Chrome Stand Alone Installer - Did You Know?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by DasFox, Oct 30, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DasFox

    DasFox Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,825
    Well for most that don't know Google has a Stand Alone installer so you don't get that pesky updater if you don't want it. ;)

    http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html?standalone=1

    I found that if you leave the 'Set Google Chrome as my default browser' checked it doesn't install so just uncheck that then download it and in the browser you can set it to default.

    Also to make it safer, follow this image and uncheck and unset everything;

    http://img233.imageshack.us/f/chromeopts.png/

    Also in the Options, 'Under The Hood' - Privacy - Content Settings - Location click, 'Don't allow any site to track my physical location'

    Have fun & now you're as safe as SRWare Iron!

    P.S I just noticed that in msconfig there is an updater listed and showing this path; (Maybe someone can clarify this?)

    C:\Documents and Settings\User\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2010
  2. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Personally I think the updater should be installed in most cases, given the average users penchant for ignoring updates of any kind. Speaking of tracking though, when the heck did Google start showing your city and state with every search that you do? Is that the geolocation BS? I'm gonna have to figure out how to fix that in FF, as Google only, of course, gives instructions for the toolbar and Chrome. I wasn't "asked" whether I wanted to share, by the way, as Mozilla states is supposed to happen. Google just showed it automatically.
     
  3. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Das Fox,

    Yes, the standalone has been there for quite awhile. I'd still prefer to download the regular version because I want the updates! There are a lot of strong opinions about the updater but I find it totally non-obtrusive.

    And as you've pointed out in the Iron thread, even I don't have Chrome as my default browser though I use it 99% of the time. Setting it as default for some reason made my PC misbehave at start-up.
     
  4. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    I'm curious. What's so pesky about the updater, exactly?
     
  5. DasFox

    DasFox Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,825
    Pesky because it's silly that a browser needs a service to run just for updates...
     
  6. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Why disable phishing and malware domains protection from google safebrowsing o_O (I don't see much of a privacy issue with this.)
     
  7. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Agreed. Especially if one isn't using stuff like a DNS server that filters out nasties or other protections such as SiteAdvisor or WOT.
     
  8. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Could it be a remnant from the days you had installed regular Chrome? It may not have been removed by merely uninstalling Chrome.
     
  9. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    I'm sure it is. IIRC, when you install Chrome the "normal" way, the updater service gets added and stays there even after Chrome removal. Hop into a command line and put in "SC delete <service_name>", that will take care of that. Now getting rid of all of the Chrome entries that get scattered all over the place, that's the fun part :D
     
  10. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Even with those three you mention (Which I cannot make WOT work with Chromium; it won't activate. I actually seem to be having problems with pretty much every extension. lol), it will be one more extra layer of security, which won't hurt having enabled.
     
  11. DasFox

    DasFox Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,825
    Well for starters I don't know if it's a privacy concern or not, I just know that in those regards people are saying to disable it.

    Ok if this can be proven to not be a problem, then by all means use it.

    But I personally have the experience and the security in place that I don't need to use this.

    Also for anyone, that doesn't have either the experience or a good security layer already in place really needs to get both and learn to realize these features are redundant.

    So either you're lacking experience or you don't have a good security approach, but then it just spins this back around, to if you had the experience, you'd know that your security was better then using what a browser has to offer.

    Let's get real people if you're saying you're using what a browser has to offer then you've got some really poor security layers in place that need some serious rethinking.

    Think of this browser security layer as lower then free security software, now that's pretty low if you get my point, meaning you can use some pretty decent free apps out there that are going to protect you better. So along with a little experience and a good dose of common sense, you'll go a heck of a lot further then just some browser layer.

    By the way my Signature isn't there for my health, so read it and live by it, because that's the truth and that's the best free advise you'll ever hear! ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.