Software: Google Chrome
Note: Check the date on this post, this is obviously a bit outdated. However, as of the last time I installed Chrome, in November 2011, the points about its installation practices still stood.
Recently, I had the opportunity to use Google's new web browser, Chrome. Since I'm probably the pickiest person on the internet when it comes to browsers (I didn't start using Firefox until web developers started ignoring IE 6 en masse), and I work as a web developer, I figured I'd write up my thoughts on this new entry to the browser world.
Short Version:
Not a bad start, but it needs a LOT more work to call it "finished", and has some disturbing installation habits.
Installation
The installation process was disturbingly simple; just click a button, and it's done. No advanced options, not even an option to decide what directory it installs to. Once it's finished, it gives a few options for shortcuts and such, as well as options for importing data from other browsers.
Unfortunately, it's not possible to download and deploy it across multiple systems on a LAN, because the installation file you download is nothing more than a downloader application itself; the real application comes from Google's servers during the installation routine. So, if you install on multiple computers on the same network, you have to download the entire package every single time whether you want to or not.
Interface, Options, and Customization
Chrome's user interface is painfully basic, but polished-looking. The toolbar is not customizable, and the application uses a non-standard skin. So, if you want something that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in your OS, or you need to use an accessibility/high-contrast colour scheme, or if you just don't like blue, Chrome is not a good browser choice for you. There are cellphone browsers that provide a more robust usage experience.
Unlike Firefox, Chrome has absolutely no flexibility when it comes to usage methods. If you use this browser, you pretty much have to use tabs, and you have to use your bookmarks in toolbar-form - there is no bookmark menu. You can't add or change toolbar buttons, there's no status bar, and searching has to be performed from the address bar (unless you go to the web page of the search engine, but that kinda defeats the point of having integrated search capabilities).
The options page is so limited that you'll think you're using a locked-down public kiosk running Internet Explorer. It really serves to reinforce the feeling that this is Google's browser, they're just letting you borrow it. There are three pages, and on the first two, the total number of options can be counted on one's fingers. The first page contains options for homepage/initial tabs, searching, and Default Browser. The second page ("Minor Tweaks") contains download location settings, password-saving options (a simple on or off, I might add, with no exclusions, something that even IE 6 had), and font/language options. I should point out that there's no option to override colours or add a user style sheet, two major accessibility concerns. The third page ("Under the Hood") contains quite a few settings, but most of them are things that don't deserve to be buried on a page called "Under the Hood", a name implying that those options shouldn't be touched. Notable options on this page include network/proxy settings, pop-up blocking (the only option is to notify when a pop-up is blocked or do it silently, there's no option to turn it off entirely), "phishing and malware protection" (another simple on/off checkbox with no explanation or exceptions), and cookie settings (another simple on/off with no exceptions).
As for customization, there is none. This is the most restrictive-feeling browser I've ever used, and it doesn't even have options to change the colours of the window. There are no plugins, no extensions (another area where Internet Explorer, the bane of internet elitists, out-performs Chrome), nothing. I'd say it feels like it was designed for complete idiots, except that the usage habits it forces onto people are somewhat non-standard compared to other applications that aren't web browsers, and thus completely foreign to AOL and IE users. It took me a solid five minutes to figure out where it was hiding my bookmarks, and I have to use a variety of different browsers for my work.
Performance and Rendering
Perhaps I'm being too harsh on this new browser. After all, it was released with relatively little development time, and focal point of the project was to design a browser that outperforms the others in Javascript processing and similar tasks, with low resource usage. So, let's take a look at this aspect of it.
I have to admit, I am quite impressed at its performance. It's fast, it renders well, it multi-tasks well, and its resource usage is far lower than Firefox 3. It's even lower than IE 6, which is worth noting for people with older, slower computers (or newer ones that run Vista while barely meeting its system requirements).
From a professional standpoint, it exceeds expectations for page rendering. In standards-compliance mode, it's identical to Firefox when rendering a page, and has full support for all aspects of CSS 2. It seems to lack full support for CSS 3, which is disappointing, but no one else has it yet either, so it's not a huge deal. I didn't do extensive testing in quirks-mode, but really, if you're building a site and your code isn't standards-compliant, you're setting yourself up for far more compatibility problems than you need to. Validate your code, and things are likely to magically start working without using a ton of CSS and Javascript hacks (but that's another article altogether).
Unfortunately, it does do some things differently when it comes to Javascript. I haven't had the opportunity to extensively test the properties/methods that it does and does not recognize, but it did break a couple of scripts used in this site, so if you're a professional JS developer, it'd be a good idea to add it to your test-set if you haven't already.
Shady Installation Practices, and Hidden Processes
Remember when I mentioned that there's no way to change what directory Chrome installs in? Well, after trying to track something down, I found out that it doesn't install to the standard directory (C:/Program Files/{developer}/{product} on Windows). Instead, it installs to the user's Local Settings/Application Data directory, a folder that's hidden by default, and that most casual Windows users never know is there. Apparently Google didn't get the memo that the Application Data directories are meant to be used to store user-specific data files, not an entire application installation.
So, if there are multiple users on a particular computer, each user must install a separate copy of Chrome. And, if the users are managed by a domain, each user must individually install the application on each computer they use. Apparently, Google never wants their browser to gain market share, because even Firefox can be deployed in a corporate environment (which is where most IE users are these days, since IE can be managed via Active Directory, and many corporate intranet applications require ActiveX) like any other application.
The installation process also creates an auto-running update process (GoogleUpdate.exe). Not that that's a particularly unique practice, but they have no interface whatsoever to disable or opt-out of it. And, just to keep sysadmins on their toes, they decided to use Windows Scheduled Tasks to run it. Now, there are worse places to put an auto-running application, but the standard locations for applications that aren't trying to hide something are the Startup folder in the user's Start menu, or the LocalMachine/LocalUser's RUN registry keys. Not only is this a poor practice from their perspective (the entire Task Scheduler system is trivial to disable), but it goes against standard practices and makes it a bit more difficult for sysadmins to find and kill it.
Final Thoughts
Overall, this is a pretty poor browser, and it really should've had more development time. It's restrictive, defies standard practices and procedures left and right, and it has very little working in its favour. Its performance is quite good, but the rest of it makes it hard to justify using in favour of something else.
Google Chrome would make a decent secondary browser for power-users. If you have a secondary computer that's a bit on the slow side (an Eee PC, for example), and you need a lightweight browser for casual use, Chrome would be a good choice. But, I couldn't recommend it as a primary browser to anyone yet.