Talk:Google Chrome/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Frequently updated parameter

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)

Version History

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)

Wouldn't the reference from the Official Google Chrome Release blog count towards something? I agree about the version history though.. not really a need for it to be here and it'll just get long. If it does stay then it should just show when it was released to beta, and then the stable versions released here-in. No beta versions should be listed. Sc0ttkclark (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO the number beta and stable releases is short enough to include all of them in the table for now. We can trim off most of the bete releases once the table gets too large. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to revisit this, I think this should be the new version history chart because we shouldn't be tracking each release of Google Chrome here, only major x.x versions, or x.0 versions. See below:

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

This makes the chart much easier to manage. If they want to see a complete version history, they can always click on the reference link in the text section of this area. Does anyone disagree with me in that we need to list EVERY version on this page? It seems way too redundant to track Beta and Public releases of this thing if we're not tracking it on other software. --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally go another step further and say just delete the entire thing, but if anything, have it like above. I just don't think it's needed. You don't see this kind of table in any other software article, and it makes even less sense for Chrome, because there are hardly any differences between the versions (not to mention...just look at the version numbers). My two cents. — ^FatalError 07:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you FatalError, I've removed this table from the article and renamed the section title from "Version History" to "Stable, Beta, and Dev Releases". --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, looks good. — ^FatalError 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote to bring this table back. I agree with Sc0ttkclark & FatalError that because there tend to be a lot of releases of Chrome (especially in the Beta & Dev release channels) we shouldn't list them all. Maybe this table should only show a history of the Stable channel and the most recent Beta & Dev releases. On another note, there are several other software packages that include version history tables including Firefox, Safari, and Others. I find it very helpful to see the other browsers' history in a table format, especially the Gecko/Webkit versions and notable changes. Metavida (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion to return a Version History table, however probably not the same one that removed by Sc0ttkclark. The claim of WP:OR seems mis-guided; if it were the case, shouldn't the Safari & Firefox version history tables be removed as well? Metavida's suggestion on only showing the Stable channel with latest beta/dev releases is on point. I think it's very wise to model this after the Safari version history table, especially including the webkit version. The webkit versions in this official Chrome blog post gives a good start on that. --Effoveks (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should omit the pre-1.0 beta releases from the table. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Assembly language

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 was wondering the same thing too. I suspect whoever put that up was referring to the use of assembly in V8 (for the JIT engine). I don't think that belongs here though... Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. — ^FatalError 06:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Beta versions (automatically upgraded)" is wrong now?

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)

I've updated the statement. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Spammish content and links

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)

IMO as long as we don't have other Chromium-related articles, all notable unofficial chromium builds should be within the scope of this article, however I don't think it should cover unofficial builds for which notability has not been established. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

SRWare Iron is already mentioned in the article — if it weren't notable, one might wonder why it's there. ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As we discussed before Iron and any other browsers that use Chromium code should be discussed separately, possible in a Chromium page, otherwise there's no connection between Iron and Google Chrome, they are separate products made by separate entities. man with one red shoe 15:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a separate Chromium page. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron is a Chrome copy, with the exception of privacy related functions that were removed. it has a very strong connection to Chrome and is indeed notable --Nezek (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition "without any problems at privacy and security" is bad English and advertisement that should be removed man with one red shoe 15:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(crossposted) All Your Personal World Wide Websites belong to CADIE

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)

Not today--Salix (talk): 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

3D

Should we mention the new 3D edition? 92.80.42.6 (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that, but this actually works, it's not like Gmail Custom Time last year, for example, where it was just a hoax webpage, this is real coding. Xammer (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

it is really producing an anaglyph image bu it was an April fools joke, and all it does it make a flat page appear a bit above the screen, not really 3d :P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.130.206 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest Beta

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)

the one in the infobox is the dev version, it gets updated more often but is more prone to have bugs and issues Redekopmark (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But it says Beta and preview release, the Development version is neither. Should we show all 3 versions? And although as I said, a couple of hours ago I had a notifiction (popup), I've just been to the Beta site and discovered that the current version is 2.0.172.8. I'll change the infobox to that. Someone else can add the Development version if they like. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just checked my "About Google Chrome" screen, and I currently have 2.0.174.0 (developer channel). I updated it. I don't know what we should do about three channels: Technically, Chrome is unstable on the Beta and Dev channels as well. Should this be noted?--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As per Software release life cycle, Dev and Beta are both preview releases. Since there is a separate spot for stable release, saying that the unstable release is unstable is redundant.--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to a "developer release" in the article you mention. I would consider developer builds to be like nightly builds, and would not count them as releases. Releases generally have some form of QA and come with release notes. Developer builds or nightly builds are just builds pushed out to a server as is. -- Schapel (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There are three "release channels": Stable, Beta, and Developer. There is also the Chromium project, which is the ABSOLUTE LATEST they've come up with. The Developer channel has about weekly updates, the beta has monthly, and the stable has quarterly. I would say the latest preview release should be based off the Developer Channel, which has the latest official releases of Google Chrome.--Unionhawk ^Talk 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what's done for any of the other browsers in the latest preview release templates. For example, Firefox has the latest beta release, not the latest nightly builds. Listing the latest developer build is also useful to fewer people, as more would tend to use the more stable beta releases. -- Schapel (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should show the Beta release. Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I get where you guys are coming from. The Beta channel is where the features from the developer channel go, once made stable and complete. However, it does say "Latest preview release," and the developer channel is still technically a preview release.--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chromium license

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)

Reception

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)

There's no reliable sources to show what the "user reception" was like. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Chrome Logo

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)

Done --Unapiedra (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I switched to using the official "Google chrome" logo as seen on that Thank You page and elsewhere. Software logos should display the official brand logo as far as possible, and the icon is only used if such is not available. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I undid that since more articles were in favor of the icon (Opera (web browser)), and less in favor of the brand logo (Firefox) -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if we used this logo. Rather just an icon. --Jecshack (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Chromium distinction

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)

Agreed. We need a Chromium (browser) article. This article should talk only about Google Chrome, links to other browsers that use Chromium code should be in the new Chromium page. man with one red shoe 22:03, 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)

Explanation of distinction

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.

Chrome for Mac and Linux

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)

Windows 2000

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)

Features para

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)

Sure, development information can be moved into the history section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done the "Features" rewrite, and I integrated anything that could be considered purely historical and of no value within the "current features" para, into the "History" section. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Chromium

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)

That's a sign we need to remove much of the chromium section from Google Chrome. They need to be separate articles because are separate things. man with one red shoe 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they really separate things? Firefox has similar alpha builds (called "Minefield") but still there is no separate article for them. The layout engines warrant separate articles but WebKit has already an article (as has Gecko (layout engine)). I think a separate article for Chromium is not really warranted as it is just an alpha version of the same product we have here. Regards SoWhy 20:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but look at the content of Chromium section, it talks about different browsers based on Chromium that are not released by Google, those are clearly different products than Google Chrome since they are released by other entities. man with one red shoe 20:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference is Chromium isn't merely the trunk of Google Chrome, it's a separate distribution, like SeaMonkey, K-Meleon, and others are of Mozilla Firefox. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But unlike those Chromium is explicitely a project that is not for release and distribution but only for testing of new features. Yes, unofficial builds are released using that code but there are also Firefox derivatives using the same code (see Iceweasel for example) without the code itself having a separate article. Regards SoWhy 08:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Says who? | You just linked to a separate article. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the point. To take my example, if we compare Firefox with Chrome, then Iceweasel's counterpart would be for example SRWare Iron, not Chromium. Both Iceweasel and Iron are different products (to a degree) that build on the Firefox / Chrome code. But there is no article Firefox alpha releases which would be the equivalent to Chromium because there is no separate notability for those. Instead, it's in the main article at Mozilla Firefox#Future developments. If you read the Chromium article, you will notice that there are no third-party references that cover Chromium itself outside Chrome or one of the third-party applications built upon it and thus I do not see how it warrants a separate article. Regards SoWhy 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct; and its not notable enough since it is (or was) based upon the Chrome codebase (even if its not the exact same trunk). And besides, "Chromium" is not a public/production browser (like SeaMonkey or K-Meleon) its only a codename for testing purposes.. much like Windows 7 was codenamed Windows "Vienna". -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If it has multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage, then it is notable. Otherwise, it is not notable. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not about notability, since notability does not warrant separation. Even related issues that are very significant independently, are merged into a single article if they contain duplicate/overlapping content. Since Chromium is essentially Chrome with a difference and therefore much of the Chrome article could apply to Chromium, (eg. Features or Reception), merging ensures that readers will find information related to both. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We have links and redirects for that. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are so casual that it appears you want to argue without even trying to understand. Why do you wish to keep these two articles separate when they're based upon the same product? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chromium article's lead states: "It should be noted that the project is called 'Chromium', but the application under development is still Chrome, (if not specifically Google Chrome), with the developers stressing that the name 'Chromium' should not appear throughout the application code." -- I believe that this fact alone warrants merging. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That ship has sailed. Utterly. Article updated. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you mean by that Google Search link, the official project documentation explicitly states: "Chromium" is the name of the project, not the product, and should never appear in code in variable names, API names etc. Use "chrome" instead.

Don't delete content only to bend the article to fit your viewpoints. You're not the "owner" of the Chrome project either. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It has something to do with the Chromium devs contradicting their own style guidelines, assuming that bit even means what you think it does. Regardless, we don't work for Google, and have our own naming policy. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What has the statement ""Chromium" is the name of the project, not the product" to do with style guidelines? This is an official remark and you are nobody to dismiss it at false. If you cannot explain yourself I'm proceeding with the merging, since I already have the support of a respected admin (SoWhy). -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, we don't work for Google — their guidelines are not ours; it being an official remark from them has little bearing on our policy. You've no consensus for merging. In fact if we went by a tally, so far it would be 4 to 2 against merging. No amount of last-wording is going to make this happen for you. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with guidelines, simply to do with very related issues. Wikipedia is not a tug-of-war where the greater population rules. Its about simplicity and quality. Last-wording or not, the two articles are so related that they have duplicate content. What say about condensing the duplicated Chromium content (1 vs 2) from the Chrome article, deleting details irrelevant to the Chrome product? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a tug-of-war where the greater population rules." Yes, it is. A little redundancy that is relevant to both articles (and it is), won't hurt anything. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A little redundancy? Practically the whole Chromium article is a dup ... so I'm going to begin rewriting it (and the related parts in the Chrome article) keeping the relavent issues. And you can't stop me because I'm only improving the article, not doing anything that requires general agreement. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's all you do, there's no reason I'll want to stop you. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; And since Chromium is NOT Google Chrome I would never want to merge the articles anyways. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 09:19, 10 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)

"going back on previously reached consensus" Immaterial. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"previously reached consensus"? That was just 3 chats between two people, including the "red shoe man" who confesses to understanding little about the issue ("I don't know, but look at..."). Don't simply link to a past discussion to justify your own viewpoints. Note how the flaw that initiated the separation has still not been fixed. (Chromium discussed in lead of Chrome)

"Bloat"? Good point. Should I condense the "Unofficial Chromium releases" section in the Google Chrome article? Because its a complete duplicate of the Chromium article (with exception to the lead) -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not just follow what Google said, according to this article in the Developer Documentation: ""'Chromium' is the name of the project, not the product, and should never appear in code in variable names, API names etc. Use 'chrome' instead." That means two distinct things. There should be two articles. -- Haxwell (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

SRWare Iron

Another issue is that some other browsers (like SRWare Iron) are based on Chromium but shouldn't really be discussed on Google Chrome page because they have no direct connection with either Google or Chrome. man with one red shoe 23:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You've said this before too, and its not related to the Chrome/Chromium discussion above. Its about another change you wish for the article. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly related, SRWare Iron is something that has nothing to do on this page, but it should be in a page about Chromium, if you want to merge the articles you'll have to lose this content because is not related to "Google Chrome" it's related to Chromium. man with one red shoe 23:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also if SRWare Iron and other similar browsers find a place in Chromium and not a place on this page you can't argue successfully that the Chromium article is a dupe. man with one red shoe 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Name change urgent

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)

Nah. The blog announcement consistently appends ' OS' for the "OS", and uses 'Google Chrome' for the browser. At the very least we can wait until the OS exists, and probably even until people actually become confused about what "Google Chrome" is (a browser or an OS), which should be some time. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:37, 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)

By "a lot of people" you mean the fraction that follow online tech news and aren't already aware of the distinction? ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Google Chrome is the perfect name for this page. When and if the OS arrive we'll name that page according to the official name, till then it's only a blog announcement and vaporware till it's proven otherwise, it also doesn't conflict with the name of this article. man with one red shoe 14:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation note at the top of the page handles the problem of anyone coming here looking for the OS. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Chrome Build Information

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)

Outdated

In the history section, it's stated:

However, the current stable version (2.0) scores 100 out of 100 while still failing the link test.

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 updated this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechFan (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest Stable/Preview Build

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)

• That template is used in other pages as well, the stable one is used in three different articles, and the preview release one is used in two articles. Not using the template means we'd need to manually update two or three articles depending on the version update, the template is much more convenient. 187.67.4.85 (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Link to articles that use this template? 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  22:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  For example Firefox, Opera (browser) and I would assume any other software that gets updated fast should use this template, it's actually a great idea, you click on the link and change only that instead of editing the entire page and finding the number to change in an entire page -- also there are less edit conflicts and it's easier to revert vandals in the main page (you don't have to backport numbers that were added after vandalism) man with one red shoe 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Those are all separate articles using separate build numbers, so I don't see how that argue is relevant to Google Chrome's latest build info. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean, both in Firefox and Opera we have the exactly same arrangement, a link to a template instead of having the version number put in the main page (both for current and testing versions) man with one red shoe 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Not a valid argument per WP:OSE. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  23:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  It's what you asked: " Link to articles that use this template? " or I didn't understood that right? I'm getting tired of this discussion, see if you find somebody else who supports your point of view. man with one red shoe 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  I was talking about any articles that use the Google Chrome latest stable/preview build? If not, I see no reasoning to use it. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  01:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  From the "what links here": stable one and preview release one. Other than userpages, stable one is used in Comparison of web browsers, Google Chrome and Privacy mode. Preview one is used in these Google Chrome and Comparison of web browsers. I don't know why you had to ask us to show where they're used, it's very easy to find that out. 187.67.4.85 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Chrome Preview Edits

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)

Built up the release history of Google Chrome

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)

0.3 — Improved plugin (Flash, QuickTime, Windows Media, Silverlight, etc) performance and reliability. Spell checking for input fields. Improved web proxy performance and reliability. Tab and window management updates. 0.4 — Bookmark manager with import and export support. Privacy section added to the application options. New blocked popup notification. Security fixes. 2.0 — 35% faster Javascript on the Sunspider benchmark. Mouse wheel support. Full-screen mode. Full-page zoom. Form autofill. Sort bookmarks by title. Tab docking to browser and desktop edges. Basic Greasemonkey support. 3.0 — New "new tab" page for improved customization. 25% faster Javascript. HTML 5 video and audio tag support. — Northgrove 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

4.0 Extensions and bookmark sync Mark (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Usage tracking section

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)

Additionally the cells marked as "unkown" might simply need a source. --Nezek (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering why this wiki does not contain any discussion about privacy at all. Also there is not any criticism, like user rights (Google claiming to own the content users are creating) that were all over the press. This is strange. Here are some links: 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 128.100.5.136 (talk) 01:02, 24 May 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)

New Tab Page

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)

Are you referring to the basic idea of "new tabs", or Chrome's putting thumbnails of the most frequently visited URLs on a new tab? As I read the section, it refers to the latter. But I haven't looked at Opera in a while, so I'm just asking. Barte (talk) 20:48, 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)

browsesr typo

The word "browser" is spelled incorrectly as "browsesr" in the right pantel.

Edit page does seem to give access to fix it.

Fixed. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Privacy issues

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)

Mostly lack of reliable refs - the first one you cite is a blog - see WP:SPS - can't use it. The second is not even on this topic, it is about Google searches, not the Chrome browser. The third might be of some use, but essentially all browsers store numbers, including Firefox and Epiphany, until you clear them, unless you are using an incognito mode or similar, so what? - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so what about this?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031661-56.html

Found this after about 13 seconds of looking for citeable items. It's not about 'numbers' being stored. You should very well be aware that there is huge widespread criticism of this browser on the privacy front, and I was frankly staggered as I read further and further down the article (which frankly reads like a giant press release with technical info added) and found one tiny little comment about privacy concerns, which doesn't even begin to cover the criticisms levelled at it in the IT press (CNET, Silicon, El Reg etc). I strongly agree with the (sadly) anon user above's slightly sarcastic suggestion that the article was written almost exclusively by Google developers who are blind to these issues. Blitterbug (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That ref is okay, but it dates from September 2008, so it isn't very current. The information passed by the suggestion service is well known, but could perhaps use more coverage here. It is also very easy in current versions of Chrome to turn off. I can use it to add some text to the article, but if you find more specific and current criticism that would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For another blog on this subject (that is also WP:SPS although interesting), see The story of Iron. - Ahunt (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV FireFox section?

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)

Why did Google name their browser "Chrome"?

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)

Because they suck at naming things, and also they don't have to have easy-to-find search terms as names when they control most people's search results. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that "chrome" is not specific to firefox. Most UI is called chrome. Ever heard of "System chrome"? That would be your operating system's window UI.173.206.143.43 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrome because the "chrome" of the browser is not supposed to be noticeable, allowing users to concentrate the web page rather than the browser interface. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:33, 17 May 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)

Automate archiving?

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)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

RLZ in Chrome 4.1

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)

There is more info on the RLZ identifier in the latest release notes on Chrome 5.0.342.7. It says: "We’ve also implemented a new approach to our Google Update technology, which allows us to remove the unique ID from Google Update while still preserving our ability to determine the number of active users and keep everyone up-to-date with the latest security updates and speed improvements." I think this information should be used in the article, but I am not totally sure where to incorporate it. Any help in that regard? - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 25 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)

infobox picture mess-up

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)

Well the button system displayed shows that it is Ubuntu 10.04 beta, but other than that it would be hard to tell which OS it is running on. I am not sure that the OS needs to be mentioned in the caption. Anyone who cares can click on the image page which describes it fully. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the picture is of Chromium, not Google Chrome. There is no official Google Chrome release on Linux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadomatic (talk • contribs)

Not true - the current release for Linux is Google Chrome 5.0.342.9 beta and I am writing this comment with it on Linux! - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A beta is not an actual release. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why we hear all the time "released as beta" or "beta release"? It is a "release", it's not a "final" or "ready" release. man with one red shoe 15:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That is what I meant by "actual," I was referring to a final release. Should've been more clear. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

More to the point: User:Quadomatic had said that the image must be a screenshot of Chromium, because there is "no official Google Chrome release on Linux". But there is an official (meaning by Google, not someone else) beta release of Chrome on Linux and that image is of Chrome and not Chromium. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Beta 5 has been blessed as official --83.100.175.243 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

On another note. The main screenshot is shown using Windows with native window controls, shouldn't it be the default screenshot of Google Chrome Blue theme with Google's controls fully maximazed with system toolbar hidden? --83.100.175.243 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right - normally we show the default configuration of any GUI. Let me see if I can fix that. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Browser Feats

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 can be included if you have a ref that describes this! - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Some ars technica and Lifehacker references about the results and the issue between FF and Chrome are:

[1] IE8 etc. fall on Day 1

[2] Day Two: No-one even attempts hacking Chrome

[3] Which Browser: FIrefox or Chrome
Adrenalin 150% ::(talk) 08:23, 1 April 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)

True, I agree with that, although I think the sandbox model that discouraged contestants wasn't really that recent. However, here's a link to demonstrate how important the contest's results were to Firefox:

[4] Firefox Updates to 3.6.3Adrenalin 150% (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

File size

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)

Agreed. No other browser has this data.  Done --Gyrobo (talk) 18:08, 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)

Acid Test

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)

"No way to confirm this"

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)

I agree, this really sounds like WP:OR or personal opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to remove that couple of times and it popped back up. It's a very bad example of promoting speculations and FUD on Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 14:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I added that comment (although the phrasing has been changed), and it's there to balance out the claim by Google that the string is harmless, which we can not verify because Google is not a third-party source.

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

And like it says in my comment, this is not OR, speculation, "fear mongering", or an opinion, this is a stating of a fact. If you have a better solution to how we can keep this article neutral I'd love to hear it.

Personally I'd go with removing both what Google claims the string is and what the string might contain. Just call it an encoded string and link the text to Encryption --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to critique Google claims. As long as we say "according to Google" it's enough to put a distance and make it clear that it's not Wikipedia or a third party source that claims that. So we actually present the fact that Google claims that, not the fact that the string is harmless or not. Google promise is encyclopedic and verifiable, our doubts are not. man with one red shoe 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen others also try to claim that Wikipedia:Third-party sources says that we should include only information from third-party sources. This is not what the guideline says at all! It says that articles should be based upon third-party sources. In other words, you should not create an article about Google Chrome and use only or primarily sources from Google. It doesn't say you should not use Google as a source. Please use a neutral point of view when editing. Do not go into an article with an intention of making or removing a particular edit, and finding a poor excuse to do so. -- Schapel (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:man with one red shoe on this - there is no problem quoting Google claims on the subject as long as we make it clear that this is what Google says and not a third party. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, I have no hidden agenda or intent to harm the article, I'm trying to keep it balanced. The average user doesn't know how harmful an "ecoded string" may be. At the very least, those words should be linked to encryption. And like Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information wisely suggests: "Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition." --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Be cautious not to juxtapose related facts in a manner to suggest an unsourced conclusion; WP:SYNTHESIS.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though you do have an agenda. You are trying to claim or imply that the encoded string is harmful, although no source seems to say so. On your talk page, you say you use Google products only as a last resort, showing you are biased against Google products. These don't add up to the likelihood of your making neutral edits about this matter. Please do not inject your own personal bias into the article. -- Schapel (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Schapel, I created and maintained the whole section about usage tracking on this article, and haven't added a single biased edit to it. My intention is to keep things balanced and neatural -- Sourced by outlets other than Google and edited by Wikipadians other than Google "fan-boys". You, I assume, do use Google products, and not only as a last resort; By the logic you're using, I could say that you're biased. In fact, most people use Google on a daily basis, I could say they're also biased. By that logic I could also claim that whoever added "According to Google, the string is safe" is trying to divert attention from the fact it is encrypted. Don't try to argue that kind of logic here, because as you can see it won't hold up.

Either way, Gyrobo is correct, I have no source that brings up the possiblity the string might have something other than what Google claims it has, and therefore it shouldn't be included. But when I find one, I'm adding it back up (: --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we could wikilink the word "encoded" or like this "encoded" if people want to learn what that means that will find more info in the Wikipedia page. Doing more that that it would be indeed WP:SYNTH man with one red shoe 04:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Encoded" refers to encrypted content, not code in general.

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)

Ah, I see what you're talking about. I was thinking of "encryption" and "encoding" as synonyms for obfuscated source code, while "code" itself referred only to non-obfuscated source code. Misread the context.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Adblock?

A marketing blurb was found in section Features:

Google Chrome aims to improve security, speed, and stability.

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)

The same people who made the AdBlock extension for Firefox have a version for Chrome. AdBlock by gundlach Perhaps this should be added to the article under extensions? - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Compatibility

No discussion of compatibility. 64 bit? Windows ME? 3.1? disappointing. Almost all reputable software discusses requirements and compatibility. Discussion of Chrome should, too -imho69.40.246.14 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reference it can easily be added. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

New dev version

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)

Thanks for pointing that out. The Chrome release notes confirm it so I have updated the page. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OSes in the preview/stable version numbers

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 agree, it is no longer needed to state that, overtaken by events. I will fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Gyrobo (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gained quickly 1% market share ...

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)

Despite being a die-hard Linux fan, I would certain agree. Keep in mind though that Internet Explorer is the only browser not available for non-Windows systems, and Safari+IE the only mainstream browsers without Linux support. Since Google didn't have anything to gain from excluding Linux or Mac support, it was unique in this regard. Still, I do agree. FreezeWarp (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Versions / Release history

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)

I see no purpose for the Versions section. It's completely redundant.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "Versions" should probably be removed.FreezeWarp (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reflist

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)

Google Chrome for FreeBSD and OpenBSD

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)

Facebook likes

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)

Yes, a very "encyclopedic" piece of info :D man with one red shoe 02:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be worth mentioning, non-encyclopedic. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is also not a reliable source, and it is by alot of people, not by a reputable person talking about the subjectSir Stupidity (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Release History

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)

I agree. Wikipedia is not News we shouldn't rush to include such info about nightly builds. man with one red shoe 13:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed already. I don' think it's necessary either. We don't really need to show what is the difference between dev an canary builds. Sir Stupidity (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the discussion at Canary build above. Up there I agreed that the canary build should be mentioned in the article but not tabulated by version. Others however disagreed and it was added as a version to the table as well as the descriptive para added. I don't see any argument to remove the beta from the table, though. It is worth noting that User:KaySL restored the missing canary and beta to the table. - Ahunt (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove canary builds from the table. It's a valid channel. Arguing against its inclusion on the grounds that it's an excessive statistic is (in my opinion) a slippery slope to disqualifying all pre-release builds/channels.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to exercise some common sense, for example it's known that Google keeps many things in "beta" for a long time, such was the case for Gmail, such products should be listed in an encyclopedia because they are relevant and important, however other products in development (no matter what name they use) should not be included. I don't think there's much info about canary builds outside of a limited circle, thus it can be argued that it fails the notoriety criteria for being included in this page. Dev branches need to be mentioned most of the times because they introduce new features, but nightly builds don't need to be mentioned in my view. man with one red shoe 02:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking now, Mister Potato has reverted Kay's edit, but Potato has reverted a few others from other users. Maybe it's time time to ask Kay to cease reverting back to a version with the canary version. And maybe we need to also need to gain consensus with all people involved. Sir Stupidity (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since he has reverted the same text three times in 24 hours and two minutes I have warned User:Mister Potato 47 for edit warring. I agree that we need to find a solid consensus to include or exclude the canary builds. Another issue is that beta versions were also removed from the table. I haven't seen any arguments to remove these. I think the one determining factor on the canary builds should be whether we have a reliable source for these. For the stable, beta and dev builds there is http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/ Where are the canary builds listed that we can use as a reference? - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Canary build

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)

I think you have a point, so I would suggest that the canary builds remain as mentioned existing, but without an attempt to catalog their daily changes. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 13 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)

Yes, I do think it could be useful, if we can keep up with making its info accurate. The problem here is that Google doesn't announce the changes in the Canary builds, as well as the rapid releases. So few may end up spending time digging through the buildbot logs to come up with what's new and "major" enough to cover on Wikipedia in those builds. The result of this could be inaccurate and outdated info on Wikipedia. But if that's no problem, I'm all for it. — Northgrove 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:90.201.150.23 has removed it from the table with the edit summary "Removing canary build. It's very identical to the dev version and isn't even a full release." - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Weather or not it is an automated build doesn't matter, it is an individual development stage. as far as it being "very identical to the dev version" it differs by as much as 0.0.300.0 Sometimes and installs alongside other builds, it is the true "alpha" stage of chrome as "minefield" is for Firefox. Can we please come to a final consensus regarding this matter Charles E. Keisler (talk), Network+ 12:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to find a consensus to include this or not - the above discussion was pretty inconclusive. Personally I think it should be explained in general terms in the text (without versions mentioned), but not included in the table, to avoid version numbers being constantly out of date, since the version number references seem to be slim. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's OK i'll start a Pre-releases sub-header under development explaining the early release builds and what and who they are designed for. Charles E. Keisler (talk), Network+ 19:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Added the Canary build number to the box that explains the versions, however they were reverted? - Billy12354 (talk) 17:23 19/10/2010 (GMT)

This has been removed twice again, along with the beta version and I have asked those removing it to come here and gain consensus either way. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The beta is back (of course) so I guess this has been solved. - Ahunt (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This will surely interest the article readers a LOT...

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)

Do you have a ref that we can cite? The reason that I ask is that this subject is complex, as many Firefox add-ons have been adapted for Chrome and are available for Chrome. - Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Version 7 -> 9 -> 8 ?

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)

on 11-11 a beta for 8 was released, on 11-09 the dev for 9 was released, the dev for 8 was release about 2-3 weeks before that, it's all in order but they changed their release schedule so things for a little mixed up there but once the stable is released it'll make sense Mark (talk) 18:23, 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)

As long as you have reliable references that indicate future expected directions and as long as the information is attributed as to whose opinion that it is, then adding that is acceptable. Of course it maybe made obsolete over time and get removed at a later date. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Google Chrome Web Store?

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)

Google Chrome Releases blog not reliable source?

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)

The editor is incorrect in this matter. The self-published company source is reliable for release announcements and other factual information, it is not reliable for subjective information, such as "this is the best browser ever made". The policy is found at WP:ABOUTSELF. - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Image

Why does every article of an internet browser showcase wikipedia? Just wondering. --Arathun (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A good question! It is not required, but Wikipedia pages are freely licenced and so can be easily used. You can't use random websites for two reasons: 1. most are copyrighted and fair use would not extend to using them just to illustrate a browser and 2. that would lend itself to spamming. In the past I have used US government websites which are public domain, or even no website at all as in this example. I hope that answers your question? - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Written in ...?

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)

WebGL with Windows XP

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)

Should the canary releases be added to the feature-adding table?

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)

I agree. I would still be happy with only stable and beta channels. But Google at least provides major changes for the dev branch, so I guess it's still doable although we may sometimes fall behind. As for Canary, I absolutely think that channel shouldn't be followed. Unless we have a sizable group that enjoy digging through these logs daily and filter out any important stuff: http://omahaproxy.appspot.com/cl?os=win&channel=canary My main issue with the Canary channel is that it's very hard to follow accurately due to these two issues (frequency and no good bird's eye-view for the changelog documentation that suit Wikipedia goals as for granularity). — Northgrove 10:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a bunch of canary information has been added back in once again. As noted this is very hard to source and will quickly be out of date unless updated daily. Canary is adequately described as to what it is in the article, there is no need to list the almost daily versions. I am in favour of gaining a solid consensus here and then removing it once again. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I vote for removal, too hard to keep up with, and most of what's there right now shouldn't be in the chart, saying that chrome 12 includes a new version of V8 that's 66% faster than chrome 9? things like that shouldn't be there Mark (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay we seem to be developing a consensus here on this, but let's let is run a few days and see if there are any other opinions. - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree; not including Canary builds will make maintenance and moderation of the article much simpler, at the expense of very little useful information. Zorak950 (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

With no objections voiced then I believe we have a consensus to remove the canary build information, while retaining the general text explaining what the canary releases are about. I will remove that from the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of About and Chrome URLs and About:flags

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)

I found one ref for the second section, or at least for the general existence of it, but not for the details. Regardless of the refs, I think both these sections should be cut down to one sentence descriptions and incorporated in other sections to eliminate the extraneous WP:NOTMANUAL information. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This proposal to remove these sections has now been posted for seven days without objection and so in accordance with WP:SILENCE we have a consensus to remove them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Revived these sections, but placed them on a separate page, named Google Chrome About and Chrome URLs. The Google Chrome About and Chrome URLs is referenced in the "See also" section of Google Chrome. This edit was used for the source of the sections Google Chrome About and Chrome URLs page. - squater (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2011 (GMT+2)

too googlefriendly

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

Does that option come turned on or off by default? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Off by default, it can be turned on when downloading: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html?hl=en&brand=CHMA&installdataindex=homepagepromo (can also be turned on later from within the programme) --SmilingBoy (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Big Penis Number

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

It was a vandalism on this page made by 120.16.170.188 at 07:15 GMT+2, 26 March 2011. --VittGam 16:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Current stable build

Please comment at Template talk:Latest stable software release/Google Chrome#Current version. Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yours might have not updated yet, but my stable build updated to 11.0.696.16 when I got back home this weekend.--ATR94 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter, we need to cite a ref to change it and the official source says the current stable is 10.0.648.204. Reading it from your PC is WP:OR. It is possible you got on the beta channel my mistake. This is not really a life-or-death issue, we can wait for confirmation. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Standalone doesn't auto-update, or does?

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)

New logo?

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)

According to Google the new logo isn't going away, it is permenant. - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

while you're right that the new logo is stay Ahunt (at least as far as i know, i claim no connection to google) I think he's referring to the logo on the wikipedia page, which has the old logo Mark (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't very clear in my remark. I was supporting User:Kjinho213's implied assertion that we should have the new logo at the top of the page in place of the old logo. The new logo was put at the top of the page and then reverted with an edit summary that indicated that the old logo is still used in the stable version currently. I think we need to find a consensus as to when the new logo should go at the top. I would suggest since it has been officially changed and also since both logos are illustrated and explained in the text now, that the new logo should go at the top now. - Ahunt (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lacking any further objections we have a consensus to put the new logo into the article, which I will do. - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, putting the new logo on the top of the article was what I meant. But what about the "chrome" wordmark? tablo (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The new wordmark as seen on the official page isn't much, just plain gray lettering with the new logo. Wordmarks aren't used in the articles on Internet Explorer, Opera (web browser), Chromium (web browser) or even on Epiphany (web browser), but one is used on Firefox. In the interests of keeping the infox box uncluttered and the same as most other articles on browsers, I am not sure it is worth including. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Creation year

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)

Bad SVG version of the logo?

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)

Normally a low resolution vector image is nonsense, but it appears Koman90 put a bitmap image in a vector file. I'll upload a real vector file in a minute. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Do NOT replace images unless it is considerably different than the previous one

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)

Criticism

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)

find a reliable source where people discuss this issue, if you find it you should add this no mentioned section, try to explain how you can and add the reference.

I understand your complain, but have seen that this section can be hidden in the bottom of the page? just click in the x in the right side of the header of this section. Porcofederal (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

~Google Chrome

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)

If you can find a ref for it. Keep in mind that if this is a feature change it can go in, but not if it is just a minor bug in one or two versions. We generally don't report temporary bugs here unless they get third party attention. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the dev build and it offered to remember a password for me yesterday, maybe it's something in your settings that's stopping it from remembering for you, or an extension Mark (talk) 15:14, 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)

File:Google Chrome 11 Windows 7.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

	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 What should I do?
	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)

Find feature

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)

Not really encyclopedic material man with one red shoe 20:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Malware

Please remove this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

You can try undoing it yourself. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.17.170 (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of NSS labs study

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)

I don't see how it's not neutral. They don't say "find a test that makes the other guys look bad." Microsoft paid a 3rd party to run tests to see how their software worked, and asked them to test against the competition too. They then published the results, congratulating the only company to get more than, what, 13% success rate? There's nothing stopping any of the competition from doing something similar. If this is biased, then isn't the Acid 3 test considered biased? It was written by a guy who works for Opera! 87Fan (talk) 22:58, 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.

http://www.conceivablytech.com/4672/business/opera-also-questions-ie-security-test-results

One could very well claim that the acid3 test is biased. I don't know much about it, but from what I understand, it tests the browser's rendering ability. Oh, and it's a website, so that anyone can run the test. It's at the very least repeatable, if not verifiable. As it stands, this study is not verifiable or repeatable by anyone, due to the fact that the only information released from the study was the conclusion drawn.

Furthermore, the test was originally contracted by Microsoft specifically to test Internet Explorer. Perhaps their intentions when they designed the test were pure and only to make internal improvements. It would seem odd that they would have those results released to the public, if that had been their sole intention.

The aperture of the study is also very narrow, considering the following information that was published in the study: researchers report detecting between 15,000 and 50,000 new malicious programs per day. Somehow, they managed to prune down the number of malware urls tested to an average of 34 per day. That's not random sampling either, there are criteria that the malware urls had to meet in order to be included in the results.

So, in addition to the report reading like an advertisement for Microsoft, the test being (in a roundabout manner, if not literally) designed by Microsoft, previous tests being paid for by Microsoft, and Microsoft's software exclusively improving its results over the course of time (scoring perfectly on the last one) while the competition's updates have resulted in worse performance in this very narrow "study".. well, I guess those are the only reasons that I suspect this study might be biased.

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%

30mag (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Change the official site hyperlink?

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)

mse incorrectly flags chrome as malware

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.computerworld.com/s/article/9220435/Microsoft_kills_Google_Chrome_with_bad_malware_signature

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/users-report-microsoft-security-essentials-removes-google-chrome/4006

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/09/microsoft-anti-malware-tool-mistakenly-snuffs-google-chrome/

http://www.infoworld.com/t/patch-management/microsoft-security-update-treats-chrome-malware-174721

Since you have added it to the article it may as well stay for now! It is an amusing story and I am sure many Chrome users will be checking here to see what happened. - Ahunt (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

does not have basic language support

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)

Changing the Chrome screenshot

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 agree. By consensus we normally show default "vanilla" conditions so as to be as representative as possible. I will fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

optional tracking mechanisms

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)

Acid3

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)

Privacy Issues ???

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)

It is already in the article, see Google Chrome#Usage tracking. If you think there are other issues to be included then just provide the references and they can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There are things the article doesn't talk about. When Chrome is installed, the GoogleUpdate application is installed with it. It runs all the time even when Chrome isn't running. Google warns that removing the program may cause malfunctioning of Chrome. Surely, this program does the right thing by updating Chrome. But it does some user tracking as well: it sends some info about Chrome, OS (not mentioned in the article) and other "GoogleUpdate-managed" applications.

The thing is though, it intalls plugins into some other browsers, Firefox in my case. It can't be properly disabled through the Firefox plugin manager: the plugin reenables itsef after some time. This behaviour is wrong and very suspicious by itself: Google Update plugin should respect the user's preference.

The problem is that I can't find any info about whether Firefox with the plugin constitues a "GoogleUpdate-managed" application. The lack of transparency is a privacy concern in this case. I know all of this is "original research", but I think that in the end these things should be answered. 130.123.104.22 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You will need to provide references to include this in the article. I can say that what you have written here is not true for Chrome running on Linux, although it might be for Windows. I'm running it on Debian and I update it manually though my own package management application, there is no update manager and it doesn't interact with Firefox (IceWeasel). - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

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)

I agree that a clean-up is really needed. The article is far too hard to read right now. I think that most of the information here should be retained, it just needs serious reorganization. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I know this is about the Google Chrome article - and while I agree this article needs clean up, I suggest you read the Firefox article. The Firefox article gives you a good sense of what the Google Chrome article shouldn't be. Trewyy (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Chrome screenshot

So, is a Google Chrome screenshot a free image?--Lê _{talk-contributions} 07:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there aren't any copyrighted images/symbols being shown besides the fair-use Wikipedia and Chrome logos. According to the commons policy on screenshots, screenshots of common proprietary web browsers are never permissible on Commons if they show the browser's user interface. It depends on how specific the definition for user interface is. The browser interface shown is minimal and consists of simple geometric shapes. There isn't anything else being shown besides the default back, forward, refresh, address bar, options, minimize, window, close buttons. Every browser has these. If there are copyright violations for these, that's just ridiculous. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:32, 24 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)

Release history

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)

When I developed the Firefox release history notes I actually based them off of the Google Chrome release notes. The difference is that I hid the release notes instead of hiding the entire release history. I also used different colors that are more "bold". In addition I moved the legend to the right of the chart to save space (instead of having it in its own section like it is in the Google Chrome article now). Finally I separated the future releases section from the table to make it clear what has been released. Once again, I would be more than happy to help you clean up the release table :) ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 14:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say give it a try - the current table is really a bit of a mess. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the current approach of hiding the entire release history table. This approach allows us to keep detailed information about the releases without cluttering the page. The Firefox article requires the user to click 'show release notes' for each release and it is a hassle to click on all of them one by one. EngineerFromVega^★ 18:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Simplify release history?

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)

It is now not shown by default. Please review the change. EngineerFromVega^★ 06:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer the previous variant. It's long but it's very important for this article. When, several months ago, I first came to this article I was looking exactly for this kind of information and was able to immediately locate it. Then, from time to time, I came back to check the information about the new releases. Recently I didn't find this information in this article and was very surprised. Eventually I discovered that this list is now made collapsible and is hidden from the immediate show. I knew about its existence in this article before and that is why I scrupulously examined the text of the article and eventually found it, but newcomers to this article after taking a glance at it, most probably would not notice this list immediately and would have to go on with their internet search. So, I would suggest not making this list collapsible. --Daniel (talk) 16:33, 9 April 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)

Rename as Google Chrome browser?

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)

I don’t think it’s necessary to have a disambiguation for just two pages. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 31 May, 2012; 00:59

I also don't think that it is necessary at this stage. Google Chrome OS is not as popular as the browser yet. EngineerFromVega^★ 08:16, 31 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)

The hatnote on this article really covers the need to disambiguate as well. - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Preview Releases

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, --SteveTurner cont. 12:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We had an earlier consensus to not add them for two reasons: 1. They change too often and require daily updates, 2. They just aren't notable. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok then! Thanks, --SteveTurner cont. 23:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Google Chrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues:

• Lede: The lede is very too small. Please, summarize the full article, for every section
• Do Not Track: Is in need of expanding
• Malware blocking: This section is out-of-date. Please update it
• Usage: Chrome overtook Firefox in November 2011. As of May 2012, StatCounter measured Chrome and MSIE at roughly 32% usage share each, with Firefox at 26%. the third reference after shouldn't be spaced. That is Ref. 224
• References: Ref. 4, 149 - Isn't a good source
• References: Ref. 19 - Should be Google Blog as the publisher
• References: Ref. 43, 54 - Googlechromereleases.blogspot.com should be Google Chrome Blog
• References: Ref. 59 - chrome.blogspot.com should be Chrome Blog
• References: Ref. 73 - chrome.blogspot.com.au should be Chrome Blog Australia
• References: Ref. 94 - Ref. 94 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Ref. 123 - Ref. 123 needs an accessdate. See here.
• References: Ref. 132 - Ref. 132 is a dead link. See [6].
• References: Ref. 139 - Ref. 139 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Ref. 141 - Ref. 141 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Ref. 145 - Ref. 145 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Various - Missing publishers

On hold for now. TBrandley 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Patched ref issues (diff). Any other glaring problems before I start on the prose? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No. TBrandley 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. For a start:

• The are a lot of short paragraphs, mostly three sentences long; and single paragraph sections /subsections.
• There are "direct quotations" with no citations, for example: two in History, the first paragraph in Development, several in Release channels and updates, one in Retina screen support, two in Usage,
• Ref 226 is using wikipedia as a reference.
• Some of the references are blogs, which brings into question as to whether they are WP:RS, arguably some are as they are official company blogs, but are all of them reliable?
• Its already stated above that there are references with missing published, some of them have named authors and those are missing as well, for example 17, 40, 46, etc.

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. TBrandley 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Release history ---> Notes

"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)

64 bits

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)

Which issue is that? - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Reflist multicolumning

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)

Latest release version

Currently the article includes three separate LSR templates:

• {{Latest stable software release/Google Chrome for Android}}
• {{Latest stable software release/Google Chrome (iOS)}}
• {{Latest stable software release/Google Chrome}}

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)

Nice work. However, we need to ensure that your templates fit into the article in a way that looks nice and isn't confusing. Done and done.
- Smike (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Aesthetic aspect is something I always fail to address. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Now if we could only solve that line-break issue. It still looks a tad odd to me. Does it look odd to you? The iOS template is still spaced slightly too far down from the Android template, I think. I removed the line-break (<br/>), but that's a dirty way to solve this, since it's technically no longer on its own line. However, we can't solve the issue by integrating them into one template like the "preview release" template because they need to remain separate. Any ideas?
- Smike (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

For some reason the first two are included into single paragraph, while the third one is separated. Probably the titles would be better moved from the templates back to the infobox? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 done. Problem seems to reside in LSR template, which pollutes the infobox with open <p> tag. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! Nice work solving the issue - I was stumped. Though when you mention the open paragraph tag, it makes total sense. I wish the original LSR template didn't do that, but it doesn't matter because as far as I'm concerned you've eliminated the problem. Great fix.
- Smike (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With these three edits I've moved all the headings into infobox, and now the formatting is again OK and all three templates are clean of platform names, so that they can be freely reused when needed (eg. in hypothetical Comparison of Android web browsers). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think your previous fix works much better. Can you see the error? I tried correcting the article to make everything OK with your changes intact, but there doesn't seem to be a good way to do it - it ends up being WAY more code than we need, and it doesn't match the "preview release" template anyway. If you really feel the need to leave the platform titles out of the templates, then I suggest going with the previous method and simply un-linking the "preview release" titles and putting them into the infobox instead.
- Smike (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no error. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the version numbers in your screenshot. The links don't refer to your templates, unfortunately. When they do, the format is again screwy, and still needs a closed paragraph tag.
- Smike (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that. Reverted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to split the template into three when one works well. [7] — Mr White 16:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. White, I strongly disagree. Czarkoff makes a very good point that there are several articles that could use each of these templates. They NEED to remain separate templates in one way or another if they are to be used for multiple articles. Combining them, while both simple and aesthetically ideal for the main Google Chrome article, will detract from any other articles the individual templates are needed for. Meaning we simply need to "make it work" with all three templates. You can understand that, right?

And in my opinion, this version - the way it looks as I'm writing this - is perfectly fine. If Czarkoff wants to improve it by removing the platform names from the templates while preserving the consistency of every template with the article, I'm perfectly fine with that, too.
- Smike (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I probably have to explain my rationale in more detail. The LSR/LPR templates serve two purposes:

1. offload version update edits traffic to separate pages;
2. synchronize latest versions reports across multiple articles referring to the same software.

Indeed the only template with three platforms does a good job of reporting versions in this particular article. At the same time it causes problems in HTML5 video article I came from: not only platforms are reported in another column of a table there, but the "Chrome" table raw specifically provides information about desktop version of Chrome – the single template confuses readers with implication that there were Google Chrome 4.0 browsers for iOS and Android, which supported H.264 and Theora codecs, but didn't support WebM. So the single template doesn't work well. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:14, 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)

Ancient Vandalism

The Stable Release section of the infobox says

NICO IS THE KING OF TURKU!!

➔ Back to article "Google Chrome"

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)

It is vandalism of the Template:Latest stable software release/Google Chrome. It seems to be fairly recent, and I have reverted it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Bias

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)

Please improve wording from "Missing from the destop version" to "Missing in the mobile version"

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)

 Done. I agree that wording was not clear! - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Metro?

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)

Outdated info

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)

Sure go ahead if you like. The only caution I would add is that the history of Chrome's development is important, including unimplemented features, like removing H.264 support which was announced, but hasn't yet happened, so please don't delete the history in an attempt to make the article up to date. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Chrome Beta for Android

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)

Motivation?

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)

If you have references that explain this then it can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Chrome Canary

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)

Including canary releases has been discussed here before. The consensus at that time was not include them as they change too quickly to be notable and also no one would commit to updating them daily. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree we should include them, but as others have pointed out, a lack of sources hinders. Checking out Firefox, both Aurora and Nightly channels' version numbers are covered, equivalent to dev and canary. I propose adding just the major version number for canary with an {{As of}} per Firefox. Let's agree here first, before adding though. Widefox; talk 10:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who started the discussion about not adding canary builds to the list years ago, so I'll state my reasons again: 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) 18:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, per Mister Potato 47's prior lucid reasons, I don't think it's too harsh to say that this is an idiotic idea - silly, even. Leaving aside the fact that including dev or even beta releases should already be considered highly controversial in what should be broad, general coverage of a browser in an encyclopedia article, the Canary releases must be verified. Including an {{As of}} for the major version number while providing a decent source for that major version is an excellent way to workaround the problem of verifiability for the minute amount of data that would be added to the Release History table, but the issue then becomes "why is this even here?" "Why are you telling me this, Wikipedia? Gee, thanks for informing me that the latest version of this experimental build is somewhere in the vicinity of 30, that does me a lot of good. It's important that I know that. Oh and look, there's this handy, outdated reference talking about a build that no longer exists - that's what I've always wanted!" Yes, what an incredibly fantastic idea. Please make the requested edits post-haste, wiki lackeys!
Any mention of Canary should be left to an appropriate descriptive section within the article, as it is already.
- Smike ( Talk ) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Outdated Information

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)

Release History "Obsolete"

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)

I don't see any reference to these terms in the article, where did you see that? I believe "obsolete" in this context means that it is not the current version, but is still supported. "Discontinued" means no longer supported. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

re: /Archive 2#Why did Google name their browser "Chrome"?

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)

If someone can find an explanation from Google we can add it! - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not just from Google, but any reliable source would qualify. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

HTML5 score

"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)

You make a good point. I have clarified the wording in the article to indicate that it has the best HTML5 support of the five most popular browsers as the ref cited specifies. See if that addresses your concern or whether more should be said. - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't see changes in Chrome Release History

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: Extralars (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? That has been added by you, and removed by yourself. No one has censored and/or removed that. In addition, Chrome Release posted on July 8 is about Pepper Flash update (not specific to OS X), not about Chrome 36 release. --Claw of Slime (talk) 09:45, 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 see the change with Firefox 31 RC, IE 11, Chrome 36 and Opera 22 on Windows. Have you tried cache clear of your browsers?

Are there any reliable source about not updating Pepper Flash in Chrome 35 on OS X? Pepper Flash update is not mentioned in Chrome 36 release note (comments on that post are not reliable sources). I added [citation needed] to the template. --Claw of Slime (talk) 10:08, 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)

Problem with the update template

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)

Add Encrypted Media Extensions addition to change list

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)

Market share - excludes mobile

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)

Add 64-bit ARM64/ARMv8-A to Chrom[ium] [OS]?

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)

We need a better ref than a forum post that explains this more clearly and meets WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your're right. I was thinking since it runs on Android 64-bit CPU it must be using ARMv8-A. But just as e.g. Firefox ran for a long time only in 32-bit on 64-bit Windows and ARMv8-A allows 32-bit ARMv7 instruction set anything is possible.. I know for a fact Chrome supports 64-bit x86, that doesn't mean ARM64 is now possible but likely (at least not a big change..). comp.arch (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Chrome in China

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)

Where does it say that? - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms

I think this article deserves a criticism section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.10.183 (talk)

Criticisms can certainly be added, but you need to cite reliable sources for each one as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and Google Chrome is plagued by memory leaks, especially on Linux, where OOM is fatal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.99.213 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

Alternately, the criticisms for aspects of Chrome can be included in respective sections of the article here. Things such as privacy, interface, security, all have there own section and any criticism for those aspects don't need to be consolidated into a new section that is not currently there. -- AstroU (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

HTML5test as of Google Chrome 45 and Windows 10.

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)

Yes, it should be updated. --Gürkan Myczko (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110714163918/http://net1news.com/101011-01-firefox-in-the-dust.aspx to http://net1news.com/101011-01-firefox-in-the-dust.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090427090731/http://summerofjsc.blogspot.com:80/2008/09/squirrelfish-extreme-has-landed.html? to http://summerofjsc.blogspot.com/2008/09/squirrelfish-extreme-has-landed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080904201317/http://code.google.com:80/chromium/terms.html to https://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080903125550/http://community.zdnet.co.uk:80/blog/0,1000000567,10009139o-2000331777b,00.htm to http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10009139o-2000331777b,00.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120107133154/http://jrm.cc/google-chrome-javascript-benchmarks to http://jrm.cc/google-chrome-javascript-benchmarks
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100424030617/http://limi.net:80/articles/google-chrome-benchmarks-and-more to http://limi.net/articles/google-chrome-benchmarks-and-more

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Is everyone cool with the new stacked layout?

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)

Looks good! - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2 kinds of History

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)

Thanks for your suggestions for the article, but this is an encyclopedia article, not a user manual. See WP:NOTMANUAL for why we can't include this sort of thing. - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Worth noting the "killing of Flash?"

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)

Hello :)

If you are worried about WP:CRYSTAL, we can always write on such and such date, Google announced that support for Flash will end on such and such date. Then, we wait until it happens and if it didn't, we write but it didn't happen.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Current Screenshot

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)

The screenshot was recently reduced in resolution to comply with Wikipedia's policies for "fair use" images, as Chrome images are copyrighted as non free software, so any larger one used will probably also get reduced. The use of a US government website was because they are "public domain" and not subject to copyright. A Wikipedia page could be used, but then the licencing would be made more complex. Alternatively a blank page and the "about" version could be shown. - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh that's too bad. But I see your point. It just struck me that the English article was showing such a low-res screenshot of Chrome, unlike the one used in the German Wikipedia for example. I guess we haven't paid attention to that to this point. Or is this something specific to the English Wikipedia for legal reasons in the US? --Autofan (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually all the different language Wikipedias are all hosted in Florida in the US, so US copyright law applies equally to them all. "Fair Use" images should be as low-res as practicable. Not my favourite thing, either. I would rather have bigger images, but we are stuck with US law. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

About adding Chrome OS to the list of supported OS's

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)

It is! Chrome OS is Linux. We don't list all the different Linux distros, Ubuntu, Red Hat, Centos, Arch, etc , but Chrome OS is included. - Ahunt (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I would have to disagree there. Android is Linux. And iOS and macOS are both Darwin. Yet we list all of those separately. If you visit `chrome://flags` you'll see `Mac, Windows, Linux, Chrome OS, Android`. Those are the platforms which Chrome runs on - and Chrome OS is separate from Linux. If you went to the download page and download the "Linux" build of Chrome and you tried to run it on a Chromebook it probably wouldn't work at all. If it did, it wouldn't behave the same way (i.e. it wouldn't let you change your keyboard layout or connect to wifi - because those are only included with the Chrome OS build). --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ahunt. Chrome OS is Linux. It is natural for Google to want to advertise Chrome OS by making it stand out.

Android is different enough from an ordinary Linux to merit its own mention and so do iOS and macOS.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Chrome OS is, much like Android, a distinct Linux platforms due to various aspects of the platform that preclude the execution of standard Linux and X software. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the Google Chrome releases blog, Chrome OS channel updates are different than those of Desktop (including macOS, Linux and Windows), implying that the Chrome OS updates are somewhat different, the current Dev version number for instance is different between Desktop and Chrome OS. Wiki layes (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm planning to add the current Chrome OS stable and preview versions to the infobox to reflect the difference between it and other desktop OSs, please let me know what you think. Wiki layes (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs there. We have Chrome OS version numbers at Template:Latest stable software release/Chrome OS. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RLZ tracking

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:

• "For the desktop version of Chrome, you can opt-out of sending this data to Google by uninstalling Chrome, and installing a version downloaded directly from www.google.com/chrome."
• "To opt-out of sending the RLZ string in Chrome OS, press Ctrl + Alt + T to open the crosh shell, type rlz disable followed by the enter key, and then reboot your device."

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:

• "Browser must be downloaded directly from the Google Chrome website to opt-out of the RLZ identifier."

I am thinking of changing that to:

• "RLZ is not enabled in Chrome browsers which were downloaded to a desktop directly from www.google.com/chrome. It can be disabled in the Chrome Operating System. On phones, tablets and possibly laptops running the Chrome browser in a non-Chrome operating system, Google has not said that it can be disabled."

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)

External link

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)

Hi, Ahunt

Er... I don't know what to say because I am looking at https://www.google.com/chrome/ and it says "Chrome: The fast, free browser that's built for the modern web." Then, there is a download button that clearly lets me download Google Chrome.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, when I go there using Chromium browser it shows a Chromebook and says "Chromebook: For Everyone, Everywhere - For travelers. For explorers. For makers. For everyone. From $149." When I switch over to Firefox the page remains at the same URL https://www.google.com/chrome/ (not a redirect) but is totally different and says "Chrome: The fast, free browser that's built for the modern web. Download now". I think we are being manipulated by Google based on browser. I'm not sure we want to link to that page since it serves different content depending on the browser used. https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/desktop/index.html is always the Chrome home page, regardless of browser. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. Do whatever you see fit, Ahunt. I trust you. Just make sure WikiData doesn't foil it. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ahunt.

• Chome.com in the Opera browser took me to https://www.google.com/chrome/, which was slow to load and eventually said, "Chromebook: For Everyone, Everywhere".
• Chrome.com In the IE and Edge browsers took me to the same https://www.google.com/chrome/, which was again slow to load and eventually said, "chrome The fast, free browser that's built for the modern web.

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)

I think it is clear that if you visit that pages in a Chrome/Chromium based browser then using the user agent string it assumes you have Chrome and tries to sell you a Chromebook. If you use any non-Chrome/Chromium based browser then it tries to get you to download Chrome. I wonder what you would see there if you visit that page with Chrome that the user agent shows is from Chrome OS (and therefore that you already have a Chromebook)? Maybe someone who has one can let us know? Regardless, I'll fix the links to take everyone to the Chrome home page. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

LOL, looks like someone has already fixed the wikidata. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly. In the Tor browser google.com/chrome does offer to download chrome, as you hypothesized. But contrary to your hypothesis, in the Opera browser that url offers to sell a chrome book, while on my android phone's chrome browser, the same url offers to download chrome. No need to understand google's choices, and they'll probably change anyway. Numbersinstitute (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if you check your user agent you may find that Chromium-based browsers, like Opera, are reporting as "Chrome". Tor browser is based on Firefox so you would expect the page to offer you Chrome. - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120530/http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html to http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0%2C1000000567%2C10009139o-2000331777b%2C00.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://summerofjsc.blogspot.com/2008/09/squirrelfish-extreme-has-landed.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

market share in China

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)

I am sorry but I don't understand your point as the article does not mention China. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe they're talking about File:Browser Market Map June 2015.svg. Although without a source, we can't change the map or mention this on the article, of course. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I am referring to that graph and all the browser related articles that talks about market share. I will keep an eye out for sources. --Voidvector (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification! - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

OS Support History

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)

Screenshot licensing

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)

I disagree, it doesn't matter where parts come from, once assembled as Google Chrome it is licenced under Google's Terms of Service and is proprietary software, so screenshots are not eligible for anything other than "fair use". Over on Commons many Google Chrome screenshots have been removed as per this argument. - Ahunt (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello

First, Commons is untrustworthy. In different occassions, it has both deleted and kept Chrome images. The more suprising fact is that there was case in which the same admin (well, I only know of Jcb) deleted one Chrome image but kept another! I had a painful time spent on Windows logos. There was a trend of moving them to Commons, only for them to be deleted after a while and leave us without logos. It occurred so many times that I felt ashamed of repeating my request for receiving a copy of the deleted file. It is said that "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results". Let's not upload to Commons this time.

Second, one of the freedoms that free license grants, is the freedom to relicense, even as non-free. Dervivative works, if relicensed, are truely non-free. The act of assembly itself is eligible for copyright protection. One can create a document out of free elements, but because the arrangement of elements themselves mean something, that document is eligible for copyright protection on its own rights. That's how books are protected: Individual letters are free but the literary value of their combination is not.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, this was scary

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)

Nope not compromised, I hadn't realised the screenshot was that old, My apologies for the unintentional disruption. –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

They say whatever ends well... FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Reporting in.

I am a staunch believer of WP:DV. So, when this happens, it is shocking. It is then that you start noticing that the title of WP:DV starts with "Most people". Just for the record, do you agree that the image was not Google Chrome?

@Davey2010: I hope there is no hard feelings.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It MIGHT have been Google Chrome, albeit an A.N.C.I.E.N.T one. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::The image is Chrome tho ?, Anyway nope no hard feelings and I hope there's no hard feelings with you either :) –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923064954/http://blogs.computerworld.com/three_hidden_chrome_features_youll_love to http://blogs.computerworld.com/three_hidden_chrome_features_youll_love

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2017

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)

• Strong oppose per Talk:Chrome#No primary topic. Ꞷumbolo 21:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Chrome (web browser) – Google Chrome definitely is simply known as Chrome, searching for it results in many articles referencing the web browser by that name and not as Google Chrome. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 00:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

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)

 Done It was more than just an edit request. I had to close an outstanding to merger discussion. But there was no policy-based obstacle in the end. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

187.19.228.111 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

Entries in List of colors: A–F contained links to this page.

The entries are :

• Google Chrome red
• Google Chrome blue
• Google Chrome green
• Google Chrome yellow

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)

I agree, they can be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement

Marketing department, cut it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What particular phraseology makes you think that? - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Category: Web browsers that use GTK+

tht category should be removed because chrome uses aura since v35 --91.54.67.26 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"aura" is forked from GTK. Editor-1 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Google secretly logs users into Chrome whenever they log into a Google site

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:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-secretly-logs-users-into-chrome-whenever-they-log-into-a-google-site/

THANKS. Editor-1 (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Google Chrome on Windows 10 as of 5th September 2018.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Google Chrome = Open source

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 second paragraph of the lead explains that Chrome uses free software from Chromium and combines it with non-free software, like Adobe Flash. The resulting package is put out under a non-free licence (Google's Terms of Service) and the source code is not available, so Chrome is commercial freeware. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Google Chrome icon (September 2014).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Future of ad-blocking

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)

I think that would a good subject to add, keeping in mind that there is some debate about what exactly Google is doing there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Google Chrome Canary 80.0.3969.0

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)

"MSI wrapper" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Please change "78" to "79" on version compatibility

It's now outdated and change "78" to "79" on version compatibility! 31.6.144.143 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Color management doesn't actually work.

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2020

105.98.92.85 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

flags

just wondering: why chrome://flags is never mentioned? 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregox (talk • contribs)

It is already in two places in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

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)

 Not done per WP:NOR. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please include under the phrase: >> 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. << the following sentence in the new paragraph: >> The Google Chrome license has the following statement: "20.3 From time to time, Google may discover an extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. Google Chrome will periodically download a list of such extensions from Google's servers. You agree that Google may remotely disable or remove any such extension from user systems in its sole discretion." << and add a link to my fragment in the form of a footnote: >> http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html <<. This is an unchanged quote (without interpretation) from Chrome EULA (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) with an introductory sentence that only states the source of the quote. If my introductory sentence were a problem again, please help me how to put this Google Chrome license fragment (original source) in this Wikipedia article.5.172.255.89 (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)