I read today that Chrome uses Webkit 3.1, which is vulnerable to several attacks. Apple patched WebKit up to 3.1.2 but Google hasn't updated as of yet. Info here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1843
Also, be sure to read the EULA. Just visiting a page gives Google the OK to use that however they want in terms of promotion or other things. More here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030522-2....
Andy DeSoto
· 1 year ago
Michael, this is one of the best pieces I've read on Chrome yet. Excellent analysis and very fair review. Thanks for writing!
Rob S.
· 1 year ago
"Incognito mode readily answers IE8’s InPrivacy for you privacy minded folks."
From what I've read IE8 is more advanced in this regard.
Google Chrome: "Browsing in incognito mode only keeps Google Chrome from storing information about the websites you've visited. The websites you visit may still have records of your visit. Any files saved to your computer will still remain on your computer." http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer...
IE8: "While InPrivate Browsing is active, the following takes place: * New cookies are not stored o All new cookies become “session” cookies o Existing cookies can still be read o The new DOM storage feature behaves the same way * New history entries will not be recorded * New temporary Internet files will be deleted after the Private Browsing window is closed * Form data is not stored * Passwords are not stored * Addresses typed into the address bar are not stored * Queries entered into the search box are not stored * Visited links will not be stored" (Microsoft has even tossed around the idea of blocking tracking pixels.) http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/25/ie8...
IE8 also allows one tab to crash without bringing down the whole browser, a feature that exists in Chrome (and hopefully makes it to Firefox and other browsers soon - we've all gone through that frustration).
I definitely applaud the release. Aside from Chrome's power under the hood (definitely noteworthy), it exposes features already existing in some browsers.
Opera's Speed Dial is an incredible feature. Chrome incorporates something similar in new tabs, showing "a visual sampling of your most visited sites, most used search engines, and recently bookmarked pages and closed tabs." It seems to be dynamic, though, and not something you can set statically.
There is a Speed Dial add-on for Firefox which offers similar functionality to Opera's Speed Dial. It's a great add-on, though the "trick" to make it load quickly (slow loading is a common complaint for the add-on) is to set most/all Speed Dial pages to never refresh (which simply makes the Speed Dial add-on use static images for Web sites, generally good enough).
Overall I'm excited about Chrome because visible and under-the-hood features tend to get shared between browsers. The no extension/add-ons is a dealbreaker for me, but I could see recommending Chrome to some friends and family members who would benefit from the streamlined GUI.
Jim Gaudet
· 1 year ago
Excellent article. The very first reason I used Google as my search engine was for speed. And I think I will use Chrome for the same reason.
media kingdom
· 1 year ago
despite the rumors, i'm finding Chrome's speed to be inconsistent; it seems to alternate between going lightning fast and then hanging for no apparent reason...
Jim Gaudet
· 1 year ago
I agree. I am having the same issue. But, on a different computer I restarted after the install and it is working better. Going to try on this machine and see if it is better.
Michael Fienen
· 1 year ago
@1 - I just had a discussion with someone about the EULA of Chrome, and I'll pass on the same thing I said there. This kind of stuff is normal wording, in cases where content will be reused, even in very basic ways like making a thumbnail of an image. If you look, it's actually taken directly from Google's TOS (part 11.1), possibly just as a generic place holder until a more permanent, Chrome specific EULA can be written closer to a non-Beta launch.
This kind of language is actually very common, and if you recall, everyone from MySpace, to Flickr, to DeviantArt, and others have come under fire for the same thing. So far, none of them have done anything to particularly shake my confidence, but I'll lay down dollars to dimes the Chrome EULA is rewritten long before it comes out of beta (assuming it ever does, the way Google loves beta phases).
@Michael, it is a pretty standard EULA. And they amended it after public outcry.
But what should we make of this?
From cnet:
“The auto-suggest feature of Google’s new Chrome browser does more than just help users get where they are going. It will also give Google a wealth of information on what people are doing on the Internet besides searching.
Provided that users leave Chrome’s auto-suggest feature on and have Google as their default search provider, Google will have access to any keystrokes that are typed into the browser’s Omnibox, even before a user hits enter.
What’s more, Google has every intention of retaining some of that data even after it provides the promised suggestions. A Google representative told CNET News that the company plans to store about 2 percent of that data--and plans to store it along with the Internet Protocol address of the computer that typed it.
In theory, that means that if one were to type the address of a site--even if they decide not to hit enter--they could leave incriminating evidence on Google’s servers.”
You could simply be typing in a url and not doing a search, and they might still be recording it. To me that is even more creepy than the part about "even before a user hits enter."
(And, yes, I am aware that Web sites record referring URLs, that my ISP/employer can record my surfing habits, etc. But that is less creepy to me than Google's servers associating a huge range of information with my IP address. Internet does not equal privacy, obviously, but there are degrees of privacy.)
I'd be more inclined to use Chrome if a place like M.I.T. or University of Illinois took the code, which is open source, removed the tracking features, and re-released the browser. (And given the financial ties between Google and Mozilla, I intentionally didn't mention Mozilla as the repackager.)
Google chrome is a decent browser for just a beta, and although it isn't up to par with the other more prominant browsers, it has a long way to go. However, at the moment it really isn't all that great.
Speaking of which here is a review of google chrome with firefox 3.
To Rob S, I did some study with a forensics expert on Incognito mode and he was fairly impressed that nothing seems to get written to disk.
incognito mode
· 1 year ago
alvina, i too have noticed similar behavior on my vista machine. but that machine behaves similarly in IE too with sluggish performance so i think i need to rebuild it. on two other XP machines it works just perfect.
Vuze
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the post, google chrome is getting better every day, however it is still not up to par with the other major browsers.
All Comments
Also, be sure to read the EULA. Just visiting a page gives Google the OK to use that however they want in terms of promotion or other things. More here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030522-2....
From what I've read IE8 is more advanced in this regard.
Google Chrome: "Browsing in incognito mode only keeps Google Chrome from storing information about the websites you've visited. The websites you visit may still have records of your visit. Any files saved to your computer will still remain on your computer." http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer...
IE8: "While InPrivate Browsing is active, the following takes place:
* New cookies are not stored
o All new cookies become “session” cookies
o Existing cookies can still be read
o The new DOM storage feature behaves the same way
* New history entries will not be recorded
* New temporary Internet files will be deleted after the Private Browsing window is closed
* Form data is not stored
* Passwords are not stored
* Addresses typed into the address bar are not stored
* Queries entered into the search box are not stored
* Visited links will not be stored"
(Microsoft has even tossed around the idea of blocking tracking pixels.)
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/25/ie8...
IE8 also allows one tab to crash without bringing down the whole browser, a feature that exists in Chrome (and hopefully makes it to Firefox and other browsers soon - we've all gone through that frustration).
I definitely applaud the release. Aside from Chrome's power under the hood (definitely noteworthy), it exposes features already existing in some browsers.
Opera's Speed Dial is an incredible feature. Chrome incorporates something similar in new tabs, showing "a visual sampling of your most visited sites, most used search engines, and recently bookmarked pages and closed tabs." It seems to be dynamic, though, and not something you can set statically.
There is a Speed Dial add-on for Firefox which offers similar functionality to Opera's Speed Dial. It's a great add-on, though the "trick" to make it load quickly (slow loading is a common complaint for the add-on) is to set most/all Speed Dial pages to never refresh (which simply makes the Speed Dial add-on use static images for Web sites, generally good enough).
Overall I'm excited about Chrome because visible and under-the-hood features tend to get shared between browsers. The no extension/add-ons is a dealbreaker for me, but I could see recommending Chrome to some friends and family members who would benefit from the streamlined GUI.
This kind of language is actually very common, and if you recall, everyone from MySpace, to Flickr, to DeviantArt, and others have come under fire for the same thing. So far, none of them have done anything to particularly shake my confidence, but I'll lay down dollars to dimes the Chrome EULA is rewritten long before it comes out of beta (assuming it ever does, the way Google loves beta phases).
http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=92
link courtesy of Laura Calrson's excellent Web Design Update email newsletter:
http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdevlist
Classic.
But what should we make of this?
From cnet:
“The auto-suggest feature of Google’s new Chrome browser does more than just help users get where they are going. It will also give Google a wealth of information on what people are doing on the Internet besides searching.
Provided that users leave Chrome’s auto-suggest feature on and have Google as their default search provider, Google will have access to any keystrokes that are typed into the browser’s Omnibox, even before a user hits enter.
What’s more, Google has every intention of retaining some of that data even after it provides the promised suggestions. A Google representative told CNET News that the company plans to store about 2 percent of that data--and plans to store it along with the Internet Protocol address of the computer that typed it.
In theory, that means that if one were to type the address of a site--even if they decide not to hit enter--they could leave incriminating evidence on Google’s servers.”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031661-56.html
You could simply be typing in a url and not doing a search, and they might still be recording it. To me that is even more creepy than the part about "even before a user hits enter."
(And, yes, I am aware that Web sites record referring URLs, that my ISP/employer can record my surfing habits, etc. But that is less creepy to me than Google's servers associating a huge range of information with my IP address. Internet does not equal privacy, obviously, but there are degrees of privacy.)
I'd be more inclined to use Chrome if a place like M.I.T. or University of Illinois took the code, which is open source, removed the tracking features, and re-released the browser. (And given the financial ties between Google and Mozilla, I intentionally didn't mention Mozilla as the repackager.)
Speaking of which here is a review of google chrome with firefox 3.
Google Chrome vs Firefox 3
Google Chrome vs Firefox 3