Google Chrome

Enjoying the browser, its light, fast, in built spell check and i like the full screen look style.

Couple of things i don't like.

1. Using the scroll wheel to move a page up and down, it jumps rather then smoothly scrolls down.

2. Moving the hand cursor over certain things (mainly on this forum) doesn't create a underscore which bugs me.

3. No ABP and NoScript really bugs me, i cant live without them 2 addons.

4. Ho Home button.

5. Some web pages don't render properly.
 
Teki187 said:
Enjoying the browser, its light, fast, in built spell check and i like the full screen look style.

Couple of things i don't like.

1. Using the scroll wheel to move a page up and down, it jumps rather then smoothly scrolls down.

2. Moving the hand cursor over certain things (mainly on this forum) doesn't create a underscore which bugs me.

3. No ABP and NoScript really bugs me, i cant live without them 2 addons.

4. Ho Home button.

5. Some web pages don't render properly.
Click to expand...

You can turn the home button on, go to the spanner and then options... tick the box that says "show home button"

How do people get the spell checker to work :)
 
Wicksta said:
Has this been mentioned yet?

Dodgy EULA.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, what happened to the good old typical open source license?

They really need to sort that one out, it'll put thousands of people off.

nikebee said:
You can turn the home button on, go to the spanner and then options... tick the box that says "show home button"

How do people get the spell checker to work :)
Click to expand...

Works 'out of the box' for me.
 
Last edited:
rafster said:
I answered your "model". Profit can be negative. if you have individual A who runs website X who makes +ve profit monthly, then suddenly no advert and makes -ve (through a multitude of variables, from hosting costs to opportunity costs of running the website) then under "economic theory" why should he still create? The only way to say he may is if the utility he gets out of running the site is measurable and greater than the costs, then he may continue. But this is not going to be the case always.

If you want to continue patronising me, then email me and I'll give you a simple lesson on game theory, utility and microeconomics (which is what you are hinting it, wether you realise it or not)
Click to expand...

I am sure that there are some people who fit into that model. Some minor "mom & pop" type websites that pay for hosting and bandwidth via advertisements. Those would suffer.

My point was that a large number of extremely succesful websites do not fit this model. Whilst the "cost" of a website can be easily measured (in £/$), the "benefits" are not so easily measured. I myself do not fit into this model, for example : I pay the full cost for a private website (where I don't even put things of much value to anyone) yet do not use banners to subsidise the cost - I feel there are benefits that far outweigh the cost. Why would I do this?

Because I am, and many people, as well as groups of people are, highly complex collections of wants and needs, and money is a small yet critical part of that set of values. Advertising has become an easy way for everyone to jump on the "lets make money on *** intarwebz" without actually providing anything of value - and it clogs up legitimate pages. Pages that serve their own advertisements are not affected by adblock (unless you block the entire page) but the crappy advertising "services" run by companies (banner ads, for example) are, in my (humble) opinion, a complete waste of mindshare, bandwidth, time and money. They are technically feasible but "internet sociologically" hated, and adblock is popular for just that reason.
 
dirtydog said:
It is a mystery why people do, to me :) It is okay and all, but if it wasn't for the fact it was a google browser, and with google being generally liked, what's the big deal really?
Click to expand...

I think even if an unknown released a browser overnight with a launch like this it would still be taken well. Its google so its gets more attention, but its a still a very good first beta product. It delivers basics well and that's why people like it, it also has massive potential.
 
It's a shame there's not an option so when you go into Chrome, and it gives you miniature previews of your most visited pages (ie: images/screen dumps of them), they could be actually be upto date versions (yes I know it would have to load the pages and waste time doing this).

One of mine for example is googlemail - Would be bloody useful if the image was upto date as I could see straight away if there was new mail or not...
 
Last edited:
lowrider007 said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

Rather than quoting yourself, you could have read the thread... I posted about this earlier and people mentioned that they're implementing it soon.

Spell checker is working for me now actually, but there's no "Add To Dictionary" function... hopefully we'll get that in the next few releases (or I'm being a pleb and can't see it :o)
 
Last edited:
NeilFawcett said:
It's a shame there's not an option so when you go into Chrome, and it gives you miniature previews of your most visited pages (ie: images/screen dumps of them), they could be actually be upto date versions.

One of mine for example is googlemail - Would be bloody useful if the image was upto date as I could see straight away if there was new mail or not...
Click to expand...

The mini previews are just the last time you viewed the page. A Gmail screenshot would be almost impossible surely, as you'd have to get the browser to log in to do the preview?
 
nikebee said:
The mini previews are just the last time you viewed the page. A Gmail screenshot would be almost impossible surely, as you'd have to get the browser to log in to do the preview?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have no issue with it loading up GMail and rendering an upto date shot... It would take 1 second? :)

As I said, it should be an option, but it would be useful IMHO to see what the current 9 or so pages look like... And I'd be willing to see it spend 1-2 seconds doing it in my case :)


EDIT: Yes you're right about the GMAIL example - it would need to login :( In my case these details are set/remembered, but this would not be the case for some people (on some pages, eg forums etc). Very good point!
 
I've been using it on my work computer since I got in this morning, I'm rather happy with it to say the least. Going to install it on my laptop and desktop when I get home for sure!
 
I had a go for a few hours earlier. Seems like a great start. And being open source a lot of the missing features I would want will soon be added I'm sure. Just hope it doesn't slow it down to much. It wont be making me switch from firefox for a while though I suspect.
 
FrostedNipple said:
ITS NOT A FEATURE YET!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

<cowers under desk>

vice9k.gif
:p

nikebee said:
Rather than quoting yourself, you could have read the thread... I posted about this earlier and people mentioned that they're implementing it soon.
Click to expand...

ahh ok, thanks for telling me anyway, the thread has grown quite a bit now, I did have a quick skim through, guess I missed it :).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom