Google Chrome - Crap or Crap??

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Wog George, Jan 4, 2009.

  1. Wog George

    Wog George Guest

    I jumped on the bandwagon the day Chrome was unleashed on the unsuspecting
    public, making it my default browser so that I'd ensure that I gave it a
    good workout, but I think it's turned out to be a bit of a fizzer. There
    are two particular problems which simply make it too unreliable to continue
    with.

    The first problem is the startling frequency with which it displays "Oops!
    This link appears broken. DNS error - cannot find server.", despite the
    fact that I can paste the same address into Firefox or IE and successfully
    display the page. I can also display the page successfully in Chrome if I
    try again. If the link works at all, it should work every time. As an
    example, I clicked the link in relic's message from about an hour ago. The
    above error displayed, along with a search field containing "joseph
    camilleri images muslim world 2000". I clicked the link again and the image
    displayed successfully in a new tab.

    The second problem relates to pages taking forever to load. Sometimes I may
    be waiting 10 seconds for the "world's fastest browser" to load a page, so
    I'll open Firefox out of frustration and perform the same action there. So
    30 seconds after initially attempting to display a page in Chrome, I have
    displayed the desired page in Firefox. When I switch back to Chrome, it's
    still trying to load the page. I have seen a page take a few minutes to
    load in Chrome when it took maybe a second or so in Firefox. Something is
    not right!

    The version I'm using is 1.0.154.36, and presumably this is their
    bullet-proof official version.

    I'll stick with Firefox.

    --
    George
    "Dolphins, Eskimos, who cares?! It's all a bunch of tree hugging hippie
    crap!" - Eric Cartman - 20 August 1997
    Wog George, Jan 4, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wog George

    Wog George Guest

    "Jimchip" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2009-01-04, Wog?George <> wrote:
    >> I jumped on the bandwagon the day Chrome was unleashed on the
    >> unsuspecting
    >> public, making it my default browser so that I'd ensure that I gave it a
    >> good workout, but I think it's turned out to be a bit of a fizzer. There
    >> are two particular problems which simply make it too unreliable to
    >> continue
    >> with.

    > [snip]
    >
    > Even google advises that chrome isn't a stable release yet. It's
    > basically a late alpha moving into beta, IMO.



    The public stable release was on December 11, 2008. That is the version
    that I have.

    Please provide documentary evidence to support your words, which appear to
    be very historical in nature.

    > It's relatively safe to
    > play with, though. Some people want to do free beta testing for google.
    >
    >

    1.0.154.42 is the current beta. I do not have a beta version, so I'm not
    doing free beta testing for anybody.

    --
    George
    "If I don't see you in the future, I'll see you in the past" - Tommy Bolin -
    Melbourne 1975
    Wog George, Jan 4, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wog George

    chuckcar Guest

    Jimchip <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 2009-01-04, Wog?George <> wrote:
    >> I jumped on the bandwagon the day Chrome was unleashed on the
    >> unsuspecting public, making it my default browser so that I'd ensure
    >> that I gave it a good workout, but I think it's turned out to be a bit
    >> of a fizzer. There are two particular problems which simply make it
    >> too unreliable to continue with.

    > [snip]
    >
    > Even google advises that chrome isn't a stable release yet. It's
    > basically a late alpha moving into beta, IMO. It's relatively safe to
    > play with, though. Some people want to do free beta testing for google.
    >

    Yet they decided to give it a full release version number. That's half the
    problem right there.


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 4, 2009
    #3
  4. Wog George

    Peeassha Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9B88DEA0B87B6chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    > Jimchip <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> On 2009-01-04, Wog?George <> wrote:
    >>> I jumped on the bandwagon the day Chrome was unleashed on the
    >>> unsuspecting public, making it my default browser so that I'd ensure
    >>> that I gave it a good workout, but I think it's turned out to be a bit
    >>> of a fizzer. There are two particular problems which simply make it
    >>> too unreliable to continue with.

    >> [snip]
    >>
    >> Even google advises that chrome isn't a stable release yet. It's
    >> basically a late alpha moving into beta, IMO. It's relatively safe to
    >> play with, though. Some people want to do free beta testing for google.
    >>

    > Yet they decided to give it a full release version number. That's half the
    > problem right there.
    >
    >
    > --
    > (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )



    Yes as there was a demand by the plebiscites and *peons*. DNS errors and
    timeouts packet loss waiting endless hours for a page to load. Who cares?
    It's all about making one group of idiots happy.
    Peeassha, Jan 4, 2009
    #4
  5. chuckcar expelled:

    > Jimchip <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> On 2009-01-04, Wog?George <> wrote:
    >>> I jumped on the bandwagon the day Chrome was unleashed on the
    >>> unsuspecting public, making it my default browser so that I'd ensure
    >>> that I gave it a good workout, but I think it's turned out to be a
    >>> bit of a fizzer. There are two particular problems which simply
    >>> make it too unreliable to continue with.

    >> [snip]
    >>
    >> Even google advises that chrome isn't a stable release yet. It's
    >> basically a late alpha moving into beta, IMO. It's relatively safe to
    >> play with, though. Some people want to do free beta testing for
    >> google.
    >>

    > Yet they decided to give it a full release version number. That's
    > half the problem right there.


    Quit ya whining ya slack-jawed faggot.
    O-Cyanovinyl-Hydroxypiperidino-FluorophenolPhenyl-, Jan 4, 2009
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    655
    Peter
    Jan 23, 2007
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    526
    Guest
    Jan 23, 2007
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    434
  4. Max Burke
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    593
    Gordon
    Jul 11, 2009
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    136
    Jeff Strickland
    Feb 3, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page