It's becoming obvious that Chrome will beat Firefox and become #2

[Frylock86]

Firefox doesn't support h.264 either. No browser except IE9 will. Google wants to kill h.264 on the web.

Microsoft has a plugin for Firefox that brings support.

[Jan Veteran]

Probably the biggest reason is that it's from Google, it's fast and Joe Average gets tired of using the same software and is always looking for something new.

I used to like Chrome thinking Google will catchup up and add essential features but it's still far too basic for my taste. You cant even do a "Find on this page" with "whole word only" or "match case". Or play a sound when a download finishes. Or save as MHT. Worse than that, Chrome has heavily influenced Safari and IE9. IE9 has a great rendering engine, kudos to Microsoft for that but the non-customizable dumbed down UI completely sucks. IE9 has the worse UI of all browsers and it's because of Chrome-envy. For those who don't want their browser oversimplified and *prefer* customizability, Firefox remains the best choice. Chrome's extensions aren't as powerful or abundant as Firefox's. if you don't overload FF with extensions, it's reasonably fast and problem free for me. I was a crazy IE loyalist until IE8 but IE9 simply drives me away. IE with version 9 is now a grandma browser.

Average Joes don't change their default browser - why do you think the Browser Ballot exists?

[Samurizer]

No, they do not. They get hidden. Chrome doesn't offer the ability to block either downloads or requests made within flash objects. It has nothing to do with someone's PC, nor with addon developers, it has to do with the fact that Chrome simply doesn't allow that.

Sigh. Here, I'll give it one last shot.

As of Version 2.0 the add-on has stopped downloading resources deemed as advertisements as Adblock Plus for Mozilla Firefox does.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock_(Chrome)

The same claim is repeated on the extension homepage. It's open source, so feel free to check the source code. Or try looking in your browser cache for ads that were supposedly downloaded but only hidden, at least according to you.

And if the facts still won't get through to you... well, I tried.

[Subject Delta]

2011 is Firefox's year.

I don't think it is somehow. I have used Firefox 4, and even with 3D rendering enabled, it is still really slow.

No, that's why it won't beat Firefox, at least among people who know better. Just works? DownThemAll doesn't 'just work' on it, so there is no way I'll use it as my primary browser. AdBlock Plus doesn't 'just work' on it like on Firefox, so there's another reason. It's more than just a browser that just works, most people want the ability to customize it and be able to do things easier. With literally thousands of add-ons, you can do that with Firefox. Chrome will never be that way, to say nothing of different themes like Firefox has. Every time a new version of Chrome is released I try it out for a week or so, but consistently I go back to Firefox.

Nobody that I have introduced to Chrome gives a crap about those things, they have all really liked using it.

IE9 opens fastest by FAR on Windows.

Not for me it doesn't, and my computer is far from slow

Safari is #1 :yes:

:whistle:

Safari may be reasonable on OSX, but on Windows it's pure garbage.

[brentaal]

Sigh. Here, I'll give it one last shot.

As of Version 2.0 the add-on has stopped downloading resources deemed as advertisements as Adblock Plus for Mozilla Firefox does.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock_(Chrome)

It's open source, so feel free to check the source code.

blockonload != blocking of requests

Or try looking in your browser cache for ads that were supposedly downloaded but only hidden, at least according to you.

You can't check that that way as Chrome doesn't save cache normally but rather saves it as random gibberish. You're free to check your Chrome's cache folder.

The same claim is repeated on the extension homepage.

And somewhere in the FAQ it's also pointed out that blocking within flash doesn't really work because Chrome hasn't implemented it yet. But hey, you're doing a good job at superficial reading (Y)

You do understand that the addon author tries to present the addon it the best possible light? Touting it as the only true adblocker for Chrome ever since it was created... even when it was nowhere close to truth.

[polyarchist]

Safari may be reasonable on OSX, but on Windows it's pure garbage.

I know people who use it just because it came with iTunes and it boggles my mind as to how they made it their default browser.

[azure.sapphire]

Because Chrome's extensions are nowhere close to having the same amount of functionality that Firefox extensions have. Even the most important one, Adblock Plus, doesn't work properly because Google doesn't want it to, otherwise they'd be losing out a lot of money if people managed to completely and successfully block out their ads.

Until Chrome allows me to have a fully functional Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy and GoogleSharing, I won't be using it. Oh and yeah, it'd be useful to give people the ability to turn off history and cache, too.

Well, in fairness things are improving. You now have the option of Ghostery, NotScript and Adblock Plus (beta). There are limitations, however. What Chrome does have working for it at the moment is Webkit. It is simply a better solution for rendering content. As for a download manager (as mentioned in the post prior to this) that is a real problem. Google has a horrible default download manager. The addons do very little to change this. If, however, you use an external solution, there isn't much of an issue.

As for privacy, if incognito mode is not your answer, I won't ask what you are doing that you are so concerned about privacy, but you might want to consider either portable FF or Chrome and run it in a encrypted partition. This way no one will ever know what sites you visit and the files you download. At least not from the contents of your computer.

I know people who use it just because it came with iTunes and it boggles my mind as to how they made it their default browser.

For them it was probably either a choice of IE8 or Safari. They probably discovered it simply looking around. They probably think it is a better solution than IE8. It is doubtful they even known about IE9 beta, FF or Chrome.

[Arkaic]

Stupid poll is stupid. :yes:

C'mon I mean really? Only two options are basically I'm in bed with Chrome or I'm divorcing chrome and marrying firefox? Really.

Aside that, both are good and I wish both stay around. I'm concerned that firefox will fall on the wayside due to google cutting there funding.

[medium_pimpin]

Firefox came out long before alternate browsers were considered viable, you can thank firefox for people even accepting anything other than IE.

Whether it over takes it or not I don't know.

I use Chrome, but this is true. We can thank Mozilla for kicking IE in the pants.

[Ironman273]

Yeah, sorry about the source. I knew the usage trends were that so I used it. Here's another source that's worldwide. From their site:

What methodology is used to calculate the market share statistics?

StatCounter is a web analytics service. As of 1 June 2010, our tracking code is installed on more than 3 million sites globally. (These sites cover various activities and geographic locations.) Every month, we record billions of hits to these sites. For each hit, we analyse the browser/operating system used and we establish if the hit is from a mobile device. For our search engine stats, we analyze every hit referred by a search engine. For our social media stats, we analyze every hit referred by a social media site. We summarize all this data and this is how we get our Global Stats information.

We do not manipulate the data in any way. We do not collate it with any other information sources. No artificial weightings are used. We simply publish the data as we record it.

In other words we calculate our Global Stats on the basis of more than 15 billion hits per month, by people from all over the world onto our 3 million+ member sites.

By collating our data in this way, we track the activity of third party visitors to our member websites. We do not calculate our stats based on the activity of our members. This helps to minimise bias in the data and ensures a random sample is achieved.

In May 2010, our global sample consisted of 16.3 billion hits (US: 4.0 billion); 2.1 billion of these were search engine referrals (US: 532 million); 109 million of these were social media referrals (US: 51 million).

[+Byt Subscriber¹]

I use remote desktop applications all day everyday, to support my clients.

FireFox with remote access websites such as LogMeIn work really well. You can copy / paste from host PC to remote PC and remote to host. Plus on FireFox logmein will remember a remote computers username if you have previously connected to it before.

Chrome doesn't.

Before im flamed, i know its a simple feature and will probably be added to Chrome in time, but for the time being FireFox makes my life easier :)

[Beyond Godlike]

Among techies Fx will always win, cause its power

Among mom and pop, and average PC users, Chrome probably cause its fast and light and runs great on their ancient pc's

[Frylock86]

I know people who use it just because it came with iTunes and it boggles my mind as to how they made it their default browser.

Knowing Apple, it was most likely installed without the users knowledge.

[still1]

From what I'm getting out of it, Google dropped support for a codec that has been pretty much adopted everywhere in favor of some inferior, no name, open source codec, all in the name of "open source". But, they still left Flash in too. This move has been universally panned by everyone who lays eyes on the news, no doubt bad news for Google, as many have reported to uninstalling the browser.

Most think it's a stab at Apple, but whatever the case, Google is hurting users here and set back HTML5 adoption.

source please ???? and reported where????? or is it just what you are planning to do?? browser that support this codec is only IE

well i tried to use chrome

despite it's speed i went back to Firefox as i didn't like it's UI despite it's too simple

Firefox 4 have a lot of speed up in it's update and if it can keep that up Chrome will never pass it

and chrome takes most of the IE users it take a fewer user from Firefox so both of them are going up

this year will be the Browser War Year :woot:

IE 9 , Firefox 4 , Chrome 9 and 10 soon , Opera 11

whatever happens every Browser will evolve and i would be happy

no FF is not going up at all if you look at any stat website that shows that FF is very slowly declining

http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1

No, they do not. They get hidden. Chrome doesn't offer the ability to block either downloads or requests made within flash objects. It has nothing to do with someone's PC, nor with addon developers, it has to do with the fact that Chrome simply doesn't allow that.

no it does block contents in flash. here is the proof

[inferniac]

IMHO Firefox is dying, the 4h version is in development since forever and the betas performance is still horrible.

[Anibal P]

Because Chrome's extensions are nowhere close to having the same amount of functionality that Firefox extensions have. Even the most important one, Adblock Plus, doesn't work properly because Google doesn't want it to, otherwise they'd be losing out a lot of money if people managed to completely and successfully block out their ads.

Until Chrome allows me to have a fully functional Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy and GoogleSharing, I won't be using it. Oh and yeah, it'd be useful to give people the ability to turn off history and cache, too.

Not all of us want a gimped and "blocked" view of the internet and don't "have" to have all that added junk just to feel "safe", I don't even use an ad blocker anymore, just added more problems than it "fixed", just browse like normal

[Subject Delta]

Among techies Fx will always win, cause its power

Among mom and pop, and average PC users, Chrome probably cause its fast and light and runs great on their ancient pc's

Not true, I am a tech and I can't stand Firefox. It may be very extendable but it doesn't seem to be overly well designed to me.

[Frylock86]

source please ???? and reported where????? or is it just what you are planning to do?? browser that support this codec is only IE

Chromium Blog, ZDNet, et al.

[still1]

I dont understand the drop of codec being a big deal

for now

IE6-IE8 ~55% no support

Firefox ~25% no support

Chrome ~10% no support

Opera ~3% no support

IE9 0.09% support

Safari ~5% support

when ie9 release the share might go to 5-10%

Chromium Blog, ZDNet, et al.

well i tried to search the article on those website but couldn't find any... Posting a link would be better.

[x-scratch]

chrome is #1 for me its fast & does what i want

[Samurizer]

blockonload != blocking of requests

Don't dodge the question. So you agree that ads aren't just hidden, they're blocked from downloading?

You can't check that that way as Chrome doesn't save cache normally but rather saves it as random gibberish. You're free to check your Chrome's cache folder.

Yes you can, you're free to check about:cache.

And somewhere in the FAQ it's also pointed out that blocking within flash doesn't really work because Chrome hasn't implemented it yet. But hey, you're doing a good job at superficial reading (Y)

Actually, it looks like you're right about the Adblock FAQ. I got confused and thought you were talking about ads in Youtube videos, my bad.

You do understand that the addon author tries to present the addon it the best possible light? Touting it as the only true adblocker for Chrome ever since it was created... even when it was nowhere close to truth.

Right, so that's why the developer admits that his extension doesn't block Flash ads, right? Or does your rhetoric apply selectively, and the developer is only lying when he says good things about his extension?

[yowanvista]

Chrome is too minimal and hasn't complex extensions as FF

[evo_spook]

If I was a partner of Google I'd be very wary.

For years they've Firefox and Google supported each other again IE, but in the background Google introduced Chrome and is now product placing it in searchs on google.

Apple had Google CEO as a board director, the first Android OS was like a old samsung/rim OS, then suddenly that transformed into a iOS like product, oops.

[polyarchist]

I'm really glad people are beginning to see that it's obvious Chrome will be #2. Firefox has too many flaws to continue being a serious competitor to Opera and Chrome other than extension support.

[CGar]

Chrome is for the average user who doesn't think outside the box, literally. That probably includes a lot of people here, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think that most users don't give two s**ts about their browsing experience, which will ultimately prevent FF from reaching the #1 spot.

Firefox does what you want it to do. Chrome does what Google wants it to do *cough sift through your data*.

However these are the majority of users on the internet, hence the large departure of IE users to Chrome, and the relatively stable FF population. Firefox has sort of an entry barrier, you need to be willing to invest time into the browser to make it an unbeatable experience.

I love how people say they love Chrome cause it "just works," but I have two Chrome users at work that get the "Oh snap something went wrong screen" on a somewhat regular basis. I'm not saying it crashes any more than any other browser, but it's not the golden boy infallible browser all its users clamor it to be.