|
| ▲ | reitzensteinm a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| https://www.ghacks.net/2012/02/26/avast-7-will-install-googl... https://searchengineland.com/google-chrome-page-will-have-pa... https://community.adobe.com/questions-638/adobe-flash-instal... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/filesubmission https://www.findmysoft.com/news/google-gets-pushy-with-chrom... Etc. This stuff was very real and is a ten second search away, maybe try that before accusing parent of having a faulty memory because it doesn’t agree with yours. |
| |
| ▲ | izacus a day ago | parent [-] | | Just because they advertised the browser, it didn't mean it wasn't actually better no matter how much you hate that fact. It's really disgusting to see such misinformation spread because you hate what actually happened. | | |
| ▲ | Izkata 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those weren't advertisements. The browser was packaged with other software and automatically installed if you didn't catch it and prevent it. I'm pretty sure it also made itself the default browser during the installation without user interaction. There are screenshots of the installers in those links. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kej a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Both things can be true. Chrome was generally faster [1], and also some of Google's growth tactics were shady [2]. [1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/528214/browser_speed_compari... [2] https://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/03/google-chrome-bund... |
| |
| ▲ | izacus a day ago | parent [-] | | Advertising a browser is now "shady"? And yes, both things can be true which is why lying about one of them is wrong. | | |
| ▲ | kej 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They added the installer to unrelated software, paid other companies to do the same, and defaulted the checkbox to on, so that unsuspecting users who didn't read all the tiny text with Adobe Reader or RealPlayer also installed Chrome. Even if it was the most amazing browser ever written and came with a free puppy, it is shady to rely on tricking people to get your software installed, and pretending that this is just "advertising a browser" is incredibly disingenuous. By replying to this comment you agree that I can install some of my software on whatever device you are currently using. <-- this is basically what they did. | |
| ▲ | zeratax 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | who lied about what? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kome a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Rewriting history? Google used the most scummy techniques to get Chrome installed, mostly bundled with completely unrelated things. |
| |
| ▲ | izacus a day ago | parent [-] | | None of my machines or most other machines used those tactics to install it. We installed it because it was heck of a faster browser in times when others sucked. |
|
|
| ▲ | ChrisClark a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Your memory seems to be broken Rewriting history is wrong |
| |
|
| ▲ | 6510 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I disagree, if you opened enough tabs back then Chrome was unusable. But if that is your view, you should switch to Brave. 44% less memory use, (1/3) longer battery life, no telemetry and if you block undesirables it is obviously much much faster. > AnandTech tested median page load time across one hundred top-trafficked websites in WebPageTest using a 50 Mbps cable connection. Brave 1.69 loaded the median page in 2.1 seconds, while Chrome 147 took 6.7 seconds. The 3.2x difference is not engine speed, it is Brave Shields aborting requests for ad networks, analytics SDKs, and third-party fingerprinting scripts |
