Chrome is faster than IE (well IE8 beta anyway) I visited this forum using both browzers from my default homepage (facebook) To load the lfsforum main page fully;
IE = 9 seconds
chrome = 2 seconds
Actually my understanding is that it only does that when the [Search x for:] text appears. And that's not only for Google. It would send that information to wikipedia instead if you were using that.
The only time it ever sends information relating to the URL is if a page is loaded that is deemed malicious - ever seen that big red screen on FF3? That does the same thing. Except the URL can't be figured out from this information - it's just a hashcode.
And frankly I'm not too worried about sending a bit of data to Google. They have never done anything to make me doubt them. I believe they have the right motives and these motives are very well reflected by their actions.
You can whine all you want but the fact of the matter is:
Internet Explorer is a resource hog, damned slow (IE8 beta 2 actually uses more system resources than Windows XP!), and doesn't comply to standards. It doesn't matter that it renders more stuff fine at the moment. The fact that it's not conforming to the standards that are set by an independent third party is holding the web as a whole up. As an engineer you should understand that.
As a fun fact, did you know that IE5.5 actually gets a higher score in the Acid3 test (a standards compatibility test) than IE6? That just goes to show that Microsoft went off on their own mission. They figured that if change the standards to suit them, seeing as most people use IE it will give them an advantage - web developers would develop for IE and they would make the standards. And this is why they rightly get slated by web developers.
I think the point is that it really doesn't matter about W3C if over 75% of your target audience use IE because they are your standard users, so IE's foibles become your standards.
BTW - I alternate between Firefox (by accident) and Chrome now. Seeing AdBlock on Chrome would probably make me dump Firefox totally, which is something I NEVER thought i'd do...
But when the de facto standard is in fact the real standard, just half-heartedly implemented and legendarily buggy, a developer's job gets a tad annoying. If Microsoft just broke free and did their own thing while documenting it and conforming properly to their own documentation it would actually be borderline tolerable. Right now though I can't look up how IE will behave when I feed it some presumably valid CSS. It's pure guesswork half the time.
I'm no fan of Opera, mostly because it's different to FF and IE meaning that to support it i've yet another browser to test, and for it's piddly market share, I can no longer be bothered. I dont care if it uses "the standard", because it doesnt work like the others and barely anyone uses it, it therefore isnt a standard.
I guess Google will likely take some share from Firefox, most IE users wont upgrade though - they never upgraded to superior browsers before why would they start now? Having it linked on the Google homepage 'might' encourage a few more to make the change away from IE, but I suspect most of the market will carry on using IE just like they always have - if it ain't broken don't fix it... It's not as if IE users even upgraded to 7 until their OS' came bundled with it.
Where exactly does it say this? I've seen it quoted all over the web, but it's not in the privacy policy and Googling (hah) some of the text only produces links to news sites.
Thank you. That is indeed ridiculous if it means what it looks like it means. (My legalese is a bit rusty) I doubt Google has the means to actually carry through on that clause though. They don't store any information you post to servers that aren't theirs.
No. The copyright holder determines the licensing agreement. Granted, Google doesn't hold the copyright on all parts of Chrome, but they certainly hold the copyright on the stuff that's specific to Chrome. They're not allowed to change the license of the parts they don't own the copyright of though (Webkit and whatever it is they took from Firefox).
I'm just using it for one website which doesn't run very well with internet explorer, it seems very fast and easy to navigate, but I doubt it will do any damage to IE, it will probably just take users away from things like Firefox.
Yep, google trace EVERYTHING you do. So many sites now use google analitics that they can see almost everything you do. Guess Chrome and its EULA mean they have full tracking coverage now.
Also does this mean if I upload anything through Chrome then I grant Google licence to use it? How does that work then?
whatever a company with 75% market share does is the de facto standard and theres absolutely not point arguing otherwise
im fairly sure you misunderstood the privacy policy
what might those be? making money by targeting adds more directly at your personality?
as an engineer whos had to work to standards i understand that many standards a written by drunken lemurs and its usually better to build a proprietary solution that actually works rather than trying to work round the hundreds of problems that arise from complying to a standard dreamt up by idiots
If what Microsoft came up with actually was better than what the "drunken lemurs" at the W3C (which includes Microsoft BTW) came up with, I'd agree with you. You'd have to be a special kind of idiot to think that though. There's nothing proprietary about IE the way it stands today. It's just a poor and buggy implementation of the W3C recommendation.
And I'd love to see some of these implementation problems you allude to. You see, everyone else seems to do just fine these days, so I'm genuinely curious as to what these problems are.
