Bastards... absolute low down, dirty rotten bastards!     Oops, did I say that. 

Yeah, I've noticed that, as does DA and a number of other skinning sites.... don't like it none, but where else is a bloke supposed to go for a skin fix when they're pretty much all doing it?

Hmmmm!  I wonder if my writing about a spider bite in WC forums is why I see pest control ads when the ads rear their ugly heads while logged in?????

Yeah, somebody should blow the fuckers up.  I really despise Google's practices... the got away with too much early in the piece, with gov't often looking the other way/taking backhanders, and now the bastards think they own the World.  In fact, they pretty much DO own the World... they've gained too much damned momentum for anyone to stop 'em now.

Starkers....be careful....remember your Colon.....  

And here I thought we were talking about a browser. Please discuss politics elsewhere.

Yes, I am aware of predator and similar stuff; I didn't make any claim that what I do is completely private.

We can do a better job. Maybe we can't stop predator, but we can certainly deny most advertisers if we wanted.

Yeah, shame on them for allowing employees to drive to work, and shame on them for serving customers who drive cars. How dare they! (sarcasm)

Macmatt: Interesting observation on the license, and something that could be easily abused. I hope it catches the eyes of others and somebody pressures Google to change it.

I'm using Chrome right now and there are a few bits I really like about it...

1. Tear-away tabs. 
   You have no idea how often I've wished IE or Firefox had this feature.  I have multiple tabs up with pages I want to compare information on, but I have to open a new window, and copy/paste the url of one of the pages over.  Not a huge bit of work, but annoying all the same.  I like this doodad here.
2. Instant Shortcut to the Desktop
   Browsing a website you hit up all the time?  Maybe your webmail?   Go and create an "Application Shortcut".  It's just a weblink on the desktop with the favicon, but it's still a handy little feature.  This combined with Desktop Fences could change the way people use their web browser and bookmarks.
3. Browser Task Manager
   Ok, this sounds pointless, but Chrome has a tool that shows you exactly what your browser is using in resources.  Each tab you have open shows you how much memory, cpu and bandwidth it's using.  This is very handy when you're trying to figure out what's killing your browser's performance.  There's also a link that will load up a new tab with more detailed stats.  Breaking things down as far as private vs shared memory etc. 

Zoomba: The lack of traditional menus seems to be something that has split the browsing community, it seems: IE7 in its default setup does not have the menus. The status bar is now a small tab-like thing that only appears when you're loading a new page or hoverning the mouse over a link, and dissappears completely otherwise. I completely agree that it has a lack of customization .

Desktop Fences? Cool! Wait - that looks suspiciously like the groups that Windows 3 had.

Which, frankly, is the best way to organize stuff I've seen so far. This whole Start menu thing has always been a point of contention for me. On one hand, I really want to see what people like so much about it and learn why people think it's so cool.

On the other hand, I'll probably never learn that. I hated the Start menu in Windoes 95, and I still hate it in Vista. Chances are, I'll never like it.

I just don't see what's so fantastic about a really long, flat list of company names. Really, it just doesn't seem intuitive in any way. The search box in Vista just rubs in how horrible it really is: It's so poorly organized, you have to rely on a search engine to find anything. Yuck.

Sorry, I just don't see what's so fantastic about it. I always end up creating a Windows 3 like system by creating folders on the desktop and arranging my icons in them. With later versions of Windows, it's feeling more and more like a kludge because of the ever-degrading way the shell handles folder navigation.

Even when "doing it right," the icons end up rearranging themselves, changing sizes and view, etc. It's as if the shell team has hired a random number generator to write code for them. I keep wondering, when will it get fixed, and can it possibly get worse? And with every release, it doesn't get fixed, and I keep finding new reasons why I hate the Windows Shell experience.

Could I get an invitation to Fences, please?

I have it running in Vista and it skins the min,max, close buttons just fine, mine doesn't revert back to the basic theme.  It is true nothing inside the window is skinned.  I find it skins on the borders exactly like Firefox (of course with that barely visible Google in the upper right.

Otherwise I think this is a fast browser with plenty of missing features.  Heck I even had FF get stuck trying to get the second page of this post, so loaded up Chrome and it still beat FF getting here.  There is no way I'm using this everyday yet, needs add-ons, better bookmarking, plug-ins to be setup for it and other things I can't think of yet.

I do like the new tab page, but feel there will be a FF add-on for that soon, if not already.  It is a beta, but aren't all Google products?  Be following this for sure.

A lot of people use Firefox for privacy protection and ad blocking. Given that google is one of the companies they're protecting themselves from (what with G's voracious appetite for mining any and all data for advertising purposes), I don't think Mozilla has much to fear from Chrome.

As well, Ars had a report last night that Gecko's new javascript engine was faster than Chrome's anyway. Without needing more resources than even IE8 as Chrome does.

Yup, after some research it does indeed appear that the javascript engine in development for the next Firefox is a JIT compiler, and does a better job than Chrome's JavaScript engine (which also uses a JIT compiler).

Very true, and those people are unlikely to switch. After all is said and done, Chrome is coming into a pretty competitive market, and at a rather poor time. I think it'll end up mostly being good ideas for the competition. I'd love to have the tear-away tabs in Firefox .

I checked the options in the browser config after i installed it and the option to automatically send usage stats & crash reports is selected by default.  I wasn't prompted anywhere else if I wanted to allow google to track this data, it would appear that this isn't an opt-in choice. 

But seriously, google is practically the internet, whatever they want to find out, they can find out - how hard could it be for them?

Anyone notice that the browser has a bit of a vista'ish type appearance, with the titlebar buttons (min/max/close).  For a browser that may be competing for market share against IE, it's kind of funny that they borrow some of the gui from vista - I thought it was funny anyways.

Used Chrome for 2 days, uninstalled it yesterday and today my firewall is asking if I wont to allow Chrome to connect to Google server.   There is a part of software that is working even if you uninstalled the program. This is not good for Google. 

The question is asked when you're reading Google's terms of service before you start the download and install.

Lemme guess: You filled in the checkmark and hit "I agree" without reading the text next to the checkmark.

Well, that checkmark was totally optional, and the question was about usage stats & crash reports.

Unfortunately, I can see a lot of people doing this .

Not gonna use Chrome.. i just don't trust it. And FF3 works well.. why bother changing?

I've been using Chrome since I heard about it, and love it. Although I'm sure most of the things that I love about it can probably be applied in FF (which I also use), it helps to have something that is minimalistic, especially on my EeePC. The smaller and faster things are, the better. And with all the screen space that's now open, I can see more of a page. But on my desktop, I'll probably always use FF.

Yep, that's the 'phone home' component neatly and covertly stashed away someplace you'd never think to look for it.  Right now that component is data mining everyone who installed Chrome and phoning home with the results so Googe can flood the World with more useless crap we don't want: ie, spam and ads for stuff most would never want, use or need.

Maybe so... but the phone home bit isn't an opt out, and if the FBI has to get a warrant through the Courts to eavedrop on people, then what Google is doing is quite illegal.

You know, the best thing everyone who uses the net could do is instantly delete all Google generated spam/ads and stay away in droves from all those who use Google to advertise on line.... the corporate dollars into Google would then soon dry up and we could get down to some Google-free net experiences that a more enjoyable without Google crap on every damned page.

Google is a parasite that leeches off the enterprises and product other worked to create by bombarding us all with ads most would rather not see thrust down their throats.  And what really pisses me off... when I hear people complaing about Google then opting in for one of its services/using its ads/responding to its surveys, etc, etc.

I don't like Google... and there is a blanket ban in this house on everything Google.

Everyone else is, why not Google...

I Googled starkers and he's 5th on the list...

On XP, Chrome only has 'one-way' (down) touchpad scrolling for some reason (a bug I suspect).  Offers nothing that other browsers don't far as I can tell, though the 'tab isolation' concept seems like a good one - not a compelling enough reason to change, however.

Interesting - how much research have you done on this? Is there some component that didn't get uninstalled properly? Which folder is the component in that asked for the connection?

So Google is lying? We don't even know what this component does yet, and while it certainly warrants some research, I don't think it warrants jumping to conclusions.

By the way, anybody know of good software to detect registry and file changes to a system? I have some clean virtual machines I'd like to try this on and see what exactly it does.

OPERA!!!    *runs*

Doesn't SpyBot's TeaTimer detect & report attempts at reg changes?  I had it on briefly by accident a couple of years ago & found it way too intrusive, but I think it does.

Chrome? I call it BRASS!

Brass, indeed.

However, it's been reported that Google, after being inundated with complaints & objections, has since dropped that language from the EULA and agreed not to hold anyone who installed Chrome before the EULA change to that language.  They tried to tapdance & say they just weren't paying close enough attention when they borrowed stock language from their 'standard' EULA.

Which begs the obvious question...

OPERA!!!      *runs*

Ah yes, Opera. That's what Chrome could become, honestly. A "good browser" for those who use it - but not compelling enough to very many people switch.

That's the thing about Opera: Everybody who uses Opera seems to like it, but it's never become really all that popular. It doesn't really seem to be good enough to make a lot of people switch to it.

Yeah - I went back, and it does indeed appear they've changed the EULA.

Shouldn't they be checking that stuff before it gets published?

See what I mean.... without my consent, Google is monitoring my net comings and goings... the things I say here, cos this is the only forum I participate in.

Now I don't mind putting myself up for ridicule and having people laugh at me, that's the the idea and half the fun of it, but I sure as hell didn't invite Google to collect that and provide it to others outside the WC circle of friends.  Sure, anyone on the net can come here and take a look, and I don't have a problem with that.  What I do have a problem with is Google data mining everything, including information on me, and using it to their own ends... cos no matter what, they profit from it in one way or another.

Do I profit from any information Google gathers on me... without my consent???  No I dont!

Now some of you may ask what harm Google is doing me by gathering data on Cap'n starkers, it's what they do... but I'll put it to you, how it is different from a voyuer snooping through your bedroom curtains with a camera?  Or the owner of a gym putting video surveillance in the showers and toilets to collect unconsented materials?  All are an invasion of our personal space... and through Chrome, Google was at it again via the 'phone home' component the average user would be oblivious to. Not everyone is net/software smart, and that's what Google depends and preys upon.

Most governments these days have a Privacy Act which is supposed to protect individuals' personal information/data etc, and unless there are extenuating circumstances, you can not get them to divulge said data or information....however that is not so with Google.  It collects data on billions of individuals and plasters it all over the net for all and sundry to see... some of it may or may not be as sensitive as your Social Security number or criminal record, etc, but that is not the point.  Whether you have something to hide or not, Google makes your life pretty much an open book to the World, and that, to me, does not fit into the scheme of things with regards to the Privacy Acts of most countries

I call it extortion... a way to profit off the backs of others.

Now does anybody honestly believe Google would have voluntarily done this without being inundated with complaints and objections?  Of course they would not have  Without the complaints and objections, they would have thought they got away with it and left the EULA as was.

Of course they did a tap dance... just like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, the politician answering sensitive personal and policy questions with a question.  It was deliberately worded that way, and when found out (what their intentions really were), they did a tapdance to throw people off the scent of their blatant criminality.

I say criminality because Google, in the wording of that EULA, lays claim to the use of materials which are not theirs by forcing those who want/feel they need to use to use Chrome or other Google crap to agree to said EULA.  To me, that is tantamount to me saying that everyone who uses my pirate or Medieval Icons must give me access and free use to that which is theirs.  It should never work that way and I would never consider it, much less do it, but Google does... all too frequently.