Why Silent Updates Work: Chrome 16 Passes IE9 in 2 Days

[ryantoss]

Can some body tell me a "reasonable" reason for not being silent update

1. Are you the most important star in the world and every one want to exploit your information?

2. Do you own millions dollars business and you don't want any single people access your information?

3. Do you feel unsecure for not completely control your computer? What do you want to be come, God?

4. Do you want thousands programmers write code just for your out of date browser?

 

[Guest]

The ONLY thing I use IE for is install Chrome on a new machine then IE goes off never to come back again, unless I can't get around it, which theses days is rarely.
I use chrome for everything, Docs, Calender etc, and love being able to open several gmail accounts in one browser window. Along with several useful extensions I have installed.
I don't have a problem with automatic updates as long as that's all that get updated is the chrome.

Ken Lawson
lawsonreport.info

 

[Guest]

Safari

 

[Guest]

Hate silent updates. I will never install Chrome or any software that bullies newer versions on me without any option not to. Security patches for existing versions maybe, but installation of new versions replacing the old shouldn't be mandatory. I mean, where does it end? Google may decide to update everyone to a version of Chrome that requires you to log-in with a Google account before you can even use the browser. Or something else that changes the appearance to truly ugly.... and there's no going back because Google doesn't allow control over the software on your own computer. This is all little Orwellian steps towards a future where people are taken out of the equation... your computer isn't yours anymore.

 

[cobra5000]

IE9 sucks! I tried it and I had a ton of problems with websites (like Tom's), in the posting sections. I switched back to Firefox and everything works great! Go Mozilla!

 

[Guest]

hmmmm, I compile chrome on my own from source code, because I run a variety of Linux silent updates wont even work, because I run everything on my user account and not with administrative privileges, because of how Linux separates the user and administrator differently than windows, nothing can install a program on my computer that's able to run without first setting it to become executable which you can only do with my administrator password.

 

[Guest]

IE8 is still high because that is latest browser on XP. If IE9 was available for XP the figures maybe a little different.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]rene_kirk[/nom]IE8 is still high because that is latest browser on XP. If IE9 was available for XP the figures maybe a little different.[/citation]

But it isn't. So they aren't. We do live in reality, right?

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]I mean, where does it end? Google may decide to update everyone to a version of Chrome that requires you to log-in with a Google account before you can even use the browser. Or something else that changes the appearance to truly ugly.... and there's no going back because Google doesn't allow control over the software on your own computer. This is all little Orwellian steps towards a future where people are taken out of the equation... your computer isn't yours anymore.[/citation]

If only people were capable of uninstalling applications and had been given alternative browsers to install for such a situation - it may not be the pandemonium you describe.

For everyone blaming silent updates for market share - couldn't be more illogical. If you take the bigger picture and compare the total usage of IE vs Chrome (all versions) - whether they have a silent update to the latest chrome or not - they were still a chrome user, so the automatic update does nothing to the overall chrome market share. The fact that Chrome comes with Adobe reader is a more relevant argument when looking at browser share, but not in the context of this article which discusses the affect of silent updates (it's a completely different cause).

 

[V8VENOM]

IE9 is more junk software from Microslop -- and it's "compatibility mode" -- geee, if there needs to be a compatibility mode that a user turns On/Off then you obviously missed the point Microslop. Heck IE9 doesn't even work with Tom's Hardware.

I still fire up IE9 every once in a while but for the most part Chrome works and works well ... far fewer problems than any version of IE. I'll be glad when I don't have to write any code to determine what browser is being used and all the subsequent "adjustments" that go on to my code to deal with the differences. IE is no longer my "reference" point, I test on Chrome first to make sure everything works, then I move to other browsers.

Did Microsoft learning anything ... errrr ... no they didn't. IE10 is going to be worse and even less compatible with most web sites as it will default to NO ADD-INS.

With the exception of those paranoid about installing anything on their computer, the majority of folks just want a clean browsing experience without messing around with options, add-ins, etc. etc.

I have Chrome on my Mac and I have Chrome on my PC, it has been trouble free on both platforms. That's the difference between a browser coded in the US vs. one coded in India.

 

[Guest]

The end state is that it works chrome is better i,m sure no one here examine all the codes written in every piece of software on their PC so in a sence you have no idea what you have installed on you PC

 

[Guest]

It amazes me that so many people are against silent updates. Keeping your browser up to date is just as important as keeping your virus scanner up to date. Do you complain about that too?

As for the guy above who says don't fix what aint broken, the whole point of the updates is it IS fixing what's broken. If you're not installing the latest security updates from MS on a regular basis then your computer is at high-risk of becoming infected with some sort of malware. On top of that, you put everyone else at risk as your computer is used to infect others, all because you think you know better than the experts.