Thanks for the post. I found myself wondering where Chrome had installed itself to after reinstalling with version 1.0. Very strange, but thanks for the info.

@Jaybee
I understand that user settings are not saved INTO the .exe or .dll program files. My point was that everything about Chrome installs inside the user’s own profile (in disk files as you suggest) and nothing seems to write to the Registry. Specifically, it seems all of Chrome’s settings are in Documents and Settings\\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\User Data.

This is quite different that the IE model where settings of all types are stored indiscriminately in the common Windows registry. Users cannot customize most settings in IE without affecting all other users of the computer. This leaves the IT department with the only practical option of locking down all browser customizations to prevent one user creating problems for another. Understandable, certainly, but needless if Microsoft had made more intelligent decisions about user vs. system-wide settings.

@ Jaybee & Sajen
It’s pointless to debate what end users in a business environment SHOULD do or refrain from doing. If it is possible, some percentage of users will do it. Chrome makes installing an alternate browser possible for unprivileged users; some percentage will do so (or already have.) Better by far to spend your energies defining and finding a way to enforce your policy regarding Chrome than arguing with end users.

The issue of Chrome introducing new security holes is a concern but you would be insane to rely on user behavior to keep that at bay. You really need to either accept Chrome, follow the security discussions and keep up with updates or disallow it and enforce the ban electronically.

In any case, not everything is wonderful for the illicit Chrome user. A plugin for Flash content still requires a more traditional software install (thus admin rights) so you’ll find yourself reaching for the company-approved browser on occasion. In any case, I would hope that anyone who installed their own alternative browser would know better than to waste time/money calling corporate tech support for help.

@Owen
Your assertions regarding the “IE model” – as you put it – are complete and utter codswallop. While it is true that Internet Explorer settings are stored in the registry, these settings are stored under the HKEY_CURRENT_USER hive which, as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Windows internals ought to know, is sourced from the NTUSER.DAT file that resides in the root directory of the user’s profile and is mounted upon logging in. Other data, including the browser’s cache (Temporary Internet Files), Cookies and Favorites are also stored within the user’s profile. The statement that “most settings” in IE cross-pollinate between user accounts is patently false. Indeed, a process operating under one standard user account is completely unable to access the data contained within the profile of another such account.

Simply put, the location of the application is orthogonal to the matter of how it manages its data and to suggest otherwise is, at best, misinformed. In fact, The Google Chrome “approach” actually differs very little except that [a] most, if not all, user settings are stored in files _other_ than the user’s own registry hive (irrelevant as it’s simple one arbitrary set of files vs another, all of which are under %USERPROFILE%) [b] the application is installed into the user’s profile which many – quite rightly – find perplexing. It’s bad for those using roaming profiles. It’s bad for system administrators who expect to have a modicum of control over which applications are available to their users. It’s also bad from a security point of view; application executables and libraries contained under ‘Program Files’ are not writeable by members of the standard ‘Users’ group, therefore making it very difficult for applications to be subverted by malware, or even accidentally corrupted (notwithstanding the vast numbers of consumers who unfortunately run under accounts that are members of the ‘Administrators’ group). This arrangement is subverted by placing application binaries within the profile.

It’s the same under other operating systems, such as Unix and its derivatives. A process operating under a non-root user account has absolutely no business attempting to write to /usr during normal operation, which is why only the superuser can do so. However, it will have full read/write access to the home directory.

Drawing a distinct line between applications – which need not be writable other than by users bestowed with the relevant privileges – and user data is good practice. And no, it is not “pointless” to discuss it. Some people stake their livelihoods on such matters and, ironically, some of these same people might be otherwise happy to deploy it if Google were to get their act together.

Also, as someone else has already pointed out, Google’s approach here is wasteful in terms of resources. Do we really want multiple instances of statically-linked applications choking up user profiles?

Incidentally, the issue has also been raised over at Google Groups.

robb, your best bet might be to use SRWare Iron. This is a third-party build of the Chromium sources. Essentially, it’s the same as Chrome, only they’ve stripped the controversial usage tracking features out. You may even get a better experience as they have been known to link in newer versions of Webkit than Google’s build. In any case, I believe that it will allow you to install to any location you please.

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

My C drive is FULL! How do I get Chrome to install to D?