Chrome now blocking direct access to certain popular torrent sites

You can't access any of those sites anyway in the UK because they are blocked by a court order - you have to use a vpn.

I guess just one more reason I rarely use chrome.

Ironically, Google's "Harmful Programs" comment "...attempt to trick you into installing programs that harm your browsing experience (for example, by changing your homepage or showing extra ads on sites you visit", is pure projection. That is exactly what happens when you use their browser for any purpose! I have opted out of all ad settings and I still get hassled with "nag" ads about things I've purchased already.

Chrome is a great browser but you do need to set it up right to get the best from it. Often that can mean Incognito browsing even for the most mundane things.

One thing's for sure, Google or anyone else will never hold back the ocean of file sharing that floods the internet. This is one area where corporate giants are impotent, a refreshing change from their ubiquitous domination.

Originally posted by Askar:

---

I guess just one more reason I rarely use chrome.

---

Yep.


Me, I'm loving Waterfox nowadays. 64bit-Firefox. Beautiful.

I despise Chrome. It has a few undeniably innovative elements, but as a whole... Bleh.

For example, it's theoretically more secure than IE, and possibly even Firefox, but in reality, not really. And cleaning up an infected Chrome install is nightmarish.

Nor am I at all fond of the UI.

Like Jemborg, I use a Firefox variant (Pale Moon).

Originally posted by Four21:

---

You can't access any of those sites anyway in the UK because they are blocked by a court order - you have to use a vpn.

---

Oh man...I know that Brits aren't the brightest bulbs in the box but stupid enough to arbitrarily block all those sites that merely "link" people? Those sites have a ton of illicit stuff BUT.......they have a ton of legit stuff too.

You wankers need to fight your government! We do here in the U.S. and it f'ing works!


As for Chrome doing this........EXPECTED! Google is dipping their poo-laden hands into so much that their influence is duly noted by many.....and this is probably the result of an illegit agreement with someone else, ISP, gov't, etc.


Chrome is also the browser LEAST COMPATIBLE overall with the web and is really a run-of-the-mill garbage browser that treats every tab as a separate process. Waterfox and Firefox are the way to go in web surfing PERIOD.

Yeah, I've heard of Pale Moon. Must give it a try.

Must admit, Waterfox integrated perfectly into my old FF setup. Preferences, addons... everything. Can't even tell the difference it's just faster. Can't run them both at the same time though. Might even have the same memory leak too haha.





_________________________________________________________________

Chromes malware trigger is automatic based on algorithms so they probably do have malware. But chrome isn't blocking them, you just click on details to go ahead anyways.

Originally posted by hearme0:

---

Originally posted by Four21:

---

You can't access any of those sites anyway in the UK because they are blocked by a court order - you have to use a vpn.

---

Oh man...I know that Brits aren't the brightest bulbs in the box but stupid enough to ... You wankers need to fight your government! We do here in the U.S. and it f'ing works!

---

Being an Aussie... hilarious.

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

For example, it's theoretically more secure than IE, and possibly even Firefox, but in reality, not really. And cleaning up an infected Chrome install is nightmarish.

---

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do some more research on the security features of Chrome.

Originally posted by elduderino:

---

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

For example, it's theoretically more secure than IE, and possibly even Firefox, but in reality, not really. And cleaning up an infected Chrome install is nightmarish.

---

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do some more research on the security features of Chrome.

---

Chrome incorporates the spyware "DoubleClick":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick
I kept on wondering why it was reoccuring. Until I realised that every time I ran Chrome it was reinstalled.

Originally posted by elduderino:

---

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

For example, it's theoretically more secure than IE, and possibly even Firefox, but in reality, not really. And cleaning up an infected Chrome install is nightmarish.

---

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do some more research on the security features of Chrome.

---

Right back at'cha. I've had to disinfect the systems of Chrome users, bubbeleh, and my real-world experience trumps your dubious "knowledge", sorry. Both Firefox and IE are significantly easier to fix, once compromised.

Yes, Chrome is marginally more secure, at least in theory. It's also MUCH more difficult to clean up, once compromised. Also, I see incidental "drive-by" infections (not occurring from user interaction/failure) FAR more often on Chrome.

Oh, and the UI blows leprous goats.

Problem, fanboi?

Jerk fewer knees and apply thinky-grease, next time, please.

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

Right back at'cha. I've had to disinfect the systems of Chrome users, bubbeleh, and my real-world experience trumps your dubious "knowledge", sorry. Both Firefox and IE are significantly easier to fix, once compromised.

Yes, Chrome is marginally more secure, at least in theory. It's also MUCH more difficult to clean up, once compromised. Also, I see incidental "drive-by" infections (not occurring from user interaction/failure) FAR more often on Chrome.

Oh, and the UI blows leprous goats.

Problem, fanboi?

No one cares about your signature.

---

No problem. As someone involved in the Chrome development cycle, I have quite a bit more knowledge about this subject than you do. There's no need to start a pointless silly nanny fight on a discussion board. I was just calling you out where it's due.

I'm done and will not reply again on this matter. Have a good one.

So you admit you're not impartial? Interesting!

I've seen Chrome's behavior in the wild, no matter how you'd apparently like to pump up your "involvement in Chrome's development cycle", and I've discussed the problem with other people who have encountered similar problems with the browser. An easy search for, say, "chrome lousy" puts the immediate lie to any claims of superiority. I can easily provide oodles more amusing, similar Google searches, if you like.

By the way, I don't use a post "signature", here or on any other site. Every single word was directed personally right at'cha =) . Nor am I surprised by the "I won!" declaration, combined with immediately fleeing - lol...

Originally posted by elduderino:

---

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

Right back at'cha. I've had to disinfect the systems of Chrome users, bubbeleh, and my real-world experience trumps your dubious "knowledge", sorry. Both Firefox and IE are significantly easier to fix, once compromised.

Yes, Chrome is marginally more secure, at least in theory. It's also MUCH more difficult to clean up, once compromised. Also, I see incidental "drive-by" infections (not occurring from user interaction/failure) FAR more often on Chrome.

Oh, and the UI blows leprous goats.

Problem, fanboi?

No one cares about your signature.

---

No problem. As someone involved in the Chrome development cycle, I have quite a bit more knowledge about this subject than you do. There's no need to start a pointless silly nanny fight on a discussion board. I was just calling you out where it's due.

I'm done and will not reply again on this matter. Have a good one.

---

It also shows to me that your statements cannot be trusted! You admit being partial to chrome...THAT puts you and every word you say about chrome in the "rubbish" category for me right there!

I would rather trust the words of someone who does not have a dog in the fight, than to someone being partial to it!

I tried chrome years ago when it came out and it was a nightmare to uninstall........no thanks....I will stick with firefox and may try waterfox.

Double post. sorry.

Firefox used to do it's own coding until a few years ago i think it was v13 when they switched to chrome based engine,still undecided if that was a good move

For those that are thinking of trying waterfox,yeah it's ok,don't know if you'll notice any performance difference if there's even one.Mozilla also now do a 64bit version of ff

If you haven't already & you use firefox/waterfox & possibly pale moon,go grab this it's a backup utility for firefox based browsers.Very handy when the * hits the fan
mozbackup

from the readme:
.......................
MozBackup is a simple utility for creating backups
of Mozilla applications like:

* Mozilla Firefox
* Mozilla Thunderbird
* Mozilla Sunbird
* SeaMonkey / Mozilla Suite
* Flock
* Spicebird
* Netscape (7/9)
* Netscape Messanger
* Songbird
* PostBox
* Wyzo

Because it runs on top of FireFox I expect MozBackup would work.

I think lately Waterfox is faster. That's my observation. I also think it's more secure, because it's more obscure, but I don't know that for a fact.

Firefox is NOT based off of Chrome. In fact, initially Chrome was based off of Firefox, not the reverse, although this is no longer the case. Firefox still uses the Gecko engine that all Mozilla-branch browsers use.

My biggest issue with Chrome, really, is that it is designed to leak user info, up to and including the real IP behind VPNs. A little googlin' will verify this, if you disagree. The fact that it's five kinds of green Hell to disinfect or uninstall doesn't help.

This annoyance made me finally change browser.
Tried waterfox but didn't like it (used a lot of memory).

Now on Pale Moon and love it!
It even still has sync, which I use.

Originally posted by matthuisman:

---

This annoyance made me finally change browser.
Tried waterfox but didn't like it (used a lot of memory).

Now on Pale Moon and love it!
It even still has sync, which I use.

---

Are you using the 64 bit version?

I'm honestly dubious that 64-bit versions of browser make much, if any difference, except in those cases where the browser ends up needing more than 2GB of RAM; we're talking about hundreds of tabs open in Pale Moon, for example.

The problem is, very often 64-bit versions are also not as fully-developed - and/or as well-maintained - at least to date. I'm sure this will change as 32-bit fades completely as a standard, but that's not where we are currently at.

I've tried 64-bit versions of many browsers and I personally can't really see any differences that aren't easily attributable to random chance and/or varying user perception. Reviews and data online seem to back me up on this, but that said, hey, if you like it, go for it, it's not like it's exactly BAD either ^^' . And if you're one of those users that regularly keeps a gazillion tabs open semi-permanently, I agree it might make a pretty big difference.

<Sigh> Yeah, I'm one of "those" users... but I know people worse than me! :P

I got about 2.2GB of RAM being sucked up by my tabbing atmo.... what's the x32 limit 3.3ish?

I dunno. Maybe it's subjective but Waterfox certainly seems snappier on my old Core 2 Duo laptop. Also the data I could find comparing the different versions were fairly dated Bbub and I know there have been big improvements in the x64 compilers since.

Pale Moon also has a x64 version and I'm willing to give that a twirl. Nothing on their site argues against it. In fact performance seems to be a concern to Pale Moon... I'm even wondering if my old craptop might be too dated for it.



__________________________________________________________________

Any 32-bit process still has the same limitations as on a 32-bit OS (2GB, or 4GB if "large address aware"); you can, however, run more of them simultaneously on a 64-bit OS (assuming, of course, you have the total RAM to support this). From what you're saying, 32-bit Firefox (and likely all branch browsers based on Gecko/Mozilla) IS large address aware. That said, 4GB is still going to be an absolute limit for any 32-bit browser.

The x64 browser builds often aren't much faster, if at all, more because there's no particular requirement for 64-bit addressing, beyond the RAM the process can use. In your case, yes, a 64-bit browser seems to me to be a very good idea, as you're starting to push the boundaries on RAM for a 32-bit process.

Similarly, for any task, if you're not moving large amounts of memory a lot of the time (encoding/decoding audio/video, cryptography, and similar tasks) and don't particularly need a huge amount of per-process RAM, 64-bit processing generally makes just about zero difference in performance ^^' .