Database Develop

Google Chrome

Anyone else interested in this browser? It looks like it will kick ass and who knows they might make a mobile app for it...outside of Android.

Reading your post using it now.
I will give it a go, but I do like Firefox.

opera been ok for me 7 years now on pc
and a few on pda

I've been using it for about 30mins now, it has some quirks but overall speed is the fastest I have seen in a long time.
Check out the cartoon about it:
http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

Just installed it on my HTC Shift, and it seems pretty good so far.
Regards,
Dave

Yea it is really fast. I like it.

Maybe in the future could be a good option, but now in Beta... I´ll stick to Opera.
There is no options to personalize, change color, etc, speed is good but not as good as they anounce
Don´t let go with Ads mates! Google want´s all the "Internet World", at least they have to pay us for that!!
Cheers,

it is fast though..but cant replace my Opera..no support for Emails so useless..but it has some fetures which makes it a lil nices

I've tried on my Acer One, and it works very fast, both to launch, and to open web pages. It is very low memory consuming, so i think it will be my preferred browser.

My problem with Opera is it's unstable nature with certain sites, especially older forums. Sometimes it can be a major PITA.

I downloaded it last night, it seems much faster than Firefox. I didn't know there were so many ads on some of the forums I visit I'll stick with Firefox so I don't see the ads.
** This morning I noticed that GoogleUpdate tried to access the internet about 12 times last night. This was with Chrome closed!! I don't give any programs access to the internet for updates.

I have found a problem with Chrome and vBulletin boards like XDA.
It is incorrectly turning DST ON in Eastern Australia making all times out by an hour.
In
User Control Panel
Setting DST Correction option to [Always Off] works around the problem for now. Something amiss in the Chrome javascript engine perhaps?
Without making this change whenever I switch between IE or Chrome with a vBulletin board I get an auto DST update message. IE time is correct. Chrome is wrong.
Anyone else wee this?

You might want to check the EULA a little closer there. It is definitely a boilerplate with some wide ranging implications of they enforced it. It also has a number of bugs, such as a carpet bombing vulnerability right off the get go. Nice idea and if they were to put a decent EULA on it, I might use it.... In the mean time, I'll stick with SeaMonkey or Opera.
-Will

IM USING IT RIGHT NOW!!!
It PWNS!!!

The EULA agreement has already been debunked just check section 9.4....here is how another user explained it:
Actually this is pretty flawed. I know this was posted in MANY other places as well, and I can't write to the authors of ALL those posts, but here's where copypasta news and blog entries have their flaws.
If you read section 9.4 closely, you'll see what I mean:
9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content
That "limited license" it refers to is what has exploded onto the internet as a violation of rights, privacy, etc. Again, if you actually read section 11, you'll see that the limited license is only for the promotion of Chrome, and this only holds to things that aren't already covered under other rights, such as copyright or intellectual property. Basically, this boils down to: Google can use anything that is online to promote itself, if one of it's users accesses that site. Which, in all honesty, it could do anyway.
This doesn't violate anything. And if you're still scared of it, use Chromium, the active open source project without the EULA that Chrome is based on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As for bugs. I have noticed the DST bug, also it seems spell correction doesn't work on some boards I post on. Other then that it's the best browser I prefer.

Sledutah said:
I downloaded it last night, it seems much faster than Firefox. I didn't know there were so many ads on some of the forums I visit I'll stick with Firefox so I don't see the ads.
** This morning I noticed that GoogleUpdate tried to access the internet about 12 times last night. This was with Chrome closed!! I don't give any programs access to the internet for updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Edit:
I uninstalled it yesterday. After installation it was still trying to access the internet via GoogleUpdate. I went through the registry and there were tons of references to googleupdates and chrome. I deleted all of them and haven't had any more requests. Wow, don't think I'll even reinstall it in the future just for that.

Theres some kind of memory leak
Whenever i run it
My CPU usage shoots WAY UP
Its fast but dam should it be taxing my processor like that

Cool browser

I love it, been using it for about a week now LOL. But there is still a lot of work needs to be done!

Google Chrome is so much faster on many websites, especially on XDA-developers.com, where it is seconds faster when switching between pages in the forum.
And by using privoxy on newspapers, etc., you can get rid of those annoying ads with ease.

Google Chrome

Hey everyone,
What are your thoughts about the new browser?
Have you clicked the "make default" button?
How would you like to try one out on a mobile device?

Hello,
Chrome, by itself, is really good to use, initially i was not comfortable with the idea for google collecting data about my surfing habbits, but further reading suggests that almost all browsers do "call home" its not something that is really special with Chrome and defenitely not what some websites try to portray...
I am sure Google knows enough about my surfing habits without having the google toolbar and chrome installed
dammit, i just want to visit some sites which they won't know about....hmmm...maybe won't know about...
So, no "make default" yet, I'm eagerly trying out the new firefox 3.1 beta...
On the mob, yeah sure, 'cauz my mobile browsing is quite limited...

To make it clear, I, for one, have made the switch... Using Chrome as Default, there are still many areas they need to cover, but my biggest concern at the moment is Bookmarks. Firefox and Opera have great Sync features, Chrome has none. That's a real pain, considering the whole Cloud phylosophy which Google understands all too well..
Downloading is another area...
Being a big Google fan I'm prepared to live with this version, but not sure if it's ready for mainstream.
I imagined Chrome to be updated quite often, but that's not the case at all.

I'm definitely using Chrome full time. I've had to go back to Firefox a couple times for certain plugins (specifically media rippers, to pull FLV files off video sites) but hopefully Chrome will open up to third parties soon.

I think it´s too "Beta" now
Maybe in a couple of years could be a good candidate, but now still too young and limited.
I´ll stick to Opera meantime
Cheers,

I have been using Chrome every now n then but not 'default'. It does look promising but will take time to mature like Firefox 3. Firefox simply rocks.

Aparently they have this policy that everything you upload using google chrome is now considered theirs.. or so I've been told...

I enjoy a certain level of privacy. So....im sticking to FF on the PC (except when IE is required) and Opera on WM6.1+

@Mikeeey: Nope. They resolved that a while ago. They used a general TOS agreement that was pretty blanket and covered a number of services (to save on writing up different legal agreements every time). They forgot that the wording was sort of bad in this particular case and have since changed it. Everything you do under Chrome is yours, as expected.
@Zeezee: What do you mean by privacy? Because they track usage?

I really like Google products, but Chrome just doesn't cut it against FireFox or Maxthon. I've grown very accustomed to certain plug-ins and/or features in FireFox and Maxthon that I just can't part with.

I'm absolutely loving Chrome. So speedy.
Still lacks a couple of things I liked from FF, but I'm not going back.
/defaults it.
Oh - and regarding privacy - I figure Our-Googley-Overlords already know most of my browsing habits, seeing as I use Google to search for everything anyway.

make the switch. it will change your life.

joel2009 said:
make the switch. it will change your life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why you say this?
Can you extend your opinion please?

I've always hated FF and was an IE user.
I find Chrome screws up sometimes on streaming videos, but other than that, I use it all the time.
IE7 would crash on me daily, not any more. The ultimate browser for me would be some sort of Chrome-IE8 hybrid.

Willtastic said:
@Zeezee: What do you mean by privacy? Because they track usage?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, google likes to know ppl's business

zeezee said:
yeah, google likes to know ppl's business
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
who don't?

Opera question..

Hey guys I live in california and have a Union bank of California account and I want to do online banking with Opera but it seems to not allow me to get to my next screen when I type my user name... the site is www.uboc.com is it because it doesn't use java? I can get on my WAMU account.. any fixes for this? Thanks

Well, it will be hard to find any fixes specific yo your bank homepage unless you provide your login details, so, that we can check the requirements for your bank access.
I do remember that my BoA was not accessable from any of my mobile handsets, even though they were listed as 'compatible'. My bank just did not allow my handsets to access the page for security reasons. It took me over 1 week to get their web developer department convinced that "MOBILE BANKING" does not make sense without actually allowing mobile devices to access it ... !
The symptoms were the same as you described above, just nothing happened when I tried to log in - in some rare cases I was bounced back to the mobile banking homepage again ...

sguerra923 said:
Hey guys I live in california and have a Union bank of California account and I want to do online banking with Opera but it seems to not allow me to get to my next screen when I type my user name... the site is www.uboc.com is it because it doesn't use java? I can get on my WAMU account.. any fixes for this? Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, some banks websites wont let you login from a mobile phone due to "security reasons". Try the Skyfire beta though, as it let me login to my banks website when Opera and IE failed.

LvDisturbed1 said:
Yeah, some banks websites wont let you login from a mobile phone due to "security reasons". Try the Skyfire beta though, as it let me login to my banks website when Opera and IE failed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have Skyfire beta which is an awesome browswer to watch porn I mean youtube haha j/p... but I read reviews and comments saying not to browse with skyfire because its beta and it can be viewed by people first... will Opera ever support java and be like skyfire later down the road?

I thought Opera had a feature that allows you to either have web pages you view; receive you as a PC, or as a mobile. But I can't find that option. Am I thinking about a different browser, or am I missing something.
Next, I would use Opera more, but it has the "auto" clear-type enabled, and that doesn't allow some of my web page data to be viewed. So, I use IE instead because I can disable the clear-type for IE in the Advance Config program.
Any ideas about these two issues. I would REALLY like to use Opera exclusively. I'm told that Skyfire is not safe, as they record your passwords and usernames for bank accounts, etc.

Still no downloading from IE after Mango?

I download from websites all the time from my Vibrant. Podcasts, radioio, torrent links ect...
After reading this, Im growing a little discouraged
http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-20072492-85/windows-phone-mango-hands-on-review/
I hate having to put my sim card in my Vibrant to do these things. Although, the podcast issue will be fixed with the new Zune from phone features.
Also, the non support of 3rd party browsers blows! I love my HD7 but dammit!

On the contrary have a look at this
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/microsoft-windows-phone-7-could-support-alternative-browsers-695324
Extract from the top link
Something else that might also come in future is the ability to build alternative browsers. "You won't see native code Opera or Firefox at launch," Watson confirmed to us, but he did hold out some hope
"We're always working with our partners to work out what makes sense. If the market demands an alternative browser, then we'll enable our partners to do that."

Chromecast "emulator"

Since chromecast simply get an url or data to play content already "on the cloud", it will be possibile to emulate its behaviour with a chrome extension or something like that?
I'd love to use a chromecast-like interface on my desktop pc...

p.nightmare said:
Since chromecast simply get an url or data to play content already "on the cloud", it will be possibile to emulate its behaviour with a chrome extension or something like that?
I'd love to use a chromecast-like interface on my desktop pc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd second that. I'd love to see the ability to chrome cast TO a (widows) chrome browser.
I have a number of MCE PC's connected to HD TV's and computer with monitors throughout the house that would be great as the recipients of "casting".
At work I'd like to be able to look something up on my phone and then sent it to my nearest PC browser...

htcsens2 said:
I'd second that. I'd love to see the ability to chrome cast TO a (widows) chrome browser.
I have a number of MCE PC's connected to HD TV's and computer with monitors throughout the house that would be great as the recipients of "casting".
At work I'd like to be able to look something up on my phone and then sent it to my nearest PC browser...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean like this? - http://goo.gl/NOoel
You won't be able to push Netflix to the browser the same way, but you can certainly do so with web content.

Jason_V said:
You mean like this? - http://goo.gl/NOoel
You won't be able to push Netflix to the browser the same way, but you can certainly do so with web content.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah kind of like that but completely integrated into he chrome cast infrastructure and APIs so that it is compatible across all apps and is just one click on the new "cast" buttons that are cropping up at the top of all my Android apps now .... (Netflix, Youtube, Google music etc.)
There has been talk of 3rd party hardware makers being encouraged to support the standard so shouldn't be too hard to do proper chrome browser integration as a target.

I can't believe no one has thought of it yet :fingers-crossed:

here
p.nightmare said:
I can't believe no one has thought of it yet :fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go github.com/dz0ny/leapcast

dz0ny said:
Here you go github.com/dz0ny/leapcast
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
awesome! I will definitely keep an eye on that :good: :good:

Nodecast is also an option
p.nightmare said:
awesome! I will definitely keep an eye on that :good: :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beside Leapcast (which is implemented in python), there is a JavaScript-/Node.js-Port in Git-Hub available. The port was made by Sebastian Mauer, the guy who wrote Cheapcast.
I spend the last weekend exeperimenting with both Nodecast and Cheapcast. Now Nodecast runs here in a Windows 8.1 virtual machine - and I'm able to stream from other Windows and Android-devices.
I wrote a few tutorials, how to setup Nodecast on Windows (it also possible to use similar steps in Mac OS X or Linux). The tutorial is currently only in German - but Google translate shall do the job.
Nodecast setup for Windows-tutorial: http://goo.gl/2ZU5Mm
Maybe it helps

Leapcast 2.0?
Anyone still working on Leapcast now that the 2.0 SDK came out? Lots of changes like going from DIAL to mDNS for one. Leapcast was very handy for running on a PC that was already connected to the TV. Sadly, all the apps compiled against the newer SDK won't work with it. They won't even discover it as a Chromecast now.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...oakcolegkcddbk?utm_source=chrome-app-launcher
This was an attempt to do this but I never got it to work on my side.

Unfortunately, SDK 2.0 requires the Chromecast to calculate key using certificate issued by Google. We will probably wait a long time to see leapcast, CheapCast and NodeCast working again. It might not be even possible at all.

Johny_G said:
Unfortunately, SDK 2.0 requires the Chromecast to calcate key using certificate issued by Google. We will probably wait a long time to see leapcast, CheapCast and NodeCast working again. It might not be even possible at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not the best news, but thanks Johny for the insight.
If all the rooted ROMs can handle SDK 2.0 and Google's new authentication, there's probably a way to get the emulators up and running with it. Just a matter of time and determination I hope. I wish Google was a bit more open on the software side for the Chromecast. Having the new SDK for sender/receiver apps is great, but allowing companie/people to recreate the piece in the middle would also benefit them I would think. It would be tough for people to beat the Chromecast's price tag, but having other options would be good.

Averix said:
Not the best news, but thanks Johny for the insight.
If all the rooted ROMs can handle SDK 2.0 and Google's new authentication, there's probably a way to get the emulators up and running with it. Just a matter of time and determination I hope. I wish Google was a bit more open on the software side for the Chromecast. Having the new SDK for sender/receiver apps is great, but allowing companie/people to recreate the piece in the middle would also benefit them I would think. It would be tough for people to beat the Chromecast's price tag, but having other options would be good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't hold my breath. The ROMs get the upgrade essentially "for free" as it's part of the stock ROM code. Maybe the desktop players can take advantage of that, probably not, especially if it's a binary or relying on some kind of TPM or other function in the Chromecast hardware itself.
Having options is good for the consumer, but for a manufacturer, more options = more competition = more mouths to feed = lower margins = more work to keep competitive. One of the reasons Apple is so aggressive about protecting the exclusivity of its platform.

Warning! TL;DR below!
The point is, that every single Chromecast device has its unique ID, its unique MAC Address, and its (unique?) signed certificate. Also, it might have some kind of ID generated when you set the device up (similar to Push ID used in Google Cloud Messaging). Some of those (maybe all of them) have to play together to calculate the key. As soon as you pull the certificate out and put it in different environment, the result of the calculation won't match the SDK's expectations. So there is pretty good chance, that bypassing the key might be completely impossible without modifying the SDK itself (and it would require the developers to actually invest some effort to support these alternatives) and maybe the Chromecast device software as well. But who knows, the guys involved in those "emulators" are way smarter than most of us and might figure something out .
This is the biggest issue. The other one is, that everything has changed in the new SDK/API, and all of the methods used in those emulators are now deprecated and need to be implemented all over again in a different fashion to work with 2.0. This might actually be a good thing, since developers involved in testing of the way-too-rushed 1.0 seemed not to have a lot of kind words to say about it. I have attended one Chromcast block on a local conference, and it was basically 2 hours of swearing.
I've stumbled upon these issues today (and a bit of yesterday), trying to get my app working in the office (I forgot my Chromecast at home - again), and here are some sources if you are more interested in the topic:
https://plus.google.com/+SebastianMauer/posts/83hTniKEDwN
https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast/issues/29#issuecomment-37288608
https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast/issues/96
As a developer, I have to say, that Google is making things awfully difficult lately, and the "don't be evil" policy seems to slowly fade away. They put way too much effort into marketing decisions, and have no time to properly test APIs and SDKs before they spit them out . Mostly, when trying some new Android-related technology (to be honest, its mostly Google Play Services technology these days, so AOSP starts to be completely useless), I spend most of the time working around things that nobody thought of (i.e. the Translucency API in KitKat was obviously tailored for Google Now Launcher, and is a huge PITA tu be used elsewhere) and fixing the broken samples that come with them. It might seem weird, but sometimes (say hello to Play Games Services and in-app billing v1+v2!) the sample is inseparable part of the final implementation, so you have to fix their rushed code anyway. I shouldn't be complaining, since things like that raise the value of developers willing to go through all of this in their spare time, but the change of philosophy still bugs me a lot. Google and Android used to be strongly community-oriented, and now the marketing is pulling it all away.

Should the goal really be to emulate a Chromecast or should the effort be geared toward supporting DIAL protocol?
I would think the latter is the better option because you could support whatever the hardware supports without the limitations imposed on us from CCast Hardware.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always looked at DIAL as an extension of UPnP and separate from the CCast itself and the Chromecast SDK as not much more than a kit to add DIAL support to Android (and iOS) not meant to build anything on the CCast side at all.
Other companies like Roku are planning some DIAL support and I doubt highly they will have a CCast ID and Certificate.
In the end I think we will get something similar to this functionality from a player app like VLC on PC and MAC, or perhaps in Chrome itself.
Cause I think (and I may be totally wrong here) that it isn't the Apps we use that checks the Whitelist and IDs it is the CCast itself that when invoked to load a player app to stream it also checks the whitelist and tests security before it plays.
SO if someone created a program for PC that made the PC announce itself as a DIAL capable device that when connected to loads the app into Chrome, I bet most of it would work.
Might not work with any of the DRM sites like Netflix and Hulu but for things like local content and unprotected streams I see no reason why it wouldn't.
In fact I bet the trouble some are having with Channels in Plex and others would go away because a PC Chrome instance would be able to play many more Transport types than a CCast can currently.

Asphyx said:
Should the goal really be to emulate a Chromecast or should the effort be geared toward supporting DIAL protocol?
I would think the latter is the better option because you could support whatever the hardware supports without the limitations imposed on us from CCast Hardware.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always looked at DIAL as an extension of UPnP and separate from the CCast itself and the Chromecast SDK as not much more than a kit to add DIAL support to Android (and iOS) not meant to build anything on the CCast side at all.
.......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you. I could actually care less about emulating the specifics of what's in the Chromecast hardware. What I do want is the ability for those unrestricted apps (ie not Netflix) to be able to use their Cast button to find, connect to, and use whatever the emulator is. The new CC SDK doesn't use DIAL to do the initial search any longer. It now uses mDNS. All of the previous apps (YouTube, Pandora, etc.) are still using the old API and DIAL discovery which appears to be backward compatible with the new Chromecast stick software. If you look at the debug logs of the stick, both the v1 and v2 APIs are accounted for. As for Roku, my guess (I haven't started digging in on what they're up to yet) is that they have an app that is using DIAL for discovering the Roku and then just acting as a remote control for all the box functions. Chromecast was a bit more unique since it could basically load up anything from the web as a receiver/playback client since the software is just basically a Chrome browser with some wrappers around it. That's what made it much more dynamic without having to load "channels" in the box within a custom framework like Roku does.
And Bhiga, as for economics on Google providing the software to other hardware makers, I think it it would actually be in their best interest. The Chromecast right now has to be either close to at cost for them or a loss leader. If they can get the Cast API to become a default standard on new consumer devices, that would help them take over that space. To me, that is such a better proposition for them than trying to get the complexities of something like GoogleTV into TVs.

Averix said:
And Bhiga, as for economics on Google providing the software to other hardware makers, I think it it would actually be in their best interest. The Chromecast right now has to be either close to at cost for them or a loss leader. If they can get the Cast API to become a default standard on new consumer devices, that would help them take over that space. To me, that is such a better proposition for them than trying to get the complexities of something like GoogleTV into TVs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mDNS actually makes discovery a lot easier - mDNS = Bonjour = what Apple and TiVo use for discovery already.
I agree with you that adoption of the API and protocols is the goal. At this stage an Android emulator probably would help adoption, but my point was that a desktop emulator doesn't necessarily add to the rate. If someone starts looking to using a desktop because they think they don't need a Google Cast device, they'll likely runs across Plex and Miracast and may decide they don't need Google Cast at all.

bhiga said:
I agree with you that adoption of the API and protocols is the goal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wish Google agreed with us.

Averix said:
I wish Google agreed with us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I bet anything there are some at Google who do agree with us but when your as BIG a company as Google is it takes forever to get everyone on board and thinking along the same lines enough to manifest it into an end product.
In the end what all if this really tells us is how much DLNA Consortium has failed to standardize Media Distribution by not going far enough and thinking of it from the end user ergonomic experience.
If this discovery and launch capability was more fleshed out in the DLNA specs we might not be talking about DIAL and mDNS right now.
At some point all these protocols (DLNA, UPnP, DIAL) should be merged into one standardized protocol that any platform can use.
Probably years away though...

Asphyx said:
If this discovery and launch capability was more fleshed out in the DLNA specs we might not be talking about DIAL and mDNS right now.
At some point all these protocols (DLNA, UPnP, DIAL) should be merged into one standardized protocol that any platform can use.
Probably years away though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My concern is that unless Google is willing to push this as a standard rather than just apps for one dongle, it will only be a matter of time before the giant (un)friendly fruit company swoops in and AirPlay becomes the defacto standard that all TV makers, set top makers, and anyone else are forced to build in. It's not quite the same as how DLNA and UPnP have become sort of irrelevant, but it could pan out that way for the Google Cast API without more hardware devices having the capability built in. Time and market pressure will tell I guess.