Slashdot Mirror
Google Updates Chrome Frame, Makes IE Better
superapecommando writes "Google updated Chrome Frame, a plugin that embeds the company's Chrome browser engine into rival Microsoft's Internet Explorer, to a beta version.
As it did last year, Google cast Chrome Frame today as a way for IE users to instantly boost the notoriously slow JavaScript speed of their browser and let them access sites and web applications that rely on standards that IE doesn't support, primarily HTML5."
This was going to be first post but I was using IE.
America, Home of the Brave.
Does Chrome Frame run inside IE Tab in Firefox?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
On a more serious note, why embed one browser into another? Why not just install the other browser?
I can think of a few reasons. Say you're on a corporate network that only allows IE as the system is entirely managed remotely. Maybe they allow plugins for IE in the profiles or maybe they want to switch to HTML5 but the people that manage their software are too unsure of doing a full browser like Chrome that might not have the same managing options for proxies and stuff that IE allows them to control over a network. Or maybe you're a user and you find out you can install Chrome Frame and it looks like you're still using IE so everyone's okay with it.
Another big thing is look and feel. I think that Chrome Frame keeps IE's look and feel. So if my mother is slow to learn new applications and she is so used to IE's look and feel but I want her to be more secure and enjoy HTML5 pages without having to worry about which browser she's using or try to learn Chrome than Chrome Frame might be an option for her.
My work here is dung.
Even with installation restrictions, there are 'portable' versions of alternative browsers.
The restrictions go deeper. Have you ever run into a Unix system where all end-user-writable directories (including /home and /media) were mounted noexec for security purposes? Windows has a similar feature, called Software Restriction Policies, which can deny execution of a program based on folder location (as in Linux) or based on lack of the IT department's digital signature.
Because many popular non IE browsers are very difficult to manage on a Windows network environment, not impossible but requires a lot of work and experienced windows admin (something everyone claims to be on their CV but they are not). IE has nice policies to set centrally.
Firefox (default with no additional AD integration extension) needs .dat files added to the installation directory, you need to code javascript to do anything user related and not globally to every user on that workstation.
Chrome is the worst, it install on %LOCAL_APPDATA%, not globally, so each user need their own copy (WTF Google %APPDATA% is for data not binaries)
No experience with Opera on enterprise installations
I heard you like webpages, so we put a browser in your browser so you can browse while you browse
AccountKiller
I understand you have to be security and performance minded and that there are some issues with codecs and containers but aside from that is rendering HTML5 standards really that complicated?
Before they are agreed upon, yes.. its really hard to render them.
"His name was James Damore."
Any Custom Web App built by our company for either ourselves or our clients is 100% designed for IE.
Well, there's your problem right there.
I wonder how Microsoft likes being played at its own 'Embrace and Extend' game ;)
But do all of them also use V8?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So they are apps designed for a browser platform specfic implementation of a dev version of HTML5. Hardly standards like what was implied........