Forum
Comments:
-
- on Tue 02 Sep 2008
- 10:38:37 PM UTC
Re: Google Chrome
We haven't had a chance to devise any plans for it. I mean, the browser was released only a few hours ago... Looks like an interesting product, but despite being open source, this version doesn't support add-ons. I'm afraid we might have to wait for a release that does.
-
- on Wed 03 Sep 2008
- 05:25:23 PM UTC
Re: Google Chrome
No add-ons; no interest. FireFox will remain king because of this imo.
-
- on Wed 03 Sep 2008
- 06:09:21 PM UTC
I doubt that Chrome will
I doubt that Chrome will gain significant traction, and will be more of a proof of concept than the next threat to IE in the browser wars.
-
- on Tue 10 Feb 2009
- 11:41:44 AM UTC
firefox ftw!
I've tried the BETA version, and found few bugs - the most concerning one was that it had problems with JavaScript and Windows Live Hotmail. GC only seems to be able to read about 3/4 of JavaScripts, so not necessarily designed to optimum level yet. Also, about Hotmail - you can read messages, but you are completely unable to REPLY. This is a major problem in my opinion (for all the Hotmail users).
And yes, Firefox has ADDONS WOOT!!! -
- on Sat 26 Sep 2009
- 06:21:40 PM UTC
Hotmail works in Chrome 3.0.195.21
FireFox is my default browser but sometimes the NoScript causes it to act buggy. That is when I use Google Chrome.
When I read the comment above, I decided to test whether I could reply to a Hotmail email using the Chrome browser. My attempt was successful. Google has been busy improving this browser.
I love the speed and simplicity of Google Chrome, however I have become spoiled and dependent on certain addons which this browser does not have; particularly WOT. (The fact that Chrome is not weighed down with all the usual addons is perhaps the reason for its speed.)
I constantly recommend Chrome to those who are fed up with Internet Explorer and do not understand FireFox. I also highly recommend WOT to users of IE and FF. I hope Google somehow partner with WOT so that Chrome users can browse with the same confidence as users of the other browsers.
-
- on Thu 04 Sep 2008
- 01:33:59 AM UTC
Chrome should improve with Google
I think that Google Chrome is just a quick browser and nothing happens in the Google websites. So first thing, there should be a Google Toolbar, a feature related to CustomizeGoogle, Google Icon, Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper, Better Gmail 2, Google Earth Plugin, Tab Scope, Google Reader Watcher, Define and Stop-or-Reload Button, making Google Chrome a much better browser. I believe there should be a Search Provider beside the URL Bar.
-
- on Thu 04 Sep 2008
- 03:02:43 AM UTC
Read the comic
Google's idea was to start from scratch. From the beginning, before toolbars and ims, and such. Read this:http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/
Of course a toolbar isn't there. There already is a reload button as wel. -
- on Thu 04 Sep 2008
- 05:39:25 PM UTC
Kind of off topic but one
Kind of off topic but one thing that I am finding strange is the user agent string:
"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13"
-
- on Thu 04 Sep 2008
- 06:24:15 PM UTC
the EULA for Chrome
the EULA document has created quite a stir and the following article is kinda interesting to see how things CAN be changed by customers :-)
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/09/04/...
Eddiewa
-
- on Thu 04 Sep 2008
- 09:28:55 PM UTC
What does this quote mean?
From a Google spokesperson: "We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. "
Since the 'broad-brush definition of 'language' includes all writeable symbols, including punctuation, numbers, mathematical symbols etc. I take this to mean, as translated into normal English:
"We are working quickly to delete Section 11."
The reductio ad absurdum is:
Heck! Can someone tell us how to delete Section 11?
:-)
-
- on Sat 06 Sep 2008
- 12:26:01 AM UTC
seems pretty pointless imo,
seems pretty pointless imo, the main selling point of the browser is speed, but most websites load really quick anyway so its pretty irrelevant, almost as irrelevant as IE as thats one crappy browser.
-
- on Mon 08 Sep 2008
- 10:31:49 AM UTC
On my ancient PIII I value
On my ancient PIII I value speed.
IE8 beta2 works excellent.
I hate Firefox as it is a browser for kiddies that like cartoony icons, little red foxes that like to eat chickens and pimply faced geeks that think they know everything.
-
- on Mon 08 Sep 2008
- 11:17:22 AM UTC
@YoKenny
I think many people here would beg to differ. Firefox is about security and stability: Something that you will never get with a browser which is as deeply linked with your operating system as IE.
I would also not categorise myself as any of your descriptions of Firefox users.
-
- on Fri 06 Feb 2009
- 04:10:15 PM UTC
mozilla fire fox is best
i think u are confused with fire fox???
u know fire fox is really very easy to use (friendly user).
i think u don't know how do operate to mozilla fire fox..
always keep update to your browser..
now mozilla version is: 3.0.6 is available by update..
once try again i hope u will like it.. :-) -
- on Sat 07 Feb 2009
- 08:38:32 AM UTC
Grumpy old man award . . .
Hey YoKenny,
Are you challenging cod head and I for the Grumpy Old Man award ("pimply faced geeks")? You did get honorable mention.
-
- on Sat 28 Nov 2009
- 10:22:53 PM UTC
Left
YoKenny has long since left, or he would resurrect the browser wars. He was a firm IE proponent, and would never miss an opportunity to slam FF users.
I myself am an FF user, but the browser wars are perpetual and will never be settled. Each side always digs their heels in and cites studies favorable to their opinion.
You could always "pull" YoKenny's chain by mentioning a favorable FF study. And, he was the same way when it came to Avira versus Avast. He hated Avira, and was an Avast proponent as much as he was an IE proponent.
He was an "honorary" GOM, and in spite of his "chains", he did indeed make some valuable contributions to the community. Wish he would come back, but he left in a huff over a dispute . . . you guessed it . . . over Avira/IE. IMO he took that stuff wayyyy too seriously.
-
- on Sun 29 Nov 2009
- 01:27:52 AM UTC
YoKenny
left because of me...
I was/am too active on these forums; I use Avira AntiVir, and I use FF.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Tue 09 Sep 2008
- 03:32:28 AM UTC
Firefox is much more stable than IE
To call firefox a browser for kiddies proves your poor knowledge about computers and security. People use firefox because it is secure, and in addition to other browsers such as safari or chrome, it also allows add-ons for further security, such as wot. Yes IE has this as well, but as for the main browser, the security flaws are laughable, even in 8. I used it for a day. When I scanned bullguard, I got four IE Cookies. Usually I get no viruses. You never see firefox cookies. It's because it's so much more secure. It blocks unsecure page content, scans downloads, and has blocks on many more unsecure sites than IE. Firefox is fully customizable, there's lots of options and flexibility, and unlike IE 7, it has a file menu.... It's much easier to organize bookmarks, add bookmarks, and get add-ons.
_________________________
Wot rocks!!!!!
PS: comment on my profile message board -
- on Sat 13 Sep 2008
- 07:03:24 PM UTC
Now CHROME allows extensions!!!
Yes! the team can look a possibility of make an extension of WOT in Chrome..
See this link:
http://www.neoteo.com/greasemetal-greasemonkey-par...
Sl2 -
- on Sat 13 Sep 2008
- 07:23:26 PM UTC
Re: Chrome extensions
Nope, that's just a hack that allows some Greasemonkey scripts to be run on Chrome. The browser still doesn't support extensions, but I hear they're working on it.
-
- on Sat 13 Sep 2008
- 08:30:59 PM UTC
Is tempting to debate the
Is tempting to debate the virtues of FF and the virtues of IE, but that would really be hijacking this thread and WAY off topic from WOT issues, so . . . better leave this alone. Both however host a WOT function.
-
- on Tue 02 Dec 2008
- 10:28:35 AM UTC
Re: Google Chrome
Last week Google revealed a design document for Chrome extensions. It's still only a high level plan, but looks promising to me.
-
- on Thu 04 Dec 2008
- 03:07:45 AM UTC
?
Does anybody here know the details of Chrome's security I use it sometimes but usually when when I gotta jump on quickly to do email or something that requires something quick. Under IE8B2 I used to get all sorts of cookie warnings from my AV due to ads. :| I eventually decided to kill all third party cookies. I didn't do this in Firefox though as it would kill off Google Toolbar (Under IE I didn't lose the Google Toolbar I have there) :| I know I can block/allow specific sites. Does anybody here know how I can kill third party cookies without killing the toolbar? Anyways, back to Chrome. I just don't feel safe on it without WOT or NoScript and too annoyed without AdBlock etc. I have no cookie warnings while on Chrome but I am concerned about XSS, and drive-by downloads etc. Does anybody have any details on Chrome's security? Thanks.
-
- on Thu 04 Dec 2008
- 03:35:18 PM UTC
?
Hi,
I am using Firefox too and am experiencing no problems with the google toolbar, even though I block third party cookies. Be sure to have the latest version of firefox and the toolbar.
For chrome's security I only know rumors that the browser sends statistics to Google, not more...
-
- on Sun 07 Dec 2008
- 05:04:27 AM UTC
Re:
By "Disables Google Toolbar", I mean it stops the alert feature of the Gmail icon for it. It'll start always saying, when you click on it, "Refresh(Not signed in or authorized)". I'm thinking about modifying Firefox's white list for cookies and adding something like " *.google.com " - "Allow" though that might be a bad idea...
-
- on Thu 04 Dec 2008
- 04:01:57 PM UTC
I tried the bookmark given
I tried the bookmark given in
http://www.mywot.com/en/blog/wot-bookmarklet-for-s...
on Chrome. My comment there is that it works sometimes.Lester
-
- on Thu 04 Dec 2008
- 04:13:51 PM UTC
Re: I tried the bookmark given
It also works on Chrome. You're seeing a poor rating in Firefox next to the ad, because the link probably goes to a third-party tracking service, which then redirects you to the actual target website. The add-on shows you the rating for the tracking service, because that's where the link on the search results goes, while the bookmarklet always shows you the rating for the site you're visiting.
Google Chrome
Any plans on supporting Google Chrome?
http://code.google.com/chromium/
Not that I'm using/testing this browser as it's not for Linux yet.
[quote=Google]
Google Chrome for Linux is in development and a team of engineers is working hard to bring it to you as soon as possible.
[/quote]
JTB
Peace.