I like chrome but it has trouble playing some video and PDF; it seems there are some integration problems. I also take a bit of exception to the rather incorrigible GoogleUpdate files. The layout, how search works etc., however, is unsurpassed.

That doesn't relegate it to secondary, for me. Rather I use it as primary, while I use IE or FF for what Chrome can't handle. But this is an evolving market. It is good to have another actor in it.

If you disable the Adobe PDF plugin in about:plugins and enable the Google one they work fine.  I don't know why Google hasn't enabled it by default, but I'm sure they have their reasons.  I can't actually figure out what those are, mind you...

This was my first thought when I read this thread. There appears to be a confusion between companies that offer goods and services that people MAY want and what a choice actually is. Companies don't offer choices, they offer products with features, if you don't like the product and it's features you have the choice to find one that suits you. If no such product exists you have the opportunity to make or create it yourself. Seems simple enough.

P.S. I chose not to use google chrome. It didn't work well for me at them time I tried it, maybe it's better now.

Nothing is wrong with Windows 7, I was just pointing out that Windows 7 sometimes is not consistent in where things are or where to find them.  This is coming mostly from a developer point of view.

Google Chrome is the fastest browser on the market (not just for initial load, but javascript speed, rendering, extensions, etc.).  It is also the most secure, has the easiest extension model (even though it is in it's infancy), and has a much faster development cycle than the others.  Those are not opinions, these are facts, proven time and again.  If those things don't make it the best browser in the market, then tell me what Firefox or any other browser does that makes them better?  Also, from my experience, Chrome saves much more than just 0.008 seconds.  Add more than a couple of extensions or one hard-hitting extension (like firebug) and Firefox crawls.  The same does not happen to Chrome.

I believe that quote was taken completely out of context.  There was another article on it (which, unsurprisingly, didn't get as much attention) but I can't seem to find it.  Yes, privacy is an issue, but these are all companies, who can you really trust?  Want to know why I have more faith in Google than the rest?  Because they're the only ones with a "don't do evil" policy.  Can Microsoft, Mozilla, or any other company claim that?  No.  Every single time Google has done something that breaks the "don't be evil" mantra (such as the china stuff and the wifi stealing), they've been called out on it and Google has had to rethink what they're doing (to the point of saying screw you to an entire country and pulling out, can Microsoft, Mozilla, or Apple claim that?).

It's easy to say that there are privacy issues with Google, because they control a lot of the world's information.  But show an example of where Google has taken advantage of their power.  I bet you'll find it hard to do so.

I believe they enable a feature after it's been tested for a few versions (both privately and publicly, hence the about:plugins option).

Bara

I remember those exact same words back in the mid 90s when it was Netscape and IE.  And for those who do not remember, browsers died with Netscape because "no one cared".  That is why I care.  I like Chrome, but I do not like where Google is going.

And now we have IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and ten thousand other browsers nobody gives a crap about.

If we were to face the same ecosystem again I could understand the relevance of that comment.

Google Chrome is the fastest browser on the market (not just for initial load, but javascript speed, rendering, extensions, etc.).  It is also the most secure, has the easiest extension model (even though it is in it's infancy), and has a much faster development cycle than the others.  Those are not opinions, these are facts, proven time and again.  If those things don't make it the best browser in the market, then tell me what Firefox or any other browser does that makes them better?  Also, from my experience, Chrome saves much more than just 0.008 seconds.  Add more than a couple of extensions or one hard-hitting extension (like firebug) and Firefox crawls.  The same does not happen to Chrome.

I agree that it's fast.  I said as much in my post.  But while it's noticeable, it's not enough to overcome the UI issues.  It's the UI that messes with my workflow and causes delay.  That is what keeps me hanging on to FF.  Make the UI work the way *I* want it to and I'll make the switch.  Again, one man's "better" is not another man's "better".

But you'll notice that I didn't really mention UI, as that's entirely based on opinion, not fact.  So if you don't like the UI, fair enough, but that doesn't mean Chrome ISN'T the best browser in the market in every other respect

Bara

And it took 10 years to recover.  Do you really want to wait 10 years to recover from the next monopoly?  That is the relevance of the comment.  Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

And those who spend all their time looking backwards will never move forwards...but then we could do that dance for years and get nowhere.

We are nowhere near a monopoly.  Once there's something to worry about I'll worry about it.

What percent of search does Google have?  What is the definition of a monopoly according to the FCC?  Answer those questions and you may be enlightened.

We were talking about browsers, not search engines.

But you'll notice that I didn't really mention UI, as that's entirely based on opinion, not fact.  So if you don't like the UI, fair enough, but that doesn't mean Chrome ISN'T the best browser in the market in every other respect

You know how in meetings people sometimes disagree about the fact that they're actually agreeing and make the meeting go 30 minutes longer?  I think we're doing that.  So yeah, agreed on all points I suppose.

Well... I disagree!

As Savyg pointed out, I'm not sure I see the relevance of the search engine market when deciding which browser to use.

Bara

Ah, but it is FACT that other browsers allow you CHOICE while google is opposed to user choice as a design point. Other browsers have tons and tons of features I don't use... as well as features I do use. I would rather have a browser with 10 features I don't care for (and don't use) and 1 that is essential for me, than a browser that is missing an essential feature for me (and missing 10 features I don't use). It is the fastest and most secure (before add ons... considering the lack of proper script blocking add ons due to lack of core engine support for them, its not as secure though)

With FF you CAN use it the same way chrome does, or you can change things to work the way you want them. You CAN use a sidebar, or you can NOT use a sidebar. You have a choice. You can use any of many features. I don't need most of them, but they are essential features for many people, and among the many features chrome cuts, a few are essential to me, a different few are essential to him, a different few essential to the next guy... There are only so many people who don't find ANY of the feature google chooses to cut intentionally useful.

Google has fairly good defaults, but it opposes allowing changes to them. And that is a problem. It is ok when you have a windows system with multiple browsers you can use at once... whether chrome is your primary or secondary, it isn't your EXCLUSIVE browser.

How well will a chrome OS where google makes all the choices for you will be? Not very.