Not any different to installing safari or itunes on windows or office on mac. This is a growing trend for software releases that i see as becomming a problem if not kept in check.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Early Screenshots from the Mac Version of Google's Chrome Browser
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not any different to installing safari or itunes on windows or office on mac. This is a growing trend for software releases that i see as becomming a problem if not kept in check.
That is not as robust. A "process" has it's own isolated address space and even better can run under a different user ID. So maybe it can run downloaded code as user "no_privilege" in it's own address space. Then if it crashes only that one tab halts. This also plays very, very well with multi-core CPU as each process could run on a different CPU or not, the OS' scheduler will decide
I have a feeling that will be in there. If any company would do that, it would be google
Here is a pic of chrome with a crashed flash player, has the same idea.
Attachments
I thought chrome sucked, they wont let you customize your tool bar which is just ridiculous (or I just couldnt figure out how). Its crazy how little you can do with that browser, I dont know what they were thinking.
It looks good and integrates very nicely with Vista's Aero though. FF really needs to wake the hell up when it comes to integrating their browser with the OS. Their attempt at making FF look like a native OS application in Windows and OSX is crap, I dont know what the hell they were thinking, whats so hard about copying Safari and IE? FF always comes across like some jacked up downloadable skin rather than a solid professional looking application, its an improvement over the last trainwreck GUI but still sucks really bad.
I'll stick with Safari and IE until these browser makers get their act together and release something that isnt an eyesore or severely limited in ability. I'd love a browser that looks like Chrome with all the features of FF.
It looks good and integrates very nicely with Vista's Aero though. FF really needs to wake the hell up when it comes to integrating their browser with the OS. Their attempt at making FF look like a native OS application in Windows and OSX is crap, I dont know what the hell they were thinking, whats so hard about copying Safari and IE? FF always comes across like some jacked up downloadable skin rather than a solid professional looking application, its an improvement over the last trainwreck GUI but still sucks really bad.
I'll stick with Safari and IE until these browser makers get their act together and release something that isnt an eyesore or severely limited in ability. I'd love a browser that looks like Chrome with all the features of FF.
I believe they call it "streamlined" Doesn't have to be the end all of browsers. It is designed to be superfast and superstable. Think iphone 1.0
I Hope This Isn't More Grief For Web Site Developers
Bring on the Mac browsers.
More web browser choices are a good thing providing they don't add another level of grief like IE causes for web developers. I'd hate to think that down the road the only ones that will be able to develop websites that display properly are the engineers that created the web browsers.
Why is there such a gap in release dates between the PC and Mac versions? Please tell me something better than 'more people use PCs' - that's getting really old.
Bring on the Mac browsers.
More web browser choices are a good thing providing they don't add another level of grief like IE causes for web developers. I'd hate to think that down the road the only ones that will be able to develop websites that display properly are the engineers that created the web browsers.
Why is there such a gap in release dates between the PC and Mac versions? Please tell me something better than 'more people use PCs' - that's getting really old.
As far as I know, it's very different. For Safari and iTunes, the program has to be running for software update requests (or the request is user-initiated) and the user has control of the updates he/she's installing.
Google's updater is always "on" in the background (i.e. you don't have to be running the program to get updates), installs as root code, is difficult to uninstall and the software can be updated w/o user knowledge....
Download and run Little Snitch to make what I'm saying more clear.
Very much Agree. I avoid using Google as much as possible because of their privacy policy (or complete lack of). They produce software with the intention of gathering as much information on you as possible (this must be the only reason for creating chrome) and then selling it to the highest bidder. Why would I support this? Even if you do trust google with your personal data and are happy that they sell it, you're giving them far too much power.
Same argument for Facebook.
This might sound like I'm a cynical conspiracy theorist but I'm just a person who likes his private life to be private and not for sale.
Google Chrome
Google actually renders web pages correctly. Nothing like IE almost the same as safari.
Google actually renders web pages correctly. Nothing like IE almost the same as safari.
I would like more speed but not at the expense of functionality.
I'm still sticking with safari since making the Mac switch many years ago, mostly because I can't stand the look / feel of firefox and I don't care for the history of the browser as well.
But I do admit that at least a dozen times, I've run across a plugin I would most definitely like to have, just to walk away because I use safari.
We can debate on what Google Krome is / isn't... But ultimately I believe this is less a browser and more their attempt at a runtime environment for Gears and Docs.
It's not even in beta yet, you guys are tough
Just giving constructive feedback. Everything has room for improvement.
I'm looking forward to Chrome. There's some good ideas, such as the isolated process per tab.. ensuring that one website doesn't crash your entire browser. It seems such as obvious thing to do.
Having a Google web browser can only drive innovation.
As long as google don't go cripple the flavour of webkit they are using, there shouldn't be any impact on web standards.
Having a Google web browser can only drive innovation.
As long as google don't go cripple the flavour of webkit they are using, there shouldn't be any impact on web standards.
What I would be curious to know is if Google intends to implement any kind of plug-in architecture in future generations of Chrome. While I understand that such an architectural aspect has the potential for misuse, I think there may be ways to do it which would allow for plug-in RAM and CPU use isolation and keep them under control.
I'm not a plug-in user myself for Firefox, other than whatever plug-ins come with it by default. Nevertheless, it would be impossible for me not to notice and recognize the utility found in their use by probably hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of my fellow computer users. Clearly, not allowing any kind of plug-ins would be an unconscionable act on Google's part in this respect.
I'm not a plug-in user myself for Firefox, other than whatever plug-ins come with it by default. Nevertheless, it would be impossible for me not to notice and recognize the utility found in their use by probably hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of my fellow computer users. Clearly, not allowing any kind of plug-ins would be an unconscionable act on Google's part in this respect.
Not kept in check?
You proposing some technology or law that prevents an organization from creating a software installation routine of their choosing?
I, like the user that prompted your post just doesn't install software that I disagree with. Simple. We don't need new ways to "keep in check" anything.
Have some responsibility and accountability for what you are downloading and installing. We don't want laws brought on, by people going all willy nilly with their clicker on the web because it just couldn't be their fault, even though they were alone in every decision made behind their own keyboard.
I should toss a package of software up, that removes all data on your machine. It will be labeled and warn correctly, but bundled with a funny set of emoticons and I would nearly put money on it, that it would get downloaded and installed. Who's to blame here? Stupid people or me?
... there was slight sarcasm in there. ;-)
Yes, Google plans to release an Extensions system for Chrome sometime in the future: http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/extensions
Except that Chrome uses Skia to render vector images (including text), so there will be rendering differences:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurafire/2822606444/