"Because Chrome is shit. Just utter, utter shit. I mean they've got all these big brains at Google and you'd think they could make a decent fucking browser. Jesus, the freetards at Mozilla can do it. But not Google. Nope. They gave it their big best effort and what did they come up with? Chrome. It's a joke."
Seriously? Maybe I'm missing the satire or hyperbole here, but I really don't see it that way. Chrome on Windows is one of the fastest, most stable browsers I've ever used. And minus plug-in support, it's getting better on the Mac every week (I haven't tried the Linux version). When add-on support is added, I see no argument at all for calling it shit or a joke.
Chrome has become my default browser, second place is Firefox. and i've seen increase in chrome share in my site, up from 3% to 7% for the past 6 months.
Against all odds, Chrome is my primary browser also (Windows for both work and home). I'm addicted to the speed and stable memory footprint and I only use FF for Firebug. I tend to leave my systems up for days at a time and I would always end up having to close Firefox daily to gain back the memory it had swallowed.
I use it just for short bursts of web 2.0 and javascript intensive browsing. It slows down my computer a lot, GoogleUpdate all the time touching some files, chrome itself maintaining its database. I don't like my harddisk led to be blinking constantly.
I think they are holding back on plugins because this is what causes the various speed bottlenecks that FF is suffering from. Plugins are nice until they slow down the browser.
Whoa, you're right... they don't want adblock. I don't see any google ads these days. Not even on google search... (occasionally in gmail's webclips).
Could it be... that not having adblock is a major motivation for google chrome/OS? I suspect the market share of adblock is relatively small, but it's the kind of thing that can only grow... and unlike anything else that has been discussed, adblock directly threatens revenue.
Interesting that Mozilla spent years to make nice add-ons support, so Chrome will be there only after ~2 years of work, but Mozilla will be far ahead in that time.
I'll just assume the whole SF thing applies to you too on that one. Just like most people don't give a shit about what OS they use, most people don't really care about browsers either.
I have never had issues with Firefox, I don't care one bit about Javascript speed and honestly Chrome is underfeatured to the point where I think I'm using NCSA Mosaic. I gave it a shot. I was back to Firefox before lunch.
I see there is a hype there, but I just don't get it. The post is clearly hyperbole and overly sarcastic, but to me and stuff which matters to me, Chrome actually is shit. I'm not buying it, even though it's free. I might even go for MSIE before Chrome.
For the same reason, a OS where Chrome is the only browser* would be 100% DOA on my hardware.
* Rumour has it that Google wants to ditch X. If that is the case, no other GUIed *nix software will run without a rewrite.
My impression was that it had a faster Javascript engine, and it has spurred on other browsers. It's a market threat (users might switch), and an engineering goad (hey, it's possible - why can't you do it?) That serves Google's purpose as much as getting market share themselves.
Another aspect is blue sky: what webapps would become possible if the installed-based of javascript was an order of magnitude faster? What's good for webapps is good for google.
Rumour has it that Google wants to ditch X. If that is the case, no other GUIed nix software will run without a rewrite.*
Not exactly: few modern GUI applications are written to use Xlib directly. If Google ditched X for a new window system and then ported GTK+, Qt, and a few other widget toolkits to their window system, a lot of software would run with relatively few changes.
I use Chrome to the point that I fire-up FF only when I need certain addons such as web developer, etc. FF is great but it cannot match the speed of Chrome.
Chrome is my main browser and I even switched back to Windows from Linux just so I could enjoy the incredible speed increase. Web browsing is one of my primary computer activities, so an OS that boots up quickly and uses the fastest browser would be greatly welcomed.
Ditching X and breaking legacy support for existing apps does have the added benefit of forcing developers to accept a standardized look & feel and maybe rethink their GUI layouts. If Google imposes some strict UI design guidelines and offers a good UI toolkit they may be able to really raise the bar on OSS UI design for ChromeOS.
Seriously? Maybe I'm missing the satire or hyperbole here, but I really don't see it that way. Chrome on Windows is one of the fastest, most stable browsers I've ever used. And minus plug-in support, it's getting better on the Mac every week (I haven't tried the Linux version). When add-on support is added, I see no argument at all for calling it shit or a joke.