• On MovieTome: Why you didn't see Shatner in TREK
November 25, 2008 4:00 AM PST

Why I switched from Firefox to Chrome

by Stephen Shankland
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 232 comments

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

Why switch to Chrome?
What would it take to get you to switch to Chrome? If there's no way you would, say why in the comments below.

Faster, faster, faster
Plug-ins and easy RSS support
A Mac OS X version
A Linux version
Better privacy from the Googlebot
Support from company's internal Web tools
Other: share a comment why



View results

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.
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 9 pages (232 Comments)
by emacs19 November 25, 2008 4:16 AM PST
Besides the fancy features, please review the privacy issues with Chrome (usage data being sent back to Google) and then make an informed decision.

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!
Reply to this comment
by Hunnter2k3 November 25, 2008 5:53 AM PST
Oh come on, are you serious?

Anyone who actually believes they have any privacy when using public systems is deluded.
by HakNick November 25, 2008 6:17 AM PST
-- 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.
by Hunnter2k3 November 25, 2008 6:27 AM PST
Yes, i use plenty of open source, thank you.
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.
by Mr. Dee November 25, 2008 6:55 AM PST
I like Chrome, just can't get use to it fully. I am currently in between Firefox 3.0 and IE 8 Beta 2.
by pjhenry1216 November 25, 2008 7:33 AM PST
As the above analysis DID mention sending data back to Google, I don't find it to really be a biased article.
by emacs19 November 25, 2008 11:34 AM PST
"The only way you will gain true anonymity"

Do u even understand the technologies behind web? Do u even understand what privacy is?
by jake3373 November 25, 2008 4:03 PM PST
I agree with Hunnter2k3 (kinda). I'm OK with sending usage data to Google - as long as the connections encrypted.
by burny420 November 28, 2008 4:29 AM PST
What a joke. Your privacy has been gone for decades. I would be more concerned with the video cameras on every block of any decent size city than google using your ad data. Of all the companies out there that know everything about you, the one you are worried about is google?!? Go drink your kool-aid.
by ranpha November 29, 2008 7:58 AM PST
SRWare Iron - Google Chrome with no of the phoning home things from Google. You got everything else that Chrome has (or not have). They actually uses a newer Webkit engine too.

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php
by Chromeaholic November 25, 2008 4:48 AM PST
There is still some improvement to be made to Chrome but it is still Love at first use, and I must say I couldn't have put it any better comparing the experience of using Chrome to realizing that you had been driving with the parking break on just a little, Pure genius. But I must also emphasize that yes although Chrome has it's shortcomings we are comparing Chrome to 3 fully commercial products where as Chrome is still in BETA testing which is the incredible part. If Chrome can make such a great impressino as a BETA, I absolutely can't wait until it reaches final build. So once you put that into perspective Google Chrome is absolutely the hands down winner. That is of course if they listen to our advice and add all those extra features. I also agree with the color management, but let's just hope they add it as an optionally selected feature that also only is used when there are tagged images therefore it will only slowdown those who turn on the feature and even those it will only slow them down minimally. Well thanks for the exceptional review.
Reply to this comment
by Orengeman November 25, 2008 6:19 AM PST
Isn't everything from Google ALWAYS in beta?
by Shankland November 25, 2008 8:20 AM PST
Miraculously Picasa just exited beta status! http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-10103384-12.html

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.
by rustygrrl December 1, 2008 9:09 AM PST
LOL I was just thinking that about Google and the perpetual state of all it apps in BETA.
by theazurepoet November 25, 2008 4:58 AM PST
The main reason I stopped using Chrome was because it was wiping all formatting from HTML editors, including WordPress, since I mainly work with online HTML editors in CMSs and blogs, I just can't realistically use it for work.

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 :(
Reply to this comment
by JohnLudlow November 25, 2008 5:00 AM PST
The things that are stopping me from using chrome are

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.
Reply to this comment
by November 25, 2008 5:01 AM PST
i used to use Mozilla, but then i changed to chrome and I kept getting an error message but now that i fixed that problem and it works great, extremely fast
Reply to this comment
by mjconver November 25, 2008 5:02 AM PST
No Adblock == No Chrome
Reply to this comment
by thelemurking November 25, 2008 6:33 AM PST
My thoughts exactly! AdBlock Plus is like the Smoothie King of web browsers! My own little personal nirvana! I love my extensions, plug-ins, and the ability to theme and reskin. As much as I love all things Google, and I do like Chrome, I just can't give up my beloved Firefox.

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!
by Shankland November 25, 2008 7:01 AM PST
I used AdBlock for awhile when I was having trouble with a spate of ads that caused Firefox to hang, and it also was like removing some friction from the Web. Overall, though, I don't mind ads, though, and not just because the ones on CNET pay my paycheck. :) However, I hear from a lot of people about AdBlock's absence from Chrome from readers, so I suspect it's one of the big reasons people want Google (or conceivably somebody else--it is open-source software after all, though Google maintains the project) to add the missing extensions framework.
by mchinsky November 25, 2008 7:11 AM PST
You are dead on. Adblock plus is the single greatest thing for web browsers (and worst for web sites). Doubt chrome will ever get it because advertisers would boycott google's paid advertising and that's their 97% cash cow.

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.
by Hunnter2k3 November 25, 2008 7:24 AM PST
Simple solution
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.
by alex_mayorga November 25, 2008 7:42 AM PST
Spot on!

Minefield + AdBlock Plus == No Chrome
by SteamChip November 25, 2008 8:58 AM PST
No Adblock == 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)
by dallas7 November 25, 2008 12:27 PM PST
10-4! I used to maintain a blocking hosts file. Now Ad Block Plus/Easy List and Flashblock do it effortlessly in Firefox. And those two are just the two I choose from a plethora of anti-ad/script/Flash extensions available. I wouldn't run a blocker at all if 99% of ads didn't jump, strobe, bounce, spin, flicker and pump out inane sounds. I have become spoiled by "quiet" browsing.

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!"
by paoconnell November 28, 2008 7:09 AM PST
Exactly--must have Adblock Plus! Google won't ever support it, because they make all their money from ads.
by mikeburek November 28, 2008 7:57 AM PST
There are well designed web sties and poorly designed web sites. Some of the tells of a bad site:
- 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.
by pproven06 January 28, 2009 9:06 PM PST
I use a nifty external party called privoxy. I had the exact same reservations about chrome, but now it is AMAZING! My favorite bit is how each tab is its own process, so closing a tab is actually killing all that mem usage. In FF I found that closing a tab didn't really proportionally decrease the FF mem usage, and memory leaks ensued. Also how tabs are in the blue space above everything, it really saves a bunch of space.
by brian.lee November 25, 2008 5:07 AM PST
Chrome is fast right now because it's what all browsers started as "just a browser" just like if you put the default mail client that comes with Windows Vista up against Microsoft Outlook 2007. Remember Mozilla and how slow that was becausei t had everything all in one HTML editor, mail client etc.... Firefox was a back to the basics web browser, and Firefox is still one of the best browsers interms of developer tools and debugging tools. I still think they should release a Firefox Lite with no frills just browser for people who want to surft the web.
Reply to this comment
by Khurt November 25, 2008 10:17 AM PST
Firefox Lite? What was added to Firefox that made it "regular"?
by RobertAPierce November 25, 2008 5:18 AM PST
In addition to not having support for important plugins and other functionality, the fact that chrome is basically a data gathering tool for google is enough to make me not use it. I don't care if it's a tad faster loading a page, that's a small price to pay for not turning over all your information to google to do with whatever it wants.
Reply to this comment
by mrcockrell November 25, 2008 5:23 AM PST
i read all these complaints and i never seem to see anyone mention that Chrome butchers yahoo mail and yahoo web pages all together actually
Reply to this comment
by Shankland November 25, 2008 7:07 AM PST
I have no trouble with Yahoo pages; I use Yahoo.com, Yahoo Finance, Flickr, Delicious, Yahoo Mail, and Yahoo search regularly. Can you send me a screenshot? stephen dot shankland at cnet dot com. Or post it somewhere and share the URL.
by mrcockrell November 26, 2008 9:54 AM PST
Ill send one when it happens again, its an almost daily thing i notice when i click on a specific email in yahoo mail i get an error page and have to log out and use IE, doesn't happen all the time comes and goes.. but frequently it seems, i have noticed it on other Yahoo pages but can't remember specifically right now ill pay more attention next time
by Jack K1 November 25, 2008 5:27 AM PST
Didn't work with Facebook.
Didn't work with Salesforce.com.
And I seem to recall it didn't work with gMail, either.
Reply to this comment
by Hunnter2k3 November 25, 2008 5:56 AM PST
Then your computer must be messed up, because the first and last work perfectly fine here.

Can't verify Salesforce, because it is blocked by HostsMan.
by Shankland November 25, 2008 7:05 AM PST
I also have no trouble with Facebook and Gmail while using Chrome; I can't speak for Salesforce.com There was a really annoying Gmail issue for me until recently in which you could type Tab to move the focus from the e-mail text to the Send button, then type Enter to send the message. The problem was that the "send" button didn't change appearance to indicate the changed focus. But that's fixed now.
by godsgunslinger November 25, 2008 12:15 PM PST
Sorry to tell you this jack... It does. your pc seem to have a trouble but the good chrome works with sales force... my new IE 8 does not... actually it sucks in many ways... y replaced it for mozilla but i will think about clicking on the "make chrome my default browser" button.
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
by FlashThompson November 25, 2008 1:31 PM PST
I have experienced no problems with gmail and haven't tried on salesforce. But on facebook there are some minor issues, such as when using some applications facebook chat doesn't work and the same with other features of the facebook bar. If it is something similar to this that you are calling not working then I feel that your definition of not working is perhaps rather broad.
by denlow November 28, 2008 6:04 AM PST
I don't use Chrome regularly because it doesn't work properly with some of the Facebook apps I like to use. Pages don't fully load. Can't tell whether it's the responsibility of Google or the app developers, but it's an issue.
by rodLX November 29, 2008 8:13 AM PST
godsgunslinger said
"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...
by assman November 25, 2008 5:27 AM PST
Chrome is quite barebones and can't yet be used as a default browser for me. It is fairly buggy as well. A couple years down the road it will likely be a great browser, but right now the only thing going for it is its speed, which is only one component of a satisfying browsing experience.
Reply to this comment
by sargebx November 25, 2008 5:28 AM PST
i am curious did this writer turn trace monkey on before doing the speed test between firefox 3.1 and chrome i feel that would make a big difference in the speed of firefox (if not this can be done in the about:conig menu)
Reply to this comment
by Shankland November 25, 2008 11:09 AM PST
Yes, I run Firefox with TraceMonkey enabled. Here's how to turn it on: http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/3381/firefox-31-how-to-enable-the-tracemonkey-javascript-engine/
by Chet_Kuhn November 25, 2008 5:30 AM PST
I'll be eagerly awaiting the next article in the series entitled "Why I switched back".

Oh wait. <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/chrome_firefox">Somebody already wrote it.</a>

:-)
Reply to this comment
by Shankland November 25, 2008 11:12 AM PST
Your mileage may vary. I haven't had the crashing and video plug-in issues that author did. If I did, then yes, I'd drop Chrome like a hot potato. The issues are certainly real--the last month or so of new builds fixed several plug-in issues with Flash and Silverlight.
by ckurowic November 25, 2008 5:32 AM PST
You know what though...EVERYONE I knew and folks on message boards claimed for the longest time that FireFox was "soooo" much faster than Safari. What a farce, Safari is at least twice as fast for me, so why in the world should I switch to yet another browser that claims to be "faster"? I know there is not a Mac version yet anyway, but still.
Reply to this comment
by Khurt November 25, 2008 10:15 AM PST
And there is no guarantee that a Mac version of Chrome will be faster than Safari. They both using the same engine ( WebKit). At least Safari can be extended ( although there are limitations ). What's Chrome offering that Safari does not?
by askj113 November 25, 2008 11:01 PM PST
The difference between safari on a mac and safari on windows is light years, literally. It's disappointingly slow on windows
by nicmart November 30, 2008 11:29 AM PST
by askj113 N
"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.
by ThatAdamGuy November 25, 2008 5:35 AM PST
Hey Stephen, nice writeup! As a recent convert to Chrome from FF, quite a lot of your comments resonated with me. And one of your complaints -- the lack of RSS handling -- was annoying for me, too. I also happen to be a fan of Google Reader, though, and I found the Subscribe in Reader bookmarklet to work quite well. Like you, though, I still wish there was that little orange icon to let me know when there's a feed available :).

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.
Reply to this comment
by cgramer November 25, 2008 5:36 AM PST
I've mostly switched over to Chrome, as I also love the speed and smoothness of it. My only major gripe with it so far is that the Shockwave Flash plugin frequently becomes unresponsive, especially when browsing on Flickr. I also wish Google would introduce a Google Toolbar for it so that I could use my Google Bookmarks across browsers. Still, considering it's still a beta, it's amazing. I still haven't made Chrome my default browser in Windows, though it is the browser I turn to first when I need to get on the Web.
Reply to this comment
by loose_screw November 25, 2008 10:32 PM PST
You may need to reinstall the flash player. See:

http://news.cnet.com/seven-steps-to-update-the-adobe-flash-player-on-windows/
by droid137 November 25, 2008 5:36 AM PST
Chrome is very fast for casual browsing, but RSS, extensions, and usage data collection are a killer for businesses (and real people.)
Reply to this comment
by bj1126 November 25, 2008 5:37 AM PST
The reasons I'm not using Chrome:

1) Poor cookie handling options.

2) Saved passwords not securable.

3) Address bar info sent to Google,
Reply to this comment
by thelemurking November 25, 2008 6:39 AM PST
Just to point out, for your #2 in your list... Firefox, while it can be a godsend in some cases, it's also very spooky, Tools > Options > Security > Saved Passwords > Show Saved Passwords.

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.
by Michael too November 25, 2008 5:39 AM PST
re: Speed of Firefox

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.
Reply to this comment
by Shankland November 25, 2008 7:13 AM PST
Yes, actually, I do turn the TraceMonkey JavaScript engine on for my testing (I learned the hard way by posting some benchmarks with it switched off initially: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10068743-92.html). I included instructions on how to switch in that story, but here's a direct link:

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.
Reply to this comment
by QASIMARA November 25, 2008 9:12 AM PST
Tried it. It stinks.
by pithenumber November 26, 2008 8:57 AM PST
I use it too.
enable tracemonkey and the internet suddenly becomes faster
many firefox addons work with minefield
Showing 1 of 9 pages (232 Comments)
advertisement

About Webware

Say No to boxed software! The future of applications is online delivery and access. Software is passé. Webware is the new way to get things done.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Webware topics

Inside the Apple, er, Microsoft Store

Although Redmond's foray into retail bears a big resemblance to Apple's approach, Microsoft has added some distinctive features to draw casual PC buyers and techies alike.

Big marketing budget drives Moto Droid sales

Verizon and Motorola are spending big bucks--$100 million--on marketing the new smartphone, and it looks like it will pay off with 1 million devices sold by year's end.

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right