Talk:Google Chrome

Chrome Canary

I think that he Canary channel should be added to the Chrome Release History along with Beta and Dev channels. There is a version of chrome in canary and that is 30.0.1552.0, and I also know one more thing about Canary channel and that is, in the Canary channel versions the three vertical bars on the top-right (that opens the tool menu) are colored golden. I think that maybe Canary is golden Themed. Please make the requested edits. 124.125.19.227 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Including canary releases has been discussed here before. The consensus at that time was not include them as they change too quickly to be notable and also no one would commit to updating them daily. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree we should include them, but as others have pointed out, a lack of sources hinders. Checking out Firefox, both Aurora and Nightly channels' version numbers are covered, equivalent to dev and canary. I propose adding just the major version number for canary with an {{As of}} per Firefox. Let's agree here first, before adding though. Widefox; talk 10:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who started the discussion about not adding canary builds to the list years ago, so I'll state my reasons again: They aren't fully released versions of Google Chrome, as they are not tested before being released, and when it's updated, it isn't mentioned at http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/. And it also installs separately to the other channels. Canary builds are basically like nightly/development builds, and Wikipedia does not add those. --Mister Potato 47 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, per Mister Potato 47's prior lucid reasons, I don't think it's too harsh to say that this is an idiotic idea - silly, even. Leaving aside the fact that including dev or even beta releases should already be considered highly controversial in what should be broad, general coverage of a browser in an encyclopedia article, the Canary releases must be verified. Including an {{As of}} for the major version number while providing a decent source for that major version is an excellent way to workaround the problem of verifiability for the minute amount of data that would be added to the Release History table, but the issue then becomes "why is this even here?" "Why are you telling me this, Wikipedia? Gee, thanks for informing me that the latest version of this experimental build is somewhere in the vicinity of 30, that does me a lot of good. It's important that I know that. Oh and look, there's this handy, outdated reference talking about a build that no longer exists - that's what I've always wanted!" Yes, what an incredibly fantastic idea. Please make the requested edits post-haste, wiki lackeys!
Any mention of Canary should be left to an appropriate descriptive section within the article, as it is already.
- Smike ( Talk ) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms

I think this article deserves a criticism section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.10.183 (talk)

Criticisms can certainly be added, but you need to cite reliable sources for each one as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite. And strangely, there don't seem to be many prepared to risk publishing secondary research, criticising a company with the legal fund to give Bill Gates a decent day in court. But this is Wikipedia, not an information resource. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9114369/Google_bends_to_Chrome_privacy_criticism http://www.geek.com/chips/why-businesses-still-avoid-googles-chrome-827221/ http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/news-security/google-answers-microsoft-chrome-frame-security-criticisms-1913 http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/07/google-under-fire-for-chrome-browsers-password-storage-policy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8995070/Google-relegates-Chrome-home-page-after-spam-criticism.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9131461/Hackers-beat-Google-Chrome-security.html And enjoy searching for information of the Event Viewer listed problems. 86.16.68.132 (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Information

I believe the Acid tests are quite outdated. Well, at least the caption on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.96.39 (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Release History "Obsolete"

V1 through 30 are discontinued, V31 is obsolete, V32 is current. what is the difference between obsolete and discontinued? --Taltamir (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to these terms in the article, where did you see that? I believe "obsolete" in this context means that it is not the current version, but is still supported. "Discontinued" means no longer supported. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

re: /Archive 2#Why did Google name their browser "Chrome"?

Wiktionary has, for "chrome", a second sense : "(computing) The basic structural elements used in a graphical user interface, such as window frames and scroll bars, as opposed to the content." But i too only saw it prior in Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If someone can find an explanation from Google we can add it! - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not just from Google, but any reliable source would qualify. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)