The new design seems much less Rube-Goldbergy. That said, I still think this style of interface offers only quite casual protection, since it relies on (the forked version of) Firefox not having any bugs that leak information. So any adversary who has enough resources to obtain a zero-day Firefox exploit that allows arbitrary code execution is able to completely deanonymize you. This is probably good enough for e.g. the masses in Iran, but not for would-be Wikileakers.
What I really would like to see is a virtual machine setup that lets you run your webbrowers in a VM, and provides the guest OS with a simulated network interface which actually connects through Tor. That would make for a much smaller attack surface. But last time I looked, I couldn't find one.
Still, I hope it works.
Xerobank has done the same thing. Firefox has a lot of options that need tweaking if you don't want to leak information. These guys also run a private "Tor" network.
This is from the article. Although these features may be beneficial for Firefox, they may not be a part of their priorities. By Tor making their own fork and doing all the hard work (designing, coding and testing), they can just give Mozilla some patches. This only leaves a bit of their own testing, maybe some marge conflicts, so that the Firefox devs don't need to do the design and initial coding. This means that both guys win.
[edit: thanks Larry for response below. i currently use a separate invocation of chrome that starts in incognito with proxy configured, and then start tor with vidalia. but i will consider switching to a ff-based bundle. replied here as didn't have a "reply" link for some reason - seems to be a limit on posting rate?]
[ps ironic that one of your most recent posts, driveby, was on how amazing it is to be supportive of people that don't understand things...]
[EDIT] You're welcome. Chrome via proxy in incognito on a separate install is probably pretty safe. Might even be safer - I'm not really qualified to answer either way. The bundles are only as safe as the writers as well, so.. dunno.
Additionally, while we're here, you should really reconsider how you're using Chrome. If Chrome is like Firefox, it does NOT tunnel it's DNS requests by default. Firefox, for example, (at least with 3.6) won't resolve .onion links unless you select the option to tunnel DNS requests. It means that you're likely leaking DNS requests to potential watchers.