Name me (((1))) flaw

>>59250536
Uses an significant amount of CPU and eats away at the battery on macOS.

Is pretty decent on Loonix though, but everything else on Linux eats away the battery.

No bookmark sidebar lmfao

>>59250536
Botnet
Ramhog
Not very customizable

>>59250536
1) it's nonfree
2) uncustomizable UI elements, to name a few:
a) closes out on last tab
b) retarded download bar popup that has to be manually closed
c) UI enhancements offered by WebExtensions only applies to actual websites, not plugins like the pdf viewer
3) diagonal touchpad scrolling does not work. it only scrolls in one direction and feels like a jerky ride when moving along a diagonal path. this is not a problem in firefox.

Erosion of freedoms in the name of slight speed improvements.

>>59250536
made by google

>>59250536
Its non free and a botnet.

Poor privacy settings.

>>59250536
What kills it for me is the lack of customization and the fact that I don't want Google to know what I look at all the time.

no RSS

useless with a VPN since it can't properly disable WebRTC

2 massive flaws right there

>>59250536
Botnet

/thread

File: WeDdkXf2IS69PvcEu7n1wjYwcO1_FOokv5f3QLLeI7o.png (638KB, 818x767px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 818x767px

>>59250536
(((1)))=>((1))=>(1)=>1

>>59250536
no multi-line tabs

>>59250536
B O T N E T
O
T
N
E
T

flat design, or so called "material"

>>59251167
Flat designs are better. 3D shit is for children.

Slower than IE on some lower-mid range systems

>>59250536
tabs get smaller and smaller instead of letting you scroll through them.

>>59250536
Le butanita.

>>59250536
compensates permavirgins that shill on their behalf

>>59250536
>Name me (((1))) flaw
It is not the QQ Browser (reskinned Chromium).
http://browser.qq.com/mac/en/index.html

>>59250536
Doesn't matter if it's proprietary. The main problem with chrome is that it sandboxes tabs, instead of sandboxing every protocol(which it can't do right now due to amd64 being utter shit). Therefore, all that RAM usage counts for nothing if you have enough tabs open so that it has to compress multiple tabs into one sandbox.

Google and the fact that you're expected to trust them

>>59250637
/thread

How much RAM you got?

Because between windows 10 consuming 6GB at idle, and Chrome using 4, I have serious doubts 16 will be enough.

>>59252954
close a few tabs you faggot

also don't use win10 you piece of shit, how the fuck did you get the courage to post on /g/ about how you're using a botnet os? fuck off and kys little guy

>>59250536
Retarded management of memory.
See: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/chromium-dev/EUqoIz2iFU4/kPZ5ZK0K3gEJ

None it's without flaw

File: Selection_20170305_20:26:36.png (18KB, 991x125px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 991x125px

>>59253214
http://comma.guide/vocative-comma/

>>59253895
:-(

BOTNET

>>59250536
It's choppy on some websites for me. Nothing too dramatic but still noticeable. For example, scrolling is a bit unresponsive for a split second while loading the 4chan-X catalog (doesn't happen with the native extension). Other websites are choppy even fully loaded. i5 and 8 GB of RAM so this probably shouldn't happen, but apparently some people with more powerful machines have the same problem. It is what it is.

Firefox loads pages slightly slower but the UI/Scrolling is always smooth. Used to be the other way around, e10s is pretty legit.

Glacially slow with 4gb of ram a slow HDD and a lot of tabs.
Although I switched when Firefox finally got a sandbox, mainly because muh botnet

>>59255484
Plus you can customize it as much as you want.