What I like about Chrome
Bear Bottoms
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website: http://bearware.info
Bear Bottoms
news:Xns9CF0B4D95B465be...@69.16.185.250:
> For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
>
I like:
The speed.
The simplicity.
The speed.
Released it's API for third party extensions.
The speed.
The fantastic way it manages downloads.
The speed.
The paste and go feature (I missed from Opera.)
The speed.
The "incognito window"
The speed.
The developer tools.
The speed.
The task manager feature and 'stats for nerds'
The speed.
The intuitiveness and sophistication of the alerts.
The speed.
The ~moourl~ feature (quickly gives you a tiny URL.)
And the speed.
Stephen Wolstenholme
<REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
Simplicity and speed.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Neural network applications, help and support.
Bear Bottoms
news:va7lj5lgmcnndnu1u...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:45:37 GMT, Bear Bottoms
> <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
>
> Simplicity and speed.
>
> Steve
>
here here
N4469P
> I like:
> The speed.
> The simplicity.
> The speed.
drug plane
UnsteadyKen
> For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
One rather likes...
The clear interface that doesn't hog screen real estate.
Paste and go in address bar.
Paste and search in address bar.
"Search google" for selected text in web pages.
"Go to" selected web addresses in web pages.
Developer tools.
Create application shortcuts.
Bookmark synchronisation.
Each tab has own process. (Personal record for number of tabs opened
without any effect on system speed or responsiveness = Lost count at 50
+)
Speed.
Extensions now supported on beta builds
General all round spiffingness.
--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/
AlleyCat
@invalid.invalid says...
> Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
>
> that we can post what we want? That is wonderful news. People from all
> over the world will thank you on their knees, Mr Bottoms.
>
> F. Reeware
>
>
>
>
Shut the fuck up, Bozo. PLONK! Bozo binned. Know you don't care...
neither do I, geek!
Al
occam
would add to your list also.
Bear Bottoms
> For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
>
Browsers these days are making it easier to get off the starting blocks
with enhancements under the hood or startup page add-ons. The updated
Google Chrome browser has some nifty features that make it easy to
visualize what you have been visiting. The history thumbnails can be
rearranged and hidden or neatly turned into a browser homepage.
It's not often Firefox looks towards Chrome for inspiration, but the
add- on called WebReview does exactly that and takes it further up the
path. The WebReview extension takes the history of Firefox and puts in
several enhancements that make browsing and going back in time via the
links in History, more intuitive.
<http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/webreview-%E2%80%93-browse-smarter-with-this-firefox-add-on/>
Bear Bottoms
news:7165b899c13bce93...@aracari.127.0.0.1:
> Yeahbut is it as fast as Palemoon?
>
Dunno, couldn't get to the Palemoon project page...won't load.
http://www.palemoon.org/
Bear Bottoms
>> For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
>
Added other user comments.
The speed.
The simplicity.
The release of it's API for third party extensions.
The fantastic way it manages downloads.
The paste and go feature in address bar (I missed from Opera.)
The paste and search feature in address bar.
The "incognito window"
The developer tools.
The task manager feature and 'stats for nerds'
The intuitiveness and sophistication of the alerts.
The ~moourl~ bookmark (quickly gives you a tiny URL.)
The fantastic way it manages history.
The clear interface that doesn't hog screen real estate.
The "Search google" for selected text in web pages.
The "Go to" selected web addresses in web pages.
The Create application shortcuts.
The Bookmark synchronisation and feature.
The each tab has own process feature. 100's of tabs can be opened.
Bear Bottoms
> 'Bear Bottoms' wrote thus:
>
>>hummingbird <hummingb�r...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
>>news:7165b899c13bce93...@aracari.127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Yeahbut is it as fast as Palemoon?
>>>
>>
>>Dunno, couldn't get to the Palemoon project page...won't load.
>>http://www.palemoon.org/
>
> it just loaded for me in 2 secs ...or less :-)
>
>
Ah, musta been a mometary thing...it loads fast now. Checking it out.
Bear Bottoms
> 'Bear Bottoms' wrote thus:
>
>>hummingbird <hummingb�r...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
>>news:7165b899c13bce93...@aracari.127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Yeahbut is it as fast as Palemoon?
>>>
>>
>>Dunno, couldn't get to the Palemoon project page...won't load.
>>http://www.palemoon.org/
>
>
> I occasionally use TOR and it's preconfigured with Firefox
> portable (not the Palemoon build) _or_ Opera in their browser
> bundles. But I see no sign or likelihood of Chrome ever being
> integrated into TOR.
>
If Chrome doesn't integrate into TOR, it won't be an issue for me. I
never have the need for anonymous browsing...though others certainly like
to.
From Palemoon:
"This means that this browser, however extremely close to Firefox, does
not have all the functions that Firefox has. A few, carefully selected,
features have been disabled that are not in high demand, and that do not
interfere with the way web pages are displayed or function; all to
maximize speed and efficiency of the browser. Please see the page with
technical details to learn exactly what the browser supports, and what it
doesn't support. In short, if you need accessibility features or parental
controls, then please visit the firefox homepage and get the official,
non-optimized build."
I've done a quick (not exaustive) timed test of it, and while faster than
Fx, Chrome is still faster than Palemoon.
Bear Bottoms
> For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
>
Added another 'like.'
The speed.
The simplicity.
The release of it's API for third party extensions.
The fantastic way it manages downloads.
The paste and go feature in address bar (I missed from Opera.)
The paste and search feature in address bar.
The "incognito window"
The developer tools.
The task manager feature and 'stats for nerds'
The intuitiveness and sophistication of the alerts.
The ~moourl~ bookmark (quickly gives you a tiny URL.)
The fantastic way it manages history.
The clear interface that doesn't hog screen real estate.
The "Search google" for selected text in web pages.
The "Go to" selected web addresses in web pages.
The Create application shortcuts.
The Bookmark synchronisation and feature.
The each tab has own process feature.
The click and drag to detach a tab to it's own window.
Bob Adkins
<F.Reewa...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
>
>Mr Bottoms, do you mean that we have your permission to post here? And
>that we can post what we want? That is wonderful news. People from all
>over the world will thank you on their knees, Mr Bottoms.
I think it was a fair question related to Freeware.
Aren't you concerned that people will think you're mentally imbalanced
by making such nutty remarks?
Bob Adkins
>Browsers these days are making it easier to get off the starting blocks
>with enhancements under the hood or startup page add-ons. The updated
>Google Chrome browser has some nifty features that make it easy to
>visualize what you have been visiting. The history thumbnails can be
>rearranged and hidden or neatly turned into a browser homepage.
I like ChromePlus
It boosts up the features a little without bloat:
1. Double click tab to close page.
2. Mouse Gestures
3. Super drag
4. IE tab
5. Download tools supported in context menu.
Get it here.
�Ari�
Nice hairband, you inbred.
Bear Bottoms
> Do you know if this zipped version is a portable version of
> ChromePlus or does it just have an installer inside?:
>
> http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
>
>
It is an upgrade installer.
Bear Bottoms
>>From Palemoon:
>>"This means that this browser, however extremely close to Firefox,
>>does not have all the functions that Firefox has. A few, carefully
>>selected, features have been disabled that are not in high demand, and
>>that do not interfere with the way web pages are displayed or
>>function; all to maximize speed and efficiency of the browser. Please
>>see the page with technical details to learn exactly what the browser
>>supports, and what it doesn't support. In short, if you need
>>accessibility features or parental controls, then please visit the
>>firefox homepage and get the official, non-optimized build."
>
> Indeed, it's because of 4-5 unwanted Firefox functions being
> stripped out, that I decided to use the Palemoon build.
>
Yes, I would not have the need for parental controls or accessibility
features and many of the features built into Fx. Stripping them out is a
good thing and definitely a boost to performance. I wish all software had
the feature to strip or not install features you choose not to use.
Especially Windows. I'd love a bare bones XP installation.
Bear Bottoms
> 'Bear Bottoms' wrote thus:
>
>>hummingbird <hummingb�r...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
>>news:1d5b5363cdcaade7...@aracari.127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Do you know if this zipped version is a portable version of
>>> ChromePlus or does it just have an installer inside?:
>>>
>>> http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It is an upgrade installer.
>
> Thanks, BB. I was hoping there might be a portable version to
> sample ...
>
>
YW. I'm not upgrading...I like it just the slim way it is.
Wheel
> hummingbird <hummingb�r...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:1d5b5363cdcaade7...@aracari.127.0.0.1:
>
>> Do you know if this zipped version is a portable version of
>> ChromePlus or does it just have an installer inside?:
>>
>> http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
>>
>>
>
> It is an upgrade installer.
>
Sorry about this, but...
From this page:
http://www.chromeplus.org/download.html
From this link:
http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
md5: - 26ad281f28b2763edd48e22402d02c28
Downloaded, unzipped and ran. This is the first time I've
seen this browser and therefore unable to know exactly how
it's supposed to operate. It does appear to run as expected.
Unpacked, it stands at 39 Meg, rising to 50+ Meg once opened,
done a bit of tweaking and closed. I've moved it around and
noticed no difference. I can't find anything in the registry
except MUICache and 'WinPatrol' entries with nothing found
written outside its directory. It appears as a true portable
application that writes its settings to .ini files.
If this needs correcting... please correct.
Bear Bottoms
Hmmm, when I extracted the zip file the chrome.exe when run is an
installer for Chrome. Contained in the extraction is a folder named
installer with an exe in it named ChromePlusUpgrade.exe.
So I do not think you ran a portable exe, but a file which installed
Chrome on your system which ran from that. Then I suppose you run the
upgrade...I didn't go that far.
Bear Bottoms
> 'Bear Bottoms' wrote thus:
> Exactly! Most people use summat like nLite to do that.
>
> But a fully operational "Tiny XP-SP3" is available, but not from
> MS ;-)
>
>
The problem with that approach is that TinyXP is third party and Nlite
doesn't provide the results I was interested in. As venturous as I get
sometimes, I am not willing to compromise my Windows installation. Why
can't MS provide a means to do such. Many people want it I suspect.
Wheel
I've securely deleted the .zip file and the unpacked directory
and can find no evidence the program has ever existed except for
the previously mentioned registry entries. The only file that
has been executed is: chrome.exe
As far as I can tell, ChromePlusUpgrade.exe is the auto-update
function executable. Everything that happens, while running or
when closed, appears to be written to its own directory, setting
changes etc.
I think we've hit an impasse that will need an arbiter.
Bear Bottoms
> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in news:SMR_m.12453$%f3.8759
It is weird then. When I run chrome.exe, an installer queue opens.
Wheel
Absolutely *not* here. It opened from unpack the first time in
about 3 seconds.
Bear Bottoms
> http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
Is this the file you downloaded?
Wheel
> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in news:3iT_m.19086$Qp7....@newsfe25.ams2:
>
>> http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
>
> Is this the file you downloaded?
>
Yes. It has the same MD5/SHA-1 as my download and used for the
scenario below.
I have unpacked it to three different locations and run them
concurrently, giving each separate settings and home pages.
Each one writes its own .ini files that confirms the separate
configurations. On re-opening them, all retain their individual
settings, window sizes, etc.
If you change all the settings in:
'Customise and control Chromium' -> 'ChromePlus Options Page' ->
'General settings' -> 'Privacy Plus:', then ChromePlus.ini is
created in the 'ChromePlusUserData' directory.
Contents of ChromePlus.ini
[Exit]
DeleteHistory=1
DeleteCookies=1
DeleteExtensionCookies=1
DeleteThumbnails=1
DeleteVisitiedLinks=1
DeleteRecentlyClosed=1
I can move them to any location I want, including placing a copy
inside a copy inside a copy without noticing any differences to
how they are configured as individual applications, be it one at
a time or all together.
This machine has never seen 'Chrome' and I can only propose that
when chrome.exe is run, it looks for an installed copy and acts
differently... Just wild guessing now.
badgolferman
> here here
Hear, hear! (Look it up)
badgolferman
> For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
The icon.
Dave
> 'Bear Bottoms' wrote thus:
>
>>hummingbird <hummingbír...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
>>news:1d5b5363cdcaade7...@aracari.127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Do you know if this zipped version is a portable version of ChromePlus
>>> or does it just have an installer inside?:
>>>
>>> http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It is an upgrade installer.
>
> Thanks, BB. I was hoping there might be a portable version to sample ...
There's a portable Chrome at PortableApps.
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/google_chrome_portable
Dave
--
Registered Linux user # 444770
UnsteadyKen
> One rather likes...
That a beta version is now available for
(Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/openSUSE)
http://www.google.com/chrome?platform=linux
Works with Linux Mint 8.0 which I installed last night, and prefer to
Karmic so it's Toodleoo FartFox, hello synchronised bookmarks etc.
--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/
Bear Bottoms
news:xn0gjiz4t...@news.albasani.net:
> Bear Bottoms, 12/29/2009,6:45:37 PM, wrote:
>
>> For those using Chrome, post what you like about it.
>
> The icon.
>
>
>
Paint your golf balls.
Bear Bottoms
> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in news:3iT_m.19086$Qp7.13944
So when you run the chrome.exe, it installs (not opens the program) but
installs locally?
Since I have Chrome installed on this machine, I'll take my unpacked
folder to another laptop, run the exe and install it, copy that folder to
a USB stick and take it to my desktop (which does not have chrome
installed and see if it runs like a portable app from the USB stick. That
should verify portable or not.
Bear Bottoms
news:xn0gjiz3d...@news.albasani.net:
> Bear Bottoms, 12/29/2009,7:33:33 PM, wrote:
>
>> here here
>
> Hear, hear! (Look it up)
>
>
>
Thank you, I only heard it.
N4469P
> I have long thought MS should have a much more
> user-definable install option...where you get to choose exactly
> which components are installed. I could never understand why
> folders like 'Xerox' and a bunch of others appeared on my system
> after installation of SP2. I put it down to MS's evolved view that
> users shouldn't bother to poke around their hard drives and just
> leave Big Daddy to manage things for them. All it needs is faith
> and big HDDs!
it's an OS for the masses and the masses only find trouble when given
options.
Wheel
*Absolutely NOT*
Have a look here: http://www.chromeplus.org/help.html
From the 'Installation & use' paragraph:
<quote>
Zip version doesn't need to be installed. Just unzip and run chrome.exe.
</quote>
From the 'Uninstallation' paragraph:
<quote>
For a zip version, just delete the folder to uninstall. ChromePlus is
a portable software. It neither has files in other folders nor writes
Windows registry. You can always uninstall it by deleting the ChromePlus
program folder.
</quote>
> Since I have Chrome installed on this machine, I'll take my unpacked
> folder to another laptop, run the exe and install it, copy that folder to
> a USB stick and take it to my desktop (which does not have chrome
> installed and see if it runs like a portable app from the USB stick. That
> should verify portable or not.
>
I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have installed the
.zip version of the application.
Downloaded file:
ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
From this url:
http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
With these hashes:
MD5: 26ad281f28b2763edd48e22402d02c28
SHA-1: 9c8dc4bddcf8337ee444f70e5df59b190085dcd9
Just in case the website is also in error, I've formatted a laptop with
the same results stated throughout this thread.
The reason why this variant of 'Chrome' was chosen, as opposed to the one
offered by 'PotableApps'
(http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/google_chrome_portable) is that it
is base on the v4 series and it claims on its home page that:
<quote> - http://www.chromeplus.org/
2. Removed Chrome background communications!
</quote>
I would be truly interested to know why your experiences depart from my
own.
Bear Bottoms
> I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have installed the
> .zip version of the application.
>
Because when I unzip the file and run the chrome.exe it brings up an
install window.
N4469P
> 'N4469P' wrote thus:
> Agreed. You summed up my little rant in one good sentence :-)
>
> Nevertheless, they could still provide an 'expert install' or
> summat similar. No?
then they coulodnt slap in all their schlock that is automajickally "on"
after install. one must work to define a windoz install. think KLinux.
N4469P
> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in news:s93%m.17581$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
>
>> I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have installed the
>> .zip version of the application.
>>
>
> Because when I unzip the file and run the chrome.exe it brings up an
> install window.
*JESUS CHRIST R U A DUMB BEAR*
Wheel
> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in news:s93%m.17581$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
>
>> I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have installed the
>> .zip version of the application.
>>
>
> Because when I unzip the file and run the chrome.exe it brings up an
> install window.
I'll just have to accept; that is your situation.
Bear Bottoms
Here is the screen shots:
http://bearware.info/chrome.jpg
blacky
news:7t4%m.17592$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
I experienced precisely what you did.
N4469P
> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in
> news:7t4%m.17592$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
>
>> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in
>>> news:s93%m.17581$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
>>>
>>>> I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have
>>>> installed the .zip version of the application.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because when I unzip the file and run the chrome.exe it brings up
>>> an install window.
>>
>> I'll just have to accept; that is your situation.
>>
> I experienced precisely what you did.
sew we have a consortium, Bottoms has terds in his head.
Wheel
> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in news:7t4%m.17592$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
>
>> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in
>>> news:s93%m.17581$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
>>>
>>>> I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have installed
>>>> the .zip version of the application.
>>>>
>>> Because when I unzip the file and run the chrome.exe it brings up an
>>> install window.
>> I'll just have to accept; that is your situation.
>>
>
> Here is the screen shots:
> http://bearware.info/chrome.jpg
>
Ahhh... Now I see what the issue is.
A deployment.
An installation.
An initialisation.
A first-run option selection.
The files that the .zip contains are the stripped from or not wrapped
within an installation package. After the installer has completed its
operation, it passes execution to 'chrome.exe'.
One of the first actions it takes is to test for the existence of the
file 'First Run' (no extension) in its directory. If the file does not
exist, it calls a routine that presents set-up options.
Note: the installer does not present these options, but it is left to
'chrome.exe'. The screen(s) that is/are evoked, and its wording, are
part of a presentation presented to the user and is not the installer.
If, after unpacking, you do not want this/these screen(s) to appear,
then create the file 'First Run' in the directory where 'chrome.exe'
resides and configure the options offered manually.
So... Unpack, create file, Pack, Done.
Wheel
> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in
> news:7t4%m.17592$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
>
>> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in
>>> news:s93%m.17581$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
>>>
>>>> I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have
>>>> installed the .zip version of the application.
>>>>
>>> Because when I unzip the file and run the chrome.exe it brings up
>>> an install window.
>> I'll just have to accept; that is your situation.
>>
> I experienced precisely what you did.
I'll see if my post to Bear Bottoms is accepted.
Thanks.
Bear Bottoms
OK, that worked. All I did however was unzip the files into a folder and
then add the file First Run in the directory chrome.exe was in. I made
the file in notepad and removed the .txt extension.
Very strange behavior though. I put the folder on a USB stick, took it
to a computer that never had Chrome installed and ran chrome.exe from
the folder on the stick. The browser opened. However another instance of
the exe was created called new_chrome.exe. I ran chrome.exe again and
closed the browser. The file named newchrome.exe was changed to
old_chrome.exe.
I haven't done much more than that so I do not know if all parts of the
browser works or not. I'll have to play with it more.
How on earth did you figure First Run out...uncompiled the exe?
Bear Bottoms
news:Xns9CF282D6D9821be...@69.16.185.247:
> Very strange behavior though.
Running Chrome.exe also causes a new folder named 1.3.4.0 of virtually the
same size as the folder 1.3.3.0
Very strange goings on indeed.
Wheel
> Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9CF282D6D9821be...@69.16.185.247:
>
>> Very strange behavior though.
>
> Running Chrome.exe also causes a new folder named 1.3.4.0 of virtually the
> same size as the folder 1.3.3.0
>
> Very strange goings on indeed.
>
That's because you have allowed it to upgrade to the current
version v1.3.4.0
Bob Adkins
<REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>hummingbird <hummingb�r...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
>news:1d5b5363cdcaade7...@aracari.127.0.0.1:
>
>> Do you know if this zipped version is a portable version of
>> ChromePlus or does it just have an installer inside?:
>>
>> http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip
>>
>>
>
>It is an upgrade installer.
Actually, it's portable Bear. I just unzip it to any folder and run
it.
Bear Bottoms
I did nothing other than run the chrome.exe...the rest it did on its own.
Even your comments are strange to me. I didn't ALLOW anything. There are
reasons why these things are happening...certainly, but you resist my
comments until deathly proven then relent. Go with it...the events as I
described them since our first discussion of this are factual.
Let me retrace for you.
1. Unzip to a folder
2. Place a file named First Run (no extension) in the folder with
chrome.exe
3. Put the entire folder on a USB stick
4. Ran chrome.exe on a computer that never had chrome installed on it.
The browser opened, but a folder 1.3.4.0 and file new_chrome.exe was
created when chrome.exe was run.
I closed the browser and reopened it. A file named old_chrome.exe
replaced the file new_chrome.exe
No dialog boxes were offered.
Bear Bottoms
4ax.com:
LOL...look at the discussion going on with Wheel.
Had you ever installed Chrome on the computer you used to test this? I
think the exe looks for a file and if it doesn't find it...it behaves
differently. It is doing so on my computer which already has chrome on
it. You can read Wheels comments and my progression to see what I've done
since then.
Wheel
I do not allow any program to call out when first run until I
do some configuring. Auto-Update is set by default, which tends
to execute as soon as the program is loaded.
I configure and run my machine in a very restricted manner and
will not allow this program to auto-update itself.
All I can say is: Since the start of this exchange the program
has been updated, as can be verified on the site. I assume the
folder 1.3.4.0 and the replacement of the executable is related
to this. I won't go there.
You must know I'm a bit of a tweaker, hence, preferring highly
configurable programs that can be integrated into my system or
tight single purpose utilities.
I don't like 'Chrome', it's too big and not easily controlled,
preferring 'Opera Portable', which is smaller, just as fast,
and has modes of operation that compliment my main browser.
I only entertained 'ChromePlus' for reasons already stated; it
will soon be discarded.
Because we operate our machines differently, all I can say
is it hasn't happened to me.
Bear Bottoms
> Because we operate our machines differently, all I can say
> is it hasn't happened to me.
That's fine. Not happening to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You
used preventative measures. I want to know what actually happens...two
different approaches, not different operation of computers...though I
know what you infer.
It does call out to update as soon as you run the executable. It also
checks to see if Chrome is installed or not...which is why different
results are gotten by people with or without Chrome installed.
If you trick it (First Run) into thinking it is installed...it doesn't
seem to write to the registry, but then registry entries that would be
there from an install aren't so I'm not yet sure how that effects the
program functionality yet. Is it truely a portable install...I don't
think so.
Considering it is designed to upgrade chrome to chromeplus is further
proof it is not a portable designed program. I imagine registry entries
would be written when the expanded (plus) functions are first used. I
really don't know and I find that unless you want chromeplus, I would
leave this one alone...and just use it for what it was designed for:
upgrade to plus.
Franklin
If you find Chrome too complicated then leave it alone.
Franklin
Nice analysis.
Your patient explanation is starting to sound like a Donna Ohl thread.
Franklin
Bottoms, you hit this problem because you probably "reformatted the disk
and reinstalled windows" before trying this version of Chrome.
If most Bearware apps were better tested, you wouldn't need to keep
reformatting so often.
Franklin
> Wheel <ty...@hub.axle> wrote in news:s93%m.17581$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2:
>
>> I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have installed
>> the .zip version of the application.
>>
>
> Because when I unzip the file and run the chrome.exe it brings up an
> install window.
Bottoms has had trouble understanding how to use zip files before.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yeng78l (Marxio timer)
There are several members of the "Bear Bottoms" team. On each occassion BB
has had trouble with zip, the discussion has been accompanied by screenshots
of Jacqueline Bottoms's account.
N4469P
> That's fine. Not happening to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
the brilliance...