What is it with Chrome?

I hate that this is going to sound like a rant post, but there are several problems that continue to plague me. First, let me say that I'm using Chrome 12. So these aren't "beta" issues (I've tried the betas before and they suffer the same issues).

1. Flash. Is Google's built-in Flash just mentally unstable? No matter how many times I've "tried again", or re-installed the browser, I continue to suffer Flash websites that work fine for a little while, but then if I refresh the page, it suddenly won't load anymore. I have to close the browser, clear the data, and go back. The problem will repeat itself soon after.

2. Speaking of deleting data, why does Chrome refuse to delete content upon browser exit, even if you have the option checked? I have to do it myself. Every. Single. Time. Again, through various versions and re-installs, it happens.

3. Bookmarks bar. Why won't the thing stay shown even if you tell it to show?

I want to use Chrome, I really do. It can be a fast little bugger, and I generally like its security model. But come on, I expect these things to not be an issue in at least one version. Especially the Flash issue, which, going by Chromes' support forums has been troublesome since day 1.

 

Have you compared chromium to chrome to see if there is a difference? There might be.

Sul.

 

Actually no I haven't, Sully. I don't recall ever using Chromium, but it certainly isn't going to hurt anything to try.

 

1) Strange. I've had no problems. There were huge problems in Chrome 10 and most of them were resolved by 11 and 12. Are you using about about:flags? Are you using a flash plugin or the built-in chrome plugin? You can check this by typing aboutlugins into the url bar.

2) Why is it you want to do this? Either way, sounds like an issue. Not much help I can give you if it simply won't work.

3) Hit Ctrl+Shift+B and it should stick.

edit: And I don't believe Chromium comes with Flash...

 

Hi, Hungry Man.

1. Yeah, I had uninstalled the Flash Active X for IE9 and the plugin I was using for Firefox before I downloaded Chrome. I went into aboutlugins and checked for certain that Googles' flash was all that was there.

2. It's just a habit of clearing out history and stuff. I've just never seen a browser that did all it could to keep your data (I could make an easy Google joke here, but I won't).

3. That worked, thank you.

 

You could try running the Adobe Flash uninstaller and then trying Chrome again. You might have to restart. If this fixes Chrome's flash you can then try reinstalling Flash again.

As for 2, Chrome doesn't want you to remove your history/ data usage info because it uses that to predict network actions and speed up browsing. Still, the option is there and if it's not working it's a legitimate glitch.

 

I've literally done both several times tonight, and Flash just seems to keep screwing up. I really don't know what else to do about it, there isn't much point in watching Flash videos/streams if you keep having to close the browser out and start them over again.

As for the data, I get that, it's a legit reason. But, I just happen to be one of those that likes my privacy. In this case though the privacy issue isn't a factor, it's simply, like you said, an option that isn't working right.

 

I totally understand. I just wanted to let you know why browsing info is often kept, but you should have the right to remove it.

I have two suggestions:
1) Move to the beta for Chrome. When 10 broke Flash moving to 11 solved the issues.

2) You can try going to about:flags and enabling "Run flash in renderer" though this may in fact break some other flash sites so I'd give (1) a try first.

 

maybe you can try Chrome Portable?

 

I sometimes wish Chromium had flash built in like Chrome does. I install it if I need it, sometimes in the sandbox, sometimes not.

I use the flashblock extension. I have not experienced, to my knowledge, any issues with flash not working with Chromium. I have to click the flash item for it to start though, as flashblock just gives a blank area by default.

As for deleting everything, normally I use it in SBIE, so it isn't an issue. But I also changed my cache location and size as well, but I haven't tried any privacy related options at all, so don't know what to tell you on that end.

Sul.

 

They are very much the same creature. I can't say there is really an advantage to Chromium over Chrome. Maybe if you worry about google monitoring you or something.

I just like the thought of downloading a version, unzipping it, and putting it where I want it. I know lots of folks like the auto-updater, but I really don't like things to auto-update. I would rather do it myself. Maybe that is the lure of Chromium.

Sul.

 

Wow, sorry, I haven't experienced any of your issues and I have been running Chrome exclusively almost from its beginning.

 

I prefer Chrome for a few simple reasons.

1) Autoupdates. Less hassles.
2) Built in Google-patched and sandboxed flash
3) some extra codecs support
4) "version control" ie: Google tells you what version to use, which is nice because the latest Chromium can sometime be buggy.

 

Unless one is a tester, it's better to avoid Chromium builds.

If one wants to install Chrome in a particular location, the version from portableapps.com will do just fine.

 

Is it correct that Chrome uses a higher version of Flash than the version you download for say, FF and Opera (possibly even IE)? I've moved to the Beta channel, so I'll cross my fingers. Even without the Flash issue, Chrome sure seems like it "Aww snaps" a lot. Well anyway, perhaps it's a Flash only issue? I don't know, but it seems (no, this isn't an FF plug), that the plugin for FF is the most stable. Even in IE9 Flash seems to not run as smooth. Who knows, it's just getting frustrating.

 

Chrome occasionally uses a higher version of flash but that's because Google patches flash itself against security holes.

 

Kudos for them caring about security issues and taking care of business, but perhaps that's part of the reason so many Flash issues are talked about with Chrome? I guess that would depend on how often they're doing this "tweaking". Anyway, I'll report back by end of day, after a run with Beta 13.

 

No, I don't think the patching is what does it. Adobe always implements those patches eventually in the Firefox versions etc. It's most likely the sandboxing.

 

I would respectfully disagree with that. I have been using Chromium for maybe a year and a half or so, almost exclusively. I have had only a couple little issues, and they have been related to one version feeling sluggish compared to others. I haven't encountered any make-or-break bugs yet.

I am not saying you won't see bugs, or that everyone should jump on board. What I am saying is that advice to avoid Chromium might be a bit harsh considering you might not have any issues. m00nbl00d might be a better one to define bug experiences, as I think he updates much more than I do.

Sul.

 

I agree with Sully, Chromium is a legitimate browser and it's aimed at personal use though it's marketed in Chrome form.

 

At the risk of jinxing myself, Chrome 13 seems to have helped with the Flash issue. As for history and such data, I'm afraid that is yet unsolved. That being said, I'm letting it go as CCleaner will do what Chrome won't. I'm keeping extensions to a minimum as well, with AdBlock and Ghostery being the only ones. So far so, good, well, better than Chrome 12 treated me. Thanks for all the help.

 

Glad it's working out.

 

So am I, I'm so tired of fiddling with things.

 

My comment has nothing to do with your personal experience. I prefer to use the Aurora build of Firefox without issue but that doesn't mean it's meant for regular users.

It boils down to what is a "release" version. Chromium is not a "release" version. The advice not to use Chromium is for those who have problems with vanilla Chrome.

Anyway, here's how Google classifies the various versions (with no mention of Chromium):
http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel

And, Mr. HungryMan, no one even implied that Chromium is illegitimate. So saying it isn't illegitimate is unnecessary.

 

Fair enough vasa1, I can see the logic in that.

I suppose I tend to look at most of us who frequent here as more advanced than a normal user, thus using Chromium or the Aurora build or whatever would seemingly be no problem. I can't imagine the majority here really having a problem. Installing and configuring all these secuirty applications and testing your system against malware and exploits seems much more severe to me

But for a normal user, I see why you would say that.

Sul.