The AdMuncher solution has been posted on their forum like 30 minutes after Google Chrome was released :http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3881

And since then, it has been added on the AdMuncher default filters list.

I disagree with this post. I love google chrome because its just a browser. Simple interface unlike IE and firefox. Why do people need all these plugins and add-ons? I hope google just fixes the bugs and not change the browser.

I Instantly got all my bookmarks transferred without a hitch. I see some sites very slow loading, but most all sites are almost instant. I am pounding the hell out of it. It will be great when it is able to handle roboform and the other necessaties. I still use FF3 as my main browser, though.
I think it will slap the rest of them down, eventually.

I tried it and ditched it as soon as I had to log in to a few sites without roboform. As of the last articles I read on this problem, no one is planning to try to integrate it. (???)

Chrome is a great idea with real promise, but I'd be surprised if it lures many folks away from Firefox. FF just has so much flexibility. It's tough to beat.

I am glad Google is addressing the "Not Responding" problem when browsers get stuck on a script or a page load and refuse even to let the user halt the process, usually a bug they need to get around to fixing.

I am more concerned with using a browser that adheres to rendering content according to the STANDARDS of (X)HTML and not to catering to non-standards "extensions" or misuse and abuse of (X)HTML. Microsoft has been notorious for this, but its past dominance in the browser market share has forced developers to structure web pages that deal with Microsoft's idiosyncrasies with respect to document structure and styling, which explains the mess of HTML, DOM methods, and CSS specific to rendering in IE and then to rendering for the rest. Only recently have browsers passed fully the tests for content rendering specified by W3 Consortium, the keepers of the "recommendations" (standards, to you and me), and still don't pass the simple "acid tests" of the Web Standards zealots.

For someone who also writes dynamic content like myself, I will want Chrome to deal with ECMAscript and AJAX without a lot of fuss. Your review is an important part of determining how much time I will spend in evaluation and switching HTTP clients.

Bad use of statistics here: 60% of the responders in your poll tried Chrome and every one of them switched back? An unknown percentage of the responders tried Chrome and 60% of them switched back? Or am I missing another possible interpretation.

Of course the Net Applications statistic is faulty in its own way: Chrome representing 1% of all Internet usage on a day when it's the Internet's new toy is not only fairly meaningless, but should be a grave disappointment to Google.

"Cloud Computing" sounds a bit like the old days when we used "thin clients" and terminals. Are we ready to embrace "internet appliances" yet?