Chrome Overtakes Firefox Globally for First Time(gs.statcounter.com)
gs.statcounter.com
Chrome Overtakes Firefox Globally for First Time
http://gs.statcounter.com/press/chrome-overtakes-firefox-globally-for-first-time
114 comments
Firefox has improved a lot since Firefox 3.6. Firefox 3.6 was released on 2010-01-21. Firefox 8.0 was released on 2011-11-08. (Chrome 14 was released on 2011-09-16.)
I suggest comparing the latest Firefox (8) with the latest Chrome (15).
(Disclosure: I get paid for working on the engine of Firefox.)
I suggest comparing the latest Firefox (8) with the latest Chrome (15).
(Disclosure: I get paid for working on the engine of Firefox.)
Oops, rereading my post... it was highly ambiguous.
What I meant to say is that in all tests on web sites that I frequent Firefox 3.6 is better (both in terms of speed and memory) than Chromium 14 (which is why I do not understand that everybody says it's faster).
What I meant to say is that in all tests on web sites that I frequent Firefox 3.6 is better (both in terms of speed and memory) than Chromium 14 (which is why I do not understand that everybody says it's faster).
Chrome has already overtake even IE in South America: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-sa-monthly-201011-201111
Sadly, Microsoft's Internet Explorer still maintains a strong lead. IE10 seems to be quite solid, but it will be available only for Windows 7 and 8 (and not before mid-2012).
IE8 will be around for years because XP can't get an IE9/10 upgrade. It looks like combined IE6 & IE7 are around 6.5% in North America. IE6 is around 1%. Being able to stop supporting IE6/IE7 is still huge. Yesterday I noticed that this map app no longer supports IE7.
http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa
"Sorry, you are running an old version of Internet Explorer which is not supported. For more information please visit here "
Link: http://map.itoworld.com/ie-error.html
http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa
"Sorry, you are running an old version of Internet Explorer which is not supported. For more information please visit here "
Link: http://map.itoworld.com/ie-error.html
Google has also dropped support for IE7 as of August this year (for apps at least): http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/our-plans-to-support-m...
Despite loving Firefox I see this as a good thing. Firefox has always been the hobbyist/technical person's browser. Chrome is a slick experience aimed at the end-user.
Personally, I'll be using Firefox with its fantastic tweakability and addons, but anything which causes there to be multiple major browsers is good, because it means people have more incentive to create standards and stick to them.
Personally, I'll be using Firefox with its fantastic tweakability and addons, but anything which causes there to be multiple major browsers is good, because it means people have more incentive to create standards and stick to them.
Firefox has always been the hobbyist/technical person's browser. Chrome is a slick experience aimed at the end-user.
I'm not sure. I think it's the opposite. Most end-users won't really know or care what browser they are using, but they do care what their hobbyist/technical friends/colleagues/kids use, because those are "the experts" so they know what's best.
Chrome had very significant uptake among those, and one of the reasons for the very steep growth in its market-share is that this "trickles down" to lesser experienced users. It's also the biggest problem for Firefox, because it gained its market-share in exactly the same manner.
And for the users that were impervious to this, bundling deals like with Skype and Flash are also obvious big wins over IE and Firefox.
I'd be curious what features of Chrome make you believe its a more slick experience for the end user as compared to Firefox.
I'm not sure. I think it's the opposite. Most end-users won't really know or care what browser they are using, but they do care what their hobbyist/technical friends/colleagues/kids use, because those are "the experts" so they know what's best.
Chrome had very significant uptake among those, and one of the reasons for the very steep growth in its market-share is that this "trickles down" to lesser experienced users. It's also the biggest problem for Firefox, because it gained its market-share in exactly the same manner.
And for the users that were impervious to this, bundling deals like with Skype and Flash are also obvious big wins over IE and Firefox.
I'd be curious what features of Chrome make you believe its a more slick experience for the end user as compared to Firefox.
Mostly the lack of options, and the way the updates don't get in your way.
Firefox gives you a lot more power, but everything you can do in it beyond the basics gives you the possibility of things going wrong.
So you can install Tabmix Plus, but that gives you a wall of tab options that can leave you wondering how to find things. You can install NoScript, and be left wondering why half of your web pages don't work any more.
When it comes to "plain Firefox with nothing installed" and "plain Chrome, with nothing installed" I suspect they're about as easy to use.
Firefox gives you a lot more power, but everything you can do in it beyond the basics gives you the possibility of things going wrong.
So you can install Tabmix Plus, but that gives you a wall of tab options that can leave you wondering how to find things. You can install NoScript, and be left wondering why half of your web pages don't work any more.
When it comes to "plain Firefox with nothing installed" and "plain Chrome, with nothing installed" I suspect they're about as easy to use.
When the Flash installer bundles Chrome, is the user's default browser reset to Chrome? Assuming Chrome auto-imported all their bookmarks from IE or Firefox, some Chrome users might not even know they are using a different browser.
http://www.salsitasoft.com/blog/2011/09/23/wonder-how-chrome...
http://www.salsitasoft.com/blog/2011/09/23/wonder-how-chrome...
But it's also because Google has been making use of its massive amount of ad space to push Chrome, and on top of that taken out ads in actual physical locations too.
Putting aside the layman for the moment, has anyone else found Chrome particularly annoying to use as a power user? There are so many issues, such as the uncustomizable download bar (can't even have it autohide!), the inability to fine-tune history/cache/etc. deletion, inabilility to set filetype-specific download settings, and so on.
And Firefox isn't that slow in its latest incarnations.
And Firefox isn't that slow in its latest incarnations.
Yes, I switched back to Firefox for Pentadactyl, a complete vim-like environment in the browser. I tried all of the vim extensions for Chrome, but Chrome just doesn't expose enough (any) internal APIs to implement Pentadactyl.
Chrome extensions are limited to modifying the current page and displaying an extension icon. They can't modify the browser itself. (Although no extension system will ever compete with Emacs for fully modifying the host application, Firefox does a decent job.)
Chrome extensions are limited to modifying the current page and displaying an extension icon. They can't modify the browser itself. (Although no extension system will ever compete with Emacs for fully modifying the host application, Firefox does a decent job.)
Unfortunately for me, I have thousands of bookmarks and for some reason that makes Pentadactyl awfully slow. I don't know what to do, as I start Firefox simply opening a website will take twenty seconds before Pentadactyl lets me type. Chrome is always very smooth experience. Pentadactyl is not. I'd use Pentadactyl if it actually worked right. I'm not happy with its performance.
OK. Can I ask what you use for bookmarking and what type of urls you bookmark?
I have a few thousand bookmarks in Delicious, but I've nearly stopped bookmarking altogether. I noticed that I almost never look up bookmarks later, so I've started keeping really important urls in org-mode and discarding everything else. Google is good enough for most recall. For everything else, org-mode reminds me that the bookmarks exist which I tended to forget with Delicious.
I have a few thousand bookmarks in Delicious, but I've nearly stopped bookmarking altogether. I noticed that I almost never look up bookmarks later, so I've started keeping really important urls in org-mode and discarding everything else. Google is good enough for most recall. For everything else, org-mode reminds me that the bookmarks exist which I tended to forget with Delicious.
I for one, just use Firefox's built in bookmarks.
And I bookmark everything, photos/videos I like, posts that have a nice quote, pages I'll read in after I'm done with dinner, random corners of the internet, threads I know will get pushed back a dozen pages by the morning, whatever.
Google is fine for most recall, as long as what you're looking for isn't in the darkweb (like my dozens of achive.org bookmarks), but why bother with Google, extra steps, extra friction.
Side effect of the awesome bar and compulsive bookmarking though: I rarely have more than a dozen tabs open because picking up where I left off has so little burden.
And yeah I do end up with thousands of bookmarks I probably won't even use again, but it doesn't interfere with anything.
Google is fine for most recall, as long as what you're looking for isn't in the darkweb (like my dozens of achive.org bookmarks), but why bother with Google, extra steps, extra friction.
Side effect of the awesome bar and compulsive bookmarking though: I rarely have more than a dozen tabs open because picking up where I left off has so little burden.
And yeah I do end up with thousands of bookmarks I probably won't even use again, but it doesn't interfere with anything.
I feel like half my bookmarks are the articles of HN submissions while I then get to march guilt-free into the comments page because I'll just read the actually article when I get a chance, darn it! I'm a busy guy!
> I rarely have more than a dozen tabs open because picking up where I left off has so little burden.
Me too. I will never understand people who complain about Firefox (or any other browser) getting slow when they have 50 tabs open. If you had 50 physical documents on your desk, wouldn't you put away at least 40 of them in a neat stack elsewhere? Just having them all spread out in front of me would give me a headache.
And yes, I also end up with thousands of bookmarks in a very complicated hierarchy. Sometimes this makes the Bookmark manager crawl to a halt.
Me too. I will never understand people who complain about Firefox (or any other browser) getting slow when they have 50 tabs open. If you had 50 physical documents on your desk, wouldn't you put away at least 40 of them in a neat stack elsewhere? Just having them all spread out in front of me would give me a headache.
And yes, I also end up with thousands of bookmarks in a very complicated hierarchy. Sometimes this makes the Bookmark manager crawl to a halt.
One can also forget the bookmarks if they're local to you, as in Firefox. Plus they're backed up through Sync. This just in case when you can no longer rely on Delicious, or Google for that matter.
Incredible add-on.
This article inspired me to try Opera again. But now 10 seconds spent in the Pentadactyl quick-start guide have made it clear that I'll be back on Firefox after being a dedicated Chrome user for at least four years.
This article inspired me to try Opera again. But now 10 seconds spent in the Pentadactyl quick-start guide have made it clear that I'll be back on Firefox after being a dedicated Chrome user for at least four years.
The sole reason I stick to Firefox as my primary browser (despite Chrome appearing to hog less memory) is because of the TabMixPlus extension (which allows multiple layers of tabs). I frequently have >10 tabs - and at times, 25+ tabs - open, and Chrome is terrible when it comes to tab management.
Are you kidding? Chrome is awesome when it comes to tab management. I love that they allow little slivers of tabs, rather than degrading to a clunky arrow button setup when you have too many open.
Plus after closing a tab, the "tabs don't resize until you move the mouse away" thing. And tabs living in the titlebar, so they get Fitts' Law infinite width targets in full screen. So good.
Plus after closing a tab, the "tabs don't resize until you move the mouse away" thing. And tabs living in the titlebar, so they get Fitts' Law infinite width targets in full screen. So good.
Not to pick on this item in particular, but this seems to be another instance of difference between "functionality" versus "aesthetic".
One set of users finds that Chrome "looks better". (Although, personally, I not infrequently differ from these opinions.)
Another set of users find that Firefox "behaves better" and/or is "more customizable".
I find myself more in the latter camp. While I greatly appreciate some of Chrome/Chromium's technical points, I find that both with its UI and with Google web properties, the designers are running amok. Unituitive and minimally discoverable widgets and behaviors. Common "power user" functionality disabled (anyone juggling several items/contexts should, in my opinion, rather value most recently used (MRU) ordering in tab cycling).
(As a comparative example, the "breaking" of Alt-Tab in Ubuntu Unity is somewhat analogous; I want a one keystroke (or key-pair-stroke) step to get back to my last context, whatever fricking program was running it.)
To the specific point in the parent, minimal tab size can be adjusted in Firefox (Google up the relevant setting accessible via about:config .)
More generally, Firefox lets me control how I used web resources. Chrome, less so, and Google seems to be moving in the direction of further and further slotting the user into their desired experience. (Sound familiar?)
As for extensions, the Firefox extension ecosphere I still find navigable (although it does appear to be suffering; making and maintaining an extension does not appear to be a particularly rewarding experience). The Google ecosphere I've mostly given up on, but when I take the occasional glimpse it still appears to be, viewed in the large, opaque and poorly organized and/or presented.
So... I keep my Chrome installation clean and use it for "secure browsing" to a limited set of properties.
I use an extended Firefox for tackling the larger, hairy web.
(And Opera to further segregate a few other items.)
One set of users finds that Chrome "looks better". (Although, personally, I not infrequently differ from these opinions.)
Another set of users find that Firefox "behaves better" and/or is "more customizable".
I find myself more in the latter camp. While I greatly appreciate some of Chrome/Chromium's technical points, I find that both with its UI and with Google web properties, the designers are running amok. Unituitive and minimally discoverable widgets and behaviors. Common "power user" functionality disabled (anyone juggling several items/contexts should, in my opinion, rather value most recently used (MRU) ordering in tab cycling).
(As a comparative example, the "breaking" of Alt-Tab in Ubuntu Unity is somewhat analogous; I want a one keystroke (or key-pair-stroke) step to get back to my last context, whatever fricking program was running it.)
To the specific point in the parent, minimal tab size can be adjusted in Firefox (Google up the relevant setting accessible via about:config .)
More generally, Firefox lets me control how I used web resources. Chrome, less so, and Google seems to be moving in the direction of further and further slotting the user into their desired experience. (Sound familiar?)
As for extensions, the Firefox extension ecosphere I still find navigable (although it does appear to be suffering; making and maintaining an extension does not appear to be a particularly rewarding experience). The Google ecosphere I've mostly given up on, but when I take the occasional glimpse it still appears to be, viewed in the large, opaque and poorly organized and/or presented.
So... I keep my Chrome installation clean and use it for "secure browsing" to a limited set of properties.
I use an extended Firefox for tackling the larger, hairy web.
(And Opera to further segregate a few other items.)
I'm with bvi -- I can't live without tabmixplus and multirow tabs. I'm not sure what's awesome about Chrome tab management over what you've said. Firefox has tabs in the titlebar and they do that "tabs don't resize until you move the mouse away" thing -- so what's left?
Heh, I hate that "feature", mostly because I can't see the titles of the tabs when I have like 30 open and I have to cycle through them to find them.
By the way, Firefox also has the "tab doesn't resize or move until you move the mouse away", and it's pretty useful indeed...
Chrome has the best "Incognito" mode, though... after Opera's "Private tab" feature, of course :-).
By the way, Firefox also has the "tab doesn't resize or move until you move the mouse away", and it's pretty useful indeed...
Chrome has the best "Incognito" mode, though... after Opera's "Private tab" feature, of course :-).
You can do that with Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/custom-tab-wi...
(It used to be an about:config setting, but apparently it's now handled by UI CSS, so you could use a CSS file instead of the addon if you wanted)
(It used to be an about:config setting, but apparently it's now handled by UI CSS, so you could use a CSS file instead of the addon if you wanted)
[deleted]
As a user that cannot live without vertical tabs, Chrome just does not bring home the bacon.
Try UniPress Emacs on the NeWS window system! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HyperTIESAuthoring.jpg
try Tree style tab (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...) ... it's pretty awesome: http://qaa.ath.cx/manytabs.png
I don't know what you mean with power user? I am a web developer and satisfied with the developer tools.
I also surf a lot more than the average user and i use the default Chrome settings. Middle click and Tabs are everything i need.
What you are talking about, doesn't sound like a lot. I don't download much and everything get's straight to my download folder. But you are right about this one, not very customizable. Is there no api for an extension?
I also surf a lot more than the average user and i use the default Chrome settings. Middle click and Tabs are everything i need.
What you are talking about, doesn't sound like a lot. I don't download much and everything get's straight to my download folder. But you are right about this one, not very customizable. Is there no api for an extension?
Yeah, I used Chrome for a while and have switched back to Firefox. The latest versions of Firefox are much faster, Chrome seems to have lost the speed advantage it had for a bit. Chrome didn't seem to have any better memory usage either. Given that Firefox is much more customizable and has more extensions it's clearly the best browsing experience for me now.
Of course. Chrome isn't really good for power users due to the less-powerful extension setups (can't even do true ad blocking). And it's of much less interest to companies due to the per-user installation setup and not being self-contained (it relies on the host OS for encryption, proxy handling, etc).
Chrome has had a system installer for years: http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=11...
I'm also not sure what you mean by "not being self-contained." Chrome relies on OS subsystems where appropriate because it simplifies management and provides a consistent user experience--that's why we use the OS certificate store and proxy configuration settings. We've also seen quite a bit of enterprise uptake because Chrome is the only browser that provides full centralized management on all supported platforms (via Windows group policy, Puppet, etc.).
I'm also not sure what you mean by "not being self-contained." Chrome relies on OS subsystems where appropriate because it simplifies management and provides a consistent user experience--that's why we use the OS certificate store and proxy configuration settings. We've also seen quite a bit of enterprise uptake because Chrome is the only browser that provides full centralized management on all supported platforms (via Windows group policy, Puppet, etc.).
> OS certificate store and proxy configuration settings
these things are awesome! firefox just doesn't work with most sites on my company's intranet (particularly with authentication), but when i use chrome, everything just works.
these things are awesome! firefox just doesn't work with most sites on my company's intranet (particularly with authentication), but when i use chrome, everything just works.
that sounds odd. details?
Just guessing here, but it's pretty common for enterprises to set up a lot of configuration via some sort of centralized policy mechanism. So, you'll have custom certs and a proxy PAC pushed at the system level via GPO or Puppet. If a browser (or any application) re-implements these features entirely, it won't pick up any of that context.
> And it's of much less interest to companies due to the per-user installation setup and not being self-contained (it relies on the host OS for encryption, proxy handling, etc).
I don't run an IT department, but the self-updating browser seems like a pretty good win. Doubly so when it's very secure.
I don't run an IT department, but the self-updating browser seems like a pretty good win. Doubly so when it's very secure.
[deleted]
> Putting aside the layman for the moment, has anyone else found Chrome particularly annoying to use as a power user?
As a power user I don't know (I don't even consider it), but as a developer I see my colleagues struggling with Chrome's over-aggressive cache every day, and it truly boggle's my mind that Google's developers, with their roots in the web, still provide no way for chrome to be sane cache-wise. The bloody thing caches more aggressively than Internet Explorer, getting it to release cached files is an exercise in frustration and you can not trust that it's done so without checking the actual code it's downloaded in the devtools.
As a power user I don't know (I don't even consider it), but as a developer I see my colleagues struggling with Chrome's over-aggressive cache every day, and it truly boggle's my mind that Google's developers, with their roots in the web, still provide no way for chrome to be sane cache-wise. The bloody thing caches more aggressively than Internet Explorer, getting it to release cached files is an exercise in frustration and you can not trust that it's done so without checking the actual code it's downloaded in the devtools.
If you click the gear in the bottom right corner of web inspector, there's an option to disable the cache.
Reminds me of my frustration some months back with its caching of favicons -- amongst other things. Wasted a bit of time troubleshooting my configuration before figuring out that Chrome was simply refusing to flush the favicon from its cache.
hold shift when you refresh to do a hard refresh.
As a power user, I really appreciate Chromium's command line arguments. --user-agent is vastly simpler than anything else. I don't use Chromium myself, but it does get pulled out whenever someone needs a "legacy" browser.
It's true that Firefox is much more extensible and has way better extensions. Like you, I also hate the download manager in Chrome. However, the single feature that makes me try to use Chrome above anything is it's sync features. They are just too good. Sync happens instantly (in my eyes at least) no matter how many computer I'm using Chrome on, and that's just perfect for my workflow. Also, incognito is much more easy to use than Firefox's version..
Firefox's Sync synchronizes more frequently now than it did a few releases ago. If it doesn't synchronize fast enough for you, power users can always open about:config and fuddle with the services.sync preferences. services.sync.syncInterval is the one controlling the default interval (in milliseconds).
While I'm writing this, I should also point out that browser sync is a great example of how Mozilla and Google take a different approach to solving the same problem. Firefox's sync encrypts all data locally using a cryptographically secure randomly-generated key then uploads it to Mozilla's servers. Chrome's sync, by contrast, only encrypts passwords locally by default, leaving bits like your browsing history unencrypted on Google's servers. Chrome does have an option to encrypt everything, but you have to enable it in the preferences. (Firefox has no option to disable client-side encryption.) Even when you enable client-side encryption in Chrome, your data is encrypted with your Google password. This is less secure than Mozilla's approach because 1) your password likely isn't sufficiently complex or random 2) Google sees your password periodically (e.g. when you log in to Google services), meaning they possess the key to unlock your data. With Firefox Sync, Mozilla never sees your private key, so there is no way for them to see your data. Ever.
Google's business model means they have an inherent interest in your synced/private data. Mozilla has no such interest in it. Therefore, Mozilla locks the door and throws away the key.
While I'm writing this, I should also point out that browser sync is a great example of how Mozilla and Google take a different approach to solving the same problem. Firefox's sync encrypts all data locally using a cryptographically secure randomly-generated key then uploads it to Mozilla's servers. Chrome's sync, by contrast, only encrypts passwords locally by default, leaving bits like your browsing history unencrypted on Google's servers. Chrome does have an option to encrypt everything, but you have to enable it in the preferences. (Firefox has no option to disable client-side encryption.) Even when you enable client-side encryption in Chrome, your data is encrypted with your Google password. This is less secure than Mozilla's approach because 1) your password likely isn't sufficiently complex or random 2) Google sees your password periodically (e.g. when you log in to Google services), meaning they possess the key to unlock your data. With Firefox Sync, Mozilla never sees your private key, so there is no way for them to see your data. Ever.
Google's business model means they have an inherent interest in your synced/private data. Mozilla has no such interest in it. Therefore, Mozilla locks the door and throws away the key.
No, it doesn't. Net application's stats, which are much more realistic, are here: http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri...
IE 53% Firefox 22% Chrome 18% Safari 5% Opera 2%
IE 53% Firefox 22% Chrome 18% Safari 5% Opera 2%
I looked into Net Apps vs Statcounter a couple of years back and found the opposite to be true. From my notes (so may be a little out of date on figures):
--------- Stats Counter: Stats are based on aggregate data collected by StatCounter on a sample exceeding 4 billion pageviews per month collected from across the StatCounter network of more than 3 million websites. Stats are updated and made available every 4 hours, however are subject to quality assurance testing and revision for 7 days from publication.
Net Applications: Accumulates data from 160 million monthly visitors to its network of hosted websites that collect statistics. The average traffic for a HitsLink customer is just over 1000 page views per day ------
On sample size Net Apps are not nearly as good nor do they have many foreign market users to give a true global picture. It was not until 2010 that Net apps weighted by country population figures which skewed their results heavily to the US market share. And it has been alleged their stats are for sale.
--------- Stats Counter: Stats are based on aggregate data collected by StatCounter on a sample exceeding 4 billion pageviews per month collected from across the StatCounter network of more than 3 million websites. Stats are updated and made available every 4 hours, however are subject to quality assurance testing and revision for 7 days from publication.
Net Applications: Accumulates data from 160 million monthly visitors to its network of hosted websites that collect statistics. The average traffic for a HitsLink customer is just over 1000 page views per day ------
On sample size Net Apps are not nearly as good nor do they have many foreign market users to give a true global picture. It was not until 2010 that Net apps weighted by country population figures which skewed their results heavily to the US market share. And it has been alleged their stats are for sale.
Net application's stats are not realistic at all, they are very US-centric. So if you compare them with statcounter stats for the US, you'll notice they are pretty similar http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-US-monthly-201011-201111
IE: 50% Firefox: 20% Chrome: 17%
Another good source are wikipedia stats which are pretty global too and closer to statcounter than netmarket, here are the stats for October 2011:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2011-10/Squ...
IE: 50% Firefox: 20% Chrome: 17%
Another good source are wikipedia stats which are pretty global too and closer to statcounter than netmarket, here are the stats for October 2011:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2011-10/Squ...
firefox/mozilla was essentially 'funded' by google search(the search bar built-in)? wish it the best, as firebug is my favorite.
Firebug is gradually being phased out in favor of built-in developer tools (which is nice, because Firebug is one of the things making Firefox slow). There's been lots of blogging about those lately, just check out a Nightly/Aurora Firefox build.
its mainly funded by the startup homepage in fact which goes to firefox customized google search
"Microsoft's Internet Explorer still maintains a strong lead globally with 40.63%."
"In the US Internet Explorer continues to perform strongly and is maintaining market share at 50.66%"
I am very surprised to see that IE is so much stronger in the US. I always thought IE was strong in Asia and that that lead to its high market share. Does anyone have a theory as to why IE is stronger in the US than in the rest of the world?
"In the US Internet Explorer continues to perform strongly and is maintaining market share at 50.66%"
I am very surprised to see that IE is so much stronger in the US. I always thought IE was strong in Asia and that that lead to its high market share. Does anyone have a theory as to why IE is stronger in the US than in the rest of the world?
It's interesting, if you look at the Worldwide numbers, Chrome seems to be on a steady progression. But if you look at North America or USA, you see that both Firefox and Chrome had a fairly significant dip in the last set of numbers, while IE had a fairly significant uptick.
Yeah, market share numbers are completely different by country. Compare Germany and South Korea, say.
I too am a Chrome convert and loved FireFox in its day (mainly because of its development tools), but its rampant memory leaks drove me away. While Chrome's dev tools aren't quite as robust as FireFox's, they're getting there very very quickly.
On a side note, I'm tired of having to design and develop around IE. All versions have the promise of adhering to modern web standards, but with each release, they tend to fall short of those promises.
On a side note, I'm tired of having to design and develop around IE. All versions have the promise of adhering to modern web standards, but with each release, they tend to fall short of those promises.
May I suggest you to delete your Firefox profile folder (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_folder_-_Firefox) and give it another try? They have corrected tons of problems, really.
IE10 is pretty solid, but you're right, we'll have to develop and design for older versions for a long time.
IE10 is pretty solid, but you're right, we'll have to develop and design for older versions for a long time.
What's lacking in Chrome's dev tools compared to Firefox? Are we talking native dev tools, or including Firebug and etc in the Firefox camp. Its been my experience that all these valuable extensions get performance hits more and more as Firefox has begun to frown lately, further adding to the decline in quality UX.
The fact that Chrome developer tools are built-in and seamlessly integrated is what makes it my primary.
The fact that Chrome developer tools are built-in and seamlessly integrated is what makes it my primary.
[deleted]
Not only that but making sure your work is backwards compatible with older versions of IE is no fun.
Back when I used Windows, the memory leaks in Firefox were one of the main reasons I switched to Chrome on the day it came out and never looked back.
I'm not sure if that's still a problem, or if that's a problem on other platforms, but now I use Chromium on Linux and I've never had any major issues. (Except sometimes when Flash is involved, but this is Hacker News).
I'm not sure if that's still a problem, or if that's a problem on other platforms, but now I use Chromium on Linux and I've never had any major issues. (Except sometimes when Flash is involved, but this is Hacker News).
When Chrome introduced plug-ins like Adblock, I started to consider switching. Now I'm on Chromium. And it's good.
And I remember back then when firefox was not even 1.0, and was replacing the horrible browsing experience on Linux on Konqueror, with a delightful one (with tabs!).
I am glad to see how far we've come.
I am glad to see how far we've come.
I actually liked Konqueror, but it might have been a later version than what you had.
Konqueror did a lot of things right which still aren't by any other browser.
E.g. it had okayish system integration while other browsers have it awful. It displayed site favicons in task panel, instead of boasting its own. It was a birthplace of webkit.
E.g. it had okayish system integration while other browsers have it awful. It displayed site favicons in task panel, instead of boasting its own. It was a birthplace of webkit.
> Konqueror did a lot of things right which still aren't by any other browser.
More importantly they did something right which is in most other browsers, their renderer!
More importantly they did something right which is in most other browsers, their renderer!
Probably. At the time, the university machines had 256 Ram (it was before Gmail), and konqueror managed to hog a lot of its memory. Firefox would ocupy 30 MB Ram with 5 tabs, so it made things a lot smoother.
I use firefox because I believe in the work of Mozilla foundation. Chrome, IE, Safari are all company products and those companies objective are tuned to increasing their stock value. Yes, they make very good products but Mozilla makes a good philosophy and I trust them to value privacy, quality and open source. Firefox might be slower than chrome and not that beautiful but it is made with a mindset that is similar to mine.
This may sound too political for a software choice decision but hey, I LIKE MOZILLA FOUNDATION and their products.
This may sound too political for a software choice decision but hey, I LIKE MOZILLA FOUNDATION and their products.
Same here. Particularly since Chrome's stripped-down approach has given way to bundled cruft and the competition has pushed Mozilla to improve dramatically.
So I'm glad Chrome exists and I hope it continues to do so, but they're not moving in a direction that remotely interests me.
So I'm glad Chrome exists and I hope it continues to do so, but they're not moving in a direction that remotely interests me.
I have to agree with this since Mozilla is an organization that defends users' rights on the web. Firefox is just as fast or faster than Chrome in certain testing so try it out without heavy addons (like firebug) and try it with a fresh profile.
In any case competition is good. I don't think we'd benefit from a purely trident or webkit or gecko world.
In any case competition is good. I don't think we'd benefit from a purely trident or webkit or gecko world.
The problem is, it's pretty useless without Firebug compared to Chrome, at least for me -- much of my browser use is for web development.
(this may change with the built-in debug tools set for Firefox 10.0 -- let us hope)
I'm also a bit perturbed by the fact that Mozilla has always touted extensions as a key feature of Firefox... only to say you should disable them all if you want good performance.
I'm also a bit perturbed by the fact that Mozilla has always touted extensions as a key feature of Firefox... only to say you should disable them all if you want good performance.
A big part of the built-in tools isn't to replace Firebug. It's to provide APIs for Firebug (and other addons!) to be able to do what they do even better.
Addons are loading arbitrary code into your browser though, so there is a potential for perf impact. We're looking at that too, with out-of-process addons (see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/sdk/1.3/dev...).
Addons don't in general hurt perf, but it is definitely possible for them to. Firebug, in particular, disables the JIT so it can debug it, making Javascript execution painfully slow, and thus the browser is slow too, since large parts are written in JS. Firebug isn't to blame though; we just haven't provided them with APIs to do better yet.
Addons are loading arbitrary code into your browser though, so there is a potential for perf impact. We're looking at that too, with out-of-process addons (see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/sdk/1.3/dev...).
Addons don't in general hurt perf, but it is definitely possible for them to. Firebug, in particular, disables the JIT so it can debug it, making Javascript execution painfully slow, and thus the browser is slow too, since large parts are written in JS. Firebug isn't to blame though; we just haven't provided them with APIs to do better yet.
85% of Mozilla's revenue comes from Google.
http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/28/mozilla-extends-lucrative-d...
http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/28/mozilla-extends-lucrative-d...
Your point being? From your own post:
“We develop our product and technical direction as part of an open process unrelated to the search relationship with Google. We talk to Google about the parts of the product that offer Google services (i.e., the Firefox Start Page) and the services they provide, like anti-phishing. Otherwise Google does not have any special relationship to Mozilla project activities.”
“We develop our product and technical direction as part of an open process unrelated to the search relationship with Google. We talk to Google about the parts of the product that offer Google services (i.e., the Firefox Start Page) and the services they provide, like anti-phishing. Otherwise Google does not have any special relationship to Mozilla project activities.”
Agreed. On the other hand, popularity of Chrome helps Mozilla not to relax and to push forward.
> Firefox might be slower than chrome
Firefox 8.0.1 is really fast now it's 8.0.1 that's the best update they have done.
Firefox 8.0.1 is really fast now it's 8.0.1 that's the best update they have done.
Same here. It's also a big reason why I use Debian.
I assume you never buy anything from a company. It pointless to try to prop up products despite it being worse. Open source project will not success in the long run unless it is better. Firefox being better at protecting privacy is a reason to use it, but thinking Mozilla values privacy because it is a non profit is not a great reason.
I assume you never buy anything from a company
You can certainly do business with companies, while showing preference for an organization that shares your values whenever such an organization exists.
but thinking Mozilla values privacy because it is a non profit is not a great reason.
I think it is more that some people (including me) think Mozilla values privacy because they flat out say they do and then they have a consistent track record of supporting privacy. The fact they are non-profit does make it slightly easier to take their statements at face value, but it is their track record that really demonstrates it.
You can certainly do business with companies, while showing preference for an organization that shares your values whenever such an organization exists.
but thinking Mozilla values privacy because it is a non profit is not a great reason.
I think it is more that some people (including me) think Mozilla values privacy because they flat out say they do and then they have a consistent track record of supporting privacy. The fact they are non-profit does make it slightly easier to take their statements at face value, but it is their track record that really demonstrates it.
Firefox's track record in regard to privacy is a great reason to use. What I don't like is the support of products based on vague values that can't be tested. What does it really mean that Mozilla only cares about the web and not profits? This is a silly as using Android because it is "open". The way google uss open is kind of meaningless.
Of course I buy things from companies. I just say that corporate agenda from Google (selling ads), Apple (selling an aesthetically and technological experience) and Microsoft (simply money) is different than the Mozilla foundation objective which is the betterment of the Web. Mozilla does not value privacy because it is a non-profit but because it is an extremely open non-profit, you can have access to all the code, meeting notes, decisions and thus know for sure where it is going. Firefox might not be fashionable anymore and the cool kids might be on chrome but it still the product that value my values, and that is enough.
"but thinking Mozilla values privacy because it is a non profit is not a great reason."
Mozilla's entire business model isn't based around getting to know you or you habits better. Google has an inherent and fundamental financial interest in being able to follow what you do browsing day to day.
Mozilla's entire business model isn't based around getting to know you or you habits better. Google has an inherent and fundamental financial interest in being able to follow what you do browsing day to day.
Values are a feature of a product just like any other. Of course a product can compete on values.
You can advertise the values of the company but if you do then those values better show up in the product. If the values don't, then what is the point?
You can advertise the features of a product, but if you do then those features better show up in the product. If the features don't, then what's the point?
there is one big factor why i use chrome over firefox. and that is the auto-complete as i type in things in the address bar. once i got used to that on chrome, i can never get back to firefox, no matter how much they have improved elsewhere. hope this serves as some good feedback to mozilla devs.
Funny, the url bar is the biggest reason I want to go back to Firefox. Chrome is frustratingly bad at completing URLs from my history. I can only assume that it's somewhat intentional since Google wants you to search rather than navigate directly, but it's the single biggest pain point in Chrome for me.
auto-complete is there in Firefox, it is just not there by default.
good, then question is, will they ever make it by default?
I'd rather they make it as a simple enough choice (a check box or something). There are privacy implications of auto-complete and I personally believe Firefox is accurate in not enabling it by default.
For my use, I measured my memory usage on both Firefox and Chrome (with whatever little number of tabs I keep open daily), and I found that the memory usage on both Firefox and Chrome is exactly the same. So I don't bother with Google and rely on Mozilla.
Does anyone else find Firefox hideous from an aesthetic perspective? I believe in the work Mozilla does, but I can't use Firefox without being distracted by it. Chrome is gorgeous and gets out of my way, allowing me to focus on what I'm doing. I did see some Firefox beta sketches a while back on HN, and they looked similar to Chrome, so hopefully they go that way.
I'm curious what you find "hideous". 3.6 -> 4 was a pretty big overhaul, but I think it looks pretty good. I customize a bit (small buttons, get rid of the search box & home button) and I may be baised.
I'll say that Firefox isn't perfect and there are quirks & oddities with bits of the interface. I'm sure there are bugs for most of them though.
(note: I work at Mozilla on Firefox, so while I'd normally be curious, I'm invested in fixing problems!)
I'll say that Firefox isn't perfect and there are quirks & oddities with bits of the interface. I'm sure there are bugs for most of them though.
(note: I work at Mozilla on Firefox, so while I'd normally be curious, I'm invested in fixing problems!)
Are you using XP or Mac OS? Cause Firefox looks pretty nice with Aero on Vista and 7 - a lot like Chrome, actually...
Mac OS X. Interesting.
Chrome and Firefox take up almost exactly the same amount of vertical space on my system. Except for some minor differences, their UI is almost identical.
Mozilla needs to do more marketing - I seem more ads/posts for Chrome these days, compared to a few years ago when almost every site (that I visited) had a banner saying "Switch to Firefox for a better Web" or smth like that.
Both browsers are good, however I use Firefox since I have all the add-ons I need, and the awesome Awesome Bar, which lets me access my favorite sites or sites I visited recently with a few keystrokes or keywords (I remember a word or two in the URL/title and I can always go back).
I had no luck finding something like that for Chrome, and that's my biggest annoyance - every time I have to bookmark a site (which I always forget), or I have to search for it again through Google. I type a damn keyword and it searches instead of showing me the URL... I have a suspicion that is on purpose, since it leads me to Google.com :-)...
Both browsers are good, however I use Firefox since I have all the add-ons I need, and the awesome Awesome Bar, which lets me access my favorite sites or sites I visited recently with a few keystrokes or keywords (I remember a word or two in the URL/title and I can always go back).
I had no luck finding something like that for Chrome, and that's my biggest annoyance - every time I have to bookmark a site (which I always forget), or I have to search for it again through Google. I type a damn keyword and it searches instead of showing me the URL... I have a suspicion that is on purpose, since it leads me to Google.com :-)...
Unsurprisingly, google has a slightly higher marketing budget than mozilla... :P
All of the talk about giving Firefox a try again... please, someone set up a sane package (PPA?) for Firefox that includes the proper Ubuntu font packages, that will allow me to test the dev releases on my machine. I love Chrome because I get dev builds every other day from their PPA and it just works. I've never had a similar experience when trying to use anything except the distro provided copies of Firefox.
The Firefox PPA that corresponds to the Chrome dev channel is https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/firefox...
I like Firefox for extreme customizability. Nothing matches that and Chrome is nowhere close to it.
free paid pr spam, i don't believe or trust this site.
Why not? Statcounter would have the right information to make this finding.
I love Chrome since I don't have to install external flash player plugin which is kinda annoying. Chrome has a built-in flash player. You don't have to update flash and restart all your browser.
Netscape was pioneer but lost steam later with version wars. Firefox came much later to Mozilla which gave hopes, but performance and memory leaks caused it to never be dominant browser, and it too got into version number war and is loosing.
Webkit has won on smartphone browser war(arm), same is being repeated on Desktop
Webkit has won on smartphone browser war(arm), same is being repeated on Desktop
The Awesomebar keeps me using Firefox. Is there an equivalent for Chrome?
Every time I read news like this I go back and actually measure rendering times for the pages I frequent together with overall memory consumption.
Every time Firefox comes out on top, but yet somebody everybody thinks it is faster and consumes less memory.
(And I am still using Firefox 3.6.*, and Chromium 14)
Maybe I'm different in my browsing habits, but I find that hard to believe.