Comments on: Google Chrome initial impressions

By: Felix

Felix — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:12:35 +0000

IACRA doesn’t work in Chrome because it’s not designed to work in any other browser but IE 5.x (according to their site). The issue isn’t with Chrome but rather the awful web developers that the FAA hires. They never heard of porting.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:16:37 +0000

Stef and David, Chrome has its own Javascript engine, right? In this day and age that’s a far bigger difference than the HTML renderer and would easily explain compatibility issues.

By: Jameson

Jameson — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:13:17 +0000

With no adblock or flashblock this browser simply is not an option for me. I understand why chrome may never support extentions because things like adblock are counterproductive to google’s business model but without it, this browser will never even get a test drive out of me.

By: Dimitrios

Dimitrios — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:02:32 +0000

It’s also still a BETA. Of course it’ll fail at some sites; did you submit a report back to Google on that IACRA form?

By: Vidar Svendsen

Vidar Svendsen — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:15:21 +0000

Good luck logging into a MS Exchange server with Chrome! Otherwise it works really well!

By: dominik

dominik — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:16:21 +0000

An update from Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome:
“In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don’t apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.”

By: dominik

dominik — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:30:53 +0000

Apparently by making this post with Chrome, you’ve also given 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 [Chrome].” Thankfully, “[t]hi license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services,” but still…

–

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. 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.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

–

See Section 11 of http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html

By: David Wihl

David Wihl — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:00:33 +0000

Stef, There are some known incompatibilities between Safari and Webkit. Perhaps Philip happened to hit some of these minor issues, or his friends don't have the later Safari builds. It was interesting to me that the Chrome team's choice of Webkit was inspired by the Android group.

By: patrick giagnocavo

patrick giagnocavo — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:50:45 +0000

There are certain JavaScript heavy pages, that are lightning fast under Chrome. Aside from slight rendering quirks, I would say it is a little bit ahead of Firefox 3 in all areas and for JS-heavy things, quite a bit ahead.

By: Stef

Stef — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:17:27 +0000

“Chrome also works with all of the sites that have failed to load on friends’ Macintosh Safari browsers.”

That’s strange, given that Chrome is built using Webkit, the rendering engine behind Safari. The only thing I can think of that’d cause that is if those sites are doing User Agent detection and actively serving (broken) code specific to Safari.