Google Chrome

aren't you happy with firefox???

don't you know that phrase of "if something goes well leave it as it is???"

well, i'll give it a try, but i doubt it can be better than FF, at least by now

EDIT: & download it when this countdown reaches 0

I'm at work, so, haven't really been able to play...

I think the biggest question is, "Where's the source?" This is an open source app, right?

Other thoughts:

No ability for people to really play under the hood. I want the option of, say, disabling annoying sounds in web pages; no place to do that. No place to SET where you want your disk cache, or how much of it. And, of course, there's that hard install to the Documents and Settings hierarchy (well, at least, it was smart enough to ask where; my Windows system doesn't actually have Documents And Settings --- it's "var\Local Settings\" etc.

Gripes aside, my impression so far is... Google IS doing something right. Of course, at work, most of what I'm doing is ... gmail and google. ::laughs:: Still, it does seem very very fast to me, and I'm very fond of the minimalist interface... this definately has potential for being a hardcore portable winner...

Hope it can be done. I liked it, and regardless of it being BETA, it's still plenty usable.

~IntEr

Open a new tab to see recently closed tabs.

And in the Options dialog there is an "Under the Hood" tab! I'm sure there will be more options to configure, this is only v0.2.

Google seems to be promoting it as open source. Also, Wikipedia (yeah, we all know how reliable they are) states that Google Chrome is licensed under the BSD License agreement. Their "official blog" states that the code will be open source.

Here is more information: according to http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=100336 : "The Google Chrome software developed by Google is licensed under the BSD license. Other software included in this distribution is provided under other licenses, as set forth below"

I think that's because Google Chrome is just a Google branded Chromium? So we could make Chromium Portable instead, and brand it PortableApps.com even.

At least, the text on the Chromium site seems to indicate it's the complete browser that you can compile and build.

I'm assuming when you said Chromium itself was "open source" you meant it was something you could redistribute etc like you require.

awsome. what theme do you use?

I'd also like to know. I can't seem to find how to import bookmarks from a file.

It only works automatically. There is no manual process. And it doesn't import bookmarks from Firefox 3 (it'll pick up the older ones from your FF2 upgrade, though). It only works from the bookmarks.html within APPDATA\Mozilla\Firefox\profiles\default.xxxxxx.

lol

Did you read this thread or just post a comment? If you take a read of the other posts you'll see that your question is answered.

Welcome to PortableApps.com!

well...

the chrome portable version is answered here...

but you want to know if there is a program to make portable programs...

i never used it, but it exists...

this one: http://baixaki.ig.com.br/download/Portabilizer.htm

probably this one is a Brazilian Portuguese version, so if you search i think you can find it

https://portableapps.com/node/15456

Mine's probably not up to par with the other Portable Apps here (because it was written in AutoHotKey) but it downloads the latest version of Chrominium. I would say it's 98% portable because it doesn't remove the registry keys that it makes.

special abt this browser.
It looks very early beta stadium, beside simple browser it has no other functionality making it somehow better then any other of all those browsers around.
Beside the fact that it 'calls home'all the time, it simply uses all other infrastructure from the local computer. It seems to just display bookmarks from other browsers, it uses even the display fuction of those browseers.
As far as collection of cryptokeys (certificates) is concerned, the situation is even more strange. The browser has apparently not its own certificate container, it only can read those certificates from the local registry, that means those which are in the local computer installed. It is apparently not able to use any other certificates.
This might be not special problem on installed versions, but portable where you have to use such resources from the local system, this is very questionable.

Very little settings can be done, plugins, well there is this google stuff which I have no clue how to get rid of, otherwise have not found anything else.

Very strange that such prototype of early beta is announced via all media channels to all the world and nothing seem to be behind it.

was just issued by the german computer security intitution.
OK, those are not so serious guys in my personal opinion, but the warning was spread by radio bradcast and TV new etc.
They fear, that since thousands of people started use the 'new browser' there might come up new big wave of spreading of computer malware. What they tested so far, the browser seems not to have any security barriers in it at the moment, all sorts of attacks and security holes possible they say.
They warn to use this as regular browser and computers with this browser installed should not be connected to internet.

hmmm, such thing with strange eula (which has been corrected lately by google) and which is phoning home all the time, still can not see where is the hype behind it and what is so coll about it.

Actually the EULA does specifically allow for "in-writing" permission from Google to do these sorts of things. But traditionally "Big Business" doesn't respond to "Little People" like us asking them questions.

But this is Google, so who knows? You are more than welcome to send them an e-mail yourself.

The EULA is the same one that they use for all their Google Services. They likely used their cookie cutter EULA as a temporarily palceholder until their legal dept writes a proper one. Considering the outcries from people like yourself, I would be surprised if they didn't quickly update it.

Besides, would any court uphold this part of the EULA? Not to mention the legally binding nature of EULAs have been questioned in court before. IANAL, but the argument goes that you can't impose restrictions on the use of a sold product after the monetary transaction has already taken place, signaling the finalizing of the deal. The terms are final, no more terms can be imposed! Of course this would only apply to commercial EULAs and I understand some EULAs are starting to appear on the software boxes to circumvent this...

Someone just brought this to my attention: http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=17836808

Seems the current EULA was just their standard one, they're going to be revising it.

From Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome: 

"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same 
set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our 
products. 

Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal 
terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well 
to the use of that product. 

We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the 
current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply 
retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome." 

Source: Google Chrome Help Groups

great to know. this could work out well.