Slashdot Mirror


Google Cast Is Now Baked Into Chrome, No Extension Needed (trustedreviews.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Google Chrome 51 browser now includes a built-in 'Cast' option within the drop-down settings menu, which can also be accessed from right clicking in a tab. This will then cast the current tab to the appropriate TV or monitor. Previously, if you wanted to cast content from your computer to your Chromecast-equipped display, you needed to download a Chrome extension. Along with the new changes, Google has removed the ability to tweak settings for resolution, bitrate, and quality when casting a tab, so Chrome itself will now control such parameters automatically. Chrome 51 is now available as a stable version, and the Cast option should be rolling out to users now. This casting ability will also be baked into Chrome OS. The report points out several new related features coming in Chrome 52, such as the ability to cast to Hangouts. You will be able to push Chrome tabs to your contacts within an open video Hangout, which may be useful for remote meetings. In addition, the Cast to Hangouts feature will also retrieve your calendar information to find such scheduled Hangout meetings to make quick sharing easier.

93 comments

  1. retrieve your calendar information by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

    Whoops! Better watch out for that one...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:retrieve your calendar information by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      As long as it is "opt in" everything should be cool.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:retrieve your calendar information by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Opting in won't matter if the service is down.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re: retrieve your calendar information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using anything from Google is beyond stupid.

    4. Re: retrieve your calendar information by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Why? They provide a good service at the right price.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re: retrieve your calendar information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because you don't even know *what* they are providing to *whom*, all included in that good price.

      Of course, if you don't care... I do.

    6. Re: retrieve your calendar information by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      Why? They provide a good service at the right price.

      Yes, the price, in dollars and cents, is zero. However, the cost to the user, in things such as privacy, lock-in, targeted advertising, etc, is more than zero. Some people seem to have 'privacy to burn', so to speak; to them, the cost is trivial. Others prefer to buy products and services for specified sums of money, rather than for unspecified quantities of personal data. Me? I like to know how much I'm paying, in what currency, and how long the payments will last, before I 'purchase' something.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    7. Re: retrieve your calendar information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What good service? Their search is shit. Gmail is a bloated mess. Calender is a gaping security hole. Google+ is a massive fail. Hangouts is proprietary garbage that requires Google+. YouTube is a joke compared to what it used to be.

      In fact, I cannot think of a single service where Google excels and the price for the junk they push is your privacy and security.

    8. Re: retrieve your calendar information by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What in the world are you "locked in" to? And aren't you using an ad blocker? And "privacy"? Please, you all have to get over that. There is no privacy on the internet. *The whole world's watching*. Don't use your real name anywhere then. Use prepaid cards for purchases and throwaway email accounts to avoid spam in your personal or real business email. Use a proxy server. That's the beauty, you can create a whole person out of thin air and nobody's the wiser, least of all Google. Let them think you're in outer Mongolia (are you?), and ship the packages to a "cousin" in New York.

      Others prefer to buy products and services for specified sums of money, rather than for unspecified quantities of personal data.

      ? I do not understand

      I like to know how much I'm paying, in what currency, and how long the payments will last, before I 'purchase' something.

      Okay, so what's stopping you? I don't know what you're getting at there.

      You seem to dwell on things that will only give you an ulcer. You now have the whole world at your fingertips like you never did before. Sit back and enjoy.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:retrieve your calendar information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note to moderators:

      Before using the offtopic mod, you need to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the language being spoken. Don't be a dick!

    10. Re: retrieve your calendar information by iampiti · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I also want to pay for things with only money and not my privacy and data.
      Ideally, every service which is totally or in part paid with advertisements or my data should have an option to be paid with money.
      Sadly we seem to be going the opposite direction where more and more services can only be paid with your privacy. See for instance Windows 10: There's no way to completely remove the data gathering features even if you pay Microsoft.

    11. Re: retrieve your calendar information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no privacy on the internet

      Bullshit. *I* have privacy on the internet. Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean everyone else is as retarded as you.

      That's the beauty, you can create a whole person out of thin air and nobody's the wiser, least of all Google.

      I thought you just said that there is no privacy on the internet and that the whole world's watching? So which is it? Contradicting yourself in your very next statement isn't going to convince anyone of your child-like views.

      You seem to dwell on things that will only give you an ulcer. You now have the whole world at your fingertips like you never did before. Sit back and enjoy.

      You naive little shit. I'm going to point and laugh at you now, as are many other people who read your drivel.

    12. Re: retrieve your calendar information by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I'm going to point and laugh at you now

      :-) That's nice...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re: retrieve your calendar information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I accept your tacit admission of defeat.

    14. Re: retrieve your calendar information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean they are watching the screen all the time? Do i need to opt out of something in some new service?

    15. Re: retrieve your calendar information by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You win the intertubes...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re: retrieve your calendar information by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, it means nobody read the link. What are you going to retrieve when the service is down? I am totally confused by the reaction the post has received so far. Simply telling me the joke sucked would be more understandable.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  2. It is better to not be all things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A browser doesn't need to be a calculator, a word processor, a typing instructor, a device manager, etc.

    It also doesn't need spyware or curb feelers.

    1. Re:It is better to not be all things by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A browser doesn't need to be a calculator, a word processor, a typing instructor, a device manager, etc.

      It also doesn't need spyware or curb feelers.

      Tell that to Microsoft Windows 10.

    2. Re:It is better to not be all things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft seems to have gotten that message already, hopefully google and Mozilla will realise it soon too, Edge doesn't seem to have any of that shit, unfortunately the experience in Edge is also fucking awful.

    3. Re:It is better to not be all things by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A browser needs to be able to render web pages.
      Why should it only be able to render it to the physically attached screen?

    4. Re:It is better to not be all things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A browser should NOT be rendering to any screen, it calls system API's to do that on its behalf. If you want to have it render to something other than the mainscreen then install drivers or addins to do it for you. system bloat like this makes for stability and security nightmares as soon you are supporting a myriad of different remote protocols, functionality and stuff that has fuck all to do with what a web browser is meant to do.

    5. Re:It is better to not be all things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the spyware is there just to improve user experience. Too bad it is not necessarily the user at client side, who's experience is improved..

    6. Re:It is better to not be all things by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why bother include it in Edge when the OS already does all that and so much more? Redundancy has never been a problem of Microsoft.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:It is better to not be all things by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why should I have any interest in improving someone's experience with me?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:It is better to not be all things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because the browser vendor, google, is not doing this for OUR benefit, but for theirs... drive sales of the hardware, 'encourage' more people to use chrome while logged-in, and all the data collection that goes along with that and with the casting feature.

    9. Re:It is better to not be all things by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Microsoft only moved the spyware to the OS level to make Edge faster in testing.

    10. Re:It is better to not be all things by xbytor · · Score: 1

      system bloat like this makes for stability and security nightmares

      So Chrome is now chase Firefox...

    11. Re:It is better to not be all things by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      A browser cell phone doesn't need to be a calculator, a word processor, a typing instructor, a device manager, etc.

      A browser/cell phone/Desktop Environment/etc doesn't need to be anything but what people want it to be. I want my cell phone to be a calculator, word processor, typing instructor, etc. And I'm perfectly happy with my browser extensions that share screens and do other stuff that is useful.

      People don't buy minimalism, they buy features.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    12. Re:It is better to not be all things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw Firefox and Chrome. Pale Moon is the best browser currently in existence.

  3. Bake it in Teh G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bake it in real good so to own me and my kind!

  4. Junk Included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    More reasons for people to stop and think: move back to FF, or to a third-party (probably FF fork) alternative. More code = less secure. Chrome is already the slowest and most painful of the bunch and only growing. This reminds one of the time FF wanted to include a security suite for CCTV cameras.

    1. Re:Junk Included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google just saved me the $1.50/month Videostream plugin (only option for casting certain file types), ya!

      FF daily for most stuff though: several deal breaking customizations still not available in Chrome.

    2. Re: Junk Included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Javascript needs to be dropped. Executing remote code was a stupid idea from the start.

    3. Re:Junk Included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who use a browser by an anti-privacy lobbying ad-broker are complete idiots anyway. Yeah brilliant, let's empower those guys. They are what AOL users were in the previous century.

    4. Re:Junk Included by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      More reasons for people to stop and think: move back to FF

      One piece of proprietary junk was not the reason we left FF. A continued trend of ignoring users with every new release was.

      But I do like you suggestion. The alternatives are looking quite good, and I'm happy with how Pale Moon performs on my system.

    5. Re:Junk Included by fnj · · Score: 0

      More reasons for people to stop and think: move back to FF

      BWAHAHAHA! You want to move TO Firefox to REDUCE bloat and junk? Are you crazy?

    6. Re:Junk Included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FatFox - the browser that's guaranteed to be a huge furball.

    7. Re:Junk Included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't enough "junk" to remove to make Pale Moon worthwhile. But keep on reaching for those placebos and keep hammering in that lie that Firefox has a "trend" of ignoring users and such. Maybe if you repeat that often enough others will start to believe you.

    8. Re:Junk Included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only funny until you actually realize that the whole "bloat" thing for Firefox is a huge myth, unless you're so hard-pressed for hard drive space that 20k for a feature that's disabled until you use it is a big deal. Or that the addition of Web APIs that every other browser is adding constitutes more bloat than the rest.

  5. Cast To What? by mbradmoody · · Score: 2

    Will it cast to a miracast supported device like a Roku or only to a chromecast supported device? My Nexus 6P will only cast to the latter when it comes out of the box. You have to root the phone to restore the miracast functionality.

    1. Re:Cast To What? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Will it cast to a miracast supported device like a Roku or only to a chromecast supported device? My Nexus 6P will only cast to the latter when it comes out of the box. You have to root the phone to restore the miracast functionality.

      I'm having the same experience with Nexus 5x - very ChromeCastCentric, disappointing, really - it only took them 10 years to turn openly evil.

    2. Re:Cast To What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus it is not network intelligent. You can only cast to device on the same CCSID, not the same IP range, so a wired computer cannot use ChromeCast. No way to even enter an IP.

      3 Roku devices
      1 FireTV stick - fired over weekend
      1 ChromeCast a toy to the rest. No remote, No memory, just control by your phone.

    3. Re:Cast To What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So my 2 wired desktops can't chromecast to any of my 3 wired rokus? That sounds like a fuckup on googles part. Mediatomb works perfectly to serve files to the TVs, couldn't find any devices with chromecast.

    4. Re:Cast To What? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Chromecast is just a second screen (or set of speakers, if it's the audio version). It's like complaining your monitor doesn't have storage or a remote - you are missing the point entirely.

    5. Re:Cast To What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't chromecast anything to a roku...

    6. Re:Cast To What? by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

      Err, what? I chromecast between wired and wireless sources and wired and wireless sinks all the time. My Nexus Player is hooked up via a microUSB ethernet adapter, for instance, and I often cast to it via my phone (or when random guests are over and want to show something briefly on teh projector they do so with their own phones). And I've cast from my desktop computers to a wireless ChromeCast before I had the Nexus Player hooked up.

      --
      I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    7. Re:Cast To What? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      That's odd, because I cast from my wired PC to my wireless Chromecast all the time. They just need to be on the same network.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  6. Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefox.. by yuvcifjt · · Score: 2

    They would get a right kicking on slashdot for implementing another non-relevant feature for the masses!

    On another note, people here don't seem to realise that browsers are super hard and uber complex, and approaching the territory of operating systems. And mozilla in this battle is a tiny non-profit charity working for the good of the masses (first with getting everyone to care about standards and w3c against IE, and now fighting for privacy and developing the latest HTML5 / CSS4/ ES6 standards) and trying to stop a take-over by multi-billion dollar corporate empire like Google, who can pump virtually unlimited funding towards Chrome. And yet, people still have the audacity to bitch about Firefox, who have a miniscule and limited amount of funding, as let's face it, hardly anyone donates to!

    Thus, I don't blame Mozilla if they implement something like Pocket, which is a tiny api that has no effect on memory or performance.
    Just like if Mozilla implemented sponsored tiles, which doesn't effect the privacy of individuals.

    And if you're still of those complaining about the australis UI and using that as excuse for people to switch to Pale Moon - please, go and install "Classic Theme Restorer" like the rest of us.

  7. Cpl 2016 Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for this interesting article..
    CPL 2016 Prediction

  8. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Criticism isn't bitching. Bitching would be "you fucking suck pansies pants!!!" Saying "stop putting irrelevant shit you know will make your own codebase less secure into the browser" is totally valid and serves as a necessary bit of discipline/feedback that they would have long ago been well advised to heed (rather than continuously ignore and hemorrhage their core userbase--Mozilla grew by recommendations of those people, guess who isn't recommending Mozilla shit anymore?) p.s. too many of their engineers have leaked what's going on inside Mozilla to believe they're all merits and nice and well-meaning and shit.

  9. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excessive features on a tiny budget DOES impact privacy, security and performance as inevitably they will have security bugs and mistakes. Mozilla either needs to learn to tighten focus and just make a damn good browser without the bloat or just die already, trying to be everything to everyone is a moronic approach from them.

  10. Chrome 52? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I don't use Hangouts, but 51.0.2704 has an option "Enable casting to cloud based services like Google Hangouts"

    1. Re:Chrome 52? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely the option is turned on by default? Who wouldn't want to give all their information to google?

  11. BLOAT by johncandale · · Score: 1

    FUCKING BLOAT. that is all

    1. Re:BLOAT by williamyf · · Score: 1

      Yes, More bloat on the Browser and LESS functionality. From the summary:

      Along with the new changes, Google has removed the ability to tweak settings for resolution, bitrate, and quality when casting a tab

      I used to use the GoogleCast beta add-on, so I had even more finegrained control over parameters, including acceptable delay/jitter.

      Not that is gone.

      Kraptastic!

      --
      *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    2. Re:BLOAT by Threni · · Score: 1

      Use a different browser then. Beggers don't call the shots.

  12. how to disable by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

    you can disable it. it's listed as "Media Router" on the flags page: chrome://flags#media-router

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:how to disable by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't have to disable it. It shouldn't even be here to begin with.

    2. Re:how to disable by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If it has to exist at all, you should have to ENable it if you at all care for it.

      Having to disable something always feels like a waiter asking me why I complain about a fly in the soup since I could simply remove it if I don't like it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:how to disable by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      you act as if i'm the one who had the ability to decide that.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  13. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

    Erm, so tell me genius, where do they get the money from?
    You know, cash that people (devs) need to live and buy food and have a house to live in?

    Certain sponsored content is necessary for the mozilla project to live, otherwise they would have died many years ago, since no one ever donates to the project!

    You can't continue adding the latest browser standard in every revision if all your devs are working on other projects, and after their full-time job, come home to their family while still having time and energy to contribute something meaningful to the project.

    Maybe mozilla should just go towards the dark-side like Google and Microsot, and start collecting and selling personal data?

  14. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no idea, but going down the bloatware/borderline malware route doesn't give them long term viability, it gives them short term money and an early grave as people abandon them.

  15. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    They would get a right kicking on slashdot for implementing another non-relevant feature for the masses!

    What makes you think Chrome won't? The only two upmodded comments right now is a comment on how to disable it, and one titled BLOAT.
    Slashdot is an equal opportunity hater on useless crap. Your pet project is not being treated any differently.

    On another note, people here don't seem to realise that browsers are super hard and uber complex, and approaching the territory of operating systems.

    Indeed. Complexity is driven by the standard requirements. .... So which standard requires that I be able to "cast" my tab to a proprietary device hooked to a TV? Which standard requires my browser save my tabs via a proprietary service run by a 3rd party which has no business being an integrated part of an open source project?

    And mozilla in this battle is a tiny non-profit charity working for the good of the masses (first with getting everyone to care about standards and w3c against IE, and now fighting for privacy and developing the latest HTML5 / CSS4/ ES6 standards) and trying to stop a take-over by multi-billion dollar corporate empire like Google, who can pump virtually unlimited funding towards Chrome. And yet, people still have the audacity to bitch about Firefox, who have a miniscule and limited amount of funding, as let's face it, hardly anyone donates to!

    Yeah it's almost like they should focus on making a good browser if they are under-resourced. On that note how do I donate to the efforts of that browser? I mean without my funding being stripped away and put towards making a mobile OS, getting in bed with proprietary vendors, etc.?

    Thus, I don't blame Mozilla if they implement something like Pocket

    I do

    Just like if Mozilla implemented sponsored tiles, which doesn't effect the privacy of individuals.

    I still do

    And if you're still of those complaining about the australis UI and using that as excuse for people to switch to Pale Moon - please, go and install "Classic Theme Restorer [mozilla.org]" like the rest of us.

    Ahh yes the old why not use a plugin to fix something the original project stripped out for no good reason which no one wanted. ... Actually you just gave me a good idea of who I should donate money to. Turns out there are some people out there who are interested in what users want.

  16. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    On another note, people here don't seem to realise that browsers are super hard and uber complex, and approaching the territory of operating systems

    There is more code in Chrome than in the entire FreeBSD base system. Slightly less than in the FreeBSD base system plus X.org. They long since passed the complexity of operating systems.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  17. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    And if you're still of those complaining about the australis UI and using that as excuse for people to switch to Pale Moon - please, go and install "Classic Theme Restorer" like the rest of us.

    Been there, done that, turned my nose up at the T-shirt. Classic Theme Restorer may give back access to old themes, but the post-Australis browser configuration experience sucks balls. THAT is why I switched to Pale Moon. Plus, I wanted to be part of the message to Mozilla that they need to stop ignoring the desires of the majority of their user base if they want to maintain relevance and grow their market share. Australis was just the last 'Fuck You' that came my way from Mozilla before I sent back one of my own. Yes, I understand that browsers are horrendously complex and need to change in the face of changing standards, innovations, and technical requirements. That's no excuse for many of the changes in FF, nor is it an excuse for the way they've treated their loyal supporters. So, Pale Moon it is. If Mozilla should ever decide to get its head out of its ass and try to regain market leadership, they could do a lot worse than take their cues from Pale Moon.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  18. Would have preferred an extension by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    This is just more bloat at least if it were an extension I'd have the option to not install it

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  19. No Adblock on Android by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

    Chrome on Android does not support Adblock so I use Firefox on Android.

    If I use Firefox on Android I might as well use it on Windows and Linux.

    So I stopped using Chrome.

    1. Re: No Adblock on Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use an adblocking VPN / proxy then.
      Or even use a custom DNS solution. There are a couple servers on the store that I remember seeing.
      There are VPN firewalls with manual "HOSTS" Editing, which you can edit externally then Import.

      70,000 abusive advertising domains blocked on this Android tablet I'm posting this message from. (while pooping!)
      The slowdown is barely noticeable despite being a first edition Note10.
      I'm fine with decent, simple non-abusive ads, sadly they are a minority now.

    2. Re: No Adblock on Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could skip all that effort and use Firefox with uBlock. As an added benefit, that "barely noticeable slowdown" will be replaced by a noticeable speedup.

    3. Re:No Adblock on Android by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      If you want and ad blocking Chrome you have the option of using #NoChromo or, if you have a Snapdragon SoC, a CAF Chromium build like RSBrowser.
      CAF Chromium has the added bonus of being significantly faster than vanilla Chrome.

    4. Re:No Adblock on Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That happened on my phone too. I always liked Chrome on the desktop, and was shocked by how broken it was on Android (no plugins?! WTF!!). So I run Firefox on the phone. Still using Chrome on MacOS and Chromium on Ubuntu, though.

      Tolerating Firefox on the desktop is still something I'm not quite ready for, but with the current race to suck-the-most, anything could happen.

  20. nice by maripjckmen · · Score: 1

    so nice. thanks

  21. In Other News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government is now providing self-driving cars so you don't need to get one yourself. These cars automatically obey speed limits and will never drive on any unauthorized road.
    Manually driven cars have been outlawed.

    *To be honest, the extension is still there... for now. Eventually it will go the way of --disable-new-avatar-menu like everything else that doesn't fit the narrative.

  22. Are there slimmed down versions of Chrome? by urbanriot · · Score: 1

    I use Chrome to, oddly enough, browse the internet on a seemingly leaner browser. Are there any slimmed down versions of Chrome that don't include Chromecasting or Hangouts or Facebook or etc., etc. I'm looking for a lean 64-bit build of Chrome.

  23. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    The 'fuck you' was removal of the checkbox to disable javascript, and the one to disable pictures.
    *That* sucks donkey balls, even if it's something you'd very rarely use ; maybe you're referring in part to that?
    If I want to "break" the web it's my call and I also know about Firefox profiles, even running two of them concurrently.
    Australis is rather benign, since you can have a title bar, a menu bar and remove unwanted icons.

  24. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Install classic theme restorer?Good luck: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/11/12/2015227/mozilla-plans-to-remove-support-for-firefox-complete-themes

  25. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they used to get paid a lot of money by Google to have Google be the default search bar, but they decided to piss on that deal. They also decided to piss a lot of money away on an OS no one wants, and mobile browsers no one wants. Probably a few other things I'm forgetting.

    Basically, the whole thing went to shit when Mozilla incorporated.

  26. Nothing for Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chrome support on Windows XP stopped a few revisions ago, so this new feature with cast built-in doesn't matter to me. Although I have cast installed on the last chrome browser they supported, this doesn't help me either since they removed access on their website to the application that was used to configure the chromecast device to change the router name it was supposed to connect to. Thus, when a router was updated from ATT to a cable company, the name changed and since I couldn't use the old chromecast application to reconfigure Windows XP to reconfigure the chromecast device, I have a chromecast device I can't use. I don't know where in the registry or where the files on the disk are stored that contains this info so that I can edit by hand without needing the application to do this.

    Supposedly VLAN was going to have chromecast streaming support, but I guess they couldn't get enough information from google to do this, thus eliminating the need for googles application and cast application.

    Thus, I don't use chrome anymore, nor can I use the chromecast device (first version let alone the revised version of this device).

    1. Re:Nothing for Windows XP by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Stop using an OS that hasn't received any security updates for over 2 years, you idiot.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  27. Re:Chromecast FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the root problem here is that your Chromecast setup is not what they expected.

    The intended approach is not that turning on the TV turns on the Chromecast, but in fact the opposite: you have the Chromecast turned on permanently, and then when you activate it (whether via the Chrome browser or via an app on your phone) the Chromecast will switch the TV out of standby, instruct the TV to switch to it as the active source, and then begin playback.

    Of course, this configuration requires keeping at least two devices permanently on standby, which is non-ideal... but this seems to be the expected mode for just about all consumer devices these days.

  28. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What brass balls you have to complain about them dropping Google and trying to go with a less questionable primary source of funding. Maybe if people like you donated enough they wouldn't have to seek funding from a stabler and less fickle place.

  29. Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone play monopoly?

  30. Huh? But, Chromium may be what you're looking for. by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

    Are there any slimmed down versions of Chrome that don't include Chromecasting or Hangouts or Facebook or etc., etc. I'm looking for a lean 64-bit build of Chrome.

    Err, well as far as I've checked my version of Chrome doesn't "include Facebook" and in fact I needed to install an extension to include Hangouts, but if you're looking for a version of Chrome without the proprietary bits and blobs (which presumably includes this, although I could be wrong), you should just use Chromium.

    Failing that, as others have pointed out above this function can be disabled.

    There are also plenty of Blink and WebKit based browsers out there, although as someone who's quite satisfied with Chrome and Chromium and uses Google services extensively (and so benefits from such integrations) I can't say I've used any extensively myself. The Vivaldi browser seems to be the new trendy one, last I checked, although it isn't as open as Chromium. And if you're looking for a lean 64-bit build of Chrome, even if existing builds aren't lean enough for ya you could probably skip some things at compile time and slim it down even further if you built it yourself.

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
  31. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

    Interesting, thanks for sharing your insightful comment! :)

  32. Re: Chromecast FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have my Chromecast powered off the TV USB port so it powers on with the TV, works just fine, doesn't grab the output at startup (defaults to the cable box as i want).

  33. Re:Huh? But, Chromium may be what you're looking f by urbanriot · · Score: 1

    While your version of Chrome doesn't "include Facebook", there are other advertised-as 'slim' Chrome builds that have integrated functions that are not extensions one can disable similarly to this one.
    I'll have to evaluate the difference between Chromium and Chrome as I'd just assumed one was an eventual stepping stone to the other with all these unwanted bits included. Thanks for the suggestion!

  34. Re:Chromecast FAIL by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    That's odd, because I've used all three versions of the Chromecast dongles (v1, v2 and audio), and they all pop up in my browser and the Chromecast app within a couple of seconds of fully booting up. If you're turning yours on and off regularly, you do realize that it needs a bit of time to boot up, right?

    --
    Eat the rich.
  35. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 1

    "mozilla...is a tiny non-profit charity"

    Mozilla is not tiny AT ALL, and it is an absolute wonder how development of a web browser and a maintenance-mode email client cost $317 million per year, or require a $261 million (and growing) endowment. From the Mozilla Foundation's 2014 Annual Report:

    $261 million - Net Unrestricted Assets at the end of year

    $329 million - Net Unrestricted Revenue over the year
    $317 million - Total Expenses over the year

    Expense include:
    $212 million - Software Development
    $ 40 million - Branding & Marketing
    $ 38 million - General & Administrative
    $ 13 million - Program Services

  36. Re:Oh boy....imagine if Mozilla did this in Firefo by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the informative comment.
    It may seem like a lot, but it pales in comparison with the likes of Google, Microsoft, and Apple.

    As I said, they have virtually limitless amount of resource and money to develop their browsers, Mozilla don't.
    And as I and others have pointed out, browsers are probably far more complicated than operating systems these days, and likely the most complex software ever created!

    To be honest, considering how much Mozilla and Opera have done for the web and developing the latest standards (and Apple to some extent), it's a joke that they aren't appreciated as much as Chrome, which is a just a glorified Apple Safari rip-off.

  37. 15 august 2016 speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15 August Anchoring Speech
    15 August Short Speech
    15 August Poems
    15 August Desh bhakti Songs
    15 August Slogans