Google Chrome (BETA) for Windows

Ocean and Thingy - The installation path issue that is being discussed here, is a security risk. For you to argue otherwise tells me that you have never supported a secure environment. To write it of as follows is really stating htat Google not only wants to get at your personal information, but also at corporate data. You do realize, that at many medium to large organizations, security, along with other areas of risk management is a top priority, don't you? Places like healthcare institutions, financial institutions, insurance companies... "In any case, the reason for the choice of installation location is pretty obvious: They want corporate users to be able to install it without requiring permission from IT, and they're guessing the IT departments are too lazy to properly secure their systems from unauthorized executables. It's a way out for all those people stuck with IE6 by their outdated IT departments." --tayme

Pauls writeup is up (is that 5 Mike?) : http://windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/article/articleid/100176/goo...

"I have no trouble believing it...the question is one of confirmation. Lots of people here are awfully partisan..." Well I can also confirm it. You could install it yourself and see and end the confirmation. Likewise, in XP, it installed it in Documents and Settings.

I have played with Chrome for a little bit but the one glaring snafu for me at least is when I use the scroll wheel on my mouse it scrolls way too much per notch. Is there a way to control that? I have my mouse settings set to 3 lines per notch and all of my other programs behave good.

"That it's a huge big security hole" Well it didn't require a UAC prompt and totally circumvents the protections of the Program Files folder. As an IT admin, this is a huge problem. Running it through Looking Glass, we see key files not protected by NX, although they are doing pretty good with ASLR. Neither is the Chrome.exe file digitally signed. Hopefully these problems will be fixed soon.

Mike, if you look at the premature history this way, it's scary: Those June and July items are in the history because Google knew you were thinking about those URLs while logged into one of their services. Not that I believe that: if Google could do that, their ad revenue would look like petty cash beside the mind reading revenue.

>>Shrug<< You expected perfection on day 2?

I thought the point of the architecture was to provide a more stable *surfing* element...not to proof it against directed attacks. I personally don't think it's possible to harden a browser to the point where any and every pointed attack will fail...without damaging the browsing experience.

Am I the only one missing the fact that this is beta?

Dude1313, others have noticed the beta tag. Chrome seems to "beta" farther back into unreadiness than even Google usually does. (By necessity, I speak from reading others' postings. Not installed here (likely not this year).)

Silverlight on Msnbc does not work on IE8. I can't believe they would release a beta where Silverlight did not work. I've always been a bit of a Microsoft fanboy but Google keeps turning up the heat. Chrome is exciting. Perhaps it was all of the anti-trust baloney that killed Microsoft's aggressive style.