Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th May 2009 08:24 UTC
Internet & Networking When Google released the first version of its Chrome web browser, many eyebrows were raised over the fact that it updated itself automatically and silently, in the background, without user intervention or even so much as a notice. As it turns out, this has been a brilliant move by Google, as Chrome users are the most likely to have up-to-date installations of their browser, followed at a respectable distance by Firefox users. Safari and Opera trail behind significantly.
Permalink for comment 362277
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Fergy
Member since:
2006-04-10

Firefox goes out of its way to give people the choice about practically everything whereas Chrome goes out of its way to remove as much choice as possible.
Now I get that most people should give up the right to manage security updates but I still think they should have a choice to give it up.
816k of memory and a few cpu cycles are very little for a good updater. It is very likely that if you have 30 programs installed they could all have a 1MB updater all running in the background. Other programs only run the updater when the program is run.

The best of both worlds would be to give people the choice to install updates silently and only run the updater when the program is run. Or have 1 updater like Linux.

Reply Score: 1