First let me say that I’m nearly 95% sold on Chrome as the browser that I’d recommend. I’ve been a mozilla user since Netscape was a viable and competitive web browser here and abroad. I did use Opera for a period of time, before Firefox came along and stole my heart until the last few months, when I became so fed up with the growing sluggishness of Firefox—with or without addons. It felt like the Windows of our day as far as web browsers were concerned.

Chrome, as I write this, has been a very efficient web browser. Is it for everyone? I don’t know, as I can only speak from my own usage and expectations.

But I might recommend one feature in particular that may be the answer, and this is my open letter to Chrome’s developers.

Again, speaking from my OWN usage, I tend to start Chrome at the Bookmark Manager. I treat my bookmarks exactly like a file manager. I have folders, just as if I was on an extended drive. In those folders, instead of files, I keep URLS or bookmarks. I retrieve the shortcut just like I would a file off my system, except it’s its own “program” (read: website).

In other words, developing a web browser must keep in mind the philosophy that every website out there is a “program” with a set of instructions (HTML, CSS, Java, Flash, HTML5). Loading a website is no different, philosophically speaking. The web browser is the operating system standing between that program and the end user. Everything is run from this ginormous hard drive called the internet. That IS the bottom line, isn’t it?

The Chrome browser should consider the Bookmarks Manager the "desktop" for end users, the first thing they see as they prepare to access the internet.

Setting that aside for now, there have been countless times when I wish there was a better array of viewing options when it comes to the Bookmark Manager. For me, the Bookmark Manager is a primitive OS that allows me to interface with and run virtual programs that in the common vernacular we call “websites.”

Now, look at how Windows Explorer handles file management. As you are moving around your system, you are given the open at every point to change your view of the folder you’re in: Details, List, and Icons. It’s this last option, Icons, that is especially lacking in Chrome. Addons like Speeddial are hacks to bring that functionality to Chrome and Firefox, but fall short of being the “Windows Explorer” of the web browsers. And, if you follow the logic to its reasonable conclusion, it also opens a way for Google to offer cloud storage and file backup services to users, easily handled through the Bookmarks Manager and a few lines of code.

Chrome should be to internet access what Windows Explorer is to local computing.

I can’t tell you how much I miss being able to, at times, switch to icon mode when it comes to my Bookmarks that I track and maintain. Seeing a large icon, for example, can often gain a faster response than having to scan down through a list. This easily carries over to Android OS, which does this currently when browsing folders of pictures. All it would do in the case of the web browser is “snapshot” the bookmarked site upon last visit.

Like Windows Explorer, the Chrome user should be able to see their internet access in diverse ways. As an example, being able to see the details of their bookmarked sites, such as how many times they've visited it, when was their last visit, and similar relative information.

Another feature sorely needed is to have a Details option in Bookmark Manager that allows the end user to see the date a site was last visited, how many times it’s been accessed, etc., along with a way to do quick-sorts by the column, ascension and descension.

While many people, by default, have their home page set to whatever was on there when they first ran it, I have little doubt that by having Chrome open to the Bookmark Manager, with the idea of serving as a GUI for the user on the internet, that it will achieve a whole new level of appeal. Or at least allow the option, perhaps at first run, along with a brief word or two about ideals of each for the end-user.

Having a way to view one's bookmarked sites as thumbnails is often a faster, more efficient way to speed up web browsing, rather than having to scan through lists. A thumbnail of a bookmarked site could be built or refreshed upon visit, and then on the Home page where one had their most-visited, the thumbnails can be refreshed upon loading the browser to key the end user to information they may want to know right at the starting gate.

The Browser and Search Engine Wars Continue

Today, the EU issued a response to Microsoft’s recent decision to not include Internet Explorer 8 in certain editions of Windows 7 that will be released across Europe. This decision by Microsoft is part of an ongoing legal case involving Microsoft’s monopoly across Europe, and the attempts of various 3rd party browser software developers trying to make inroads into the PC market. The EU’s response to this decision was an expression of unhappiness, holding the position that Microsoft’s decision offered less choices rather than more, and announcing that they will be making a determination of this latest move by the Redmond-based software giant, and whether it will affect the ongoing matter of monopolizing the market.

Still, nobody will be more surprised than myself that I side with Microsoft on this one. In spite of Microsoft’s problems and public image, on this, at least, they are in their right to exclude their own internet browser and leave it to the end user to decide which web browser they want to use, and install it. I say that with one caveat which I will come back to in a few moments.

Microsoft is, ultimately, a software development company. I can think of no legal precedent—nor do I believe there should be one—that compels a software developer to include competing developers’ software within their own. Is Coca Cola compelled to sell Pepsi products to keep things fair—because customers should have options? Should Mastercard offer Visa credit cards alongside their own—because customers should have options?

Some might argue that since Windows is an operating system that allows someone to run software, that the rules should apply differently. But if that’s the case, then when will we see Apple’s own operating system, Mac OS X, be compelled to offer competing web browsers to their own Safari browser? And just try to get Opera, Firefox, or Google’s Chrome browsers installed onto an iPhone or iPod Touch as an alternative to the built-in Safari. Nobody is hauling Apple in to court, though, to obtain a similar legal imposition as the EU is trying to impose on Microsoft.

Microsoft made significant inroads when it designed their upcoming Windows 7 to allow the disabling of Internet Explorer web browser so that the enduser can go with their own preferred browser. I think they deserve props for that, because previously, IE was always vying for top-dog position, and it did have a built-in advantage. Heck, Internet Explorer 7 and 8 even allow the end-user to select their own search engine instead of being stuck with Microsoft’s own search engine. That, too, is very satisfactory.

But software developers such as Opera say that Microsoft’s decision to not include IE is “not enough.” In Opera’s opinion, an operating system (should be forced to include) several web browsers (including their own, of course!). This goes back to what I was saying earlier in regards to Apple’s Mac OS X. Where is Opera’s developer hitting the airwaves, demanding that Apple be forced to include several web browsers in their OS? The same could be said of every Linux distribution out there.

Think about it! If EU rules against this latest decision by Microsoft, and software developers such as Opera have their way, it’s a boon for Microsoft’s competitors. What better way to get promotion and advertising and to get your product into the hands of the public than to accomplish it through the expense of Microsoft! Microsoft would, essentially, be forced to cover all of the distribution costs, advertising costs, and all other costs in providing software to the masses—in behalf of 3rd party vendors! It’s a brilliant idea (for the competitors, but it’s unfair and hopefully it’s found to be illegal and indefensible. Because once you start down that road, you’re also opening the door to every other competing software out there. Windows 7 would have to include alternative email programs, for example. Or alternatives to NotePad. Or, Windows Explorer.

There’s also the issue of security. Let’s say that the version of Opera included in Windows 7 distributions is later found to have a significant security hole that can affect the Windows operating system. What then? Does Microsoft stop the presses, download the latest Opera version and recompile their Windows 7 DVD, send the new version off to the press, and begin distribution all over again—at least until the next security hole?

Frankly, I find the whole scenario preposterous. Microsoft should not have to foot the bill for 3rd party vendors and developers. They should have to make their operating system compatible with optioning for alternatives such as Opera and Firefox and Safari—and they’ve done that. But monopoly or not, they shouldn’t have to market their competitors’ software, too. I’d even go so far as to say that if Opera and other developers are that unhappy with Microsoft’s decision—then they should develop an alternative operating system to compete with Windows 7. Then, they can happily include their selected web browser. Then, when their own competitors haul them into court and force them to redistribute other browser versions, they’ll know how it is for Microsoft.

But if they’re going to force Microsoft to bow to the demands of 3rd party developers, then I had better see the same thing done with Apple—which governs with a far tighter fist than even Microsoft—and then with all of the Linux distributions, such as Ubunto, Red Hat, and all the rest. Anything less, and they’ll have lost a great deal of respect in my view.

I mean, I’m the first to admit that in most areas I’m against Microsoft’s business practices and public debacles. Believe me, I’m not a huge fan of Microsoft sometimes—or a lot of the time, actually. But on this particular issue, it’s clear that their in their right, and I support their decision.

Which brings me back to the caveat I mentioned earlier.

If they exclude Internet Explorer, I’m really curious how the end-user will be able to download and install an alternative browser. You almost have to have a browser to download other browsers.

One option that I think would be acceptable and actually work is the built-in Windows Update application. All Microsoft would need to do is include some sort of linkage in the application that would take a person to listing of alternative browsers, and then allow the end-user to select one and install it via Windows Update. And that would be the extent of Microsoft’s obligation to 3rd party web browser developers.

So what do you think?