Firefox May Already Be Dead (PC World)

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20090320/tc_pcworld/firefoxmayalreadybedead

 

Chrome is a fast train to blah. So what if FF takes 10 seconds as opposed to 4 seconds. What are we going to do during the 6 seconds we saved? Chrome is like one page in FF.

 

After reading the article, all I can say is that it is pretty stupid. He says that Chrome is "infinitely better than Firefox." How is that? Sure, Chrome is faster than the current version of Firefox; however, the latest development version is so much better. Practically everything has been improved. And then there's the flexibility that Firefox provides--something that is missing from Chrome. Heck, even Opera is better than Chrome in terms of customization. Of course, not everyone customizes their browser, but then a lot of people do so.

Also, while the rendering speed Firefox may not be as fast compared to Chrome, it still is pretty darn fast (real-world experience). Really, the only thing that Firefox is bad at is when starting cold. Subsequent starts are faster, however.

 

Firefox has been on the rise for the past 2-3 years, steady. If that's the definition of death, then so be it ... Anyhow, apocalyptic subjects are always good traffic.

Thread named: conficker, just another worm, would be too boring. Instead, a trillion machines zombified, April 1 doomsday, soooo much better.

And so it is with Firefox. Look at the metrics for firefox on w3schools, going up steady up to 50%, ie on decline, opera on small decline but steady, chrome on small rise or steady, safari steady ... That speaks more than doom portends.

Mrk

 

Seems inevitable that when a browser becomes mainstream, it has some feature creep and becomes slower. Not much evidence here except to the author pointing out that

1) Chrome is faster on tests
2) People on a Chrome slashdot news item like Chrome
3) Mozilla gets revenue google for search

Nothing that is a deal breaker yet.

 

What is exactly browser speed, I wonders?

Application speed or website speed? The first depends on oh-so many factors, the second on oh-so many factors. You need a design of experiment, with at least 2 settings, maybe 3, at least 20 factors to consider, including operating system, anti-virus, firewall, hard disk speed, ram, cpu ... Overall, you need maybe a million tests, twice, against 20-30 website types, including static html, javascript, single tab, single window, multiple tab, multiple window, flash, streaming, etc.

Anyone can have any result, depending how and when they try it.

Is Chrome faster on 128MB ram, 8GB ram, Fedora 6 versus Windows 98? Is there Chrome for Windows 98, btw? What about 66 tabs open, 4 windows, with norton anti-virus on 512mb ram and xp installed 16 days ago? What about someone with c drive clogged up to 96% space, 7200rpm versus someone raptor 15k, with 4% taken space...

At best, you can have a hunch ...

Mrk

 

Opinions are like a**holes...everybody's got one....unless you are one....

BTW, I disagree with his opinion.

Later...

 

I agree that results can vary on different setups.
One man's observations on his system don't make for universal fact.
At any rate, I think it's way too early to start writing an obituary for FireFox.

 

I really don't trust all the tests. They show that Chrome can be up to 2 times faster in specific parts or rendering. In real time, my webpages open just as fast in firefox as they do in chrome, the difference probably isn't more then a few milliseconds.

 

Hmmm.

Firefox starts up, with 20 add-on extensions installed and active, from a cold click on the shortcut to fully up and available, on my PC in under 4 seconds.

Google Chrome infested my file system and registry so completely that I had to restore a backup taken prior to install to remove it.

 

Well, in a way it is, because in the software world, anything that becomes popular ultimately breeds a replica that's "lighter and faster" or the more common term "less bloated". If feature creep doesn't hit it, the hackers usually do. Just spinning it around a bit, I'm personally whoring through all the browsers trying to find my home after wanting a change from Fx last month.

 

I won't say anything bad about Firefox, having used it for years since way back in it's 0.5 Phoenix days. But...... the other browsers ARE faster. Opera definitely is, Chrome for sure is, and honestly, even IE8 is faster, I just used all of them for a few days to compare. So if speed is what you want, then you'll use the faster ones. If it's features and extensions, then many will stick with Firefox. There's something for everyone...

 

As has been pointed out, much depends on how you use your browser. But if you use a lot of web apps that are JavaScript heavy, Chrome, without question, blows every other browser out of the water. Which is not surprising considering Google developed the browser to be the optimal browser for Google's suite of web apps. But seriously, go to Google Documents using IE, Firefox and Chrome and you'll clearly see that IE and Firefox seem downright sludgy.

 

I don't care if Chrome/Safari are 1.5-2x faster in JS on certain pages. The true value of FF lies in its extensions - without those its literally like using another application thats missing a ton of functionality, not just a different browser.

The JS and rendering wars will continue for some time, Minefield has already closed the gap somewhat. There's no doubt that WebKit > Gecko >>> Trident when it comes to rendering engines, but the rest of the browser matters too!

 

In a way it's kind of apples and oranges based on how you use your browser. FF may be best for browsing the web with all of its extensions and add-ons. Chrome may be best for using the web and putting so much of what was once solely on the desktop into the cloud.

 

There's nothing that Chrome does that other browsers don't - its just a rendering engine with UI. So e.g. unless adds some special services to it for using google apps, I fail to see how it puts more things into the cloud etc. Or are you just talking about the speed of web apps on Chrome ?

 

Yes, Chrome makes use of these web apps much smoother and quicker - much like a desktop application.

 

As with windows xp, the demise of firefox has been greatly exaggerated. Internet Explorer has been "deadman walking" for years and it's still the king of the hill even as it wallows in all it's insecuritys. All these new browsers might be a bit quicker, but they need to earn there "bones" before anyone can take them seriously.

 

I don't think Firefox is dying at all. Look at how much it has grown in the past few years. Chrome is nice for those who like minimalistic applications (such as myself) but, until they add at LEAST an Adblock feature up to par with Firefoxs or Operas, I'm not switching.

I really hope the extensions Chrome developers are speaking of will not bog down the browser to the extent Firefox suffers. Otherwise with adblock, I could care less of other extensions.

 

Firefox is a household word now, so I don't think it'll die anytime soon. But I do think that the extensions are about all it has going for it...

 

Chrome needs to establish its repuation as a non Spyware and also needs to add an ability to filter out ads, only then will it gain some respect, as of now, its a Google product and people are just wary of it no matter how good it is.

 

I'm sorry but, this is just too funny to me and dont believe or put much credit to a article from PC World of all places.

 

Thats what i seen so far myself. And as far as speed? It's not incredibly more swift although it is smoother in some respects judging from my experience with it so far.

That being said, i will never abandon FF because it's MULTI-PRUPOSE! plus NoScript & AdBlock Plus to mention a couple of tons of extras, but i will say this, i would like to see GOOGLE build Chrome into a very good browser.

We're just seeing it right now in an infancy stage AFAIK.