Chrome 33 Nixes Option To Fall Back To Old 'New Tab' Page

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome 33 Nixes Option To Fall Back To Old 'New Tab' Page

Posted by timothy on Saturday February 22, 2014 @10:40AM from the put-it-on-my-ta-hey-waittaminute dept.

An anonymous reader writes "On Friday, Chrome 33 was shipped out the everyone on the stable channel. Among other things, it removes the developer flag to disable the "Instant Extended API", which powers an updated New Tab page. The new New Tab page receieved a large amount of backlash from users, particularly due to strange behavior when Google wasn't set as the default search engine. It also moves the apps section to a separate page and puts the button to reopen recently closed tabs in the Chrome menu. With the option to disable this change removed, there has been tremendous backlash on Google Chrome's official forum. The official suggestion from Google as well as OMG! Chrome is to try some New Tab page changing extensions, such as Replace New Tab, Modern New Tab Page, or iChrome."

125 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fix youtube by scan2006 · 2014-02-22 10:43 · Score: 0, Troll

They need to fix the fullscreen youtube problem
1. Re:Fix youtube by scan2006 · 2014-02-22 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  http://imgur.com/XWTl1xy
Chrome by Grindalf · 2014-02-22 10:49 · Score: 1

I think that Chrome seems fine ...

--
The purpose of existence is to make money.
1. Re:Chrome by ShieldW0lf · 2014-02-22 11:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  When I open a new tab in chrome, and try to do a search in the search box, it shifts focus instantly to the url field.
  Can anyone tell me how to prevent this? It makes searching google using a url as the keyword a huge, ginormous pain in the ass, and it interferes with what I'm doing on pretty much a daily basis.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
2. Re:Chrome by ShieldW0lf · 2014-02-22 11:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Whoever thought it was a good design choice, shifting the focus halfway across the screen after the user explicitly put focus on the search box... I sure hope they're no longer working in IT. That was just gross incompetence.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
3. Re:Chrome by Fwipp · 2014-02-22 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  Why are you searching for URLs? If you add another word it'll be fine though - you can simply add a " ." if you like.
4. Re:Chrome by ShieldW0lf · 2014-02-22 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you searching for URLs? If you add another word it'll be fine though - you can simply add a " ." if you like.
  Better than nothing, I guess. Thanks.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
5. Re:Chrome by glavenoid · 2014-02-22 12:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Ctrl+k puts focus in the omni/address bar with a "?" which tells chrome you want to search rather than go to a url. Alternatively, you can add the ? as the first character in the address/omibar and this will also initiate a search rather than going to the site.
  
  --
  I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable /. beta rollout fallout.
6. Re:Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same thing with the Google now app search bar. It looks like an input bar that you type into but its an app launcher. Never understood that..
7. Re:Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  Put quotes around the URL - so instead of searching for ibm.com search for "ibm.com". It doesn't stop shifting the focus to the URL bar, but it does produce a search for the URL rather than going to the URL directly.
8. Re:Chrome by dreamchaser · 2014-02-22 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  That's how I do searches, using the ? in the address bar. It's quite easy and intuitive.
9. Re:Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Whoever thought it was a good design choice, shifting the focus
  You could've saved a few dozen bytes by stopping there. Think of the bytes!
10. Re:Chrome by kiddygrinder · 2014-02-22 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  it shits me to tears, if i put a url in the search box i want to search for the URL not go to the URL. at least it's open source, i smell a real fork coming in the next 6 months.
  
  --
  This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
11. Re:Chrome by kiddygrinder · 2014-02-22 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  that's pretty cool, how can i force it to go to sites it doesn't think are urls (ie my local network is all computername.l) without having to type in http:/// and hope it works
  
  --
  This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
12. Re: Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  Ctrl+e
13. Re:Chrome by Fwipp · 2014-02-22 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  Oh thanks, that is better than the method I described.
14. Re:Chrome by swillden · 2014-02-22 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Have you tried putting a slash on the end? We use a lot of single-word URLs internally and putting a slash on the end always convinces Chrome that I mean it as a URL not a search keyword.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
15. Re:Chrome by onosson · 2014-02-22 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I never noticed that before. What a strange idea.
  
  --
  ? syntax error
16. Re:Chrome by mlk · 2014-02-22 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  How is that intuitive?
  
  --
  Wow, I should not post when knackered.
17. Re:Chrome by EzInKy · 2014-02-23 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Beer? (tell me about beer).
  Beer! (get me to beer).
  Seems very intuitive to me!
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
18. Re: Chrome by dataspel · 2014-02-23 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Nice, thanks. Prepending a question mark seems to work too, converts the URL into a search.
19. Re:Chrome by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-02-23 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you searching for URLs?
  Because ... he wanted to?
  I personally do it most often because I want to find out about a server before I enable it in NoScript.
  Why shouldn't we be able to?
20. Re:Chrome by N0Man74 · 2014-02-24 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you searching for URLs?
  
  The most obvious reasons are to determine how accurate, legitimate, honest, biased, trustworthy, or safe a site is.
  I find it far more surprising that you don't see the value of googling an URL.
21. Re:Chrome by mlk · 2014-02-24 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  But that is after the item.
  That also works in Chromes super bar thing.
  Beer in chrome goes find me beer.
  as does "Where do I buy strawberry beer?"
  But I'd never think of writing "? Beer" to find beer.
  
  --
  Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Should be a public API for this by Darkon · 2014-02-22 10:53 · Score: 4, Informative

Doesn't help that the new tab page lives inside a protected "chrome://" namespace which extensions are almost entirely prevented from touching, and uses private APIs for things like showing the most used pages, meaning that anyone wanting to put it back how it was by writing an extension has to reimplement everything from scratch.
1. Re:Should be a public API for this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  This.
  I've gotten Speed Dial and fixed it to 2x4 and selected my 8 pages manually, but it's not quite the same. Maybe someone with more more JS knowledge can fix that to behave more like chrome used to?
  Also "Modern Tab" who the fuck would ever use that piece of shit?
I guess I'm geezering.. by log0n · 2014-02-22 11:00 · Score: 1

what exactly is this topic saying?
1. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Tough+Love · 2014-02-22 11:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It is saying the Google is slipping down the slippery slope of evil, ignoring massive negative feedback as usual, and demonstrating clearly why dominance of their non-open open source browser is a bad thing for everybody except Google.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
2. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  Uh huh, and what is that in non-hyperbole? You know, facts and such.
3. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Fwipp · 2014-02-22 11:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't think "controversial UI" counts as "evil."
4. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by ShieldW0lf · 2014-02-22 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think "controversial UI" counts as "evil."
  What about offering tools to exploit you by making you pick an option without considering if it's in your best interest?
  Does that qualify?
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
5. Re: I guess I'm geezering.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  Wtf? Specifics please.
6. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to all the people at soylentnews.org ;-)
7. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by cyber-vandal · 2014-02-22 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Dominance? Non-open source? What are you wittering on about?
8. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by swillden · 2014-02-22 12:52 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think "controversial UI" counts as "evil."
  Not even all that controversial, since the UI change happened about a year ago and Chrome market share has continued climbing.
  The only way to avoid annoying some percentage of your user base with UI changes is to never change the UI. Even clear improvements will generate screams of outrage from a few percent of the users, just because they don't like change.
  In any case, if people don't like Chrome's UI, there are plenty of other options. If you really dislike this change, just use a different browser that you like better. If enough people do that, Google will get the message.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
9. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by kiddygrinder · 2014-02-22 16:06 · Score: 2
  
  it's GPL, how's that not open source? the flash code? that's not open source anywhere.
  
  --
  This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
10. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 18:09 · Score: 0
  
  There are about as many viable alternatives to Chrome as there are to (insert-your-crummy-local-ISP-name-here). Just like with the Gmail mobile app and the removal of the conversation view toggle, Google knows there are very few viable alternatives (and practically none for Gmail/Google Apps email that work as expected) and enough people will eventually just shut up and put up with their bullshit.
  I don't understand why anybody is surprised by this.
11. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by lgw · 2014-02-22 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  I switched from gmail to outlook.com late last year. It totally doesn't suck. As far as I can tell it has the same features, and the look of the UI is fine (not beautiful, but neither is gmail).
  Don't feel like you're stuck with gmail.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
12. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by syockit · 2014-02-22 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's “non-open open source”, with two opens.
  In other words, it's the Cathedral model.
  
  --
  Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
13. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 21:29 · Score: 0
  
  Hear, hear. Another happy outlook.com user here. If you want a geeky option that just works, it's really good for that.
14. Re: I guess I'm geezering.. by YordanGeorgiev · 2014-02-23 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  It totally doesn't suck!? ;Ã)
15. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by swillden · 2014-02-23 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Er, Firefox? Safari? Opera? For that matter, Chromium?
  And I hear that IE isn't so awful these days.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
16. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-23 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  All 5 of them
17. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Cramer · 2014-02-24 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Really? As if Firefox hasn't done the same stupid shit? (granted, it's easier to rollback)
  Safari? Seriously??? Unless you're on a Mac (or just like bloat), you don't run Safari.
  Opera. Holy fuck, man. Those fools making sweeping UI changes in POINT RELEASES! It's the reason I've stopped using (mostly) and absolutely DO NOT UPDATE opera. (it's still my RSS reader, because I'm very lazy.)
what a fuss about nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 11:07 · Score: 0

Don't like it? Switch to Firefox. That's why we have choice - vote with your feet, stop bitching and moaning like Google owes you something.
1. Re:what a fuss about nothing by RDW · 2014-02-22 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox wil be copying this behaviour within a week. That's why we have SeaMonkey.
2. Re:what a fuss about nothing by Cinder6 · 2014-02-22 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still using Chrome because I really like the ability to use a website's search feature from the Omnibar (for instance, typing "ama" -> Tab -> will perform a search on Amazon). I wish other browsers would do this--preferably Opera, Safari, or Firefox (the other browsers that have official 1Password extensions).
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
3. Re: what a fuss about nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  and if no choice is good, someone will invent a new browser that will solve all our gripes and become wildly successful. Which of course is how Chrome came about in the first place. So Crime starting to suck is not a bad thing, but the herald of the next good thing.
4. Re:what a fuss about nothing by bolek_b · 2014-02-22 13:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  Firefox has this ability as well, it is not so obvious, though.
  
  Go to a page with some search field, for example amazon.com title page.
  
  In Firefox Search Bar, expand its pop-up menu; one of the items should be "Add Amazon Search Suggestions". Click it
  
  Once again go to Search Bar pop-up menu, this time for "Manage Search Engines..."
  
  Select the appropriate row and click "Edit Keyword..."
  
  Type some reasonably short abbreviation, such as "ama"
  
  You are done, now you can type "ama cthulhu" and there you go. I have there shortcuts for Google (keyword "g"), Wikipedia ("w"), YouTube ("y"), IMDB, CPAN and a couple of other sites and it is really efficient and comfortable.
5. Re:what a fuss about nothing by Blaskowicz · 2014-02-22 14:38 · Score: 2
  
  You mean search keywords?, that was in Mozilla Suite already and presumably Firefox 0.x. Right-click an arbitrary form and select "add a keyword for this search".
6. Re:what a fuss about nothing by Cinder6 · 2014-02-22 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  I should have made it clearer. I'm aware that similar functionality exists; I just prefer Chrome's implementation. It's automatic and, IMO, more visually pleasing. But those minor pluses probably aren't worth it. Thanks.
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
Maybe time to block updates by manofyunk · 2014-02-22 11:08 · Score: 1

https://support.google.com/installer/answer/146164?hl=en

--
Byte me, Doughboy!!!
Burning Chrome by kevlar_rat · 2014-02-22 11:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

So basically a successful company forced a new UI on their audience, ignoring a mountain of negative feedback, without really understanding the community?

--
Moderated Usenet
1. Re:Burning Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like this is new even to Google. See the youtube redesign, headed by a guy who wants youtube to be more like TV.
2. Re:Burning Chrome by Max+Threshold · 2014-02-22 11:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's the Microsofting of Google.
3. Re:Burning Chrome by maxwell+demon · 2014-02-22 11:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Alienating your users seems to be all the rage lately.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4. Re:Burning Chrome by Maxwell · 2014-02-22 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  The UI has been there for a long time. Some diehards found a (somewhat secret, somewhat obscure) developer switch that allowed the 'old way' to hang around a little longer.
  I had to go back and forth from the article to a new tab page to try and figure out what they were talking about as I saw no change at all in 33.
5. Re:Burning Chrome by rundgong · 2014-02-22 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, if you had not started the sentence with "successful company", that would have have been a great opportunity for a joke about Beta...
6. Re:Burning Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 13:09 · Score: 0
  
  Are you the community? Or the guy signing in as 'kevlar_rat'? As someone (a rare touch of sanity here) brought up: the change is a year old, Chrome's use share continued to climb. What gives? A bunch of dudes ranting on a web forum certainly is 'a community', but perhaps not 'the community'.
  For the record: I don't like that change much. These tinsy thumbnails are just completely illegible.
7. Re:Burning Chrome by bolek_b · 2014-02-22 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Is it the same guy as the one responsible for GMail? Or the one behind Flickr? Or is it a sign of coming "bad redesign epidemy"?
8. Re:Burning Chrome by kiddygrinder · 2014-02-22 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  i'm pretty sure they understand their users, they just don't give a shit about pissing off power users.
  
  --
  This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
9. Re:Burning Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  This story sounds familiar.
10. Re:Burning Chrome by SeaFox · 2014-02-22 20:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Alienating your users seems to be all the rage lately.
  It's part of that whole "you're not the customer, you're the product" thing.
  I've never heard a meat-packing plant listen to the feedback from cows, either.
11. Re:Burning Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 22:06 · Score: 0
  
  Is it forced? The start tab is customizable (in that you can just replace it). If the old one is so awesome someone will make a replacement that mirrors the old behavour and everyone is good.
12. Re:Burning Chrome by drolli · 2014-02-23 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  But they offer free grass, so lets just stay here for a while.
13. Re:Burning Chrome by amiga3D · 2014-02-23 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, those cattle prods make me nervous.
14. Re:Burning Chrome by drolli · 2014-02-23 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  You are paranoid. They have these only for the best of us.
15. Re:Burning Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-25 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  Google have a long history of being deaf when it comes to user feedback. They probably don't have algorithms for things like that.
Foolish idea by Sable+Drakon · 2014-02-22 11:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

And leave yourself with an increasingly insecure browser thanks to discovered bugs the updates you've blocked fix? No thanks. I'd swap browsers before leaving myself with an out-of-date browser.

--
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
1. Re:Foolish idea by tgv · 2014-02-22 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  Stop using Windows then...
2. Re:Foolish idea by jones_supa · 2014-02-22 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't the situation be same under other operating systems?
3. Re:Foolish idea by tgv · 2014-02-22 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  If you run Chrome on Linux or OSX under a non-admin account, you run less risks. Or perhaps it's time to start using Firefox or Chromium. Or even fork Chromium.
  But for utlimate safety: stay off the net...
4. Re:Foolish idea by jones_supa · 2014-02-22 23:09 · Score: 2
  
  I recommend keeping the browser updated on all operating systems.
I prefer the "Empty New Tab Page" extension by kill-1 · 2014-02-22 11:49 · Score: 3

If an empty new tab page would be configurable and Chrome wouldn't exit if a single tab is open and I press Ctrl-W, I'd be perfectly happy with Chrome's tabs. For the latter, I use the "Live On" extension, which is a bit quirky, unfortunately. With Firefox I can fix both these issues, at least in about:config.
1. Re:I prefer the "Empty New Tab Page" extension by nathanbeach · 2014-02-24 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  I use the Chrome plugin called "Empty New Tab Page", which I think may be what you're looking for. I looked at several of them before deciding on this one...
2. Re:I prefer the "Empty New Tab Page" extension by nathanbeach · 2014-02-24 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, WTF, that's what you're talking about. I didn't see it in the subject. Sorry.
Come on kids... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 12:35 · Score: 0

STOP whining and use fucking Firefox instead!
1. Re:Come on kids... by Megane · 2014-02-22 13:45 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Are you kidding me? Firefox is almost as bad about this "completely fucking change the UI every six months" thing as Chrome is.
  The real answer is Seamonkey, which is basically the old Mozilla project under a different name. At this point it's basically FF 3.6 brought up to date with patches and actual improvements, as opposed to changes for the sake of change.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
2. Re:Come on kids... by janeil · 2014-02-23 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Another vote for seamonkey here as well! I love how the post above was modded as 'troll' for suggesting seamonkey. I only use FF for the webdev tools.
And Still No Scroll Arrows by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 12:39 · Score: 0

FIX
CHROME is turning APE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 13:10 · Score: 0

What the APE is the problem with the Chrome developers. This evil crap they're doing, forcing people to use their application the way they want you to is totally against the Open Source Community. EVIL CHROME!
1. Re:CHROME is turning APE! by MichaelSmith · 2014-02-22 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Its a google project and it exists to benefit them.
  (posting from firefox).
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
A tempest in a teapot .. by DTentilhao · 2014-02-22 13:47 · Score: 2

New Tab Redirect! Remove Google Redirects
1. Re:A tempest in a teapot .. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-23 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  NTR doesn't work. They took out the old new tab internal page. So it's worthless
... and today I stopped using the New Tab screen by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 13:53 · Score: 0

... and replaced it with "Speed Dial 2" plugin. There are other New Tab screen replacement plugins available - choose your own.
Let's show Google that we won't automatically eat everything they feed us. Screws up some more and bye-bye Chrome browser.
Rollin your own by sgt+scrub · 2014-02-22 13:59 · Score: 1

With all of the HTTP components in language API's that can be integrated into applications I'm wondering why more people don't just give up on web browsers made by others. Though I wonder how many companies would block you from accessing their site if the browser doesn't have the correct branding.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
1. Re:Rollin your own by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  They can try, but they'd never, ever succeed. You can easily spoof browsers. Trivial even.
  You could make a proxy script to make any and every request come from any browser you wanted to, so it would save you even having to edit anything.
  You could make FTP requests from generic FTP programs look like it was coming from Opera if you really wanted to. Or IE 999. Or NSACRAWL149 or something just to spook website owners, then probably end up on a watchlist for impersonating a 3 letter agency.
2. Re:Rollin your own by jones_supa · 2014-02-22 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  I thought FTP cannot include a user agent string anywhere.
3. Re:Rollin your own by mlk · 2014-02-22 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  > HTTP components in language API's
  I'm going to assume you mean complete stack (HTTP, HTML renderer, JS Engine etc). While the HTTP layer is fairly simple (and thus implement well in a ton of APIs for each of the major platforms), the rest is BIG and to do it well is hard so it is not done well all that often. So what you end up with is either a re-skinned IE, Firefox or Chrome.
  Now these exists, for a bunch of different reasons for example before IE had tabs a tabbed IE existed and people who want to stay in the late 1990s have SeaMonkey. However most end up with an interface that is a lot like Chrome/Firefox/IE (as it is a good interface) but without the plugin support.
  > Though I wonder how many companies would block you from accessing their site if the browser doesn't have the correct branding
  I use to happen a lot and that is why we now have stupid user agent strings.
  Mine is currently:
  Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/33.0.1750.117 Safari/537.36
  Mozilla/5.0 - Pretend to be Firefox
  AppleWebKit/537.36 - And Safari
  KHTML - Base of Safari/Chrome
  Gecko - Back to Firefox
  Chrome - I could be Chrome
  Safari - Of Safari
  The only one missing is IE. And I've seen many a user agent string that includes that as well (while not actually being IE).
  
  --
  Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Re:... and today I stopped using the New Tab scree by MichaelSmith · 2014-02-22 14:20 · Score: 0

Let's show Google that we won't automatically eat everything they feed us. Screws up some more and bye-bye Chrome browser.
Wow you are really serious about not trusting google.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Running Chromium in a loop... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 14:44 · Score: 0

while true ; do /usr/bin/chromium ; done
Fixed for me : P
1. Re:Running Chromium in a loop... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Or just run it on OSX where closing the last window doesn't kill the application by default.
I loved the old Google. by Futurepower(R) · 2014-02-22 15:31 · Score: 1

Sadly, Google is on the way down. It was wonderful while the company believed in "Do no foolishness."
endless wankerisms by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 17:53 · Score: 1

People get tired of these endlessly changing interfaces. These days these things are 'consumer products' used by people who just want to get their task done and not have to fuck around with some interface some dweeb or marketing wanker has decided will be more 'keen' or' spiffy' if changed significantly.
They just want it to do what they did yesterday and not have to search around for a control they learned to use routinely.
You Can Remove The Thumbnails Manually By... by saudadelinux · 2014-02-22 19:16 · Score: 1

Thumbnails of the websites you visit frequently appear under the search box. Simply click a thumbnail to visit the site. To remove a most visited site, hover your mouse over the thumbnail, and click the X icon in the upper right corner of the thumbnail. https://support.google.com/chr... I removed mine, opened a new tab and it was blank. I haven't restarted Chrome, so I don't know how long this effect lasts. HTH.

--
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
Use Firefox by stooo · 2014-02-22 20:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

JUF : Just use Firefox

--
aaaaaaa
1. Re:Use Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly what I've done, switched to Firefox on 3 out of my 4 systems. Still need to switch my HTPC but haven't backed up the bookmarks yet. Funny enough, I find that Firefox is a better browser for viewing Youtube videos than Chrome. Firefox loads all of the videos with Flash whereas Chrome will use HTML5 for some even though I opted out of the HTML5 beta in Chrome. The problem with HTML5 and Youtube being that the mouse and player UI do not get hidden when watching a video full screen. Firefox also buffers faster and more reliably. On my HTPC, whenever a video fails to load in Chrome or constantly pauses to buffer, I just close it and watch it in Firefox instead where it works perfectly. Hearing that Chrome 33 has made the new tab redesign mandatory is the nail in the coffin for Chrome in my household.
JUF by stooo · 2014-02-22 20:49 · Score: 1

JUF : Just use Firefox.

--
aaaaaaa
1. Re:JUF by tepples · 2014-02-23 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck using Firefox when your superiors have standardized on Chromebooks or on Software Restriction Policies that enforce use of either Chrome or IE.
Re:Incompetence? by hoboroadie · 2014-02-22 20:51 · Score: 1

It probably didn't take as many skilled developers as Windows 8, but a lot of fine effort probably went into this, done by competent professionals.
I'm sure with a few months of concerted effort, we can all develop the proficiency required to use the solution as intended; Don't be a Luddite.

--
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Was it picked up in Beta? by grahammm · 2014-02-22 21:20 · Score: 1

Chrome 33 was in Beta for a while before being released as stable. So these issues should have been picked up/highlighted then. How much negative feedback on the new 'new tab' page was there during the beta cycle? I am using Chromium beta cycle and soon got used to the new 'new tags' page.
I hope, Distros will start patching chromium by allo · 2014-02-22 21:45 · Score: 2

And remove some of the new unfeatures.
Re:... and today I stopped using the New Tab scree by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 22:10 · Score: 0

How have they screwed you? If they did not have a bunch of plugin replacements I'd understand.
Also in Chrome 33: Welcome to Walled Garden by kav2k · 2014-02-22 23:11 · Score: 4, Informative

You think that's the real problem in Chrome 33?
Well, compare that to this fact: on Chrome 33 on Windows (and Windows only) all non-Chrome-Web-Store extensions are forcibly disabled and will not install anymore, with the exception of pushing them through domain group policy.
http://www.chromium.org/develo...
So, say goodbye to anything not blessed by Google, like extensions that allow "the unauthorized download of streaming content or media".
Unless you want to use the Dev channel as an official workaround, or are content with loading extensions unpacked, with no auto-update.
It's not like I don't understand the problem, I've seen rampant Chrome crapware on clueless people's computers. But this is heavy-handed.
1. Re:Also in Chrome 33: Welcome to Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  Don't like it, then run it on Linux where you can sideload to your heart's content, or run active directory!
2. Re:Also in Chrome 33: Welcome to Walled Garden by mgiuca · 2014-02-26 01:58 · Score: 2
  (Disclosure: I am a Google Chrome engineer.)
  
  It's not like I don't understand the problem, I've seen rampant Chrome crapware on clueless people's computers. But this is heavy-handed.
  I'm glad you understand the severity of the problem. We took no joy in introducing these restrictions, but I think we made a good compromise between security and user freedom. If you don't want the extension side-loading policy, you have a number of options:
  Use Mac or Linux.
  Use Dev channel (but have potentially unstable code).
  Load your extensions unpacked (but have Chrome warn you every time you start up).
  Use Chromium (missing various features, but the option is there).
  None of these options are ideal, but there are numerous escape hatches for people determined to side-load. The point is to stop side-loading in the default case only, where people are getting unknowingly infected. I would call this as far from "heavy-handed" as possible while still being effective.
  
  or are content with loading extensions unpacked, with no auto-update.
  Non-Web-Store extensions never had auto-update to begin with. The only difference between loading unpacked and side-loading is that it's a bit trickier to install unpacked, and Chrome will warn you every time you start up.
3. Re:Also in Chrome 33: Welcome to Walled Garden by kav2k · 2014-02-27 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the reply.
  I understand that there are several viable workarounds. Especially since on Windows, ChromeSxS actually works (hello, #38598), using unstable is relatively painless. But I can't shake off the feeling that you got a nice bonus of enforcing CWS TOS on the largest chunk of your userbase.
  
  Non-Web-Store extensions never had auto-update to begin with. The only difference between loading unpacked and side-loading is that it's a bit trickier to install unpacked, and Chrome will warn you every time you start up.
  This is simply not true. I've been an extension developer for quite a long time, and I've always hosted a beta version of my extension outside CWS, with auto-update, using update_url key in the manifest.
  And that's why I had to scramble to move my beta version to CWS unlisted before 33 hit stable. If I missed the announcement, it would be slightly painful to recover.
  I wonder though, if you've engineered the hard block of an extension to still look for updates. So that a user who had an extension blocked by this would later get the extension back if the developer submitted it to the webstore with the pem file.
4. Re:Also in Chrome 33: Welcome to Walled Garden by mgiuca · 2014-02-27 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is simply not true. I've been an extension developer for quite a long time, and I've always hosted a beta version of my extension outside CWS, with auto-update, using update_url key in the manifest.
  Ah OK. I didn't know about this feature. Then yeah, I guess your users won't be able to use that unless they're on dev.
Font on tabs and antialiasing by loufoque · 2014-02-23 00:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Personally I'm more worried about them having broken the rendering of the fonts on tabs a few versions back...
It is antialiased despite my settings saying that it shouldn't.
1. Re:Font on tabs and antialiasing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-23 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds more like you're an edge case the developers haven't come across yet - someone who willfully wants to return to ugly jagged font rendering instead of modern antialiased text. Better to stop being "worried" and join the rest of us living in the modern era rather than trying to be different without any legitimate cause (rather than being stuck in the past).
My suggestion by markdavis · 2014-02-23 02:21 · Score: 1

>"The official suggestion from Google as well as OMG! Chrome is to try some New Tab page changing extensions, such as Replace New Tab, Modern New Tab Page, or iChrome." "
My official suggestion would be to switch to using a browser that is designed, supported, and implemented by the COMMUNITY- Firefox. Google is going to do what Google wants to do to further their own goals, not necessarily ours. Over time, this becomes more and more apparent.
Example- although Mozilla might be adding some links in the newpage tab to help support their goals of financing Firefox, you can easily change those tabs, or remove the stupid thing all together by changing browser.newtab.url to "about:blank".
1. Re:My suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-23 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  Every time I try Firefox, the speed difference brings me back to Chrome/Chromium.
Humble New Tab Page by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-23 02:40 · Score: 0

Want a clean interface other than those metro based extensions?
Humble New Tab Page is the choice:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mfgdmpfihlmdekaclngibpjhdebndhdj
Mountain? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-23 03:06 · Score: 0

mountain of negative feedback
You know how the passenger side rear-view mirror on most cars says, "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"? Well, on the Internet, things seem larger than they appear. Hence, what you call a "mountain of negative feedback" is in fact a tiny minority of the whole userbase. I call this "Ron Paul Syndrome." Back when he was running for president, it seemed like Ron Paul and his supporters were everywhere on the Internet. Yet, in the real world, at the ballot box, he was insignificant.
Re:Incompetence? by amiga3D · 2014-02-23 05:48 · Score: 1

It's too easy just to use another browser. I'm not a Luddite, just lazy.
Ignoring negative feedback? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-23 06:45 · Score: 0

You mean like Yahoo has done with the neo UI changes, ignoring negative feedback entirely while imposing a new UI filled with bugs and inconsistencies?
Nah, Google will never be able to approach that level of stupidity.
When it comes to stupidity Google is in the minor leagues. Unfortunately they seem to be trying to gain a higher stupidity ranking but I doubt that they will ever be in the top 10.
Shumway by tepples · 2014-02-23 09:41 · Score: 1

Part of it is the fact that the SWF player code comes from Adobe instead of being a clean reimplementation as Mozilla is attempting with Shumway.
A way to lose the Google banner & search on NT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-23 23:45 · Score: 0

The following worked for me. Note I already have the AdBlock Plus extension installed. This may well be a prerequisite for the approach outlined below.
Executive summary: use adblock element hiding helper to block the undesired web page elements.
Steps:
1) Install AdBlock+ Element Hiding Helper from the Chrome Web Store (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock%20-element-hiding-h/chmimgmjdabgiilljdjfbonifbhiglao).
2) Open a New Tab Page.
3) Select the "Block Element" menu option from the AdBlock+ Element Hiding Helper icon (top right hand side of the browser window).
4) Click on the element you want to hide e.g. the Google banner
5) Repeat steps 3) & 4) for each element you want to hide.
6) Open a New Tab Page to check whether or not it has been successful.
Your actual mileage may vary. Perhaps post to indicate whether or not it is successful for you.
Regards,
David
Re:Incompetence? by DutchUncle · 2014-02-24 03:57 · Score: 1

What if it was working perfectly well for you, and you were completely happy with the product, and someone BROKE it for you? You knew how it worked, you knew how to use it, and suddenly the rug was pulled out from under you. Oh, and by the way, they also changed the recipe for Coke and changed the rice crisps in your Nestles Crunch to soybeans.

This is the major disconnect with open source, and a large reason non-programmers won't accept Linux: Developers change things because they think constant change is the only way to show activity, in a manner that only a handful of developers want or even understand, rather than accepting that most products in the real world achieve popularity and try hard to STAY THAT WAY. Nobody remakes the recipe for Cheerios just because "it hasn't changed lately, we need to show some progress". They try to make more flavors of Cheerios, they try to make the same Cheerios for less cost, but they do their best to keep the core user experience the same because that's what people are buying.
Use Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 08:58 · Score: 0

Why the hell would anyone who isnt insane do this?
Extension to revert to the old new tab page by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-01 11:50 · Score: 0

I made an extension for Chrome 33 to revert to the old new tab page. Remove the instant extended search bars for chrome 33+.
New Tab Reloaded
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/new-tab-reloaded/jliilhbdldnjbdbpajaakhpjpahnopbn
change by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-01 23:20 · Score: 0

It's not just because "they don't like change". I don't know how many times I've seen people throw that out there. If the change is unnecessary, or a step backward even, it's rage-inducing. I know "unnecessary" is subject to perception but I think in most cases it's obvious what is and isn't a step in the right direction.