digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Try To Uninstall Google Chrome

img84.imageshack.us — *****

show profanity settings
expand all
  • beelz, on 09/03/2008, -18/+672I actually had to go and test it. God I love google.
    • forkthis, on 09/04/2008, -21/+35I wanted to love you Chrome, but you neglected to include Google bookmark functionality.
      • roxgod666, on 09/04/2008, -8/+60Definition of "reply":
        A statement (either spoken or written) that is made to reply to a question or request or criticism or accusation

        Now study that hard and apply
      • GeoffGold25, on 09/04/2008, -4/+14yeh forkthis, if you dont start replying on topic i will personally take a trip to your home and put a big magnet on the back of your ipod.
        no but seriously lets try to avoid tangentiality.
      • mrvalue, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7I saw this. I uninstalled it because for some reason it kept waking up my computer. I use a program to turn the monitors off, but after installing Chrome, they kept turning back on after a few seconds. Very annoying.
      • UNL1M1T3D, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1@Geoffgold25

        'Dems fighting words...
      • chaosblade77, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3@mrvalue -

        Google Chrome's updater (well, that's what it says it is) apparently accesses the internet very, very frequently. That's probably what it was

        I haven't found a way to disable it aside from just blocking the updaters' access to the internet with my firewall.
      • asforme, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Google Bookmarks seems to have merged with Google Notebooks or something. All I know is I went to notebook and there were all my bookmarks. I don't know if Chrome has this or not since I'm waiting on the linux version.
      • pooljoe, on 09/04/2008, -0/+0I still like the speed of it but also not a fan of not having access to google bookmarks, you'd think it be a given since it a google browser
      • brandonpierce, on 09/04/2008, -6/+1what? so then this isnt a valid reply?
        http://www.thatoneguynamedbrandon.com
      • poopmaster, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1God, way to be a travel agent Google.
      • Menchions, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Press ctrl + b
    • Dylson, on 09/04/2008, -30/+12Google IS God. PRAISE LORD GOOGLE!
      • southeastbeast, on 09/04/2008, -8/+5All hail Lord Google! His miracle born son shall be born soon... named.... ANDROID! muwahahhaa
      • worldchanger, on 09/04/2008, -0/+7you guys REALLY need a hobby.
    • OhFrak, on 09/04/2008, -37/+10It is hilarious watching the Firefox fanboys flailing around and pissing their panties over Chrome.

      Mozilla has no one but themselves to blame for getting left in the dust by Google. People have been telling them for two years they need to implement a new Javascript engine that allows pages to be threaded and isolated in protected memory spaces.

      The Mozilla guys sat on their asses flaming everyone just like they did for years about their absurd memory leaks.

      Desperately flooding the Net with anti-Chrome stories and posts isn't going to make Firefox any less of an outdated and bloated pig of a browser.

      Dumping Firefox for Chrome has the same wonderful feeling as dumping IE for Mozilla had years ago.


      • iofthestorm, on 09/04/2008, -4/+25Troll much? Mozilla's been working on making their javascript engine faster far before Chrome was even announced. That was one of the main features of Firefox 3 if you paid any attention at all to Firefox 3 development, and 3.1 will have an even faster engine.
      • kidcodea, on 09/04/2008, -7/+4BINGO!

        /me signs under

        imo, in development once you get confortable...you die.
      • vawksel, on 09/04/2008, -5/+5@iofthestorm

        It's not about faster (although Chome's V8 is fast), it's about the idea that each tab is in it's own process space such that the operating system itself protects it's memory from the other tabs and used the kernel scheduler to make all the tabs play nicely with each other.

        With Firefox, if one Javascript script in one tab locks up, the whole browser becomes unresponsive as well do all the other tabs.

        Firefox 3.1 has no plans to fix this what-so-ever. It's only a faster version of the same crap.

        Now if only Chrome were available for Mac OS X and Linux, I'd use it (I like to use the same browser on all platforms).

      • jawagas, on 09/04/2008, -1/+8Firefox has been my surfing companion, helping me out with access to all the amazing developments in a browser I could want. Albeit Chrome is pretty damn slick, similar excitement and buzz talk came with the new releases of Opera and Konqueror.

        One thing has lasted through it all, Firefox. If Chrome really plays out here, I'll tip my hat to you and switch over my default web browser. Till then, I'm just gonna hit the herb and browse awesome ***** in PicLens.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 09/04/2008, -1/+6The tabs-as-processes thing? That's not a problem if the browser and plugins are stable. (Which is never true all of the time, but a sufficient amount of it.) Chrome is also not yet multiplatform. Chrome has as of yet no extensions. I could continue on - It's not worth it. The trolling must stop. Both browsers are pretty well - Firefox is known, and has an established user and extension developer base, and websites target it. So even if Chrome has some internal advantages (Though It's javascript core is still slower than the new one) there's no way you can say Chrome has an edge as of yet

        @jawagas: Opera is actually pretty cool. Konqueror in KDE4 is really neat, but it sucks as a web browser and thanks to the ever-stupid Dolphin file browsing element, you can no longer do Control+Rectangle Select to add files.
      • OhFrak, on 09/04/2008, -6/+1LOL! nmnnotmyname

        "That's not a problem if the browser and plugins are stable"

        You sound exactly like those losers who used to cling to IE!

        Can't believe it's only been a day since dumping Firefox. My god does Chrome kick ass.


      • nmnnotmyname, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1OhFrak: "(Which is never true all of the time, but a sufficient amount of it.) "
        I'm sorry OhFrak, I actually said that wrong. I'm interested in seeing these new techniques applied to browsing, I am. I have Chrome as my default browser on XP. Chrome is pretty sweet, but no more bookmark syncing kinda pisses me off and I can't use it on my Lunix box yet :\

        IE8 pre also has processes per tab, but In IE8, the first day of it's use by me, I had a tab crash. Sure, it's a prerelease, but If it doesn't matter for Open Source-ware it doesn't matter for Microsoft software. Plus, ***** webkit man XD IE8 gets owned.
      • thelizardreborn, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Did you look at the image, OhFrak? This isn't an anti-chrome story. (Unless you hate humor, in which case you shouldn't be reading digg comments.)
    • clsslc, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2I saw this at work because I installed it as the local Administrator user out of habit, not realizing it would be installed to the local individual user's directory.
    • Eezyville, on 09/04/2008, -1/+26Maybe they were referring to the EULA?
    • MaxIsBored, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3It's because i chew too loudly, isn't it?
    • dengzhi, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1thanks for the free food, google.
    • tama00, on 09/04/2008, -4/+3Man they have lots of this sorta unprofessional funny stuff in Linux. Its really not 3520 diggs funny but i mean digg doesnt really have high standards..
    • Hello1024, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3One thing that nobody has mentioned anywhere yet, that I figured out by peering at the source code:

      in the url bar type about:internets

      then look at the title bar.

      another is about:crash - the name is a bit of a hint what that does

      another (bug) is about:% - thats not the same as above, it also crashes but a different bit.

      There are other hidden about: pages - look at the source code yourself to find them.
    • jakswa, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1This is not unique to Chrome. It also happens in Chromium, from which Chrome was made...

      google it ;) looks exactly like Chrome on install.
  • CDWMobile, on 09/03/2008, -6/+1073"No. Its not you, its me... You deserve better"
    • BlaqReaper, on 09/04/2008, -6/+422"I can't believe you're going back to IE8. She's a cheating whore! Do you know how many viruses she has?! Why would you do this to me :(."
    • sockpuppets, on 09/04/2008, -0/+249It'll just install itself in your friends computer to make you jealous.
      • plup, on 09/04/2008, -26/+8That was actually brilliant. I hope you don't waste your time on Digg. Please, go and write something.
    • MrM4nager, on 09/04/2008, -2/+84I came up with the "it's not you it's me." If it's anyone, it's me!
    • Sabretou, on 09/04/2008, -1/+28"Yeah, Firefox. You're just going to that bitch because she's got those big add-ons. And She's a goddamn FURRY!"
      • svensksvamp, on 09/04/2008, -8/+1"Yeah! and Safari has all these like tigers and stuff"
    • m4csrgh3yk3v, on 09/04/2008, -0/+16Sure you're broken up, but I'm sure she'll continue to stalk you on facebook and read your email.
    • bonpain, on 09/04/2008, -4/+5Thanks for that laugh, CDWMobile! Sterling reply.
    • doiveo, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1ah... the platitudes of software breakups.
    • rosepleasure, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4digg for make me laugh.
  • Elliottx, on 09/03/2008, -35/+12I think they spelled Minimize wrong too. If you look on the minimize button on the top right, you'll see it's spelled minimise. Don't know if they're both valid....but hummmmmm.....
    • anagoge, on 09/04/2008, -4/+85Z = US
      S = Rest of the world

      Color = US
      Colour = Rest of the world

      Imperial = US
      Metric = Rest of the world
      • MelvinSchlubman, on 09/04/2008, -26/+2> Colour = Rest of the world

        Really -- I thought the UK / rest of world spelled it "colouur". Unncessary "u" on my part. Sorry old chap.
      • sephiroth965, on 09/04/2008, -4/+21As for the color/colour thing: there's a good reason for that. The "our" spelling comes from the french spelling of these words. But, Since we don't pronounce it like the french we decided we shouldn't spell it the same either.
      • Myonosken, on 09/04/2008, -4/+6@sephiroth: That makes no sense. If it was because of pronunciation, it would have become culer.
      • manitoba98xp, on 09/04/2008, -0/+16@sephiroth965

        Actually, the French spelling (at least currently) is "couleur". I can't speak for historically, though.

        @anagoge

        In Canada, a Z is still used for *-ize. Minimize, maximize, optimize, etc. So "rest of the world" is a bit of a stretch.
      • Eifandil, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1@Myonosken

        No, that'd be Q-ler.

        culler.

      • Alegoo92, on 09/04/2008, -2/+3Why do any of you care?
      • TheBigBentley, on 09/04/2008, -1/+8Every get the feeling we just don't like the rest of the world. Heck that's the whole reason the US was founded.
      • OneLess, on 09/04/2008, -2/+7Driving on the left side of the road: UK
        Driving on the right side of the road: Pretty much rest of the world
      • gingerboy, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Have to go changing things don't ya! I hate it when installing app's and have to choose 'American English' WTF!!

        All boils down to someone over there getting it wrong and not admitting it, instead calling it 'the American version' :)

        **shuffles off under a barrage of yankie heckling**
      • q00u, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3US vs Rest of the world?

        Of course, the number of US speakers of English outnumber the all those in the Rest-of-the-world combined, but why count _people_ when you can count _countries_? Right?

        "Rest of the world" is also a bit inaccurate. Perhaps you mean "Rest of the world that lives in native English countries"? Having taught English internationally for a number of years, I have seen non-English-speaking countries standardizing (z) on US English in their schools. I wouldn't be at all surprised if non-native speakers of English _also_ outnumbered your "Rest of the world" group.

        Making the "Rest of the world" a very small minority indeed.

        And even then, I know that Canadian spellings often match up with their southern neighbors rather than those across the pond. Is the "Rest of the world" as big as you think it is?

        (Also, UK still uses Imperial [go for a drive and see], blah blah pedant pedant. Of course, I believe both right-by-majority arguments are flawed.)
      • MelvinSchlubman, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1> All boils down to someone over there getting it wrong and not admitting it, instead calling it 'the American version'

        No, it was an opportunity to break from some anachronisms. :-P
      • MelvinSchlubman, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1> a good reason for that. The "our" spelling comes from the french spelling of these words.

        So what? Half the letters in French text are silent -- deadwood. We don't have time to waste on that.
    • angrytortilla, on 09/04/2008, -1/+18American English includes the "z" where an "s" was first present in UK English (proper).

      minimize, organize, fantasize... are all supposed to be minimise, organise, fantasise.
    • Aguyinachair, on 09/04/2008, -9/+8why is elliott getting dugg down? Just for being American?
      • HxChris91, on 09/04/2008, -4/+11No, for being sheltered from the rest of the world.
      • digitalpencil, on 09/04/2008, -1/+3tbf, he said he didn't know if they were both valid but most people blind-bury overt ignorance so no, not for being American, for being wrong and not bothering to look it up..
      • Elliottx, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1I'm British actually but I've always spelled minimize with a Z.... =/
      • digitalpencil, on 09/04/2008, -2/+5^ in that case you've been spelling it wrong and we hereby retract your citizenship ;)
      • Aguyinachair, on 09/04/2008, -1/+6I understand what you are saying, but I just would like to make the casual observation that when I spell "organise" like that, my browser underlines it in red...So while I fully support your conquest to get rid of 'z's... Firefox says "***** you".

        :)
      • alexlobov, on 09/04/2008, -1/+0dugg down for being stupid
    • roxgod666, on 09/04/2008, -1/+17The rest of the world? You mean there is more land after all!
    • Digglet69, on 09/04/2008, -7/+3PRESS ALT+F4

      To make it go back to normal
    • Regoolian, on 09/04/2008, -2/+2Driving on the left side of the road: Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India. Get ya facts straight, and learn to drive, you get your licence out of a corn flakes packet in the States.
      http://www.brianlucas.ca/roadside/#listofcountries
      • skyroket, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3Learn how to reply properly before you try to correct someone. The person you're directing that at is buried somewhere in the "Z = US" post. To reply to threads that have reached the maximum, you either put @theirusername or put one of those carrots with the Shift 6 (this thing ^ ) if it's right above yours.
      • maybemable, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3^ caret. lol.
    • Aurorae, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2You're an idiot.
  • edwartica, on 09/03/2008, -32/+3I know it crashed my work computer when I tried to install it!
  • Mikeo4723, on 09/04/2008, -30/+36Google is Skynet
    • supguy, on 09/04/2008, -3/+2HELL YES. best comment ever.
    • KMye, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2not new, and not at all applicable here...nevertheless, it needs to be said and remembered as often as possible...
    • TheMarenum, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3That's fairly polite for Skynet, I think.
    • zjbird, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Skynet was polite at first too...
  • SevenTwo, on 09/04/2008, -27/+13Adblock or GTFO.
  • aliveonline, on 09/04/2008, -23/+398i clicked cancel..
    • DrywallThief, on 09/04/2008, -11/+30Thanks for the info.
    • clsslc, on 09/04/2008, -1/+16If you click "Cancel" when the installer asks if you want to open the browser now ("now" being at the end of the installation), it opens it anyway. Just sayin'.
    • douglasfp, on 09/06/2008, -1/+1for now...
  • JasonCox, on 09/04/2008, -5/+360I still want to know why Chrome is installed in "C:_Users_%USERNAME%_AppData_Local_Google_Chrome" instead of in Program Files.

    (excuse Digg, apparently it doesnt like backslashes)
    • anagoge, on 09/04/2008, -7/+44I hate it when applications store anything in those folders because I don't use them.
      • svensksvamp, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4now you do?
      • MMaster23, on 09/04/2008, -0/+8Yes you do .. that's why it's there .. for applications to store data in...

        That said .. Google should use Program Files for program code...
        Hence the name .. program files...
    • D1ckFace, on 09/04/2008, -3/+71big brother watching
    • WickEd101, on 09/04/2008, -19/+5Mine goes into C:Documents and Settings, not Users,
      • iofthestorm, on 09/04/2008, -1/+39You're not on Vista. Vista's a little nicer in that regard (no more retarded spaces).
      • jedsmith, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Hooray for backslash space from the command line
    • Jayg28, on 09/04/2008, -1/+40The only other software I've ever come across that installed there did so because that is where users in the users group (aka users with no permissions) can write files there but they can't in the Program Files folder. I don't know if this was google's reasoning or not.
    • darthjure, on 09/04/2008, -1/+9Woah. I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing that out.
    • dawesdust12, on 09/04/2008, -6/+2It installed for me in both places...
    • FutureGuy, on 09/04/2008, -4/+92cause google owns you. silly.
      • D1ckFace, on 09/04/2008, -16/+12You're quite correct.....Buried in the EULA:
        "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. This license 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."
      • freqk, on 09/04/2008, -0/+12"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. This license 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."

        Do not worry about this, it is Google's global EULA and would contradict Google Chrome's Privacy Policy:
        http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html
        All this will probably be fixed by the next release.
      • recruz, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2i bet the digg eula is actually quite similar- i wouldn't know i didn't read it- haha!
    • bratterscain, on 09/04/2008, -1/+3Odd, it also includes the install files in that directory but click install using those files and nothing happens. It's not a gripe, just wondering if I could use it without installing to use as a portable version. Oh well, I'm sure that will come along later.
      • Suilenroc, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Woah, that's very interesting. I'm going to try copying the files to a flash drive now, I hate having to use IE when I'm at school.
    • coasterswim, on 09/04/2008, -1/+77Permissions, plain and simple. It allows the program to be installed on Vista without having to ask for permission through the UAC.
      • Jektal, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5Which shows another reason why UAC is a nice idea, but a piece of *****.
    • tsiemaszko, on 09/04/2008, -1/+28Yep, it's most likely because of Vista and its permissions/security enhancements. Vista doesn't allow Program Files data to be modified by a user after something has been installed there, so it's easier to just install everything to that directory to allow constant changes to be applied (on XP it's C:Documents and SettingsLocal SettingsApplication DataGoogleChromeUser Data). The company I work for does the same thing for the Vista version of our software, but we continue to install into Program Files if XP is detected. We have Program Files like files that when accessed need to be modified/configured and Vista only allows this outside of the Program Files directory. I am a little surprised Chrome installs to a user directory on XP though...guess it's just easier to keep it consistent for install purposes.
    • dcmjzero, on 09/04/2008, -1/+9Maybe they wanted it installed on a per user basis. Also, this allows people to install it where they have user access but not administrator access.
      • thelizardreborn, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1This makes sense since its in Beta. If there are problems it would only effect the user who installed it.
    • dolemite5005, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7It also let me install it on my computer at work without needing to deal with trying to convince one of the IT guys to come over, log in as the admin and install it for me. And for that I am grateful.
    • kateyall, on 09/04/2008, -11/+148\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ ///// \\\ /
      ***** YOU DIGG

      \\\\\\\\ / / / \\//////////
    • UNL1M1T3D, on 09/04/2008, -12/+6I understand the '***** you digg' but what's going on with the lines? Artistic expression?
    • Zenshai, on 09/04/2008, -0/+6the google desktop stuff went there too as far as i remember. (uninstalled it)
    • kenplaysviola, on 09/04/2008, -3/+6As a systems administrator, I can tell you it is because users do not have permission to install in c:Program Files, at least not by default. Allowing the program to install into the user's Document and Settings (c:users for vista) allows Chrome to install, and allows portability of the program. This would be great for something like a roaming profile or folder redirection.
      • Zantive, on 09/04/2008, -2/+8This was said above, and it was about 100 times less smug.
      • tightscrummy, on 09/04/2008, -3/+5A system administrator wouldn't know that since it involves details of an MS operating system, something no sysadmin would want to know. You must be one of those "IT" guys.
    • elie195, on 09/04/2008, -20/+4VISTA SUCKS
    • powermeat, on 09/04/2008, -0/+9because of that i was able to install it on my computer at school dispite not having admin privileges
    • jflaker, on 09/04/2008, -0/+10Installing it in appdata allows non-admin installs and is PER USER so on a multiuser system, if you installed it then only you see it. It is a private installation.
    • junkneo, on 09/04/2008, -4/+5That is why it is faster and lighter.
    • stockjones, on 09/04/2008, -1/+6Chrome will be a Google gateway portal to sell you on their web apps. It is also mentioned in the agreement if you actually read it that Google can collect data from you. Beware where you tread. Google desktop anybody?
    • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1applications should be installed in the, you know, Applications folder. you people with app files going everywhere. heh.
    • PosedMagnet, on 09/04/2008, -0/+0Because of something called profiles?

      Why would I want to share browser data with all other people who use my machine?

      That doesn't really make much sense.
      • skyroket, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3It's the installation and program files it uses to RUN. It's not some settings or "browser data" that's specific to you. Why wouldn't you want to share that with all users instead of make a copy for everyone who installs it. Granted, yeah, it's lighter than some bloat Adobe or Microsoft puts in those user profiles, but that still doesn't make it right.
      • thelizardreborn, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Like skyrocket said, other browsers install the executable and relevant files in "Program Files", while user-specific data (like history and settings) are stored in the user directories.
    • oxymonkey, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_I ...
    • myhandleondigg, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1This happens so much with pro audio plugins (vst/vsti). It is unforgivable, but I'm just saying they're not alone in my stupid Windows document folders.
    • wahooka, on 09/04/2008, -0/+6you gotta escape your slashes... so use two of them if you want them to show up. one escapes, the other displays. like so:
      c:\program files\google\is starting\to scare me\
    • dazparkour, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Would you rather have it install from an important admin account?
    • TomT223, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Because Google is watching EVERYTHING you do. Every key stroke, every site you go to, every email you send or recieve. Heaven help you if you have a built in web cam. TURN IT OFF NOW!
    • Hamsterpotpies, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1%userprofile%/Appdata/local/google/chrome is the same thing btw.
    • jakswa, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2This is because GOOGLE ROCKS. I was going through the installer on my college computing account, thinking that it'd fail like all other installs do (ones that want write access to C:\program files). But it worked flawlessly! Thank you Google, for letting me escape IE on my school network.
  • ProfessorRamrod, on 09/04/2008, -28/+6Im sorry google, but i need a browser that wont keep track of my porn sites for my mom to see
    • mikeybikey, on 09/04/2008, -0/+38incognito mode?
    • monroylobo, on 09/04/2008, -0/+27Dude, that's like one of the features.
    • D3koy, on 09/04/2008, -0/+24ProfessorRamrod still lives with mommy?
    • AntzNZ, on 09/04/2008, -0/+12I think he might be taking a stab at Google's privacy policy or something? He might think Google gives a ***** about what porn he goes on, and they'll tell his mum about it.
    • nate5532, on 09/04/2008, -0/+10you jerk it on the computer your mom uses? gross man..
      • GhostyBoy, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7Oh, come on!

        By that logic it would be gross to jerk it in her bed or in her clothes as well!
  • theremixtrack, on 09/04/2008, -17/+5google makes me lawl.
  • rayzha, on 09/04/2008, -7/+57Wow. Big font.
    • antdude, on 09/04/2008, -6/+1Probabyl large font size/DPI.
    • gkrat, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1Crome's font is bigger too, maybe he just wanted to match the address bar in crome so he increased his dpi?
  • jotate, on 09/04/2008, -6/+76You made me pick between you and Symantec Endpoint. If only you two could just get along. She's been in my life a lot longer than you. Sure, she's not flashy. Can't bend or do nearly as many of the ***** crazy sexy things that you can do. But she's always been good to me. And she's never made me choose.

    Damn you for making me love you! Damn you!!!
    • feliks2, on 09/04/2008, -0/+8***** my university and their internet which only works if you have Endpoint installed.

      BTW, is there a fix for getting it to work with Symantec Enpoint.
    • flunky02038, on 09/04/2008, -0/+7try adding --no-sandbox to the shortcut



      http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id ...
      https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?b ...

      • feliks2, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3It works, but how dangerous is it?
      • jdconn01, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2I followed the symantec directions and now its running fine.
      • jamshid, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3Niiice, someone at Google is pressing Symantec on the problem, making sure it's a "good" fix. I bet the conversation goes something like "hey, Symantec, I know Microsoft would let you get away with stuff like this, but you need to fix your crapware right, or we'll go after the security software market next".

        https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?b ...

        "Can someone from Symantec contact me directly offline to talk about this issue? I'd like to understand the reg key workaround (eg, whether it's actually safe to recommend) and more importantly to work together on a good fix."
    • Magnus150, on 09/04/2008, -0/+6Ah, so thats why I can't install Chrome. My university made me install this horrible endpoint.

      Lame.
  • shadowman99, on 09/04/2008, -20/+10They're not cool enough for my operating system yet.
    (Fedora9)
    • PhoenixAvatar2, on 09/04/2008, -5/+20I think it's the other way around.
    • shadowman99, on 09/04/2008, -0/+13http://i33.tinypic.com/9titmx.jpg
      It's a reference to this. People have such short memories.
      • werries, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Thats apple.
        Microsoft IGNORES linux, remember?
      • plup, on 09/04/2008, -4/+2Yes, everyone has to remember every random screenshot they have ever seen. Nice approach there, I'm giving you half internets only for the effort.
      • KableKiB, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1@werries: FAIL! Google Chrome not Microsoft Chrome.
      • werries, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2@KableKiB
        FAIL! *****, I'm talking about the pic he linked. the one about microsoft photosynth.

        I know full well Google loves us linux folks.
  • badmephisto, on 09/04/2008, -32/+199yes it was, for me. In the EULA
  • RBrenner14, on 09/04/2008, -18/+8Google told me I was fat.
    • soccerman90, on 09/04/2008, -0/+31if google says you're fat, then you're fat. = I
    • plup, on 09/04/2008, -1/+8Yep, sorry dude, you're fat.
  • GardenDoor, on 09/04/2008, -19/+7Don't mistake their sense of humor for benevolence--it's simply an evolved form of branding. They have you guys by the bootstraps.

    To answer Google's question, I would have to say I'm canceling not because of something they said, but because they track and record my each and every online footprint.
  • bubut, on 09/04/2008, -19/+6If I see one more f'ing post about Google Chrome, I'm going to stop telling people about it.
  • porplem, on 09/04/2008, -19/+79I've seen this screen once before...

    (sorry, Google)
    • staffa, on 09/04/2008, -3/+35Why is he being dugg down?

      It was a rather clever way of saying he uninstalled it already.

      He wasn't crying about a dup post, gesh.
  • tacotomato, on 09/04/2008, -5/+514I think we should see other browsers.
    • BrendanSheehan, on 09/04/2008, -3/+22Good one. I would have said; "Are we allowed to browse?"
    • To0pak, on 09/04/2008, -1/+12two weeks later you see someone else browsing with her
    • wild, on 09/04/2008, -0/+151I just don't think I am ready for an open-source relationship.
  • THESUPERDEVIL, on 09/04/2008, -17/+2here a better one
    http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20080702/IE8download.jp ...
    • GregFD3S, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3This comment has many levels of failure.
  • NicoNicoNico, on 09/04/2008, -16/+9Ahh Google, the ultimate stalker.
  • vardhaman2249, on 09/04/2008, -15/+9wonder how many people are going to uninstall it just to see this....
  • ZachTorpy, on 09/04/2008, -17/+8***** THE RI-

    ah nevermind. that picture is too cool to ruin.
  • gamebittk, on 09/04/2008, -12/+3This sucks.
  • xbxoxy1, on 09/04/2008, -50/+565Obama/Chrome '08
    • bubut, on 09/04/2008, -11/+198Jesus Christ...
    • Chicken, on 09/04/2008, -37/+14NOBAMA '08
    • southeastbeast, on 09/04/2008, -20/+5NADER 08!
    • gonediggin, on 09/04/2008, -16/+9Ron Paul/Chrome '08
      • azaraa09, on 09/04/2008, -2/+3Dugg for Ron Paul.

        Dugg for Google.

        Ah, what the hell, dugg for 08
      • godinster, on 09/04/2008, -2/+0Buried for genocide supporting Ron Paul
    • UNL1M1T3D, on 09/04/2008, -12/+5Your mama, O'chroma.
    • harrison5394, on 09/04/2008, -10/+3***** you and your bitch
    • kocurejd, on 09/04/2008, -10/+7Well, it's better than Obama/Biden
    • Flipperbw, on 09/04/2008, -6/+2that comment is guaranteed to get diggs
    • mateoberry, on 09/04/2008, -8/+10McCain/IE '08
    • k3rfuffl3, on 09/04/2008, -5/+3I thought:

      Ron Paul/Chrome '08 since Ron Paul is the minimalist gov't. type.

      Obama/FireFox makes more sense. Willing to change (not a stubborn ass like McCain/IE/Bush) with addons and reasonable like changing the memory manager to jemalloc to address consumption issues.
    • grinsy, on 09/04/2008, -2/+0How about a Palin-Chrome?

      De Veep scam, man?
      Nam' Mac's peeved!
  • dvsbastard, on 09/04/2008, -2/+54I also found the "Stats for nerds" link in the task manager window amusing too...
  • spyd3rweb, on 09/04/2008, -17/+6Dear Google: Stick to what you are good at, advertising and being a search engine. Stop all these stupid pet projects.
    • Phattio, on 09/04/2008, -1/+4your petty comments have been noted and *****-canned.
    • dobry, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4why?
    • bratterscain, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4It looks like they're now good at browsers even considering Chrome is just a beta.
    • Issius, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4but that's what you do when you have a lot of money. You do whatever the ***** you want because you can and you don't have to worry about money anymore.
      • spyd3rweb, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3Thats how big corporations go down the tubes, expand themselves away from their core to unsustainable levels.
      • Issius, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Fair enough, but it's also how new corporations spring up to replace the old ones and make things better until it happens yet again. Progress is a deathtrap to those involved but nonetheless necessary.
    • D3koy, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4You do realize Ads and the search engine were at one point side projects...
      • Issius, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1The search engine was not a side project, it was their goal. The ads were how they figured out how to make money from that goal.
  • SitPoMk, on 09/04/2008, -1/+33I love how Google incorporates their sense of humor into their products.

    Try to open an incognito window.
    Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of:
    It provides protection from "secret agents"
  • ThreeDee912, on 09/04/2008, -3/+78FYI, Google changed the EULA for Chrome:
    http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-licens ...

    Check it out for yourself:
    http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html

    Plus, here's my SunSpider results comparing 5 browsers (Chrome, Firefox, IE, Opera, Safari):
    http://digg.com/software/Google_Chome_SunSpider_te ...
    • ricemonster, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2Thank you. That honestly was the only thing from keeping me from downloading Chrome. Yes, I know, but I find tinfoil hats quite stylish.
    • Zetsubou, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1So they go from "I own everything!!" to "You own all your stuff, we're just kidding, tehe" after some people complained about it?
      • ThreeDee912, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Well, what were they supposed to say? That's really all Google can do. They Copy/Pasted the same EULA from YouTube and Gmail and pasted onto Chrome.

        That's the same mistake Apple did with Safari, where when you install it on a Windows PC, it used to say "This may only be installed on Apple branded computers".

        It's highly unlikely Apple is actually going to sue you for using Safari on a PC, just like it's highly unlikely Google is going to steal the copyrights of everything you are browsing in Chrome.

        It's likely there's tons of other companies doing the same thing and not realizing it.
  • trigatch4, on 09/04/2008, -20/+3Hahahhahahah
    That's nothing short of BALLIN!
    http://ChromeSpot.com
    • NathanielJ, on 09/04/2008, -0/+8How have you not been banned yet?
  • sockpuppets, on 09/04/2008, -5/+108I'd have respected it more if it said "Chrome cannot be uninstalled. Kiss my shiny metal ass."
    • MrM4nager, on 09/04/2008, -0/+27I was afraid it was going to be something like that, where they made it horribly difficult to uninstall and it would taint my view of Google forever. Luckily they were just being comical.
    • Carl306, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7Bender?
    • ryanonfire, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2Copyright's a bitch.
  • WickEd101, on 09/04/2008, -2/+14There should be something like this for IE, except, actually have a text field and allow you to enter a reason
    • Calamitie, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1The text field would have to cover my second monitor for an adequate reason ;)
  • vardhaman2249, on 09/04/2008, -2/+121type "about:internets" in the address bar (without the quotes of course)
    • NegativeDigg, on 09/04/2008, -0/+45Here you go...

      about:memory
      about:stats
      about:network
      about:internets
      about:histograms
      about:dns
      about:cache
      about:plugins
      about:version
      • vardhaman2249, on 09/04/2008, -5/+2ok,..which one of them is supposed to be the surprise?
      • To0pak, on 09/04/2008, -12/+2about:robots
      • hpathiraja, on 09/04/2008, -2/+10Am I the only one getting a blank page with the title "The Tubes are Clogged!"?
      • elliott9, on 09/04/2008, -1/+15To0pak: about:robots is a Firefox thing, we are talking about Google Chrome
      • EnderMB, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1"Am I the only one getting a blank page with the title "The Tubes are Clogged!"?"

        Only you and Bristol Palin's mind.
      • triconda, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1@elliott9: it happens for me too, the .scr file is missing. :)
    • Pilot85, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2nice!
    • ZeNiTH456, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5Slows down my computer a ton.. Cool though
    • genicus, on 09/04/2008, -0/+10It's a series of tubes!
    • BrainRecall, on 09/04/2008, -0/+18Well, don't try ":%" (without the quotes). A great way to hard-crash Chrome.
      • EgaoNoGenki, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1I think that's the "panic button command." They probably programmed that to crash on purpose.
    • ScopeDopeUSAF, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Locked up the whole browser for a few moments. I couldn't even switch tabs.
    • Lagou, on 09/05/2008, -0/+0the tubes are clogged!
  • IpHa, on 09/04/2008, -11/+8Chrome yelled at me. We're not friends anymore.
  • chaosgroove, on 09/04/2008, -4/+66I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that...
    • D3koy, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4I named my computer HAL becuase it was always telling me that...My name isn't even Dave!
      • iatethecake, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1I named my laptop MeinComp hoping someone would notice it... (I took it from the Daily Show btw)
    • sqeakingkev, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3Something tells me that would be Microsoft's uninstall message.
  • lechechocolate, on 09/04/2008, -13/+44FIREFOX!
  • chillfaktor, on 09/04/2008, -3/+27you know they DID release chrome using a comic book... these guys just don't take themselves too seriously :)
  • u5bLue, on 09/04/2008, -0/+143http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=statsnerd ...
    • bullsfan03, on 09/04/2008, -0/+6Who's gonna steal this image and FP it later tonight?
      • AgentG96, on 09/04/2008, -1/+8* fap fap fap*

        oh wait, you said FP it....

        ....
  • Blackham, on 09/04/2008, -19/+6These comments suck
  • D1ckFace, on 09/04/2008, -16/+6Hmmm. All the negative comments are being dugg down...
  • MrXfromPlanetX, on 09/04/2008, -1/+15If you are having problems with Google Chrome, it might be becomes it is not compatible with Symantec Endpoint Protection, or Symantec Endpoint Protection is not compatible with Google Chrome. They don't know yet.
    https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?b ...
    • ThisWayComes, on 09/04/2008, -3/+6Symantec sucks. The answer, get rid of that piece of crap, or just go to Linux. Is there Chrome for Linus? Does anyone know?
    • Netizentalk, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5"it might be becomes it is not compatible"
      [no comment]
    • donquixote235, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1If you have Symantec Endpoint Protection and you want to install Chrome, make a shortcut to Chrome and add the command-line "--no-sandbox" to force Chrome to work.
    • atdakore, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1That explains why i had to uninstall it due to it's uselessness.
      Has google never heard of symnatec or something?
  • Br3ach, on 09/04/2008, -8/+2lol, they always did have a classy sense of humor

  • epohs, on 09/04/2008, -4/+57about:internets
    • Jayg28, on 09/04/2008, -2/+3Friggin' awesome.
    • gkrat, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1haha trixy crome
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Anyone using Vista, search for the screensaver "sspipes.scr" and install that first for maximum hilarity.
  • durga2112, on 09/04/2008, -3/+17Yes, you blurted out all of my passwords when I clicked on your Show Passwords button.

    (not really sure what I expected to see when I clicked that button, TBH, but seeing my passwords in plain text instead of *'s was still a bit of a surprise)
    • RgyaGramShad, on 09/04/2008, -1/+15firefox does that too…
      that's why i don't let firefox save my passwords…
      • arkaycee, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5In Firefox, set a master password. Then, though you can see what your accounts and usernames are if you're logged in, you can't see their passwords without again entering your master password.
    • Vikesrock, on 09/04/2008, -0/+6Ok, so you are complaining it showed your passwords when you clicked "Show Passwords". Showing a bunch of asterisks would be absolutely pointless and would spawn complaints such as:

      "My browser won't let me view the passwords I PUT INTO IT"

      If it's anything like Firefox, you can set a master password to prevent any random user you let on your PC from showing all of your passwords on a whim.
      • elliott9, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5i forgot to set a master password on this computer, thanks for the reminder!
  • Sairynn, on 09/04/2008, -0/+49I still don't get why it's called Chrome when it's blue.
    • Jforsyth89, on 09/04/2008, -0/+25On page 24 of the Chrome comic, it says that "Developers call the UI frame of the browser its "Chrome."
      • peteophile44, on 09/04/2008, -3/+2No *****? I seriously had no idea what the link between the chrome: settings of Firefox and Google Chrome was. I learned something today.
    • whiteguysamurai, on 09/04/2008, -0/+8It's whatever color you want in vista...
      The borders that is.
    • poexone, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1It's like code name: Irene
  • quakken, on 09/04/2008, -3/+7but IS IT SAFE?!
  • MrM4nager, on 09/04/2008, -3/+16This thread makes me smile
  • jacobdis, on 09/04/2008, -11/+4Am I the only one who doesn't see the big hilarious deal in this?
    • Phattio, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7yes, person on the internets, you are the only one.
    • GeoffGold25, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5why cant u be like all us other people on the internet and love google, web comics, video games, non-youtube video sites, macs, positive imagery of geek culture, japan, and high res hd photos that appear on digg from flikr? seriously, get hip.
  • sexLethal, on 09/04/2008, -8/+6Hmm I got "Close all Chrome windows and try again."
    • Premier, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3so close all Chrome windows and try again ...
  • yifanlu94, on 09/04/2008, -13/+6The real question is: Why were you trying to uninstall the god browser?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.