This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've re-added the frequently updated parameter, IMO Chrome is updated frequently enough to warrent its' use. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 08:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The Version History section, particularly the chart of releases, rings of WP:OR and doesn't seem to belong in Wikipedia. I'd like to discuss before I just go and delete it, however. — X S G 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Date | Version |
---|---|
September 2, 2008 | 0.2.149.27 |
October 29, 2008 | 0.3.154.9 |
November 24, 2008 | 0.4.154.25 |
December 11, 2008 | 1.0.154.36 |
Where are the assembly bits in chrome source code? As I understand it most of it is chromium code. I searched the source for .asm and .[sS] files and I found nothing. Even greping for "movl" and "eax" I got nothing. So I suspect there's no assembly bits, at least not in chromium. Maybe on the code they add on chrome? That seems unlikely, though. Aflag ( talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this part of the "Version History" section is wrong now. when Chrome was in beta, beta versions are automatically upgraded. But now Chrome has come out of beta, I think it will no longer be the case. Ufopedia ( talk) 10:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Google Chrome, is not about other products based on Chromium code made by various other companies and individuals. Having POV description like "without any problems at privacy and security" doesn't help either. I suggest we limit links to other products. man with one red shoe 03:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Blogger mentions, in http://cadiesingularity.blogspot.com/, "All Your Personal World Wide Websites belong to CADIE" which is possibly making fun of "All your base are belong to us" as well as the well-publicised ToS snafu regarding Google Chrome. Does it deserve a mention here in this article? Kushal ( talk) 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Should we mention the new 3D edition? 92.80.42.6 ( talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I just had a notification that there was a new version, 2.0.172.6, which I've installed. But that's not the version in the infobox, why the discrepancy? Dougweller ( talk) 06:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made alterations to the article regarding the licensing of Chromium — in particular, removing the incorrect statement that "the overall program can only be distributed per the terms of the GNU GPL".
This is plainly false — if it were true, Google would not be able to distribute Chrome with its more restrictive EULA. A closer look reveals that the "GPL-licensed" code referred to is actually tri-licensed, Mozilla Public License/GPL/LGPL, thus not obliging its derivatives to be released under GPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebDrake ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems odd that the reception section does mention user reception. It seemed like it was split, people either loved chrome or hated it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.4.245 ( talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could use the logo from the Chrome Thank You page. 98.203.202.34 ( talk) 08:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be better if we used this logo. Rather just an icon. -- Jecshack ( talk) 06:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Editing SRWare Iron made me realise that there should be a linkable page (separate article OR section in this) that would explain what Google Chromium is. Even better would be a short description highlighting the difference between Chrome and Chromium.
This article at the moment starts of describing two different things. I think this is confusing and also it cannot be linked to Chromium directly. Any thoughts on what to do? -- Unapiedra ( talk) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added the Chromium (browser) article. I am not entirely sure this is the best way to go but for the moment it will do. Better than nothing at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unapiedra ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Technically Chrome = Chromium except for a logo , it's the same browser made by the same people, the only significant difference between them is branding. Google use the name 'Chromium' for the development project and unstable builds and reserve the brand name 'Chrome' for the mass market end-user product. This is so a search for 'Chrome' brings brings up only shiny marketing, clean pages and stable, tested releases. They chose to use a different name, 'Chromium' for development so non technical users and the media who aren't familiar with open source development don't download an unstable development build and review it as if it were the shipped product. The Chromium pages are there for the developers at Google and other hackers, the bug tracker and commit log are resources that wouldn't be exposed for a closed source product.
Mozilla had the problem that eager but non-experienced end users would download pre release versions of Firefox and then review it as if it were the final product. This is why Mozilla now unbrand their alpha builds, removing the Firefox logo and replacing it with names like 'Deer Park' and 'Shiretoko'. But still, it's the same browser, same people. Do we have a separate article for 'development of Mozilla Firefox'? matt me ( talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is what the distinction means. The articles should make this clearer.
Google has released an alpha release of chrome for Mac and Linux, mentioned by macworld, pcworld, the NY Times Telegraph, see linked: http://www.macworld.com/article/140998/2009/06/chromemac.html,http://www.pcworld.com/article/166185/google_chrome_for_mac_hands_on.html,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/google/5454080/Google-Chrome-comes-to-the-Apple-Mac.html. Also, I have the download sites for both mac and linux: mac download site: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=mac, Linux i386 download: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=unstable_i386_deb, Linux AMD 64 download site: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=unstable_amd64_deb -- Austinbparker ( talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That seems worth noting at the bottom of the Releases section , I'll give it a shot. Disclaimer: I'm a Chrome developer. Dankegel ( talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It is Notable that Chrome/Chromium does not support Windows 2000, even though it is very similar to XP -- this seems like a somewhat artificial limitation. There is some discussion of ways to trick Chrome into trying to run under 2000, with perhaps some reported success. If the program is really open source, is there a fork that does run on 2000? There seem to be many portable versions floating around, some of which claim to run under even Win9x, which is probably not true. Do any portable versions run well under Win2000? - 71.174.188.171 ( talk) 12:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can the "Development" header be changed to a more appropriate "Features"? I also want to include in a section about the development tools built-in to the browser. May I proceed? -- Tomjenkins52 ( talk) 09:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The entire Chromium article is a duplicate of the "chromium" section in this article, a little more info in the article header perhaps, but all that can easily be merged into this one. -- Tomjenkins52 ( talk) 17:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The two articles should remain separate. To start off with there was the previous discussion which came to the conclusion that the two articles should be distinctly separate, please refer to that. To revert that would be going back on previously reached consensus. Secondly, to cover Chromium within the Google Chrome article would create a large amount of bloat in the article, filling it with what would be mostly irrelevant information, and would serve only to confuse the uninformed reader. Regarding notability, remember that many articles have sections within them which are later expanded into independent articles. -- P.Marlow ( talk) 08:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
With the announcement of Google's other "Chrome" product, the Chrome Operating System, we urgently need to change the name of this article to include the word "browser". -- Lester 10:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Because the new Google Chrome OS has hit the headlines, a lot of people will be searching for Google Chrome. I think it's better to clear it up sooner than later. For web browsers that have ambiguous names (that have other uses), there is already a precedent: Opera (web browser) and Safari (web browser). Chrome (web browser)? The Google Chrome page could either be a redirect, or better still a disambiguation page.-- Lester 11:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it would be worth creating a section that gives a breakdown of features added/removed in each version (Only stable builds)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckerr15 ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In the history section, it's stated:
The current version is 3.0. I would update this, but I don't know if 'the link test' still fails. 58.168.72.78 ( talk) 13:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need to have a subpage template for just the latest stable/preview build. I see no benefit in having it that way. IMO it creates more work & edit history stretched across two pages instead of just one. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I use the Chromium Dev link and download the latest version frequently. Then, I take the version in the About Chromium dialog box, and post it here. An example: Version Example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiarcot895 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Color | Meaning |
---|---|
Red | Old release |
Green | Current stable release |
Purple | Current test release |
Blue | Future release |
Major version | Release date |
WebKit<ref>http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel/release-notes/</ref>/ V8<ref> {{en}}{{cite web |url = http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/trunk/ChangeLog |title = ChangeLog - v8 }}</ref>engine version |
Operating system support | Significant changes |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.2 | 2008-09-08 | 522 0.3 |
Windows | First release |
0.3 | 2008-10-29 | 522 0.3 |
||
0.4 | 2008-11-24 | 525 0.3 |
||
1.0 | 2008-12-11 | 528 0.3 |
First stable release
| |
2.0 | 2009-05-24 | 530 0.4 |
||
3.0.195.27 | 2009-10-12 | 532 1.2 |
||
3.0.195.27 | 2009-10-12 | 532 1.2 |
||
4.0.222.12 | 2009-10-16 | 532 1.3 |
Windows Mac Linux |
|
5.0 |
I have make a release history,but I didn't know how to write the Significant changes part,can anyone help me???
Lkt1126 ( talk) 10:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added a table and cleaned up some of the phrasing in the Usage tracking section. I'm wondering if information about what google claims to do with the data, and what it claims it's being used for, is notable enough and should be included. I will appreciate your input. -- Nezek ( talk) 20:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I updated the discussion of autoupdate in this section to provide details about how it works on Mac and Linux, and about how to control autoupdate on Windows and Mac. (Disclaimer: I'm a Chrome developer.) Dankegel ( talk) 03:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that the autoupdate feature doesn't work through an authenticated proxy server, in other words I always need to open the firewall in order to update chrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.124.42 ( talk) 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The article currently implies that the New Tab page is unique to Chrome, which is not true - Opera had the feature half a dozen years ago. I notice in the archive that there was a complaint about unnecessary references to Opera over where things got their start - the specific example being the use of tabs in general. I agree that it's unnecessary to specifically say that "oh, Opera did this first", but by saying that this is one of Chrome's "differentiating features" implies that it is not found in other browsers. I suggest rewording here, though I'm not sure how best to do it without making the sentence unweildy. -- DragoonWraith ( talk) 19:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
With Opera it's called speed dial but although it looks similar it's different, with google chrome, GOOGLE will put the recently used pages in a tile arrangement, but with opera's speed dial YOU put your favorite pages in the tile arangement, so while google chrome and operas new tab pages are similar, they are not the same, I would say that google chrome's implementation is a improvement of opera's speed dial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.124.42 ( talk) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The word "browser" is spelled incorrectly as "browsesr" in the right pantel.
Edit page does seem to give access to fix it.
How come this article does not discuss the privacy issues with google chrome at all? Too many Google developers active on wikipedia? http://coderrr.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/google-chrome-privacy-worse-than-you-think/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html?tag=mncol;title http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/sep/04/googlechromeprivacyissuesa -- 85.146.181.187 ( talk) 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Parts of this section seem a bit NPOV with wording and little weasels. Also what does this "John Resig, Mozilla's JavaScript evangelist" even mean? What does evangelism have anything to do with this? I realize everyone has their favorites, but it is not our job to be the marketing tank for anyone. 71.86.226.39 ( talk) 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Especially since Firefox already had the "Chrome" name for their UI look and feel. 75.92.7.61 ( talk) 14:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The name Chrome name form Google labs project "chromium", who's mission was to take the minimalistic design of other Google products and apply it to the web browser, and thus Google chrome was born. Later Google developers thought "if we use computers to browse the internet today and that's almost all we do and the operating system is there to run the browser, than Mabie we don't need a fancy operating system anymore. What If Your Operating System was your Browser?" and then Chrome OS was born. No one truly knows why google picked chromium for the codename but i've provided you with as much history about it as possible. -- Koman90 ( talk), Network+ 13:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If I'm reading this article correctly (along with the attached white paper), Google is now limiting usage of the RLZ identifier to installation procedures, as opposed to every query through its search engine. While the article should obviously be updated to reflect that, maybe we can also take a look at how the remaining "Usage tracking" section still reflects current versions of the browser? – Cyrus XIII ( talk) 08:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole usage tracking section should be revised. It still mentions non-optional usage tracking, of which there is none in the current versions of Chrome. 86.108.104.219 ( talk) 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm really happy to see that Google have made changes to their usage tracking habits. When I started that section I hoped to inform people of Chromes' actions. Maybe it also nudged Google in the right direction. I'm gonna call this a win (: -- bitbit ( pka Nezek) ( talk) 11:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
it says the screenshot demonstrates google chrome window on ubuntu os, while in reality it is a wikipedia page on chrome itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.187.155 ( talk) 05:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
No doubt at least some mention should be made of Google Chrome's successful resistance to exploit attempts in the Pwn2Own 2010, where other browsers like IE 8, Mozilla FF and Safari were overcome. News of this has referred to Chrome's sandbox model which has offered better security than competitors. Some critics from Lifehacker etc are describing this as part of the "winning-over of diehard Firefox users by Chrome". Hence I think there is some importance to be attached to this feat. Adrenalin 150% ( talk) 07:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
IT should be mentioned as it is significant. However, in balance it also should be mentioned that google had just released a security fix update just prior to Pwn2Own 2010 which may have had some effect on noone attempting to hack chrome by eliminating some attack vectors that hackers were planning on using. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 18:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think file sizes should be removed. They are file sizes of archived files and serve little purpose. When actually installed, Google Chrome takes more room on your HDD. Mentioning these file sizes of the archived Google Chrome install files is pretty much irrelevant. Also: this irrelevancy would need to be updated for each new release. We also got rid of the file sizes on the Mozilla Firefox page btw. GoldRenet ( talk) 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what the difference in the file sizes are as I never looked.. but if your running a 56k modem and have no access to broadband, each megabyte difference is like 7 minutes download time. so even a small difference of 2 mbs between browsers is like 14 min download time.. from a world view.. id assume alot of people are still stuck on modems.. So I wouldn't say its totally irrelevant...unless your on broadband. just something to consider - Tracer9999 ( talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There were removed from the other browsers because they vary with each small release and they are pretty much irrelevant (pretty much the definition of "non-encyclopedic" info). man with one red shoe 21:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is entirely picky of me, but by the standards given on the acid3 test's page, Chrome 4 does not pass completely. The animation isn't smooth. I run chrome and tests 0, 26 and 69 seemed to cause problems (they still passed, but either took multiple tries or took too long). Should a note be made or does it not matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavrisa ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the claim that there is no way to tell what is in the encoded string Google uses. There was certainly ways to tell what is in an encoded string. That's what cryptanalysis is all about! If there is a reliable source that states that no one has determined what is in the encoded string, we can cite that as a reliable source. Until a source is found, it looks like just speculation, and an editor's personal conclusion. -- Schapel ( talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A third-party source is one that is independent of the subject being covered, and can provide a critical but fair evaluation of the subject. -- Wikipedia:Third-party sources
What does "Encoded" refers to encrypted content, not code in general mean? You can be technical -- I am a current master's student in computer science. I would say that calling the simple code encryption is disingenuous, because the purpose is not to hide information, just to encode it into a string. There's even an open source decoding library, so clearly encryption (mak[ing] it unreadable to anyone except those possessing special knowledge) is not the function or intent. -- Schapel ( talk) 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A marketing blurb was found in section Features:
Yes, but then automatically leads to the ironical question: is there any adblock, such that one can block google-analytics.com and similar speed-deteriorating spying urchins? My failed experience with chrome was that I experienced a lot of web sites stealing all my computer execution resources, most of those execution thieves being google urchins, so I extrapolate the question of being of importance for the article. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
No discussion of compatibility. 64 bit? Windows ME? 3.1? disappointing. Almost all reputable software discusses requirements and compatibility. Discussion of Chrome should, too -imho 69.40.246.14 ( talk) 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Today I got my version updated to "6.0.490.1 dev" on Linux. Someone update the table of releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.124.90 ( talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently, {{
Latest stable software release/Google Chrome}} and {{
Latest preview software release/Google Chrome}} include the phrase "Windows, Mac & Linux". This information was useful when Chrome lacked Mac and Linux support, but now serves no purpose. If nobody objects, I'd like to remove this text from the templates.
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I find this statement : "Gained quickly 1% market share despite being available only for Windows" irritating because of the high market share of Microsoft Windows it is not a big surprise that 1% is indeed possible on a start —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.149.47.194 ( talk) 09:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed how almost the exact same stuff is being told twice in both sections. Is this how it's supposed to be in WikiPedia or should they be merged? -- Diblidabliduu ( talk) 19:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
User:TiMike has split the reflist formatting into two columns with the use of {{Reflist|2}}. This is okay, but ironically when viewing the page using Google Chrome only a single column is displayed because the HTML markup that Wikipedia creates is non-standard. It probably reads fine with IE. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a port now of Chromium for FreeBSD available
http://www.freshports.org/www/chromium/
It's version 5.0.375.127 and there are additional patches necessary for FreeBSD.
There is also a port for OpenBSD http://openports.se/www/chromium -- Version 5.0.359.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.93.73 ( talk) 22:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Would be worthy to note that Google Chrome has more Facebook likes than Firefox Internet Explorer combined. As of posting- Chrome: 2,475,415 Firefox, IE and Safari combined: 2,334,889 -- 72.9.122.168 ( talk) 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't add canary builds. They aren't fully released versions of Google Chrome, as they are not tested before being released, and when it's updated, it isn't mentioned at http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/. And it also installs separately to the other channels. Canary builds are basically like nightly/development builds, and Wikipedia does not add those. Mister Potato 47 ( talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There's now an additional form of official build for Google Chrome, but at this point only for Windows. The canary build is the closest you'll get to the pace of Chromium builds. However, also with the same disadvantage of not being tested as well as the dev channel builds (dev channel goes through a manual testing process which isn't there for the canary builds).
So what's the difference and why not just use Chromium? Chromium lacks all closed source code, such as integrated PDF and Flash support. Chromium also doesn't use official Google Chrome branding.
I'm not sure if information on those should be here; it could be particularly difficult to keep up with presenting accurate information as for the latest canary build versions, since they're released so often, and also without notice anywhere AFAIK. But I suppose some info on at least what they are could be helpful. — Northgrove 06:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Canary build is one step above chromium and is a critical development release stage as it is the "Stable alpha" stage as where chromium would be considered unstable, and dev would be a unstable beta phase http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel gives more info. I urge you to add canary build, not doing so skips an entire software development stage. Charles E. Keisler ( talk), Network+ 13:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The beta is back (of course) so I guess this has been solved. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I use Firefox add-ons on Chrome? No, the answer is "you can't," at least not yet. BUT: shouldn't this fact be mentioned on the article? I feel it's of high importance since people will think about the hyper-fast JS engine and also imagine the speed at which their extensions (incl. my own ones) might run on using Chrome :-) -andy 217.50.59.238 ( talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
According to the table in the document, version 7.x was released in October, then version 8 on 2010-11-11 and next row in the table says version 9 on 2010-11-09 (two days before version 8). This doesn't make sense, although that's not to say it's wrong, but it seems likely to be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.224.32 ( talk) 17:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Should we talk about speculations for the future stable chrome release? I figure it wouldn't be super "encyclopedic" so no... -- 98.114.128.183 ( talk) 04:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Should we include some information about the Google Chrome Web Store? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctyonahl ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor is claiming that the Google Chrome Releases blog is not reliable because it is a self-published source. This seems to be the only place where the Chrome release notes are published by Google. You can follow the discussion at The Acid3 talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard. Just thought I'd give you a heads up, because if these release notes are deemed unreliable, I'm not sure where else we can verify information about releases of Chrome. -- Schapel ( talk) 14:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does every article of an internet browser showcase wikipedia? Just wondering. -- Arathun ( talk) 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please verify and confirm: Is Google Chrome actually created with JavaScript, as infobox reports? I've never heard of a Windows desktop application created with JavaScript. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand ( talk • contribs)
No part is written entirely in javascript, but parts of it are, such as this file, which is part of the v8 javascript engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark the ma3 ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
In the table for the Release History, it indicates that "GPU-based hardware acceleration and WebGL disabled for Windows XP" for the dev release for Chrome 11. However, WebGL is already disabled for Windows XP for Chrome 10.
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=4ed2cebe3379b1a2&hl=en
129.6.162.93 ( talk) 21:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Canary releases are sort of nightly builds, but seem pretty important, as chrome canary now goes to eleven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamolton ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be too difficult keeping track of a nightly release schedule. we prob could get away with pulling back to the beta releases even. But dev tree seems sufficient to me. and as for adding any features, canary is much to premature. also my understanding is google on posts blog posts listing features on stable, beta, dev.(i amay be wrong) so any listing of features from canary would likely be original research and unverifiable until another version has already long come out. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit by User:Chainz removed both these sections with the edit summary "Removed special URLs and flags sections, this article is really not the place for technical documentation". This removal was then reverted by User:Tracer9999. I think these two sections are worth discussing and coming to a consensus on whether they should be included or not. It is worth noting that the second section About:flags is completely unreferenced and so I have tagged it as such. Personally I think User:Chainz was right to remove both these sections as they conflict with WP:NOTMANUAL and are non-encyclopedic information as well as being poorly referenced in the first instance and unreferenced in the second. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
hi,
the english Google Chrom article is much more googlefriendly than the german one. there is no mention about the fact that googles chrom crashreport is sending information about open programms and personel files on the computer which is crashing. this is mentioned is the googlepage: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/de/privacy.html
"Ausfallberichte können jedoch Informationen aus Dateien, Anwendungen und Diensten enthalten, die zum Zeitpunkt eines Problems ausgeführt wurden"
translation:"Crashreports can contain information about open files, programms und services, running whiles crashing"
i thing the article is not balanced enough
109.193.57.195 ( talk) 09:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)user9
Why does it say Big Penis Number as Stable Release in the box to the right? I'm not sure how to change it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.119.22 ( talk) 08:56, 27 March 2011
Please comment at Template talk:Latest stable software release/Google Chrome#Current version. Thanks. – CWenger ( talk) 22:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The article now says: "users can download a standalone version that does not autoupdate.[139][140]"
But the second link here quotes Google's release notes as saying "the version of Google Chrome available from the link below may not auto-update to future browser releases", and he found that "When I installed Chrome using the offline setup, Google added the auto-updating service". So does it auto-update, or not? Or maybe it could, and sometimes does?
In any event, simply "does not autoupdate" is not what's at the link cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.11.50 ( talk) 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The new logo is back on the 12.0.725.0 version, shouldn't we use that logo version? tablo ( talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It should say 2006, since I use Chrome, and in the 'about chrome' section, it says Copyright 2006 - 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.79.52 ( talk) 12:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The logo seems to be a vector version of the low resolution 650 x 170, when a higher resolution raster logo is available. http://lh4.ggpht.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/TaM8zttqDhI/AAAAAAAAH3A/EoADhnD0Rp0/d/chromelogo-highres.png tablo ( talk) 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As chrome releases tend to look the same, DO NOT replace the current image.
Reasons for keeping the current image: -It is low res and resized, so the whole browser chrome can be seen. -It does not have screenshot recursion, so no inconsistencies. -It was taken in a free operating system, so no trademarked elements.
As there is no need for the current screenshot to be replaced, we should keep it the same until considerable differences occur between the builds.
Lifemaestro ( talk) 19:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest the information about "Apps" added to New Tabs page to be added to criticism section, as it is impossible to completely remove that thing. -- 178.120.1.134 ( talk) 19:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that Google Chrome, unlike Mozilla Firefox, has stopped remembering passwords - with reliable sources, this could go in the article somewhere. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 09:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know - I see that there is still a faility to save passwords on the "Options" menu, but it does not work for me, so maybe, as you say, it is just a bug. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 10:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Google Chrome 11 Windows 7.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC) |
I am no techno-expert, so I would not wish to change the article myself, but I had a query. On Mozilla Firefox, one goes to the left of the screen to go the function "Find". This feature is available on "Google Chrome", but one has to go the right of the screen. Is this worth putting in the article? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Please remove this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Google_Chrome&action=historysubmit&diff=439860827&oldid=439787205
From the citation;
"This report was produced as part of NSS Labs’ independent testing information services. Leading vendors were invited to participate fully at no cost, and NSS Labs received no vendor funding to produce this report."
It is a clearly inaccurate assertion - directly contradicted by the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 ( talk) 17:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I question the neutrality of the 'study' performed by NSS Labs that is cited in the Malware blocking (2.4) section of the Google Chrome article.
Compare the praise and detail given in IE9's two paragraphs in the conclusion section to Google Chrome's single sentence.
http://www.nsslabs.com/assets/noreg-reports/2011/nss%20labs_q2_2011_browsersem_FINAL.pdf
Q2 2011 - WEB BROWSER SECURITY SOCIALLY-ENGINEERED MALWARE PROTECTION COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS: —
- 3. Conclusions
- It became obvious from this Europe-centric test and comparisons to the earlier global tests performed by NSS Labs, that Microsoft continues to improve their IE malware protection in Internet Explorer 8 (through its SmartScreen® Filter technology) and in Internet Explorer 9 (with the addition of SmartScreen Application Reputation technology). With SmartScreen enabled and Application Reputation disabled, IE9 achieved a unique URL blocking score of 89% and over-time protection rating of 92%. Enabling Application Reputation on top of SmartScreen increased the unique URL block rate of Internet Explorer 9 by 11% (to 100%) at zero hour as well as the over-time protection by 8% (to 100%). Internet Explorer 9 was by far the best at protecting against socially-engineered malware, even before App Rep’s protection is layered on top of SmartScreen. The significance of Microsoft’s new application reputation technology cannot be overstated. Application reputation is the first attempt by any vendor to create a definitive list of every application on the Internet. The list is dynamically created and maintained, much the same way Google, (or Bing) is continuously building and maintaining a library of content for search purposes.
Q2 2011 - WEB BROWSER SECURITY SOCIALLY-ENGINEERED MALWARE PROTECTION COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS: —
- With a protection rating of 13%, Chrome 10 offered nearly identical protection to Safari and Firefox.
Q2 2011 - WEB BROWSER SECURITY SOCIALLY-ENGINEERED MALWARE PROTECTION COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS: —
- This report focused on URLs chosen to be of significant threat to EU users and followed the same Live Testing methodology as the global tests conducted in Q1 2009, Q3 2009, Q1 2010 and Q3 2010
At least one of the four previous global tests that are referred to in the third quote was funded by Microsoft as a "private test for Microsoft's engineering team seeking to make internal improvements."
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/security/how_nss_labs_tested_ie_8s_security.html
30mag ( talk) 15:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Spokesman Thomas Ford (for Opera) — We have some concerns with the results posted by NSS. First, we are unclear as to why they received no results. We use AVG and Yandex, among others, for our fraud protection solution. Both have performed well in our testing. It is odd that they received no results from our data providers. The latter could indicate that what NSS Labs actually tests is the providers that Microsoft uses in IE. As such, the test almost becomes a QA test of Microsoft’s own system rather than a real test. Furthermore, social malware protection is not an indicator of overall browser security. It is an additional functionality we added to our Fraud Protection mechanism, to help people avoid installing bad software on their computers, but has nothing to do with the security of the web browser itself.
Q1 2009 - WEB BROWSER SECURITY SOCIALLY ENGINEERED MALWARE PROTECTION COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS: —
- Microsoft IE8 (RC1) 69%
- Mozilla Firefox v3.07 30%
- Apple Safari v3 24%
- Google Chrome v1.0.154 16%
- Opera v9.64 5%
- Microsoft IE7 4%
I personally feel that http://tools.google.com/chrome/intl/en-us/welcome.html is more welcoming and seems, imo, more suitable, even though the current google.com/chrome seems more "official".
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.187.33 ( talk) 21:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
should we put a mention of wen microsoft in its usual incompetency incorrectly flagged google chrome as malware and began deleting it. <see below> On september 30, 2011 MSE incorrectly tagged google chrome as malware and began deleting it from user's systems.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/users-report-microsoft-security-essentials-removes-google-chrome/4006
http://www.infoworld.com/t/patch-management/microsoft-security-update-treats-chrome-malware-174721
Should we mention that Chrome lacks basic language support (it does not display most state languages of India, not even Hindi and Bengali, for example), or am I missing something? — kwami ( talk) 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
??? Chrome supports over 50 languages, including Hindi, Bengali, Chinese, Arabic, Georgian, Sinhala, Tamil, and more. Go to options > Under The Hood > Web Content > Languages and spell-checker settings > Add. You'll see a drop-down of all the available choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.187.3 ( talk) 02:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The main screenshot on this page displays Chrome running on ChromeOS with a custom theme, would it not be more helpful to use an image of it running the default theme? It's misleading since it suggests a very different UI (dark black instead of blue or transparent) to how most people experience Chrome. Owencm ( talk) 14:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest to someone who is really into this article to do a small search on whether the optional tracking mechanisms are enable or disable by default. It would be an important information. See: [5]
Thanks for your attention. 186.221.83.129 ( talk) 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting 97/100 on Chrome 17. Anybody else has this problem? -- WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I just ran said test and got 100/100. Maybe you have a conflicting extension installed? In any case, this is original research for both of us, and this probably isn't the best forum for a troubleshooting discussion. If you have a citation that shows your result is typical that would definitely be newsworthy and I'd love to hear about it. 151.190.0.1 ( talk) 15:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
For a company that has a huge and long history of disregard for Public privacy, very little of it is addressed in this article. A web browser owned by google, were you are viwing information and going to different pages every nano second, yet know information on the article on how google handles these issues.
They are know for saving all your Google web searches for years, what about knowing about EVEY SINGLE WEB PAGE YOU CLICK ON. How is this addressed by Google? Starbwoy ( talk) 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This article desperately needs a cleanup (compare with the more sober IE), with better headings, for example making the privacy criticisms more clear, but proportionate (ie smaller). I have attempted to quickly start that cleanup (there's some low hanging fruit with duplication of usage for someone to change...!). I think the common sentiment that Google is omniscient and a privacy concern is affecting the quality currently, and may be better expressed succinctly, with a mention that the <main> area for readers/editors is Criticism of Google Widefox ( talk) 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
So, is a Google Chrome screenshot a free image?-- Lê talk- contributions 07:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just had to comment: It's a screenshot within a screenshot within a screenshot...8 times...funny. Will this be done for every stable release? - M0rphzone ( talk) 08:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest that Release history section is shaped they same way as in the Firefox article? Seems more clean and functional that way. Jørgen88 ( talk) 12:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The release history table is becoming rather long due to the pace of Chrome's release schedule. Perhaps this table could be simplified somehow? A collapsible table maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonic2020 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I second the desire to see the old release history table. I miss that. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.164.52.201 (
talk)
02:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
As there is a Google Chrome browser and operating system, would it be better to make Google Chrome a disambiguation page to Google Chrome browser and Google Chrome operating system? Pol098 ( talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
"Google Chrome" refers only to the browser. "Google Chrome OS" is the operating system. -- Pmsyyz ( talk) 09:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Any opinions on including canary builds on the preview release template? I run canary as my primary browser and would be able to update the template daily as per the updates. Thanks, -- Steve Turner cont. 12:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TBrandley ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Issues:
On hold for now. TBran dl ey 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. For a start:
Pyrotec ( talk) 14:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No issues have been addressed for a while now. I'll have to fail this nomination. Sorry! Please re-nominate after those above concerns have been addressed. TBran dl ey 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"The Android 4.0 platform is first supported in 0.16.4130.199 (Chrome for Android)." The bits highlighted in bold do not make sense to me. -- 86.157.84.49 ( talk) 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be a section about the 64 bit issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palacesblowlittle ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I have now twice fixed the rather long reflist to allow the browser to set multicolumning as per Template:Reflist. There is no need to have this very long list of refs in a single column and using the "30em" setting corrects this on wider screen widths with three columning, without losing double and single columning on narrower widths. As explained in the template documentation page: "Using {{Reflist|30em}} will create columns with a minimum width of 30 em, allowing the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. Choose a column width that is appropriate for the average width of the references on the page." This setting displays fine in Google Chrome and also Mozilla Firefox. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Currently the article includes three separate LSR templates:
I split them as they are used in different articles in different context. Having three separate templates allow to pick only the needed latest version, and this possibility is used eg. in HTML5 video article. Please, don't break it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice that. Reverted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 16:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
As one more example of why we need three separate LSR templates, I added the Android template to
Google Chrome for Android. It works great, can be updated from any article it's used in, and uses ZERO additional code, so it's very efficient. And while it doesn't need the platform name above the version number, I don't have a problem with it. If nothing else it's a useful title to ensure you're looking at the right number.
-
Smike (
talk)
21:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The Stable Release section of the infobox says
and has been like that for months, but it doesn't show up in the editing page — Kelvinsong ( talk) 14:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A bias lead, use of selective references, too much primary sourcing from Google via chrome blog etc. Do Not Track wants to be expanded beyond one sentence. The whole focus wants to be more encyclopedic and less biased. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 01:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This entire article is heavily bias. Most of the statistics are outdated for competing browsers under compatability testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.196.172 ( talk) 08:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
While this wording can be interpreted as correct, it can easily be misunderstood too:
Missing from the desktop version: sandboxed tabs,[221][224] Safe Browsing,[221] apps or extensions,[222] Adobe Flash (now and in future),[222] WebGL, Native Client.[222]
I would find this wording much clearer:
Missing in the mobile version: sandboxed tabs,[221][224] Safe Browsing,[221] apps or extensions,[222] Adobe Flash (now and in future),[222] WebGL, Native Client.[222] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.83.23 ( talk) 12:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Are we allowed to call the Windows 8 Tablet UI "Metro"? Microsoft got rid of that tag a month or two before Windows 8 was released. I think they are wanting everyone to call it the "Modern UI", though some research might want to be done on that Crazyskeggy ( talk) 09:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is replete with outdated info with 2- to 4-year-old references. At the very least the article needs to be restructured. All those comparisons to obsolete versions of other browsers and mentions of "differentiating" features that ceased being differentiating about 3 years ago need to be rephrased and some new info has to be added. I've been watching the article for a while and I see that the text has been stable. I'm too lazy to dedicate a lot of time to Wikipedia, but I'll give it a try in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.104.22 ( talk) 00:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Should there be a separate subsection of "Chrome for Android" about the beta channel that was recently released? I feel that it is something that should be added as it is a part of Chrome. However, I'm unsure whether the section should only be added on the separate Chrome for Android page or on both that page and this page. Thoughts? -return_0 ( talk) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
An important miss: why does Google invest money into building this app (which it does not sell)? What’s the business idea? The article should talk about this, it seems to me. Might this be added to the todo list?-- OlivierMiR ( talk) 13:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that he Canary channel should be added to the Chrome Release History along with Beta and Dev channels. There is a version of chrome in canary and that is 30.0.1552.0, and I also know one more thing about Canary channel and that is, in the Canary channel versions the three vertical bars on the top-right (that opens the tool menu) are colored golden. I think that maybe Canary is golden Themed. Please make the requested edits. 124.125.19.227 ( talk) 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe the Acid tests are quite outdated. Well, at least the caption on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.96.39 ( talk) 03:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
V1 through 30 are discontinued, V31 is obsolete, V32 is current. what is the difference between obsolete and discontinued? -- Taltamir ( talk) 00:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary has, for " chrome", a second sense : "(computing) The basic structural elements used in a graphical user interface, such as window frames and scroll bars, as opposed to the content." But i too only saw it prior in Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox. — Jerome Potts ( talk) 21:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"On the HTML5 test, Chrome 35 scores 507 out of 555 points, placing it first among desktop browsers."
On the most used desktop browser which data are displayed on the site in ref*
Chrome/Firefox/IE/Safari/Opera are not the end of the desktop browser world.
Maxthon scores better than Chrome in HTML5 test (I just tested and got 513 out of 555 ; and several sources attest as well it has a better score in HTML5 test)
Don't know exactly how to correct it but something should be done.
CEFPC (
talk)
05:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I added information that version 36 finally updated the vulnerable Flash plugin in the Mac OS X version, but this was removed by someone. This is censorship! Read more about it here: [1] Extralars ( talk) 09:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to update it in my browser but it doesn't show. As a step I removed it and added it again. I'll go to another browser and see if it is displayed. I apologise. But the Flash plugin was never updated in version 35 for Mac OS X, that's my point. Extralars ( talk) 09:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't see the change in Safari either. Extralars ( talk) 09:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the change in any browser, regardless of clearing cache or not (Mac OS X 10.9.4). I don't know of any "reliable source" other than Google itself. You can always tamper with the package contents i Mac OS X, so it is futile to try to "prove" anything. I know I checked version 35 yesterday and that "chrome://components" update doesn't work. Now I have updated to version 36. If you feel that this shouldn't be displayed on Wikipedia, please feel free to remove it. Extralars ( talk) 11:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm having a problem. Lately, there's been a release for Google Chrome only for Windows (37.0.2062.102) on this link here. All the other OS's show 37.0.2062.94 on this other link here. I wanted to update this template, but when I tried doing this and then got to the Google Chrome page, it only shows the Windows release, but not the release for Mac OSX or Linux! I need help! -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 03:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking for a ref of when Encrypted Media Extensions was added to stable Chrome. It is a big deal for enabling Netflix without Silverlight. -- Pmsyyz ( talk) 15:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed under the picture "Most used web browser by country as of October 2014". Maybe mobile ("smartphones") was intentionally (unfairly?) excluded. But then the caption isn't right..
Saying "excluding mobile" would be true but maybe misunderstood. I always thought tablets where counted in. The category tablets came later and is mostly iPads and Android OS now, not Windows. Tablets ARE however counted in (and consoles) and I've seen some count desktop and tablets together. As if most tablets ran Window (or OS X).. Could be true in theory but never has been. Yes, on Windows tablets, I think a "desktop browser" version is used, right? But on the other tablets "mobile versions" are used.
Simplest (and I think most correct - at least for the caption) is just to to include all platforms (that StatCounter counts) and NOT change the caption. Except to just updated to April or newer.
I notice a much different picture appears if mobile is counted in, no longer a two horse race (exluding IE in Japan an one other country). Then you get browser I'm not much familiar (in Africa) with up to 60% in Congo. And some numbers are not reliable, IE is most popular in Greenland, but it has been all over the map..
Just out of curiosity, anyone know why Africa is so much different, I can understand Firefox being a holdout in Germany and some browser getting popular regionally but do the most popular African do something like Opera Mini to conserve bandwidth? If we wait a while I assume mostly Chrome (Android) will take over (I'm not going to hurry whange the graphic if it's getting outdated fast). comp.arch ( talk) 09:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Android has added 64-bit support including for ARM. It must apply here, then (unless there is a separate article for the mobile version). It should apply to Chromium OS too, but as there are no actual devices with Chrome OS, should it be added there? Wait until then? Or until for sure in Chromium OS? I guess, then, any device maker could release a device with Google's approval/license/EULA.
For the infoboxes etc., is ARM64, better as a WP:COMMON name? I've sometimes used instead of ARMv8-A. I would guess ARMv9 (not planned in a forseeable future (there is however ARMv8.1-A that is compatible) would also be 64-bit and I guess compatible..
See: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-os-reviews/hTFYziX0rr4
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp.arch ( talk • contribs)
I thought chrome cannot be used in china because Google was blocked by the government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrepoiy ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this article deserves a criticism section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.10.183 ( talk)
Quite. And strangely, there don't seem to be many prepared to risk publishing secondary research, criticising a company with the legal fund to give Bill Gates a decent day in court. But this is Wikipedia, not an information resource. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9114369/Google_bends_to_Chrome_privacy_criticism http://www.geek.com/chips/why-businesses-still-avoid-googles-chrome-827221/ http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/news-security/google-answers-microsoft-chrome-frame-security-criticisms-1913 http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/07/google-under-fire-for-chrome-browsers-password-storage-policy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8995070/Google-relegates-Chrome-home-page-after-spam-criticism.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9131461/Hackers-beat-Google-Chrome-security.html And enjoy searching for information of the Event Viewer listed problems. 86.16.68.132 ( talk) 08:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
On the latest version of, well, everything, Google Chrome scores 526/555 on the HTML5test. should this be updated in the article? 24.209.103.254 ( talk) 22:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Google Chrome. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Google Chrome. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello
As can be inferred from the edit diff, I have deployed a new stacked layout for version number information. They now occupy the full width of the infobox. This capability has been part of the {{ Infobox web browser}} since April 2014. I thought after two years, I might as well push a little harder and bolder for both feedback and bug fixing.
Looking forward for feedback.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The present history section of this article talks about the history behind the program and browser.
What would we call a section about the 'History' function of the browser which retains a list of web pages that has been visited?
There appear to be two aspects to this. One is the list that pops up doing Ctrl+H. Entries there can be deleted.
Another is when you click the 3 horizantal lines on the upper-right (next to the star for favoriting) below 'New Incognito Window' and above 'Downloads' is a history tab which if hovered over, first has a link to the above-mentioned page, then below it says 'Recently closed'.
The topmost recently closed link has the listed shortcut Ctrl+Shift+T, not sure what that stands for.
I noticed that even if you delete a visited page from the history, it still appears in the 'Recently Closed' list. The only way I can find to get it to disappear is by opening a bunch of new tabs and closing them, as it seems limited to displaying 8 things.
If you actually open one of those things though, it is temporarily removed from the 'Recently Closed' list, which can make things pushed off the end of it visible once more.
Where would be the appropriate place to discuss the history and RC functions of the Chrome browser? Also while it is easy to delete things from history, I can't find an obvious means of deleting things from the recently closed list. If there is a way of doing that I think it would be good to list it. 64.231.169.3 ( talk) 19:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw this article today noting that Google Chrome is eliminating the use of Flash all together starting in September 2016. Would it be worth adding this information/source to the article now, or simply wait until the transition has happened next month? Let me know what you guys think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The screenshot we have at the moment for the article is bad IMO. The resolution is pretty low and it shows the webpage of the FAA instead of something more neutral like the Wikipedia homepage for example. Is there any particular reason for sticking with that screenshot instead of the ones that we have used previously? -- Autofan ( talk) 11:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I wonder why Chrome OS isn't included in the supported operating systems list in the infobox, is it because it's somewhat a special version of Chrome (since the OS is based on it) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki layes ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The "Tracking methods" table in the article says RLZ tracking can be partially disabled. It has a proper citation to a Google paper, but the paper doesn't say exactly that. The paper has 2 sentences:
The first sentence implies RLZ cannot be disabled from non-desktop versions of the Chrome browser. That's is ambiguous. Presumably it means no disabling on phones or tablets, but does anyone know what happens on laptops? The second sentence says that in the Chrome Operating System, RLZ can always be disabled.
The same "Tracking methods" table in the article has a "note 2" which says:
I am thinking of changing that to:
Anyone have any thoughts or more knowledge? Numbersinstitute ( talk) 23:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
No reactions for a week, so I posted the info, with better wording. Numbersinstitute ( talk) 01:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The current official external is http://chrome.com/ which redirects to https://www.google.com/chrome/ a page about Chromebooks, not the browser that is the subject of this article. The official page for that is https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/desktop/index.html. I changed this but it was reverted. Why do we want an official website link that leads to a page about the wrong subject? - Ahunt ( talk) 12:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ahunt.
https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/desktop/index.html in both browsers quickly said, "Get a fast, free web browser One browser for your computer, phone and tablet Download Chrome" Interesting that the Google Privacy white paper ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/whitepaper.html) said in 2012, and still says, that a way to avoid RLZ tracking is to download the Chrome browser from https://www.google.com/chrome/ Even though that page in some browsers appears to be devoted to Chromebook, nevertheless the download button at the top of the page does let you download the chrome browser. The Wikipedia article's section on User tracking cites this privacy paper and its instruction. I don't know that wikipedia needs to give any further explanation, but it will be weird for people in certain browsers. Numbersinstitute ( talk) 02:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Google Chrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Most online data show Google Chrome as the most popular browser in China. However, you cannot even download Chrome in China because the entire Google domain is blocked. Most of market share percentages are likely because local browsers spoofing as Chrome. -- Voidvector ( talk) 16:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a chart of which operating system versions were supported by which versions of Chrome, comparable to the chart on the Firefox article: Firefox § OS support history
I'm not really sure how to make a chart with that formatting, though. 50.93.222.56 ( talk) 15:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The binary is non-free, the majority of source code is not. Unless the screenshot explicitly depicts something that is clearly copyrighted and not PD-ineligible (arguably the entire unthemed UI is too simplistic for copyright, plus all the UI elements are in the BSD-licensed Chromium source code), the screenshots should not be considered fair use and should be listed under Chromium's source code license. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
For a moment, I thought Davey2010 has gone rogue.
Fortunately, sanity returned. Davey2010 self-reverted. I was readying to file an ANI case for compromised account.
Phew... Codename Lisa, you have suddenly stopped editing. I hope you are not doing anything drastic. Please report in.
FleetCommand ( Speak your mind!) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Google Chrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Google Chrome → ? – I would like to move this page to either Chrome or Chrome (web browser). It makes sense because it matches similar titles of other browsers such as Firefox, Safari (web browser), and Chromium (web browser) as opposed to Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, and Google Chromium. 2601:183:101:58D0:C9FC:59EA:B010:4DA3 ( talk) 21:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest to change the "Chrome Extensions" subsection to include information currently on the Chrome Extensions article so that that article can be merged in. Bb49 ( talk) 04:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Bb49 ( talk) 04:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
187.19.228.111 ( talk) 13:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Entries in List of colors: A–F contained links to this page.
The entries are :
I don't see any evidence that these colors are discussed in this article and plan to delete them from the list per this discussion:
Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries
If someone decides that these colors should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Marketing department, cut it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 ( talk) 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
tht category should be removed because chrome uses aura since v35 -- 91.54.67.26 ( talk) 08:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Valid sources says that "Google secretly logs users into Chrome whenever they log into a Google site" since version 69, please add this content to the article:
THANKS. Editor-1 ( talk) 13:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Isn't Google Chrome open source, since its code is basically from the open-source web browser Chromium? It's a bit confusing.. –– apap04 talk | contributions 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone object *in general* to the idea of adding some text regarding Google's plans to restrict ad blocking features, or would that be recentism ( WP:RECENT)? Just want to gather some initial thoughts before I start composing verbiage. Galestar ( talk) 02:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a bug in Google Chrome Canary 80.0.3969.0? I seem to be unable to uninstall it. MaynardClark ( talk) 05:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MSI wrapper. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It's now outdated and change "78" to "79" on version compatibility! 31.6.144.143 ( talk) 16:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
A comment should be added to the Color Management section noting that it is only partly implemented, and as a result is not truly color managed.
See < https://discuss.pixls.us/t/web-browsers-color-management-solved/15071/6> and < https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1592680> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.22.219 ( talk) 00:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
105.98.92.85 ( talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
just wondering: why chrome://flags is never mentioned? 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregox ( talk • contribs)
This
edit request to
Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
under the sentence (just before the subtitle "Notable examples): The following year Google reported a "75% drop in customer support help requests for uninstalling unwanted extensions" which led them to expand this restriction to all Windows and Mac users. write the sentence: There is a condition in the Google Chrome license that allows Google to "remotely disable or remove any" "extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies" "from user systems in its sole discretion." add to this sentence reffer: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html 5.172.255.89 ( talk) 19:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've re-added the frequently updated parameter, IMO Chrome is updated frequently enough to warrent its' use. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 08:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The Version History section, particularly the chart of releases, rings of WP:OR and doesn't seem to belong in Wikipedia. I'd like to discuss before I just go and delete it, however. — X S G 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Date | Version |
---|---|
September 2, 2008 | 0.2.149.27 |
October 29, 2008 | 0.3.154.9 |
November 24, 2008 | 0.4.154.25 |
December 11, 2008 | 1.0.154.36 |
Where are the assembly bits in chrome source code? As I understand it most of it is chromium code. I searched the source for .asm and .[sS] files and I found nothing. Even greping for "movl" and "eax" I got nothing. So I suspect there's no assembly bits, at least not in chromium. Maybe on the code they add on chrome? That seems unlikely, though. Aflag ( talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this part of the "Version History" section is wrong now. when Chrome was in beta, beta versions are automatically upgraded. But now Chrome has come out of beta, I think it will no longer be the case. Ufopedia ( talk) 10:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Google Chrome, is not about other products based on Chromium code made by various other companies and individuals. Having POV description like "without any problems at privacy and security" doesn't help either. I suggest we limit links to other products. man with one red shoe 03:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Blogger mentions, in http://cadiesingularity.blogspot.com/, "All Your Personal World Wide Websites belong to CADIE" which is possibly making fun of "All your base are belong to us" as well as the well-publicised ToS snafu regarding Google Chrome. Does it deserve a mention here in this article? Kushal ( talk) 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Should we mention the new 3D edition? 92.80.42.6 ( talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I just had a notification that there was a new version, 2.0.172.6, which I've installed. But that's not the version in the infobox, why the discrepancy? Dougweller ( talk) 06:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made alterations to the article regarding the licensing of Chromium — in particular, removing the incorrect statement that "the overall program can only be distributed per the terms of the GNU GPL".
This is plainly false — if it were true, Google would not be able to distribute Chrome with its more restrictive EULA. A closer look reveals that the "GPL-licensed" code referred to is actually tri-licensed, Mozilla Public License/GPL/LGPL, thus not obliging its derivatives to be released under GPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebDrake ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems odd that the reception section does mention user reception. It seemed like it was split, people either loved chrome or hated it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.4.245 ( talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could use the logo from the Chrome Thank You page. 98.203.202.34 ( talk) 08:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be better if we used this logo. Rather just an icon. -- Jecshack ( talk) 06:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Editing SRWare Iron made me realise that there should be a linkable page (separate article OR section in this) that would explain what Google Chromium is. Even better would be a short description highlighting the difference between Chrome and Chromium.
This article at the moment starts of describing two different things. I think this is confusing and also it cannot be linked to Chromium directly. Any thoughts on what to do? -- Unapiedra ( talk) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added the Chromium (browser) article. I am not entirely sure this is the best way to go but for the moment it will do. Better than nothing at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unapiedra ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Technically Chrome = Chromium except for a logo , it's the same browser made by the same people, the only significant difference between them is branding. Google use the name 'Chromium' for the development project and unstable builds and reserve the brand name 'Chrome' for the mass market end-user product. This is so a search for 'Chrome' brings brings up only shiny marketing, clean pages and stable, tested releases. They chose to use a different name, 'Chromium' for development so non technical users and the media who aren't familiar with open source development don't download an unstable development build and review it as if it were the shipped product. The Chromium pages are there for the developers at Google and other hackers, the bug tracker and commit log are resources that wouldn't be exposed for a closed source product.
Mozilla had the problem that eager but non-experienced end users would download pre release versions of Firefox and then review it as if it were the final product. This is why Mozilla now unbrand their alpha builds, removing the Firefox logo and replacing it with names like 'Deer Park' and 'Shiretoko'. But still, it's the same browser, same people. Do we have a separate article for 'development of Mozilla Firefox'? matt me ( talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is what the distinction means. The articles should make this clearer.
Google has released an alpha release of chrome for Mac and Linux, mentioned by macworld, pcworld, the NY Times Telegraph, see linked: http://www.macworld.com/article/140998/2009/06/chromemac.html,http://www.pcworld.com/article/166185/google_chrome_for_mac_hands_on.html,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/google/5454080/Google-Chrome-comes-to-the-Apple-Mac.html. Also, I have the download sites for both mac and linux: mac download site: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=mac, Linux i386 download: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=unstable_i386_deb, Linux AMD 64 download site: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=unstable_amd64_deb -- Austinbparker ( talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That seems worth noting at the bottom of the Releases section , I'll give it a shot. Disclaimer: I'm a Chrome developer. Dankegel ( talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It is Notable that Chrome/Chromium does not support Windows 2000, even though it is very similar to XP -- this seems like a somewhat artificial limitation. There is some discussion of ways to trick Chrome into trying to run under 2000, with perhaps some reported success. If the program is really open source, is there a fork that does run on 2000? There seem to be many portable versions floating around, some of which claim to run under even Win9x, which is probably not true. Do any portable versions run well under Win2000? - 71.174.188.171 ( talk) 12:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can the "Development" header be changed to a more appropriate "Features"? I also want to include in a section about the development tools built-in to the browser. May I proceed? -- Tomjenkins52 ( talk) 09:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The entire Chromium article is a duplicate of the "chromium" section in this article, a little more info in the article header perhaps, but all that can easily be merged into this one. -- Tomjenkins52 ( talk) 17:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The two articles should remain separate. To start off with there was the previous discussion which came to the conclusion that the two articles should be distinctly separate, please refer to that. To revert that would be going back on previously reached consensus. Secondly, to cover Chromium within the Google Chrome article would create a large amount of bloat in the article, filling it with what would be mostly irrelevant information, and would serve only to confuse the uninformed reader. Regarding notability, remember that many articles have sections within them which are later expanded into independent articles. -- P.Marlow ( talk) 08:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
With the announcement of Google's other "Chrome" product, the Chrome Operating System, we urgently need to change the name of this article to include the word "browser". -- Lester 10:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Because the new Google Chrome OS has hit the headlines, a lot of people will be searching for Google Chrome. I think it's better to clear it up sooner than later. For web browsers that have ambiguous names (that have other uses), there is already a precedent: Opera (web browser) and Safari (web browser). Chrome (web browser)? The Google Chrome page could either be a redirect, or better still a disambiguation page.-- Lester 11:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it would be worth creating a section that gives a breakdown of features added/removed in each version (Only stable builds)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckerr15 ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In the history section, it's stated:
The current version is 3.0. I would update this, but I don't know if 'the link test' still fails. 58.168.72.78 ( talk) 13:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need to have a subpage template for just the latest stable/preview build. I see no benefit in having it that way. IMO it creates more work & edit history stretched across two pages instead of just one. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I use the Chromium Dev link and download the latest version frequently. Then, I take the version in the About Chromium dialog box, and post it here. An example: Version Example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiarcot895 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Color | Meaning |
---|---|
Red | Old release |
Green | Current stable release |
Purple | Current test release |
Blue | Future release |
Major version | Release date |
WebKit<ref>http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel/release-notes/</ref>/ V8<ref> {{en}}{{cite web |url = http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/trunk/ChangeLog |title = ChangeLog - v8 }}</ref>engine version |
Operating system support | Significant changes |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.2 | 2008-09-08 | 522 0.3 |
Windows | First release |
0.3 | 2008-10-29 | 522 0.3 |
||
0.4 | 2008-11-24 | 525 0.3 |
||
1.0 | 2008-12-11 | 528 0.3 |
First stable release
| |
2.0 | 2009-05-24 | 530 0.4 |
||
3.0.195.27 | 2009-10-12 | 532 1.2 |
||
3.0.195.27 | 2009-10-12 | 532 1.2 |
||
4.0.222.12 | 2009-10-16 | 532 1.3 |
Windows Mac Linux |
|
5.0 |
I have make a release history,but I didn't know how to write the Significant changes part,can anyone help me???
Lkt1126 ( talk) 10:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added a table and cleaned up some of the phrasing in the Usage tracking section. I'm wondering if information about what google claims to do with the data, and what it claims it's being used for, is notable enough and should be included. I will appreciate your input. -- Nezek ( talk) 20:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I updated the discussion of autoupdate in this section to provide details about how it works on Mac and Linux, and about how to control autoupdate on Windows and Mac. (Disclaimer: I'm a Chrome developer.) Dankegel ( talk) 03:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that the autoupdate feature doesn't work through an authenticated proxy server, in other words I always need to open the firewall in order to update chrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.124.42 ( talk) 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The article currently implies that the New Tab page is unique to Chrome, which is not true - Opera had the feature half a dozen years ago. I notice in the archive that there was a complaint about unnecessary references to Opera over where things got their start - the specific example being the use of tabs in general. I agree that it's unnecessary to specifically say that "oh, Opera did this first", but by saying that this is one of Chrome's "differentiating features" implies that it is not found in other browsers. I suggest rewording here, though I'm not sure how best to do it without making the sentence unweildy. -- DragoonWraith ( talk) 19:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
With Opera it's called speed dial but although it looks similar it's different, with google chrome, GOOGLE will put the recently used pages in a tile arrangement, but with opera's speed dial YOU put your favorite pages in the tile arangement, so while google chrome and operas new tab pages are similar, they are not the same, I would say that google chrome's implementation is a improvement of opera's speed dial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.124.42 ( talk) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The word "browser" is spelled incorrectly as "browsesr" in the right pantel.
Edit page does seem to give access to fix it.
How come this article does not discuss the privacy issues with google chrome at all? Too many Google developers active on wikipedia? http://coderrr.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/google-chrome-privacy-worse-than-you-think/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html?tag=mncol;title http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/sep/04/googlechromeprivacyissuesa -- 85.146.181.187 ( talk) 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Parts of this section seem a bit NPOV with wording and little weasels. Also what does this "John Resig, Mozilla's JavaScript evangelist" even mean? What does evangelism have anything to do with this? I realize everyone has their favorites, but it is not our job to be the marketing tank for anyone. 71.86.226.39 ( talk) 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Especially since Firefox already had the "Chrome" name for their UI look and feel. 75.92.7.61 ( talk) 14:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The name Chrome name form Google labs project "chromium", who's mission was to take the minimalistic design of other Google products and apply it to the web browser, and thus Google chrome was born. Later Google developers thought "if we use computers to browse the internet today and that's almost all we do and the operating system is there to run the browser, than Mabie we don't need a fancy operating system anymore. What If Your Operating System was your Browser?" and then Chrome OS was born. No one truly knows why google picked chromium for the codename but i've provided you with as much history about it as possible. -- Koman90 ( talk), Network+ 13:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If I'm reading this article correctly (along with the attached white paper), Google is now limiting usage of the RLZ identifier to installation procedures, as opposed to every query through its search engine. While the article should obviously be updated to reflect that, maybe we can also take a look at how the remaining "Usage tracking" section still reflects current versions of the browser? – Cyrus XIII ( talk) 08:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole usage tracking section should be revised. It still mentions non-optional usage tracking, of which there is none in the current versions of Chrome. 86.108.104.219 ( talk) 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm really happy to see that Google have made changes to their usage tracking habits. When I started that section I hoped to inform people of Chromes' actions. Maybe it also nudged Google in the right direction. I'm gonna call this a win (: -- bitbit ( pka Nezek) ( talk) 11:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
it says the screenshot demonstrates google chrome window on ubuntu os, while in reality it is a wikipedia page on chrome itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.187.155 ( talk) 05:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
No doubt at least some mention should be made of Google Chrome's successful resistance to exploit attempts in the Pwn2Own 2010, where other browsers like IE 8, Mozilla FF and Safari were overcome. News of this has referred to Chrome's sandbox model which has offered better security than competitors. Some critics from Lifehacker etc are describing this as part of the "winning-over of diehard Firefox users by Chrome". Hence I think there is some importance to be attached to this feat. Adrenalin 150% ( talk) 07:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
IT should be mentioned as it is significant. However, in balance it also should be mentioned that google had just released a security fix update just prior to Pwn2Own 2010 which may have had some effect on noone attempting to hack chrome by eliminating some attack vectors that hackers were planning on using. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 18:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think file sizes should be removed. They are file sizes of archived files and serve little purpose. When actually installed, Google Chrome takes more room on your HDD. Mentioning these file sizes of the archived Google Chrome install files is pretty much irrelevant. Also: this irrelevancy would need to be updated for each new release. We also got rid of the file sizes on the Mozilla Firefox page btw. GoldRenet ( talk) 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what the difference in the file sizes are as I never looked.. but if your running a 56k modem and have no access to broadband, each megabyte difference is like 7 minutes download time. so even a small difference of 2 mbs between browsers is like 14 min download time.. from a world view.. id assume alot of people are still stuck on modems.. So I wouldn't say its totally irrelevant...unless your on broadband. just something to consider - Tracer9999 ( talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There were removed from the other browsers because they vary with each small release and they are pretty much irrelevant (pretty much the definition of "non-encyclopedic" info). man with one red shoe 21:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is entirely picky of me, but by the standards given on the acid3 test's page, Chrome 4 does not pass completely. The animation isn't smooth. I run chrome and tests 0, 26 and 69 seemed to cause problems (they still passed, but either took multiple tries or took too long). Should a note be made or does it not matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavrisa ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the claim that there is no way to tell what is in the encoded string Google uses. There was certainly ways to tell what is in an encoded string. That's what cryptanalysis is all about! If there is a reliable source that states that no one has determined what is in the encoded string, we can cite that as a reliable source. Until a source is found, it looks like just speculation, and an editor's personal conclusion. -- Schapel ( talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A third-party source is one that is independent of the subject being covered, and can provide a critical but fair evaluation of the subject. -- Wikipedia:Third-party sources
What does "Encoded" refers to encrypted content, not code in general mean? You can be technical -- I am a current master's student in computer science. I would say that calling the simple code encryption is disingenuous, because the purpose is not to hide information, just to encode it into a string. There's even an open source decoding library, so clearly encryption (mak[ing] it unreadable to anyone except those possessing special knowledge) is not the function or intent. -- Schapel ( talk) 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A marketing blurb was found in section Features:
Yes, but then automatically leads to the ironical question: is there any adblock, such that one can block google-analytics.com and similar speed-deteriorating spying urchins? My failed experience with chrome was that I experienced a lot of web sites stealing all my computer execution resources, most of those execution thieves being google urchins, so I extrapolate the question of being of importance for the article. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
No discussion of compatibility. 64 bit? Windows ME? 3.1? disappointing. Almost all reputable software discusses requirements and compatibility. Discussion of Chrome should, too -imho 69.40.246.14 ( talk) 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Today I got my version updated to "6.0.490.1 dev" on Linux. Someone update the table of releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.124.90 ( talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently, {{
Latest stable software release/Google Chrome}} and {{
Latest preview software release/Google Chrome}} include the phrase "Windows, Mac & Linux". This information was useful when Chrome lacked Mac and Linux support, but now serves no purpose. If nobody objects, I'd like to remove this text from the templates.
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I find this statement : "Gained quickly 1% market share despite being available only for Windows" irritating because of the high market share of Microsoft Windows it is not a big surprise that 1% is indeed possible on a start —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.149.47.194 ( talk) 09:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed how almost the exact same stuff is being told twice in both sections. Is this how it's supposed to be in WikiPedia or should they be merged? -- Diblidabliduu ( talk) 19:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
User:TiMike has split the reflist formatting into two columns with the use of {{Reflist|2}}. This is okay, but ironically when viewing the page using Google Chrome only a single column is displayed because the HTML markup that Wikipedia creates is non-standard. It probably reads fine with IE. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a port now of Chromium for FreeBSD available
http://www.freshports.org/www/chromium/
It's version 5.0.375.127 and there are additional patches necessary for FreeBSD.
There is also a port for OpenBSD http://openports.se/www/chromium -- Version 5.0.359.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.93.73 ( talk) 22:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Would be worthy to note that Google Chrome has more Facebook likes than Firefox Internet Explorer combined. As of posting- Chrome: 2,475,415 Firefox, IE and Safari combined: 2,334,889 -- 72.9.122.168 ( talk) 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't add canary builds. They aren't fully released versions of Google Chrome, as they are not tested before being released, and when it's updated, it isn't mentioned at http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/. And it also installs separately to the other channels. Canary builds are basically like nightly/development builds, and Wikipedia does not add those. Mister Potato 47 ( talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There's now an additional form of official build for Google Chrome, but at this point only for Windows. The canary build is the closest you'll get to the pace of Chromium builds. However, also with the same disadvantage of not being tested as well as the dev channel builds (dev channel goes through a manual testing process which isn't there for the canary builds).
So what's the difference and why not just use Chromium? Chromium lacks all closed source code, such as integrated PDF and Flash support. Chromium also doesn't use official Google Chrome branding.
I'm not sure if information on those should be here; it could be particularly difficult to keep up with presenting accurate information as for the latest canary build versions, since they're released so often, and also without notice anywhere AFAIK. But I suppose some info on at least what they are could be helpful. — Northgrove 06:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Canary build is one step above chromium and is a critical development release stage as it is the "Stable alpha" stage as where chromium would be considered unstable, and dev would be a unstable beta phase http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel gives more info. I urge you to add canary build, not doing so skips an entire software development stage. Charles E. Keisler ( talk), Network+ 13:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The beta is back (of course) so I guess this has been solved. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I use Firefox add-ons on Chrome? No, the answer is "you can't," at least not yet. BUT: shouldn't this fact be mentioned on the article? I feel it's of high importance since people will think about the hyper-fast JS engine and also imagine the speed at which their extensions (incl. my own ones) might run on using Chrome :-) -andy 217.50.59.238 ( talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
According to the table in the document, version 7.x was released in October, then version 8 on 2010-11-11 and next row in the table says version 9 on 2010-11-09 (two days before version 8). This doesn't make sense, although that's not to say it's wrong, but it seems likely to be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.224.32 ( talk) 17:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Should we talk about speculations for the future stable chrome release? I figure it wouldn't be super "encyclopedic" so no... -- 98.114.128.183 ( talk) 04:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Should we include some information about the Google Chrome Web Store? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctyonahl ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor is claiming that the Google Chrome Releases blog is not reliable because it is a self-published source. This seems to be the only place where the Chrome release notes are published by Google. You can follow the discussion at The Acid3 talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard. Just thought I'd give you a heads up, because if these release notes are deemed unreliable, I'm not sure where else we can verify information about releases of Chrome. -- Schapel ( talk) 14:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does every article of an internet browser showcase wikipedia? Just wondering. -- Arathun ( talk) 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please verify and confirm: Is Google Chrome actually created with JavaScript, as infobox reports? I've never heard of a Windows desktop application created with JavaScript. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand ( talk • contribs)
No part is written entirely in javascript, but parts of it are, such as this file, which is part of the v8 javascript engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark the ma3 ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
In the table for the Release History, it indicates that "GPU-based hardware acceleration and WebGL disabled for Windows XP" for the dev release for Chrome 11. However, WebGL is already disabled for Windows XP for Chrome 10.
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=4ed2cebe3379b1a2&hl=en
129.6.162.93 ( talk) 21:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Canary releases are sort of nightly builds, but seem pretty important, as chrome canary now goes to eleven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamolton ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be too difficult keeping track of a nightly release schedule. we prob could get away with pulling back to the beta releases even. But dev tree seems sufficient to me. and as for adding any features, canary is much to premature. also my understanding is google on posts blog posts listing features on stable, beta, dev.(i amay be wrong) so any listing of features from canary would likely be original research and unverifiable until another version has already long come out. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit by User:Chainz removed both these sections with the edit summary "Removed special URLs and flags sections, this article is really not the place for technical documentation". This removal was then reverted by User:Tracer9999. I think these two sections are worth discussing and coming to a consensus on whether they should be included or not. It is worth noting that the second section About:flags is completely unreferenced and so I have tagged it as such. Personally I think User:Chainz was right to remove both these sections as they conflict with WP:NOTMANUAL and are non-encyclopedic information as well as being poorly referenced in the first instance and unreferenced in the second. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
hi,
the english Google Chrom article is much more googlefriendly than the german one. there is no mention about the fact that googles chrom crashreport is sending information about open programms and personel files on the computer which is crashing. this is mentioned is the googlepage: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/de/privacy.html
"Ausfallberichte können jedoch Informationen aus Dateien, Anwendungen und Diensten enthalten, die zum Zeitpunkt eines Problems ausgeführt wurden"
translation:"Crashreports can contain information about open files, programms und services, running whiles crashing"
i thing the article is not balanced enough
109.193.57.195 ( talk) 09:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)user9
Why does it say Big Penis Number as Stable Release in the box to the right? I'm not sure how to change it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.119.22 ( talk) 08:56, 27 March 2011
Please comment at Template talk:Latest stable software release/Google Chrome#Current version. Thanks. – CWenger ( talk) 22:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The article now says: "users can download a standalone version that does not autoupdate.[139][140]"
But the second link here quotes Google's release notes as saying "the version of Google Chrome available from the link below may not auto-update to future browser releases", and he found that "When I installed Chrome using the offline setup, Google added the auto-updating service". So does it auto-update, or not? Or maybe it could, and sometimes does?
In any event, simply "does not autoupdate" is not what's at the link cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.11.50 ( talk) 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The new logo is back on the 12.0.725.0 version, shouldn't we use that logo version? tablo ( talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It should say 2006, since I use Chrome, and in the 'about chrome' section, it says Copyright 2006 - 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.79.52 ( talk) 12:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The logo seems to be a vector version of the low resolution 650 x 170, when a higher resolution raster logo is available. http://lh4.ggpht.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/TaM8zttqDhI/AAAAAAAAH3A/EoADhnD0Rp0/d/chromelogo-highres.png tablo ( talk) 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As chrome releases tend to look the same, DO NOT replace the current image.
Reasons for keeping the current image: -It is low res and resized, so the whole browser chrome can be seen. -It does not have screenshot recursion, so no inconsistencies. -It was taken in a free operating system, so no trademarked elements.
As there is no need for the current screenshot to be replaced, we should keep it the same until considerable differences occur between the builds.
Lifemaestro ( talk) 19:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest the information about "Apps" added to New Tabs page to be added to criticism section, as it is impossible to completely remove that thing. -- 178.120.1.134 ( talk) 19:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that Google Chrome, unlike Mozilla Firefox, has stopped remembering passwords - with reliable sources, this could go in the article somewhere. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 09:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know - I see that there is still a faility to save passwords on the "Options" menu, but it does not work for me, so maybe, as you say, it is just a bug. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 10:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Google Chrome 11 Windows 7.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC) |
I am no techno-expert, so I would not wish to change the article myself, but I had a query. On Mozilla Firefox, one goes to the left of the screen to go the function "Find". This feature is available on "Google Chrome", but one has to go the right of the screen. Is this worth putting in the article? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Please remove this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Google_Chrome&action=historysubmit&diff=439860827&oldid=439787205
From the citation;
"This report was produced as part of NSS Labs’ independent testing information services. Leading vendors were invited to participate fully at no cost, and NSS Labs received no vendor funding to produce this report."
It is a clearly inaccurate assertion - directly contradicted by the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 ( talk) 17:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I question the neutrality of the 'study' performed by NSS Labs that is cited in the Malware blocking (2.4) section of the Google Chrome article.
Compare the praise and detail given in IE9's two paragraphs in the conclusion section to Google Chrome's single sentence.
http://www.nsslabs.com/assets/noreg-reports/2011/nss%20labs_q2_2011_browsersem_FINAL.pdf
Q2 2011 - WEB BROWSER SECURITY SOCIALLY-ENGINEERED MALWARE PROTECTION COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS: —
- 3. Conclusions
- It became obvious from this Europe-centric test and comparisons to the earlier global tests performed by NSS Labs, that Microsoft continues to improve their IE malware protection in Internet Explorer 8 (through its SmartScreen® Filter technology) and in Internet Explorer 9 (with the addition of SmartScreen Application Reputation technology). With SmartScreen enabled and Application Reputation disabled, IE9 achieved a unique URL blocking score of 89% and over-time protection rating of 92%. Enabling Application Reputation on top of SmartScreen increased the unique URL block rate of Internet Explorer 9 by 11% (to 100%) at zero hour as well as the over-time protection by 8% (to 100%). Internet Explorer 9 was by far the best at protecting against socially-engineered malware, even before App Rep’s protection is layered on top of SmartScreen. The significance of Microsoft’s new application reputation technology cannot be overstated. Application reputation is the first attempt by any vendor to create a definitive list of every application on the Internet. The list is dynamically created and maintained, much the same way Google, (or Bing) is continuously building and maintaining a library of content for search purposes.
Q2 2011 - WEB BROWSER SECURITY SOCIALLY-ENGINEERED MALWARE PROTECTION COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS: —
- With a protection rating of 13%, Chrome 10 offered nearly identical protection to Safari and Firefox.
Q2 2011 - WEB BROWSER SECURITY SOCIALLY-ENGINEERED MALWARE PROTECTION COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS: —
- This report focused on URLs chosen to be of significant threat to EU users and followed the same Live Testing methodology as the global tests conducted in Q1 2009, Q3 2009, Q1 2010 and Q3 2010
At least one of the four previous global tests that are referred to in the third quote was funded by Microsoft as a "private test for Microsoft's engineering team seeking to make internal improvements."
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/security/how_nss_labs_tested_ie_8s_security.html
30mag ( talk) 15:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Spokesman Thomas Ford (for Opera) — We have some concerns with the results posted by NSS. First, we are unclear as to why they received no results. We use AVG and Yandex, among others, for our fraud protection solution. Both have performed well in our testing. It is odd that they received no results from our data providers. The latter could indicate that what NSS Labs actually tests is the providers that Microsoft uses in IE. As such, the test almost becomes a QA test of Microsoft’s own system rather than a real test. Furthermore, social malware protection is not an indicator of overall browser security. It is an additional functionality we added to our Fraud Protection mechanism, to help people avoid installing bad software on their computers, but has nothing to do with the security of the web browser itself.
Q1 2009 - WEB BROWSER SECURITY SOCIALLY ENGINEERED MALWARE PROTECTION COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS: —
- Microsoft IE8 (RC1) 69%
- Mozilla Firefox v3.07 30%
- Apple Safari v3 24%
- Google Chrome v1.0.154 16%
- Opera v9.64 5%
- Microsoft IE7 4%
I personally feel that http://tools.google.com/chrome/intl/en-us/welcome.html is more welcoming and seems, imo, more suitable, even though the current google.com/chrome seems more "official".
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.187.33 ( talk) 21:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
should we put a mention of wen microsoft in its usual incompetency incorrectly flagged google chrome as malware and began deleting it. <see below> On september 30, 2011 MSE incorrectly tagged google chrome as malware and began deleting it from user's systems.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/users-report-microsoft-security-essentials-removes-google-chrome/4006
http://www.infoworld.com/t/patch-management/microsoft-security-update-treats-chrome-malware-174721
Should we mention that Chrome lacks basic language support (it does not display most state languages of India, not even Hindi and Bengali, for example), or am I missing something? — kwami ( talk) 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
??? Chrome supports over 50 languages, including Hindi, Bengali, Chinese, Arabic, Georgian, Sinhala, Tamil, and more. Go to options > Under The Hood > Web Content > Languages and spell-checker settings > Add. You'll see a drop-down of all the available choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.187.3 ( talk) 02:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The main screenshot on this page displays Chrome running on ChromeOS with a custom theme, would it not be more helpful to use an image of it running the default theme? It's misleading since it suggests a very different UI (dark black instead of blue or transparent) to how most people experience Chrome. Owencm ( talk) 14:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest to someone who is really into this article to do a small search on whether the optional tracking mechanisms are enable or disable by default. It would be an important information. See: [5]
Thanks for your attention. 186.221.83.129 ( talk) 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting 97/100 on Chrome 17. Anybody else has this problem? -- WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I just ran said test and got 100/100. Maybe you have a conflicting extension installed? In any case, this is original research for both of us, and this probably isn't the best forum for a troubleshooting discussion. If you have a citation that shows your result is typical that would definitely be newsworthy and I'd love to hear about it. 151.190.0.1 ( talk) 15:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
For a company that has a huge and long history of disregard for Public privacy, very little of it is addressed in this article. A web browser owned by google, were you are viwing information and going to different pages every nano second, yet know information on the article on how google handles these issues.
They are know for saving all your Google web searches for years, what about knowing about EVEY SINGLE WEB PAGE YOU CLICK ON. How is this addressed by Google? Starbwoy ( talk) 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This article desperately needs a cleanup (compare with the more sober IE), with better headings, for example making the privacy criticisms more clear, but proportionate (ie smaller). I have attempted to quickly start that cleanup (there's some low hanging fruit with duplication of usage for someone to change...!). I think the common sentiment that Google is omniscient and a privacy concern is affecting the quality currently, and may be better expressed succinctly, with a mention that the <main> area for readers/editors is Criticism of Google Widefox ( talk) 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
So, is a Google Chrome screenshot a free image?-- Lê talk- contributions 07:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just had to comment: It's a screenshot within a screenshot within a screenshot...8 times...funny. Will this be done for every stable release? - M0rphzone ( talk) 08:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest that Release history section is shaped they same way as in the Firefox article? Seems more clean and functional that way. Jørgen88 ( talk) 12:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The release history table is becoming rather long due to the pace of Chrome's release schedule. Perhaps this table could be simplified somehow? A collapsible table maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonic2020 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I second the desire to see the old release history table. I miss that. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.164.52.201 (
talk)
02:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
As there is a Google Chrome browser and operating system, would it be better to make Google Chrome a disambiguation page to Google Chrome browser and Google Chrome operating system? Pol098 ( talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
"Google Chrome" refers only to the browser. "Google Chrome OS" is the operating system. -- Pmsyyz ( talk) 09:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Any opinions on including canary builds on the preview release template? I run canary as my primary browser and would be able to update the template daily as per the updates. Thanks, -- Steve Turner cont. 12:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TBrandley ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Issues:
On hold for now. TBran dl ey 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. For a start:
Pyrotec ( talk) 14:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No issues have been addressed for a while now. I'll have to fail this nomination. Sorry! Please re-nominate after those above concerns have been addressed. TBran dl ey 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"The Android 4.0 platform is first supported in 0.16.4130.199 (Chrome for Android)." The bits highlighted in bold do not make sense to me. -- 86.157.84.49 ( talk) 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be a section about the 64 bit issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palacesblowlittle ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I have now twice fixed the rather long reflist to allow the browser to set multicolumning as per Template:Reflist. There is no need to have this very long list of refs in a single column and using the "30em" setting corrects this on wider screen widths with three columning, without losing double and single columning on narrower widths. As explained in the template documentation page: "Using {{Reflist|30em}} will create columns with a minimum width of 30 em, allowing the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. Choose a column width that is appropriate for the average width of the references on the page." This setting displays fine in Google Chrome and also Mozilla Firefox. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Currently the article includes three separate LSR templates:
I split them as they are used in different articles in different context. Having three separate templates allow to pick only the needed latest version, and this possibility is used eg. in HTML5 video article. Please, don't break it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice that. Reverted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 16:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
As one more example of why we need three separate LSR templates, I added the Android template to
Google Chrome for Android. It works great, can be updated from any article it's used in, and uses ZERO additional code, so it's very efficient. And while it doesn't need the platform name above the version number, I don't have a problem with it. If nothing else it's a useful title to ensure you're looking at the right number.
-
Smike (
talk)
21:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The Stable Release section of the infobox says
and has been like that for months, but it doesn't show up in the editing page — Kelvinsong ( talk) 14:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A bias lead, use of selective references, too much primary sourcing from Google via chrome blog etc. Do Not Track wants to be expanded beyond one sentence. The whole focus wants to be more encyclopedic and less biased. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 01:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This entire article is heavily bias. Most of the statistics are outdated for competing browsers under compatability testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.196.172 ( talk) 08:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
While this wording can be interpreted as correct, it can easily be misunderstood too:
Missing from the desktop version: sandboxed tabs,[221][224] Safe Browsing,[221] apps or extensions,[222] Adobe Flash (now and in future),[222] WebGL, Native Client.[222]
I would find this wording much clearer:
Missing in the mobile version: sandboxed tabs,[221][224] Safe Browsing,[221] apps or extensions,[222] Adobe Flash (now and in future),[222] WebGL, Native Client.[222] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.83.23 ( talk) 12:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Are we allowed to call the Windows 8 Tablet UI "Metro"? Microsoft got rid of that tag a month or two before Windows 8 was released. I think they are wanting everyone to call it the "Modern UI", though some research might want to be done on that Crazyskeggy ( talk) 09:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is replete with outdated info with 2- to 4-year-old references. At the very least the article needs to be restructured. All those comparisons to obsolete versions of other browsers and mentions of "differentiating" features that ceased being differentiating about 3 years ago need to be rephrased and some new info has to be added. I've been watching the article for a while and I see that the text has been stable. I'm too lazy to dedicate a lot of time to Wikipedia, but I'll give it a try in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.104.22 ( talk) 00:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Should there be a separate subsection of "Chrome for Android" about the beta channel that was recently released? I feel that it is something that should be added as it is a part of Chrome. However, I'm unsure whether the section should only be added on the separate Chrome for Android page or on both that page and this page. Thoughts? -return_0 ( talk) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
An important miss: why does Google invest money into building this app (which it does not sell)? What’s the business idea? The article should talk about this, it seems to me. Might this be added to the todo list?-- OlivierMiR ( talk) 13:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that he Canary channel should be added to the Chrome Release History along with Beta and Dev channels. There is a version of chrome in canary and that is 30.0.1552.0, and I also know one more thing about Canary channel and that is, in the Canary channel versions the three vertical bars on the top-right (that opens the tool menu) are colored golden. I think that maybe Canary is golden Themed. Please make the requested edits. 124.125.19.227 ( talk) 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe the Acid tests are quite outdated. Well, at least the caption on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.96.39 ( talk) 03:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
V1 through 30 are discontinued, V31 is obsolete, V32 is current. what is the difference between obsolete and discontinued? -- Taltamir ( talk) 00:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary has, for " chrome", a second sense : "(computing) The basic structural elements used in a graphical user interface, such as window frames and scroll bars, as opposed to the content." But i too only saw it prior in Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox. — Jerome Potts ( talk) 21:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"On the HTML5 test, Chrome 35 scores 507 out of 555 points, placing it first among desktop browsers."
On the most used desktop browser which data are displayed on the site in ref*
Chrome/Firefox/IE/Safari/Opera are not the end of the desktop browser world.
Maxthon scores better than Chrome in HTML5 test (I just tested and got 513 out of 555 ; and several sources attest as well it has a better score in HTML5 test)
Don't know exactly how to correct it but something should be done.
CEFPC (
talk)
05:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I added information that version 36 finally updated the vulnerable Flash plugin in the Mac OS X version, but this was removed by someone. This is censorship! Read more about it here: [1] Extralars ( talk) 09:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to update it in my browser but it doesn't show. As a step I removed it and added it again. I'll go to another browser and see if it is displayed. I apologise. But the Flash plugin was never updated in version 35 for Mac OS X, that's my point. Extralars ( talk) 09:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't see the change in Safari either. Extralars ( talk) 09:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the change in any browser, regardless of clearing cache or not (Mac OS X 10.9.4). I don't know of any "reliable source" other than Google itself. You can always tamper with the package contents i Mac OS X, so it is futile to try to "prove" anything. I know I checked version 35 yesterday and that "chrome://components" update doesn't work. Now I have updated to version 36. If you feel that this shouldn't be displayed on Wikipedia, please feel free to remove it. Extralars ( talk) 11:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm having a problem. Lately, there's been a release for Google Chrome only for Windows (37.0.2062.102) on this link here. All the other OS's show 37.0.2062.94 on this other link here. I wanted to update this template, but when I tried doing this and then got to the Google Chrome page, it only shows the Windows release, but not the release for Mac OSX or Linux! I need help! -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 03:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking for a ref of when Encrypted Media Extensions was added to stable Chrome. It is a big deal for enabling Netflix without Silverlight. -- Pmsyyz ( talk) 15:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed under the picture "Most used web browser by country as of October 2014". Maybe mobile ("smartphones") was intentionally (unfairly?) excluded. But then the caption isn't right..
Saying "excluding mobile" would be true but maybe misunderstood. I always thought tablets where counted in. The category tablets came later and is mostly iPads and Android OS now, not Windows. Tablets ARE however counted in (and consoles) and I've seen some count desktop and tablets together. As if most tablets ran Window (or OS X).. Could be true in theory but never has been. Yes, on Windows tablets, I think a "desktop browser" version is used, right? But on the other tablets "mobile versions" are used.
Simplest (and I think most correct - at least for the caption) is just to to include all platforms (that StatCounter counts) and NOT change the caption. Except to just updated to April or newer.
I notice a much different picture appears if mobile is counted in, no longer a two horse race (exluding IE in Japan an one other country). Then you get browser I'm not much familiar (in Africa) with up to 60% in Congo. And some numbers are not reliable, IE is most popular in Greenland, but it has been all over the map..
Just out of curiosity, anyone know why Africa is so much different, I can understand Firefox being a holdout in Germany and some browser getting popular regionally but do the most popular African do something like Opera Mini to conserve bandwidth? If we wait a while I assume mostly Chrome (Android) will take over (I'm not going to hurry whange the graphic if it's getting outdated fast). comp.arch ( talk) 09:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Android has added 64-bit support including for ARM. It must apply here, then (unless there is a separate article for the mobile version). It should apply to Chromium OS too, but as there are no actual devices with Chrome OS, should it be added there? Wait until then? Or until for sure in Chromium OS? I guess, then, any device maker could release a device with Google's approval/license/EULA.
For the infoboxes etc., is ARM64, better as a WP:COMMON name? I've sometimes used instead of ARMv8-A. I would guess ARMv9 (not planned in a forseeable future (there is however ARMv8.1-A that is compatible) would also be 64-bit and I guess compatible..
See: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-os-reviews/hTFYziX0rr4
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp.arch ( talk • contribs)
I thought chrome cannot be used in china because Google was blocked by the government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrepoiy ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this article deserves a criticism section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.10.183 ( talk)
Quite. And strangely, there don't seem to be many prepared to risk publishing secondary research, criticising a company with the legal fund to give Bill Gates a decent day in court. But this is Wikipedia, not an information resource. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9114369/Google_bends_to_Chrome_privacy_criticism http://www.geek.com/chips/why-businesses-still-avoid-googles-chrome-827221/ http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/news-security/google-answers-microsoft-chrome-frame-security-criticisms-1913 http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/07/google-under-fire-for-chrome-browsers-password-storage-policy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8995070/Google-relegates-Chrome-home-page-after-spam-criticism.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9131461/Hackers-beat-Google-Chrome-security.html And enjoy searching for information of the Event Viewer listed problems. 86.16.68.132 ( talk) 08:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
On the latest version of, well, everything, Google Chrome scores 526/555 on the HTML5test. should this be updated in the article? 24.209.103.254 ( talk) 22:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Google Chrome. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Google Chrome. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello
As can be inferred from the edit diff, I have deployed a new stacked layout for version number information. They now occupy the full width of the infobox. This capability has been part of the {{ Infobox web browser}} since April 2014. I thought after two years, I might as well push a little harder and bolder for both feedback and bug fixing.
Looking forward for feedback.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The present history section of this article talks about the history behind the program and browser.
What would we call a section about the 'History' function of the browser which retains a list of web pages that has been visited?
There appear to be two aspects to this. One is the list that pops up doing Ctrl+H. Entries there can be deleted.
Another is when you click the 3 horizantal lines on the upper-right (next to the star for favoriting) below 'New Incognito Window' and above 'Downloads' is a history tab which if hovered over, first has a link to the above-mentioned page, then below it says 'Recently closed'.
The topmost recently closed link has the listed shortcut Ctrl+Shift+T, not sure what that stands for.
I noticed that even if you delete a visited page from the history, it still appears in the 'Recently Closed' list. The only way I can find to get it to disappear is by opening a bunch of new tabs and closing them, as it seems limited to displaying 8 things.
If you actually open one of those things though, it is temporarily removed from the 'Recently Closed' list, which can make things pushed off the end of it visible once more.
Where would be the appropriate place to discuss the history and RC functions of the Chrome browser? Also while it is easy to delete things from history, I can't find an obvious means of deleting things from the recently closed list. If there is a way of doing that I think it would be good to list it. 64.231.169.3 ( talk) 19:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw this article today noting that Google Chrome is eliminating the use of Flash all together starting in September 2016. Would it be worth adding this information/source to the article now, or simply wait until the transition has happened next month? Let me know what you guys think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The screenshot we have at the moment for the article is bad IMO. The resolution is pretty low and it shows the webpage of the FAA instead of something more neutral like the Wikipedia homepage for example. Is there any particular reason for sticking with that screenshot instead of the ones that we have used previously? -- Autofan ( talk) 11:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I wonder why Chrome OS isn't included in the supported operating systems list in the infobox, is it because it's somewhat a special version of Chrome (since the OS is based on it) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki layes ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The "Tracking methods" table in the article says RLZ tracking can be partially disabled. It has a proper citation to a Google paper, but the paper doesn't say exactly that. The paper has 2 sentences:
The first sentence implies RLZ cannot be disabled from non-desktop versions of the Chrome browser. That's is ambiguous. Presumably it means no disabling on phones or tablets, but does anyone know what happens on laptops? The second sentence says that in the Chrome Operating System, RLZ can always be disabled.
The same "Tracking methods" table in the article has a "note 2" which says:
I am thinking of changing that to:
Anyone have any thoughts or more knowledge? Numbersinstitute ( talk) 23:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
No reactions for a week, so I posted the info, with better wording. Numbersinstitute ( talk) 01:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The current official external is http://chrome.com/ which redirects to https://www.google.com/chrome/ a page about Chromebooks, not the browser that is the subject of this article. The official page for that is https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/desktop/index.html. I changed this but it was reverted. Why do we want an official website link that leads to a page about the wrong subject? - Ahunt ( talk) 12:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ahunt.
https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/desktop/index.html in both browsers quickly said, "Get a fast, free web browser One browser for your computer, phone and tablet Download Chrome" Interesting that the Google Privacy white paper ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/whitepaper.html) said in 2012, and still says, that a way to avoid RLZ tracking is to download the Chrome browser from https://www.google.com/chrome/ Even though that page in some browsers appears to be devoted to Chromebook, nevertheless the download button at the top of the page does let you download the chrome browser. The Wikipedia article's section on User tracking cites this privacy paper and its instruction. I don't know that wikipedia needs to give any further explanation, but it will be weird for people in certain browsers. Numbersinstitute ( talk) 02:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Google Chrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Most online data show Google Chrome as the most popular browser in China. However, you cannot even download Chrome in China because the entire Google domain is blocked. Most of market share percentages are likely because local browsers spoofing as Chrome. -- Voidvector ( talk) 16:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a chart of which operating system versions were supported by which versions of Chrome, comparable to the chart on the Firefox article: Firefox § OS support history
I'm not really sure how to make a chart with that formatting, though. 50.93.222.56 ( talk) 15:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The binary is non-free, the majority of source code is not. Unless the screenshot explicitly depicts something that is clearly copyrighted and not PD-ineligible (arguably the entire unthemed UI is too simplistic for copyright, plus all the UI elements are in the BSD-licensed Chromium source code), the screenshots should not be considered fair use and should be listed under Chromium's source code license. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
For a moment, I thought Davey2010 has gone rogue.
Fortunately, sanity returned. Davey2010 self-reverted. I was readying to file an ANI case for compromised account.
Phew... Codename Lisa, you have suddenly stopped editing. I hope you are not doing anything drastic. Please report in.
FleetCommand ( Speak your mind!) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Google Chrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Google Chrome → ? – I would like to move this page to either Chrome or Chrome (web browser). It makes sense because it matches similar titles of other browsers such as Firefox, Safari (web browser), and Chromium (web browser) as opposed to Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, and Google Chromium. 2601:183:101:58D0:C9FC:59EA:B010:4DA3 ( talk) 21:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest to change the "Chrome Extensions" subsection to include information currently on the Chrome Extensions article so that that article can be merged in. Bb49 ( talk) 04:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Bb49 ( talk) 04:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
187.19.228.111 ( talk) 13:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Entries in List of colors: A–F contained links to this page.
The entries are :
I don't see any evidence that these colors are discussed in this article and plan to delete them from the list per this discussion:
Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries
If someone decides that these colors should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Marketing department, cut it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 ( talk) 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
tht category should be removed because chrome uses aura since v35 -- 91.54.67.26 ( talk) 08:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Valid sources says that "Google secretly logs users into Chrome whenever they log into a Google site" since version 69, please add this content to the article:
THANKS. Editor-1 ( talk) 13:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Isn't Google Chrome open source, since its code is basically from the open-source web browser Chromium? It's a bit confusing.. –– apap04 talk | contributions 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone object *in general* to the idea of adding some text regarding Google's plans to restrict ad blocking features, or would that be recentism ( WP:RECENT)? Just want to gather some initial thoughts before I start composing verbiage. Galestar ( talk) 02:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a bug in Google Chrome Canary 80.0.3969.0? I seem to be unable to uninstall it. MaynardClark ( talk) 05:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MSI wrapper. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It's now outdated and change "78" to "79" on version compatibility! 31.6.144.143 ( talk) 16:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
A comment should be added to the Color Management section noting that it is only partly implemented, and as a result is not truly color managed.
See < https://discuss.pixls.us/t/web-browsers-color-management-solved/15071/6> and < https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1592680> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.22.219 ( talk) 00:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
105.98.92.85 ( talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
just wondering: why chrome://flags is never mentioned? 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregox ( talk • contribs)
This
edit request to
Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
under the sentence (just before the subtitle "Notable examples): The following year Google reported a "75% drop in customer support help requests for uninstalling unwanted extensions" which led them to expand this restriction to all Windows and Mac users. write the sentence: There is a condition in the Google Chrome license that allows Google to "remotely disable or remove any" "extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies" "from user systems in its sole discretion." add to this sentence reffer: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html 5.172.255.89 ( talk) 19:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)