|
|
Review of Google Chrome Browser
|
|
|
|
Review of Google Chrome Browser
|
|
|
Current Version: 2.0.172.39 Well, well and WELL! After years of promoting and supporting Mozilla's Firefox Browser, Google have come up with their own Browser! It was made available for Windows on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008. Development work was on secretly for over a year, with news being released days before the release alone, catching most followers of IT the world over by complete surprise. Although Google does have some experience in software development thanks to GoogleApps, they are nowhere near as well-established a software developer as Microsoft or Apple. In comparison with such entities, the fact is that Google has very little experience developing software! Finally, Microsoft's Internet Explorer looks old and is long in the tooth, while Google's Chrome is brand-new, with frugal looks. It tries to incorporate the best features of other leading Browsers. So will Chrome displace Internet Explorer as the world's favorite Browser? Should you shift to Chrome? Read on! Today, Google is considered the top Technology Company, toppling arch-rivals Microsoft from this spot. However, while Microsoft's revenues and market leadership are primarily due to their Operating Systems (including the bundled Browser) and Office Suites, Google's position is primarily due to its leadership in the Search Engines space, on which their online advertising program AdWords is based. Everything else that Google offers - be it their popular e-Mail services, Search Engine, Maps, Orkut, YouTube, Picasa or whatever, are offered free! Google's argument is that all current Browsers are designed eons ago, when the Internet was still new. Today, the very character of the Internet has changed, with rich content being delivered by most sites - video, graphics, animation, sound, etc. On the other hand the Internet has become a much less safe place too, with viruses lurking even at popular and 'clean' sites, spyware and phished sites, identity thefts, scams and other unpleasant stuff becoming very common. As Google's blog puts it, "We realized that the Web had evolved from mainly simple text pages to rich, interactive applications and that we needed to completely rethink the Browser." No one can find fault with these lines. However, when you consider the fact that Google's new Browser, Chrome, uses the same Open Source Mozilla engine as Firefox, Flock and SeaMonkey (not to mention Navigator, which has now disappeared from the scene), we wonder how much re-engineering would really have gone into Chrome! Not that the Mozilla 5 Browser engine is inferior - what we mean to say is if you have the same dough, just how much better can your Pizza be, compared to the others? More on Pizzas later in this page... Behind the scenes, we at WellOiledPC do not know what went wrong, for, in our opinion Firefox is really, really good! Yes, Firefox does not completely exit at times, even when you close it down. If you press the Control-Alt-Delete buttons to bring up the Task Manager, you might, sometimes, find Firefox still running as a process and that it continues to consume some amount of memory. (The amount varies, depending on what you had been browsing, before you shut Firefox down). This causes Firefox to run the next time without showing the Book Marks. We at WellOiledPC have worked around this problem by bringing up the Task Manager and killing any running Firefox processes. The next time Firefox is started up, it behaves perfectly, this way! There are also reports that Firefox does not exit Java scripts - the above behavior is likely to be a result of this. Still-running Java scripts are definitely a huge security risk, for these could be mischievous script! However, in about 2 years of our Firefox usage, we have never faced any security threat due to Java scripts running even after Firefox has been closed. Of course, we have made it that much more difficult for malignant scripts - Java or ActiveX or any other - to run riot, by installing Norton 360 and following our own norms for patching and updating Norton 360 as well as Firefox frequently! With Firefox's base protection and Norton 360's additional protection, we are reasonably safe from malignant stuff! The other niggling issue with Firefox is that it is quite slow to start up: as slow as Internet Explorer! We have a workaround for this too - we keep Firefox open throughout the day! Since we have an always-on Internet connection and we pay a flat fee every month for Internet access, that doesn't cost us extra money! Yes, we need to be patient the first time we start up Firefox (which we usually do by getting ourselves a cup of coffee or something!)... Not the best of work-arounds, but a work around all the same! We believe that Chrome is targeted more at Internet Explorer and Microsoft, than Firefox or Apple Safari or Opera. It is a known fact that they differ on a number of approaches, including the issue of Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights, with each one firmly convinced they are on the right track, while the other isn't! All said and done, we are unclear about what exactly Google hopes to gain from Chrome. Just consider the following facts:
Here is the link that tracks and publishes Browser Statistics: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp |
|
|
Again, consider the fact that Google have nothing to show by way of popular software. Their online collaboration tools include marginally-popular office suite clones alone. They are yet to establish themselves as a software development company of any standing. This is quite unlike Microsoft, who have beaten all records when it comes to software development. We believe that it is merely Google's ongoing feud with Microsoft that had caused Google to plunge headlong into online Office Suites earlier and now, into the Browser space. Areas where Microsoft is the resoundingly dominant player. So how much better can Google's Pizzas be, in comparison with the Pizzas of experienced 'Restaurateurs' like Microsoft or Apple? Specially when you consider the fact that they use the same dough (read, Browser engine) that some competitors (Firefox, Flock and SeaMonkey) use! The fact is, Google's revenues come from their massively-successful online advertisement program AdWords. This is the direct result of Google's hugely popular Search Engine. Everything else, including their pioneering Search Engines, Maps, Picasa, Orkut, YouTube and their popular e-Mail services, are free services that do not net them any money! Neither is their new Browser going to net them moolah - the moment they attempt to charge people for it, a huge shift away from Chrome would happen - assuming it ever gets huge numbers, in the first place! You have not one, but six alternatives currently - namely Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Flock, Safari or SeaMonkey, to shift to! Clearly, however grand and great Chrome might turn out to be, however grand and thrilling Google's statements may be, Chrome will not net them anything in terms of revenue! Now that we have done with the developments leading up to the release of Chrome, let us look at what Chrome looks like, what it does and what it does not.
Web pages take about the same time to load in Chrome, as in the other Browsers: it is only Chrome's start up speed that takes one's breath away! All through our testing so far, Chrome has never faltered, crashed or left anything in the memory when closed down. It also displays all the sites we visited using it correctly. It does not have problems running Javascript or displaying website layouts the way its creators intended to display them. All this is wonderful indeed, but here are its drawbacks: at the moment, Norton 360 or other Browser-integrated AntiSpyware and Anti Phishing software do not integrate with Chrome. We like the additional layer of security that such software gives us and miss it sorely! Again, as on date, the number of Plug-ins for Chrome is Zero - we are used to a number of specialized Plug-ins for Firefox. It is these Plug-ins that make our daily tasks easy and fun, but these are completely absent under Chrome, the Mozilla engine notwithstanding! While we think that the temporary Status Bar is a nice development (it comes on only while the site is loading - as soon as the site is 100% loaded, it disappears, letting you see that much more of the site in the same screen!), we aren't sure about the lack of a Menu Bar! Like the rest of Chrome, Customizations are severely limited too and follows the footsteps of GMail, which has zero customization options! Chrome also has an 'Incognito Mode", in which cookies, browsing history, etc., are not saved onto your Computer. We had earlier been using Disk Cleaner for doing all this and more and currently use Piriform's CCleaner. CCleaner is in version 2.15.815, while Disk Cleaner is in version 1.57. Either of these does a wonderful job cleaning your cookies, browsing history, Windows Temporary files, files in the Recycle Bin, etc. In addition, CCleaner has a nifty feature that lets you clean up your Registry as well. Don't be fooled by the fact that Disk Cleaner is freeware and CCleaner donationware - both are excellent solutions in their niche! Therefore Chrome's 'Incognito Mode' holds no charm to us, as it does a few of these tasks alone! The Bottom Line is, Chrome is a new Browser that is fast to load, offers almost every feature in rival Browsers, but completely fails to excite you! Speaking of exciting one - we have written a tiny piece of Java code to identify your Browser, Version and Screen Resolution. The script is on our Home Page - do check it out. Whatever be your Screen Resolution, it correctly identifies it. Now to the interesting part: our script correctly identifies Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Apple Safari and even the least-known Browser, SeaMonkey. It wrongly identifies Mozilla Flock as Mozilla Firefox - a mistake we may gloss over, since both Flock and Firefox (and SeaMonkey) use the same Mozilla Browser engine. What surprises (and therefore excites) us is the fact that Google Chrome is identified as Safari by our Java code! We are digging in deeper to understand this quirk - stay tuned, if you would like to read our findings! According to Google, each of the open Tabs runs in its own container (they call it "Sandbox"). Therefore if one open sites misbehaves, the others do not crash. Since we have not had the fortune/ misfortune of sites misbehaving - either under Chrome or the others, we do not know just how useful this feature is...
Google is known to label its software Beta: GMail is still in Beta, though it is now about four years old. We therefore wonder whether Chrome will ever get out of the Beta status! If it does, we would like to see the following features in the final edition of Chrome:
Here is a round-up of some of the best reactions from all over, on Chrome: Clint Boulton: Google Chrome Loses Luster over EULA, Privacy Cncerns Google's Chrome Web browser may be a highlight for open-source application development. Yet Google has moved to quell concerns that the EULA afforded Google a little too much control with regard to what happens to the information people entered into the browser window. Google's Omnibox also raises privacy concerns, but these don't seem to have much merit. Are you comfortable using Google Chrome? For all of the glitz and glamour swirling around its Chrome Web browser, Google is working out to put out fires among corporate users concerned that the EULA enables Google to own source code and other proprietary information. One day after Google's beta launch of the Web browser Sept. 2, users complained that Section 11 of the end-user license agreement gave Google too much control over information after it was entered into the browser.
Sept 2: An anonymous Google Watch reader told me that his company is banned from using Chrome. He also noted that a security officer of another organization told him Chrome was put on that company's banned software list, calling for users to remove it from their system. The reason? He explained: Google has included some extremely harsh terminology in their user license that gives them ownership of content you view through the viewer. In our environment that could include source code, proprietary information stored in PDFs viewed online and other property. Until we can research the impact, this browser will remain on the do not install list.
Google swiftly
amended the section, but here is the original iteration of the section that
troubled people: By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. A Google spokesperson told me Google has since updated the language in Section 11, which was culled from Google's broad Universal Terms of Service, used for many of Google's products.
Section 11.1 now
reads: "You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content
which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."
This seemed to mollify my anonymous poster, who later added this comment: "So
maybe they aren't that evil after all."
A Google spokesperson explained to me that "Many of those entries are for search
queries, which we already store basic log information for as we do for a search
made from any browser when the user hits enter." Also, a user can either turn
off the suggest feature or use the Incognito mode and entries into the Omnibox
will not be stored in Google's logs, unless the user hits enter and has entered
a search query in the Omnibox.
In my opinion,
2% isn't so bad. Google is already tucking away info on our search queries, so
why should the Omnibox be any different? Google's finally gone and done it - they've built and released a browser, the most fundamental window to the computing experience of a new era. That's big news, but the small print is raising some concerns. What appears to be a recycled Terms of Service (from Google Docs) gives Google a long list of rights to reuse and share with other companies "any Content which you submit, post or display on or through the Services." Update: Since this controversy has erupted, Google has removed the offending section of the Terms of Service. It seems that the default Google service TOS includes these kinds of claims, even though they may not be as appropriate in some circumstances as in others.
Google's Matt Cutts dropped by our previous coverage to say that "No, we don't want rights to everything you send through Chrome." Can Google be trusted though? Below we review just the most recent history of privacy concerns raised about Google. It's a mixed bag, but we argue that given this context, no individual case should be taken lightly. Last November we wrote about how Google could fight Facebook by taking the high road regarding user privacy. A year later it might seem like user control over information is a more reasonable request, but neither concept seems to be getting a lot of respect. There are big important questions about privacy online that need to be addressed. We discussed what some of those general questions were in January. Looking at them in regards to the particular steps taken by the Google giant is important as well. Svetlana Gladkova: 10 Myths about Google Chrome Browser Since everyone seems to be determined to cover Google’s newly-launched Chrome Browser on every side, I have decided to join in after I’ve been playing with the browser for a few days and reading literally hundreds of posts about it everywhere. This post is intended to demystify Google’s browser a little and show that some of the hype around it is merely about Google actually launching a browser instead of the innovative approaches implemented in the browser itself - no matter how hard Google may try to persuade everyone the browser is full of entirely new ideas not seen anywhere else. Myth 1: Separate processes for each tab
Myth 2: New V8 JavaScript virtual machine
Myth 3: Private Browsing
Myth 4: Privacy We’ve heard authoritative opinions that Chrome is not sending any information from a user’s computer to Google’s servers but this myth was also debunked pretty soon. The thing is that Chrome’s address and search bar “Omnibox” with auto-suggestion enabled actually sends all the characters typed by a user to Google servers (even before the user hits enter) if Google is set as a default search engine. And even after Google provides suggestions based on those keystrokes, Google will keep about 2% of this information along with the IP addresses that send those characters to Google. This is certainly supposed to raise concerns in those users already worried about the volume of information Google already has for almost every internet user. Myth 5: Malware and phishing protection
Myth 6: Domain Highlighting
Myth 7: Groups for tabs
Myth 8: Improved find on page
Myth 9: Resizing input text boxes It must look like a cool functionality that you can resize the input box when you type a comment somewhere on Reddit or FriendFeed. But Google is not the first to the game with this enhancement either: Safari has been doing it for a while now and I believe it has something to do with Chrome and Safari using the same WebKit rendering engine. Myth 10: Standards compatibility/font> Sure, when Google launches something we expect immediately that it will be the most advanced something meeting all the industry standards. Unfortunately there’s an unpleasant surprise for us here: Chrome does not show perfect results in ACID2 and ACID3 standards compatibility tests. And while it performs better than stable versions of other popular browsers, it is still outperformed by development releases of Firefox, Opera, and Safari. So no matter how advanced this one may be, we should not expect it to be 100% compliant and actually the best browser of those currently in development. So after demystifying some of the latest and greatest approaches to browsing in Chrome I can say that it is absolutely not visible that Google is so much of an innovator in this particular case: they simply took the best features and ideas from existing browsers (or just listened to what users wanted browsers to do) and wrapped them into a very pompous launch of Chrome. Besides, it must mean that we as web users simply tend to love everything about Google much more than anything about Microsoft so we have barely noticed very similar features in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8 beta but now that Google introduces them we have overhyped them as much as we could. Now tell me why our affection towards the company behind a product is more important than the product itself? Marshall Kirkpatrick: Google's privacy line-straddling history Google's finally gone and done it - they've built and released a browser, the most fundamental window to the computing experience of a new era. That's big news, but the small print is raising some concerns. What appears to be a recycled Terms of Service (from Google Docs) gives Google a long list of rights to reuse and share with other companies "any Content which you submit, post or display on or through the Services." Update: Since this controversy has erupted, Google has removed the offending section of the Terms of Service. It seems that the default Google service TOS includes these kinds of claims, even though they may not be as appropriate in some circumstances as in others. Google's Matt Cutts dropped by our previous coverage to say that "No, we don't want rights to everything you send through Chrome." Can Google be trusted though? Below we review just the most recent history of privacy concerns raised about Google. It's a mixed bag, but we argue that given this context, no individual case should be taken lightly. Last November we wrote about how Google could fight Facebook by taking the high road regarding user privacy. A year later it might seem like user control over information is a more reasonable request, but neither concept seems to be getting a lot of respect. There are big important questions about privacy online that need to be addressed. We discussed what some of those general questions were in January. Looking at them in regards to the particular steps taken by the Google giant is important as well.
The Creeping Crawl of the Social Graph API
Health Records and Privacy
Handing Over Usernames
Streetview
We'll Tell You Who Your Friends Are Code of Compliance Also in August, Google joined with Yahoo and Microsoft in working on a "Code of Conduct" that offered some lukewarm commitment to protecting free speech during the Olympics over the companies' networks. The wording of the proposed agreement was very vague.
It Goes On and On... Is data centralization in the hands of a single vendor an inherent threat to privacy? Yes. To draw an analogy, trusting the "Do No Evil" line is like saying you'd support a President that you like changing the constitution to allow warrantless wiretapping. Centralization of power, even if it's exercised benevolently at any given time, is not in our best interest in the long term. In fact, I'd argue that it's highly irrational. That's the context we see all this happening in. So if Google and Matt Cutts want to say "trust us, what we want is not what it looks like in a literal reading of that agreement you just singed on to" - well then we ask you, readers, to judge for yourself. It makes us feel very funny. We love Google apps, but with great power...comes a responsibility to do something really extraordinary to protect our privacy while still delivering such great services. We're still waiting for that. So there you are - not just our views at WellOiledPC, but published views about Google and Chrome, from experts the world over! Click here to read about Chrome OS
|
