Why I switched from Firefox to Chrome
Sorry if it sounds like I'm drinking the Google Kool-Aid here, but I switched from Mozilla Firefox to Google Chrome as my default browser for the very reason Google's executives said we should: speed. (Get Google Chrome from Download.com.)
Years ago, Firefox won me over chiefly with plug-ins, tabbed browsing, and some security advantages. But using Chrome removed a bit of friction from the Web I hadn't realized was there. It felt like discovering I'd been driving with the parking brake on just a bit.
News.com Poll
Here's what coaxed me away: Chrome starts way faster than Firefox. Web pages load faster when I type in an address or click a link. The Omnibox--Chrome's combination location bar and search box--often gets me where I want to go at least a keystroke faster, and I'm not terribly worried about sending Web navigation and search data to Google.
Individually, a few tenths of a second here or there doesn't make much difference. But it adds up fast. I spend hours a day using the Web--not just browsing, but also uploading photos, issuing instructions to my bank, editing documents online, and posting comments. As the Web gets more complex and more deeply embedded in my life, waiting for it gets more annoying.
I hadn't set out to convert to Chrome. I just wanted to see how well it worked, so I used it to run my personal e-mail while at work. Then I added in reading RSS feeds. After a few weeks, I noticed that I was manually copying Web addresses to Chrome and realized that my subconscious mind had made its decision. So last week, I set it as my default browser, despite a range of criticisms (see below).
After I told Mozilla Foundation Chairman Mitchell Baker about my experience, she sounded a bit crestfallen. "We've been increasing our focus on performance for some time. Maybe comments such as yours will increase that," she said.
Faster stripped-down Firefox
More to the point, Mozilla suggested I try a fresh installation of Firefox, one that's not burdened by those pesky extensions. I hadn't been running a large quantity, but I started with a fresh reinstallation of Firefox 3.1 beta 1.
I have to say that Firefox picked up the pace a notch. But I compared it again with Chrome on many Web sites I use daily and a variety of others, and with the exception of Flickr and My Yahoo, I still found Chrome snappier.
Of course, disabling extensions is a shame, given that it's one of Firefox's big advantages. Google has promised an extensions framework at some point, and it's the top-requested feature, with 381 people having starred it as a priority in Google's issue-tracking system for Chrome.
Reinstalling Firefox also reminded me of a feature in the forthcoming Firefox 3.1 that I was happy to leave behind: tab-switching behavior. I'm a big fan of keyboard shortcuts, and use Ctrl-Tab hundreds of times daily to switch between browser tabs. I loathe the new Firefox mechanism, which switches to your most recently used tab rather than cycling one tab to the right, and showing a miniature preview version of the Web page instead of actually switching tabs. I don't know if others' brains work differently, but the new mechanism leaves me completely lost in a sea of tabs, forcing me to use the mouse, which slows me down.
I reverted to the earlier tab-switching feature by adjusting Firefox's behavior thus: First, type "about:config" into the address bar, then move past the warning message, then type "ctrlTab" into the "Filter" box, then double-click first on browser.ctrlTab.mostRecentlyUsed and then on browser.ctrlTab.smoothScroll to set them to "false," then restart the browser.
Meanwhile, though, Chrome cycles the way I like, and in another nice move, it opens new tabs immediately to the right of the page I'm reading when I middle-click to open a page in a new tab. That conveniently groups related tasks together.
Off-color remarks
Here's what's keeping me an active Firefox user, though: Chrome's lack of support for color profiles.
Most images on the Web are encoded with a color scheme called sRGB, but there are others out there including AdobeRGB and Microsoft's scRGB that can show a much broader range of colors. I'm a photography buff with an eensy-weensy photo business, so I prefer images to look as good as possible on the Web.
Apple's Safari was the pioneer for color management, and Firefox added color profile support with version 3.0 if users manually enable it. With version 3.1, Firefox applies color profiles for images that have been tagged with one. As a result, images on my high-gamut monitor at home look fine in Firefox, but in Chrome they're hideously garish and oversaturated. It's a showstopper for me when I'm doing anything photo-related on the Web.
I recognize my color preference is at odds with Google's performance push. Mozilla programmers found that supporting color profiles slowed Firefox 20 percent to 30 percent, though they reduced that number 4 percent to 5 percent with testing. Eventually, to get it lower, they went with a third way, applying color profiles only for tagged images, which caused only a 1 percent performance hit.
(Credit:
Paul Ford)
But Google hasn't even gotten to the stage of evaluating performance effects. "I don't see how any sites could depend on this feature if it's missing/disabled for 90 percent of users," said Chrome Program Manager Mark Larson in a response to a request to add color management to Chrome, referring to the fact that color management is missing in Internet Explorer and not enabled yet in mainstream Firefox. "I'm all for it, but it's definitely not a release priority."
Other gripes
Chrome has other issues that frequently annoy me. Allow me to share.
There's no plug-in mechanism. I'm getting by, but there are some I'd like to have back.
Bad support for RSS subscription feeds. In Firefox, a site with an RSS feed gets an icon in the address bar, and clicking it signs me up for the subscription. In Chrome, I have to hope someone manually put a link on the page, but usually I just move back over to Firefox.
When I launch a new window, Chrome never starts it maximized, even if the last window was. This is a bit surprising, given Google's laudable emphasis on showing as much real estate as possible. I always want my browser page maximized. On a related note, I miss Firefox's maximized mode (hit F11 to try it out).
Chrome doesn't respect changing monitor sizes well. When I move to a dual-monitor setup, Chrome stomps all over Windows' task bar.
Selection and copy-paste issues. When I'm selecting text in Chrome, I don't like how the blue selection box spreads wider than the text box. And when text is selected but I missed a few characters, I don't like the inability to use Shift-right arrow keys to extend the selection a bit.
Those are my issues, and I'm sure other people have their own. What's keeping you from switching to Chrome? Vote in the poll above and share your thoughts below.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 




The above analysis is incomplete/biased if such important privacy concerns are ignored (or just included as a one liner). It might not be a concern to the author but might be very important to others!
Anyone who actually believes they have any privacy when using public systems is deluded.
You clearly don't know the meaning of open source.
Even if Firefox would actually send any data anywhere modifying it so that it wouldn't do so is not a monumental task.
And i also laughed pretty hard too.
And if you think proxies will help, you're already doomed.
Tor, Freenet, etc, they are all incredibly slow, and they simply won't do for constant browsing.
And despite what you are led to believe with these systems, as more people join, it *doesn't* go faster, it goes slower.
More than half the people using them have no clue how to setup servers, nevermind actually securing them.
Enjoy terribly slow connections to actually gain true anonymity.
The only way you will gain true anonymity is if you find a wireless hotspot that is open, then do whatever you want.
Do u even understand the technologies behind web? Do u even understand what privacy is?
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php
Google has different standards for what's beta and what isn't. Gmail is still beta, yet Google offers it as part of a paying service to big companies, including a service level agreement. But Chrome is definitely really beta software--fast changing, with obvious missing features.
It also would make my computer "work really hard" and the fan would kick in like crazy at times.
But I haven't tried again since initial release, so maybe things have improved?
I really do crave the speed though :(
1. lack of support for RSS feeds
2. relatively poor site support (some menus etc on sites not working). Forgivable in a v1.0 browser, but not a replacement for FF or IE (whichever you use)
3. and the lack of an extension/plugin mechanism. Again, perhaps forgivable in a v1.0 browser, but at the moment they're being outperformed by their own Google Toolbar.
Things I like about it are
1. Fast
2. Nice and clean UI
3. Tab management kicks the stuffing out of every other browser on the planet. This is Chrome's killer feature for me.
Minefield has been super sweet in terms of speed to the point where I don't think any normal person would notice the difference between it and Chrome. Who really sits in front of their monitor with a stopwatch ;) Sure, there is an extension for Firefox that gives me page load times, but that's beside the point!
NO ADBLOCK, NO CHROME!
So even if Chrome made my coffee in the morning, it's not finding a home here.
Supposedly the soon to be released 3.1 Firefox will be dramatically faster in many ways so at a minimum hopefully it will close the performance gap.
With adblock, things are much faster anyway because you avoid all the wasted bandwidth downloading ads and related flash media.
Go get a HOSTS file manager, like HostsMan.
HostsMan > Adblock,
Or, better yet, a fantastic solution for those who hate Flash: UNINSTALL TIME.
Not like you will miss it, right?
FYI, I hate silly ads as much as most people do.
But ads led me to one of the best programs i have ever used.
So i only block flash abusers and gif abusers.
Minefield + AdBlock Plus == No Chrome
No NoScript == does Chrome have it?)
Adblock is also helpful for blocking on message boards were people have
--obnoxious avitars
--banner signitures (often distracting and larger than the message itself)
I don't believe, given google's model, we'll ever see blocking happen. To paraphrase a popular Seinfeld expression: No Chrome for you!
Oh yeah, I also use CustomizeGoogle not so much to control results and tracking and force global https, but mostly for filtering foreign domains so if I'm searching for a product, I don't get 10s of thousands of hits from every Tom, Dick and Harry on the planet selling what I'm looking for. And I filter the sites that, when I'm looking for software, return hits by the 100s for "free" 30-day trials. I doubt if we'll see an extension like that for Chrome, either.
I also don't like the way it scatters itself all over my system dive in arcane locations under Documents and Settings and in a manner much more egregious than any other app I've observed. And the way the installer assumes I want my other browsers' environments hijacked (pulling from bookmark, json, sqlite, etc. files).
And the version I was using for a while wasn't all that much faster than my Firefox setup. In fact on some sites, zap2it for example, it was slow slow slow.
I'm going to keep any eye on it, but for now, "No Chrome for me!"
- html file size is too big and takes too long to download,
- starts to play loud music right away - even worse when it can't be stopped
- graphics are not laid out correctly and a graphic covers some text
- a graphic must be downloaded for the page to render and display
Because I physically see an ad as part of the website, the website inherits the bad designs of the ad. Just like a company would get a bad rap for a very lousy employee.
I understand the need for ads, and don't really mind them. But if they cause your web page to act poorly designed, I will just assume the whole page is poorly designed, and stop using it. I do use, and love, Ad Blocker. Although ideally I would prefer to not have to run a program to filter out web content in real time and use up system resources. Text ads get past the Ad Blocker, and I have not found any complaints about them. And even with the speed of Chrome, I do get bothered by the ads, and have closed web pages that are just insane.
Because CNet does use text ads (in addition to a few flash, though low key), and I download a freak-ton of podcasts from CNet, I turned off the Ad Blocker on the CNet domain. And I don't use the CNetTV interface, so that wasn't the reason. But if CNet were to go crazy with flash ads and replace the text ads with flash, that blocker would go back up in an instant.
Didn't work with Salesforce.com.
And I seem to recall it didn't work with gMail, either.
Can't verify Salesforce, because it is blocked by HostsMan.
the only think that has me thinking a bout it is the spelling check... I'm not a fluent english speaker so I need a hand there
"chrome works with sales force... my new IE 8 does not... actually it sucks in many ways... y replaced it for mozilla"
just to remember that IE8 is in BETA, in case you didn't noticed you're comparing different things here. Use the "compatibility view" option and you'll be fine...
Oh wait. <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/chrome_firefox">Somebody already wrote it.</a>
:-)
"The difference between safari on a mac and safari on windows is light years, literally. It's disappointingly slow on windows"
Light years, literally? It's amusing when people employ metaphors and immediately declare that they are literal.
And regarding Chrome and privacy: Every Chrome user has the right to decide whether they want the suggest (autocomplete) feature or not, and it's quickly changeable (to Yahoo, Live, etc.) or disableable in the Options menu. As you can imagine, though, people tend to love that feature and there's really no way Chrome could intelligently complete URLs in that way without Google at least temporarily seeing the beginning letters typed in.
DISCLAIMER: I work for Google, though I have no affiliation with Chrome other than as a happy user and so I don't speak on behalf of the Chrome team.
http://news.cnet.com/seven-steps-to-update-the-adobe-flash-player-on-windows/
1) Poor cookie handling options.
2) Saved passwords not securable.
3) Address bar info sent to Google,
If you can get access to a machine, you can easily copy the profile folder and load it up as your own and retrieve another user's passwords with very little time and effort.
The real speed gains of the 3.1 beta comes through its new javascript engine. However, the engine is turned off by default in the beta. In order to see its true speed you need to go into about:config and turn on the jit javascript compiler. Do a search on enabling javascript jit compiler (tracemonkey) in firefox for directions.
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/3381/firefox-31-how-to-enable-the-tracemonkey-javascript-engine/
- by ducttape36 November 25, 2008 5:44 AM PST
- try mozilla minefield. its the fastest hands-down. its only in alpha, but ive been using it for a month now with now problems. its now my default browser.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by QASIMARA November 25, 2008 9:12 AM PST
- Tried it. It stinks.
- Like this
-
- by pithenumber November 26, 2008 8:57 AM PST
- I use it too.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 9 pages (232 Comments)enable tracemonkey and the internet suddenly becomes faster
many firefox addons work with minefield