Google Chrome to Improve Security

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Daveski17, Apr 8, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Daveski17
    Offline

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Last edited: Apr 8, 2011
  2. J_L
    Online

    J_L Registered Member

    It should really slim down first. This feature isn't really necessary, because of antiviruses.
  3. Daveski17
    Offline

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Yeah, it certainly needs to go on a diet! :D I think WebKit is a big engine to start with though. On the other hand, it doesn't hurt to have a bit more security I suppose. ;)
  4. dw426
    Offline

    dw426 Registered Member

    Hmm, I don't see a harm really. I mean, the reality is that even the best of our anti-malware/anti-virus defenses will fail to detect something at some point. Nobody is complaining about the SmartFilter in IE, I don't see why Chrome can't join in as well. Unless it turns out to send you into FP hell, or has laughable detection rates, really it can only benefit the everyday user. As far as "slimming down", what exactly is there to slim down? Chrome barely has anything in it as it is, lol
  5. J_L
    Online

    J_L Registered Member

    I'm not saying this isn't a welcome feature, I'd just like them to focus on slimming Chrome down first.

    Check Chrome program folder's size, and you'll see what I mean. Mine's around 176 mb.
  6. dw426
    Offline

    dw426 Registered Member

    Pretty hefty for a browser, I'll admit that.
  7. doktornotor
    Offline

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Eh... I assume you have not checked the profile folder, if 176MiB is a big deal for you. Mind you, the caches grow to GiB sizes after months of usage. :p

    P.S. SRWare Iron's Program Files folder is about 70 MiB.
  8. SweX
    Offline

    SweX Registered Member

    But it's the best engine, it was a great choice by Google to follow Apple :thumb:
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2011
  9. J_L
    Online

    J_L Registered Member

    The profile folders of all browsers are huge. What's striking is the size of the Chrome program folder compared to other browsers.
  10. vasa1
    Offline

    vasa1 Registered Member

  11. SweX
    Offline

    SweX Registered Member

    FYI. My Safari program folder is 40MB. :)
  12. J_L
    Online

    J_L Registered Member

    Is it using the default settings?
  13. vasa1
    Offline

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Depending on one's perspective, there's a lot of useful stuff or nonsense that's stored in the profile. The thing is we're in charge there (except if there's an unchangeable default starting size).

    For example, the Firefox places.sqlite file starts at 10 MB and increments by the same amount.

    Chrome's history files (History Index) can get pretty large.
  14. vasa1
    Offline

    vasa1 Registered Member

    I don't know if they've changed now, but until a while ago, an update would leave you without two copies of Chrome (and stuff) and it was up to the user to delete the older one.
  15. doktornotor
    Offline

    doktornotor Registered Member

    That would about match the 176 MiB vs. half the size in Iron (when you consider the bundled Flash and PDF viewer).
  16. PJC
    Offline

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Agreed! :thumb:
  17. SweX
    Offline

    SweX Registered Member

    No, I changed the Font :p Other than that yes :)
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2011
  18. Daveski17
    Offline

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    I often wished Safari worked as well as Chrome/Iron do on Windows.
  19. SweX
    Offline

    SweX Registered Member

    For me, Safari works much much better than Chrome does. ;) On XP that is.
  20. Daveski17
    Offline

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Well, I'm glad to hear it's working well on XP. I have always liked it as a browser & I thought when I got a more powerful computer it would work really well. It does work much better, but just not as good as Chrome/Iron on my platform.
  21. SweX
    Offline

    SweX Registered Member

    Well, my PC is not "powerful" at all, And yet it works great :).

    But what was the last version of Safari that you tried?
    Considering the latest two updates has IMO made it faster and more resource friendly.

    Now enough about Safari ;)
  22. Daveski17
    Offline

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Definitely. ;)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.