Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome Set To Take No. 2 Spot From Firefox

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the who-does-number-two-work-for? dept.

Chrome 585

CWmike writes "Google's Chrome is on the brink of replacing Firefox as the second-most-popular browser, says the Web statistics firm StatCounter, which shows that Chrome will pass Firefox to take the No. 2 spot behind Microsoft's IE no later than December. As of Wednesday, Chrome's global average user share for September was 23.6%, while Firefox's stood at 26.8%. IE, meanwhile, was at 41.7%. The climb of Chrome during 2011 has been astonishing: It has gained eight percentage points since January 2011, representing a 50% increase. During that same period, Firefox has dropped almost four percentage points, a decline of about 13%, while IE has also fallen four points, a 9% dip. That means Chrome is essentially reaping all the defections from Firefox and IE."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Chrome (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558534)

The climb of Chrome during 2011 has been astonishing: It has gained eight percentage point since January 2011, representing a 50% increase.

Well is that really a surprise? Google pushed it really hard in their search engine and YouTube, and pays software developers to include it in their programs like all those toolbars and adware do. Of course it gains matket share so fast as software distributors are pushing it for the money they cain from installing on users computers and Google uses their huge market share to push it.

Re:Chrome (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558650)

Let's not forget that it bundles Flash, an insecure, closed-source plugin, yet is claimed to be an "open" browser.

Re:Chrome (5, Informative)

alendit (1454311) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558786)

[...]yet is claimed to be an "open" browser.

Which Chrome developer, of cause, never did, but hey, don't let the facts stop you from hating!

PROTIP: Chromium - open source, Chrome: closed source, based on Chromium.

Re:Chrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558804)

Since when did Chrome claim to be an open browser? The Chromium project is open source, and it is used to make Chrome, but Chrome itself has never been open source nor has it claimed to be. And the word "open" does not appear anywhere on any of the Google pages describing it.

Re:Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558962)

-1: idiot

Re:Chrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558842)

Seriously, all I saw during the past summer on the tube in London were advertisements for Chrome. Not sure what the big deal was. As history has shown - a browser's popularity is temporary until something else comes along which is 'cooler'. And I have no doubt that something else will.

Re:Chrome (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559006)

And??? Microsoft has even bigger market share, and IE has been consistently losing ground.

Have you ever pondered the possibility that the reason Firefox is slipping is because the project itself has become an unresponsive beast who is now pissing off even its core supporters in the IT industry with its absurd release schedules?

I'm one who recently started using Chrome. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558558)

I use it to wall in Google. Since everyone has put Google+ icons on their sites, Google scripts are running on every page I go to, and I don't like that. (I long ago walled facebook into IE since I don't use either.) But I continue to run Firefox as my primary browser, but now Google is blocked out of everything, well, except super cookies, I imagine.

Just goes to show... (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558564)

Firefox is not losing users because of the new rapid release schedule.

Re:Just goes to show... (4, Insightful)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558626)

chrome has an even faster release schedule and it is actually gaining users at an ridiculous rate.

Re:Just goes to show... (4, Interesting)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558668)

Chrome's silent, background auto-updates don't hurt either. What? You've already installed a new version and I just need to restart the browser? AWESOME *restarts browser, tabs restore* boom, new, updated Chrome.

Re:Just goes to show... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558816)

No, it doesn't work like that. Google has their process always running in the background. It handles the updating process when they're not running, at the cost of having always-on and memory taking process running from the earth's largest advertising corporation.

Re:Just goes to show... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558860)

And adblock and no script doesn't work with this new upgrade.

Ohh, guess it didn't work with the previous one too.

Re:Just goes to show... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558690)

chrome has an even faster release schedule and it is actually gaining users at an ridiculous rate.

But half it's add-ons don't break with each release and performance doesn't decrease each upgrade.

Re:Just goes to show... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558716)

and Firefox has turned into a cheap imitation of Chrome, rather than surviving on it's own strengths, so obviously it's going to bleed users to the competition.

Developers are completely out of touch with the userbase.

Re:Just goes to show... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558682)

No! Of course they must be gaining users! FF will soon be the biggest number out there and all will see how great it is!

There's gonna be some bitchiness going on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558572)

The wee fangirlies won't like it at all.

Time to move on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558578)

I was once a fan of FireFox, but I think it's had its day. WebKit is the way forward.

My experiences. (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558580)

I rather like chrome myself. It's not got all the robust addons of firefox but it's also not as bloated as firefox is now days. I don't have the same memory issues I do with firefox in chrome. I still have firefox installed and use it for a few tasks every now and then that require specialized addons that I can only get reliably in firefox. Though there is a lot of frustration with some addons working with only certain versions of firefox.

Re:My experiences. (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558780)

I've had two major gripes about subtle nuances. Scrolling in chrome is clunky. Yes, I'm sure there are plugins to fix this. I downloaded one and spent 30 minutes not getting settings as good as Firefox without scrolling plugins (which is what I use). There is no option to search for text when I begin typing. I use this all the time and there is no plugin to fix this. These things seem minor, but I scroll on every page I go to use use text search who knows how many times a day.

Re:My experiences. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559026)

Firefox 7 does a lot better on memory use than 4,5,6 did. There are more memory improvements coming with 8 and 9.

I've only ever used a couple of popular add-ons, so I haven't seen much friction there.

It's okay, guys. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558582)

Firefox 4.3--err 7.0 just came out! This is the breath of life that will bring Firefox to the top.

Re:It's okay, guys. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559056)

Me, I'm waiting for 8.0, which is due out next Tuesday... Unless of course I have to work late, in which case I'll just wait until the Thursday afterwards for version 9.

Please, keep using Firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558588)

...if only for preventing giving Google more power/data.

Re:Please, keep using Firefox... (1)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558928)

You've now asked a herd of web-addicted sheep to behave against the will of their omnipresent God(dle).

I'm with firefox exactly because of the same reason (be it against google, webkit, almost-nearly-opensource-ware, or whatever). Sadly this reason counts as a 'feature' only for some of us.

Who f****ng cares? (-1, Offtopic)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558598)

I dont really care which one is on 1st or last?

Who uses the no#1 OS in the world? And who use Apple or Linux? Eh?

What is the point? I use what I like, I happen to like Firefox, I happen to test-run Chrome, IE7,8,9,10,whateverbrowser, opera, Lynx etc...
And I use whatever I find practical for me.

My decision is NEVER based on the number of users worldwide.

Re:Who f****ng cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558638)

Hear, hear. I use Konqueror, and I don't care what anyone else uses.

Re:Who f****ng cares? (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558644)

The problem is that Mozilla's revenue is directly tied to the number of installs (i.e Google searches). If their marketshare goes down, it might as well be the end of Firefox soon. Their CEOs have failed to diversify the revenue in spite of getting paid > 500k/yr.

Re:Who f****ng cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558662)

U caremad?

Re:Who f****ng cares? (5, Insightful)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558676)

Web developers care. They want to support the majority of users and typically will gather statistics and read articles about it. The days when you could cover your bases by testing for IE and Netscape are over. Devs that tested for IE and firefox should consider adding Chrome in order to cover >80% of their users.

Re:Who f****ng cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558810)

Devs that tested for IE and firefox should consider adding Chrome in order to cover >80% of their users.

Browser usage varies drastically depending on who your users are. Corporate users are 90-95% IE from what I've seen. Chrome is maybe at 1%. This is one case where YMMV should be taken very seriously. The aggregate of everyone world-wide is completely meaningless as to what you should be testing for.

Re:Who f****ng cares? (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558680)

The point is that decisions CHANGE the number of users worldwide (the reverse of what you're saying). It's interesting. No one's attempting to convert you to Chrome.

Re:Who f****ng cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558776)

Are you kidding? Every other software I install is trying to convert me to Chrome. :)

Re:Who f****ng cares? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558868)

If you're someone who develops any sort of web property for a living, you care. And that happens to be quite a lot of people.

Unsurprising (1, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558616)

Most people do not care about tracking,add-ons and the like, and Chrome is simply easier to use than IE or Firefox. The minimalistic design is actually a triumph, while IE is a mess - the first time it runs it is simply a PITA, and its home page is an embarrassing barely sfw aesthetic monstrosity.

What I like about Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558632)

Both IE and Chrome are browsers from companies who have a vested interest in changing the Internet. Microsoft tried to make a browser that was tied into the OS and would cause sites to break for everyone else, and who knows what Google's going to twist the browser into by the time they're done. I like that Firefox is just a good, solid product without ulterior motives.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558646)

Firefox has yet to fix the performance and lag issues they introduced in version 4. They're up to version 7 now, supposedly with reduced memory usage - but still the same hang ups and partial freezes. I used to recommend Firefox to everyone, but now I recommend Chrome. And since Chrome has been getting more and more support in terms of extensions, I suspect others are doing the same.

Big Corporate versus Non-Profit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558648)

Given that Firefox is run by an NPO, I'm sort of surprised that it was ever as popular as it was.

If we've learned anything about Apple and MS versus Linux debates, it's clear that marketing is much more important for selling a product than the performance of the actual product. Non-profits can't really afford to advertise.

Firefox is VERY crashy lately (1)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558658)

Not sure why, but the 6.x releases all seem to have a bunch of crash problems. If it weren't for all the plugins I use that can't port to Chrome, I'd seriously consider migrating. It's worst on the Mac ...

Re:Firefox is VERY crashy lately (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559132)

I'm not getting crashes, but memory usage always spins up from about 500MB baseline (with all my tabs open) to over 1.5GB where the window itself becomes unresponsive to the OS. Version 7 claimed it fixed a memory leak, but I still get that behavior.

They need to stop with all the UI updates and new features and fix the bugs in the system. I'd love for it to contain metrics telling me how much CPU or memory the plugins are taking (I have AdBlock Plus, the Java crap, BugMeNot, and maybe 1 or 2 other small ones), in the case that it's not the browser itself. Even if the plugins are to blame, Firefox should have tools & a runtime ecosystem that aids in preventing or reporting bugs.

Re:Firefox is VERY crashy lately (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559148)

Presumably, Google pays double-agent coders to commit bugs to the Firefox codebase and attract more users to Chrome. :-p

I likes mah Chromes (1)

dleemaas (2035220) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558660)

I had been using Chrome for a while, never having used any of the modern versions of Firefox. I had just stuck with IE for much longer than I should have. A few months ago I decided to give Firefox a try, thinking maybe I had missed out on some neat stuff that Firefox people could do that people using Chrome could not. A week later, Firefox decided to start releasing new versions left and right, the first of which made a couple of my vital extensions stop working. That's when I stopped using Firefox. Chrome is simple and straightforward. Chrome works almost exactly how I want it to right out of the box, whereas I had to tweak Firefox and download a couple more extensions. Chrome automatically syncs everything onto my Google account, including extensions, whereas with Firefox I had to setup an account and rig some other stuff so that I could port my extensions from one installation to another. Firefox is great if your a tweakhead, so I imagine it sits better with the Linux crowd; but anymore I just want stuff to work without having to F with it. I should mention that I would never recommend that any Windows user replace IE as their system default browser with either of them. Just us Chrome or Firefox, and let Windows keep IE as the default.

speaking of Firefox... (2)

rjejr (921275) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558694)

So they're up to FF 7.0 now? Mine is 5.0 (according to the About box) and when I click on "Check for Updates" it says Firefox is up to date. Am I really expected to update to 7.0 by going to mozilla.org and downloading a new install? That's never going to happen. I might as well go to Chrome.com. Oh wait, that's been updating automatically in the background. I'ld rather it didn't, but I don't mind a little prodding every now and then like Thunderbird does. Why have a "check for Update" box if they are never going to update but just keep coming out w/ new numbers?

Good news all around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558706)

Teaches Mozilla that their crappy attitudes of late has been destroying their image and browser usage
And it also means less IE users to an extent too.
I personally got a bunch of people to Chrome or Firefox through the years, so I feel happy either way.
Mozilla seem to want to actually destroy themselves again... It's like whoever is in control is completely losing it.

Still, the new push for HTML5 by Microsoft is also promising. Hopefully it doesn't end up becoming lock-in vector #895 attempt, with some sort of direct advantage to the browser such as non-standard features.
But it doesn't seem like they are even doing that considering no plugins in Metro.
Shame it came a little late. If Microsoft had been smart (read, evil) back in the days of early IE, they could have made an application store there and host programs for 3rd parties, setup the whole store business stuff and bam, application store. It'd have probably also not ended up with Microsoft being investigated for bundling IE with Windows since they were equally providing 3rd party access.

Firefox's Memory Hassle (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558720)

I switched to chrome only recently after firefox started taking 1.6GB of RAM while running the latest version, with almost no add-ons installed. It seems many people had issues like this, but it wasn't believed by the Firefox team.

Re:Firefox's Memory Hassle (1)

Qlither (1614211) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558926)


It has been a long running joke with Firefox. The Firefox 7 Beta does seem to be A LOT better on the memory. I have 7 tabs open and it is only using 249mb, it would easily be on 450+ by now on Version 6. I was *this* close to moving to Chrome due to Firefox and its RAM addiction. No crashes in FF7 yet either.

Re:Firefox's Memory Hassle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559080)

I have had memory problems since the Phoenix Beta. And on Mac OS X Firefox is taking up all remaining memory and hanging the system for a few seconds every minute or two. I have 30-80 tabs open though, and it was even worse with my old Windows computer in 2007. Flash may be the main culprit, but Firefox needs to free the memory when you close a tab, and gracefully handle running out of RAM and hard drive space. These are known common occurrences and it is bad software design to not handle these exceptions.

I will have to look into upgrading, or just using it for the DownloadHelper add-on.

It still works in Linux most of the time, but I can't figure out how to upgrade it.

Re:Firefox's Memory Hassle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559014)

Now, open 50 tabs in Chrome and the same ones in Firefox, and tell me which one uses more.

Re:Firefox's Memory Hassle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559058)

Firefox 7 seems to have finally fixed the memory problems.

Why? (2)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558732)

I've never understood why people preferred Chrome to Firefox

Both of them have similar UIs, more or less the same features (if I'm not mistaken, Firefox has more), and they're both reasonably fast. Firefox has a more extensive add-on catalog, more configuration options, and as of Firefox 7 is the fastest browser currently released outside of maybe Opera. Chrome is nice, and I don't mind using it, but I can't think of a single major advantage Chrome has over Firefox that would make people want to switch. The only reason I know of for why my friends are using Chrome is because "it's faster", but as of 7 that's null and void.

Can anybody help me out? I'm not trolling here, I seriously want to know what Chrome has over FF.

Re:Why? (1)

RedHat Rocky (94208) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558824)

If you're less than 25 years old, Chrome is cool. Firefox is not.

Why? Beats the crap out of me.

NOTE: I'm certainly NOT less than 25.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558908)

I like Chrome for its speed of browsing. I get frustrated at the 1/2 to 1 second waits Firefox gives me in browsing. For hardcore web debugging, I always use Firefox though.

I'm 37.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558952)

I'm 17 and I don't get it :/. Normal kids weird me out anyways, always liking things for the most immature reasons.

I'm sure there was a point in time where Chrome was faster than Firefox, but there's really no reason to stick with it anymore. Chrome lets you import Firefox settings, so that might have something to do with it. All we need now in Firefox is a feature to import all of your Chrome settings and people will be switching both ways instead of just one.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559084)

I really love how you insinuate that the driving reason behind browser choice is the social "cool" factor that comes with being young.

Chrome beats the snot out of Firefox right now. It's fast, runs Google's services extremely well(which is what most people use these days), had fully featured synchronization of bookmarks, passwords, extensions, etc. built into the browser before Firefox did (installing an add-on doesn't count), offers the ability to serve notifications for many web services (Gmail and Tweetdeck Chrome, for example), rarely crashes (if it does, its one tab) and is constantly coming out with new features that improve the user experience (built in Flash and PDF reader, along with updating for both).

The reason why more younger people use Chrome and more older people are still with Firefox? It's because the young have no brand loyalty. The minute your browser crashes and forces them to lose their Facebook wall post, they're gone. They want things that just work - they don't care who develops it or what compromises have to be made. The old are more likely to put up with a growing number of problems to stay with something they're comfortable with.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558896)

I switched a few years ago. At the time I was having a lot of trouble with firefox (somewhere around the 2-3 era) and Chrome was a quick solution. It helped that at the time it was very noticeably faster than firefox for me too. I haven't had a reason since to look back.

Re:Why? (1)

Pretzalzz (577309) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558920)

Because Chrome is advertised extensively on TV and firefox is not?

Re:Why? (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559008)

That might have something to do with it. Another part of it would probably be how Google's paying companies to include Chrome installs with every other program you try to install on Windows (thankfully this doesn't happen on Linux due to the way package management usually works). I used to be annoyed at applications asking me to install pointless toolbars and whatnot, but Chrome is actually annoying more as of recently because of this.

Re:Why? (1)

sirsnork (530512) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558972)

The reasons I switched (and switched my family) are below

The biggest one, Chrome doesn't just .... pause.... randomly for no apparent reason for seconds at a time

FF doesn't clear it's download history automatically (at least if you've been upgrading from old versions). This makes it get slower and slower as that grows.

It crashes a LOT more than chrome

It sucks memory like... well I'll let you add something colorful ;). Supposedly better in 7, but it'll get just as bad again in a few versions.

Chrome has the extensions I really care about (adblock and something for tab management)

Chrome doesn't get slower the longer you have it running.

Re:Why? (1)

MrSavage (2127458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559018)

I think that people don't change browsers unless the current one they use becomes clunky. Firefox definitely had issues with how fast it loaded and memory issues with multiple tabs. Chrome was faster. That may have changed but the damage was done.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559042)

Well, here are my reasons:

1. Considerably less memory usage. When Firefox (7, mind you!) starts using more memory than running a Linux VM does, you know the browser has issues. Pro-tip: to reduce Firefox memory usage, run it in a Linux VM. That way you can cap the memory usage via the VM.

2. Considerably faster. And, yes, that's faster than Firefox 7. Note that part of this is just rendering speed or something, Chrome just "feels" faster than Firefox. I'm fairly sure if you carefully benchmarked performance, it isn't, but it sure feels more snappy.

3. Considerably more stable. Firefox 7 apparently fixes plugins working, because I now see the "sad Lego brick" constantly in Firefox.

4. Considerably more stable part II: one tab crashing does not take out the entire browser.

5. Considerably more stable part III: There are still quite a few plugins and extensions that haven't been updated for Firefox 6, let alone 7. If you need to use them, and have a browser that receives security updates - well, you don't use Firefox. Period.

6. Much better developer tools BUILT IN. Firefox's "web console" absolutely kills browser performance and only allows debugging by print statements. However, even keeping that in mind - there are some features that Chrome provides for development - like a graphical view of the DOM and utilities to see how CSS styles are being applied - that Firefox simply does not provide.

7. Much better developer tools, PERIOD. I wonder how many people will see the previous and immediately start shouting "Firebug!"? Well, some bug in Firefox causes the APIs Firebug hooks into to leak memory like a sieve (still!), and even with Firebug working, Chrome's tools are STILL faster and easier to use.

8. The best extensions are available for Chrome too. Love AdBlock Plus? Available for Chrome. Can't live without NoScript? Chrome has NotScripts. Absolutely need Firebug? See reason 7.

And that's just me. I'm sure other people can come up with even more reasons why Chrome is better for them.

Re:Why? (0)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559122)

I don't really think anecdotal evidence is really valid here. I haven't had memory problems with Firefox at all and it feels pretty snappy on here to me (that's the thing: "to me"). Maybe it's an add-on problem or something with Firefox that might add to your memory problems. You can anonymously submit data to Mozilla about your memory now to help them improve performance if you want. It should be in Options -> Advanced -> General.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559074)

Can anybody help me out? I'm not trolling here, I seriously want to know what Chrome has over FF.

It's not about the current landscape of Chrome 14 versus Firefox 7, the user-base started shifting over years ago. I was a stalwart Firefox users for a long time, but I eventually made the jump to Chrome and never looked back because at the time I switched Chrome kicked Firefox's ass all over the schoolyard. Now that FF7 is out I am faced with the question of why should I bother switching back? All the extensions I care about are avaliable to me in Chrome, both are similarly fast, and I never have issues with Chrome.

Re:Why? (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559078)

It's the little things, the ones that you discover by chance. For instance, when I switched to Chrome I realized that when you right click the address bar, you get "paste and search" (Or "paste and go" if it is a URL). Then Mozilla copied it, but I was already Google's prisoner.

Stuff like that, everywhere. It feels almost like going from IE to Firefox all over again.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559100)

This is my personal opinion, FF is slow and is a memory hog. It also crashes a lot. The only thing that FF does better is web debugging, which is done through firebug. Which makes it a developer's browser. Speed wise its bad, both Chrome and IE9 beat it. Security, same thing, both Chrome and IE9 beat it. So whats the point of using it? Good browser has to have speed, reliability, and security. FF loses in all 3 to Chrome. So other than development it has no real use.

Re:Why? (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559106)

Chrome's tab operations - decoupling a tab from a window or set of tabs, dragging them into a new one, etc. - are far, far, faaaaaaaar more seamless than Firefox, which basically refreshes the whole tab (it doesn't reload the page anymore, but it's still a laggy endeavor) The "Each tab and extension is an individual process" aspect of chrome makes it crash free - you can open a site that might run a complex script and not worry about losing any work. Not having to restart the browser after adding extensions is also far preferable, especially when you have tons of tabs open. Then, it just seems faster and more streamlined on certain sites. And the syncing feature(s) are vastly superior and easier to use when compared to Firefox'. Mozilla seems to be content with adding a new annoyance to each new Firefox release - the one that I just noticed today was the annoying "switch to tab" when trying to enter a URL that another tab happened to share. While you can get around this with duplicating or with holding shift, most users won't tolerate 'workaround' solutions. There's also the fact that Chrome just has a few better nice little features - like the search box not being an entire bar while also providing you with useful information such as the number off occurrences on a page and where they all are being listed in the scrollbar. Lastly, Firefox didn't adopt a similar UI until after Chrome had been out for a while. While they had the newer/post version 3 UI in planning since before Chrome, regular users never saw it until a good chunk after Chrome had been released. They are both competent browsers with neat features, some quirks and some flaws though.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559110)

as of Firefox 7 is the fastest browser currently released outside of maybe Opera.

Source? I tend not to miss the browser roundup type articles, but maybe I did. Have there been full objective tests of this, or is it just anecdotal?

I used to be a Firefox fan (3, Informative)

generikz (413613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558752)

... but I keep my Firefox up and use hundreds of tabs/day (opening/closing),

In the end, the memory leaks of FF6.0.x just made me switch to Chrome. I would eventually plateau around 2.2GB of RAM (peak 2.5GB) with few tabs open, system crawling down to slow pace, *seconds* of waiting before a click makes FF react at all, Flash video pausing every 12s or so. PDF viewing freezing all tabs. Unusable.

I'll give FF7 a try though.It's "only" at 600MB right now (1GB peak) with the same usage pattern.

Re:I used to be a Firefox fan (1)

RedHat Rocky (94208) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558878)

Think you're blaming the wrong thing, try Flash video.

I take it you don't run FlashBlock? I can't stand running without it these days.

If I wanted dancing video in my browser I'd go turn on the idiot box.

Re:I used to be a Firefox fan (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559134)

I found Chrome to use substantially more memory when watching a video stream or an HD video on youtube with the flash plugin.

Re:I used to be a Firefox fan (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559152)

Firefox hides Flash memory usage in a small separate process, so when people say Firefux is using 2GB of memory, they mean FIREFOX is using 2GB of memory. The plugin memory usage will be hidden away somewhere else.

Firefox routinely uses up to 1.5GB on my machine, but closing it after watching web video will free up 2GB of free memory, because 0.5GB were taken up by Flash being retarded web video. (Apparently it just buffers the entire video in memory.)

Re:I used to be a Firefox fan (3, Interesting)

noahm (4459) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558968)

The memory issues people have with Firefox must be really frustrating for the devs, because they've got to be insanely subtle. They clearly don't affect everybody. For example, I use firefox (still at 6 here) and currently have 37 tabs open in 3 "tab groups" (OMG I love this feature). Some of the tabs contain embedded Adobe Reader plugins that are viewing PDFs. I have several addons, including flashblock, cookie monster, foxyproxy, and delicious. Firefox has a resident size of 260 MB, and a shared size of 700 MB. By modern measures, that's downright lean. Other people have vastly different experiences.

As as already been covered here [slashdot.org], Mozilla is looking to address the memory usage issue. I wish them luck, as it's obviously not an easy problem to tackle.


Re:I used to be a Firefox fan (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559144)

Most problems I've had with bloat in Firefox relate to bad plugins (Shockwave, Flash, etc.) and bad addons.

If you've updated all your plugins to their latest versions, disabling all of your addons and enabling them one by one until you find what's leaking can be helpful.

In my experience, Firebug is an awesome and flexible tool, but it leaks. I only enable it when I need to. That's one example.

Browser share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558798)

I wonder how accurate this is because I use all 3 major browsers because of issues with each of them in certain circumstances. I use Firefox as my main browser because it is open source, reliable and does a decent job. I use Chrome only very occasionally because the 'we are watching you' thing scares me. I never use IE except when the site demands it.
  So, how would I count in these findings?

They go the extra mile ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558800)

I have to say, what got me there was speed. It was faster than all others and I gave it a shot. This is everything but scientific, but heck, it *felt* faster. V8 just kicks butt. And security? Heavy sandboxing. They offer(ed?) a higher bug bounty than any other browser. They patch Chrome with a new Flash before Adobe releases it to the public and even the recent (re)discovered crypto attack was worked around faster in Chrome than any other browser. IMHO, they are clearly leading. Regular expressions too slow? Well, they just wrote their own faster implementation, constantly pushing the limits. They implemented stuff where every other browser vendor would have said: "What, are you insane? That's recoding everything ... it's gonna take ages! Flying to the moon is an easier task!" You know what Google says? "Hey, we passed moon a year ago. We are currently circling around mars, (not really) waiting for you guys to catch up. But we could go back to the moon, pick some stuff up for you and drop it down to earth, restart, and we would still be outside of the solar system before you even launched your rocket!"

Thanks Google, I know using Chrome comes at a privacy cost, but Chrome is technically awesome.

Hold up, wait a minute (4, Interesting)

bl968 (190792) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558848)

May eventually happen, but It's going to be a bit...

Stats from from a real world web site over the last 30 days...

        MS Internet Explorer No 891,058 47.4 %
        Firefox No 317,909 16.9 %
        Safari No 264,506 14 %
        Google Chrome No 162,473 8.6 %
        Android browser (PDA/Phone browser) No 93,691 4.9 %
        Unknown ? 54,509 2.8 %
        IPhone (PDA/Phone browser) No 28,603 1.5 %
        Mozilla No 25,610 1.3 %
        Opera No 12,074 0.6 %
        BlackBerry (PDA/Phone browser) No 9,396 0.4 %

Re:Hold up, wait a minute (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558986)

As TFA says, different measurers come up with different stats. The article highlights one company that shows Chrome a lot higher up on the list. Two others disagree, though those statistics show a pretty remarkable share for Chrome even if it's not passing Firefox.

Re:Hold up, wait a minute (5, Insightful)

roothog (635998) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559104)

Your sample size is 1 site that gets only 50k hits per day, and you think you're the one with better numbers?

Chrome has issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558898)

I prefer Firefox. Chrome drives me insane. I utilize the keyboard quite a bit and when I wish to go back to the previous page, chrome does not respond as quickly as Firefox. Actually, chrome gets all tied up upon hitting the backspace key. Also, chrome refuses to resolve to www.(domain), without user intervention, when dns isn't set for (domain). Rather it asks you if you wish to go to the www.(domain) instead. Well, Duh! Those stupid questions closely resemble the drawn out microsoft environment. I am sure there are more issues, these two come to mind with my limited use of this browser.

Rejoice (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558902)

As of Wednesday, Chrome's global average user share for September was 23.6%, while Firefox's stood at 26.8%. IE, meanwhile, was at 41.7%.

Maybe it's not as dreamt of as the year of linux on the desktop (mine was 2007 FWIW) but this is what we wanted. We wanted there to be options. Remember when IE controlled 80 - 90% of the browser market? Remember how much IE6 sucked? Firefox and Chrome (two open source browsers to boot) now have a bigger market share then IE. MUCH bigger. Throw in Opera & Safari and we have five capable, world-class browsers which to choose from.

We fucking won

Re:Rejoice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559092)

And, while I might not use ie9 for much outside of downloading chrome, even that has improved due to the actual competition going on the in marketplace now.

Sometimes (1)

cornface (900179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558944)

I've switched to SRWare Iron for a large chunk of my personal browsing, mostly forums. It is Chrome with all the Google removed. There is a noticeable improvement in speed over Firefox.

I still use Firefox for most of my work, mostly because I like Firebug, and I use it for browsing sites that I don't already have accounts with because there is no Chrome equivalent for NoScript that I've seen, and there are a few other plugins I don't want to give up entirely. If there was I would probably switch to it at home for pretty much everything.

Re:Sometimes (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559096)

SRWare Iron is a joke [hybridsource.org]; go with a Chromium build if you're looking for a completely open source version of Chrome, then disable the four options SRWare codes out entirely. They'll remain persistently disabled between installs (I just use the builds of Chromium provided by Google and update occasionally).

The WebRequest API (experimental) is promising but at this time it doesn't touch what Firefox has; Chrome/Chromium simply do not permit extensions the same level of access.

There are only a few real world browsing scenarios that I have encountered with Chrome (vs. FF7) that Chrome is faster, and sometimes I have encountered the inverse. However it depends on the machine; on slower machines, Chrome is a lot faster, and Opera is great for older PCs because it'll run circles around both.

Re:Sometimes (1)

cornface (900179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559146)

Hm, thanks for the tip. I just installed FF7 a few minutes ago, so I haven't really had a chance to compare.

Open question for the crowd: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558954)

How much of this can be directly attributed to growth in mobile browsing? Between iOS and Android, I'd assume that if you had the ability to seperate mobile devices from PC-driven browsing, you'd see Chrome and Safari in the top two spots (or vice versa).

Firefox has kinda sucked lately (4, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559046)

Firefox had been my browser of choice for years, but lately (is mozilla listening?) it's kinda sucked. I used it regularly on three desktops and a laptop, and sometime this year it's started to hang regularly and exhibit extremely slow behavior. Task Manager shows MASSIVE memory usage and significant CPU usage.

Needing a browser to verify a website I maintain, and with Firefox taking forever to do anything, I tried Chrome and have switched to it. Chrome renders significantly faster and doesn't appear to consume nearly the resources of Firefox. I'm sold.

I'm not getting religious here -- I am happy to go back to Firefox if some future version performs well. But in the meantime, I gotta get work done.

Familiar story: Monopoly cross-sells browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559082)

Imagine you had unlimited access to Google's home page and search results page to advertise your product. You'd probably sell a few too.

It reminds me of another monopoly [wikimedia.org], who used their near-universal access to users to distribute their free browser and drive Firefox' predecessor out of business.

Junk statistics interpreted by Idiots. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37559090)

I agree there is a rising increase in the use of Chrome as a web browser because there are more instances of Android available on all smartphone and tablets, but to suggest this is a conscious motivation from end users to switch from IE/Fire Fox to Chrome is sorely mistaken. The people assuming this is about PC users selectively installing Chrome vs FireFox or IE are idiots.

This is clearly proof that people will use whatever browser is installed on the device. If its a PC, then its IE, an Android phone, then Chrome, if iOS, then Safari.

What this implies is that the Mozilla group better get started on making an OS or tying themselves to a hardware platform, otherwise they will wink out of existence because of general consumer apathy to what web browser they use.

There's a lot of reasons ... (5, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559112)

Chrome seems to be faster and more responsive.

The update cycle for Chrome may be faster, but people knew that from day one. Those who didn't like the update cycle didn't adopt it. On the other hand, Firefox went from a slow update cycle with easily distinguished bug and feature updates to something similar to Chrome. So people who are more conservative with updates (rightfully) feel burnt.

And did I mention the user interface? Chrome and Firefox may be quite similar these days, and are liberally borrowing from each other. On the other hand, Firefox's UI has changed dramatically over the past few years while Chrome has been more of a steady evolution.

In short, all of this change has alienated existing Firefox users. All of this change also gives a sense that Firefox lacks any real sense of direction. Is it any wonder why people are slowly ditching it?

I'm one of them (1)

Alternate Interior (725192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559120)

Web Inspector gained the ability to live update CSS and I gained the ability to switch to Chrome. Between the addon compatibility problems that come from rapid-fire releases and the general slowness Firefox suffers from, I was eager to leave it behind. I still think Firebug is better, and still have it installed, but Chrome is just so much easier/faster/mindless. So I switched.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account