Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome 24 Released, Chrome Beta Channel For Android Added

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the version-increment dept.

Android 99

An anonymous reader writes "Google has released Chrome version 24 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater, or download it directly from google.com/chrome. The biggest improvement on the user side of things is the speed increase. Google's own Octane JavaScript test shows that this is the fastest Chrome release yet. When the beta came out in November, the company was touting that Chrome had become 26 percent faster on Octane than it was last year. Now it's even faster. Google also announced it is introducing a new Chrome beta channel for phones and tablets running Android 4.0 or higher. You can download version 25.0.1364.8 right now directly from Google Play (since this is a beta, it's not available via search; you'll need to use the link). The release of version 25 is significant because it means Google is attempting to bring Chrome for Android in line with the desktop version. The current release of Chrome for Android is version 18, last updated in November."

cancel ×

99 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"You can update to the latest release now using - (1, Interesting)

Fireking300 (1852630) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559387)

You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater. Not really silent if you need to be told you need to update.

Re:"You can update to the latest release now using (3, Informative)

Dunega (901960) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559737)

You don't. You can force the update. Otherwise it will update with it's next scheduled check.

Re:"You can update to the latest release now using (-1)

nuhasifa (2813723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561719)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] Nathan. although Esther`s st0rry is exceptional, on saturday I bought a gorgeous Land Rover Range Rover after I been earnin $9732 this-past/month and even more than 10k this past month. it's realy the easiest-work I have ever done. I began this six months/ago and almost immediately started making a nice more than $87... per hour. I use the details on this web-site,,

Re:"You can update to the latest release now using (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561165)

Not really silent if you need to be told you need to update.

How can Google let Firefox 18 know they are 6 majors releases behind in the browser wars if they update silently?

silent update? (0, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559417)

You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater...

If it's a silent updater, why do we need press releases for new versions? I'm just asking, since Slashdot seems to be less about tech news and more about regurgitating press releases lately.

Re:silent update? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42559489)

For those of you who for whom English is not your native language the word "can" does not mean "will." It just means that it is possible. Also, for those of us who use linux and relay on package management systems you should consult your distribution's documentation to see how to update your system.

Re:silent update? (5, Insightful)

baka_toroi (1194359) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559519)

By your logic, Chrome should've been mentioned by Slashdot only once, during it's initial release, since it includes a silent updater from day 1.

Re:silent update? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42559825)

what a fucking awesome idea.

Re:silent update? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560475)

By your logic, Chrome should've been mentioned by Slashdot only once, during it's initial release, since it includes a silent updater from day 1.

My logic is that only things that are actually interesting should be reported on. Have you noticed how often the linux, BSD, or other kernels are updated and how often Slashdot doesn't cover it? It's because it isn't news, and neither is this. I suspect the new owners of Slashdot were paid to put articles like this out. Chrome 24: Just like Chrome 23, only with a bigger number!

Re:silent update? (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560577)

My logic is that only things that are actually interesting should be reported on.

Both you and I know this is extremely subjective.

It's a major release and as such it should be reported. Firefox also has a similar release schedule and it gets reported as much on Slashdot. I do find this new kind of release schedule (both on Chrome and Firefox) completely idiotic, but that's a whole different issue.

Re:silent update? (2)

cristiroma (606375) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560845)

With these kind of release numbers, 100 is a more appropriate major release.

Re:silent update? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559993)

My understanding is that the silent update mechanism checks in with the mothership periodically, either as-scheduled or with some consideration for system load/onbattery vs. on AC/etc. The Chrome release team has their own schedule that the update mechanism has no knowledge of.

So, if your silent update mechanism is active, you will automatically receive the newest release; but only when the updater next phones home. Depending on when it last phoned home and when the release occurs, this might be a matter of several days. If you force a check it should happen about as fast as bandwidth allows.

Re:silent update? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560707)

system load/onbattery vs. on AC/etc.

Huh?

Re:silent update? (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about a year and a half ago | (#42562191)

system load/onbattery vs. on AC/etc.

Huh?

*sigh*
If the system load is high, they don't want to suck the CPU down any more (the update is a big CPU hog)
If the system is on a battery, they don't want to risk the update being aborted during an update if the battery dies.

Audience: web developers (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560223)

If it's a silent updater, why do we need press releases for new versions?

Perhaps the press release is intended for web developers, to let them know that they can design web applications around the new features.

Re:silent update? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560359)

If you are asking a rhetorical question that is the exact opposite of "just asking." Also, not everyone has Chrome installed and using it regularly, as well as paying attention to when updates occur, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to know what is going on in the industry. Maybe I share a computer login and somebody else was using it when it updated. I could then decide to see if it already updated on its own, and force the update if it didn't.. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons. Finally, your assumption that there was a time when Slashdot didn't consider new releases of products a large portion of their readership use as news is totally off base.

Re:silent update? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560661)

Methinks thou protests too much.

Re:silent update? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42563293)

lately? you must be new here

I guess It is about time to move to chrome 26 (4, Informative)

micheas (231635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559481)

I am posting with from:
Google Chrome 25.0.1364.5 (Official Build 174090) dev
OS Linux
WebKit 537.22 (@138211)
JavaScript V8 3.15.11.2
With silent update the meaning of these announcements is that it is time to check Can I Use? [caniuse.com] to see if any more css3 elements are now in widespread use so you can use them in web development.

Fast - good - now focus on... (5, Interesting)

presidenteloco (659168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559493)

Managing memory better so I don't have to keep shutting down web browsers every day or two. Most power users have many windows and many tabs up, and some are relevant for weeks, but most are unused and could be backgrounded much more effectively in terms of processor and memory use. Hint: Replace with a URL and a snapshot image updated infrequently.

Also, speaking of tabs. If I use them, I can't easily see visually which pages I have up, in the overview of windows display modes that most OSs offer. There is a usability disconnect here.

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (2, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559769)

Are you confusing Chrome with Firefox? On my primary system I usually have Chrome running for weeks with like three or four dozen tabs. Many of which are some pretty resource intensive pages. Usually I only have problems after a week or two and then only with pages like tumblr archives that have 200 animated gifs on them visible at once.

I will concur though that some kind of tab overview would be great. Didn't early versions of Chrome have that?

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (5, Informative)

Big Jason (1556) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559961)

I will concur though that some kind of tab overview would be great. Didn't early versions of Chrome have that?

Hit Shift-Esc to bring up the Chrome Task Manager. It will give you a summary of each tab's memory, cpu, and network consumption as well as the ability to kill individual tabs.

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560115)

In my experience, a freshly started Chrome needs way more memory for the same set of tabs than a freshly started Firefox. Firefox however leaks memory. That may or may not be caused by some plugin rather than Firefox itself but either way, I can only reclaim that memory by restarting FF.

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560499)

I have to agree. I let Chrome run for weeks at a time on both my work and home machine. But let FireFox run for 2-3 days and I have no memory left.

Firefox memory use getting better (1)

billstewart (78916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42569189)

Firefox crashes way too often for my taste, but since about version 13 it's gotten a lot better on memory use. I haven't used Chrome in a while, just tried it and found that yeah, it's really really fast. It used to be a real memory hog, and I won't be able to tell if that's still true unless I load it up with a lot of tabs. (And unfortunately, since I'm stuck running 32-bit Win7, I can't just throw enough virtual or real memory onto the laptop to handle memory bloat, and modern browsers don't seem to like waiting for Win7 paging anyway.)

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (1)

bhsx (458600) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559963)

I believe the next push will be to get extensions running on Chrome for Android. The major intent being to get Chrome Remote Desktop running on Android, allowing for TeamViewer-style remote control (NAT-traversal et al) of Windows, Mac and Linux boxes from your Android device. This can obviously be done already with third-party apps like TeamViewer or Splashtop; but this would bring it in-house and make it an OS feature. As a side note, Splashtop used to use Google servers for NAT traversal. They released version 2 right before Chrome for Android came out of beta, which removes the reliance on Google servers. When they did that, I predicted that it was because Google was muscling-in on their turf. I still believe that to be the case.

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (1)

bhsx (458600) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559989)

Correction: not when Chome came out of beta, when Chrome Remote Desktop came out of beta... Preview is a good thing, when you use it...

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (0)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561947)

Mod up, please.

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560013)

Most power users have many windows and many tabs up

I think you meant "disorganised users".

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560095)

Managing memory better so I don't have to keep shutting down web browsers every day or two. Most power users have many windows and many tabs up, and some are relevant for weeks, but most are unused and could be backgrounded much more effectively in terms of processor and memory use. Hint: Replace with a URL and a snapshot image updated infrequently.

Have you seen the amount of state information that website commonly carry these days? It's been years since you could safely assume that if a user has "URL X" open, they will be OK with the browser just re-loading "URL X" at some point in the future. There's form data to consider, cookie stuff, URLs that don't point to any persistent resource on the server and are intended to time out fairly quickly, sites that are really picky about referrer strings(common on shitty multipage forms, breaks 'forward' and 'back' nice and hard).

It would certainly be nice to have a good mechanism for browsers to put unused tabs on ice; but this isn't the 90's anymore, putting a web page to sleep(in a reliable, universally workable, way) is a lot closer to "Now, put the OS into suspend without causing any user applications to panic or die" rather than "Just kill the page and reload the URL later"...

relevant for weeks? (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560129)

What are you doing that you need a tab open for weeks? During a session I'll have some tabs open and when I'm finished close the browser. What are these people doing with 100 tabs open at a time?

Re:relevant for weeks? (5, Insightful)

nuggz (69912) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561007)

Some people don't like bookmarks, or they use their browser like "todo" lists.
Not that I advocate such an approach, but I understand it.

For any particular project I might have a handful of links that are open at one time.
I typically don't have 100 tabs open, but 20-40 is pretty typical.

Re:relevant for weeks? (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42562907)

In any given week I might be working on 3 distinct projects at work, the most complex of which might have 4 or 5 distinct informational topics requiring reference material or research.

Each informational topic might require a web search or two, and anywhere from 3 to 10 pages from different sources to investigate the leads or to keep handy the valuable pertinent information for that work task.

Of course, we generally don't control for how long we get to continue working on a given task. An important priority meeting on some totally new topic (urgent issue of the day/week) may come up suddenly, requiring one to three days "drop everything and work on that".

Of course in such a case you don't want to "drop everything" in a way that will require you to spend a quarter of a day reviving your information context you had up on it when you were "in the zone" on that work topic.

Oh not to mention the "brain-break" news stories/random stuff that you got halfway through before guilting yourself back into resuming the slog through real work.

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560641)

how exactly do they increase speed? Do they proxy https like nokia?

Re:Fast - good - now focus on... (1)

atisss (1661313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42562411)

I'm using UnloadTab for Firefox, works pretty well. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/unloadtab/?src=api [mozilla.org]
Of course hundreds of tabs for a week still requires some occasional restart (use ulimit -v in script before starting FF).

However I dislike Chrome, because occasionally it starts hogging CPU, so I even can't move my mouse.

Improving Chrome for Android is the big news (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559545)

Between mobile Firefox being a thing again and Chrome being improved we can finally see some competition for Opera Mobile on Android :)

The state of the Android browser is fairly pathetic, so this is really quite important.

Right now the only reason for chromebooks to exist is that Chrome on Android is meh at best. When this changes they can stop deploying ChromeOS. Hopefully they will offer some kind of upgrade path to Android on Chromebooks, so that the community doesn't have to fumble its way through :)

Re:Improving Chrome for Android is the big news (2)

bfandreas (603438) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559783)

Why is Chrome on Android so much worse than Opera Mobile.
I'm actually at a point where I would be willing to pay Opera for its browser even though I manage to crash it every once in a while.
How long will it take for Firefox on Android to be worthwhile using? Checked 1.5 years ago. Rechecked a couple of weeks ago. There's been definite progress but it still has a long way ahead.

Re:Improving Chrome for Android is the big news (2)

thammoud (193905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559787)

Just downloaded on my Nexus 4. The install went without a hitch. The speed improvements are huge. Tried about 10 websites and it looks and feels great.

nice work guys (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42573863)

It's troll or overrated when I say it, it's insightful when someone agrees

I love slashdot

Push updates from web to phone (1, Interesting)

jupiterssj4 (801031) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559577)

I still think it's really neat that I can click install in the Play Store on my PC and watch it start downloading on my phone...

Re:Push updates from web to phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42559883)

You can also set your phone up as a cloud printer and send webpages to it too.

Re:Push updates from web to phone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560319)

You can also set your phone up as a cloud printer and send webpages to it too.

Why would I want to print out a cloud? Or did you mean that it can print *on* clouds? Enquiring minds want to know...

Re:Push updates from web to phone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560907)

Duh! It's a picture of a cloud, not a real one!

Re:Push updates from web to phone (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560391)

"I still think it's really neat that I can click install in the Play Store on my PC and watch it start downloading on my phone..."

You can also dial a special number from a different phone and make it play sounds!

Side tabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42559603)

Good, now can I have my goddamn side tabs back?

25? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42559771)

And people get irrationally upset about Firefox's release schedule?

Re:25? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560151)

And this is why I ditched them they are churning out a version number every.... wait this is chrome? Oh in that case this is the best thing evaaaaaaaaaar!!!!

Re:25? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561285)

welcome to two years ago. no one complains about that anymore because it's not a big deal. no one cares.

except you, i guess.

Re:25? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561435)

And people get irrationally upset about Firefox's release schedule?

No, because Chrome updates tend to just work. Things don't break. I click Chrome and it works the same as it always had with the extensions it always has and it looks the same.

Everytime Firefox updates, things break. Either some extension I have suddenly doesn't work anymore, or more likely, someone changed something in the UI behavior so when muscle memory takes over, things go haywire.

Basically - Chrome updates keep the same UI and things work. Firefox updates are something to dread because it means hunting down new versions of extensions that don't auto-update, and trying to figure out how to undo whatever @#*&%) UI change they keep making. I still haven't figured out how to get the URL - sorry, "awesome" - bar to autocomplete the entire URL rather than just the domain name like it used to, for example.

Honestly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42559795)

It still only feels like Chrome 23 was just released last week.

When will the insanity stop? It's getting incredibly tiring.

Re:Honestly? (1)

nschubach (922175) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560303)

I'm not sure how it can be tiring... there's nothing you have to do on your end. The updates automatically happen.

Re:Honestly? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560503)

I have the same feeling about computers. Why can't technology just stop getting better? Why do people always have to improve things?!

string.localecompare broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42559839)

In Chrome 24.0.1312.52 m, stringA.localecompare(stringB) throws an exception from their internationalization code. Worked on Chrome23 and other browsers.

Re:string.localecompare broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560959)

Please send a bug report, unless already done.

Slow for SVG with display='none' (3, Interesting)

Bill Dimm (463823) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559859)

I've noticed that for large SVG files where much of the content has display='none' (so it is only displayed when something is clicked to trigger a change in the display property) Chrome seems to take several seconds to become responsive after the SVG page load is initiated, while other browsers seem to handle it almost instantly. Since a display value of none "indicates that the given element and its children shall not be rendered directly (i.e., those elements are not present in the rendering tree) [w3.org] " it seems Chrome shouldn't be spending so much time processing such stuff. Version 24 doesn't seem to fix that issue.

Undisplayed elements still in DOM (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560409)

Even if an undisplayed element is not in the rendering tree, it's still in the DOM.

Re:Undisplayed elements still in DOM (1)

Bill Dimm (463823) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561643)

Since none of the other browsers are exhibiting the same slowness, are you saying that Chrome is exceptionally slow at building the DOM?

Re:Slow for SVG with display='none' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560739)

Does visible="hidden" cause the same issue? Using display="none" is much more common though...

Re:Slow for SVG with display='none' (1)

Bill Dimm (463823) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561779)

If anything, I would expect visible="hidden" to be worse since: "With ‘visibility’ set to hidden, however, processing occurs as if the element were part of the rendering tree and still taking up space, but not actually rendered onto the canvas. [w3.org] " I don't have time to verify that at the moment, but maybe I'll test it later and post an update.

I'll wait... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42559871)

I'll wait for Chrome 31.1 for Workgroups. Hurr durr.

Chrome's attitude (4, Interesting)

arisvega (1414195) | about a year and a half ago | (#42559945)

Chrome's functionality sounds great, but I do not like its attitude: it establishes numerous connections "on the side" talking back to Google central all the time, almost constantly transmitting all sorts of information: Google intercepts and highjacks most of the traffic when someone uses Chrome, that much is obvious.

Re:Chrome's attitude (2, Informative)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560197)

Chrome's functionality sounds great, but I do not like its attitude: it establishes numerous connections "on the side" talking back to Google central all the time, almost constantly transmitting all sorts of information: Google intercepts and highjacks most of the traffic when someone uses Chrome, that much is obvious.

Use Chromium instead.

Re:Chrome's attitude (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560453)

For the very paranoid, there is a nice chromium variant. [comodo.com] Works well, doesn't freeze up like other options I've used, and the defaults make the IE10 "do not track" default look like an exibitionist.

Re:Chrome's attitude (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560709)

Why would the very paranoid want a closed source [comodo.com] browser?

Re:Chrome's attitude (1)

arisvega (1414195) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561205)

Use Chromium instead.

I just did: no time to compile my own, so I installed a build.

Just firing it up, and it already tried to connect to several Google-owned domains (including the controversial gstatic.com) out-of-the-box without any warning or permission.

Attempting to just write text to the adress bar triggers another cascade of connections- initially to just activate the "aid" of predicting the site I am looking for, I know- but not stopping there. So where does it stop, exactly?

Respectfully, this reminds me of the various spyware "helpbars" that would perform unsolicited installs, and the nature of the "help" I get only reminds me of Clippy.

So your point is?

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561561)

WTF is controversial about gstatic?

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561965)

WTF is controversial about gstatic?

It's not really needed: it serves widgets and crap to various google pages/services (like docs, maps and the like) but in doing so it is performing excessive tracking. Granted, you can firewall it off, but then your google pages render like dick.

Re:Chrome's attitude (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42563571)

Then tell chrome to stop using all of the google features like search suggestion.

Protip, Firefox's google search also uses search suggestion, unless thats changed recently.

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560233)

Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox do the same. If you're the very paranoid kind, use Chromium and grep the source code. There is no interception and hijacking, that would be easily detectable. They perform malware tests and such though, which will cause outbound connections to Google's servers.

Re:Chrome's attitude (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560471)

If you don't want Chrome phoning home, disable that functionality. If you go to the settings, there's a "privacy" section with 4 checkboxes (at least in my version of Chromium):

  • Use a web service to help resolve navigation errors
  • Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar
  • Predict network actions to improve page load performance
  • Enable phishing and malware protection

Uncheck all of them and it should stop contacting Google except for automatic updates (not sure how disabling those works; Chromium doesn't have them as updates go through my package manager instead).

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560651)

Thanks! I didn't know we could turn-off the url-phone-home in Chrome. Do we know if these 4 options account for ALL phoning-home?

Re:Chrome's attitude (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42563575)

My own testing has generally shown that it does, unless theyre trying to be super sneaky about it-- which is honestly not productive for google as they would eventually get found out anyways.

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561393)

The Chromium builds from http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromium-browser-continuous/ still contact Google on startup (at least), even with everything disabled, clients1.google.com or clients2.google.com. What's it doing? One thing I think it's still checking for is updated extensions.

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561487)

However, I don't think it would be checking for updated extensions every startup...

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42564777)

Why not? Firefox does.

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42569721)

Makes sense from a security standpoint; it doesn't take long for a vulnerability to spread once it's public, so updates need to happen quickly. It's the same justification used for the silent updates.

Re:Chrome's attitude (1)

mrwonton (456172) | about a year and a half ago | (#42563363)

There is one final piece that the truly Paranoid tend to dislike about Chrome: RLZ. Here's the skinny: http://blog.chromium.org/2010/06/in-open-for-rlz.html [chromium.org]
Using Chromium vs Chrome also gets you out of that.

Disclaimer: I work on Chrome.

Re:Chrome's attitude (1)

BZ (40346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42565673)

There is no exposed way to disable updates in Chrome that I know of.

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560529)

So turn off those features or use the open source version, chromium.

Re:Chrome's attitude (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561299)

In addition, Chrome's UI is way too minimalistic for everyday use in my opinion, and completely uncustomizable. I detest having a close button on every tab - I regularly close Chrome tabs by accident - but they stubbornly refuse to do a damn thing about it.

Re:Chrome's attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561471)

so what. press ctrl-t and your closed tab will return.

Re:Chrome's attitude (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42563581)

undo close tab is "ctrl shift t".

Re:Chrome's attitude (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42563557)

Every time someone has made this allegation, and Ive taken the time to bust out Wireshark and sniff my network traffic, the allegation has proven false.

The only things AFAIK that they transmit-- unless theyve snuck something in in the last year-- is the following:

  1. Keystrokes to your default search engine, if you have suggestions turned on (like every other browser that uses search suggestions)
  2. URLs and page contents if you are using the auto-translate feature-- just like would normally happen if you use a web page translator
  3. Essentially, if you use feature X which uses google resources, data necessary to perform feature X is transmitted to google

Its only "talking back to google central" if you leave the "please use all the google features" boxes checked in Chrome options. Here, Ill make it easy for you:
Menu --> Settings; Advanced settings, uncheck everything under "privacy" except the DNT setting.

Of course, youll be losing out on features that generally are taken for granted in other browsers, which have the exact same privacy implications in other browsers, but whatever.

cool but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42559971)

when do we get the opposite of "google chrome"?
which would (i guess) be a slimy slow html server for free?
obviously we all have no idea how the database of google works, but we all know how HTML should (baring all adobe flash).
so it's either use all google servers or we can do our own? sh1t this is a perversion taken to extrems :

Re:cool but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560167)

what are you talking about

Re:cool but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560343)

Microsoft Rust

Re:cool but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561033)

I think owncloud.org could be what you are after. BTW you should really brush up your writing skills.

Monitor profile support totally broken or removed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560119)

Worth noting that this release 100% breaks monitor color profile support, which sucks if you're someone that cares about photos. It's incredible that this is not a more important to the Chrome developers, but maybe most people don't care about quality. Just speed.

Before this release, you had to use the --enable-monitor-profile command-line switch to enable monitor profile support. It wasn't perfect but it worked most of the time. Now this does nothing. Lame.

Re:Monitor profile support totally broken or remov (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42563617)

It's incredible that this is not a more important to the Chrome developers,

No its not, because,

most people don't care about [color profiles].

(FTFY)

I dont know of anyone (outside of IT colleagues) who would even know what a color profile is. I dont know that Ive ever used one, or that I care to.

Re:Monitor profile support totally broken or remov (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42570557)

Worth noting that this release 100% breaks monitor color profile support, which sucks if you're someone that cares about photos. It's incredible that this is not a more important to the Chrome developers, but maybe most people don't care about quality. Just speed.

Before this release, you had to use the --enable-monitor-profile command-line switch to enable monitor profile support. It wasn't perfect but it worked most of the time. Now this does nothing. Lame.

I think its terrible that thery removed this feature! As a photographer it makes it really hard to assess what my prints look like on line now

Chromed (0)

ChefJeff789 (2020526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560269)

[Insert well-articulated, well-reasoned comment that can be boiled down to "Chrome SUXS! Firefox FTW"]

Version # (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560461)

Based on the version #, I assume Chrome 1.0 came out some time in the mid-80s, possibly much earlier.

Is printing fixed? (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560955)

What I want is for them to fix Crome's broken printing. I've had no end of problems printing from within Chrome. I realize it works for many people but not for us. Their default print preview will not print multiple copies, ignores color settings, sometimes ignores duplex settings, and has other problems besides. I've had problems and so has at least one other person in our company. We have to use the system dialog each time we print. I've sent in some problem reports but nothing has seemed to update in the last 6 months.

A long way to go yet (0)

joncombe (623734) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561449)

They might have released 24 versions now but have you seen Word? That's up to version 2013.

Developers Beware - GWT 2.4 animations are broken (1)

gageorge (2813717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561563)

Chrome 24 breaks the use of animations in GWT 2.4 compiled code. If Google truly backs both of these products, they'll hopefully issue a Chrome patch ASAP. For more information see http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=158910 [google.com]

Still waiting for Opus in support... (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42562311)

They've got opus audio for their remote desktop feature and WebRTC last I heard, but they STILL haven't added support for it in plain old tags...

Re:Still waiting for Opus in support... (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42562325)

Teach me to blindly click "post" - that's "Opus in <audio> support", for "plain old <audio>" (html5) tags.

Secure password generator (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about a year and a half ago | (#42563245)

when are they going to create a secure password generator? Lastpass is great but it would be so much smoother cross device if Chrome handled it all.

Always on top bug is back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42564863)

The one bug that has turned me off with Google Chrome was the bug that kept the window on top no matter what. This is a very annoying bug and it needs to be fixed immediately.

http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/EjI1gnwXaZQ

https://productforums.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/chrome/HP1kNhXGMqs

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>