6 ms·

From my experience, the reasons why people switched to Chrome have been because it renders pages much smoother and everything generally looks better. These were

by nu5500 9y ago

From my experience, the reasons why people switched to Chrome have been because it renders pages much smoother and everything generally looks better. These were the original reasons that they moved over to Firefox from IE as well. I personally helped a number of relatives and friends make these switches. Late last year, after many years on Chrome, I gave Firefox another serious look and I have switched back. Firefox has improved tremendously and I would prefer to give my support to Mozilla from a philosophical standpoint (the Chrome team does a lot of good work with regards to pushing forward the features of the web and its security but at the end of the day, Chrome is still a strategic piece of Google's business machine and not a philanthropic effort) While I have my reasons for using Firefox, I don't see a compelling reason for most users already happy with Chrome to switch back. The average web user that I know doesn't really understand where web browsers come from and isn't very interested in learning about it. They just care whether the browser runs better or worse for the tasks that they do. (Except many still hate IE and will not even try Edge because the logo looks similar enough - that's a branding issue that Microsoft has) What irritates me now are more and more sites that only work with Chrome (where they literally throw up a page that blocks access and says go download Chrome). These are sites that are not Google properties so I'm not blaming Google for this bad behavior, but again, I would like to support the diverse browser landscape that has existed to this point. I guess my main complaint to Google is to please stop popping up dialogs about Chrome across all of your properties. The browser I'm using works perfectly fine thank you, and you should be supporting the open web with your products anyway.

Fej 9y ago
Chrome font rendering on Windows is still broken. Fonts that look find everywhere else are different in Chrome and usually look worse. Why?!
- pcwalton 9y ago
  I don't know the exact reason why, but it probably has to do with the fact that Edge and Firefox both use Direct2D for rendering and DirectWrite for text, while Chrome uses Skia (which can call into DirectWrite or GDI for text rendering I believe, but may not do so in the exact same way).
  - euyyn 9y ago
    Should file a bug, though.
  - StillBored 9y ago
    Skia is now the default on firefox/windows when direct2d isn't available. http://techdows.com/2016/10/firefox-52-skia-enabled-by-default-on-windows.html http://techdows.com/2016/10/firefox-52-skia-enabled-by-defau... What does that actually means in practice? I'm guessing the only time you actually get skia is when running in a pretty old hypervisor environment or on a server/BMC without hardware acceleration. Which IMHO, having your application _LOOK_ different depending on hardware acceleration capabilities is sorta stupid.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      > Which IMHO, having your application _LOOK_ different depending on hardware acceleration capabilities is sorta stupid. Which is one of the reasons I transitioned from liking Web back into loving native development (there are plenty of other reasons though). Doing discussions with customers about pixel differences across browsers, specially if it is the same browser on different OSes, is anything but fun. That and the request for features and behaviors only possible in native UIs.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    direct2d ? is that a thing on linux ?
    - vetinari 9y ago
      No. Firefox uses skia on both Linux and macOS.
- ac29 9y ago
  Linux is arguably worse. For whatever reason, Chrome absolutely refuses to display some unicode fonts (that are installed and render fine in Firefox). CJK and other Asian fonts seem to be worst in this regard.
unethical_ban 9y ago
>These aren't Google properties so I'm not blaming them for this bad behavior, No, they should very much be blamed for it! Proper web design should follow cross-platform standards and implementations. They are part of the problem if they force users to choose one or the other.
- jff 9y ago
  I think he means he's not blaming Google for the behavior of other website owners.
  - nu5500 9y ago
    Yep, sorry poor grammar there. I've edited so hopefully it's clearer now.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  Proper web design should follow cross-platform standards and implementations. To be blunt: says who? A lot of people and most organisations aren't making websites as a charitable exercise. They're doing it with a goal in mind, such as bringing in money directly or indirectly, or raising awareness of a cause they care about. Whatever that end goal is, they need to use the web to communicate effectively with their visitors. If those visitors are mostly using one particular browser and they can achieve better progress towards their end goal by optimising for that browser, that is what a lot of them are going to do. I don't think this is necessarily healthy for the long term future of the World Wide Web, but I also don't think it's reasonable to blame people with a job to do for choosing the most effective tools available to do that job.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    This is a very short sighted decision, apart from technical demo, designing a website to only work with a specific browser is actually costly, doesn't last and significantly limits your reach.
    - 9y ago
sandov 9y ago
>What irritates me now are more and more sites that only work with Chrome (where they literally throw up a page that blocks access and says go download Chrome). Any example of this?. Because I've never visited such a site.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Inbox during the Beta. WhatsApp during the Beta. Signal's desktop client. Google Earth. Google Translate works, but has 3 helpful dialogs telling you to install Chrome. Google Search on Mobile Firefox is heavily restricted in functionality, and tells to install Chrome. Under some situations, Google will replace the first 4 search results and replace them with a "your browser is outdated, install Chrome" while also adding a top bar saying the same, and a dialog at the top right.
abandonliberty 9y ago
Firefox is the inferior product. I use firefox because I want a browser to exist that isn't hellbent on knowing exactly who I am in order to maximize profits.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Are you aware that mozilla actually ran on money from google out of using firefox to tell them exactly who you are in order to get a share of the maximized profits ?
  - abandonliberty 9y ago
    I wasn't aware that Mozilla shares every single web page you visit with Google. Do you have a source?
    - yoasif_ 9y ago
      Of course they don't; it's not true.
    - bigbugbag 9y ago
      AFAIK they don't. Firefox phones home to mozilla and according to this comment has about 20 default settings phoning home to google[1]. But my point was simply about directing users' searchs to google search engine, which is enough to expose yourself to google. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14809837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14809837
  - driverdan 9y ago
    I downvoted you because what you said is extremely misleading. Mozilla had a contract with Google to use them as the default search engine. They didn't "tell them exactly who you are..."
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      While technically true, using Google as your default search engine goes a long way to that goal.
snthd 9y ago
For me the compelling features of Firefox over chrome are * better search/address bar behaviour (particularly in finding relevant bookmarks. Chrome wants to turn everything into a Google search) * Integration with Firefox on android (which I need because it supports ad-blocking extensions)
- fernandotakai 9y ago
  the address bar behaviour on chrome is so obnoxious! i can never find stuff that is on my history -- with firefox, couple of keywords and i can find almost anything.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    Is this also the case with vivaldi ? I miss opera where it would also search in page content from cache, not only URL or title.
    - digi_owl 9y ago
      Sadly it seems that Vivaldi, for now at least, only search the url and title.
- problems 9y ago
  Definitely agree with the address bar, I'll add a few: * Being able to disable unnecessary features and phoning home using about:config is great * Extensions look and feel more native (this will probably change because Mozilla has decided that cloning Chrome is the way to go) * Extensions are more capable, still no decent side tabs in Chrome * They're not an ad agency, so they don't ban extensions they don't like or nag you when you install something unapproved * Font rendering manages to not look terrible I'll admit though, Chrome still kills Firefox on UI speed and in many security technology ways. My biggest worry is that Mozilla will fail to achieve Chrome UI speed while ditching the things that make Firefox unique today.
  - bloaf 9y ago
gorhill 9y ago
> more sites that only work with Chrome (where they literally throw up a page that blocks access and says go download Chrome). Any specific examples of this? A URL, or a couple of them? When making such an assertion, it would be nice to minimally provide a way for others to see for themselves.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Only time I've encountered something like this was OK GO's All Is Not Lost music video released in 2011, it came with a warning that you could skip but then the performance were so bad you could not enjoy it. it was available at http://www.allisnotlo.st/ http://www.allisnotlo.st/ but now features an error message about google dropping python 2.5
pcurve 9y ago
For me, the deal breaker for Firefox was Youtube full-screen playback performance. On my old Core 2 Duo E6600 machine, Youtube stuttered playing 1080p videos while it didn't on Chrome.
- jhasse 9y ago
  Linux? If so, see https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/662dxm/psa_hardware_acceleration_on_firefox_may_be/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/662dxm/psa_hardware_...

by nu5500 9y ago

Fej 9y ago

Chrome font rendering on Windows is still broken. Fonts that look find everywhere else are different in Chrome and usually look worse. Why?!

pcwalton 9y ago
I don't know the exact reason why, but it probably has to do with the fact that Edge and Firefox both use Direct2D for rendering and DirectWrite for text, while Chrome uses Skia (which can call into DirectWrite or GDI for text rendering I believe, but may not do so in the exact same way).
- euyyn 9y ago
  Should file a bug, though.
- StillBored 9y ago
  Skia is now the default on firefox/windows when direct2d isn't available. http://techdows.com/2016/10/firefox-52-skia-enabled-by-default-on-windows.html http://techdows.com/2016/10/firefox-52-skia-enabled-by-defau... What does that actually means in practice? I'm guessing the only time you actually get skia is when running in a pretty old hypervisor environment or on a server/BMC without hardware acceleration. Which IMHO, having your application _LOOK_ different depending on hardware acceleration capabilities is sorta stupid.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    > Which IMHO, having your application _LOOK_ different depending on hardware acceleration capabilities is sorta stupid. Which is one of the reasons I transitioned from liking Web back into loving native development (there are plenty of other reasons though). Doing discussions with customers about pixel differences across browsers, specially if it is the same browser on different OSes, is anything but fun. That and the request for features and behaviors only possible in native UIs.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  direct2d ? is that a thing on linux ?
  - vetinari 9y ago
    No. Firefox uses skia on both Linux and macOS.
ac29 9y ago
Linux is arguably worse. For whatever reason, Chrome absolutely refuses to display some unicode fonts (that are installed and render fine in Firefox). CJK and other Asian fonts seem to be worst in this regard.

unethical_ban 9y ago

>These aren't Google properties so I'm not blaming them for this bad behavior, No, they should very much be blamed for it! Proper web design should follow cross-platform standards and implementations. They are part of the problem if they force users to choose one or the other.

jff 9y ago
I think he means he's not blaming Google for the behavior of other website owners.
- nu5500 9y ago
  Yep, sorry poor grammar there. I've edited so hopefully it's clearer now.
Silhouette 9y ago
Proper web design should follow cross-platform standards and implementations. To be blunt: says who? A lot of people and most organisations aren't making websites as a charitable exercise. They're doing it with a goal in mind, such as bringing in money directly or indirectly, or raising awareness of a cause they care about. Whatever that end goal is, they need to use the web to communicate effectively with their visitors. If those visitors are mostly using one particular browser and they can achieve better progress towards their end goal by optimising for that browser, that is what a lot of them are going to do. I don't think this is necessarily healthy for the long term future of the World Wide Web, but I also don't think it's reasonable to blame people with a job to do for choosing the most effective tools available to do that job.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  This is a very short sighted decision, apart from technical demo, designing a website to only work with a specific browser is actually costly, doesn't last and significantly limits your reach.
  - 9y ago

sandov 9y ago

>What irritates me now are more and more sites that only work with Chrome (where they literally throw up a page that blocks access and says go download Chrome). Any example of this?. Because I've never visited such a site.

kuschku 9y ago
Inbox during the Beta. WhatsApp during the Beta. Signal's desktop client. Google Earth. Google Translate works, but has 3 helpful dialogs telling you to install Chrome. Google Search on Mobile Firefox is heavily restricted in functionality, and tells to install Chrome. Under some situations, Google will replace the first 4 search results and replace them with a "your browser is outdated, install Chrome" while also adding a top bar saying the same, and a dialog at the top right.

abandonliberty 9y ago

Firefox is the inferior product. I use firefox because I want a browser to exist that isn't hellbent on knowing exactly who I am in order to maximize profits.

bigbugbag 9y ago
Are you aware that mozilla actually ran on money from google out of using firefox to tell them exactly who you are in order to get a share of the maximized profits ?
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  I wasn't aware that Mozilla shares every single web page you visit with Google. Do you have a source?
  - yoasif_ 9y ago
    Of course they don't; it's not true.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    AFAIK they don't. Firefox phones home to mozilla and according to this comment has about 20 default settings phoning home to google[1]. But my point was simply about directing users' searchs to google search engine, which is enough to expose yourself to google. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14809837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14809837
- driverdan 9y ago
  I downvoted you because what you said is extremely misleading. Mozilla had a contract with Google to use them as the default search engine. They didn't "tell them exactly who you are..."
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    While technically true, using Google as your default search engine goes a long way to that goal.

snthd 9y ago

For me the compelling features of Firefox over chrome are * better search/address bar behaviour (particularly in finding relevant bookmarks. Chrome wants to turn everything into a Google search) * Integration with Firefox on android (which I need because it supports ad-blocking extensions)

fernandotakai 9y ago
the address bar behaviour on chrome is so obnoxious! i can never find stuff that is on my history -- with firefox, couple of keywords and i can find almost anything.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Is this also the case with vivaldi ? I miss opera where it would also search in page content from cache, not only URL or title.
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    Sadly it seems that Vivaldi, for now at least, only search the url and title.
problems 9y ago
Definitely agree with the address bar, I'll add a few: * Being able to disable unnecessary features and phoning home using about:config is great * Extensions look and feel more native (this will probably change because Mozilla has decided that cloning Chrome is the way to go) * Extensions are more capable, still no decent side tabs in Chrome * They're not an ad agency, so they don't ban extensions they don't like or nag you when you install something unapproved * Font rendering manages to not look terrible I'll admit though, Chrome still kills Firefox on UI speed and in many security technology ways. My biggest worry is that Mozilla will fail to achieve Chrome UI speed while ditching the things that make Firefox unique today.
- bloaf 9y ago

gorhill 9y ago

> more sites that only work with Chrome (where they literally throw up a page that blocks access and says go download Chrome). Any specific examples of this? A URL, or a couple of them? When making such an assertion, it would be nice to minimally provide a way for others to see for themselves.

bigbugbag 9y ago
Only time I've encountered something like this was OK GO's All Is Not Lost music video released in 2011, it came with a warning that you could skip but then the performance were so bad you could not enjoy it. it was available at http://www.allisnotlo.st/ http://www.allisnotlo.st/ but now features an error message about google dropping python 2.5

pcurve 9y ago

For me, the deal breaker for Firefox was Youtube full-screen playback performance. On my old Core 2 Duo E6600 machine, Youtube stuttered playing 1080p videos while it didn't on Chrome.

jhasse 9y ago
Linux? If so, see https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/662dxm/psa_hardware_acceleration_on_firefox_may_be/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/662dxm/psa_hardware_...