[Glenn9999]

(maybe this is technology news, maybe software, but I thought I'd get a topic going on it anyway)

I came across one of Google's new products (in beta), a derivative of their browser.

http://code.google.c...me/chromeframe/

It aims to install its own rendering engine over IE 6, 7, or 8 in Windows XP or Vista, so that essentially you would then be running the Chrome renderer with the IE UI.

It seems kind of odd that they're doing this to me. I have to wonder, too, what Microsoft has to say about someone (especially Google) doing this.

So...the answer to my question in the topic description in my view is no. I'm thinking just go ahead and install the entire browser if you want Chrome and be done with it. But I'm looking to more see what others think. Is this worth anything? What do you all think about them doing this?

[Yzöwl]

I can't see a problem with it, and TBH there should be nothing Microsoft can do to stop them.

They state that it's a 'plug-in' which suggests that it is running because the OS/Browser has been designed by Microsoft to allow such functionality. Also because it's intended only to work only on sites which are designed to require it, IE should act in it's usual manner on all non specified sites. I see this as not really being any different to say Silverlight/Flash which run as a plug-in and only kick in when required.

For these reasons I can see this as a good move by Google as a method to introduce die hard IE users to their products. I just cannot work out yet how it will directly benefit Google.

[Glenn9999]

I did a little more research. Microsoft slammed Chrome Frame, which was to be expected. Their reasoning was funny in a lot of ways. Google responded. Mozilla also slammed Chrome Frame, but for some other reasons that make more sense, most notably that the concept fragments rendering into specific sites. In other words, functionally there is no stopping each site from coming up with their custom rendering interface. Oddly enough for all the fuss Opera has put up, I'm surprised they haven't said anything regarding this.

FWIW, I figured out in reading that Google likely did this to try to facilitate acceptance of Google Wave, which uses a lot of web tech that most all browsers do not support. With IE being 60-70% of the market, I guess that's what they think are getting out of doing this - so they can get IE users into Wave. Personally, I don't think they're going to get too much ROI given the target customer base for Google Wave. Either people will not be able to install Chrome Frame due to IT security constraints, or there will not be much call to do something so extensive for the return that using something like Wave would bring.

Ultimately, though, I just don't think too many are going to care.

* I hyper-linked "Google Wave", but the auto-replace thing that seems to be going (most all my Google references as well as in the previous post are hyperlinked), and ruining it. Here's the URL: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Col...K-Users-114726/

** Now this would be news if someone decided to retrofit something like this for IE6SP1 or Firefox 2 in Windows 9X, especially if they did the whole Firefox 3 or Chrome browser.

*** I just noticed that another hyperlink got trashed in reading this: "Google responded" should equate to http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/913...rity?source=toc instead of the Google site.

This post has been edited by Glenn9999: 18 October 2009 - 08:23 PM

[MHz]

Glenn9999, on Oct 17 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

...
It aims to install its own rendering engine over IE 6, 7, or 8 in Windows XP or Vista, so that essentially you would then be running the Chrome renderer with the IE UI.
...

Googles Chrome is the browser interface that uses the Webkit rendering engine. I would suspect the concept of the I.E. plugin is to use the I.E. interface with the Webkit rendering engine. Webkit (rendering engine) is open source and was forked from the KHTML rendering engine by Apple so ownership by Google of Webkit is not accurate. Google is merely an active contributer and user of Webkit along with Apple, KDE, Nokia, Google, RIM, Palm and others as mentioned on the Webkit Wiki page.

Perhaps you should be judging Webkit rather then judging Google because though Webkit may help with Googles Wave and anything else is based on the evidence that Webkit supports HTML5 and prior HTML standards extremely well. Other notable browsers that use Webkit are Android (Linux based), Safari (Windows/MacOSX based), Epiphany (Linux based) and others listed here. Acid tests are available on the Acid Wiki page for the good results of Webkit based browsers.

I am failing to see down side to Webkit. The responses from Microsoft appear hyped possibly because Microsoft want to keep control with closed proprietary extensions (think of ActiveX and other objects). The responses from Mozilla appear hyped because maybe they want the Gecko rendering engine to be successful, though their reasons are differcult to know. One thing for certain is that competition is good to keep them all honest and the better choice will hopefully gain recognition.

[DigeratiPrime]

I think it's a smart move by Google, it will be insurance that their "apps" can work within IE. I don't understand why they don't provide an MSI and ADMX files for Chrome though.

[Glenn9999]

DigeratiPrime, on Oct 18 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

I think it's a smart move by Google, it will be insurance that their "apps" can work within IE.

That is about all it provides, though I believe this "insurance" won't pay for Google in the end. All the reading that I've done indicates that Chrome Frame is a site-specific plugin and only will work on sites specifically enabled for it. A copy of IE6 with Chrome Frame will still be using the IE6 engine on other sites, but will be using Chrome Frame on the specific site that has asked for its installation. This fragmentation is what Mozilla is going after in their comments.

No one truly wants site-specific plug-ins, not only for the inconvienence, but for the bloat and the increased possibility of malware through such plugins. Odds are high that few corporate entities will accept installation of this plugin.

This post has been edited by Glenn9999: 18 October 2009 - 08:34 PM

[iamtheky]

Quote

All the reading that I've done indicates that Chrome Frame is a site-specific plugin and only will work on sites specifically enabled for it. A copy of IE6 with Chrome Frame will still be using the IE6 engine on other sites, but will be using Chrome Frame on the specific site that has asked for its installation.

All the negatives I see refer to how it would it would be burdensome for interaction with 'sites.' Yet all the press indicates that this plugin is/was designed so that Google Wave could function with it.

So, a feature in the GoogleWave.msi will be a 'install chrome-frame plugin for IE', and this will be primarily used by the wave app and not affect browsing 'wave-less' IE in any more negative a fashion (than already present, naturally).

Unless some site the makes the grave mistake of actually including (content="chrome=1")

edit: grammar policing.

This post has been edited by iamtheky: 19 October 2009 - 01:03 PM

[DigeratiPrime]

The idea is not to affect IE in any way to avoid breaking compatibility with sites that require IE (ActiveX/Trident), but enable compatibility with their own sites (Gmail/Docs/Wave). Honestly this would be convenient so people could get the best of both worlds through one program. I am not probably going to use it, just explaining it in a way that makes sense to me.