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

[M4nB3arP1g]

And that's taken how many years? You said you put Firefox on their computers. What did they use before? I use Firefox and put Firefox on most peoples' computers also, but when I ask people what they use, it's almost always IE. Half the time when I ask them what browser they use, they give me a dumb look. They just think it's call "The Internet"

I work at a school, and the only reason most teachers have switched to Firefox is because our SIS requires it. Luckily they urge kids to use Firefox also. In the "real world" I just see IE mostly because that's what's on the computer.

Finally someone who knows whats they talking about. Those saying the average joe wants an easy to use browser are wrong. Most average joes don't know what a web browser is most think IE is "the internet".

[tanjiajun_34]

I just tried Firefox 4 (on Minefield newest version 4.0b10).

It is extremely lag for me. Don't know why.

It took 6 secs to run.

I tried to highlight the url bar, there is like a 0.5 second lag (After awhile its ok).

I tried the menu too and it lags badly at the first like 30 seconds.

Loading website sometimes hang down there too.

To me, Firefox 4 is like very unstable compared to chrome 10 and IE9.

[Elessar]

When you have a modern computer, speed isn't that much of a concern.

If a Core 2 Duo @ 3GHz with 4GB of ram isn't 'modern' enough, then the software companies can **** off :)

[Udedenkz]

If a Core 2 Duo @ 3GHz with 4GB of ram isn't 'modern' enough, then the software companies can **** off :)

FF 3.6 should start in 0.5 seconds on a C2DT8300 @2.4 Ghz.

And if you are W7 advocate, thats 0.5 seconds in Windows XP.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

FF 3.6 should start in 0.5 seconds on a C2DT8300 @2.4 Ghz.

And if you are W7 advocate, thats 0.5 seconds in Windows XP.

Some FF users have a ton of extensions and other add-ons. This could, conceivably, extend the time that FF takes to launch.

[polyarchist]

Maybe, but it would be Chrome #1, Firefox #2, Safari #3, IE #4 at that point. But I personally don't think it will happen. Chrome is great, but it's not as user friendly for the general public as Firefox

IE #4?

How can you say that's even a possibility considering that it comes standard with Windows?

Also, how you possibly say that Chrome is LESS user-friendly than Firefox when almost everybody acknowledges it to have a simplified (some might even say dumbed-down) interface?

You have no idea what you are talking about. At all.

Some FF users have a ton of extensions and other add-ons. This could, conceivably, extend the time that FF takes to launch.

Oh come on, obviously when comparing startup among all the browsers, especially a Beta browser like Firefox 4 that has limited extension support, people would be NOT have ANY extensions loaded at all.

A clean Chrome stable install is snappier and opens faster than a clean Firefox 4 Beta 9 install. I did it myself this afternoon. Everybody can see this for themselves.

[Udedenkz]

Oh come on, obviously when comparing startup among all the browsers, especially a Beta browser like Firefox 4 that has limited extension support, people would be NOT have ANY extensions loaded at all.

Except maybe Adblock Plus, DownloadThemAll!, NoScript - you know, except the usual stuff.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Oh come on, obviously when comparing startup among all the browsers, especially a Beta browser like Firefox 4 that has limited extension support, people would be NOT have ANY extensions loaded at all.

I don't assume anything when people talk about these sorts of topics. It does, however, tie in to my previous point that the wide range of extensions available on FF is both a blessing and a curse.

[Elessar]

FF 3.6 should start in 0.5 seconds on a C2DT8300 @2.4 Ghz.

And if you are W7 advocate, thats 0.5 seconds in Windows XP.

Nope, 2-3 seconds

Some FF users have a ton of extensions and other add-ons. This could, conceivably, extend the time that FF takes to launch.

No extensions and it still takes 7-8 seconds to load up and be usable. I'll stick with Chrome (which has ext. installed).

[mauseum]

I don't doubt that Chrome is superior to Firefox in a number of ways but they have yet to cause me to switch.

As long as Firefox has a more friendly UI, is customizable and doesn't fall vastly behind the competition I will continue to use it over Chrome.

As for launch times, I use an SSD as my main drive and they both launch at the same speed...instantly.

"Never" is a strong word to use

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

[Growled Member]

I have tried FF4, and I see nothing game changing in it at all. Even with 3D rendering enabled it's still dog slow and it renders fonts in the same awful way that IE9 does.

I haven't tried it on Windows, but I have in Linux, and it was seriously fast.

[polyarchist]

I don't assume anything when people talk about these sorts of topics. It does, however, tie in to my previous point that the wide range of extensions available on FF is both a blessing and a curse.

The wide range of extensions has nothing to do with Firefox's base performance. It just adds more weight to a existing weighty problem Firefox has to those that CHOOSE to install any extensions.

I used to have 6-7 extensions installed on Chromium and it STILL started up much faster than the clean copy of Firefox I had on my computer, which I had kept as a backup.

[ncc50446]

I haven't tried it on Windows, but I have in Linux, and it was seriously fast.

I find Firefox and Opera both a little faster on Linux than Windows...Even Windows 7. Not a lot or anything, but still feels faster.

I would like Safari more if they shows the favicon in the bookmark bar...

[tanjiajun_34]

I don't doubt that Chrome is superior to Firefox in a number of ways but they have yet to cause me to switch.

As long as Firefox has a more friendly UI, is customizable and doesn't fall vastly behind the competition I will continue to use it over Chrome.

As for launch times, I use an SSD as my main drive and they both launch at the same speed...instantly.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Well on my SSD, even IE8 runs as fast as chrome...

But not everyone have a SSD.

[azure.sapphire]

Can you do this on Chrome?

No? Didn't think so. These are reasons why Chrome will not overthrow Firefox. Chrome is a completely locked down browser that is extremely basic. It's only strength is it's speed and with i7 processors being common nowadays, it's not that big of a deal. Chrome is not a browser suited for heavy browsing. If you look at market share, Chrome is going up while IE is going down. Firefox has remained pretty stable.

If you're the type that just has a couple tabs open and don't really care, sure, Chrome will probably be better.

You can use side tabs on Chrome, you don't even need the Canary build anymore. Just the standard release.

It's pretty useful. I have 159 tabs open at the moment. There is no real browser slow down. The machine is a dual core system, ULV with 4 gigs of memory.

[tanjiajun_34]

Can you do this on Chrome?

No? Didn't think so. These are reasons why Chrome will not overthrow Firefox. Chrome is a completely locked down browser that is extremely basic. It's only strength is it's speed and with i7 processors being common nowadays, it's not that big of a deal. Chrome is not a browser suited for heavy browsing. If you look at market share, Chrome is going up while IE is going down. Firefox has remained pretty stable.

If you're the type that just has a couple tabs open and don't really care, sure, Chrome will probably be better.

Heavy browsing?

I normally open like 20-30tabs daily and totally smooth.

Unless your heavy browsing is like open 100 tabs well chrome might support that too. Just that I don't care about trying that cos its pointless for me as i never need so many tabs.

[Gone]

Chrome solved many problems I've had with Yahoo! Mail and Safari :) I love it so far!

[Flawed]

Well on my SSD, even IE8 runs as fast as chrome...

But not everyone have a SSD.

IE's components/libraries get loaded with Windows, so startup time at least can be completely discounted. Now if you try and run IE in wine, you'll see it's significantly slower.

[tanjiajun_34]

IE's components/libraries get loaded with Windows, so startup time at least can be completely discounted. Now if you try and run IE in wine, you'll see it's significantly slower.

Well it does not boot up that fast on a HDD?

My point is SSD makes programs runs faster so any web browser on SSD could run as fast as Chrome or IE9 on SSD. There is no point taking Firefox 4 on a SSD and compare with Chrome. There is still a difference in boot time, just that its very small thanks to his SSD.

[P.M.K]

Firefox will always stay on top because it is simply a better browser. I like chrome but I prefer Firefox.

I love Firefox, but Chrome is a better.

So I use Chrome.

[inferniac]

I don't see anybody saying this, so I will.

The main reason Firefox has a 30% marketshare is NOT just because it's so "great". It's because of the need for an alternative to a monopolistic browser that was not secure at all due to its widespread use. People wanted something that would't be overrun with toolbars, exploits, etc simply because it was the only game in town. Any browser that popped up when Firefox did would would been accepted as being great because no matter what, it was a free, open-source alternative to IE.

Like the guy before me said, if you work in an small to medium sized business or organization, which is what most of the world runs on, there's a good chance that your sysadmin will require you to use Firefox because it creates less headaches than IE does.

Opera used to be a browser you had to pay for back then, and Netscape was pretty much on its way out and eventually became Phoenix, which became Firebird, which became Firefox.

We all know what really happened, so lets stop acting like Firefox is a streamlined, well-coded browser. It's not. It's a big sluggish piece of old code that is reliable, but ultimately, too slow for people that like to do things fast. That's what the new Chrome and Opera stable versions are for.

Repped +

The reason people who are little more advanced than the "average Joe" use it, is because it still has an opinion that it's the best IE alternative out there and this hasn't been true for quite some time now.

[Samurizer]

Can you do this on Chrome?

No? Didn't think so. These are reasons why Chrome will not overthrow Firefox.

I'm sorry, but you're living a delusion. If or when you wake up, you'll realize that the vast majority of people don't look for a browser that they can trick up in all sorts of ridiculously garish ways, they want a browser that does its job well. The reason that Firefox caters to anomalous users like you instead of the vast majority is EXACTLY the reason why it will be overtaken by Chrome.

Chrome is a completely locked down browser that is extremely basic.

Yes, it's so completely locked down that it has a few thousand extensions going for it, and it's extremely basic that it fulfills plenty of people's needs perfectly well.

It's only strength is it's speed and with i7 processors being common nowadays, it's not that big of a deal.

So you need an absolutely top-of-the-line CPU just to run a web browser? And you're still going on with this crap that Chrome won't overthrow Firefox? Seriously, what's wrong with you?

[iwod]

This is just my opinion, but I do believe that Chrome's user base is climbing at a much faster rate than Firefox when it debuted years ago.

I think it's obvious that Chrome will beat Firefox's marketshare fairly soon despite its lack of the robust features that Firefox has because:

1) Chrome's interface is still way more responsive than even the latest Firefox 4 Beta 9. Firefox has a major disadvantage in they refuse to rewrite the UI from the ground up, while Chrome is the fastest starting browser for Windows by far.

2) People LIKE Chrome's minimalistic interface because there's more on the page to see, while Firefox still can't get rid of that big orange button.

3) People have a blind, unwavering, almost religious faith in anything Google does, simply because it is the only company that gives out the most web-based products for free. (so they can get your info into the cloud) Google is already at the core of what most people on the web do, so they will begin to move towards Chrome no matter what.

4) Google quickly added extensions, and that's all that was needed to start turning the tide away from Firefox.

5) People notice the added speed from Webkit, since it doesn't take a genius to see that Gecko renders more slowly. (simply because it is wayyyyyyy more complex code than Webkit)

6) People seem to like having a browser that "just works" and you never even see the updates applied in the background. Overall, Chrome is a much more streamlined experience for the average user than Firefox is.

Add more reasons if you can think of them, and if you disagree, tell me why.

7) When most people see Firefox 4 Beta for the first time, they immediately say on web forums, blog comments, etc : "Oh look, they copied Chrome"

People thus start to get the idea that Chrome is more innovative, and once they try Chrome, they get hooked on the speed advantage over Firefox.

1. No - Firefox Wont Rewrite the UI, and it has nothing to do with rewrite. Firefox UI is totally custom-sizeable. And that is how other project from Mozilla derived from it, Thunderbird, Lightening.

And as a matter of fact, its UI will get a lot faster, or precisely more responsive once Electrolysis lands.

2 - Orange Button? You specificity compared to Fx beta 9, which your "Orange button" has already moved to the Tab Bar. ( Or Actually the Tab Bar moved to Title Bar ). Have you used Beta 9 yet?

3. You may not be aware. There are people not want to store everything with Google.

4. Any people who are serious with Extensions still sticking to Firefox. Yes. It was a turning point. But not as big as you may think. Until Google improve their Extension API.

5. Webkit is slightly faster then Gecko. I wont argue about that. But Since Fx 4.0 the difference is so close that is virtually negligible. Especially when you added the paint delay time from Chrome to Fx.There are definitely improvment area for Gecko. Mostly from prefetching.

6. Apart from Updating, I dont know what exactly is Chrome more Streamlined experience then Fx.

7. Chances of that would be very low. Anyone who tried and used Chrome right now are Techs Users. Not the average users you are referring to as "People". And most, if not all, should properly know, that is not a Chrome UI, it is an Opera UI.

Fx 4.0 is nearly like a total rewrite. And the improvement is measure in order of magnitude. From Rendering Speed, Startup speed, JS Speed. Anyone who say current Beta has no difference with their current Fx 3.6 are either lying, have problem with your profiles / settings.

Although Fx 4.0 wont be faster then Chrome. It is definitely very close . And Chrome will properly / theoretically be slightly more secure then Firefox due to its sandbox model.

But Fx works much better with lower end machines. It works with Low End CPU, and uses less memory then Chrome. You could argue memory these days are insanely cheap. But there are those of us ( That is the rest of the world, normal average joe ) who still have low 512MB - 2 GB of memory.

There is Awesomebar, Which i personally still cant not find a replacement in other browsers. Accessing my bookmarks and history, or every day web is much faster with Awesomebar. The gain in speed for quickly found what you want and needs traumatically saves time compare to the Mini seconds you gain with JavaScript and Rendering.

[iwod]

Oh, stop the big pile sluggish code crap people keep putting out. It was a big pile of messy code in Fx 1.5, and properly Fx 2.0. And even now It may not be as clean as Webkit. But since 3.0 a lot of work has been refactored, reworked, re-done.

[BGM]

don't really care.. and i question why anyone without a vested interested in either company does care..

web browser is for browsing the web, chrome does this fine and the interface is what it needs to be to achieve this