Google.com/chrome

It's Google's brand new web browser. It's based off of Webkit, which was used to make Safari. It's also used some pieces from Firefox.

From my brief usage:
It's pretty fast. Faster than Opera. Memory usage is higher, though.
Some features could be really useful. The New Tab page is similar to Speed Dial, but a "smart" version. It's based on the frequency you visit pages, and you can't preset them as far as I can tell.
Every tab is it's own process, meaning if one web page crashes, Chrome keeps running. Only that tab goes down.
Doesn't require admin rights to install. That means no UAC prompt on Vista, and on the eventual Linux port.

Negatives
Clicking the tab bar maximizes the window unlike most browsers which simply open a new tab. An easily fixed annoyance.
Buggy Silverlight implementation. Either do it all or don't do it at all.
Clicking the scroll wheel does nothing.
Closing a tab doesn't return to the previous tab, but rather the next tab. Not big, but a bother.
It uses a fail form of key word searching from Opera and Firefox. It's overly complex.

I like it, but I think it's still got a little way to go before I'll use it as my primary browser.

From my brief usage:
It's just as fast as any browser I've ever used.
It uses very little RAM.
It uses 46 MB of storage space compared to 5 for Opera, 20 for Firefox.
Very little customization.
Awesome auto hiding status bar.
No file/edit/view crap.

I won't use it because I can't move the toolbars around like I can in firefox.

The flaws are starting to show as I use it more and more. Closing the only open tab closes the entire browser, rather than just opening up to the new tab page. And I really am used to Opera's mouse gestures.

Chrome takes up 93MB vs. 11 for Opera.

I don't like this Google fad and I don't like the look of it from the screens I've seen.

I'm not on my usual computer though so I can't try it yet. I seriously doubt I'll switch from Firefox though when I do.

Tried it out briefly and it seemed pretty neat. Will stick with Firefox for now though because it doesn't have my addons and a few other things.

I'm not adopting it fully yet, but it is by a wide margin the fastest browser I've ever used, which I pretty much expected.

I would try it out, but I would rather wait for them to port it to Linux than reboot into XP right now

I'm sure as they develop it, it will quickly have all those little nuisances fixed, and Google will, again, have created a favourite product.

Hehehe, type about:internets into the location bar.

It is very fast; the only thing that's stopping me from using it is the fact that it sometimes bugs/conflicts with the player I use for YouTube videos.

who here (besides me ) has actually read the EULA?

Yo. I can't read those things, but I skimmed it, and found the funny parts. The nice part about those EULAs are that they generally don't matter much. Personally, I like maddox's find in the apple EULA.

If you go to a page that can't be found, it says "oh snap", and when you try to uninstall, it says (was it something we said?).

I would really suggest you reading it. There's one part in there that might piss a lot of people off.

you mean this?

I personally can't use any web browser that lacks mouse gestures. I've grown to used to them.

Tons of people are going off about it.People are mis understand what 11.1-11.4 really mean .

I myself tried Google chrome and I am just to in love with FireFox 3 to switch lol.

Yep. That and some minor portion but mostly this.

While it looks bad, it's really not, and google already does this anyway (look @ google cache). They need this so they can use a translator on the site, and display the cache. They also put in the end clause where it may be revoked, and the beginning, where YOU hold the copyright.

Then again, I'm a no source thinker.

http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks

Google has removed that particular section. And you could bypass it by just downloading the source and compiling it yourself without the EULA.