Topic: Switch from IE to Chromium (Read 38562 times)

Matt · « **on:** February 21, 2011, 09:42:39 pm »

You've probably noticed that IE 9 RC is causing a lot of problems on the main forums. It crashes our software, including versions all the way back to v11. This is because we use the Internet Explorer control to show webpages inside the program. And by default, we show a simple 'Start' webpage on program launch meaning any new user with IE 9 will have a terrible experience.

While lots of software vendors seem to be having trouble with IE 9, we haven't seen or received any feedback from Microsoft on the issue.

As a result, we're considering switching to the Chromium engine for rendering webpages instead of using Internet Explorer:
http://code.google.com/p/chromiumembedded/

We've made enough progress with Chromium Embedded Framework (CEF) to think the actual switch would be relatively easy. The biggest drawback we've seen so far is that the build would get about 6 MB larger.

I'm wondering if anyone here has any experience or advice on this issue.

Thanks.

glynor · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2011, 10:06:34 pm »

I have no specific help, of course, but I think the 6MB is absolutely worth this change.

PS. Please implement some sort of full-page zoom feature to make the web content in MC more usable from a HTPC.

ThoBar · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2011, 12:52:26 am »

Independance from whatever is on the system=good.

... and may make the switch to linux easier

FWIW... I'm running IE9, and have noticed no issues whatsoever....

leezer3 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2011, 05:46:52 am »

Wouldn't worry about the size difference at all. I'd personally head in the Gecko direction, but either's good.
IE independance would also make running MC under Wine & similar variants much less of a headache,

-Leezer-

TheLion · « **Reply #4 on:** February 22, 2011, 06:18:02 am »

For stability and performance reasons I have switched from IE/FireFox to the Google platform as well. IMHO 6MB+ in build size is no issue at all. Stability is what counts. I would whole-heartily support the switch!

MrHaugen · « **Reply #5 on:** February 22, 2011, 06:52:22 am »

I concur. The size increase is a small drawback compared to the in-dependency this will provide. MS have not exactly been the best option in browsing anyway. With Chrome it might be faster, more stable and the user can install what ever browser they like. I like it.

Mr ChriZ · « **Reply #6 on:** February 22, 2011, 08:17:19 am »

Quote from: TheLion on February 22, 2011, 06:18:02 am

For stability and performance reasons I have switched from IE/FireFox to the Google platform as well. IMHO 6MB+ in build size is no issue at all. Stability is what counts. I would whole-heartily support the switch!

++

bob · « **Reply #7 on:** February 22, 2011, 08:56:17 am »

Quote from: confishy on February 22, 2011, 12:52:26 am

Independance from whatever is on the system=good.

... and may make the switch to linux easier

FWIW... I'm running IE9, and have noticed no issues whatsoever....

That's really interesting...
Are you running the RC?
What OS and architecture (32 or 64 bit)?

ThoBar · « **Reply #8 on:** February 22, 2011, 09:05:56 am »

Quote from: bob on February 22, 2011, 08:56:17 am

That's really interesting...
Are you running the RC?
What OS and architecture (32 or 64 bit)?

I've been running the beta since it became available, and now the RC. W7-64 on several machines. Haven't tried on 32 bit, as I only have that on netbooks or *gasp* slower (HP tc1100

) which I don't have the desire to mess around with as much.

[edit] w7-64-enterprise[/edit]

Magic_Randy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 22, 2011, 09:15:32 am »

I don't think 6 MB larger is an issue.

And Chrome would be much better than IE.

Osho · « **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2011, 12:27:57 pm »

Will this impact how webpages are displayed that are added in TheaterView? I use an excellent plugin (Jscript file browser - http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=51509.0 ) that allows one to use a remote control buttons to browse the files on the computer (including SD card, network shares etc.) and to start playback for a file in MC. I have been using this for a while since MC13 - and it works great with MC16 too after some minor modifications. It currently uses activex, I believe. Will this still continue to run?

Thanks,
Osho

raldo · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2011, 02:10:44 pm »

Quote from: Osho on February 22, 2011, 12:27:57 pm

It currently uses activex, I believe. Will this still continue to run?
Thanks,
Osho

Probably not. The filebrowser also uses Windows Scripting Host.

raym · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2011, 03:07:37 pm »

Quote from: raldo on February 22, 2011, 02:10:44 pm

Probably not. The filebrowser also uses Windows Scripting Host.

in that case, we're gonna need a proper solution to browse removable media in theater view. I, and many others, currently rely on filebroswer for this.

Otherwise, I have no specific issue with chrome being used.

Osho · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2011, 04:48:01 pm »

Quote from: raym on February 22, 2011, 03:07:37 pm

in that case, we're gonna need a proper solution to browse removable media in theater view. I, and many others, currently rely on filebroswer for this.

And, not only removable media, also network-mounted samba share drives too..

Thanks,
Osho

Alex B · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2011, 05:31:51 pm »

Regarding the file size, I'd actually prefer to have the installers as small as possible. I guess the "finance manager" at JRiver would also like to minimize the server costs.

Would it be possible to separate the browser code and the MC installer in the build threads? E.g.:

Quote

Media Center 16.0.49 (3/10/2011)
http://files.jriver.com/mediacenter/MediaCenter160049minimal.exe (18 MB)

Chromium Browser Code Package 1.0.2 (last updated on 2/25/2011, install if you don't already have this version installed)
http://files.jriver.com/mediacenter/ChromiumPackage102.exe (6MB)

In addition you could provide the full installer (perhaps only in the public release threads):

Quote

Media Center 16.0.49 (3/10/2011), Full installer - includes the latest Chromium Browser Code Package
http://files.jriver.com/mediacenter/MediaCenter160049.exe (24 MB)

The official download page would provide only the full installer. When MC checks for updates it could download and install the Chromium part only if necessary.

Naturally the "About Media Center" and "System Info" windows would need to include the Chromium version info.

Of course this would be possible only if the browser code actually can be separate and useful only if the code does not constantly change.

Matt · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2011, 06:31:59 pm »

Quote from: Alex B on February 22, 2011, 05:31:51 pm

Regarding the file size, I'd actually prefer to have the installers as small as possible. I guess the "finance manager" at JRiver would also like to minimize the server costs.

Our experience is that it's bad to ask a user to make any decisions at download time.

We have talked about making the installer smaller and having it download pieces that seldom change. This would mean a fresh install would require an internet connection, which also has drawbacks.

JimH · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2011, 06:36:48 pm »

Thanks for the suggestion, Alex. We're still thinking about how to handle this. But at 26MB, the size is equal to a few tracks of MP3 music.

Is there a reason that size is important? Bandwidth charges per MB?

raym · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2011, 10:16:41 pm »

Quote from: raym on February 22, 2011, 03:07:37 pm

Otherwise, I have no specific issue with chrome being used.

I take it back! I forgot I have a massive dependency on IE in Theater View. My PVR software exposes a web interface which ~~only~~ works best in IE. I havn't upgraded my HTPC's to IE9 and don't intend to. Unfortunately, this is a deal breaker for me and I can't upgrade my HTPC's beyond MC 15 if this change remains

(edit) there may be a work around if I launch IE outside of mc. I'll need to investigate.

glynor · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2011, 10:31:51 pm »

Quote from: raym on February 22, 2011, 10:16:41 pm

My PVR software exposes a web interface which only works in IE.

Wow. That's crappy. Which one and why do you use it?

Scolex · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2011, 01:18:02 am »

I would wholeheartedly support the change even if it were 6GB bigger.
I hate IE and if not for a few web pages that require it and MC it would
not be on my system at all. IMHO Micro$oft should stick with creating the
OS and leave browsers to those who can make a good one.

Niacin · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:09:48 am »

I hope that all other browsers will have compliance. I have invested a lot of time into Firefox, having already migrated from IE, Netscape and Deepnet. I'm not about to change again, especially when I believe FF is one of the very best.

Scolex · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:26:27 am »

Quote from: Niacin on February 23, 2011, 02:09:48 am

I hope that all other browsers will have compliance. I have invested a lot of time into Firefox, having already migrated from IE, Netscape and Deepnet. I'm not about to change again, especially when I believe FF is one of the very best.

I too have a lot invested in Ff as it is my preferred browser but I don't see the correlation since MC has nothing to do with Ff unless you are referring to sites adapting to IE9 and causing problems with Ff. I was going to switch to Google Chrome because it seems faster and more stable until I discovered there was no sidebar for bookmarks or support for the google toolbar. The lack of google toolbar support left me totally flabbergasted since they are the developers of it and it is very useful IMHO. The sidebar I could live without but taking away my google toolbar is like taking away my oxygen. The links it creates in the toolbar when you do a search are irreplaceable to me.

JimH · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2011, 06:21:32 am »

Quote from: Niacin on February 23, 2011, 02:09:48 am

I hope that all other browsers will have compliance. I have invested a lot of time into Firefox, having already migrated from IE, Netscape and Deepnet. I'm not about to change again, especially when I believe FF is one of the very best.

It's an internal change that should not affect anything you do with other browsers. You can just think of MC as another browser.

Alex B · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2011, 07:28:44 am »

Quote from: JimH on February 22, 2011, 06:36:48 pm

Thanks for the suggestion, Alex. We're still thinking about how to handle this. But at 26MB, the size is equal to a few tracks of MP3 music.

Is there a reason that size is important? Bandwidth charges per MB?

I was mainly thinking of your bandwidth charges. Also those who install a new build almost daily might prefer the smaller size.

Assuming the Chromium code would not change often, I would normally only need to download the "minimal" installer when a new build is released.

For example, on this PC my archive of MC installers is 220 files / 3.4 GB...

glynor · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:30:08 am »

Quote from: Alex B on February 23, 2011, 07:28:44 am

Assuming the Chromium code would not change often,

That's a big assumption to make for a change that would increase user-facing complexity by quite a bit. Despite best efforts, you'd end up with a bunch of new users downloading the wrong installer because they "already have chrome installed" (people don't read very thoroughly).

Chrome evolves quickly. Chromium even more so, and many of those changes are security related.

Quote from: Scolex on February 23, 2011, 02:26:27 am

I was going to switch to Google Chrome because it seems faster and more stable until I discovered there was no sidebar for bookmarks or support for the google toolbar. The lack of google toolbar support left me totally flabbergasted since they are the developers of it and it is very useful IMHO. The sidebar I could live without but taking away my google toolbar is like taking away my oxygen.

I use Firefox as my primary browser as well, but mainly due to the few plugins I've come to rely upon. The Firefox 4 betas though do have dramatically increased, and Chrome-like, speed.

However, the google toolbar thing isn't quite right. The address bar in Chrome acts the same as the Google search box. They just unified it into one bar. You still get the best of the Google Toolbar features in Chrome.

Scolex · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2011, 12:24:11 pm »

Quote from: glynor on February 23, 2011, 09:30:08 am

However, the google toolbar thing isn't quite right. The address bar in Chrome acts the same as the Google search box. They just unified it into one bar. You still get the best of the Google Toolbar features in Chrome.

I know that the search in Chrome is essentially the same but when you use the bar in Ff it creates links inside the bar for each search string. If you click one of them it goes to that term in the current page. They can be a great time saver when searching through a large page.

sgomes · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:20:20 pm »

Big thumbs up to this, switching to a non-IE renderer sounds like a great idea!

glynor · « **Reply #27 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:53:40 pm »

Quote from: Scolex on February 23, 2011, 12:24:11 pm

I know that the search in Chrome is essentially the same but when you use the bar in Ff it creates links inside the bar for each search string. If you click one of them it goes to that term in the current page. They can be a great time saver when searching through a large page.

It doesn't work quite the same way, but Chrome does have a similar feature. From the page I linked to above:

Quote

Highlighted search terms
The find bar feature in Google Chrome is similar to the Toolbar "Word find" button. Matches to your find bar search term are automatically highlighted on the page. Plus, you can use the yellow markers on the scrollbar to quickly see where all the matches are located on the page. Google Chrome's find bar doesn't offer several of Toolbar's "Word find" features, such as populating the Toolbar with a button for each word that you type in the search box. Learn more about the Google Chrome find bar.

You're right, though. It doesn't give you the buttons.

I'm against 3rd party browser toolbars on general principle, so I'd never actually use any of them, Google or otherwise.

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #28 on:** February 23, 2011, 11:52:44 pm »

I don't see how switching to another browser internally would fix anything for JRiver except temporarilly. Here are my reasons against:

1. The exact same thing could happen with any other browser. Given the fact that MS has fought tooth and nail to have IE integrated into the OS, I would assume they intend for developers to use it long into the future. I think they would really want to get this issue fixed.
2. IE9 is in beta. RC does not mean final version and between the Beta and the RC there were a tone of fixes. I would expect more before the final version.
3. It exposes a user to more security risks. They may update all the time using Windows Update but how often do most users update MC? How happy would a user be if they got infected via MC? That exposes JRiver as well... Unless you want to get involved in making sure Chromium stayes updated as well... yikes!
4. It is more likely to break other things. I believe users have already mentioned other examples.
5. Some users are reporting no issues with IE9. I'm one of them. So far no issues with MC.

Many users will weigh in here and many will be biased voting for their favorite browser rather than for something that will actuallly improve JRiver. I would give this more consideration. You can also open a support case with MS. I have done so in the past many times and for less than $300 have seen cases move all they up to the developers of a title(Not IE specifically though) and have had bugs fixed with work arounds etc. Their developer support is quite good.

Scolex · « **Reply #29 on:** February 24, 2011, 12:09:19 am »

gvanbrunt,
You seem to be a proponent for IE. I am by no means trying to tell you what to use but I am just curious to what your logic is when you consider that IE is the slowest, most memory intensive, least compatible and least secure browser on the market today.

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2011, 07:46:59 am »

I am not "a proponent of IE". I am the IT Manager for a corporation and have a lot of experience in both software development and in choice and deployment of browser products. Personally I use IE, FF, and Chrome. They each have their use. I use the right tool for the job at hand. My comments are about what I think is the best choice for MC and it's users, not which browser I use to surf the net. If there are any pros to switching MC's internal engine I'm all ears, but I can't think of any. However as mentioned I can see a lot of downsides.

Also as for you last comment about slowest et al, the gap has narrowed and in some cases may even be faster. Not that that matters in this particular case. Also as for Chrome, I'm most certainly not happy about Googles choice to drop H264 support. Come to think of it, there is reason #5 not for MC to use it...

JimH · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2011, 08:16:36 am »

We would not make this change if we had a choice, but it is questionable whether MS will fix IE9. They may, but we can't count on it.

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2011, 12:45:30 pm »

I think this may be related to the issue you are having:

https://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/details/643966/ie9-rc-crashes-when-calling-idispatch-invoke#details

In case you want to add to that for MS to reproduce and fix the issue.l

jmone · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2011, 02:11:50 pm »

I think gvanbrunt is making a lot of sence

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #34 on:** February 24, 2011, 03:21:40 pm »

Other than that fact that my last post should have said reason #6 not reason #5.

I'm not an MS flunky by any means and there is plenty that I don't like about IE. I have done lots of web development so nobody knows the blues about lack of standards like I do...

And believe me, I don't want to be the uncool guy backing the "yucky M$ product". But throwing the baby out with the bathwater might be a little premature in this case when a product is still in Beta. It wouldn't be such a big deal if other users were not having it break other functionality.

Call me devils advocate....

JimH · « **Reply #35 on:** February 24, 2011, 03:36:36 pm »

Quote from: gvanbrunt on February 24, 2011, 03:21:40 pm

... throwing the baby out with the bathwater might be a little premature in this case when a product is still in Beta.

It's RC now, not just beta. If Microsoft were telling us that they recognize that it's a problem, we'd not be so concerned, but that's not happening. The next step may just be a release and push to Windows Update.

ogurgey · « **Reply #36 on:** February 24, 2011, 03:39:15 pm »

The problem is in the definition of cooperation between two independent software developing companies. The names does not matter, today we (the users) have problems with IE 9RC. Tomorrow, it could be Chromium/Chrome/FF/Opera etc. As long as you depend on some other group developers/architects/designers which have completely different goals as yourself, such problems are inevitable.

And it is definitely not a question of personal taste/like or dislike. My opinion would be leave it as it is right now. It is not the release version, and as far as I could follow the different forums on the net, MC is not the only victim to this mishap.

Before this incident, how many users knew, that they were dependend on IE? And how many years have the engine served, without causing that big a problem?

If IE 9 doesn't work with MC, and MS is ignorant of the problem, then it would be time to change the boat.

rick.ca · « **Reply #37 on:** February 24, 2011, 03:56:48 pm »

Quote

Call me devils advocate...

Okay.

Isn't rejecting the first implementation of Chromium "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"? The breaking of the FileBrowser plugin has been cited as a compelling reason to not make this change. That makes no sense to me. If Chromium had been used all along, obviously something like FileBrowser would have been created for it. Updates to Chromium could still break that, but then JRiver would likely have the ability to do something about it. And if not, they would probably be in a good position to advise what changes to the plugin are necessary.

Besides, I've always been annoyed an embedded browser behaving exactly like the browser I hate with a passion. Part of my annoyance comes from knowing it's pointless to ask JRiver to do anything about the limitations or issues caused by such a browser. That won't be the case with Chromium. Even if the limitations are the same, at least I'll have someone to complain to.

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #38 on:** February 24, 2011, 06:11:36 pm »

Sorry, but Google is just as nameless and faceless as MS. In fact more so. MS has support that you can call and depend on as a developer. That is not the case with Chrome or other Google products. Read some of their bulletin boards to get the idea. If Chrome breaks, JRiver will have no recourse other than to report the bug same as with MS. How is that any better? If you are suggesting they can grok the source code and fix it themselves I don't see that as very likely given the size of the codebase. And even if they do manage to fix the problem it still has to be submitted to Google and go through their release cycle before it ends up in a public release. Unless they plan on rolling their own forked version. That is a scary thought for sure security wise. If it came to that I would no longer be able to use the product at work.

Before I am yet again be accused of MS bias (kidding), keep in mind I also have a Android Galaxy S and will be switching to a Nexus S as soon as a version is released that supports 850MHz HSPA. I'm speaking from my knowledge as a developer about what product may be best or not. You said it yourself that you are biased and hate IE. I do not hate Chrome. In fact I actually prefer it to IE for regular browsing. My comment stands that many are basing their decision on their like of which browser to surf the web with, not with which browser is the best for MC. They are not the same thing.

#7 I would also like to point out that IE9 is the only browser with Direct X accelerated support for Video etc. I would think that that might be kind of useful to MC... using Chrome means passing on both H264 and accelerated video support. And Adobe is actively working with MS to get Flash working with hardware acceleration.

As for MS suddenly dumping IE9 on Windows Update, MS has Publicly stated that it's release is months off... RC is still beta. Beta is the industry accepted term for software that hasn't been officially released. Just because MS has broken it's beta stage into Beta and RC (actually there is also the CTP stage) does not make it any different. MS's term RC means that it is feature complete but still has bugs. Most of their products go through several RC stages before release. For more information on IE's release plans etc check out the IE blog.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/23/ie9-feedback-platform-previews-through-beta.aspx

Anyhow, I've said my bit as a developer and will leave things to J River to decide what's best for their product. They have done a great job to this point so I won't do more than express my thoughts which I have done. There is also the possibility that maybe there is something they have envisioned with Chrome that would not be possible with IE. I guess time will tell...

P.S. Keep the tomato throwing at the M$ loving guy to a minimum. He would rather spend his time using MS Bob than washing clothes...

JimH · « **Reply #39 on:** February 24, 2011, 06:43:29 pm »

Quote from: gvanbrunt on February 24, 2011, 06:11:36 pm

As for MS suddenly dumping IE9 on Windows Update, MS has Publicly stated that it's release is months off... RC is still beta.

More or less true, but MS proposed an update to RC for one of my machines because I was using the beta. I refused, but most people will probably accept. That's a problem for us.

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #40 on:** February 24, 2011, 07:02:26 pm »

Jim,

I don't want to sound snide, but are you going to support users of Chrome that decide to install from an SVN build rather than public build? That would the equivalent of supporting MS users of beta products. (or almost anyway). Beta products are just that, not for mainstream use and use at your own risk. Most companies refuse to support their product if end users use beta products. I don't see any problem with that. In fact this break of functionality would be a perfect example for you to use in the future for any customers that had an issue with you not supporting beta's of IE etc. MS did not push anyone to install the Beta and only those that did were offered the update...

The bottom line is I think it is a crap shoot about which browser you support in the future. MS has nice long development cycles and IE is very stable in between versions. The same is not true of Chrome. New features and functionality are regularly pushed out. Oh drat. There I go with #9 on my list...

You may be correct though, that Chrome does turn out to be a windfall in the long run. I just wanted to make sure all the cons were considered prior to doing so. There were not a lot of people speaking out for why not.

Users may now resume throwing vegetables.

JimH · « **Reply #41 on:** February 24, 2011, 07:49:24 pm »

I don't believe a user installing Chrome will affect MC's support.

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #42 on:** February 24, 2011, 08:00:19 pm »

Is the "MC install of Chrome" going to be seperate from any other install on the computer?

glynor · « **Reply #43 on:** February 24, 2011, 08:23:45 pm »

Quote from: gvanbrunt on February 24, 2011, 08:00:19 pm

Is the "MC install of Chrome" going to be seperate from any other install on the computer?

You misunderstand. It isn't "Chrome". It is "Chromium" which is essentially the "core" of Chrome that is able to be used by third party developers to essentially create another browser (or use browser components within their application). Any application that embeds Chromium will be using its own components and should be independent.

This is different from the way MC used to embed an IE control, which essentially pointed to the IE installation on your computer. One is using internal components (Chromium) and the other is using OS components (IE).

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #44 on:** February 24, 2011, 08:57:16 pm »

I do understand, but there are different ways of accomplishing the use of Chromium. You could install Chrome and "work off the core for that install" or you can install it as a seperate install "local to MC". The risk of the MC seperate install is security. As anyone knows if you don't keep your browser patched you run a very real risk of infection.

If they are using a seperate install I'm worred how often it will be updated. And what about updating it if MC isn't updated etc... With IE it is a shared install and updating IE updates "that part of MC". If MS, Mozilla and Google have problems keeping users updated (I'm not speaking of creating the patches but updating their computers), how is JRiver going to make sure they cover that. That is a pretty tall order for them to fill.

HTPC4ME · « **Reply #45 on:** February 24, 2011, 10:02:00 pm »

off topic....Well maybe on.

Now this is how all features of jriver should be discussed. In depth and informative!

Love reading this stuff.

glynor · « **Reply #46 on:** February 24, 2011, 10:02:48 pm »

Quote from: gvanbrunt on February 24, 2011, 08:57:16 pm

I do understand, but there are different ways of accomplishing the use of Chromium. You could install Chrome and "work off the core for that install" or you can install it as a seperate install "local to MC". The risk of the MC seperate install is security. As anyone knows if you don't keep your browser patched you run a very real risk of infection.

If they are using a seperate install I'm worred how often it will be updated. And what about updating it if MC isn't updated etc... With IE it is a shared install and updating IE updates "that part of MC". If MS, Mozilla and Google have problems keeping users updated (I'm not speaking of creating the patches but updating their computers), how is JRiver going to make sure they cover that. That is a pretty tall order for them to fill.

Okay, cool. I was surprised that you didn't understand it.

I agree that security could be a concern, though I'm not sure how much general-purpose browsing I'll be doing with MC, which does limit the target window somewhat (but certainly not entirely). I imagine they did the integration in a very compartmentalized manner, so that the core Chromium components can be pulled from the source and updated with relative (or complete) ease. But, it would certainly be good to hear that there is some sort of plan in-place to stay on top of it. I guess I just sort-of assumed that they had considered this when they decided to switch to a different rendering engine.

But more importantly... Wouldn't using the shared approach require users to separately install Chrome (or to pack in a separate setup with the installer)? If so, that's not realistic at all (and that's why I didn't even consider it a possibility). Chrome doesn't have anywhere near the installed base that you'd need to require it to be able to use a separate third-party application like MC.

glynor · « **Reply #47 on:** February 24, 2011, 10:13:10 pm »

Also, I should add...

Constant updates are a mixed bag. They do things like this, for example, and break compatibility with the applications that depend on them. Patches are new code, and new code is, by definition, less tested than existing code. Older codebases can be less secure, but they are also more thoroughly understood. In fact, some patches are implemented in slipshod manners, obviously "under the gun".

I'm certainly no hater of Microsoft. I actually think IE looks like a fairly nice effort, though I don't know if it would get me to switch back (and I'm not huge on their UI design scheme in IE). But, there are also absolutely security downsides to using the IE engine, not the least of which is ActiveX support (which is just one more thing to worry about).

I don't know... I think security-wise it will end up being a wash. But I could be wrong. $:-\$

rick.ca · « **Reply #48 on:** February 24, 2011, 11:36:21 pm »

Quote from: gvanbrunt on February 24, 2011, 08:57:16 pm

I do understand, but there are different ways of accomplishing the use of Chromium.

With this response, I don't expect you're going to review your seven objections to Chrome and explain which ones are applicable to Chromium. And here, you seem to be saying if the developers make the wrong choice on alternative implementation strategies, that would be cause for concern. But why should we assume they would make the wrong choice? From what they've said so far, I'm under the impression they would be applying they're own modifications to a Chromium core that is regularly updated. Even if security threats are not addressed as thoroughly or as timely as they are by IE, the exposure is much less. This is an embedded browser that can only be used within a media manager.

texaganian · « **Reply #49 on:** February 25, 2011, 06:59:58 am »

I realize it is not the reason that is driving the consideration of using chromium, but if doing so would make it possible to use greasemonkey scripts in browser windows within MC, that would be a HUGE win (for me, at least).

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Switch from IE to Chromium (Read 38562 times)

Niacin