Google Chrome web browser

[HSNetwork]

Originally Posted by dms05

A couple of thoughts (i) Google Chrome uses the same WebKit open source Engine as Apple Safari and is very very different to Firefox (ii) it has the ability to run 'incognito' pages whereby it wipes all cookies etc when you close the Tab (iii) each Tab runs as a small program, so if one Tab crashes it doesn't crash the whole browser.

It does just that. Each Tab is a seperate Process which in turn uses its own allocation of memory etc. So if one tab crashes its only that tab and the others carry on.
Check out the following in chrome. Type "about:memory" (without the ") into the address bar and it will compare memory usage between itself and firefox etc.

[dms05]

Just tried the 'about:memory' entry. Interesting results when running Opera and Chrome. Opera seems to run in about half the memory (150k vs 300k) with very similar Tabs open. I'm running Vista in 2GB of memory and running Chrome, rather than Opera, pushes up my memory requirement by 7% which supports the RAM increase of 150k.

[NewsreadeR]

ummmm. Looks like Iam going to stop using Chrome.

11. Content licence from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

Anything you own the copyright on, and you post on the www with Chrome, you lose any claims.

Burned by Chrome | The Register

[dms05]

Also because Chrome uses the same Engine as Apple uses in Safari it is theoretically vulnerable to Carpet Bombing (where familiar icons on your desktop may contain unauthorised links).

But remember it's only the first beta release and as such it works pretty well.

The claim on ownership of items posted via Chrome is a bit like a piano maker claiming ownership of Bach's music.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by RickyC

Not missing FF extensions yet

Not even AdBlock Plus?

I tried Chrome last night. Not bad, but the ads irritate me so I've gone back to FF3.

The EULA is also rather cheeky, as already mentioned.

[HSNetwork]

Ok,

I think Google realised that copy and pasting their own terms and conditions across all apps is a bad idea lol.

http://gizmodo.com/5045050/google-up...be-less-creepy

[dms05]

Google relent and have produced a new section 11 which reads:

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services.

There are no qualifying sub-sections at all.

[Isitme]

It looks like it's Safari genes are showing up already -
Carpetbomb bug tarnishes Google Chrome | The Register

It is still a Beta, but as this was known, I would have thought it would have been patched before its release.