digg

Join DiggAbout

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

BREAKING: Google Chrome Just Launched

google.com — Google Chrome is a browser that combines a minimal design with sophisticated technology to make the web faster, safer, and easier.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jquipp, on 09/02/2008, -39/+157Its about time ... been waiting for some time for this!
    • workingsmart, on 09/02/2008, -24/+11I got it! I'm using it now!
      • Narcism, on 09/02/2008, -1/+40Congratulations
      • kidcodea, on 09/02/2008, -7/+22***** IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!

        its awesome btw :) ...made digg and a lot of other sites a lot faster.
      • misilman, on 09/02/2008, -1/+17Great!
        You win 1 (one) Internets.
      • consoneo, on 09/02/2008, -2/+6Um, I think I'm with you... for now. I use my Home button A LOT. Like.. a whole lot, because iGoogle is my home page. How the hell don't they have a Home button, or am I missing something?

        Well, I see here that they have a "Bookmarks Bar" but I don't really like that :/ I want book marks hidden, and I want a home button. I might get used to it, but I don't know.

        I have a very large number of book marks and not being able to move to the bottom quickly with the "End" key is kind of a turn off too. :(
      • efitz11, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5i never use my home button. in fact, i hid all my buttons and replaced them with my bookmarks toolbar.
      • positron, on 09/02/2008, -0/+15@consoneo
        tools menu>options>basics>check show home button
      • mlwarrior, on 09/02/2008, -6/+1Wait, I just checked the "about google chrome" section. Both google and firefox 3 use the mozilla 5.0 engine.

        What's new about this? (I'm using google chrome right now)
      • Bootes, on 09/02/2008, -2/+6Chrome is based of Webkit (Safari).
      • Rolcol, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3@consoneo
        You can also press alt+home to go to your home page (the actual keyboard key)
      • mlwarrior, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3"Official Build 1583
        Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13"

      • thokks, on 09/03/2008, -2/+3(_(_)////////D
    • BassCadet, on 09/02/2008, -5/+13"Aww snap" msg is all I get.

      Anybody else have this problem? Firefox, IE, Opera...they all work just fine. What's the deal?
    • natmaster, on 09/02/2008, -20/+6I'm sorry, I have to give Google personal information to browser the internet? No thanks.
      • tm13lke, on 09/02/2008, -4/+31You could just not check the box...
      • natmaster, on 09/02/2008, -12/+1The only checkbox says "Optional: Help make Chrome better by automatically sending usage statistics and crash reports to Google."

        My button choices are 'cancel' and 'Accept and Install'

        According to the document, clicking accept and install indicates you agree to those terms.
      • efitz11, on 09/02/2008, -8/+2probably because its a beta?
      • Dotcommer, on 09/02/2008, -11/+5Hey guise.. can I join?

        [Mac version still in development]

        oh... :( *sits in lonely corner and waits patiently...*
      • sephiroth965, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5@natmaster Accept and install means accept the TOS not accept to automatically send them information.
      • Mejogid, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4@sephiroth965
        The TOS also states that it will automatically send them information... I love how everyone who''s failed to even read them is digging down natmaster.
      • natmaster, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_on_Chrome_EULA_co ...

        Don't you guys feel dumb now. Maybe you should read things before making yourself look like an idiot. Then again, this wouldn't be digg if there weren't people doing that.
    • ScrewedThePooch, on 09/02/2008, -1/+21Does it pass Acid3 test?
      • rbp1987, on 09/02/2008, -3/+18No, it also doesn't pass The Acid2 test
      • lovecss, on 09/02/2008, -1/+22http://acid3.acidtests.org - is that loading deathly slow for anyone else?
      • dumaniac, on 09/02/2008, -7/+1yes but it gets the score 76
      • vincentweber, on 09/02/2008, -1/+13Huh it doesn't pass Acid 2 and 3? It has the webkit rendering engine for someones sake... this is strange...
      • gsnedders, on 09/02/2008, -3/+14No, it is based upon the Safari 3.1 WebKit, and thus doesn't pass Acid 3 (the test is slow due to a billion people finding this out right now).
      • vincentweber, on 09/02/2008, -1/+12@gsnedders: there is no such thing as a Safari webkit. Webkit is a continuation of the free software Konqueror rendering engine and is also used, as you can see, by more than one or two browsers.

        Not bashing you though... I appreciate you telling me that chrome features an old edition of Webkit.
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 09/02/2008, -0/+10Yes, it passes Acid2, I can't get to Acid3 though

        For some reason you have to wait for the eyes to appear on the smiley at the end. Might be slow delivering that info because so many people are checking Acid2.

        If you hit refresh you can also get it.
      • cjshamrock, on 09/02/2008, -1/+4I'm gonna do some Acid and load Chrome up. With some Kool-Aid.
      • zdiggler, on 09/03/2008, -6/+3Yeah, webkit is a pice of code that apple borrow to make their OS useful and make billions.
      • birch25, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5are they using an older version of webkit? i'm running the safari 4 beta and it passes acid3 100%
      • mrASSMAN, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5Gets a better score than Firefox 3.. and loads it faster too.
      • gsnedders, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1@vincentweber: Peh. Safari 3.1's WebKit.
    • simd, on 09/02/2008, -3/+19Quick review: Very, very fast, no crashes or site issues yet. Unsurprisingly Google Apps work (didn't on Safari). Simple interface. No doubt many will miss extensions, but this is an application framework so is a different proposition. Application shortcuts great for webmail. Overall, amazing first effort. My default browser already.
      • dbug, on 09/02/2008, -0/+27And the best thing about it is, I can now finally read threads on diggs javascript-bloated comment system without my browser locking up all the time. Awesome!
      • sancho, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3I've seen nothing indicating that it's just an application framework. They did a lot to make applications work well on it (Javascript optimizations, specifically), but everything I've seen indicates that it's meant to be a full-fledged web browser.

        During the webcast, they mentioned that they're thinking about extensions, but that if you want it right now, download the code and modify it.
      • starseed420, on 09/03/2008, -0/+23Is this what the internet looks like without adblock ?? damn...
      • UNL1M1T3D, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1@dbug
        I thought I was the only one that was happening to. It's awful!

        @starseed420
        I thought the exact same thing.
      • themastersb, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3I love how the tabs stay the same size while closing a lot of them so you can keep your mouse in one spot and don't unintentionally close any tabs.
      • andycr512, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1@starseed420: A hosts file should help.
    • sockpuppets, on 09/02/2008, -3/+108I'm typing this from 2024. I installed chrome and it apparently transported me into the future.
      • DearSergio, on 09/02/2008, -2/+9The first thing I did after install...

        ...look at porn!
      • stoanhart, on 09/03/2008, -1/+7See, I know you're lying. If you had typed that from 2024, you would be way at the bottom of the Digg comment thread.
    • Rileyluck, on 09/02/2008, -2/+35incognito porn surfing ftw!
    • Jookly, on 09/02/2008, -0/+45seems like I was waiting for it for almost 24 hours.
    • seomike, on 09/02/2008, -6/+16I like how it can't use google toolbar rofl.
      • lintmonkey, on 09/02/2008, -2/+47You don't need to. By using Chrome, all your personal information has already been surrendered.
      • qetuo, on 09/02/2008, -2/+3I wont be in a rush to download.
    • gn0stik, on 09/02/2008, -11/+37First impressions:

      NO integration with google apps, by default. I would have thought it's bookmarks would give you an option to link up with your google bookmarks. Or import them. I figured it wouldn't even be an option just built in. Same with maps, calendar, and mail. They didn't leverage the power of their existing products at all. Just their search. Odd...

      Fast... very very fast.

      No home button, no way to add one. In fact there's no way to modify the toolbar at all. No status bar.

      Horrible looking.

      Lot's of real estate for pages.

      I was rudely reminded of how many ads there are on web sites that I frequent.

      good anonymity, good privacy

      Doesn't pass the acid test (s)

      Now I have to test ***** in 5 browsers

      I posted this reply in it.

      • pjvandehaar, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2Actually, http://tools.google.com/chrome/intl/en-US/welcome. ... > new tab page and look at the picture comment. it says you can set a home page, though i dont know how
      • gn0stik, on 09/02/2008, -8/+2Yes, you can.. And I did... but there's NO HOME BUTTON...

        So..... what's the point?
      • MScrip, on 09/02/2008, -0/+36Yes, you can add the home button.

        Options, Basics, Show Home Button on the Toolbar
      • culbeda, on 09/02/2008, -3/+14No built-in bookmarks for Google Apps = "NO integration"? Have you tried creating desktop icons for these apps? You might want to.

        Home button? You're complaining about a Home button?

        "Horrible looking". Looks awesome under Vista, so I'm happy.
      • roxgod666, on 09/02/2008, -0/+10Yeah, it looks amazing under vista. For some reason, all web browser look the best under the aero theme
      • gn0stik, on 09/03/2008, -0/+11OK, just found something

        right click, and choose inspect element.


        ***** awesome.
      • rishid, on 09/03/2008, -3/+5It isn't to replace Firefox or IE. It is just to force the developers of these browsers to re-think their designs. It isn't supposed to be a full-fledged browser, mostly just a new concept.
      • roxgod666, on 09/03/2008, -0/+8@rishid, i really doubt Google would take all that time and money to develop something only for a "new concept". They already have something going for them with this new browser and they will definitely take advantage. This has already been said before, Google never does anything “small”
      • Bertitude, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I think it's done more in the vein of "I have an idea. Since you aren't developing this and you aren't developing this I might as well".


        I've had one tab hang. I love the not having to restart the browser.
      • danomagnum, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1/ doesn't bring up search!
      • martalli, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1If this is being released on the BSD license, then maybe Safari, Opera, and Firefox can integrate in the snazzy javascript engine, if it really outperforms their new javascript engines under development. IE could include it, too, but I wonder if MS is nimble enough to manage inclusion of this new javascript engine...and why with all their billions of $$ they didn't already do something like this...
    • Menchions, on 09/02/2008, -2/+8Slick as hell, eh?
    • tama00, on 09/02/2008, -9/+8Knowing google this browser will stay in beta for ever.

      Im only going to try it out once its out of beta.
      • alothrop, on 09/02/2008, -1/+21sooo youre saying youll never try it?
    • chanop, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7Acid2 Test Results:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/25157444@N04/28222315 ...
    • championchap, on 09/02/2008, -3/+16All that's bugging me at the moment is that i cant middle click to scroll in web pages.
      It's bloody gorgeous in Vista at least!
      Firefox theme just makes it look glossy and blue like vista.. this one is built in a way that lets it make use of Aero properly.. like the Explorer Windows.

      Oh, and it LAUGHS at diggs comment system!
      This could well replace my fox.
      • WatchDogX, on 09/02/2008, -2/+13I hate to break it to you, but it looks exactly the same in vista as it does in xp. It doesnt use areo at or the default window manager. It uses a custom skin while it looks ok, id much prefer it to use my OS theme.
      • pjvandehaar, on 09/02/2008, -1/+0Where is there an option to do stuff like change themes? I don't see any options like themes in setting > options... sorry, guess I'm a noob here.
      • championchap, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2No, what i mean is that all firefox uses in the Aero section of the window is the min max and close buttons.
        But this at least includes the tabs, which makes it FEEL more at home in Vista.

        Something that even with its Vista theme Firefox has not really done for me.
      • TrellSaracen, on 09/03/2008, -5/+8Hard-coded themes are bad, m'kay?

        http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1051/whygooglew ...
      • UNL1M1T3D, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5I really like it, but I still think I am going to stick with Firefox. I love the ability to customize my browser, add cool functionality like Forecast Fox and Adblock, and I think having the tabs at the top is going to take a little getting used to.

        Still though not bad for a back up browser and I am very impressed with the speed on how it handles things (I am looking at you slow Digg comment system).
    • ligyron, on 09/02/2008, -0/+9Only thing keeping me from switching from Firefox at the moment is:

      1. Can't scroll-wheel click to scroll page
      2. No "Recently closed tabs" which I use A LOT on Firefox to get back to pages I closed
      • naraic, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7try ctrl+shift+t
      • arenas46, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4Go to the home page default with Chrome, and on the bottom right you will see recently closed tabs yellow box.
        I don't know how to get it to show more than three, though.

        Doubt you need it since the whole point is to get back to tabs you accidentally closed.
      • Soave, on 09/03/2008, -2/+2I agree about the scroll-wheel click. I miss it a lot.
      • UNL1M1T3D, on 09/03/2008, -3/+4I haven't use the scroll wheel click in years.
      • Federbeast, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2I miss the scroll click, but the browser is great.
    • digitalvik, on 09/02/2008, -3/+4Works very smoothly! Wow - O - Wow! This is one software whose development should be followed and would be very interesting...Its gonna kick IE's a**!!
      • EntangledPhysx, on 09/02/2008, -1/+15everything kicks IE's ass, though.
      • martalli, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4The only sticking point is websites that are essentially broken on purpose to be IE-only sites. I can't believe it, but many of the sites I need for work are IE-specific or even require the use of ActiveX...what a security nightmare.
    • singhiskinnnng, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3does anyone know where Google Chrome installs too? I can't seem to find it. As well, does anyone know if Google Chrome stores our usernames/passwords on their Google servers?
      • therightclique, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1C:Documents and Settings\Local SettingsApplication DataGoogleChromeApplication
      • TrellSaracen, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1It installs the entire 80+Mb to C:Documents and Settings%USERNAME%Local SettingsApplication DataGoogle
      • martalli, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Sweet, I take it this means I can install it as a limited user...
      • singhiskinnnng, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1thnx, As well, does anyone know if Google Chrome stores our usernames/passwords on their Google servers?
    • thetanman, on 09/03/2008, -3/+6Did anyone else notice Picasa got the bump to Picasa 3 beta? Some really cool new features:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rskC6c_5L1M
    • GoneGreen, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1First impressions after using it for 2 hours.... It's ok, it's pretty clean and fast, but if you absolutely need to get something done you will hit dips in the road. I tried to sell a car with it and had problems with image upload tools not being available, and even the default image upload component for IE didn't work. If you are a social browser then this version is for you... but if you need a browser that actually works choose FF or IE.
      • therightclique, on 09/03/2008, -7/+2......beta......dickweed.
      • GoneGreen, on 09/03/2008, -3/+3No ***** DICKWEED...
      • ScrewedThePooch, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Gmail is still beta too. Google never releases final products.
    • cbranger4, on 09/03/2008, -4/+2***** "raw" better then firefox thus far
    • themastersb, on 09/03/2008, -1/+6You've gone incognito. Pages you view in this window won't appear in your browser history or search history, and they won't leave other traces, like cookies, on your computer after you close the incognito window. Any files you download or bookmarks you create will be preserved, however.

      Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of:
      Websites that collect or share information about you
      Internet service providers or employers that track the pages you visit
      Malicious software that tracks your keystrokes in exchange for free smileys
      Surveillance by secret agents
      People standing behind you

      I loled
    • merelogic, on 09/03/2008, -3/+1Chrome process got stuck on 30%+ CPU usage when I went to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industr ...
    • merelogic, on 09/03/2008, -3/+1Chrome process got stuck on 30%+ CPU usage when I went to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industr ...
    • tapeworm77, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1It's very chromulent. I'd even go so far as to say it embiggens the browsing experience.
      • gn0stik, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1embiggens

        I will have to memorify that.
    • Myztry, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1When looking for a giant killer, it's wise to look to another giant.
      A Google OS is what is really needed to break computing out of the 80's, and into a brighter future.
    • abuse, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4try writing google:% in url you will get something nice
      • syncosoftkerala, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1You could also right-click on the address bar for the same 'something nice'.
      • syncosoftkerala, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1uh.... scratch that.
    • umertariq, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0too bad it can't even load my gmail account :( which is google's email service.;)
  • QualityGal, on 09/02/2008, -93/+428Hmm... I don't know about this. I think I may stick with Firefox.
    • kalkin, on 09/02/2008, -7/+104i like the clean interface. but it does needs addons and i feel that i don't have much control over the bookmarks, passwords and cookies.

      it's a good start and i do like it but i'm not sure if anything can take me away from my beloved firefox 3
      • Narcism, on 09/02/2008, -8/+29Until I get web developer toolbar for it, it can go to hell.
      • JesusTeaseUs, on 09/02/2008, -1/+11Go to the little page icon right of the address bar > developer > javascript console. Might not be as robust as you would like, but its a start.
      • Narcism, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5@jesus interesting, but not what I'm looking for.
      • ausfahrt, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4Narcism - It has a task manager so you can monitor you js processes per tab. Pretty slick.
      • benologist, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6The inspect element (right click anywhere) seems pretty detailed.
      • Narcism, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2I think you'd have to use the web developer toolbar to see what I'm talking about.
      • cozmoz365, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1@ausfahrt I think his looking for a decent DOM inspector.
    • Pyrrish, on 09/02/2008, -23/+7Yes, hmmm...I get a little apprehensive when someone wants to make the internet better and open source their work. /sarcasm
      • S7aind, on 09/02/2008, -3/+12Yeah, sure, but if Firefox is a better browser I'm sticking to that
    • spammishking, on 09/02/2008, -2/+115Yes you've seen it here first. Only when Google is involved do you get buried for saying you use Firefox
      • mizatt, on 09/02/2008, -2/+11I think he's getting buried because he said it a couple hours after the first iteration of this browser was released
      • redwallhp, on 09/03/2008, -4/+4Or if Apple is involved...
      • Calcularius, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3buried? what buried?
      • spammishking, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1I the early rounds the lead poster (QualityGal) was in the negatives, but has since pulled up
    • alanr19, on 09/02/2008, -7/+34@Pyrrish

      Googles motives are not altruistic here. They get a lot of user info directly from the browser that they would not otherwise be able to get. One example is in order to check if a site is a malware site it sends the page url you are visiting to google servers along with your google cookie tracker id which allows them to "profile you more accurately". It sends EVERY page url. They can also track your feature usage. The Google Update service also gets installed by default and communicates regularly with google servers for whatever reason. Get the picture?

      Sure its open source but are you going to download the source, strip out the tracking parts and recompile it? Yeah I thought not. Nobody will.
      • vincentweber, on 09/02/2008, -0/+18I'm sure at least one person is both willing to do this and willing to share this.

        And BTW... The google search bar in Firefox, along with the default google homepage in Firefox, phones home too.

        Maybe someone can analyse what data is exactly send and how Google can use this to invade your privacy.

        And who knows... Vista is phoning home to redmond on the regular too, so maybe they analyse your web usage too and send it directly to Live Search... No you can't know, because it's proprietary software.
      • alanr19, on 09/02/2008, -3/+4@vincentweber

        "I'm sure at least one person is both willing to do this and willing to share this."

        Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. Who knows. Point is are they any more trustworthy/talented/dedicated to support than google? Only way to be sure is to build it yourself. No other browser maker is going to help out the competition by doing it.

        "And BTW... The google search bar in Firefox, along with the default google homepage in Firefox, phones home too."

        Only when you use it to search for something, Chrome sends EVERY url visited back to google and connects it to you via their famous tracking cookie.

        "Vista is phoning home to redmond on the regular too, so maybe they analyse your web usage too"

        I wouldn't use Vista (or its WGA software) as a benchmark to defend another piece of software. Its the "low hanging fruit" of arguments. 99% of software is less evil than that.

        "No you can't know, because it's proprietary software."

        Propriety spying is no better or worse than open source spying. You agreed to the Chrome License so technically you are volunteering your data whether you actually read the EULA or not (I'm guessing "not"). So legally there is no scandal, no matter what is or is not found in the code.

      • DarkShroud, on 09/02/2008, -2/+6Vista can be disabled not to send information back to MS and it's annoymous in the EULA. I use WMP with FFDShow to play HD videos, I like them know that I play .mkv videos.

        Besides, they can't fix windows (think XP SP2 or Vista SP1) if you don't tell them what's wrong.
      • qetuo, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5Very good points you have made, but sadly most people will not listen to you. You have apple fanboys and then there is the google fanboys. I stay clear of the google fanboys! :-)
      • ldkronos, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6Nope. As explained here ( http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html ) the browser downloads the list of compromised websites to verify urls client side. The only time urls are sent to google is when you are typing them in manually and have the suggest feature turned on to attempt autocompletion.
      • bradmoreland, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1@qetuo,

        I'd be more likely to steer clear of the Apple fanbois if I were you. They're the ones more likely to rape you in the butt.
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 09/02/2008, -1/+19Wait did you read the fine print?
      Anything you do google can watch and use your content. What if you do "work" on this can they steal your material?
      • alanr19, on 09/02/2008, -2/+37They promised not to be evil though so its all good.
      • cjshamrock, on 09/02/2008, -3/+6George W Bush kinda did that too. And the Nazis.
    • Andrwmorph, on 09/02/2008, -1/+41While I'm totally gay for the 'Fox, I will admit that Google Chrome has so far been much much smoother.

      I'm totally going back to Firefox after this comment. I miss me addons!
      • DarkShroud, on 09/02/2008, -1/+11Even IE has more addons than Chrome. All the ads blinding me, snog tees are nice though.
      • AllyOfReason, on 09/02/2008, -0/+9Yes the ads are jacking my brain.
      • kidcodea, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3just run admuncher. and configure options. no ads.
      • Mithivh, on 09/03/2008, -1/+15@DarkShroud

        Wow, a browser that's been around since 1995 has more addons than one that was released TODAY?!
      • captpisspants, on 09/03/2008, -1/+8Dugg for the "gay for the 'Fox" comment.

      • martalli, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4I am sticking with FF, too (of course, being primarily Linux has me there anyway). However, since Chrome was JUST RELEASED FOR DOWNLOAD TODAY, I think binging it for a lack of add-ons may have a little validity, but really does not necessarily represent some intrinsic flaw. Does it not allow for add-ons or extensions?
    • sjclovesjc, on 09/02/2008, -2/+44Two words...

      Adblock Plus

      Google needs a browser so that some of us Mozillians will switch and actually start seeing their ads again!
      • Sparhawk2k, on 09/02/2008, -2/+6Honestly, I haven't seen any real numbers on it but I doubt adblock is really hurting their earnings that much. Most people either don't know how to install it, don't care, or actively want to support what they're using.
      • kidcodea, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3admuncher works. options / filtertargets then add chrome (just do a connection and it detects).
        done, no ads.
      • pjvandehaar, on 09/02/2008, -14/+3Seriously? Is your bandwidth or speed really so important that you won't support your favorite sites if it means an extra tiny bit of loading time (ok, i realize that on some sites there's way too many adds, but on sites like google, digg, or engadget don't you feel bad not supporting them? If I made a site it wouldn't allow users with adblock to see it...
      • cjshamrock, on 09/02/2008, -1/+6yup but unless your site was super popular it would die from visitor-starvation. Just imagine if Digg "banned" every user that has Adblock installed. It would be a sad day, but I'd have to move on. And so would most of the wiser users.
      • Drax0n, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3If you have adblock plus installed in firefox BEFORE you install google chrome it will import the blacklist along with the other firefox settings, Both my computers that run chrome do not show any ads.

      • martalli, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1The javascript function is so awesome, I think suffering through ads might be a fair trade-off. Needless to say, when FF 3.1 comes out, it will have a new and improved javascript engine. It might not beat Chrome, but it won't be beta and it will work with the gobs of extensions we all know and love.
    • Cige, on 09/02/2008, -0/+20personally, I think Chrome will attract more people from saffari and IE than it will form mozilla, people who don't need all of the extras in firefox and just want to get on the internet quick and painlessly. That's what chrome is good for.
      • anthonyretro, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7I beg to differ. These browser wars are for more net savvy people. Even as the Internet is becoming more widespread and down to earth, I still believe the average person is reticent to switch from the browser already installed on his/her computer. While Google may believe it is trying to take from IE, it may really be taking from the Mozilla users because it's already a group of people who are comfortable switching browsers in the first place.

        The best way for Google to really get people on their browser in general is for them to promote it on the main page, but they wouldn't dare do that to risk its stark, pristine appearance.
      • qetuo, on 09/02/2008, -7/+2I actually like using Safari, it is really quick on my computer, i also like to use Firefox, but i will not try Google Browser.

        I try to stay clear of Google services. There are plenty of really good alternatives out there, that are better than Google.
      • hungryduck, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5As opposed to firefox which is slow and painful?
      • sexybobo, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I don't think google wan'ts people to use this browser. I think they just wan't to have their input in to how a browser should be. Kinda like gmail. Yes it is awesome but it revolutionized all web mail I am sure you all still remember 10meg or less of free storage..
    • gn0stik, on 09/02/2008, -1/+26Of course it's just a beta.... Oh yeah, it's google.. That's all they release.
    • singhiskinnnng, on 09/02/2008, -3/+4does anyone know if Google Chrome stores our usernames/passwords on their Google servers? (gulp!)
    • AllyOfReason, on 09/02/2008, -3/+3On 1440x900 resolution text is tiny and zoom distorts the page old school style. Other than that nice interface and good potential.
    • roxgod666, on 09/02/2008, -2/+2I would use this as my primary but there are some irritating glitches about it. The most noticeable one is using a trackpad with it is completely messed up. The sensitivity on a downscroll is too high and for some reason, i can't even upscroll. I was surprised they would release it without testing that. Although it is extremely fast %80 of the time, websites sometimes seem to get randomly stranded. Then there is the whole customization issue and lack of features problem. Although i will keep using firefox as my primary for now, i can see this being the best web browser hands down in the future. I recommend it to all!!! (except mac users hehe)
    • wainman, on 09/03/2008, -1/+7I cant click do any middle-click thingy scrolling! DAMN YOU GOOGLE!
    • Wrathernaut, on 09/03/2008, -3/+4No full page zoom = instant uninstall.

      15.4" 1680x1050 make it more necessary than the back button.
    • EmailAddress, on 09/03/2008, -4/+4heh.. download Chrome. Why? This way Google can target ads to you while browsing. What good is Firefox with adblock, when Google makes money off ads? You are blocking their income.

      Thus Chrome is Google's way of using its name and hype to get dumb people to download Chrome and make profits from targeted ads. Google wants control over its income, so here is Chrome.
    • lmbb20, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3Same.
    • biergutlol, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2the buttons in the top right corner make me think i'm using vista :O
    • hojin994, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1lets agree to disagree =]
    • diabolicedict, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1I use this http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm, instead of AdBlock. It's browser agnostic.
  • cledford, on 09/02/2008, -102/+1202This is my first Digg comment using Google Chrome.

    WOO!
    • Weip, on 09/02/2008, -24/+1183Buried from my new google chrome browser!
      • Zakolus, on 09/02/2008, -15/+187dugg from my new google chrome browser!
      • Weip, on 09/02/2008, -18/+22Thx Bro!
      • bratterscain, on 09/02/2008, -14/+335Fapping to porn from my new google chrome browser!
      • wibambau, on 09/02/2008, -4/+84dugg in incognito
      • nreynolds, on 09/02/2008, -5/+22as opposed to fapping to news...
      • xsquirrel378x, on 09/02/2008, -4/+29sitting here crying and suicidal, wondering what happened to my life from my new google chrome browser!
      • sexybobo, on 09/02/2008, -6/+187damn i forgot what the internet looked like with out adblock
      • Azriel7, on 09/02/2008, -2/+36I open Chrome and whats the first thing I see...ADS!!! ADS EVERYWHERE!!! I am going to run back to FF until someone creates an adblock for chrome.
      • vendeep, on 09/02/2008, -13/+2Buried from my new google chrome browser!
      • Seaton, on 09/02/2008, -5/+21Fapping to porn on a Chrome browser, while some executive at Google faps to the same porn, because he is watching the URL I just typed in.

        No thanks.
      • FunkadelicFresh, on 09/02/2008, -11/+7Smoking a joint and streaming Grandma's Boy in my new google Chrome browser.
      • cjshamrock, on 09/02/2008, -2/+2congrats
      • VacuolateTuna, on 09/03/2008, -1/+9dugg from my old firefox browser!
      • Federbeast, on 09/03/2008, -11/+6***** you, two of my friends died using the new Google Chrome browser.
      • JT114881, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1Fapping to chrome from my new google porn browser!
      • GliTCH82, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3One thing I liked about AdBlock was it improved Firefox rendering speed, but Chrome is so fast I don't really care about ads as much anymore from that regard. I did however forgot how distracting ads can be. Overall I'd have to say right now it's a mixed bag for me, I'm going to stick with Chrome for a couple of days and if I start having Firefox pangs I may go back to that until the next iteration or until add-ons/extensions are commonplace.
      • livinlife00, on 09/04/2008, -1/+0Great Post

        http://www.freethingsonline.info
    • BuLong, on 09/02/2008, -8/+204Mine too... Also the first time i see ugly ad banners on digg. Quite a shame...
      • Dundasbro, on 09/02/2008, -2/+39The Snorg Tees girl is far from ugly my friend.
      • madeingermany, on 09/02/2008, -0/+8But you should decide for yourself, when you want to look at pretty girls or ugly ones, or whatever it is that turns you on.
      • FaberfoX, on 09/02/2008, -6/+3Stop bawwwing about no adblock and install privoxy (http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ijbswa/privoxy_se ...

        Then, just set your proxy to localhost port 8118 and that's it. Now all I need is mouse gestures...
    • BoonTobias, on 09/02/2008, -21/+427buried you all for being lame from my old firefox 3
    • NyteStarNyne, on 09/02/2008, -5/+91Time to check out some porn on this thing.
      • BoneStamp, on 09/02/2008, -2/+91You came to digg before porn?
      • strictnein, on 09/02/2008, -1/+84"You came" may have been a bad choice of words.
      • idastheman, on 09/02/2008, -0/+24Make sure you use 'Incognito".
      • cjshamrock, on 09/02/2008, -6/+4Well his nick is one "R" short of Boner anyway...
      • freqk, on 09/02/2008, -0/+9I'm off to keep a surprise gift secret.
      • Pewpewpew, on 09/03/2008, -4/+1I come to Digg all the time.
    • madeingermany, on 09/02/2008, -6/+207Aaaargh, there is flash ads everywhere!!
      • Paranoidmarvin, on 09/02/2008, -1/+174But they render so fast!
      • gn0stik, on 09/02/2008, -3/+39why would google give you a tool with an option to destroy their revenue?
      • madeingermany, on 09/02/2008, -1/+26@gn0stik: If they don't give me that option, I will not use their tool.
      • yuutokun, on 09/02/2008, -2/+26*are
      • gn0stik, on 09/02/2008, -35/+1@madeingermany: Guess what, nobody cares. Just like we don't care what brand of soap you use, or what you eat for breakfast. You are just one of 6.5 billion people on this planet. You, like me, are completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The bugs in your yard will have a more positive and meaningful impact on this planet than you. There is rope in your garage, and a pole in your closet that will support your weight.


      • temporaryholder, on 09/02/2008, -1/+13@gn0stik: I'd really like to party with you
      • madeingermany, on 09/02/2008, -3/+14@gn0stik: If you think you are so insignificant, why don't you shut the ***** up?

        This is a discussion forum, where people voice their opinions.
        And if you take a look at some of the other comments you will find enough people supporting my view that ads suck.

        A Browser with no ad-blocking support will not catch on among tech-savvy internet users.

      • casenumber17421, on 09/03/2008, -1/+6the goggles, they do nothing!!
      • xaxxon, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4Go to the task manager (shift-esc) and kill the flash process :) It's SOO much fun!
      • kidcodea, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2you can block ads just by downloading admuncher and configure options

      • mattcarreiro, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2google chrome is dividing Diggers
      • madeingermany, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1@kidcodea: Great idea - Thanks.

        In Ad Muncher do configure > Options > Filter Targets
        Click on chrome in the program list and click the Filter button

        The other beef I had with Chrome, was missing Mouse Gestures. You can fix that with "StrokeIt", a universal Windows Mouse Gesture Freeware program..
        You have to manually add chrome as an app (e.g. via Window Class Chrome_XPFrame) and add actions, like Left with Command/Keystrokes Alt + Left.
    • ZeeZee2k, on 09/02/2008, -7/+23Browsing with Chrome right now, I gave my 1st time to Digg.
      I'll always remember this day.
    • AnOMNOMymous, on 09/02/2008, -16/+77No mac :(
      • UltimatrixmaN, on 09/02/2008, -16/+113*points and laughs*
      • feliks2, on 09/02/2008, -20/+54No mac :)
      • eddieroger, on 09/02/2008, -7/+23Yet. They've announced Linux and Mac are coming. It probably has something to do with the "each tab is a threaded process" thing.
      • black27696, on 09/02/2008, -9/+1regarding UltimatrixmaN:

      • deaftly, on 09/02/2008, -6/+25http://i35.tinypic.com/dzy248.gif
      • salmonmoose, on 09/02/2008, -11/+4You're aware that it's easier to run threaded processes in Linux, and I assume Mac seeing as it's just wannabe BSD.
      • vincentweber, on 09/02/2008, -1/+16I don't know why people are digging eddieroger down... I am a fulltime Linux user and it actually _is_ going to be insanely popular for linux because the Linux Adobe Flash client crashes on the regular, so a browser feature like this is going to have major impact in the Linux YouTube watchers community :P
      • trogdoor, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6*NIX is actually much more conducive to multiple processes, its one of the main reasons that Apache didn't ( still doesn't ? ) run nearly as well on windows as on *NIX. Apache creates new processes for *everything* :)
    • Digg4This, on 09/02/2008, -3/+36When you download Google Chrome or use it to contact Google’s servers, Google receives only standard log information including your machine’s IP address and one or more cookies.

      When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to Google so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for. If you choose to share usage statistics with Google and you accept a suggested query or URL, Google Chrome will send that information to Google as well.

      http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html

      Yes, indeed enjoy it.
      • kylemech, on 09/02/2008, -3/+73"Google Chrome Privacy Notice
        September 3, 2008"

        FROM THE FUTURE
      • charliecharlos, on 09/02/2008, -3/+17Thank you for making me laugh out loud during my investments class so that everyone can stare at me.

        Now my laptop needs to be closed... *****.
    • ryancalderoni, on 09/02/2008, -3/+67I forgot how hot the t-shirt girls were... Thanks Google Chrome!
      • cesclaveria, on 09/02/2008, -4/+4after a couple of years on digg, I still haven't seen the t-shirt girls... the few times that I have used digg without adblock I never get one of those ads.
    • omarciddo, on 09/02/2008, -18/+4Just came on Digg with the new browser and my god is it amazingly fast. Screw Firefox, I'm sticking with this.

      And no, I didn't "cum" on Digg and it has nothing to do with that kind of "sticky", I know you smartasses were ready to say something =D though the way I set that one up I'm sure you still will.
      • ventralnet, on 09/02/2008, -0/+13my first thoughts were that it is extremely fast... They need to implement a plugin framework to make it competitive to firefox.
      • Briandrews15, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7maybe choose a different word next time instead of typing a whole extra sentence to point out the pun you're telling other people not to point out..... clever girl.
      • omarciddo, on 09/02/2008, -4/+2@briandrews

        Too lazy, and even I laughed at myself when I realized what I'd put down.
      • cesclaveria, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2so you just came to digg after screwing firefox and now you are sticking to chrome...mmm, ok.
      • mrraven200, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3No adblock plus, no sale.
    • innovaciones, on 09/02/2008, -0/+30This is my first Error page using Google Chrome.

      WOO!

      http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/1993/errorgoogl ...
      • iChainsaw, on 09/02/2008, -1/+9Holy *****, i just realized i could read that. Thanks 4th period spanish class!
      • Bamboolemur, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Did you really need spanish classes to understand that? It kinda seems like the standard message you get.
      • djsim, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2I see what you did there.
      • nathanww, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3What's with that icon? It looks like something from Mac OS 7
      • airstrike, on 09/03/2008, -0/+10***** turn on cleartype already
      • JT114881, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Congrats you just sad mac'd chrome
      • zachimal, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2I tried to close the screenshotted browser tab...
      • Danhrules, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I thought it said something along the lines of "there's a monster in your webpage".

        But, I win:
        http://tinyurl.com/6n4roa
        Happened when I was on Gmail aswell!!
    • Weirdcore, on 09/02/2008, -0/+8Hey i'm expanding the box on digg for the first time =D
    • Crazymaniacc, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1It's allright, but it's perhaps a bit too empty. And boohoo about the textbox, seriously, who cares?
    • whytheam, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3Holy ***** I can feel teh google in this comment.
    • BorisT, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2Also posting from Google Chrome. Pretty sweet.
    • RossDuprey, on 09/02/2008, -11/+2firefox is 10x faster so far
      • Drax0n, on 09/03/2008, -1/+5No sir it is not. maybe slightly fast although personally I have found them pretty close. but 10x faster is pure grade A *****
      • solidus636, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2That's weird. Chrome seems to be slower than Firefox for me. I even have lots of extensions on Firefox.
    • WHOAA, on 09/02/2008, -1/+4Its really fast and all but I just gotta have my Opera. I need all the little bells and whistles....I guess I like the bloat!
    • cawpin, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4This is my first comment in Chrome, too. This browser is FAST. It loads Digg even faster than FF3 does.
    • Makave22, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1Cool Browser man! I'm diggin the color !
    • synthoid, on 09/03/2008, -8/+1Safari is better
    • NikoKun, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2It's an awesome browser! I'm enjoying it so far... But it's not without it's flaws... both functionally, interface wise, and bug wise...
    • Booglysnot, on 09/03/2008, -1/+0Awesome
    • GliliumHkY, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1First crash of my Google Chrome. But yes. It's faster than FF3.
    • addiktion, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Faster then FF, but it's lightweight and meant to be. I do enjoy the multithreading for real. It's most likely not going to replace my FF though due to the needs I have for my precious plugins! Adblock, Web Developer, Firebug, You name it.
    • livinlife00, on 09/04/2008, -1/+0Great Post...

      http://www.freethingsonline.info
  • Burento, on 09/02/2008, -62/+163I think honestly... I will hold off and see if there are any reports of major issues before I grab it.. Google knows search but not sure about their browser skills yet.
    • FTWmovin2canada, on 09/02/2008, -3/+42I found one. Check boxes aren't rendering. Reporting...
    • ScrewedThePooch, on 09/02/2008, -13/+84I don't understand why you're being dugg down. If this was IE8, you would have 900 diggs.
      • skipdog172, on 09/02/2008, -4/+50Well... "waiting" on a core windows component upgrade like Internet Explorer 7/8 makes sense as it may adversely affect something else in the OS. "Waiting" on a stand-alone browser application that you simply wish to try does not make sense.
      • ZeeZee2k, on 09/02/2008, -2/+18because IE is evil?
      • skyroket, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7I accidently installed IE8 beta when the uninstaller was still broken. :(
    • springboks, on 09/02/2008, -6/+8Don't be such a Sally! It's from the Goog, how buggy can it be! The same people that gave you Google earth, the Google toolbar and so much more.
      • genuchelu, on 09/02/2008, -1/+16actually, Google didn't make google Earth, in fact they didn't make most of their products... They just acquired other companies.

        remember keyhole?
      • KMartSheriff, on 09/03/2008, -0/+12Don't be such a Sally? Wtf...
    • lucutus, on 09/02/2008, -0/+13Touch pad navigation is broken. Scrolls down super fast and up well not so much. Reporting......
      • KMartSheriff, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2That's my biggest beef with Firefox on OS X. I use the multi-touch pad all the time, and it only works well with Safari. If Chrome could nail this problem, I'd be sold.
      • lucutus, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Touch pad navigation also doesn't scroll left or right. Seems to effect multiple manufacturers. Reporting, going to test multi axis mouse nav next....
      • Morfine, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2i have the same problem, i might just wait until its out of beta to use it
    • daharris, on 09/02/2008, -0/+9You think trying it out yourself is going to melt your pc if you incure a bug or something?
    • geoken, on 09/02/2008, -0/+10What's the worst that can happen?
      • Seaton, on 09/02/2008, -5/+6By downloading and installing Google Chrome, they now own the right to everything I submit or type using it.

        I guess, that's not too bad.
    • IglooBurner, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2style="{display: none;}" doesn't work. it works on ff3 and IE.
      fix, you need to take off the brackets. (not my coding style, but an older ex programmer here does that a lot on all his style attributes)

      also, on facebook.
      friends->profile->photos(tab), you can't page next.
      • tightscrummy, on 09/02/2008, -0/+12That sounds like a feature.
      • h0ly, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2Maybe it's a Webkit thing. Does it work in Safari?
      • Netrilix, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4I don't know if you can really blame that on Chrome. I've been having a lot of issues with Facebook Pictures lately. For example, viewing album A, then viewing a picture in Album B, then clicking next will magically take me back to album A for some reason.
    • jlian, on 09/02/2008, -7/+1This browser seems likes to bother the hard drive... It happened to me on two computers, it's actually quite annoying.
      • drouk1556, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2What does that even mean?
      • jlian, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2The hard drive seems to run a lot.

        Pardon my English by the way, I'm ESL.
      • drouk1556, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Sorry, bud. I just wasn't sure what you meant by "bother".
    • SuperWinner, on 09/02/2008, -0/+8I suspect they might not allow an 'adblocker' type addon to be made for this browser, considering where googles money comes from, thus this app will never be adopted by geeks. Great browser tho, fast as hell.
      • Timmmm, on 09/02/2008, -0/+8Isn't it supposed to be open source? How will they stop someone making an adblock plugin?
      • qetuo, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Well it would make sense if they didn't allow ad block, or if it was in a very limited way. After all Google is a advertising and information multi-national giant not a search company.
      • mrbutter, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Well actually yeah, the eula you agree to says it's powered by ads which I think would mean you can't disable them...
    • Hopstar, on 09/02/2008, -5/+0"I think honestly... I will hold off and see if there are any reports of major issues before I grab it.. "

      Yeah, because one of the largest companies on earth would just release an unfinished applic...oh wait...we were talking about IE weren't we?
      • FTWmovin2canada, on 09/02/2008, -4/+2Wow you totally missed that one.

        1. Chrome, not IE.
        2. It's a beta, obviously it's unfinished.
    • VyRuZ, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2It doesn't play nice in the case of an autohide status bar. If fullscreened, the bar won't appear again if you hover where it's supposed to be. Big bummer for me, as I am big on minimalism.
  • TKidd, on 09/02/2008, -23/+15Hmm, we'll have to see where this leads.
    • mozert, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Yeah, hmm, I don't see any linux link out there.
  • jrattner1, on 09/02/2008, -48/+17While (Firefox > *) {ContinueDominatingTheWorld(); }
    • plup, on 09/02/2008, -13/+39Heh heh, this is the first comment I write on Google Chrome:

      ***** you.
      • vincentweber, on 09/02/2008, -3/+5While Firefox is better than anything out there it will continue to dominate the world.
  • imasuperDOTcom, on 09/02/2008, -34/+114Google's motto may be "Do no evil" but they sure are an enabler of evil when they keep everything they can (record-wise) forever, with no public retention or destruction policies.

    As you're seeing with the Youtube debacle, even when Youtube wants to 'do no evil' governments and other corporations can force them to do evil. The responsible, less-evil thing to do would be to create retention policies that don't enable evil, and that people can see.
    • cledford, on 09/02/2008, -14/+3No more so than M$ was a few years back.
      • imasuperDOTcom, on 09/02/2008, -2/+15Oh, well that makes it better then, doesn't it. I mean as long as the all-evil Microsoft was doing it, then who cares if Google does it too.
    • fas2, on 09/02/2008, -12/+5What does that have to do with Chrome? It is not keeping anything more than you wish and certainly not sending data to Google (unless you enable it for testing purposes).

      Chrome is open source!
      • Wiini, on 09/02/2008, -2/+13You're mostly incorrect. If you read the privacy statement under help, you'll see that several things are sent to Google by default, including URLs' you type in.
      • Lazybones, on 09/02/2008, -1/+12http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030522-2.htm ...
        "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."
      • quaunaut, on 09/02/2008, -3/+1Wiini, how does that affect normal users? It is in a very obvious box that turns it off *BEFORE YOU EVEN DOWNLOAD IT*.
      • fzammetti, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5How is it that the things noted on Cnet in Ina's post are not more of a big deal to everyone?!? Be afraid, BE VERY AFRAID. Do No Evil my ARSE. I'll say it here and now: at some point down the road we're all going to look back and say "Why in the BLUE HELL were we so afraid of Microsoft and so NOT afraid of Google? We got that one ass-backwards". 1984 called, they want their one world order back, and they want it without the stupid name.
      • Seaton, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2By "DOWNLOAD IT", I assume you mean install the program.

        I also assume you mean the checkbox that doesn't allow anonymous usage statistics.

        Usage statistics involve the running of the software, in other words, HOW OFTEN YOU USE IT.

        Google Toolbars already collect your information, and we already know that Google doesn't put up a fight before giving it up to anyone.

        I don't mind Google as a search engine, but sending every URL I type to the mothership is a little excessive.

        Using Chrome, you also grant Google the right to use anything you submit. I'm not saying they would, but you just gave them the right to retain your usernames and passwords.
      • fas2, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Lazybones: Way to go cutting out an important part:
        "Although you retain any copyrights to content you own and use in the browser, Google says it has a right to display some of your content, ___in conjunction with promoting its services.___ "
      • isomika69, on 09/27/2008, -0/+0Great.

        http://www.sebuscahotelbarato.es/hoteles_sevilla.h ...
        hoteles
        http://www.juegosgratis007.com/
        j
    • turtlellama, on 09/02/2008, -6/+4actually they want to make the user's experience better. If you are so concerned about privacy use a proxy or better yet...don't use google
      • DarkShroud, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4There is a decent amount of people who don't use Google because of this, like myself.
      • qetuo, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3I am one of theme, i don't use Google and haven't for a long time, and i don't miss it!
    • BoneStamp, on 09/02/2008, -2/+11All your internets are belong to us.
    • calipan, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6Google's motto is "do no evil" but they never define who the doer is. If it was Google "we do no evil" then it's all well and fine. But what if the motto is more of a command Google commands that you "do no evil". weelllllll.....
      • sephiroth965, on 09/02/2008, -3/+3Actually their motto is Don't Be Evil not do no evil.
    • Jookly, on 09/02/2008, -1/+7lets be honest "do no evil" is a sure fire sign that the company is going to eat your kids.
      • cjshamrock, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2Yup its like saying you'll follow Bin Laden to the gates of Hell.
    • theradical, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3Yeah, no kidding. It's nice that they give you the option to turn off "automatically sending usage statistics." Makes you think they'll not watch you if you just ask nicely. Ha!
      • passive, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1It was off by default when I installed. I actually checked it. :)
    • geoken, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2So I guess you agree with the big telcos blocking torrents? Torrents themselves aren't evil, but like your example with data, they can be used for illegal things.
      • DarkShroud, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2In the US, telcos get in trouble for blocking .torrents. Just ask Comcast.
    • Darunium, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7I'm reminded of google accelerator, which stored copies of websites you visit on google servers indefinitely. I presume that this was a necessary part of their web acceleration package, but I agree 100% with the criticism that google is intentionally collecting as much private information about users as possible. This is their business model and why they have been so successful, they remember your searches to show ads to you that target you with increasing accuracy, they scan your emails and chat logs to target advertising in gmail. It's perfectly legal because the user agrees to it, but I, personally at least, don't like the idea of handing over my privacy in exchange for these services. As long as they merely use it to target advertising nothing about it bothers me, but the mere existence of a comprehensive database of my personal internet usage trends scares me. I'd rather pay for the services monetarily, although of course I wouldn't use them at all then which precludes that from being a viable approach.
      • qetuo, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3This and many other reasons is why, i have never really wanted to use any Google service, i use to use google search, but a couple of years ago switched, and haven't missed not using it. The only google product i use is Youtube.


    • apotropaic, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4@imasuperDOTcom - LOL do you have that saved so you can copy and paste it on every google story?
    • Ymeg, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2How is this evil? You agree to it.

      • DarkShroud, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1They do a lot without your consent if you take on the painful task of reading all their TOS pages that link back and forth to give you a run around.
    • svivian, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4Dude, get over yourself. You're handing over private information that STAYS PRIVATE. Some computer sees it and sends you some related ads or helps you find things better, big deal!
      • DarkShroud, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1If you take the time to read the TOS they share your info with some of their partners.
  • ilid, on 09/02/2008, -10/+146you have GOT to love the incognito browsing...
    • commenter01, on 09/02/2008, -9/+70i've loved it ever since i got firefox 5 years ago
    • popflop, on 09/02/2008, -3/+49aka Porn mode?
      • noseeme, on 09/02/2008, -5/+1I think they were thinking more along the lines of CP.
      • elendryst, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6I reprogrammed Safari in Tiger to say "Porn Mode" rather than "Private Browsing".
      • Darkblaze37, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0Awesome elendryst
    • edstittle, on 09/02/2008, -2/+7what exactly does this do?
      • T440, on 09/02/2008, -2/+73It allows you to buy special gifts for your family without them finding out..
      • edstittle, on 09/02/2008, -0/+20lol, gotcha
      • homanh, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4lol @ T440 if more people got you, you'd have much more diggs right now

    • zaren, on 09/02/2008, -27/+19Yes, I've loved it for the last three years or so...

      in Safari.

      Mac fanboy ahoy!
      • vincentweber, on 09/02/2008, -3/+3You mean the browser with the interface of Mozilla and the rendering engine of Konqueror...

        ... way before it was released?

        Linux fanboy ahoy!
    • Cige, on 09/02/2008, -1/+13stealther, a firefox add on, does the same thing
      • mdowney00, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4stealthier seems a bit different than Safari's private browsing. For example when using Stealthier and hit back, it reloads the page from scratch, where Safari loads quickly. I believe that Safari does some caching in a temporary space that speeds up browsing, while preserving privacy after you close the window.
    • algaeturd, on 09/02/2008, -4/+1Good luck trying to get it to run certain websites when it's activated. Most websites won't allow you to login or fill out forms while it's turned on. So it's basically useless in Safari.
      • phatphil, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1No.

        To login to any site (afaik) requires the storage of cookies and these stealth modes block cookies, history, and cache. It's not useless at all... that's the point of using it.

        In Safari, however, (and possibly in other browsers' stealth modes) you can access logged in content if you login to the site, then go into the private mode.
    • RobotLeAwesome, on 09/02/2008, -0/+8it's got a little guy in a trenchcoat! win.
    • DarkShroud, on 09/02/2008, -6/+4Too bad Safari, IE8 beta, & Firefox all already have this feature.
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 09/02/2008, -2/+3but not with a little trenchcoat guy

        and also, you're missing the point of this browser, *****.

    • Drax0n, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4But make sure you still watch out for "Secret Agents" and "People Behind You"
    • teddycruger, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1But I'm still not safe from
      -Malicious software that tracks your keystrokes in exchange for free smiley's
      Damn it i need them smiley's
    • wainman, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Incognito mode makes me feel creepier than usual. Its all dark and the dude in the top right is wearing a trenchcoat and staring at me. Not cool google.
  • lkmbrd, on 09/02/2008, -8/+223Pretty slick.
    • megamod, on 09/02/2008, -8/+18Slick is the fact that this guy added a question mark to the end of the same URL other people had before so he could post it on digg. What a freaking dupe:

      http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_s_Chrome_Beta_Rel ...
      http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Chrome_now_availa ...

      Both articles released over an hour ago
    • jlian, on 09/02/2008, -2/+36It's LIGHTNING FAST...

      Now I just need AdBlock Plus and it would be perfect...
      • maxsunset, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1...and the equivalent of Foxmarks...
    • ruddy, on 09/02/2008, -2/+19yeah, I was thinking to myself, what would make my life complete. Then it hit me - ANOTHER browser. Thank you google! Now, I can rotate browsers like shoes! Help me out with my schedule

      Monday - Firefox
      Tuesday - Opera
      Wednesday - Internet Explorer (undecided version)
      Thursday - Safari
      Friday - Flock
      Saturday - Lynx
      Sunday - I CAN HAVE A BROWSER PARTY

      I wish I had more! Come one guys, wal-mart, AOL, newegg, give me more browsers.
      Web developers everywhere will than you. I'm going to be a full time cross browser checker when i grow up
    • rootnik, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6The tab layout takes some getting used to... but I love how it uses every bit of screen space available to the browser. No longer will that title bar just sit up there and take up space.

      Good work Google... I was skeptical, but so far you have proven me very wrong.

      edit: Built in spell check works!
    • TonyTheTerrible, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Needs NoScript
  • imasuperDOTcom, on 09/02/2008, -12/+749Now THAT is a FAST browser. Did you see how freakin' fast Digg loaded? ZOOM!
    • Burento, on 09/02/2008, -3/+38Amazingly.. I have to play with this a little more..
    • meez, on 09/02/2008, -6/+46Have to agree, it's fast and lightweight. The one thing that stops me from switching to this from firefox is the handling of the theme. People complain about the aesthetics but it is more than that. Google, a company which generally aims to meet standards, uses a ui that completely ignores the users shell/theme for managing skinning of windows.

      My blackbox windowbar and chrome windowbar flicker on and off and it's quite irritating watching them compete to control the window.

      I have faith that google will change this horrid rigid ui though and just let the shell deal with the window theme.
      • Jyaif, on 09/02/2008, -2/+22"Google, a company which generally aims to meet standards, uses a ui that completely ignores the users shell/theme for managing skinning of windows"

        Have you seen Gtalk, Google earth, or even Google Desktop?
      • kidcodea, on 09/02/2008, -12/+5looks way better than firefox with those tacky post-modern icons.
      • uggidi, on 09/02/2008, -0/+17very impressive, but I will hold off (at least at work, which might be forever) until there is an AdBlockPlus extension ;)
      • TomKarpik, on 09/02/2008, -1/+4So blame Blackbox for using such a shoddy method of grabbing control of skinning.
      • SundayBrunch, on 09/02/2008, -5/+5dude, shut the ***** up.
      • skyroket, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5@SundayBrunch
        In a thread like this, where we've reached the maximum amount of replies so people just start talking to each other next to each other, you need to specify who you're telling to shut the ***** up. Are you a Blackbox fanboy (whatever that is)?
      • fuzion8, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2Try this:
        http://digg.com/design/Chrome_Dark_A_custom_Google ...
    • ZeeZee2k, on 09/02/2008, -3/+40ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM!!!
      • AnOMNOMymous, on 09/02/2008, -1/+55*****' Mazda. GET OUT OF MY HEAD.
      • str1fe, on 09/02/2008, -0/+49*whispers*

        zoom zoom!
      • shannimal, on 09/02/2008, -1/+19Make my heart go boom boom.

        Someone smack me in the face for that being the first reaction to that.
      • Quiks, on 09/02/2008, -1/+16My supernova girl
      • disp, on 09/02/2008, -1/+10Disney channel FTW
    • sp4rky, on 09/02/2008, -1/+20Using Chrome aswell and I've never loaded Digg.com as fast as I did just now. Crazy quick.
    • MattBD, on 09/02/2008, -0/+11When I can get this in Ubuntu and it acquires something similar to AdBlock, it will be absolutely perfect! For when I have to use Windows, it's my new favourite browser.
      • skyroket, on 09/02/2008, -12/+3*favorite
      • MattBD, on 09/02/2008, -2/+10I'm English. We spell it favourite.
      • skyroket, on 09/02/2008, -5/+2wooosh...
      • skyroket, on 09/03/2008, -4/+3That's ***** hilarious. I know how to spell it in American English, and I realize that it was derived from British English "favourite" along with all the other "colour" and "ou" words, but I can't play sarcasm and "stupid American" and pretend like I'm a pompous ***** and you totally spell it wrong, since we all argue about it anyways just to jab and jive each other?

        Is this the whole "sarcasm doesn't come across in text well, so you have to put the /sarcasm tag at the end like a gay ***** (not that there's anything wrong with being a gay *****)"

        Jesus ***** Christ, guys. Do we always have to be so politically correct?
      • Syphon8, on 09/03/2008, -3/+2What the ***** are you talking about?

        Stupid American.
      • feignNU, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6That's ***** hilarious. You came back to an attempt at a joke that wasn't all that funny, and followed it up with a rant...to no one...It's just the internet dude...you don't have to validate yourself to anyone here.
    • T440, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5Go try Google Reader if you use it....pretty dang fast
    • misilman, on 09/02/2008, -3/+4ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!
      • mattm457, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2it zooms nicely speed-wise, but all these ZOOM ZOOM comments made me realize Chrome lacks a real full page zoom like firefox's :(
    • skyshock1, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6Anyone using Chrome care to post the Sun Spider JS benchmarks?

      http://17.254.17.57/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.h ...

      (I'm not on a windows machine)
      • GeeZuZz, on 09/02/2008, -2/+8It beats the crap out of Firefox and Opera... More than twice as fast.

        But who cares about page drawing/JS speeds, when the difference is less than a second? It's navigation and other features that makes a browser fast and efficient to use, and nothing beats Opera in that field...
      • Hopstar, on 09/02/2008, -0/+11Chrome:
        RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
        --------------------------------------------
        Total: 3605.2ms +/- 10.9%

        results URL: http://preview.tinyurl.com/6xcsb5


        And for comparison:

        Firefox 3:
        RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
        --------------------------------------------
        Total: 37098.8ms +/- 4.5%

        Results URL: http://preview.tinyurl.com/56wkbk

        Wow. Over 10x faster...
      • Thoraxes, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5Overall totals.

        Firefox 3.0.1 [Total: 4781.6ms +/- 1.5%]
        Google Chrome 02.149.27 [Total: 2107.6ms +/- 0.9%]
      • vesopeso, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4FIREFOX 3.0.1:
        ============================================
        RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
        --------------------------------------------
        Total: 4289.0ms +/- 0.5%
        --------------------------------------------

        Google Chrome:
        ============================================
        RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
        --------------------------------------------
        Total: 2641.8ms +/- 7.1%
        --------------------------------------------
      • CybrStuff, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4Overall for me:

        Chrome 0.2.149.27: 1458.2ms +/- 1.5%
        Opera 9.52: 3612.6ms +/- 1.5%
        Firefox 3.0.1: 2636.8ms +/- 4.4%
        IE 7.0: 15945.0ms +/- 2.2%

        Pretty definitive
      • jakk, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3Chrome, under Parallels:
        Total: 2036.2ms +/- 5.5%
        Firefox 3, native:
        Total: 3315.0ms +/- 1.2%


        Well, *****. Pretty attractive, if you ask me.
      • skyroket, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Firefox:
        ============================================
        RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
        --------------------------------------------
        Total: 6279.8ms +/- 8.7%


        Chrome:
        ============================================
        RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
        --------------------------------------------
        Total: 4861.2ms +/- 20.1%
      • wonginator1221, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1............Chrome ----------------- Firefox
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TOTAL: 1365.6ms +/- 0.7% 2476.6ms +/- 3.0%

        Firefox is 1.81x slower
      • TheCoreh, on 09/02/2008, -2/+1They're probably using Squirrelfish. Webkit's nightly builds have it already.
      • GeckoSlayer, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2They're using a virtual machine for each java process, TheCoreh, that's why it's so quick.
      • skyshock1, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3@TheCoreh

        Nope. They have their own JS rendering engine their using called V8. Apparently it smokes squirrelfish and even trumps Mozilla's recently hyped TraceMonkey.
    • PolarZoe, on 09/02/2008, -13/+9Firefox 3 loaded digg just as fast as Chrome did. Don't really see any speed improvements over firefox here.

      The crashing thing is nice, but we'll see how that really works out. I think mozilla should incorporate this in a similar way, except the multiple process thing, looks very ugly in the task manager with many tabs open.
      • TomKarpik, on 09/02/2008, -0/+13One process per tab is great -- for security and stability.

        Actually, on second thought ... let's go back to the Firefox model, because the new model looks ugly in Task Manager. Task Manager aesthetics trump practicality.
      • constantskeptic, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5way faster rendering web pages.... now where are my addons?
      • lpcustom, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3http://dromaeo.com/
        Test both of them there. Chrome got a 360ms(total) for me while Firefox was over 1360ms(total)
      • LowItalian, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Beat FF3 by about 1,000ms on my PC too.

        I really like it, but without plugins like hyperwords, and adblock plus I'm not ready to make the switch. And though I think it integrates with Aero much better than FF3, I am not a fan of the baby blue behind my bookmarks.

        Does look really promising though!
    • roxgod666, on 09/02/2008, -4/+10whats amazing is that this is just the beta stage and can already be compared to Firefox 3.0. Oh Google, my shrine is almost complete for you
      • Neiby, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5For speed, yes. For functionality, no. Chrome doesn't remotely compare to any full-blown browser yet. It's missing a lot of very basic functionality. But I like what I see so far and can't wait to see what it looks like when it hits a 1.0 release.
    • Macuyiko, on 09/02/2008, -1/+11It's amazingly fast, look, typing in a comment box with no lag!
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 09/02/2008, -1/+7Uh....

      13 seconds to load my profile in firefox 3

      6 seconds in G-Chrome

    • cowsgonemadd3, on 09/02/2008, -2/+5EDIT:
      Upon further review its actually slower in some cases and most of the time it ties firefox.

      This test was done on ebay and clicking on links neither browser had opened before.
      • algaeturd, on 09/02/2008, -1/+11Sounds very scientific and thorough. You'll have to excuse me if I disagree.
      • Lunarbunny, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I read some info about it, first run it compiles the code into their JavaScript VM's ("V8") bytecode, then runs the compiled version rather than interpreting it every time. So first runs will probably be slower every time, but repeated runs and you'll be smoking.
      • samgab, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1That's probably more to do with bandwidth than rendering speed.
    • Zantive, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1I had a slow(er than usual) installation though. Anyway the browser seems really nice, it'll definitely replace IE8 as my "backup/secondary" browser!
      • Mpwns, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1why do you need a "backup/secondary" browser?
      • cheseball, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5for backup
      • zazzalicious, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3for when the primary browser isn't sufficient.
      • Zantive, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1@Mpwns
        Quick way to open multiple sessions on a site.
    • scy1192, on 09/02/2008, -6/+3I did some tests and it's still slower than Opera on everything except launch speed.
    • PraveenReddy, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7this is ***** fast.
    • MrBeamish, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2Yeh that was one of the first things that really stood out to me - it's waaaay faster at loading and rendering pages than Firefox. Also try opening a folder with 20 or 30 or so tabs - it's light years ahead of FF for speed.

      Also just noticed that my core temperature is much lower now that I've closed FF - nice one Google!

      Does anyone else thing that the lack of a permanent status bar at the bottom makes it seem a bit strange though?
    • fattymcgee311, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3It's too fast! It loads the page before I even type it! It can read my mind! Google, what have you done!
    • buckygrad, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2I know it is superfluous, but I find it funny that Google toolbar is not compatible with Chrome.
    • TehBoofed, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Wow, did anyone see how fast 4chan loaded?
    • DentThat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3It didn't get 100% on acid3
      http://acid3.acidtests.org/

      who has EVER gotten 100% on anything?
    • EmailAddress, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Chrome 'runs' fast because it's meant to display targeted ads to you. It's a streamlined browser, very simple with the goal of showing ads. Google wants money people.
    • Raphae1, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1I just tried out epiphany-webkit in Linux and it seems pretty fast too (might be because it uses the same HTML-rendering engine). You can get the ubuntu packages right there:
      http://www.soccio.it/michelinux/2008/06/29/install ...
  • gdehms, on 09/02/2008, -20/+17Hmm.. I'm using it right now. Seems to be using quite a bit of my CPU for no apparent reason. And quite a bit of memory too.. A total of 110mb with just this tab open while firefox has the same thing open only using 70mb of memory.
    • gdehms, on 09/02/2008, -1/+24However, I love that you can just rip tabs off of the tab bar. And then put them back on.
      The UI doesn't seem as bad as everyone was saying.. sure the blue is a little strong, but its quite minimalistic and easy to use.
      • MattBD, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1I imagine they'll tweak the UI for the system, just like Mozilla did for each OS. I'd expect the Mac version will probably integrate well with OS X for instance (after all, lots of Mac users seem to complain if it doesn't fit with the interface guidelines).
    • albrad84, on 09/02/2008, -1/+12I really like it a lot. The UI is simple but intuitive and uses some of the bes