×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

507 comments

First post from firefox (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412218)

IE lagging behind again.

Re:First post from firefox (4, Informative)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412252)

It's just stupid comparison. Chrome automatically updates all old versions to their newest one while IE doesn't. This compares two exact versions, Chrome 15 and IE8. If you compare just browsers, IE is still easily number one at 50%, while Chrome has 25%.

Re:First post from firefox (5, Interesting)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412338)

An excellent point. It's also worth noting that Firefox is the most popular browser in Europe. Probably due to those EU regulations about Windows offering a default choice. Y'know the ones that people said would have no effect anyway.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/01/04/us-internet-europe-idUKTRE70324F20110104 [reuters.com]

Re:First post from firefox (5, Interesting)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412758)

I also want to add that all the popularity of Firefox is due to it's own quality.

Chrome is aggressively advertised in all Google services, specially Youtube.
It also has TV ads including Super Bowl ads, using celebrities like Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and even Hatsune Miku!

It also tries to sneak installs by sponsoring freeware downloads with chrome bundled. Opt-out of course.

They even messed up with the opt out option to make it hard to opt-out. I am specially offended by that *because* it is such a petty thing to muck with. It was a simple, straight forward Windows form but the opt-out option was semi-disabled. Oh come on that's just childish!

So I'm not impressed by Chrome's market share. It mostly shows the efficacy of strong marketing. I'm not saying it is a bad browser, or that Firefox is perfect, just that Chrome's success isn't really due to some sense of superiority.

And another thing.

What is with Chrome fanboys? Google is a for-profit corporation vent on market domination. It is NOT a good thing if Chrome kills Firefox, the last thing we need is another browser monoculture.

IE 6 and IE 8 are different animals (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412384)

Not entirely stupid. In terms of interface there's a world of a difference between IE version 6 and IE versions 8 and up. So there's still probably a need to separate between IE version 6 and below, IE version 7, and IE version 8 and above (which are relatively close in terms of interface and standards compliance).

That desktop browser stats I would therefore like to see:

Chrome
Chromium (mainly for the GNU/Linux guys)
Firefox 3.x
Firefox 4.x+ (or should I say 4-ever)
IE 6
IE 7
IE 8+
Safari
Opera
Everybody Else (including users of IE 5.5)

Re:First post from firefox (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412490)

Let's not let logic get in the way of "mathitized" activism.
We no longer see it important to teach people real math so the group who can come up with MaGiCaL numbers must be right.

Mozilla needs to get their shit together. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412612)

The ones who should be worried about this are not Microsoft. Rather, they are Mozilla. This news just goes to show how irrelevant Firefox is quickly becoming. Luckily for them, they still have time. All they need to do is stop doing the stupid shit that they've been doing the past couple of years.

First, bring back the fucking menu bar and the status bar by default! The space gained by not showing them is much less valuable than the time saved by having the browser's functionality easily accessible (using the menus) and by having informational messages shown much more obviously (using the status bar). It was a really fucking stupid decision to hide these by default, and it has crippled Firefox's UI. No, I don't want to dig through about:config trying to find the right options to re-enable this functionality that shouldn't be disabled by default.

Second, go back to a sensible release schedule! Put out solid, well-tested major releases once a year. Use version numbers that are actually meaningful. Don't succumb to stupid release policies or version number shenanigans just because Chrome does. Using a sensible release schedule will also help prevent the UI from changing drastically on a monthly basis, which only serves to drive users away.

Third, fix the really fucking horrible memory and CPU consumption that Firefox has exhibited for years now. This alone is one of the major reasons why people use Chrome. It's not that they like Chrome, but rather they just don't like how Firefox consumes so much fucking memory even after short browsing sessions, and even when using a fresh installation with no extensions or add-ons installed yet. It's even less pleasant when Firefox feels so much slower than Chrome, Opera, and even IE these days.

Fourth, show the damn protocol in the URL bar by default! Yes, it's important, and no, it doesn't waste space. It was a pathetic decision to remove it, and it really made Firefox much less usable. No, I don't want to dig through about:config trying to find the right option to re-enable this functionality that shouldn't be disabled by default.

Mozilla had their most successful years before Firefox 4. It has been all downhill since then. It's also been long enough that it should be obvious that this new approach isn't working. It's driving away the core Firefox users who made Firefox what it once was. If Firefox is just going to be a poor imitation of Chrome, and inferior in many ways, then why the fuck don't people just use Chrome? Well, that's what's happening. Maybe Mozilla can get their shit together and fix this problem before Firefox is completely irrelevant.

Re:Mozilla needs to get their shit together. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412638)

Uh, all those things you're saying will will allow Firefox to become more relevant again are things that are done the same way in Chrome.

"Well, people obviously prefer the way Chrome does this... let's go the opposite way!"

Sounds like dumb geek theory to me. It doesn't win you converts... you've just admitted defeat and rolled back to the old stuff so you can die quietly.

Re:Mozilla needs to get their shit together. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412740)

I couldn't agree more, except for one note..

FF started 'noobifying' their user interface, in an effort to attract more 'average' users. While the latter hardly succeeded, they managed to bully away a large part of their support crew. "No, we won't listen to what users want. You are only 1 in thousand wanting that feature (or not)". In the long term, that attitude damaged them.

To me, it's just useability. I don't bother FF or chrome too much, it started all with 'just trying' chrome but it appeared i sticked to it, automagically. Why? Not even sure, as webkit isnt' the most compatable engine around (don't shoot me, shoot the web developers). But because of the tiny details: little wasted screenspace. A close button on the first tab (that FF has disabled for some obscure reason). The fact that i can close the browserapp and launch again, without error messages saying 'ff is still in use'. A normal looking button to open the configuration menu. Etc. Etc.. About any detail why i think chrome might be slightly better is a slap in the face of Mozilla's UI design team.

Re:First post from firefox (2)

multimediavt (965608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412640)

It's just stupid comparison. Chrome automatically updates all old versions to their newest one while IE doesn't. This compares two exact versions, Chrome 15 and IE8. If you compare just browsers, IE is still easily number one at 50%, while Chrome has 25%.

Didn't Microsoft just release a statement [geek.com] saying they were going to be doing the same thing? So we'll have to wait for that to happen before the comparison could possibly be a valid judge of what browser is most used. My web logs still say IE, which does make me sad like bull. }:(

Re:First post from firefox (2, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412662)

"IE is still easily number one at 50%, while Chrome has 25%."

What's it matter? I'm much more interested in what percentage of web sites are W3C compliant. When that approaches 100%, then browsers will compete on true merit (speed, UI, etc.), not their support of proprietary extensions and how well they put up with badly coded HTML.

I'm sick and tired of "browser x isn't supported," and "this site best viewed with..." crap, which is just indicative of clueless website developers.

Re:First post from firefox (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412702)

50%? No, more like below 40%, Chrome 27%, Firefox 25%, Safari about 6% and Opera 2%. At least according to statcounter it's a loooong time since IE passed the 50% mark. Like september last year or thereabouts.

Re:First post from firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412736)

True but it's worth noting that IE versions are not exactly compatible and tend to be a headache for developers, so in a way, they are different...

Re:First post from firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412284)

I've compiled Firebox from source. Also Removed the spy-ware.

No (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412234)

Google's decision to drop native h264 support in Chrome means I deleted it and won't be installing it again. Likewise, I steer all clients away from it and do not even bother to test our websites in it. I thought it was finally time for the browser wars to be over and for everything to really work in whichever browser was chosen easily. Then Google pulled that one. Idiots.

Re:No (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412454)

I think Chrome should depend on the underlying OS to handle video. This allows them to both support and NOT support h.264. Most people will get h.264 support, and those who want to vote with their wallets won't.

Re:No (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412482)

The problem is that as long as MPEG LA expects to be paid for use of the standard you're going to have a two tiered net the way that it used to be with Flash. Granted most folks would have a license via MS, but it's a really shitty situation to have to either a licensing fee to use the web or violate somebody's patents.

Version war? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412236)

This is complete nonsense, if you take into account all versions of said browsers, IE still comes out on top. Who cares that a particular version (numbering incompatibility?!) is more used than another?

Re:Version war? (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412540)

Who cares that a particular version (numbering incompatibility?!) is more used than another?

I would say that a lot of people who have to provide support care a great deal whether you're using IE 6 or IE 8.

No?

Re:Version war? (3, Insightful)

multimediavt (965608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412648)

Who cares that a particular version (numbering incompatibility?!) is more used than another?

I would say that a lot of people who have to provide support care a great deal whether you're using IE 6 or IE 8.

No?

No, just us web devs. :)

Re:Version war? (4, Insightful)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412552)

Because IE6, IE7, IE8 and IE9 are more or less four completely different browsers. My experience is that there are usually more differences between two IE version's HTML / JS parsing than the difference between Opera, Firefox and Chrome combined.

IE9 is the first browser where Microsoft actually tried. It's not perfect by far, but at least it's trying. IE6 is from the days where companies competed over who could make the most batshit insane browser. IE7 were a major change from IE6, and IE8 was a small change from IE7. But still carrying the El Batshitto legacy from old IE6. IE9 is, as said, a completely different ballpark (it's generally around the same level as firefox v3.6).

Don't be fooled by the name similarity. They truly deserve to be counted separately for each major version.

Re:Version war? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412718)

Yep IE 8 is great because it supports html 4 and css 2 the right way. I have a feeling since it is not dying at all that it will be the next IE 6 of the 2010s as users do not want to leave. HTML 5 is going to have a serious problem if people keep using IE 8. It will be just a phone technology due to people waiting on businesses to leave IE 8 who wont leave IE 8 because people keep making websites that cater to it and it is a repeat all over again.

I would much rather see the headline of IE 9 falling before Chrome as it would mean we can move forward.

Re:Version war? (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412692)

Hardly anyone uses IE 6 or IE 7 in the US besides a few corporations. Maybe 4% of users according to statecounter. IE 9 barely has 10% as average Joes do not like the UI and many businesses feel IE 8 is fine.

IE 8 is still over 80% of the IE market. It wont go away and it is the next IE 6 of the 2010s. So the article is pretty accurate.

All versions of IE combined still beat everyone (5, Insightful)

Meshach (578918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412240)

Also are they lumping all versions of Chrome together? All versions of Firefox together?

Seems misleading...

Re:All versions of IE combined still beat everyone (3, Informative)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412258)

Yes, they are. It even says so in the article, but someone just dedicated to copypaste one really specific sentence from it to Slashdot. IE still has 50% market share, while Chrome has 25%.

Re:All versions of IE combined still beat everyone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412282)

Using a misleading line from the article to further your own agenda? I bet you as a Microsoft shill know nothing about that...

Re:All versions of IE combined still beat everyone (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412726)

Also are they lumping all versions of Chrome together? All versions of Firefox together?

...

Yes, they are. It even says so in the article, but someone just dedicated to copypaste one really specific sentence from it to Slashdot. IE still has 50% market share, while Chrome has 25%.

No they are not lumping all versions of Chrome together.

The reason is that Chome auto-updates. Look at the graph, you can see the rise and fall of each chrome version.
Hardly anyone is running old versions of chrome.

IE is starting to Auto-update too, but this did not happen on older releases, so many people are stalled out on older IE releases and will never update until they get a new machine.

See this statement in TFA:

But wait, there is a caveat to this: Chrome 15 beat IE 8, specifically, this one week at the end of November, with 23.6 percent of the worldwide market, compared to IE 8's at 23.5 percent. With all the versions of IE floating around, IE is still No. 1 in the world, but Chrome is right behind it.

The cherry picked statistic was version specific: Chrome 15 overtakes IE 8. And as such, its a pretty meaningless statement.

Re:All versions of IE combined still beat everyone (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412264)

Chrome is pretty much autoupdating anyway, FF (If I remember right) is almost as much. IE isn't that far behind in autoupdating, and on par if you are using Win7. And it really isn't that misleading: either you prefer Chrome, regardless of version, or you prefer IE, or FF, regardless of version. It still provides useful info.

Re:All versions of IE combined still beat everyone (1)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412604)

If you look at the graph, chrome 15 has a bit over 24%, while all other versions of chrome are down around 0.1%.

They are not lumping versions of chrome together.

Version (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412244)

I am using Chrome 18 right now

I could care less: Opera64's out 4 Windows! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412254)

Great 1st round too (very stable 4 me & fast) -> http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/64-bit-opera-and-out-of-process-plug-ins/ [opera.com]

* A "very merry Christmas" present from OPERA! imo @ least!

Additionally, it's been one I've been waiting for, for a LONG time now (e.g. - I've been running Windows 7 64-bit since it came out in late 2009, trying to get ALL of my apps in 64-bit form, & only 1 32-bit program left here, our subject -> CHROMIUM!)

SOMEONE TELL THE FOLKS @ GOOGLE TO PUT OUT A 64-bit BUILD OF CHROMIUM/CHROME FOR WINDOWS PLEASE!

(So I can "escape" 32-bit programs here, for the most part @ least, entirely!)

APK

P.S.=> Oh, & the subject? The SAME goes for MacOS X users too (I.E.-> It too has a 64-bit OPERA now as well, just like Linux has had for awhile now)...

... apk

Re:I could care less: Opera64's out 4 Windows! (-1)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412272)

But you still cannot block adware and spyware in Opera. There is not easy way to block specific domains or urls.

Re:I could care less: Opera64's out 4 Windows! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412364)

It's stupid to have you browser perform content filtering. That's the kind of thing you have a filtering proxy do, so that the filtering applies to ALL of your apps, including any other browsers you may be using. Hell, setting up such a proxy isn't even that difficult, and there are many options available. Furthermore, you don't have to worry about it breaking with each minor browser update, like seems to happen with Firefox's plugins all the time now.

HOSTS do same & more, 4 less (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412576)

HOSTS files can filter out things @ THE IP STACK LEVEL, no 3rd party apps & their "weight" involved!

(They run @ the PnP driver level in other words)

That's ESPECIALLY FAST, since it's only really a "filter"/"little black book reference cache" for the IP stack itself, 1st of all, & secondly because it's not running strictly in usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 operations (more overhead & slower by far vs. kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 level programs like drivers, & yes, the IP stack).

(Thus, one doesn't need a program to do the same job (thus, not wasting CPU cycles, & other forms of I/O, thus electricity, as much as you need to in order to run a proxy))

Additionally?

HOSTS files also can speed up access to sites by:

---

1.) Blocking out adbanners which eat up your bandwidth & speed you pay for (your money in other words)

2) "Hardcoding" in your fav. sites into it (with their IP address to domain/host name put into hosts files properly)...

a.) This also avoids DNS request logs (tracking)

b.) DNSBL's (DNS blocklists)

(The latter 2 are a nice "bonus" for 'anonymity/security' @ a personal computer users home system level even because of HOSTS if customized thus...)

---

Personally, I combine HOSTS files ability to block out HOST/DOMAIN names with firewall (both hardware & software based) rules tables for these purposes for speed (vs. adbanners mainly), & yes, for security (vs. all the known malicious threats possible growing daily here online)

YES - I even work @ the browser level like the person you replied to - Easily done via addons like:

---

A.) NoScript for FF
B.) AdBlock for FF
C.) WOT for IE/FF
D.) Perspectives for IE/FF
E.) IE 9's TPL's
F.) FF's built in blocklists populated by SpyBot S&D
G.) Opera's urlfilter.ini populated by SpyBot S&D
H.) IE restricted zone lists populated by SpyBot S&D too!
I.) HOSTS files (blocking adbanners & known malicious domains/hosts)
J.) PAC files (Proxy control)
K.) Custom CSS sheets in browsers

( & more...)

---

* I do ALL OF THE ABOVE, & yes more (IP stack security @ OS level etc. via reg hacks etc.) for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"... &, it works (haven't been infested/infected since 1996 in fact, & neither have family & friends I turned onto this style of security for!)

APK

P.S.=> However, I guess that even doing MORE "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" isn't a BAD idea, with proxy servers either IF you can afford more electric bill (I avoid proxies & a local DNS server @ home for those reasons in fact ONLY).

So you know that "all said & aside above"? Well - HOSTS files work w/ "proximitron" which has a filter allowing them, a form of proxyserver one can elect to use (possibly others there)...

... apk

AdBlock 4 Opera exists (I use HOSTS & more) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412366)

There is an AdBlock addon 4 Opera too -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=AdBlock+for+Opera&go=&qs=bs&form=QBLH [bing.com] )

Plus? Well:

You can even Right-Click on pages & select "Block Content" & that can "do the job" easily enough on adbanners & more on ANY page...

However, Opera has PLENTY of BUILT-IN NATIVE OPTIONS for control of things in its GLOBAL & OVERRIDE/BY SITE menu options for what you mention:

1.) Tools Menu

2.) Preferences

3.) General tab has "popup control" (a source of malware sometimes)

4.) Advanced tab has

a.) Cookies
b.) Plugins
c.) Security (security protocols like BETTER THAN TLS 1.x)
d.) Certificates control
e.) Trusted Website mgt.
f.) Master Password controls

( & more)

5.) Network section has

a.) Proxy control
b.) Network referrer control
c.) Geolocation control

( & more)

6.) MOST IMPORTANTLY vs. Javascript &/or Plugins?

Opera's CONTENT TAB controls java, javascript, plugins (only on demand setting too optional), style options (where you can use your own PROTECTIVE css filters even, which I do, alongside HOSTS &/or PAC files).

Pretty much ALL YOU NEED to stop yourself from being bombarded by ads, OR WORSE, being infested/infected by malware thru them!

* OPERA ROCKS - & only just got better in 64-bit, & right in time for Christmas too...

APK

P.S.=> Nicest part is, it has an overrides section where you can MAKE EXCEPTIONS, by site (in bysite preferences of the same area above)...

... apk

Re:AdBlock 4 Opera exists (I use HOSTS & more) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412564)

True this, you can even use a filled content blocker, like the one from Fanboy (google " opera urlfilter.ini fanboy " ), so there's absolutely no needs for extension, has been available since damn long time ago too.

You'd laugh @ LAYERS of defense I use then (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412632)

URLFILTER.INI - Yes, Opera has that (correct) & yes, that's a way, & one I use too (combined w/ others like it + my own HOSTS file + DNSBL data I use too imported into those (same with TPL's for IE9) albeit, duplicates removed of course)

However - HERE's ONLY PART OF THE REST OF WHAT I DO FOR SECURITY ONLINE!

(Again - this is ONLY PART mind you, there's a LOT more in the URL's below this one next)

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2579684&cid=38412576 [slashdot.org]

Which ought to make you laugh because of your viewpoint - more minimalist than my own (which is why I omit using proxy servers setups here or DNS servers setups here (powerbill mainly)

Yes, YOU may laugh... especially because you seem more "mimalist" than I, (seeing what's in my 'p.s.' @ the bottom especially):

* Plus, & don't laugh? LOL, I do all that, & FAR MORE, for 2 reasons - more speed, & more security, online... & it works.

The rest of how I secure an OS is here (guide you might wish to look @ sometime, get a few ideas (or not, you may know it all there for all I know)):

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&qs=bs&form=QBLH [bing.com]

APK

P.S.=> WHY would I do all that? Seems to work's why & for decades now here + for friends of mine I've secured up this way...

All by a simple concept that seems to work & is the BEST THING WE HAVE GOING FOR SECURITY ONLINE TODAY:

"Layered-Security"/"Defense-In-Depth"... apk

Re:I could care less: Opera64's out 4 Windows! (1)

fafaforza (248976) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412386)

Maybe, I personally haven't looked into it too much. The usability of Opera wins me over. I just visit known sites, and close any obnoxious sites. They don't deserve any traffic. For anything questionable, I suffer with Firefox.

Re:I could care less: Opera64's out 4 Windows! (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412484)

Yes you can.. it's in the freaking options by default you don't even need to download some shitty add-on.

Re:I could care less: Opera64's out 4 Windows! (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412494)

Why would you want a 64-bit browser? With the exception of a couple areas you're not likely to see any improvements in performance and ultimately you'll end up using even more RAM than you were previously.

Re:I could care less: Opera64's out 4 Windows! (1)

sa666_666 (924613) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412592)

On a pure 64-bit system, the memory you'll save by not having 32-bit libs loaded will eclipse any extra memory used because of longer pointers in 64-bit mode. As well, there's something annoying about having an *almost* fully 64-bit system with one or two apps holding it back. Perhaps it's an OCD thing or something :)

I went 64-bit OS + apps cuz of CPU's today (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412690)

In 64-bit apps, sure: Pointers get BIGGER/LARGER, I'll concede that, but then it's offset by NOT loading up WoW64 lib sections for overlaid load into PE's exe memory space (for 32-bit apps), then, I "regain RAM" that way...

* "Breaking even" on mem usage I'd like to think @ this point... but it's really for the future I want "all 64-bit" here in programs I use, mostly!

APK

P.S.=> The future's MORE of what I am concerned about, ala what you said here:

"With the exception of a couple areas you're not likely to see any improvements in performance" - by hedwards (940851) on Saturday December 17, @07:33PM (#38412494)

There you go (& those are the places I'd be looking to NOT be "restricted in", in the future, by staying 32-bit!).

Sure - Around 2006-2007 or so? I too, was of your opinion once, stating "why go 64-bit"??

However, after that? Well - per my subject-line above:

I started buying 64-bit capable systems, & figured I might as well get that "MOST" out of them too, doing 64-bit programs + OS on them...

... apk

Because Firefox betrayed its early adopters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412270)

I am seriously annoyed about Firefox recently, and switched to Chrome full time. Firefox gets credit for helping the web off of IE6 but it has had serious trouble in 2011 by breaking extensions and dumbing down the UI. Chrome crept up in market share because it gave people a good browser again and also due to heavy advertising. Internet Explorer is in the lead only due to China and forced IE usage at work and schools.

Misleading (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412290)

How misleading is this! One must count IE6, IE7, IE8, and IE9 users to get the actual IE share, which is much larger than that of Chrome. And next year, when M$ "silently" upgrade all IE users to the latest release, the numbers will favor IE even more. Let's not mistake marketing fud for reality.

Re:Misleading (no, you are) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412456)

But IE6, IE7 and IE8 could be three different browsers. They only have the name in common and the amount of work arounds needed.
Chrome 1 through 16 are more like each other than IEn and IEn+1 (infact safari/opera/ff and chrome are more like each other than any IE). Also, chrome autoupdates so no one is left behind on ancient versions.
Because of that, I feel that comparing latest chrome to current IE-king is not as stupid as you think.

I'm completely baffled (5, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412302)

I simply can't understand how a browser with such a godawful interface could get so popular.

Re:I'm completely baffled (1)

dak664 (1992350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412390)

Google has control of the ratings perhaps. I would not know, I avoid their products for what they are.

What's wrong with the interface? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412422)

Personally I prefer it to the alternatives - and especially all the extra bits that aren't obvious.

To take just one example, the way you can drag the tabs. You can re-order them (no bit deal), but also the way you can drag them out to create a new Chrome window - or the reverse to merge multiple Chrome windows together. I know it's just minor stuff, but it's an attention to detail that I hadn't seen before.

Re:What's wrong with the interface? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412566)

To take just one example, the way you can drag the tabs.

You can do all the same stuff in firefox, and have been able to since before Chrome existed.

Re:I'm completely baffled (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412514)

Because it runs fast and seems to install on PC with strict security settings.
That and the people who promote it probably doesn't give the free software virtue speach.

Microsoft do a browser? (2)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412304)

Well I never. Next you'll be saying they do a mobile OS, or even more far-fetched: a search engine.

Poor Firefox (-1, Troll)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412306)

With their gazillion versions they can never claim the dubious prize of having "highest market share split by version".

On the one hand I'm thinking way to go Chrome, on the other... wtf is the point?

Reading from Chrome OS 16 on my Cr-48 (0)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412318)

In terms of hours used, my Cr-48's been my primary computer since around the time I got it a year ago. I just can't beat its combination of "just works"[1] and coming back from sleep to live connection in about 5 seconds.

[1] Now that they've fixed the touchpad driver and some crash and rendering bugs.

Ummm what about both? (2)

Turnerj (2478588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412320)

What if you use both Chrome and Firefox or Chrome and Internet Explorer (not that I can see much incentive for Chrome and IE)? Wouldn't the results be inaccurate?

Switched within the last fortnight. (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412322)

Used to at least like to think of myself as a free thinking, rebellious edgy kind of guy.

Now just part of the herd, I guess.

*sigh*

Firefox still rules (4, Insightful)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412326)

Posting this from Iceweasel 8.0/Debian Wheezy.
Once you've got used to some of the better add-ons (adblock, noscript, peraperakun, tabmixplus, treeestyletabs) it's hard to make a change.
I don't care enough about slightly lower memory usage or slightly shorter start-up times (4GB of RAM, browser running for a week on average).
I don't get the advantages of chrome.
I've used chrome, and I experience more of a vendor-lock-down feeling with it. Of course there are a lot of extensions, but they seem more of an afterthought as compared with Firefox.
The biggest problem of Firefox ATM is that they are copying chrome too much instead of choosing their own direction.
That's all.

Re:Firefox still rules (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412376)

Well, you're a dipshit so I guess that explains your love of IE Lite er... Firefox.
 
Dumb faggot cunt.

Re:Firefox still rules (5, Interesting)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412468)

without a proper NoScript solution, all other browsers fail. FF is a bloated beastly browser, but can't live without NoScript anymore.

Re:Firefox still rules (3, Interesting)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412518)

It's not only noscript, as the poster below indicates, once you've got used to tree-style-tabs there's no going back.
It seems to me that firefox's development model fosters the creation of cool, innovative add-ons more than chrome.
Even though their faster-than-light release cycle of late may put and end to this... :-(

Re:Firefox still rules (3, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412650)

I just don't understand how bookmarks work on Chrome. Why can't I have what I have on Firefox - a menu item I can click on to get a scrollable list of bookmarks? I don't want a whole empty row just for a single bookmark button, and I don't want a bookmark `frame` or tab, or whatever. Why can't I have an icon somewhere which gets me my full list of bookmarks. Just like in Firefox.

Re:Firefox still rules (1)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412688)

This is just a wild guess, but maybe Google doesn't want people to organize their bookmarks by themselves.
In their vision, you should just tag/bookmark pages randomly, and "let them handle the rest" a.k.a "data-mine the shit out of you".
Just a shot in the dark, but who knows, it would mesh well with the impression I get when using their other services (I'm an avid user of gmail i.e.).

Re:Firefox still rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412770)

"Show bookmarks bar". Then, anything not in there will be under "Other bookmarks".

I'm a Former Firefox developer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412354)

Want to know why Firefox sucks now, it's because the Firefox developers are too busy stuffing their faces with Cheetos while watching Sasha Grey porn and getting their dicks covered in cheeto dust as a result. Also we make fun of people who want usable interfaces and design crazy user interfaces which were made while drunk on Pabst-Blue Ribbon mixed with horse piss.We mock up the user interface by smearing shit over the wall until it looks like something like a interface designed by a retarded monkey. Memory manufacturers also bribed us to put in memory leaks on purpose so they can sell more memory. Most Firefox developers actually use IE6 but with the Firefox icon in the shortcut.

I left the Mozilla foundation this year and now a happy Safari user.

Re:I'm a Former Firefox developer (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412426)

You sound like a fag, or at least metrosexual.

Tree style tabs (5, Informative)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412358)

The one thing that keeps me off Chrome for serious web browsing is the lack of a **full** equivalent to Tree Style Tab [mozilla.org]. I've found various attempts, but until something with all the critical features is available, I can't leave Firefox.

And yes, it's that important. I find serious web browsing without tree tabs is basically unusable.

Some analysis of Chrome extensions I've tried follows below, along with a longer explaination of why tree tabs matter.

-----
Why tree tabs are important

Critical features:

* Arrange tabs in a hierarchy (subordinate/superior relationships)
* Links middle-clicked to open in a new tab, open under the current tab
* You can collapse branches of the tabs tree, like a folder tree in Explorer/Outlook
* You can drag tabs around to restructure the tree

  For example, my current top-level hierarchies at work are "PVI clusterfsck", "vern buerg list", "to read", "vmware ctrl alt del", "new server", and "training". "training" has four immediate subtabs, each for various training providers we use at $WORK. Each of those is an exploration of their course hierarchy. I can expand or collapse any section or subsection as my focus changes. I can also bookmark branches for later.

  For me, at least, knowledge isn't linear, it's tree structured. The Back/Forward paradigm is totally inadequate for the task.

-----

Tree Style Tabs (Beta)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ffididlaalcoegfcalmeldjfnihmoech [google.com]

  Unfortunately, it's lacking some features. The biggest is that it
doesn't actually replace the tab bar across the top of the screen.
Rather, it gives you a new toolbar button, which, when clicked, drops
down a tree structure. No way to make that appear permanently, that I
can see. (TreeStyleTab appears much like a "side bar" in Firefox.)
The tree structure does reflect which tab opened from which. But I
can't drag tabs or branches to organize them, nor can I
collapse/expand branches.

-----

Tab Sense
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oiabeebnmckkdjloeofbfladabfhedlg [google.com]

  Similar to the "Tree Style Tabs (Beta)" above. Same
button-not-a-sidebar issue. Does allow collapse/expand, which is
good. It opens up a new Google Chrome window to hold collapsed tabs
(with the message to minimize it and forget about it), which is rather
kludgey. Still can't drag tabs.

-----

Tabs Manager
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ioigddmjfpphkbamgbaolfkpifddnaje [google.com]

  Same button-not-a-sidebar issue. Tab structure doesn't appear to
reflect browsing history. Seems to have only two levels, a "folder"
it creates, and all your tabs. Does allow dragging of those tabs, but
I'm not sure what the point is. Can't find a way to create a folder.
I'm not quite sure what the point is.

-----

  Some of these limitations might be due to Chrome's architecture,
rather than the extension programmers. In particular, I suspect
Chrome just doesn't let extensions have enough access to the UI to do
anything really useful. Which is a shame, because Chrome feels so
much faster than Firefox.

Re:Tree style tabs (2)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412528)

The one thing that keeps me off Chrome for serious web browsing is the lack of a **full** equivalent to Tree Style Tab [mozilla.org]. I've found various attempts, but until something with all the critical features is available, I can't leave Firefox.

Wow, I had no idea such a thing existed. I've stuck with Safari out of familiarity, occasionally missing the old OmniWeb and its window sets (or whatever it called them). But this is exactly the thing to make me look into changing my primary browser. I deal with a lot of web pages at once, and the windows + tabs paradigm is really inadequate, and leaves me trying organize URLs in an external program, which is really tedious...

Re:Tree style tabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412560)

Maybe some people don't realize you can have multiple browsers. I have Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari. Chrome is faster and I use it for pages with lots of Javascript. Firefox is for most everything else. Opera and Safari are used as backups so if a web page doesn't work right I check in them to see if it is the server or my browser. I'm not on Windows so no IE for me (I guess I have a VM with IE9 on Windows 7) but I never use it at home.

My point is you don't have to not use Chrome because it lacks one feature. Use Chrome for what it is good at, and use Firefox for what it is good at. I can't imagine you always browse in a fashion that is requiring that much tab organization. You probably occasionally just browse a single page at a time or watch a video or something.

Re:Tree style tabs (1)

0ld_d0g (923931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412646)

For me, at least, knowledge isn't linear, it's tree structured. The Back/Forward paradigm is totally inadequate for the task.

In reality, knowledge isn't tree structured, its a graph. The Tree paradigm is totally inadequate for the task. ;-)

IE6 to IE8 (1)

Turnerj (2478588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412360)

Didn't Microsoft the other day that they are going to silently upgrade IE6 to IE8? I would think that number could push IE8 back on top of Chrome.

Good (2)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412382)

While my personal preference is for Safari, as a designer, this is good news, on two fronts. First, anything that knocks IE market share down is a great thing because I, like every web designer out there, am sick and tired of uttering the phrase "it works perfectly in every browser _except_ IE..." Second, I think it's good because, pure and simple, I think the Webkit engine is phenomenal. Both Safari and Chrome have deep HTML5/CSS3 compatibility and, more importantly, they are capable of things that allow web designers to do some really spectacular things. While I would love to see Safari market share increase, I'll be very happy to see webkit market share increase any way it can.

Is it accessible yet? (4, Insightful)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412388)

Does Chrome have the ability yet to make text a readable size without widening the page so I have to scroll sideways?

Does it have the ability to selectively stop/play animations?

No? Then I'll be sticking with Firefox a while longer, I guess. Come back when your browser's accessible and then we'll talk.

Re:Is it accessible yet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412440)

Who's trying to convince you to switch? Use what you want; only MSFT stand to gain from you using their browser (as you've bought their OS).

Re:Is it accessible yet? (3, Informative)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412628)

Perhaps you should try Safari. It defaults more modern zoom-everything behaviour, but has a "zoom text only" setting to bring back what you want.

Anyone who hasn't tried safari for a while (especially on windows) really should give it another try as it's improved a lot. There is a list of small features ten miles long I can't live without, that are only in safari.

PS: Be sure to check out the third party extensions as well.

Misleading...but still significant (2)

NoKaOi (1415755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412404)

Though a few people have pointed out that it's version specific, if you look at the actual numbers Chrome is still pretty close to IE, which is very cool. Of course, it's based on pageviews and not the number of users, and I bet most people who bother using Chrome probably use the web more than your average IE user. Is Firefox going to go bye-bye? I expect that there will always be an open source browser that has a reasonable market share. Will Firefox continue to be on top, or will we be seeing a different dominant open source browser in a couple of years?

For those of us with SSDs however... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412428)

I've used Chrome a lot and like it even more. Unfortunately, a mere day's browsing generates 700,000 writes according to windows (almost an order of magnitude over any other browser). As an SSD user, this just isn't acceptable and all the fixes are a complicated way of 'shoving the cache onto a spinning disc drive'.

Re:For those of us with SSDs however... (3, Interesting)

sa666_666 (924613) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412610)

If you have some RAM to spare, consider moving the cache to a RAM disk instead. This will save the SSD, and is even a good thing to do if you're using a hard drive.

Chrome 15? (1)

EricX2 (670266) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412446)

I'm using Chrome 16, does that mean the most used single version browser is old or that 'NEWS' story is outdated already?

Mission accomplished! (1)

KBehemoth (2519358) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412452)

Google developers, you can relax now and start adding massive amounts of bloat that drove me from Firefox to Chrome!

Bloat? What Bloat? (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412460)

People keep claiming that Chrome uses less memory than Firefox so I decided to take a look.

Memory used:
Initial start up, no pages open:

Firefox 39 MB
Chrome 56 MB

5 tabs open:

Firefox 135 MB
Chrome 152 MB

Size on disk (Windows version)

Firefox 44 MB
Chrome 75 MB

There are things that I like about Chrome and over the past couple of years Firefox has really pissed me off with their never ending bonehead design decisions. But the "Firefox is bloated" claims just don't make sense.

Re:Bloat? What Bloat? (3, Informative)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412682)

With a stock firefox that's true.

But throw in a few popular third party extensions, and leave FireFox running for a day or two. It will start consuming all your available RAM and a good chunk of virtual memory too (growing more and more the longer you leave it open).

With other browsers, memory consumption is rarely even noticeable. I can leave safari running for *months* and it'll happily sit on around 200MB with my usual 15 or so tabs. And yes, I do have a bunch of third party extensions installed. Pretty much the same ones I had when I was using FireFox every day.

Re:Bloat? What Bloat? (1)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412762)

After letting Firefox run for about a week, it's taking up 720 MB with 10 open tabs.
At times I had over 30 open tabs, and it still took less than 1.5 GB.
That may sound like a lot, but why not make use of the 4 GB + of RAM most PCs have nowadays?

The only wishes I am making to the Firefox team are the following
- make the 64-bit Linux version perform competently
- slower release cycle, stability over features

They totally nailed it whit the extension mechanism, so all they have to do is to offer a rock-stable, fast base system and people can mix and choose extensions to get the features they want. That's perfect. Don't get lead away from the right path!!!

Examples please... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412738)

There are things that I like about Chrome and over the past couple of years Firefox has really pissed me off with their never ending bonehead design decisions...

Please provide some examples. I my case, the problem is with Chrome: The inability to rearrange the tabs the way I see fit.

Firefox is infected with Unity syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412462)

The Aurora and Nightly builds have a "Jersey Shore" user interface. So many features from Firefox have been removed that by the time you added enough extensions you could of just used Chrome or even stuck with IE9. IE9 is still behind engine wise but is at least acceptable until IE10. When IE10 does come out next year Firefox will be smacked against the wall unless its developers brings back the Firefox 3.6 user interface and starts listening to its userbase again. Otherwise the browser market will be IE for corporate, Chrome for nearly everyone else with a minority of Opera users and Safari for Apple-land while Firefox goes they way of Netscape, Mosaic, Flock and other failed browsers.

Chrome has it's issues too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38412466)

Things Chrome does wrong or poorly:
- video codecs, sorely lacking, needs flash
- doesn't use threads appropriately, insteads opens every page in a separate "fork" of the browser. Chrome basically wastes. Open more than one Chrome tab that has flash being used (eg gmail, any site with ads, etc) and watch as the performance suffers greatly.
- Not 64bit

This doesn't happen in firefox. However Firefox used to crash before out-of-process plugins.

This is the current status quo, the way everyone wants things to work. The program should be multithreaded correctly, and sandbox plugins as a separate process. This is also what we do on the server end. worker Apache22+mod_fastcgi +php5.3+php-fpm+xcache. Most efficient use of memory, only pages with php on it call the php parser, apache has a fixed memory usage.
Chrome's model looks like the old Apache1.3prefork+mod_php+apc, where every connection process eats up memory. The end result is that Prefork only lets you have like 100 connections where threaded 2.2 lets you have 4000 with the same CPU and RAM. When people rave about nginx or lighttpd they're still using varients on forking at the expense of memory use. All these web servers started out when the CPU performance per core was increasing. It's now decreasing or stagnant (2.2Ghz for the Intel E3) while cores increase.

In a web browser, flash is one of the problems. If you take flash out (flash operates so poorly with threads, that you get nothing but screen tearing if it can't monopolize all cpu's.) you still can only open about 6 tabs before a machine with 4GB of ram starts having to page swap. Try and leave twitter open for 24 hours, or gmail. Eventually they'll make the system so sluggish you'll restart the browser. This doesn't happen on firefox, I can easily open 30 tabs and not slow down unless flash drags it down. This is actually what I had been doing. Using Chrome with flash and using firefox for everything that doesn't require flash. I also use Opera with script turned off when I need to visit a site that I consider hazardous to browse (eg 4chan, hacker sites, torrent sites, download sites, basically anything that spawns nusiance popups or jacks the visible tab) even if I'm just looking at what people are yabbing on about.

Flash is on the way out. in 3 years flash, silverlight and Java won't be used on the desktop anymore. It will be HTML5 or Native binary (steam/appstore). No more security riddled extensions, plugins or other crap (toolbars) that users don't understand how to use and don't understand the privacy implications of.

Java's death-knell was Oracle. Nobody likes Oracle. Oracle only buys what they plan on squeezing money out of before they throw it away.

At this point (1)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412594)

And now for more misleading statistics:
Windows 7 usage has surpassed all Linux and Macintosh usage*. Windows XP retains 15% share.

*statistics based on my household machine usage.

Nightly (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38412602)

Ironically, I just switched back again. I mainly use Chromium for light-weight browsing, because it starts faster, and Firefox (or rather Nightly) when I need extensions or non-broken plugins. Apparently they still haven't managed to integrate a proper PDF viewer in Chromium, even years after one was included in the Windows version of Google Chrome.

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

Loading...