# Google Chrome



## Ainoko (Sep 10, 2008)

OK, here is my question, I just down loaded Google Chrome to my PC and notebook and have yet to open and run the browser for a couiple of valid reasons (I hope). I am running IE6 (desktop) and I beleive IE7 on my notebook right now and would like to know if I can run multiple browsers on them.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 10, 2008)

Yes. You can run as many browsers as you'd like.


----------



## Neybulot (Sep 10, 2008)

net-cat said:


> Yes. You can run as many browsers as you'd like.



What he said. You could run Firefox, IE7, Opera, and Chrome all at the same time if you wanted.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 10, 2008)

Echoed. No browser will replace Internet Explorer except a new version of Internet Explorer. Same goes for any other software on your PC.

Now, coming at this from a different angle, it will give you the option to make it your _default_ browser (as in, the browser that opens when you click a link in AIM/MSN, a Word document, etc.), but you can say no just to test it out or use it when you like.

I have to tell you, Chrome is far more zippy than IE ever has been or ever will be.


----------



## verix (Sep 11, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Echoed. No browser will replace Internet Explorer except a new version of Internet Explorer. Same goes for any other software on your PC.
> 
> Now, coming at this from a different angle, it will give you the option to make it your _default_ browser (as in, the browser that opens when you click a link in AIM/MSN, a Word document, etc.), but you can say no just to test it out or use it when you like.
> 
> I have to tell you, Chrome is far more zippy than IE ever has been or ever will be.


Much of higher-level functionality is provided by separate projects which interface with the kernel. In the he criticized the operating system as being monolithic in design and being tied closely to the x86 architecture and thus not portable, as he described a fundamental error. In 1996, and some affected organizations sued him to have the trademark assigned to Torvalds, and in 1997 the case was settled. Estimates for desktop market share of Linux range from less than one percent to almost two percent.


----------



## Crome (Sep 11, 2008)

Wait, What?!


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 11, 2008)

Runefox said:


> I have to tell you, Chrome is far more zippy than IE ever has been or ever will be.


I dunno... I remember IE3 being quite fast, and even though IE4 was slower, it was still faster than Netscape 4.  (This was on a now-dead Toshiba T4600C with a 486-SX/33, 12 MB RAM, and Windows 95.)


verix said:


> Much of higher-level functionality is provided by separate projects which interface with the kernel. In the he criticized the operating system as being monolithic in design and being tied closely to the x86 architecture and thus not portable, as he described a fundamental error. In 1996, and some affected organizations sued him to have the trademark assigned to Torvalds, and in 1997 the case was settled. Estimates for desktop market share of Linux range from less than one percent to almost two percent.


What happened to you?  Did you contract Markovitis or something?  Here, take two chains and call me in the morning.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 21, 2008)

I haven't tried google chrome, but from what I've heard I wouldn't touch it. Did you read the license agreement before you installed it? It says something along the lines of google owns the rights to everything you view using the browser whether you owned it yourself to begin with or not. It seems they are also spying on everything you do   :shock:... and it isn't just the browser... they also store everything you've ever entered into the google search engine along with your IP address. I only heard of this a few weeks ago and now I'm boycotting google.

http://gizmodo.com/5044871/google-c...create-using-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emailshttp://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10510989 

http://gizmodo.com/5044871/google-c...create-using-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emails


----------



## Runefox (Sep 21, 2008)

SnowFox said:


> I haven't tried google chrome, but from what I've heard I wouldn't touch it. Did you read the license agreement before you installed it? It says something along the lines of google owns the rights to everything you view using the browser whether you owned it yourself to begin with or not. It seems they are also spying on everything you do   :shock:... and it isn't just the browser... they also store everything you've ever entered into the google search engine along with your IP address. I only heard of this a few weeks ago and now I'm boycotting google.
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5044871/google-c...create-using-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emailshttp://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10510989
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5044871/google-c...create-using-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emails



No, no, no, a thousand times, no. Keep up with the news, that's not right. Google has retroactively removed the error, which was caused by a lazy copy-paste from the Google Docs EULA.

Don't believe me? Go read the EULA. Scroll down to the offending section (Section 11). It now reads,



			
				Google said:
			
		

> 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.



Now go download it.



> they also store everything you've ever entered into the google search engine along with your IP address. I only heard of this a few weeks ago and now I'm boycotting google.


Not only does your IP address change regularly, but they do that, anyway. So does MSN. And Yahoo. And _every other website in the history of mankind_. If you go to my website, I can find out what your IP is, and track each page you loaded from my site. The same is true for Google. And FA. And everything.

Alarmists are amusing.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 21, 2008)

SnowFox said:


> I haven't tried google chrome, but from what I've heard I wouldn't touch it. Did you read the license agreement before you installed it? It says something along the lines of google owns the rights to everything you view using the browser whether you owned it yourself to begin with or not. It seems they are also spying on everything you do   :shock:... and it isn't just the browser... they also store everything you've ever entered into the google search engine along with your IP address. I only heard of this a few weeks ago and now I'm boycotting google.
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5044871/google-c...create-using-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emailshttp://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10510989
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5044871/google-c...create-using-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emails


82.37.4.X, right?


----------



## Runefox (Sep 21, 2008)

> 82.37.4.X, right?


Hee.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 21, 2008)

It just seemed so appropriate.

Wouldn't you agree, Mr. 72.139.38.X?


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 21, 2008)

ok, ok, I stand corrected!
I heard it on a tech program and only read about it at the time, I didn't know it'd been changed, but I'm still not downloading it anyway.
And yes, I know every website you visit will have your IP and every page you load can be tracked, but apparently google keep all this info stored either indefinitely or a very long time while other search engines don't. I just find it a little creepy, like the way a lot of websites have script from google-analytics and google-syndication hidden in the background, do they really need to monitor everything?

and did you really have to post my ip?  meanie


----------



## Runefox (Sep 21, 2008)

Heh, X. Why, given that, anyone has a 1 in 254 chance of hitting me with a ping!

Also, happy 2048!









> and did you really have to post my ip?  meanie


That's not your IP. That's a part of your IP. Not as though anyone can do anything meaningful with it, anyway, if you have a router/firewall - Or if you just have some time to kill. Most ISP's will change your IP address from time to time, some every 24 hours (like with PPPoE/DSL), others every time you connect (dial-up/DSL (if you "dial in")).

That said, Google might keep the records, but I'd imagine it's more for the purposes of targeting ads (there's a reason Google Ads are some of the most successful ads out there) than rummaging through your search results. For that matter, there are sites out there (I can't recall which) which provide a wrapper to confuse Google by combining your search queries with those of everyone else who uses it. ... Of course, that also means that these people can also track your searches.

I'd trust Google, myself.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 21, 2008)

It's most of my IP! Wouldn't blanking out the first part have made it more anonymous? The last few digits are more likely to change than the first few, too late now anyway
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I know for a fact that my IP hasn't changed in over a year, so yeah, meanie


----------



## Pi (Sep 21, 2008)

SnowFox said:


> It's most of my IP! Wouldn't blanking out the first part have made it more anonymous? The last few digits are more likely to change than the first few, too late now anyway
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh no

with the ip they can tell that your ISP is in $STATE.

Also cute little http://nowhere.is-a-geek.com/onlinetest.gif image.


----------



## CyberFoxx (Sep 21, 2008)

Ya know, I never understood why people get up in arms over their IP being displayed. It's one of the most inane things to get upset over.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 21, 2008)

Tee hee. You people don't miss a thing. Are you moderators or something?
I see you're using linux, you must be a nerd 
not sure which one of you though


----------



## net-cat (Sep 21, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Also, happy 2048!



Why thank you! 2048 is a good number.



SnowFox said:


> It's most of my IP! Wouldn't blanking out the first part have made it more anonymous? The last few digits are more likely to change than the first few, too late now anyway. I know for a fact that my IP hasn't changed in over a year, so yeah, meanie


http://nowhere.is-a-geek.com/onlinetest.gif

Awww, how adorable. :3

What browser am _I_ using?

71.179.40.26


----------



## Eevee (Sep 21, 2008)

SnowFox said:


> I see you're using linux, you must be a nerd
> not sure which one of you though


probably me  8)


----------



## Pi (Sep 21, 2008)

SnowFox said:


> Tee hee. You people don't miss a thing. Are you moderators or something?



no, we just know how computers work


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Sep 21, 2008)

SnowFox said:


> I haven't tried google chrome, but from what I've heard I wouldn't touch it. Did you read the license agreement before you installed it? It says something along the lines of google owns the rights to everything you view using the browser whether you owned it yourself to begin with or not. It seems they are also spying on everything you do   :shock:... and it isn't just the browser... they also store everything you've ever entered into the google search engine along with your IP address. I only heard of this a few weeks ago and now I'm boycotting google.
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5044871/google-c...create-using-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emailshttp://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10510989
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5044871/google-c...create-using-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emails


OOOOOOLLLLLDDDD. They changed the agreement weeks ago.

I'm still using it. I love it and I can't go back to Firefox, now.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 22, 2008)

The only thing I'm really hurting for in Google Chrome is the Undo Close Tab feature from Firefox. Everything else with Firefox was just utility for me (FireFTP, Firebug, IETab, etc), but Undo Close Tab is something that I really do miss. Aside from that Chrome is what I'd consider to be the perfect browser for me at the moment. A minimal interface, starts up instantly, and doesn't ever "hang" for short periods while rendering a page. I just wish it were as extensible as Firefox, and maybe given time, Google Gears will evolve into just that.

(another thing I don't like about Chrome is that there is no easy way to view an image's properties, even if an image is the only thing loaded. "Inspect Element" is neat and all, but it doesn't provide the filesize or the filetype, and in some cases, doesn't correctly report the dimensions, either.)


----------



## Eevee (Sep 22, 2008)

I don't understand people who load Firefox up with extensions and then praise Chrome for how quick and minimal it is

you can't have it both ways dummies


----------



## Runefox (Sep 22, 2008)

Firefox's utility is in its extensions - Not its quick browsing (though it's faster than IE). A minimal Firefox install is still slower than Chrome, and the abundance of extensions makes up for that. Since Chrome is so much faster than Firefox (and IE), I use it as my default browser. Firefox has become a utility, and is a lot clunkier.

To spin it another way, you can't understand anyone who would appreciate a pickup truck and then praise a Ferrari for being fast and nimble.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 22, 2008)

net-cat said:


> http://nowhere.is-a-geek.com/onlinetest.gif
> 
> Awww, how adorable. :3
> 
> ...



yeah, I know I'm adorable huh?  And yes I got your user-agent messages, very funny, I almost missed them there were that many visits to the page. Who or what is *formless-void.tcct.nmt.edu*? It has over 100 hits in under 5 minutes, thats a lot of traffic the site could probably do without.

It took me a while to get used to the clunkiness of firefox when I first started using it instead of IE, but now I use it as my main browser and my favorite add-on has to be adblock plus. I can cut all the banners and cr*p (and google) out of sites, and I block pretty much everything that isn't essential from certain webmail pages to make them work faster. Now I feel really dirty if I accidentally use IE to view a page that contains something from doubleclick.net or the like *shudders*


----------



## net-cat (Sep 22, 2008)

SnowFox said:


> It has over 100 hits in under 5 minutes, thats a lot of traffic the site could probably do without.


Yes, especially considering it's hosted on a cable modem. 



> wget http://nowhere.is-a-geek.com/onlinetest.gif
> wget -U Spoofing\ useragent\ strings\ is\ fun\! http://nowhere.is-a-geek.com/onlinetest.gif
> wget -U \<3\ net-cat http://nowhere.is-a-geek.com/onlinetest.gif
> wget -U Imaginary\ Browser http://nowhere.is-a-geek.com/onlinetest.gif
> ...


----------



## Pi (Sep 22, 2008)

I prefer

```
(export IFS="
"; for i in `cat bbb` ; do echo wget -q -O/dev/null --user-agent="$i" http://nowhere.is-a-geek.com/onlinetest.gif ; echo sleep 2 ; done) | sh
```


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Sep 22, 2008)

Eevee said:


> I don't understand people who load Firefox up with extensions and then praise Chrome for how quick and minimal it is
> 
> you can't have it both ways dummies


I used Firefox with no extentions (Not even AdBlock) and Chrome is STILL faster. Chrome is a million kajillion times faster than Firefox. There is no other way to put it.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 22, 2008)

Pi said:


> I prefer
> 
> ```
> (export IFS="
> ...



Oh, sure. Take the _automated_ way of useragent spoofing.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 22, 2008)

yep I got them all See. I'm still curious as to how you can see peoples IP without being an administrator to the site.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 22, 2008)

Heh. "fetch libfetch/2.0" <3 FreeBSD.

I'm one of the tech guys for the site. Hence the super-awesome green, emboldened name.

Although it'll take someone about five seconds to derive your IP address from the URL you posted.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 22, 2008)

ah, I see. And there was me thinking you were super awesome when really you're just regular awesome


----------



## net-cat (Sep 22, 2008)

Hmm. Define regular awesome versus super awesome.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 22, 2008)

Well I don't really have a definition, but at first I was thinking :shock: ooooo I have no idea how you did that, teach me!, teach me!. Now I'm thinking  pfff you cheated with your techie powers. Not so awesome any more, even if you are all green and bolded


----------



## Mokura (Sep 22, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> I used Firefox with no extentions (Not even AdBlock) and Chrome is STILL faster. Chrome is a million kajillion times faster than Firefox. There is no other way to put it.



Ah, see, but that doesn't matter to me.  Adblock Plus has irreversibly changed my browsing experience.  With a few good filter subscriptions, Element Hiding Helper, and the occasional self-added filter, the 'net has become a hell of a lot less annoying.  It's hard to stand the web without Firefox (or some form of adblocking) these days. *quasifanboyface*  Although I need to use IE to get to a few sites that are IE-only.  Does anyone know of an adblock-like addon for IE?  I already know about editing the HOSTS file.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 22, 2008)

SnowFox said:


> It took me a while to get used to the clunkiness of firefox when I first started using it instead of IE


wait

what

what about firefox is clunky compared to IE



TheGreatCrusader said:


> I used Firefox with no extentions (Not even AdBlock) and Chrome is STILL faster. Chrome is a million kajillion times faster than Firefox. There is no other way to put it.


uhhuh.  have you used Safari?


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 22, 2008)

Eevee said:


> wait
> 
> what
> 
> what about firefox is clunky compared to IE



Just the fact that its rather slow to start up and hogs a lot of memory, then doesn't seem to free it when you close tabs.  Adding config.trim_on_minimize helps with that, but its still the biggest memory hog of all the browsers I've tried. I would expect IE to be faster since it's part of the OS, so I'm not really complaining.. I've learnt to get used to it.
I read somewhere that a lot of add-ons have memory leaks with IE tab being one of them, so I've got rid of everything I can live without, but its still using over 100MB on average


----------



## Eevee (Sep 22, 2008)

are you using, like, 3


----------



## net-cat (Sep 22, 2008)

SnowFox said:


> Well I don't really have a definition, but at first I was thinking :shock: ooooo I have no idea how you did that, teach me!, teach me!. Now I'm thinking  pfff you cheated with your techie powers. Not so awesome any more, even if you are all green and bolded


Hypothetically speaking, I would use a graphics bug (much like yours except 1x1 clear instead of 1x1 black) and for every unique IP address, I'd scrape the "currently active users viewing this thread" list down at the bottom. Failing that, I'd attempt to correlate it with a reply based on the HTTP referer. (newreply.php?do=newreply &c)

That, of course, is all hypothetical. It's _way_ more effort than I'd be willing to put into something like that.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 23, 2008)

Eevee said:


> are you using, like, 3



pretty much. 6 is the most I can think of that I've used, and even that is cheating a bit.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







net-cat said:


> That, of course, is all hypothetical. It's _way_ more effort than I'd be willing to put into something like that.



I understand, you have to concentrate all your effort on spoofing user agent strings instead


----------



## net-cat (Sep 23, 2008)

Yes. Because typing "wget -U" into a terminal is _so_ difficult be comparison.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 23, 2008)

...no, _firefox_ 3


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 23, 2008)

Eevee said:


> ...no, _firefox_ 3


ohhh sorry, yes I'm using firefox 3 but I haven't really noticed any performance difference since version 1



net-cat said:


> Yes. Because typing "wget -U" into a terminal is _so_ difficult be comparison.


exactly


----------

