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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
Advertising a browser is now "shady"?
And yes, both things can be true which is why lying about one of them is wrong.
who lied about what?
Rewriting history? Google used the most scummy techniques to get Chrome installed, mostly bundled with completely unrelated things.
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.
Your memory seems to be broken
Rewriting history is wrong
Your nerd rage against Google doesn't make lying ok.
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