Google Chrome (BETA) for Windows

Ok, so did anyone pick up that Google took the same Page/Tools 2-menu system that IE7 has?

There must be something about developing a browser on top of the WebKit engine that requires you to violate basic Windows UI conventions. When it was just Safari, I figured it was Apple but note that Chrome doesn't even do the Title Bar correctly.

Installing in C:\Users\[user name]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Application rather than in C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome has two VERY SERIOUS issues 1) Program Files has specific security restrictions to make sure that applications can't be overwritten without administrator permission. 2) Installing an app in a specific User folder means it either isn't available for other users or they have to install a separate copy in each user folder tree. Either of these is a total violation of how Applications are supposed to be installed and show a complete lack of understanding of Windows or Security. Just plain bad.

"It started working when I uninstalled Endpoint." AHAHAHAHAHA! Ay to go Google! Still in beta, and already classified as spyware! Good job, rookies! *big thumbs up* ;)

Oh, and when I said "a complete lack of understanding of Windows" I didn't just mean Vista. Installing applications to the Program Files (or equivalent named) tree has been part of the guidelines since at least 1994. I'm really thinking that there's some hidden license requirement in WebKit that mandates doing stupid things that violate basic behavior of the OS. Installing a high security risk app tree inside the data folders. Absolutely unbelievable. Just absolutely f'ing unbelievable. Maybe Microsoft needs to have the Windows Mojave demo guy go out to Google so they'd at least have SEEN Vista.

Yes, because Mike is much smarter than any team of engineers.

What arrogance. What hubris. Can't say I'm surprised...

thingy The whole reason for requiring app install to be separate from app data (hence the appdata folder where Google dumped their app) is that Applications are supposed to be protected. Period. That's why Program Files is protected by UAC and permissions. (And, yes, the installer needs to run as an admin which is one of the few times to run a process as admin. That's pretty much the main reason for administrator accounts. It does NOT mean the app itself runs in the context of the installer. When you run the app, it runs in your security context.) There is NO good reason for installing an application in any other tree. There are lots of BAD reasons. As for the guidelines from 1994, they've been updated many times. But putting apps in the tree designed for apps is one that's even more important now than it was then and has more benefits to both the user and the vendor now than it did then. Seriously. Google not only blew this but did so in such an amateurish way that I wonder what else they screwed up. This looks like they couldn't be bothered to read how to do a decent setup app and dumped Chrome where it was easiest for them and damn the consequences.

>>Anybody who has written an app for Windows in the last few years would know where apps are supposed to be installed.<< I suspect they knew...and I also suspect they didn't care. Oh wow...this browser lets you adjust the size of the text input area...FF doesn't do that....does IE?

Thanks, Mike, for pointing out the Chrome mal-installation. I won't run Chrome until Google fixes it. (I have IE 8 beta 2 and Netscape 3.0.1 on my Vista laptop, and IE 8 beta 2 on the alternate boot installation on my iMac--with Netscape to come when I get a round tuit--I don't have a huge need for other browsers.)

"Text box size adjustment. Found in Safari (at least on Mac) as of Safari 3. " That would make sense since they use the same layout engine.

>>I won't run Chrome until Google fixes it. << When did Google announce that this was a bug. Lets wait on their input...

Ocean, the install location feels wrong to me, thanks to Mike's explanation. (I have no direct knowledge of the subject matter, as I have zero interest in developing for Windows.) Since these are my machines, I'll act on that feeling, without caring whether Google thinks it's a bug or not.

I have to agree with johnbaxter on this one. When I read that bit of information about the Chrome installation, it definitely raised the "This is damn peculiar... Yellow Alert" warning. (Yes, I just referenced Star Trek II.) When something feels wrong, after doing enough experience doing installs, then you have to trust that judgement. As for blatently copying, Apple, Microsoft, and now Google all follow the same mantra as Pablo Picasso. "Good artist copy, Great artist steal." Frankly, there's enough theft and copying between the companies to make a GTA game. A very geek version of GTA.

Thingy That may be the most clueless defense I've seen on here and that's saying a lot. NO application should be installed by a user level account. Period. Modifying the system (like adding or removing applications) should ONLY be done with an Administrator level account. That's security 101 stuff. The applets you talk about that run in a browser window run inside both the context of the browser (User mode) or in a sandbox. They are NOT modifications to the system. Installing an application in a non-protected data space is flat out brain dead. Period. No good reason. (And, no, getting around admins is not a good reason nor would this work if the admins have a clue) As for the Windows should have more granularlity of security, do some homework. Windows has the most granular security system of any operating system out there both with the ACL control, the additional evidence based granularity of .NET and the option of the extra granularity of COM+. See, there are some advantages of a modern OS that doesn't measure security by a triplet of octal digits.

>>Installing an application in a non-protected data space is flat out brain dead. Period. << Says the man who'll say anything to dent a non-MS project. EDIT: Update at 11:20AM --> He's doing it again!

I know you rely on the reputation you've developed for knowledge of systems programming to bash anyone who criticizes MS. You don't look for the right tool, you assume that if it isn't from MS then it just ain't right.

mikegalos, Windows LiveMesh also installs in AppData so there is some precedent. The Chrome browser seems very nicely coded - however I do agree that the browser should have as much protection as possible so it is an interesting installation choice. We'll have to see how this works out for them - I'm sure there are plenty of folks looking for vulnerabilities in the browser now (especially as it is based on WebKit).

hmm, curious, I can't scroll up using my trackpad in chrome, although it still works everywhere else. strange.

For more discussion about the Chrome setup and installation process see this post over on the Joy of Setup blog, http://www.joyofsetup.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-setup/

>>mikegalos@msn.com said: techboy2000 I'll say I'm impressed by Chrome's History. My copy has entries for two days in July and one in June and I didn't install it until today! (Yes, it's a beta.)>> You do realize that it imported that data and so those entries are "valid" in the sense that they came from your previous browser? <> Yes - in html forms a text box is a different type of element from an input line and thus the reason you can't edit the size of the input using WebKit.

Martin.Woodwards blog post said: >> 4. Google Chrome is a per-user application. It even installs in the per-user LocalAppDataFolder. (The included Google Gears is marked as "UAC compliant.") That Google Chrome is a per-user app is amazing. -- That Google took the extra effort to limit themselves to the capabilities of a per-user app says a lot about their desire to have: * a low-impact setup * and absolutely no barriers to entry. I wonder if it’s the start of a trend…<< Start of a trend?

Anyone else notice how Chrome's EULA allows Google to exploit anything you do in Chrome? How nice of them...

Compact...here's a bit about the EULA: >>The wording on Chrome's TOS is very similar to the TOS of Google Docs, which caused a similar outcry in Aug 07. At the time a Google Docs rep replied in our comments: "As we state in our terms of service, we don't claim ownership or control over your content in Google Docs & Spreadsheets, whether you're using it as an individual or through Google Apps. Read in its entirety, the sentence from our terms of service excerpted in the blog ensures that, for documents you expressly choose to share with others, we have the proper license to display those documents to the selected users and format documents properly for different displays. To be clear, Google will not use your documents beyond the scope that you and you alone control. Your fantasy football spreadsheets are not going to end up shared with the world unless you want them to be."<< http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_google_have_rights_to_all.php

So wheres the outrage over the install location? http://techmeme.com/