New: Audacious (June 1, 2023), Platform 25.0 (Apr 07, 2023)
New Apr 14: macOS Portable Drive Support
450+ real apps (49GB), 1.1 billion downloads, Please donate.
Hey All
Google make their own browser!!
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/09/01/download-squad-goes-chrome-crazy/
I just found this on the sinternets and thought ye might be interested in it, and maybe in making it portable.
A Beta was supposed to be available to today but I haven't seen it yet
Please make Google Chrome into a portable app !!
Cheerio
It is OpenSource... 
(although I still didn't see an executable)
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 didn't say i wasn't. But I like to try new things.
And I think so too (at least while addons aren't inserted ).
yes, i also like trying new things(i'm using it while writing this), but unless i see that the tabs bar can be moved & it is compatible with firefox plug-ins, i'll wont use it as normal browser
0 day 13 hour 54 min. 44 sec.
EDIT: WTF?! Growing up?
0 day 23 hour 11 min. 51 sec.
Now it's at 1 day 3 hours and six minutes
lol
It hasn't even been released yet and there are already people requesting it to be portable.
Just snagged it as it came available; looks like it'll lend itself to portability well. As for the not to fix if it ain't broke; my browser of choice on Windows is Opera, with Firefox when I have to. Both are terrible rendering flash; Firefox actually goes to 95% cpu utilization on some pages with it. That's just off the top of my head; I've used Opera for so long now, I wouldn't think I'm likely to change, but, if Chrome does what it's supposed to...
Anyway, would be great to see it as a Portable.
Just announced from a press conference.
It seems to have the profile location hardcoded to AppData. Source code editing might be necessary.
But I second the request for a portable version.
Suggested changes:
- Profile would go in ..\..\Data\profile relative to the chrome.exe
- Disk cache needs to be moved to %TEMP%, auto-clean on exit maybe
- It looks like theming is done through DLLs... PortableApps.com theme anyone? (Just change the blue border to a red one with the icon in the background.)
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...
"Where's the source?"
The source is somewhere here... http://dev.chromium.org/developers
Hope it can be done. I liked it, and regardless of it being BETA, it's still plenty usable.
~IntEr
Just like greyproc, I also like the minimalist interface. Just a few things I don't like. No "undo closed tab" option; no "under the hood tweaking"; in Firefox, I could middle-click the home/back/forward button and it would open up in a new tab, not here; in Firefox, I could type anything without the ".com" in the address bar and it would take me to that page, not with Chrome: It opens a google search results page. That's what I've found so far that I don't like. On the plus side, I do see it working faster that FF3.0 (maybe because of the lack of addons).
EDIT: Ok, it seems that if I type, lets say, portableapps (without the .com) and hit ctrl+enter, it takes me where I want to go, you know, the MS-IE way of doing it, rather than the FF way.
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 Chrome doesn't appear to be a fully open source package... it's based on Chromium, which is open source. So, you can build Chromium and repackage it without permission, but you can't repackage Google Chrome without violating the EULA.
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"
That would be the BSD Protection License (aka The Anti-GPL License). The BSD Protection License is not recognized as a valid open source license by the Open Source Initiative, the Free Software Foundation, SourceForge.net or even by Google Code.
Oh pooh.
I have to say, it is kind of a nice browser though. Very lightweight.
It feels light, but when you look at it (it's in the user profile in Local Settings\Application Data\Google, at least on XP) including the profile, it's 60MB (15MB profile, 45MB app). Not at all what I'd call lightweight!
The (sheer?) size is the only thing I don't like about it as far as I've tested it. It is "1337", as some would say, or "über-cool" as others would say 
It looks like icudt38.dll is taking up a lot of space; that looks to be a unicode/internationalization .dll?
Chrome.dll seems to be the app proper, so that plus the .exe is almost 9mb. With the various other directories... it probably could sit in 10mb or so. Again, I haven't had time to dig... and certainly felt silly for not finding the source on my own. It seems like all one would really have to do is run it in incognito mode and not worry about the leftovers on the drive; perfect for running off a CD or USB stick...?
Back on tangent... how much of the installed bits are actually chrome specific? (And... for that 45mb... are you counting the 22mb installer part in that?)
Yeah the installer files themselves sit around after the install is finished. My portable build clocks in at 23mb, with that file and the non-en-US locales removed. It might be possible to strip away the spellcheck and DOM Inspector tools but it'd only free an additional 1mb so it's not really worth it considering how useful both are.
Just caught up on the thread (I should have registered here ages ago; I've been using apps from here for a good while now!) and I'm impressed; You got a great deal of patience, The Mazzter, especially with the open source discussion. The DOM Inspector is definately useful; perhaps that .dll that does partner tracking for Google could be removed, though? ;-p
I checked your blog, but didn't see your efforts (though I laughed at your being stumped with that math problem; I found myself on that wiki recently, after watching the movie "21". Which reminds me, I need to book a flight to Vegas... where was I? Oh... ) posted anywhere. What's the commandline that makes it portable? Where's your launcher? What's the diff with what's posted at the end of this thread?
I don't really post to my blog much, sorry.
The command line parameter is: --user-data-dir="". It's documented in the Chromium website stuff. You can even use it to run a Portable Google Chrome alongside a "normal" one. Very nice. It was designed so devs could keep a separate profile for building their own Chromium builds (so no risk corrupting their existing one) and run Google Chrome at the same time for non-dev stuff. Works fine for portability too.
You can make your own quick and dirty launcher by copying Google Chrome from your Windows profile in Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\Application (and optionally your profile from Google\Chrome\User Data) and making a shortcut with the --user-data-dir paramter.
Which is pretty much all my launcher does anyway. Most of the magic is in the actual installer.
I sent the launcher to John cause I really wanted a professional eye to look it over, especially from the legal side of things. I haven't uploaded it for general consumption anywhere yet.
I was going to invite John to use my launcher code if he wanted to, but I really only wrote like 1 line of code on top of his existing launcher code that would be useful for him, since the ideal official PortableApps.com release (in my mind) would be a special built Chromium, maybe with a PortableApps.com theme.
I didn't check out the other launcher posted, however the launcher part is simple enough to make so I'm not surprised someone else did it. However I wouldn't recommend using the "latest build"... I don't know what exactly that means. I do know that as of the time he posted it, the latest SVN code builds were not passing all of their automated tests... I'll just stick to the public releases to be safe.
What will set my Portable version apart (I hope) is that it can import your existing app and profile automatically. Only problem ATM is that NSIS' built-in functions for copying files are extremely limited.* I'll have to look into Windows API calls or making a helper EXE or something to improve it, eventually. Right now it can only copy the specific version that Google ships. Any other version and it can't copy it.
* - Basically what I need to do is enumerate through files so I can exclude specific files from being copied.. IE the installer, non en-US locales (if the user doesn't want them) and cache files. Right now I can only include specific files or copy everything.
Well, that certainly seems easy enough; I was somewhat irked about that hard codedness of it going into the Local Settings directory.
Thank you very much for your insightful and helpful replies, and the information!
Looking again it looks like just bsdiff and bspatch are licensed under the non-OSI BSD Protected License. So it looks like the rest of it is under real open source licenses from a quick skim. Anybody else look through them all?
I just read the whole "release comic" (lol) and there they expressely said it is FULLY OPEN SOURCE. Link here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8UsqHohwwVYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA2,M2
This is what I found (page2, lol), but you can go on and see in MANY spots where they say it's open source. This comic was made by the Google Developing team.
~IntEr
That comic is not legally binding
In all seriousness, I believe Microsoft has claimed to release "Open Source" code in which they mean you can read it, but you can't take it and use it in other projects of any kind or they'll sue you.
So you really do need to read the license to see what exactly what you can do with the code.
See http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html
bsdiff BSD Protection License
bspatch BSD Protection License
All the other stuff is in the following licenses: BSD, MPL 1.1, GPL 2.0, LGPL, ICU, BSD, libjpeg, libpng, MIT, "Special exception license" (LZMA), public domain, Microsoft Permissive License, zlib.
I think that all of these are fine.
I didn't know anything about that BSD Protection License though, though I presume that these are just development tools.
I didn't think that Google Chrome would be such a big thing! Seems as though it is, though... and having tried it, I say no wonder! It's great!
I already made a launcher and installer which uses the original downloaded Google Chrome setup files to copy a local install to your portable device. Neither Google Chrome or any of it's resources are packaged so AFAIK I'm not violating the EULA.
I packaged the 7z cli app to extract the Google Chrome setup files (so you get a "clean" version. It falls back to using your installed version if it can't find the setup files). 7z is licensed under the LGPLv3 so AFAIK I'm good there.
Right now the only thing that's missing is the Google Chrome icon, which I think would violate the EULA if I included it.
The alternative would be to use a tool like RasHack to dynamically extract the icon from chrome.exe and then embed it into my launcher at install time (ResHack is awesome). I looked at using it, but the ResHack license would require me to get explicit permission to include the EXE (and I'm lazy).
[Edit: Oooh, Open Source version of the icon: http://code.google.com/chromium/images/chromium-16.png At least I think so. I could probably use that instead.]
Anyways I'd feel better about releasing it to the public if a "professional eye" were to go over the installer/launcher itself first to be sure it's legally good. Want to look, John?
Although I still think compiling from source would be best, then we could have a simpler total package installer with a PortableApps.com themed Chromium. My solution is just sorta to satiate myself. I don't really want to take up a bigger project like that.
Shoot it over to me via email to the developers email address on the contact page and I'll have a look. Compile in that chromium icon into the launcher, too.
Sent.
I just realized the copyrights in the source code are a bit off... reversed, even. In the launcher I take copyright credit and give partial copyright credit to you even though I only wrote like one line (Google Chrome only needs a command line argument to be completely portable AFAI can tell)... and in the installer I forgot to take copyright credit even though that's where most of my code is. I've already fixed it but just to let you know I wasn't intentionally trying to steal your code or anything.
The way I see it its not open source.
Point 10.2 of the EULA says:
10.2 You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.
And 11.1 says:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
Thats nor very open source to me. Especially the first part. The second one is just scary.
That only applies to Google Chrome. Google does not want anyone to create custom versions of that because then there would be buggy and potentially malicious versions of GOOGLE Chrome around the internet which they would be blamed for.
Go to www.chromium.org and read the license stuff there. That is the unbranded version of Google Chrome which is open source.
Google Chrom isnt Chromium. They are just similar. How else do you eyplain that Chromium is open source and Chrome isnt?
If they were the same, Google wouldnt say that "Chromium is the open-source project behind Google Chrome"?
Google Chrome has an EULA and no source code whereas Chromium is BSD-licensed. It shows you once more the advantage of GPL (cause if Chromium were GPL, we would have Chrome's source code).
Read the Chromium site. You can built it into a fully-functional web browser, as stated here: http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/getting-started This tells me that Google Chrome is just Chromium with branding.
This is how Google can say Google Chrome is open source... you can build your own version of Google Chrome using Chromium. You just can't use the Google branding, which is quite reasonable and understandable, since as I already said, there are liability issues if anyone can easily go around distributing "Google Chrome" with built-in key loggers or malware.
Here's an exercise to you. If you're so sure, name ONE thing you wouldn't be able to do with Chromium that you can do in Google Chrome (impressing people with the name doesn't count) and explain why.
I have neither the knowledge nor the time to do that and try it myself. If it was only about protecting the brand, then why don't they do it like Mozilla with trademarks? They say I cant "make a derivative work" of it. But in my opinion, thats just what I can do with Firefox as long as I call it differently.
And I just read the part posted above and find it not open source. And the fact that they say "Chromium is the open-source project behind Google Chrome" and not something like "Google Chrome is Chromium" tells me tat there is a layer between the two they don't want to show.
Mozilla does a very similar thing as Google is doing here. The only difference is that Mozilla allows you to build with the name "Firefox" but legally says you can't make changes to it and redistribute it as "Firefox". Google just removes the ability to redistribute a changed Google branded browser at all, legally or not.
As you said, if you repackage Firefox, you can't call it Firefox. You can put "Powered By Firefox" in the title, but that's it. You can't call it "Firefox X Edition" or anything like that. Mozilla won't let you.
Let's compare Firefox and Chrome and maybe things will become a little clearer.
Downloading the official binaries gets you Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome.
If you compile Firefox from source (as I have done) the default is for it to have the build's codename and NOT be called Firefox at all! When I built Firefox 2 from source it called itself "Minefield". You have to pass a specific argument to configure (on Linux) to get the official branding in the browser.
If you compile Chromium from source you get Chromium. Google has not permitted it to be compiled as Google Chrome.
I think you are reading a bit too much into "Chromium is the open-source project behind Google Chrome".
There really is no point is us arguing like this when the source is RIGHT THERE for us to compile and see for ourselves. I'm going to go do that now.
[Edit: Trying to build it with VC++ 2008 Express. Got a few project import warnings but it seems to be compiling alright for now...
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/869-building-chromium.html
This guy already built it though. The only differences he notices are the ones I predicted... branding and logos.]
[Edit: VC++ 2008 Express doesn't like Windows SDK 6.1. Maybe there's an update or something... I'll try again later.]
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.
Well, it sure would beat Firefox portable... I think it's my favorite web browser yet (IE comes in a close second, with Firefox an even closer 3rd)
i liked it...
it brings all my firefox configurations!
very good!
screenshot: http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5056/imagemcf7.png
new tab screenshot: http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/5822/imagemrb4.png
it have a bookmark toolbar = firefox and up tabs = opera
100%!!
awsome. what theme do you use?
it have a lot of skins... i have it here: taffarel.4shared.com
software/customização/windowblinds
the .rar is the program...
inside the .rar is a .txt with installation instructions...
the other files are some skins i have...
i think one of them is the skin i used in the screenshot...
if not, it comes with the program...
if you want to download more skins, the site: www.wincustomize.com
Hello all, is there a way to import the settings from PORTABLE firefox into chrome? Googling it didnt gave me any solutions
Thanks in advance.
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.
Actually it properly reads your profile location from the INI file in APPDATA\Mozilla\Firefox\profiles... I keep my profile on my F drive and share it between three OSs.
There is a manual process... wrench menu > Import. Although I suppose you meant you can't browse for or select a file. You could always install Firefox locally and import your profile into there. Or use an online bookmark service like del.ico.us.
Also did you see my comment above about possibly using Chromium instead of the Google branded Google Chrome for a PortableApp?
You don't seem to like the BSD license but the terms here: http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html seem to be simple enough and would have what you would need to modify it to be portable and redistribute it.
[Edit: Ooh, chrome.exe can take a --user-data-dir= argument... how useful! :)]
I guess this is all we need to know. The main issue would be the updates that BETA will soon receive. If made portable, a close look at this should be taken. Other than that, let's get to work!
~IntEr
Is there is there not going to be a portable version?
is there a program that will make a portable version of programs?
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.
-> it´s beta
-> it sends your userdata to Google (every chrome browser has at least one unique number sent to Google everytime you use "Chrome") http://www.golem.de/0809/62171.html
-> remember the hurly-burly when Google tried the same with Firefox 1.x
-> remember all those cries on Microsoft spying on our PCs via IE
-> tried to find an access to EULA - it´s only accessable when you´re already in the download process -> "open"? source?
all forgotten?
seems to me a typical "1984" BigBrother story, you have to love him and all´s going well?
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.
if you guys are so worried why not contact google and ask if we can make a portable version?
that way we can avoid the heated discussion and find out quicker...
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.
if i do ask google and if they do give me permission...wouldn't that mean they gave only me explicit permission to make a portable version?
so if i go ahead and contact them should i say i represent the PortableApps.com community?
or would i be intruding upon John's territory?
better yet, i think maybe John or one of the other better programmers around here should ask (if they have the time or the patience).
P.S. i'm using it right now
I think PortableApps.com is already well beyond being part of the "Little People" group. I'm sure that if JTH got in contact with Google they would allow it to happen. In fact, they might even help him out in the process.
I was thinking more in general terms of individuals. Or specifically, of the poster of the comment rather than PortableApps.com or John.
http://dev.tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_...
"and unlike all these people who "are not a lawyer", I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this post does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. If you're like me, you use your browser for a lot more than just web browsing. The web browser is an entire application platform (isn't that the idea behind web apps?). Google simply cannot have a license to all of the IP that goes through my browser. I, as an attorney, cannot give that up, especially because some of it is confidential. The Rules of Professional Responsiblity (which all lawyers must abide by) easily prohibit this exact kind of thing. Until Google scales this back, I will NOT be using Chrome"
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
While this post is likely pointless, I'll just drop the link to their offline installer for Chrome... just in case anybody wants it.
You can pick it up at http://dl.google.com/chrome/install/149.27/chrome_installer.exe
Chat with Google:
22:42:13) : what are the differences in the google version and the open version apart from the name and icon?
(22:44:07) that's pretty much it. we have one additional dll that's used for tracking installs for partner deals. (rlz.dll)
great to know. this could work out well.
i have it is fast slick and really cool i really want to see this as a portable app there are no bugs so far
Already Done! - https://portableapps.com/node/15456
I Cant Wait!!!
Just in case anyone's interested this article shows you where to get the Vista skin for Chrome to use on XP. I installed the theme in Chromium and it definitely looks better.
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/the-geek-blog/enable-vista-black-style-th...
http://www.room362.com/archives/219-Brass-Tax-on-Chrome.html
I found this browsing around Hak.5 this morning.
Please make a portable version of this!
But I've gone ahead and made some changes to my GoogleChromePortable installer, partly because Google released a Chrome update and I wanted to make sure they didn't change anything big (they didn't other than the application folder paths). No public release yet, sorry. But here is a full feature list for when I do release it (cause I had some ideas about how to improve the installer, too):
- It will automatically copy Chrome (only version 0.2.149.29 ATM due to limitations with NSIS I can't work around) to your install location.
- If you have the original install files (you have to explicitly delete them to not have them, Google's installer caches them) my installer will extract them to make a clean Google Chrome Portable install.
- You can choose whether or not to include the non-en-US locales.
- You can choose whether or not to include the DOM Inspector if you don't want it (right click > inspect element).
- A copied Chrome is automatically compressed with UPX.*
- You can import your local Google Chrome profile (sans Cache).
- You can disable the initial "Import other browser settings, set Google Chrome as default?" dialog in a new profile if you want.
* - PROTIP: The main chrome.exe can't be compressed otherwise the app breaks. All DLLs are fair game.
Check http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php
This german company, build an equivalent to Chrome based on Chromium, but without the dependence on google that Chromium have.
They offer free of charge a portable version. That's what I am using right now, because Fire Fox has become too slow to work from a USB.
Denis J Navas
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
