5 ms·

I prefer Chrome and Safari because I'm a Webkit fan. But I got my dad on Firefox and he loves it. Inertia will keep him there just like inertia kept him on IE u

I prefer Chrome and Safari because I'm a Webkit fan. But I got my dad on Firefox and he loves it. Inertia will keep him there just like inertia kept him on IE until I pushed FF on him. Firefox is decently speedy and I even prefer it to Safari in terms of speed (though I haven't used Safari5 much at all so I cant really compare that version). Chrome does a better job with lots of tabs. Firefox definitely slows down with each tab. I absolutely love the way each tab in Chrome is its own separate process. Why doesn't Firefox follow their lead?

ams6110 15y ago
Why did Chrome supplant Firefox? It was/is faster. Most people (certainly people like "my mom" or "my grandfather" who are so often presented as examples in these discussions) don't need/won't ever use things such as: plugins, tabs, javascript consoles, CSS debuggers, etc. Strip ALL that out and make a solid, simple, FAST browser that is monetized by search/ad deals. Make a "pro" or "developer" edition with the extra tools and features to keep the likes of us happy.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Is it truly faster? I don't know. I do know it feels faster and in this context feelings trump facts when it comes to most users. I'd also add that a developer edition sounds good but I'm not sure if actually is a good idea. While its true the addons are what bogs down speed, having separate editions makes Mozilla's job harder and it will make the temptation to continually add new developer pet features greater which can only hurt in the long run. A better option might be to simply have one, stripped down edition with optional extensions just like how things pretty much are.
azakai 15y ago
> Chrome does a better job with lots of tabs. Firefox definitely slows down with each tab. I absolutely love the way each tab in Chrome is its own separate process. Why doesn't Firefox follow their lead? Many people report the opposite, that Chrome does poorly with hundreds of tabs. The reason is that there is a tradeoff: Running tabs in separate processes as Chrome does takes more memory, but it does help with responsiveness. So whether Firefox or Chrome ends up 'faster' really depends on the number of tabs (and which web pages they are on), and how much memory you have. There is no perfect approach that is fast on everything.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  You're very right. I suppose Chrome feels faster and that often counts more than facts. I still love the separate processes. Really cool idea, I think. Everyone's mileage will vary when it comes to this I suppose.

ams6110 15y ago

Why did Chrome supplant Firefox? It was/is faster. Most people (certainly people like "my mom" or "my grandfather" who are so often presented as examples in these discussions) don't need/won't ever use things such as: plugins, tabs, javascript consoles, CSS debuggers, etc. Strip ALL that out and make a solid, simple, FAST browser that is monetized by search/ad deals. Make a "pro" or "developer" edition with the extra tools and features to keep the likes of us happy.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Is it truly faster? I don't know. I do know it feels faster and in this context feelings trump facts when it comes to most users. I'd also add that a developer edition sounds good but I'm not sure if actually is a good idea. While its true the addons are what bogs down speed, having separate editions makes Mozilla's job harder and it will make the temptation to continually add new developer pet features greater which can only hurt in the long run. A better option might be to simply have one, stripped down edition with optional extensions just like how things pretty much are.

azakai 15y ago

> Chrome does a better job with lots of tabs. Firefox definitely slows down with each tab. I absolutely love the way each tab in Chrome is its own separate process. Why doesn't Firefox follow their lead? Many people report the opposite, that Chrome does poorly with hundreds of tabs. The reason is that there is a tradeoff: Running tabs in separate processes as Chrome does takes more memory, but it does help with responsiveness. So whether Firefox or Chrome ends up 'faster' really depends on the number of tabs (and which web pages they are on), and how much memory you have. There is no perfect approach that is fast on everything.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
You're very right. I suppose Chrome feels faster and that often counts more than facts. I still love the separate processes. Really cool idea, I think. Everyone's mileage will vary when it comes to this I suppose.