5 ms·

Honestly I never quite understood why most folks switched so easily and unquestioningly to Chrome. Maybe I'm just an open source purist. However, I will say th

Honestly I never quite understood why most folks switched so easily and unquestioningly to Chrome. Maybe I'm just an open source purist. However, I will say that in almost all tests with websites I am actually using Firefox is faster. (Maybe not that much of a purist: I do use Chrome at work as we're using various Google products... docs, meet, etc, and those work better on Chrome. Go figure.)

jupp0r 3y ago
WebRTC support in FireFox and Safari had been abysmal for years. This has now gotten much better.
samcheng 3y ago
When it first came out, Chrome was much, much more performant than Firefox, and had better standards compliance than Safari. It was just a better browsing experience. V8 was a big deal performance-wise. Firefox has since largely caught-up from a performance perspective, although there is still some functionality inconvenience. Of course the stated attitude toward the user is night and day - I switched back to Firefox about the same time they started integrating Gmail / Google accounts into Chrome.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- troupo 3y ago
  > When it first came out, Chrome was much, much more performant than Firefox, and had better standards compliance than Safari When it first came out, it was almost literally Safari (well, WebKit).
- mshroyer 3y ago
  Another key differentiator for Chrome, when it came out, was its process isolation model. Firefox has that too now.
StewardMcOy 3y ago
I wouldn't underestimate the impact the Chrome TV ads had on regular computer users. The banners atop Google search results encouraging people to switch also played a big role. by the time Chrome launched, I think there were a ton of people who were sick to death of hearing one extended family member or another who was into tech cajole them to drop Internet Explorer. Switching to Chrome was easy. Just click the link that Google gave them, and plus, they were familiar with it from TV.
- yomlica8 3y ago
  Chrome also stealth installed itself with Adobe flash and reader updates with a default check. I remember it in antivirus software and who knows what else. I'll admit this traditional installer dark pattern seems quaint compared to what OSes regularly attack users with these days but this was the behavior of most pay-to-pack-in crapware at the time.
slotrans 3y ago
Everyone who was there when it came out knows/remembers why. It was unbelievably fast and lightweight compared to Firefox and IE.
plorkyeran 3y ago
When it first came out, it really was so much faster than every other option that even ordinary users would immediately notice a difference. 2008 Google also had an incredibly positive reputation. If you tried to tell someone in 2008 that Google was an advertising company, you might convince them to agree that it was technically true, but they'd tell you that it was a stupid and reductive view of the company. Everyone was on board with the idea that Google's goal in creating Chrome was to help grow the web because obviously google search was reliant on the open web doing well.
roydivision 3y ago
Let’s not forget the bubble we’re in here. Google are aiming for Jane and Joe Muggle who click on that icon to get the internet. Google have done a really effective marketing job there, Chrome in that sense is almost like a virus in the way it has propagated for no other good reason.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
Firefox also can display images correctly if the site happens to not include a web optimized version in the correct resolution. I don't know the web you visit, but that is pretty common in a lot of places. Chrome users looked at worse versions of images on the web for years. It is a completely bonkers performance optimization. Chrome did kick Firefox off in web development tools though, so I can understand some people. But today I don't think there is much difference anymore. I am not web dev though. On the other hand webdevs should know about image quality on websites.
mshroyer 3y ago
Following this launch I've been test-driving both Firefox and Vivaldi. I'm surprised how few issues I've encountered browsing with Firefox, despite it not being part of the Chromium borg. I dare say it's actually a nicer experience overall than Chrome, with the caveat that I haven't looked into battery life impact yet.
Unfrozen0688 3y ago
When Chrome came out, it was and FELT waaaay faster than Firefox or any other browser. By miles. And back then, Google had a great reputation.
josefx 3y ago
Google sites and services where constantly nagging users to "upgrade to Chrome" and some even broke on Firefox (unless you changed the user agent string to chrome). It was also bundled on nearly every software download site, so you got it even if you never explicitly asked for it.
devnullbrain 3y ago
There are a few replies on performance here: I didn't notice at the time, I just did it because Google was still a 'cool' company. In the intervening years I bounced between the two depending on which made the most asinine UI decisions but settled on Firefox when my FOSS sensibilities and distaste for Google hardened.

jupp0r 3y ago

WebRTC support in FireFox and Safari had been abysmal for years. This has now gotten much better.

samcheng 3y ago

When it first came out, Chrome was much, much more performant than Firefox, and had better standards compliance than Safari. It was just a better browsing experience. V8 was a big deal performance-wise. Firefox has since largely caught-up from a performance perspective, although there is still some functionality inconvenience. Of course the stated attitude toward the user is night and day - I switched back to Firefox about the same time they started integrating Gmail / Google accounts into Chrome.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
troupo 3y ago
> When it first came out, Chrome was much, much more performant than Firefox, and had better standards compliance than Safari When it first came out, it was almost literally Safari (well, WebKit).
mshroyer 3y ago
Another key differentiator for Chrome, when it came out, was its process isolation model. Firefox has that too now.

StewardMcOy 3y ago

I wouldn't underestimate the impact the Chrome TV ads had on regular computer users. The banners atop Google search results encouraging people to switch also played a big role. by the time Chrome launched, I think there were a ton of people who were sick to death of hearing one extended family member or another who was into tech cajole them to drop Internet Explorer. Switching to Chrome was easy. Just click the link that Google gave them, and plus, they were familiar with it from TV.

yomlica8 3y ago
Chrome also stealth installed itself with Adobe flash and reader updates with a default check. I remember it in antivirus software and who knows what else. I'll admit this traditional installer dark pattern seems quaint compared to what OSes regularly attack users with these days but this was the behavior of most pay-to-pack-in crapware at the time.

slotrans 3y ago

Everyone who was there when it came out knows/remembers why. It was unbelievably fast and lightweight compared to Firefox and IE.

plorkyeran 3y ago

When it first came out, it really was so much faster than every other option that even ordinary users would immediately notice a difference. 2008 Google also had an incredibly positive reputation. If you tried to tell someone in 2008 that Google was an advertising company, you might convince them to agree that it was technically true, but they'd tell you that it was a stupid and reductive view of the company. Everyone was on board with the idea that Google's goal in creating Chrome was to help grow the web because obviously google search was reliant on the open web doing well.

roydivision 3y ago

Let’s not forget the bubble we’re in here. Google are aiming for Jane and Joe Muggle who click on that icon to get the internet. Google have done a really effective marketing job there, Chrome in that sense is almost like a virus in the way it has propagated for no other good reason.

raxxorraxor 3y ago

Firefox also can display images correctly if the site happens to not include a web optimized version in the correct resolution. I don't know the web you visit, but that is pretty common in a lot of places. Chrome users looked at worse versions of images on the web for years. It is a completely bonkers performance optimization. Chrome did kick Firefox off in web development tools though, so I can understand some people. But today I don't think there is much difference anymore. I am not web dev though. On the other hand webdevs should know about image quality on websites.

mshroyer 3y ago

Following this launch I've been test-driving both Firefox and Vivaldi. I'm surprised how few issues I've encountered browsing with Firefox, despite it not being part of the Chromium borg. I dare say it's actually a nicer experience overall than Chrome, with the caveat that I haven't looked into battery life impact yet.

Unfrozen0688 3y ago

When Chrome came out, it was and FELT waaaay faster than Firefox or any other browser. By miles. And back then, Google had a great reputation.

josefx 3y ago

Google sites and services where constantly nagging users to "upgrade to Chrome" and some even broke on Firefox (unless you changed the user agent string to chrome). It was also bundled on nearly every software download site, so you got it even if you never explicitly asked for it.

devnullbrain 3y ago

There are a few replies on performance here: I didn't notice at the time, I just did it because Google was still a 'cool' company. In the intervening years I bounced between the two depending on which made the most asinine UI decisions but settled on Firefox when my FOSS sensibilities and distaste for Google hardened.