Google Chrome to Improve Security

Google Chrome to Improve Security

Google Chrome to Improve Security

 

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

 

Yeah, it certainly needs to go on a diet! 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.S. SRWare Iron's Program Files folder is about 70 MiB.

 

But it's the best engine, it was a great choice by Google to follow Apple

 

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

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=295588

 

FYI. My Safari program folder is 40MB.

 

Is it using the default settings?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Agreed!

 

No, I changed the Font Other than that yes

 

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

 

For me, Safari works much much better than Chrome does. On XP that is.

 

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.

 

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

 

Definitely.