Google Chrome: Is this supposed to be a joke?

O.k., so I tried out Chrome for a bit today, since everybody has been raving about it. Well, what can I say: I am stunned! This thing has got be a joke. That glorious piece of software is exactly of the kind of quality I've come to expect from Google: Alpha software at best, or rather a prototype of what might once be a web browser, when, or rather if, it ever grows up.

First of all, it is, of course, no faster than my trusty IE8, but that was to be expected, since on a fast machine browser speed is bottle-necked by network transfer rates, so it really doesn't matter what browser you use, they're all equally fast.

Next, however, it turns out that just about nothing can be configured, you get what you get, and that's it, other than maybe some silly themes. Most importantly, there seems to be no meaningful way to configure the cache size. As shipped, Chrome will happily gobble up gigabytes of disk space, without any limitations, and there is no option available anywhere in the user interface to configure cache size.

I am sorry, but who were the idiots that coded this crap? And what complete morons can recommend such a piece of garbage while in full possession of their mental facilities?

 

I have been using Chrome for months, no issues, runs fast, maybe you downloaded something else, I have not hear such a bad writeup from anyone. Maybe try it for longer than a day???

 

Heheh, why don't you google "Chrome cache size", then, just for kicks? By the way, what's the size of your browser cache right now?

As for you hearing nothing but good things about it: Yes, that's because people are sheep, and mindless ones at that. They go "Ooh, it's from Google" and "Ahh, it's so pretty", concluding then "It must be the greatest thing since sliced bread". Sheesh...

P.S.: Did I mention that you can zoom only in 20% steps? God almighty, what crap...

 

If you want to limit Chrome's cache, there is a convoluted workaround available here.

Though I do agree that any modern browser needs to have a cache management option especially now in the age of SSDs.

Edit: Btw, you could always use CCleaner to remove Chrome's cache, which is what I do once a month. While I do use Chrome as my main browser, I am waiting for the final release of IE9, which I also like. Most likely when IE9 is released, I will switch over fulltime to it.

 

You're forgetting the updaters that start with Windows a la iTunes, the privacy issues (Client ID, RLZ and URL tracking) and and the sheer fact it's a product of Google.

That said, I do use Iron (not connected to Google) and after spending time with a Chromium/Webkit browser, have gotten used to and even started to like it. Of course there are flaws, yet I don't open Opera as often nowadays.

Pirx, I'd love to see you tear into one of those Chrome Notebooks. A whole G-style OS for you to get cozy with!

 

Yep,
I am with you. Nope, don't like it, don't like it one bit . I downloaded "Chrame" last week for kicks and giggles and was very unimpressed. guess I am old folgy, but I like IE8. It's just....comfortable, and tweekable which I like alot.
Rooster

 

pirx: i so far enjoyed your posts for being well informed and of good quality. but now, you completely fail.

i don't enjoy google per se, nor am i a sheep of it. but after dropping ie for firefox years ago, i dropped firefox about a year ago for chrome. nothing about chrome is beta-ware style. there's no need to have much options that make life nedlessly complicated. cache size never was a problem for me (and i use ssds only as you might know).
right now, it's half a giga, which is nothing.

to rwuk: no, the updater doesn't do that anymore really. the privacy issues are mostly not there anymore, too.

pirx: fact is, it's much faster than iexplore even on a core i5 with an ssd. if it isn't, your system has some other issues loads up faster, processes javascript pages faster (gmail, facebook, much others). it renders pages more correctly, too.

but to each it's own. you prejudge it for things that are unimportant. which is not like you normally do, so i'm sad now..


btw: just to make sure, explore those:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/kaielpkecabnggniojjhghggjedkecfj
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nonjdcjchghhkdoolnlbekcfllmednbl

there are many more. but for an ie user, exploring the web without all the crappy flash ads everywhere is a very interesting feel.

there are lots of tiny usability features that, once you know them, will miss. example: select davepermen.net and right click, and you can open the url. it's those tiny things that matter.

 

I agree with you that "speedy" browsers are useless because the difference in performance is now rather negligible.

And the new world order is that people are stupid and they like to be treated so, so controls over settings are now taken away from you.
And it is called user friendliness although I rather call it user nanniess so yea nothing you can do when the world turns stupid and lazy.

 

well, speedy is still important. why do you want to waste time because of inefficient software? i don't. and interestingly, very much of the web performance is NOT the bandwith or server response.

the processing of html, javascript, css and the rendering of it is a quite complex task. it's nice to have optimized code handle it well, and not have it run slow.


and it doesn't have to do with controls taken away from you. it has to do with computers being there to HELP YOU, SERVE YOU, MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER. that's their job. if there's a way to do something automatic, that's HIS job, not MINE. and that's why settings get removed (or not even implemented from the start) where they don't make sense to be there.

it doesn't have to do with stupid or lazy, it has to do with progress, and dropping old stupid habits that make no sense.

 

Well...it is one thing for things to be done "automatically" and it is another thing to have things done automatically and efficiently.

At the very least, Chrome should have given the user an option to monitor the cache and to set limits. After all, the user knows best what he/she would like to do, how to do it and to monitor the performance of his/her system. Not having the ability to control the level of cache - in some part - hinders the user's flexibility. I think Google should include this feature in their upcoming release of Chrome. But of course, YMMV.

 

what's the use of the option? even on my smallest ssd, the cache fills about 1.25% of the disk.

often, the user does NOT know best. see all the tweaking guides and the wrong stuff people do to their systems.

there is ZERO use of being able to adjust the cache on any normal computer system.

 

As I said...YMMV.

 

Google apps is based on simplicity and ease of use for the general public and its free. Thats why its ever so popular.

Not to mention Chrome development hasnt been around for long compared to other browsers.

If your an advanced user and require more flexibility then it might not be for you.

 

For those having a ' must...set..cache..myself...-need', there is a Chrome switches page list available.
(Haven't used these myself)

Apparantly, you can set the size and cache location;

// Use a specific disk cache location, rather than one derived from the
// UserDatadir.
const char kDiskCacheDir[] = "disk-cache-dir"

// Forces the maximum disk space to be used by the disk cache, in bytes.
const char kDiskCacheSize[] = "disk-cache-size"

Anyone here who has used these to tame Chrome?

 

show me any gain you get from being able to adjust such a thing. show me PROOF that it's not better that way. i say it's just an old habit you can't let go, that's all. it works, it works great on by now millions of systems, and only those that are just used to it are complaining. that's like with about all changes. pople always complain, and don't consider that it might be actually a positive thing, that change. that it might have a good reason, that change.

change is hard.

enjoy your self-created need to be able to adjust something that has zero relevance, and then feel cool about "being smarter than the system as I HAVE MAED TEH TWEAK!".

 

Easy! Don't go overboard. You have your ways and preference and I have mine.

 

except that there aren't such users, except those that just do as if they needed it to get a better selfesteem. at least when we talk about this cache-size thing.

 

Well, apart from this being undocumented, the issue seems to be that the switch doesn't work. At least in the threads that I saw were people have played with the switch, the only setting that seemed to have an effect was setting the cache size to one byte... Anything else is apparently pretty much ignored.

Heh, Dave should love that one: Since the browser doesn't manage its cache, let the user do it manually...

I don't think so.

I tend to agree with you on the first part, but there are certain things that people should be free to configure. Cache size (and location, btw) is one of them. Good to hear that your cache size is limited, but I have seen people reporting cache sizes of several gigs, and growing. That can be an issue, on SSDs in particular, more so if you cannot change the location of the cache. Which I know you can do using various higher-level filesystem constructs, but you tell me if you want people to have to go down that path.

Shrug... On my system, IE is blazingly fast; if it's not on your system, it must have issues. Seriously, both open instantaneously for all intents and purposes. The only way to make them feel faster is to turn off Aero animations. But then this is on an Intel Extreme quad-core machine, so YMMV on your anemic little netbooks.

I don't know about rendering pages more correctly, I haven't seen any issues of that sort in IE, either.

Awwhh, don't be sad now. And, yes, you are right, some of those apps and extensions are really valuable. Not having an equivalent to AdBlock on IE is in fact the one reason I tried Chrome. Thanks for the pointers!

I agree with most of the above, except you make the mistake of over-generalizing your experience, something you are wont to do. Some users do have legitimate issues with Chrome's cache size.

From what I have read, the cache size switch doesn't seem to work but I cannot confirm or deny this at this point.

 

I have IE9, Firefox 4.0, and Chrome, I like chrome, it's fast, simple and does not crash like Firefox

PCworld:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/150828/browser_battle_firefox_31_vs_chrome_vs_ie_8.html

 

Edit: thread re-opened by request.

We're all on the same team here, please try not to get personal. Stick to the topic at-hand. Thanks.

 

to use the famous steve jobs way of stating things: if you need an option to set the cache size in your browser, you blew it. there is just no need. you don't adjust your caches in all other apps (have you adjusted your icon cache, your thumb-caches, your network buffer caches for the file system, actual file system caches, superfetch caches? etc).

no you don't, and so you should not ever have any need to do on your browsers cache. you might THINK you need, out of the habbit of having had that need before. but you don't HAVE the need. you have the need to relearn old and outdated knowledge instead.

and i'm an ssd user, famous for it in here. and i have ZERO need to adjust any cache on any of mine, or any of my clients systems, ever, since years (before chrome, before firefox even.. yes, never even on ie)

well, you might be THE ONE, then, that has a fast ie. everyone else i know, met, seen has an ie that gets outpaced by chrome about always.[/quote]

well, try my webpage, then. and it does have special tweaks just for ie to work AT ALL. the animations and such don't work, though.
just to re-check, i just opened internet explorer with it's default settings (haven't used it on that installation yet haha). those where the greetings: FULL SCREEN ADS!! .
yes, the animations don't work, the layout fails, fonts aren't displayed, etc..
just compare it: davepermen

that's what I call customisation. adjusting the cache, no. and there it wins massively over ie. (but firefox wins over everything there, of course)

having issues doens't mean having a need to adjust it. it does just mean the issues should get fixed.
and if having half a gig or so used for cache is a storage problem, you really need a bigger disk.

 

First off. The fastest browser I've used so far is IE9 Beta. That thing screams, faster than Chrome or Firefox. Just don't like using it much :/

Second there is nothing davepermen has said so far that convinces me that I would ever give Chrome another try. And just for fun, I adjusted my cache in Firefox to 2GB, because I can.

Things I like about Chrome. The tab on top. Easy search on the address bar. Minimal design. No huge menu bar.

Things I don't like about Chrome: Everything else and Chrome itself.

What is awesome? Firefox. After spending 30 minutes I got everything I wanted and more. Firefox is still king for me.
- I have the status bar only pop up when loading a page, awesome.
- Download now opens in a new tab with download accelerator built in, awesome
- Tabs on top now, awesome
- Address bar now is my search bar and it has a loading status built in, like Safari, awesome
- No more menu bar, now a single button with everything I need, awesome
- Everything minimal and thin bars and buttons, awesome

Firefox is awesome. Click image for fullsize

 

Man...you gotta hook up the status bar, the address bar..and the download accelerator+tab thing.

The first two (status bar & search address bar) were the two things I liked about Chrome.

 

The Addons you mentioned are:

Stratabuddy - I use this one that allows for tab on top and get rid of the menu bar with one easy button, all in one package. But you can find various addons to do the same thing also. Separately. There are some really nice one button menu addons and tab on top etc addons.
Foobar - Combines the Address Bar and Search Bar into One - Chrome Search (the only thing I liked about Chrome really...)
Firedownload (Download accelerator)
Download Manager Tweak - Modify how you want your downloads to be, pretty much anything you want changed can be done)
Extended Status Bar - Adjust how you want the status bar to behave and what information you want.
Fission - Page loading indicator in your address bar like Safari, if you like that. Can adjust color, texture whatever.

 

One thing I really liked about Chrome compared to Firefox was the fact that Flash support was already built-in. Every time I'm installing Firefox to a computer, I have to install the Flash and Adobe Reader plugins, which is a complete pain.

I have to go to the Adobe site, click "Download Flash Plugin," which actually downloads the Adobe Download Manager plugin, restart Firefox, go to Adobe site again, finally download the actual Flash plugin, restart Firefox again, go back to the Adobe site, download the Adobe Reader plugin, restart Firefox again, then uninstall the Download Manager, and restart Firefox AGAIN. I'd prefer it if the Internet didn't rely on Flash so much, but it does, so I'd really appreciate a better way of putting Flash support in Firefox than that round-about way. With Chrome, I can just install it and boom, YouTube and everything Flash works instantly without additional work.

 

I'd still be using Firefox if it weren't slow as all hell (takes 10-20 seconds to open), and I will never fully trust IE as a safe browser. So, I tried Chrome, I liked the design, and I kept it. I use CCleaner every week, so the cache isn't an issue.

 

You forgot the prefix "in" in front of that "famous" above... And don't quote Steve "we know best what's good for you" Jobs on me. These guys sell you a computer/ipad/iphone, and then it turns out it's really not your device, it's still Mr. Jobs' device, who tells you what you can or cannot do with it. But that's a different topic entirely.

You know Dave (and that's not just a figure of speech here, I know that you know...), I understand that there is something to your line of argument. IF Chrome really is capable of managing its cache in a reasonable way, then there should be no reason for the user to interfere. However, from what I read, that does not always seem to be the case. I freely admit, though, that I may have been flying off the handle prematurely with my original post. Maybe there is possibly, perhaps, a chance that I could get used to Chrome after all...

On the other hand, being able to choose zoom factors in increments other than those dictated by Chrome's interface is useful for many users, in particular if you use a non-standard DPI setting on a 1920x1080 15.4" screen. Oh, and did I tell you that lots of web pages look like cr@p in Chrome if you are on a non-standard DPI? That even [gasp!] the layout is messed up in these cases? Oh, and that little detail that Chrome does not respect those DPI settings anyway? Awesome browser...

I doubt that I'm the only one. It may be, though, that on the kind of machines I typically use, the difference between 0.05 seconds for IE and, say, 0.03 seconds for Chrome is just not noticeable.

Hey, whose fault is it now if you don't know how to code web pages properly?

 

ROFL anyone who designs a webpage that isn't fully compliant with IE is an idiot. Sorry that's all there is to it. 50% of internet users use IE. Srewing over 50% is just plain idiotic. If you are a musician using the internet to gain more attention, not having a website that is fully compatible with IE is even more dumb.

 

OK. Well, Firefox just got a lot more awesome. haha.
Foobar is amazing. The thing with FF is that it's so bloody customizable. Heck, the extensions are customizable. I can have the search/address 2-in1- bar while keeping the old google search bar too...which I like for aesthetic reasons even though I never bloody used the thing. Using tabmix plus I have new searches open in new tabs...although I think I may have seen an option in that in foobar itself, but tabmix plus is amazing in it's own right. For the status bar my man, I didn't like how it was so I got "autohidestatusbar" which I find superior. It shows the normal FF status bar whenever it's loading anything and then dissapears when it's done, and furthermore, if you hover over a link, it shows u the link in the status bar!

haha. I love FF man.
And Flash is used as an excuse so bloody much it's crazy. It literally took me abt 5 seconds to install the very first time I installed FF. I mean..come on lol. And FF is a tad slower than chrome, I will give it that. If chrome opens up in abt 1second, id say FF takes abt 2-2.5. I'm fine with that because well, it's just so customizable and more full-featured. It's like...hmm. A Lexus weighs a tad more than a lotus. Maybe a bad example but u get my drift...I don't mind the extra pause it takes to load FF is what I'm saying because it's a lot more comfortable when it does open. And if FF takes 20seconds to open.....lol. I was running it on a pentium M 1.5ghz with 256mb on a pata 40gb hdd that hasn't been formatted in about 8 years or whatever...and it still opened relatively quick. At least not that much slower than chrome.

+rep ruckus! Never thought they'd have extensions for the status bar and 2in1 search bar...haha. FF is bloody perfect now.

 

Thanks! I might give these a try.

P.S.: Just installed Simple AdBlock. Seems to work fine, +rep!

 

As of right now, IE8 is probably the safest browser out there, as long as you don't have UAC turned off, and disabled Protected Mode this way. I think there was a post with a link to an article on this somewhere in these forums even.

 

I'm still scared of those holes MS keeps finding...

 

All that means is MS is better than any company out there in finding security leaks. There are probably a lot more security issues in Firefox or Chrome that you don't know about that MS team probably could find.

Windows 7 had the most security patches this year of any previous year and previous OS. But that doesn't mean Windows 7 wasn't secure. Personally for me, 7 has been the most secure OS I've ever used so far. And all this means is, 7 just gets even more secure. Fine by me.

 

Many of those are not found by Microsoft though.

 

i hate him. but even so, he sometimes makes a point that can make sense (his didn't, back then, but the idea of his point did)

it just shows that knowledge that might have been important and true years ago is really hard to get rid of, really really hard. and right now, it's in your way.
just remember that there are few who complain about the cache (and not all with reason, some just because of the same reason you had: you found it irritating), but millions use it without a problem. looks like it actually works very well. i mean, it's not rocket science.

so far, for zooming, firefox was best for me. ie s it up all the time, chrome is okay (there's a zooming extension). but no browser is yet there.

it can't be that you never met anyone with a slow internet explorer yet. obviously, on a fast machine nothing is slow (except maybe itunes), but other than that, ie is slower. about always. the new beta is okay-ish now.

and the performance difference is noticable in a lot of cases.

if that would be the reason, then it would be fine. sadly, it's a (well known) fact that ie is the most buggy html-renderer that exists, and thus all web developers have to adjust their pages to handle ie correctly, it's always extra work for everything. has been that way since years, and hopefully changes with ie9. in the beta now, the page still renders wrong, though. webdevelopers all hate ie just for that, and it's very understandable.

 

Heh, you can say that out loud. iTunes is just about the worst piece of crap in existence as far as PC software goes. Wait, not quite, that crown is still taken by HP printer software...

Yeah, I know. Although all browsers have their quirks...

But, I still prefer the arrangement in IE of the Favorites button on the left, together with all the other important buttons, after I have reconfigured the reload and stop buttons to be placed were they belong... (and the idiot who decided to place them to the right of the address bar should be taken out and shot; I can only pray that they will continue to at least allow people to put these buttons in their standard location in IE9 as well).

 

This is the only place I've seen where anyone has ever recommended IE. Sorry, but I'm not taking my chances, since I still think that the holes in IE are more serious due to it's integration into Windows. How can a web browser be such a vital component that it can't ever be uninstalled?

I have no doubt that they've improved in recent years and that I'll never see a monstrosity like IE6 again, but I can't get over that negative stigma and that UI. Chrome works much better for me.

 

IE is not just recommended, but in many case mandated, especially for large corporation. Not just because internal application compatability issues but also that the IT is working with a known beast rather than Firefox/Chrome which is pretty much 'unknown'.

I use all 3 with IE being 90% of the time as even though it is the slowest, the tiny little things like where the favorite is located etc. makes me more productive.

As for security holes, enabling UAC and DEP are more effective than trusting the less scrutinized browsers.

And if you are so concerned, login as normal user without administrator right.

 

The same is true for XP for big corparations, like the one I work for, but that does not make it the best for most users.

 

You don't get around much, do you? See here, or here, for example...

 

It is difficult to define 'best'. To me, IE is still the best for the reasons I mentioned. As I said, I have all three but happens to launch IE most of the time.

 

+1
Rooster

 

Chrome is much faster than IE8 on all three of the computers in my home.

 

I know about that article, but I rarely use such articles to make decisions on which software to use. Whatever the case may be, I'm not using IE if I don't have to.

 

Ahh, but then you were not telling the truth when you claimed that " This is the only place [you]'ve seen where anyone has ever recommended IE". That's not nice...

 

Google Chrome is literally made by the largest advertising company in the history of the world and is being heavily distributed for free.

but yeah it sounds like a good idea to install it and use it regularly.

 

IE8, Firefox, and Chrome are all free, all are produced by big companies that want your money in different ways.

 

itt: Mozilla Foundation is a big company that wants your money

(and Microsoft's business model is similar to Google's)

 

Just to join the fry...

Someone said Firefox crashes all the time - strange, it doesn't do this for me... it's perfectly stable - reason I use Firefox: Adblock Plus - I hate ads, I really do. They would possibly drive me off a lot of the web if I had to see them all the time.

Going to Cache size... it easily grows to a few hundred MB... and I can see where it would grow to GB.
Just spend time on the BBC iplayer, the ZDF Meditathek and maybe the ARD Mediathek - stream a ton of video and you end up with a ton of cached stuff... youtube can be bad too...

Then, Dave - 1,25%, well... I think you should really consider "usable space" on the SSD. So that's possibly about 100GB usable on a 160GB SSD from Intel and your 1% figure works, but if you use a smaller one, and many SSD users do, the percentage quickly grows.

About Icon cache - do actually clear my miniature views quite often, with all the photographs I can easily accumulate too much junk - I recently reset the icon Cache (what was an IBM logo doing in my .tex icon???) - and just today I found that Windows Media Player bunkered 1GB of CD covers... stupid software... cleared that out.

Yes, Cache sizes do matter, especially if there are plenty of them. Aside from the Browser there is Adobe CameraRAW... - suddenly your Caches all add up to a few GB and take up a lot of space.
And let's be honest - a cache is only useful if the cached stuff is used frequently - else it's just dead weight.

And about speed - I never noticed any issues with JavaScript or CSS speedwise in any browser - I don't need a google browser.
Google knows too much about me anyway... I feed them too much data already - I will not use their browser.

On that note, my googlemail address is my spam address

About the nanny culture:
That's the "developed western world"... people believe everything has to be done for them... look at the google search prediction... in over 99% of the cases that I actually use the google website it's just annoying, and frequently it just fails completely... - which is strange, considering they have a nice search for research papers...

On that note - when I used Iron I hated it... (needed it for wave) - couldn't find my favourites... didn't know how to properly save them and icons that were designed for a 3 month old baby... -> I identify my bookmarks by text... I can read. Images mean little to me... even though they can sometimes replace a 1000 words.
Apparently the design has now changed a bit but still... I will not use chrome.

 

I saw no recommendation in that those articles; just news being reported. Nice try though.