Duh.

[sarcasm]I would feel a whole lot better if all the people of the world could access our government systems and do whatever the hell they could possibly want to with those systems[/sarcasm].

Yes, indeed, big brother is watching over who uses their systems, how they use it, and for what purpose and intent. Just like if someone were to come over to your house and use YOUR system, you'd feel better knowing the purpose of the use. "No, sir, that was certainly not MY kiddie porn on MY computer..."

I'm seriously confused as to why this is upsetting considering that the average Firefox user installs plugins to assist in rendering media types (I'm picking on Flash) that could potentially be exploited far more than an extension that Microsoft produced because they realize that there is a huge established base of Firefox users on their Windows operating system.

I think this one is a win for the Firefox community in the sense that instead of being greeted with "your browser ain't IE, yo" that they are using the fundamental openness of Firefox to be able to reach users who, like me, think IE is the best waste of disk space on my Windows machines. Let Microsoft continue to develop for Firefox and realize how much of a pair of pants it can hand over to its beloved IE.

Or, continue to bitch and moan over its attempt to reach the Firefox customers to the point where they say, "Screw it - give them the ol' your browser is not supported" line.

Is this really an argument of my instruction is twice as wide as your instruction?

Other than the PCI addressing limitation of the 32-bit world truncating the amount of free memory available if 4GB is installed, there is little reason yet for the average consumer (you know, the 98% of all computer users out there) to migrate to the 64-bit world in terms of capability.

Please upgrade from Pentium era processor.

For all you Microsoft haters - Windows and its development libraries are among the most easy to integrate, adapt, extend, etc. Does BitZtream's argument mean that Microsoft is superior? Embedded IE is as simple as dragging a control to your project... yet, I've passed over that one time and time again. :)

Please read about Chromium before posting seriously ignorant posts about Google taking advantage of opensource code and their goals to incorporate Linux and Mac into the fold. It's funny how everyone beats up a less than one year old browser (to the public at least) so much and expects it to deliver the world.

Further, before you start nailing Google for it, Apple's the one that deserves the finger (take your pick) more than anyone else for taking advantage of opensource code.

Hurray for faster JavaScript performance - yay.

The majority of what I do when I browse needs solid rendering performance (the cake). The JavaScript engine badness is the icing. WebKit kicks the pants off IE and Firefox's rendering engine. That's enough of a sell for me.

Nah. I'd say for the most parts, Google developers are using more of what Internet Explorer uses (SSL certificates is an obvious example) and 1.0's requirement for WinHTTP (also Microsoft).

I use Chrome exclusively at home. The speed over Firefox is simply something that I cannot ignore. Yes, there are ads - for the whiners, there are proxies you can install regardless of your operating system that will strip the ads out, much like Adblock Plus does. I don't personally use them, but I hear they work just fine.

Unfortunately, Chrome is considered one of those "banned" pieces of software where I work. Chrome helps itself to your browsing history, the links you go to, etc. For me at home, this is a moot point - Slashdot, Digg, Woot, and a handful of other sites are what Google finds out about my relatively mundane hyperspace experience. But for work, Chrome does not cut it. Firefox is allowed, so at least I'm not shafted with having to use Internet Explorer.

And apparently, me posting via Chrome 2.0 makes me want to hit the Post Anonymously checkbox for some sadistic reason... :)