Firefox an Endangered Species

[adrynalyne]

I don't use Firefox because I like Chrome's developer tools better.

[gohpep]

I don't use Firefox because I like Chrome's developer tools better.

Firebug?

[adrynalyne]

Firebug?

No thanks.  I'd rather use Firefox'es built in ones over Firebug.

 

I like Chrome's developer tools better. They work better for me, and its purely preference.

[gohpep]

No thanks.  I'd rather use Firefox'es built in ones over Firebug.

 

I like Chrome's developer tools better. They work better for me, and its purely preference.

I've used Chrome's dev tools and I agree that they have better organization, but I've just gotten used to using Firefox since it is my main browser. It really is a matter of preference and familiarity.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

well its kind of arguing semantics, but not really - the browser uses Flash, but its not part of the browser.

IE and Chrome has proper support for Flash. Firefox doesn't work as well for many people.

Guess what the average user is going to do here.

[gohpep]

IE and Chrome has proper support for Flash. Firefox doesn't work as well for many people.

Guess what the average user is going to do here.

I use flash on Firefox and it works perfectly for me.

[simplezz]

Net Applications, the statistics company you use when you don't want accuracy. Enough said.

[Romero]

Pale Moon is hardly faster any more by any stretch.

No slower than FF either, so I don't see any disadvantage to using it like you keep droning on about.

 

I'm curious how rearranging UI elements would be a security risk.. I'd be more concerned with a fork of an old version of a browser that's had many vulnerabilities in its history done by a very small team of people, sounds riskier by far.

You can't simply 'rearrange' UI elements to go back to a pre-Australis state. You need add-ons for that and any add-on increases resource usage and can definitely introduce security holes, especially since many are sloppily coded. PM also gets security patches and features ported over from FF regularly and works just fine for everyone who uses it.

 

Speaking of UIs, I hate how every browser seems to think Chrome's UI is something worthy of being copied. Mozilla used to chart its own course once upon a time but it's just lost all focus recently, which explains the decline in its market share. Lots of people moved to FF alternatives like PM post-Australis, or to Chrome since if that's the sort of UI they were going to be forced to use they might as well use Chrome itself.

[kozukumi]

It is losing market share because Mozilla are putting large amounts of work into things the majority of people couldn't care less about. Things like Apps (how is this different to extensions?) and Hello (why?!).

 

I want a faster browser. I don't care about all these extra things I, and the majority of other users, just don't use. Hello should have just been an official, optional, extension not something built into the browser annoying me when I upgrade.

 

I love Firefox. It is the only browser I ever use but I want it to be faster. It has gotten a lot better but it could still be much better still.

 

Is it time for a reboot like what Firefox was to the Mozilla suite? Just a super lean browser with extension support? None of the extra things like dev tools (stick that in a developer edition only). A clean, simple UI. Etc.

 

Also I am not a big fan of the new Australis look and feel. It isn't as clean as it once was and I lost some customisation options. I am probably in the minority wanting such a lean browser though. Oh well. I will still use Firefox over Chrome. I am not a big fan of Google these days. They want to know way too much about everything I do.

[Max Norris]

No slower than FF either, so I don't see any disadvantage to using it like you keep droning on about.

Oooook..

One of my random test systems, Firefox 37 beta on the left (with a lot of addons, including some that are considered "fat"), Pale Moon 25.2.1 on the right with no addons whatsoever.  Day to day usage I can easily see Pale Moon get bogged down on script-heavy sites where Firefox doesn't anymore, it's almost on par with Chrome, very close,  and with the new engine that's in the works that's going be an even bigger difference.  Sorry, reality doesn't agree.. and I'm the one who's droning? Heh.. starting to sound like the type that clings to Windows XP. If you want to use it, by all means go for it, but at least be honest about it mmkay?

 

You can't simply 'rearrange' UI elements to go back to a pre-Australis state. You need add-ons for that and any add-on increases resource usage and can definitely introduce security holes, especially since many are sloppily coded. PM also gets security patches and features ported over from FF regularly and works just fine for everyone who uses it.

It's one addon... memory usage with it enabled and disabled?  Almost  impossible to tell the difference. 

 

As far as PM's addons go.. if the addons work (some don't or require special trickery), not all features have been ported (media source extensions yet? Aw, no, better hope Flash plays nice), and resource usage is still more or less on par between the two.. sorry, but I highly doubt there's very many people who actually use Firefox or one of its knockoffs with zero addons, and besides, even loaded to the gills with addons it still uses a lot less memory than Chrome by far.  Security holes in an addon that moves toolbars around?  Please, show me a vulnerability, would love to see it.

 

 

Speaking of UIs, I hate how every browser seems to think Chrome's UI is something worthy of being copied. Mozilla used to chart its own course once upon a time but it's just lost all focus recently, which explains the decline in its market share.

 

So do I,hence me changing it.. because you know you're not forced into using it.  Forced implies being unable to change, but since you can.. rhetoric, sorry.  But I seriously doubt that's why Firefox lost marketshare.. it's kind of hard to go toe to toe with a 10 ton gorilla with infinite pockets like Google.

 

 

It is losing market share because Mozilla are putting large amounts of work into things the majority of people couldn't care less about. Things like Apps (how is this different to extensions?) and Hello (why?!).

 

Meh not keen on Hello either (*shrug*), apps though are kinda sorta somewhat handy depending on your needs, self-contained web app that's independent of the browser, used to use a few of these on Chrome too.  I can run these on a different monitor than my primary and it doesn't interfere with the browser itself.  It has it's selective uses.. not a game changer, but nice to have for some, ignore it and never see it if you don't.

[Noir Angel]

I was an Opera user for about 5 years then I switched to Chrome because of its simplicity, speed, and the way it ties in with Google's services so well. I've personally had a largely glitch free experience with Chrome. I can't say I've ever liked Firefox, the fact that they use non native UI controls makes it feel clunky to me, the XUL engine they use just feels outdated and clunky. It's very much a personal thing these days, there's nothing explicitly wrong with Firefox, they just can't match Google's development budget and it shows. It's not the fastest browser of them all but it works well enough.

[Romero]

Day to day usage I can easily see Pale Moon get bogged down on script-heavy sites where Firefox doesn't anymore, it's almost on par with Chrome, very close,  and with the new engine that's in the works that's going be an even bigger difference.  Sorry, reality doesn't agree.. and I'm the one who's droning? Heh.. starting to sound like the type that clings to Windows XP. If you want to use it, by all means go for it, but at least be honest about it mmkay?

I don't use beta versions. For me PM 25.2.1 is easily on par with FF 36.0.1 and I see no appreciable difference at all in daily browsing, even on script-heavy sites. You can blabbler about XP all you want here as if it's remotely relevant to the topic at hand, doesn't change what I experience on my system.

 

I highly doubt there's very many people who actually use Firefox or one of its knockoffs with zero addons, and besides, even loaded to the gills with addons it still uses a lot less memory than Chrome by far.

Mem usage compared to Chrome? Perhaps it does use less but I don't give a rat's ass about Chrome anyway.

 

Security holes in an addon that moves toolbars around?  Please, show me a vulnerability, would love to see it.

May or may not be an actual vulnerability - I never stated there was one definitely. But there's always the possibility of one and whatever be the resource usage it is something entirely unnecessary and PM users choose not to pay that penalty. Also, if you think the difference between Australis and the classic UI is just a toolbar being moved around you have no clue.

 

So do I,hence me changing it.. because you know you're not forced into using it.  Forced implies being unable to change, but since you can.. rhetoric, sorry.  But I seriously doubt that's why Firefox lost marketshare.. it's kind of hard to go toe to toe with a 10 ton gorilla with infinite pockets like Google.

Yeah, people who detest Australis might not be forced to use it but they are certainly forced to load add-ons to undo the damage wrought by Mozilla. Those who feel strongly about it and would rather not jump through these hoops use PM and it works for them, as simple as that. Australis may not be the reason FF is losing market share, but it definitely has contributed. Mozilla didn't have a hard time going toe to toe with Google and others earlier and that's why many loved FF. Things like Australis are symptomatic of how they have lost their unique vision and seem to think aping Google is the way forward. What's sad is it's not as if Chrome is better by leaps and bounds - not even close. They could have provided a Chrome-like theme or skin for all those deluded people who think it's the best UI going around, instead of attempting to become a me-too clone. That's not why people chose it in the first place.

 

Is it time for a reboot like what Firefox was to the Mozilla suite? Just a super lean browser with extension support? None of the extra things like dev tools (stick that in a developer edition only). A clean, simple UI. Etc.

Also I am not a big fan of the new Australis look and feel. It isn't as clean as it once was and I lost some customisation options. I am probably in the minority wanting such a lean browser though.

+1 and nope, you're not in the minority. I bet lots of people would love a rebooted FF. If they do it right I'm sure users of forks such as PM, WaterFox and the like would switch back in a jiffy and they'd win back many of the users they've bled to Chrome and others.

[Max Norris]

I don't use beta versions. For me PM 25.2.1 is easily on par with FF 36.0.1 [

... not even close. Same big difference. I can draw another picture if it helps.

 

May or may not be an actual vulnerability - I never stated there was one definitely. But there's always the possibility of one and whatever be the resource usage it is something entirely unnecessary and PM users choose not to pay that penalty.

Ah, so it's just a maybe now. Maybe I prefer to stick with the team that actually wrote the thing too versus an unknown group of a couple people who are messing with somebody else's work, you know because there's a possibility of vulnerabilities being created. And as I mentioned, the resource usage is practically nonexistant.. what penalty?

Also, if you think the difference between Australis and the classic UI is just a toolbar being moved around you have no clue.

That's funny, because my Firefox looks and acts near identical to a setup I have of Pale Moon, just saying. I can spare a clue if you need one.

 

Yeah, people who detest Australis might not be forced to use it but they are certainly forced to load add-ons to undo the damage wrought by Mozilla. Those who feel strongly about it and would rather not jump through these hoops use PM and it works for them, as simple as that.

Damage? Jump through hoops? You mean click click done? Mmkay then. God forbid you actually have to do something that's actually hard.

 

Mozilla didn't have a hard time going toe to toe with Google and others earlier and that's why many loved FF.

Wrong. Look at a market share chart that spans over the past few years. Fun fact, Firefox's marketshare didn't go into a tailspin until mid 2009... not long after Chrome was officially released, and coincidentally, long before Austrailis came about. Again, rhetoric and reality don't match.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Chrome for me does exactly what I want. Firefox extensions were extremely problematic (slow, constantly needing updating, attention grabbing) and the update process was a nightmare, so I moved over to Chrome soon after it was released and have stuck with it ever since. I've tried IE, Firefox and Opera over the years to compare the experience but have always gone back to Chrome, though I do use Opera as my secondary browser because of the Turbo Mode.

 

Firefox became everything that made IE so bad - a slow development cycle, poor standards support and UI updates that made no sense. It was a great browser in its day but it has served its purpose and has been made obsolete by Chrome. Given the slow nature of the open source development model I don't see Firefox ever being competitive, unless Google makes some serious missteps. I still don't understand why Firefox has a separate search bar and such small text for the URL bar.

[Obry]

I don't see Firefox going away anytime soon. I actually am looking forward to their updates to Developer Tools, most of which are in the nightlies (even though some highly experimental). The main reason I use Chrome is for the developer tools - still not matched by anyone else IMO (tired Firefox Developer Edition but couldn't look at that ugly black UI for more than 3 minutes). But for FF to go away - I don't see it. Yes, not the dominant browser it used to be but I still see many people (hell even my parents prefer using it over anything else). Chrome was cool but not the case at all anymore. Also people (myself included) are straight up starting to hate Google and I don't see their arrogance and BS weakening so I wouldn't be surprised if FF market share to start growing again. 

[vZeroG]

If Firefox would scale things properly on HiDPI displays (my laptop is 3K) then I would use it as my sole browser. Unfortunately, things like the vSphere Web Client are almost impossible to use within it due to lack of proper scaling. I keep it around for certain things, but generally it goes unused at this point. 

[Romero]

Same big difference. I can draw another picture if it helps.

Yeah, draw as many purty pictures you want if you think it's magically going to make FF faster for me compared to PM.

 

Ah, so it's just a maybe now.

Since you seem to lack basic comprehension skills or are deliberately being obtuse, here are a few quotes for you:

"extensions that use up resources and possibly reduce stability and security"

"any add-on increases resource usage and can definitely introduce security holes"

 

Less the add-ons loaded, less the possibility of security holes and increased instability, and definitely less resource usage no matter by how much. You can deny it all you want but doesn't change facts.

 

Maybe I prefer to stick with the team that actually wrote the thing too versus an unknown group of a couple people who are messing with somebody else's work, you know because there's a possibility of vulnerabilities being created.

And maybe I trust the people behind the particular fork I'm using, since I know them as well or little as I do the ones posting patches for FF. What is your point anyway? Is anyone questioning why you're using FF? So why is some people preferring PM over FF making you get your panties in such a twist?

 

That's funny, because my Firefox looks and acts near identical to a setup I have of Pale Moon, just saying. I can spare a clue if you need one.

Spare us your stupid condescension, that's enough. Perhaps you'd like some clues because FF doesn't look like PM without multiple add-ons.

 

Damage? Jump through hoops? You mean click click done? Mmkay then. God forbid you actually have to do something that's actually hard.

Yeah, some people do not like going click-happy adding add-ons to undo crap they never needed in the first place. But god forbid that anyone not like FF because you said so. Lol, try harder.

 

Wrong. Look at a market share chart that spans over the past few years. Fun fact, Firefox's marketshare didn't go into a tailspin until mid 2009... not long after Chrome was officially released, and coincidentally, long before Austrailis came about. Again, rhetoric and reality don't match.

And I quote once again since you have a problem comprehending simple English: "Australis may not be the reason FF is losing market share, but it definitely has contributed." It may have been bleeding users to Chrome since well before Australis but there's no question that an additional bunch of people dumped it after Australis was implemented. Might not conform to your notion of 'reality' but that's a fact.

[nub]

I'd like some data and sources on that please

 

Open this url in IE: https://get.adobe.com/reader/

[G.i.b.b.s]

Unfortunately Google's ecosystem, love it or hate it, is always gonna make it the "alternative browser" to IE and that's a shame because FF is definitely a great browser and Chrome has gone from lean to becoming a resource hog extraordinaire.  Everyone I know, even non-techies, know about Chrome because of "Google" or "Android" but very few know of FF.  Mozilla just doesn't have the resources to grow FF share unless they come up with some new unique killer feature that will differentiate it from all the other browsers in a big way that gets people talking and word of mouth spreading like they heydays before Chrome when FF was stealing IE share in a big way. 

[cork1958]

Actually,

I use Friefox about 50% of the time now along with IE11. Never used to like Firefox before and have never been able to tolerate Chrome. Used to use Opera all the time, but since they switched engines and did all the crap to it that they did, it's garbage, IMO. Seamonkey turned me off quie a while, but I keep forgetting the reason I quit!

 

Chrome has NEVER been fast at anything on any of my 9 machines, and I do hate that wait that Friefox has when first starting it up, but once that's done, it's quick for me. IE has always been a good performer on my machines too.

 

Don't know if I dare say this, but I think Chromes popularity is due to total fanboyism just as Firefox's was also when it first came out.

[Max Norris]

Yeah, draw as many purty pictures you want if you think it's magically going to make FF faster for me compared to PM.

Wow ok, you're right, screw facts.. what's in your head is obviously more accurate than an actual benchmark.

 

"extensions that use up resources and possibly reduce stability and security"

"any add-on increases resource usage and can definitely introduce security holes"

Oook.. and both browsers share these very same problems. But again, something that's just changing your interface's layout, I'd really love to see how that drags on performance or creates a security hole.

 

Is anyone questioning why you're using FF? So why is some people preferring PM over FF making you get your panties in such a twist?

*shrug* You're the one throwing a nutty about this.. anyone gives you a counterpoint and drama ensues. Believe those panties are yours.. if you can't handle a mature discussion then fine, I'll bow out.

 

Spare us your stupid condescension, that's enough. Perhaps you'd like some clues because FF doesn't look like PM without multiple add-ons.

Again, it's one addon, and again, I can post a screenshot, not like it even matters to most people, least of all me, but since it annoys you so much I'm game.

 

Yeah, some people do not like going click-happy adding add-ons to undo crap they never needed in the first place.

What? So now people suddenly accidentally wind up in the extensions repository and randomly click stuff? Hey, whatever floats your argument I suppose.

 

It may have been bleeding users to Chrome since well before Australis but there's no question that an additional bunch of people dumped it after Australis was implemented. Might not conform to your notion of 'reality' but that's a fact.

Numbers are fact. Speculation is exactly that, speculation.. got some hard numbers showing people dumped it specifically because of Australis? See, if you look at the real numbers.. between Firefox 29's release and today, Firefox lost ~2.1% marketshare. That's all. The biggest drops came a couple years beforehand, long before Australis was even a thing. So please.. before you quote "fact", do take the time to look those facts up beforehand mmkay? You go on ahead quoting obtuse and comprehension and talking about panties, I'll take facts any day.

[+devHead Subscriber²]

I stopped using Firefox in Windows 8/8.1 for quite some time because it was taking forever to start up.  But recently I downloaded it again (on a new build / reinstall of OS) and am really pleased with its speed.  You know what I like?  When you right click, the context menu has a forward and back arrow, as well as refresh icon.  That's a cool thing.  

 

Here at work, I use Opera, and like it a lot.

[Chasethebase Reporter]

The main reason that I moved from Firefox to Chrome was that at the time of release, Chrome was very lightweight. It's become less so now but the main thing for me is the fact it syncs between devices and I can log into my Google account and my bookmarks and saved passwords instantly come across, no additional accounts on top of what I already have.

If it gets to a point where Chrome is unusable then so be it, but for the time being I don't see myself moving to another browser.

[Romero]

Wow ok, you're right, screw facts.. what's in your head is obviously more accurate than an actual benchmark.

You can squee like a fangirl over some synthetic benchmark all you want, or act all smug if FF pips PM by a few ms in rendering that no-one will notice. Knowing nothing at all about my hardware or the sites I visit, for you to claim that FF is going to be noticeably faster than PM for my use case just shows your ignorance and arrogance.

 

Oook.. and both browsers share these very same problems.

Yes indeed they do, but at least with PM I do not have to include those add-ons for reverting back the UI. All the rest of the add-ons being equal, I use less add-ons with PM than I do with FF, and to me that's a definite plus.

 

*shrug* You're the one throwing a nutty about this.. anyone gives you a counterpoint and drama ensues.

Counterpoint? Ha. Between the two of us you're the only one playing the stupid my-browser-is-better-than-yours game. You can go on and on all you want about how FF is so obviously superior since it seems to give you some weird sense of superiority, but it's not as if any users of others browsers including PM give a ****.

 

Again, it's one addon, and again, I can post a screenshot, not like it even matters to most people, least of all me

I couldn't care less what anyone else uses, least of all you. I'm not proselytizing about any browser like you are. For me since the performance difference (if at all any) between PM and FF is undetectable in daily usage, I choose to prioritize other things. Having less add-ons installed and being able to use an interface by default that I prefer tips the balance clearly in PM's favor. It's as simple as that. Unless FF offers me a noticeable performance advantage that would far outweigh the negatives of having to deal with its ugly default UI, PM will be my browser of choice, end of discussion.

 

got some hard numbers showing people dumped it specifically because of Australis? just how many precisely dumped the browser because they were disgusted with the UI changes.

No, because there's no one place obviously where people have registered their reasons for switching from FF. All I know is there was a huge uptick in interest in PM after Australis debuted in the nightlies. Maybe MC Straver can share some info regarding the PM download stats pre and post-Australis but of course that would still not account for people who switched to other browsers. I will say however that given its precipitous drop in market share from its heyday, even 2.1% is nothing to scoff at given how it represents millions of users. Every enthusiast lost has a compounding effect and as long as they ignore the complaints of their users there is only one way they'll go and that's down, hurtling towards irrelevance. Oh they might very well hang around like Netscape or Opera did but without a significant user base they will never be in a position to shape the future WWW landscape.

 

You know what I like? When you right click, the context menu has a forward and back arrow, as well as refresh icon. That's a cool thing.

Just curious - have you removed those buttons from your toolbar? Or do you find right-clicking and selecting those options quicker than simply clicking on toolbar buttons?

[Max Norris]

You can squee like a fangirl over some synthetic benchmark all you want, or act all smug if FF pips PM by a few ms in rendering that no-one will notice. Knowing nothing at all about my hardware or the sites I visit, for you to claim that FF is going to be noticeably faster than PM for my use case just shows your ignorance and arrogance.

Really? Wow ok, talk about panties in a bunch. So your system is somehow magically different and will perform differently? Neat. No it's not some "few ms in rendering", it's sitting there watching the f'ing browser choke on a heavy site that's easily replicated. I can run this same set of tests on over 20 other systems here and show the same trend. Real world? Ok, fire up a site that's script heavy, enjoy your browser while it stalls pondering things. Take your ignorance and scroll down a bit where you actually for proof about performance then blatantly ignore it. Ignorance and arrogance indeed. Sorry, instead of feeble (and sad) attempts at insults, try sticking to the topic hmm? It's just laughable.

 

Yes indeed they do, but at least with PM I do not have to include those add-ons for reverting back the UI. All the rest of the add-ons being equal, I use less add-ons with PM than I do with FF, and to me that's a definite plus.

One freaking addon. *golfclap* Those 5 seconds saved during that one time install must have really been worth it to cause so much drama over. Now blance that big plus of yours with lost performance, lost standards, lost features, lost addon compatibility, etc etc... don't let that scale hit you on the foot.

 

Counterpoint? Ha. Between the two of us you're the only one playing the stupid my-browser-is-better-than-yours game.

And yet you keep going on and on throwing a tantrum and calling names instead of providing that real counterpoint. Oh yes.. I'm the only one. Clueless.

 

For me since the performance difference (if at all any) between PM and FF is undetectable in daily usage, I choose to prioritize other things. Having less add-ons installed and being able to use an interface by default that I prefer tips the balance clearly in PM's favor.

Again, you're ignoring reality, it's very easily detectable in daily usage, and that one whole addon thing again. Yea, it is as simple as that.

Unless FF offers me a noticeable performance advantage that would far outweigh the negatives of having to deal with its ugly default UI, PM will be my browser of choice, end of discussion.

Guess that'll never happen since you're too busy burying your head in the sand about real world performance and the one-click-and-done fix for the ugly UI. End of discussion.

 

All I know is there was a huge uptick in interest in PM after Australis debuted in the nightlies.

Source? I can show you real numbers showing Firefox's decline, and there wasn't a huge loss in marketshare after Firefox 29's release, their biggest drop came long beforehand.. *shrug* maybe they were all IE users who switched? Even the author flat out says he doesn't know and is just guessing, it's in their forums.