm way behind the times. I only downloaded Firefox a few weeks ago, and that was out of neccessity. I honestly can't stand it, but have myself to blame as I've not taken the time to get used to it.

Is Chrome more like IE or FF?
Anyone else being strangely drawn to Dion Dublin's nipples?

Offline jesslfc

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,033
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #125 on: September 10, 2008, 04:36:55 pm »
I don't know how you can say it's 'shite' fella, it's clearly not shite. Especially for the casual browser like myself. Are you looking at it from a more technical angle or something?

He had a tiny little go on it, on my computer. Didn't even give it a chance.

Offline .adam

  • .asking .for .trouble .for .arson .around .in .Sweden
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,484
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #126 on: September 10, 2008, 04:38:22 pm »
Have to say that I'm not a fan.

Offline TheKid.

  • Goat abuser
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,069
  • Vamos
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #127 on: September 10, 2008, 04:42:20 pm »
Most web browsers are much of a muchness for my uses if i'm honest.
I DO like the increased window size due to tabs being at the very top on Chrome tho

Offline theCanadian

  • Potential grass
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,579
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #128 on: September 10, 2008, 05:28:09 pm »
No chance. They collect enough info from me as it is.

Exactly.

Read the EULA if you're going to use Chrome.

If you want more browsing space in Firefox just hit F11.
Those who dwell, as scientists or laymen, among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life. - Rachel Carson

Offline TheKid.

  • Goat abuser
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,069
  • Vamos
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #129 on: September 10, 2008, 05:30:04 pm »
If you want more browsing space in Firefox just hit F11.

You learn something every day :)

Nice one

Offline Phil M

  • YNWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 58,982
  • Bravery is believing in yourself" Rafael Benitez
    • I coulda been a contenda.....
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #130 on: September 10, 2008, 05:33:10 pm »
You learn something every day :)

Nice one

You mean 'Rawk teaches you something new every day'. ;)
It's true to say that if Shankly had told us to invade Poland we'd be queuing up 10 deep all the way from Anfield to the Pier Head.

Offline Walshy nMe®

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,383
  • Legend
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #131 on: September 10, 2008, 05:39:06 pm »
If you want more browsing space in Firefox just hit F11.

But once you do that, you lost the access to your bookmarks? Makes me a sad man that...

Offline Ben S

  • Remember we were partners in crime. Pigeon Fancier. GTL Bus Freak. Also known as Bambi, apparently - or Miss Kitty on Wednesdays....
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,272
  • Liverpool 5 - 1 London
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #132 on: September 10, 2008, 06:25:50 pm »
It's dead hard to press ctrl+b?

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #133 on: September 10, 2008, 06:34:32 pm »
That's where I went wrong in the playground. I needed to press Control-B more often.

It's dead hard to press ctrl+b?


Offline iSmiff

  • TECHNOBORE
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,131
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #134 on: September 10, 2008, 06:38:36 pm »
F11 don't work so well on macs for that :)
STFU and agree with me.

Offline Walshy nMe®

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,383
  • Legend
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #135 on: September 10, 2008, 07:29:54 pm »
It's dead hard to press ctrl+b?

Didn't know you could do that.  :nirnir

Offline Mudface_

  • Boys Pen
  • *
  • Posts: 0
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #136 on: September 10, 2008, 10:30:47 pm »
I can't help but think that if Microsoft or Apple had done this, there would have been a Jihad called.

Offline AJ

  • a.k.a. Billy Two-Threads. Property of RAWK – soon to be raffled - has as much chance of becoming a mod as David Moyes
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,075
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #137 on: September 11, 2008, 12:28:18 am »
I don't know how you can say it's 'shite' fella, it's clearly not shite. Especially for the casual browser like myself. Are you looking at it from a more technical angle or something?
Absolutely not, I've got no idea about the technical side of it all, I just find it to be slow and not very up-to-date. Some things on facebook, for instance, won't work on Chrome.

I'll just stick to Firefox, I think.

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #138 on: September 11, 2008, 01:14:55 pm »
Amazing that you find it slow, wonder what's wrong? It seems that even the people that don't like it concede that it's pretty quick. How very odd....

All those porn sites have installed loads of malware on his PC.

Offline Joby

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Anny Roader
  • ******
  • Posts: 398
  • Glad he got the rebound
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #139 on: September 11, 2008, 02:20:21 pm »
Chrome runs really slow for me too. On a decent spec laptop. Doesn't make any sense, but can't be bothered to work out why. Just back to FF2.

Can't do without Adblock Plus anyway...
"The secret is that Liverpool are as strong as a pine cone"

Xabi Alonso

Offline wacko

  • Keepsh a shecret gottle of Shcotch in hish top drawer. Cunning linguist and ical genius
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,205
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #140 on: September 11, 2008, 08:08:55 pm »
I chanced upon the Google Chrome comics here: http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/ and i was pretty impressed with the one process per tab concept. Is this the first time a browser has used the concept? It's a pretty simple idea and brilliant to boot
Yes it is the first browser to implement each tab in a different process (some tabbed browsers haven't even had threads, so a hold up in one tab locked the entire app), and no, it's not really a brilliant idea. The advantage is that each web page is isolated from the others, so a problem with the page can't take down all your other tabs/windows. That's not the page's fault, though. Doing this is basically an admission that they can't write a browser without bugs that will take down the app. That's basically the cardinal sin of web development: allowing bad input to fuck up your application. Also, it's horribly inefficient compared to using threads, probably the reason no-one else thought to do it before: everyone will tell you it's the wrong way to build an application. The Right Way(TM) is to eliminate the bugs, not skirt the issue by offloading the task to the OS.

That's the theory. In practice, all browsers have such bugs, and they've side-stepped another big problem browsers have in memory leaks where they take up 100s of MB after a few hours/days. You don't get memory leaks from dead processes. Depending on how the browser's implemented, it could also help protect against cross-site scripting (if cookies and state aren't shared across pages).

Given that it uses the same WebKit HTML renderer that Safari does and that processes are fatter than threads, the speed of the browser is probably down to V8, Google's own JavaScript engine. It's 4-5 times faster than the engines in other current browsers.

However, WebKit and Firefox both have comparably fast, new JavaScript engines in current development versions. Microsoft is probably shitting itself because this will make webapps every bit as responsive as the bloated shite they run on their latest OS.

Can't wait for the Linux and/or Mac version to come out to have a play with it.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Offline Walshy nMe®

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,383
  • Legend
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #141 on: September 15, 2008, 07:31:26 pm »
I'd like to use it but miss the mouse scroll option too much... hmmmpph!

Offline Mudface_

  • Boys Pen
  • *
  • Posts: 0
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #142 on: September 15, 2008, 09:13:08 pm »
Can't wait for the Linux and/or Mac version to come out to have a play with it.

I think you might be waiting a while. I'll dig out the article later if you'd like to read it, but apparently they're not even far enough along to render pages on Macs, let alone Linux, which looks like being the ugly step-sister or Cinderella or whoever's late and gets fucked over, yet again.

Offline Paul

  • Pensioner Abuser
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,468
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #143 on: September 15, 2008, 10:13:01 pm »
http://www.codeweavers.com/services/ports/chromium/

Complied from the open-source code-base of Chrome for Mac/Linux

Obviously bits like OS integration are missing, but this was done in less than 2 weeks. What is google's hold up?

Offline Mudface_

  • Boys Pen
  • *
  • Posts: 0
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #144 on: September 15, 2008, 10:17:20 pm »
Your guess is as good as mine. And possibly nearly as cynical.

Offline Mudface_

  • Boys Pen
  • *
  • Posts: 0
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #145 on: September 15, 2008, 10:30:12 pm »
Hang on- they used Wine? Jesus.

Offline iSmiff

  • TECHNOBORE
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,131
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #146 on: September 15, 2008, 11:34:44 pm »
Wine :)


Why the fuck would any run a browser than required that piece of shit to run in the background over just running firefox/safari natively?
STFU and agree with me.

Offline wacko

  • Keepsh a shecret gottle of Shcotch in hish top drawer. Cunning linguist and ical genius
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,205
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #147 on: September 16, 2008, 09:07:11 am »
I think you might be waiting a while. I'll dig out the article later if you'd like to read it, but apparently they're not even far enough along to render pages on Macs, let alone Linux, which looks like being the ugly step-sister or Cinderella or whoever's late and gets fucked over, yet again.
I'd like a look at that, yeah. Weird that rendering doesn't work seeing as all the rendering is done with WebKit, which works on Mac and Linux out of the box. Shouldn't really take all that long seeing as the hard bit (WebKit) has been done for them. Depends what other kit they're using, I suppose.
http://www.codeweavers.com/services/ports/chromium/

Complied from the open-source code-base of Chrome for Mac/Linux

Obviously bits like OS integration are missing, but this was done in less than 2 weeks. What is google's hold up?
That uses Codeweaver's Wine to emulate Windows. Google are presumably building native applications. No-one is going to go out and buy Crossover (or whatever Codeweaver call it) just to run a free browser, especially when there are shedloads of browsers available for OS X and Linux anyway, including more than a few WebKit-based ones.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Offline iSmiff

  • TECHNOBORE
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,131
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #148 on: September 16, 2008, 09:19:17 am »
It's taking a long time to get the Mac and Linux versions ready because they have to implement all their spyware correctly so people don't notice it.
STFU and agree with me.

Offline LFCsnoopz

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,556
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #149 on: September 16, 2008, 10:42:02 am »
anyone else have some real issues watching youtube vids on this? each time i dare move the page a little on youtube it just freezes up about 4 times

Offline iSmiff

  • TECHNOBORE
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,131
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #150 on: September 16, 2008, 10:50:37 am »
it's shit for running javascript and on flash based websites, thats the main thing i noticed about it

it's why i still continue to use firefox, you know, a complete browser that wasn't fucked out half finished
STFU and agree with me.

Offline RajR

  • Helpful but halfwitted TRE mong
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #151 on: September 16, 2008, 11:03:57 am »
Chrome is in beta testing. It's bound to have some issues with it still.

Me personally, I would still stick with Firefox.

Offline iSmiff

  • TECHNOBORE
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,131
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #152 on: September 16, 2008, 11:07:05 am »
Bollocks it's in beta, gmail is still in beta, google never get any product out of beta, it's just their way of covering themselves when they fuck up.
STFU and agree with me.

Offline RajR

  • Helpful but halfwitted TRE mong
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #153 on: September 16, 2008, 11:21:55 am »
'google' the search engine isn't in beta.

Offline iSmiff

  • TECHNOBORE
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,131
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #154 on: September 16, 2008, 11:38:21 am »
Well done to them since it's been out 10 years.
STFU and agree with me.

Offline wacko

  • Keepsh a shecret gottle of Shcotch in hish top drawer. Cunning linguist and ical genius
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,205
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #155 on: September 16, 2008, 11:39:33 am »
It's taking a long time to get the Mac and Linux versions ready because they have to implement all their spyware correctly so people don't notice it.
You'd have thought they'd have such core software ready to roll on a wristwatch.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Offline iSmiff

  • TECHNOBORE
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,131
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #156 on: September 16, 2008, 12:14:32 pm »
I know, it's the foundation on which all their software is built, you'd think they'd have accesible libraries of code they could just slot in.
STFU and agree with me.

Offline wacko

  • Keepsh a shecret gottle of Shcotch in hish top drawer. Cunning linguist and ical genius
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,205
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #157 on: September 16, 2008, 04:02:41 pm »
Mind you, those beardy Linux types will be all over it like a rash with the anal packet probes. If they stick the Googlebar in there, the open-source undercarriage will be forked within the day under the name Trotsky.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Offline GBF

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,035
  • The only religion with a God that you can touch!
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #158 on: October 16, 2008, 09:42:25 am »
It seems the smileys are working on Chrome now  ;D :D :hally :jong :fart :spammer  :shocked :scarf :sad
01111001 01101111 01110101 00100111 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101110 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110111 01100001 01101100 01101011 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100101

Offline footballfilter

  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 16
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
    • FootballFilter.com
Re: Google 'Chrome'
« Reply #159 on: October 16, 2008, 01:16:33 pm »
Its proper fast and great to use but I am a little wary of the way they store my internet history and also I hear its not so secure for internet banking - anyone else hear that at all?
http://www.footballfilter.com/liverpool - all the best Liverpool footy sources centralised into one place