What I like about Chrome
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Farewell Kerio continued
Next: SimplyRAR for Windows?
From: N4469P on 31 Dec 2009 10:08 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:53:42 +0000, hummingbird wrote: > I have long thought MS should have a much more > user-definable install option...where you get to choose exactly > which components are installed. I could never understand why > folders like 'Xerox' and a bunch of others appeared on my system > after installation of SP2. I put it down to MS's evolved view that > users shouldn't bother to poke around their hard drives and just > leave Big Daddy to manage things for them. All it needs is faith > and big HDDs! it's an OS for the masses and the masses only find trouble when given options.
From: Wheel on 31 Dec 2009 10:10 Bear Bottoms wrote: > Wheel <tyre(a)hub.axle> wrote in news:BwU_m.19087$Qp7.13674(a)newsfe25.ams2: > >> Bear Bottoms wrote: >>> Wheel <tyre(a)hub.axle> wrote in news:3iT_m.19086$Qp7.13944 > @newsfe25.ams2: >>>> http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip >>> Is this the file you downloaded? >>> >> Yes. It has the same MD5/SHA-1 as my download and used for the >> scenario below. >> >> I have unpacked it to three different locations and run them >> concurrently, giving each separate settings and home pages. >> Each one writes its own .ini files that confirms the separate >> configurations. On re-opening them, all retain their individual >> settings, window sizes, etc. >> >> If you change all the settings in: >> 'Customise and control Chromium' -> 'ChromePlus Options Page' -> >> 'General settings' -> 'Privacy Plus:', then ChromePlus.ini is >> created in the 'ChromePlusUserData' directory. >> >> >> Contents of ChromePlus.ini >> >> [Exit] >> DeleteHistory=1 >> DeleteCookies=1 >> DeleteExtensionCookies=1 >> DeleteThumbnails=1 >> DeleteVisitiedLinks=1 >> DeleteRecentlyClosed=1 >> >> >> I can move them to any location I want, including placing a copy >> inside a copy inside a copy without noticing any differences to >> how they are configured as individual applications, be it one at >> a time or all together. >> >> This machine has never seen 'Chrome' and I can only propose that >> when chrome.exe is run, it looks for an installed copy and acts >> differently... Just wild guessing now. >> >> > So when you run the chrome.exe, it installs (not opens the program) but > installs locally? *Absolutely NOT* Have a look here: http://www.chromeplus.org/help.html From the 'Installation & use' paragraph: <quote> Zip version doesn't need to be installed. Just unzip and run chrome.exe. </quote> From the 'Uninstallation' paragraph: <quote> For a zip version, just delete the folder to uninstall. ChromePlus is a portable software. It neither has files in other folders nor writes Windows registry. You can always uninstall it by deleting the ChromePlus program folder. </quote> > Since I have Chrome installed on this machine, I'll take my unpacked > folder to another laptop, run the exe and install it, copy that folder to > a USB stick and take it to my desktop (which does not have chrome > installed and see if it runs like a portable app from the USB stick. That > should verify portable or not. > I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have installed the ..zip version of the application. Downloaded file: ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip From this url: http://www.chromeplus.org/update/ChromePlus1.3.3.0.zip With these hashes: MD5: 26ad281f28b2763edd48e22402d02c28 SHA-1: 9c8dc4bddcf8337ee444f70e5df59b190085dcd9 Just in case the website is also in error, I've formatted a laptop with the same results stated throughout this thread. The reason why this variant of 'Chrome' was chosen, as opposed to the one offered by 'PotableApps' (http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/google_chrome_portable) is that it is base on the v4 series and it claims on its home page that: <quote> - http://www.chromeplus.org/ 2. Removed Chrome background communications! </quote> I would be truly interested to know why your experiences depart from my own.
From: N4469P on 31 Dec 2009 11:23 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:45:39 +0000, hummingbird wrote: > 'N4469P' wrote thus: > >>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:53:42 +0000, hummingbird wrote: >> >>> I have long thought MS should have a much more >>> user-definable install option...where you get to choose exactly >>> which components are installed. I could never understand why >>> folders like 'Xerox' and a bunch of others appeared on my system >>> after installation of SP2. I put it down to MS's evolved view that >>> users shouldn't bother to poke around their hard drives and just >>> leave Big Daddy to manage things for them. All it needs is faith >>> and big HDDs! >> >>it's an OS for the masses and the masses only find trouble when given >>options. > > Agreed. You summed up my little rant in one good sentence :-) > > Nevertheless, they could still provide an 'expert install' or > summat similar. No? then they coulodnt slap in all their schlock that is automajickally "on" after install. one must work to define a windoz install. think KLinux.
From: Wheel on 31 Dec 2009 11:39 Bear Bottoms wrote: > Wheel <tyre(a)hub.axle> wrote in news:s93%m.17581$jj1.9330(a)newsfe12.ams2: > >> I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have installed the >> .zip version of the application. >> > > Because when I unzip the file and run the chrome.exe it brings up an > install window. I'll just have to accept; that is your situation.
From: blacky on 31 Dec 2009 13:14
Wheel <tyre(a)hub.axle> wrote in news:7t4%m.17592$jj1.13329(a)newsfe12.ams2: > Bear Bottoms wrote: >> Wheel <tyre(a)hub.axle> wrote in >> news:s93%m.17581$jj1.9330(a)newsfe12.ams2: >> >>> I can not understand your tenacious insistence that I have >>> installed the .zip version of the application. >>> >> >> Because when I unzip the file and run the chrome.exe it brings up >> an install window. > > I'll just have to accept; that is your situation. > I experienced precisely what you did. |