Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Miguel Lopez
27075 Followers
Complex Magazine
3028 Followers
alexgsmithFeb 11, 2012
Perhaps misguidedly, but I trust Mozilla over Google with my privacy, and therefore my browser choice.
user500Feb 11, 2012
I maybe pessimistic but since Google is primarily an adverting company. I feel somehow when I use there service I am helping them sell or target ads.
murrayc1968Feb 11, 2012
I guess that means Google will be advertising a LOT of porn soon.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Um.
They're not primarily an advertising company. Their revenue is primarily from ads but the primary purpose of a company is to provide a service, not make money.
If it was simply the latter, then companies would all operate like the mafia and simply rob people while offering little of any real value to almost anybody.
Also, Google spends very little money and labor on ads. The bulk of their programming efforts go into other things.
By contrast, the incredible shrnking company Microsoft spent billions of dollars in the past half decade trying to program well enough to dislodge Google from its ad/search based revenue stream and gorge itself on the money Google was making.
Microsoft is still seen as an OS company. Despite being heavily involved in at least trying to do web ads/search.
If you look at what brand new products Microsoft has created in the past dozen years and focus attention on the ones that have actually made a lot of money, then Microsoft is a video game. Microsoft's phones, MP3 players, etc. have all eventually or even immediately flopped. Video games are the thing that has stuck to the wall for them.
Probably best to not excessively focus on a single thing a company does but rather to look at the big picture.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
swarthmorejackFeb 11, 2012
Hey Johnny, it's time to wake up and go to school. The primary role of any for profit company is to make money for its owners or shareholders. Period. That is one of the first things you learn in any business, accounting, or management class. They do that by providing goods or services better than someone else. Google is an advertising company and has been since it began. All the other services and programming activity that takes place is to support advertising. Their goal is to keep you in the Googleverse as long as possible. They have stated that the more you use the internet the more money they make. It is a brilliant strategy and they have ridden the wave (pun intended) of the internet better than most. Do I trust all the information Google has about me, no. Do I use Google services, oh yeah.
johnnysoftwareFeb 14, 2012
The first thing you learn in business class is the purpose of a company is to provide a service.
You can't do those other things unless you do, except in a pie in the sky, utopias world or in a mafia like scenario.
Everything is predicated upon your company providing a service or nobody needs you.
Good luck with your Profit Inc. company. I don't think you'll have many customers.
Your history about Google is wrong, and frankly b.s.
Google had web search for years before it had web ads.
You have not been a computer user on the Internet/web as long as Google has been around, or read much of its history and staff interviews -- and it shows.
You are rude yes but that doesn't hide ignorance, it just underlines it.
Once they added ads, and those made money, of course things changed.
Google was up in 1998. Sorry you missed out.
Google rolled out web page ads in 2000.
Hope you can work the math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Google#Early_history
Sorry, you must be from a parallel googleverse.
Hope you find your way home.
swarthmorejackFeb 14, 2012
My degrees are in management and information systems and I have been around since before Al Gore invented the internet at age 12. OK, I'll grant that when Google was first getting its feet wet as a college project it was not making any money with ads. But once the potential was known and it formed into a business you have to monetize and ads are they way you do it on the internet. How long do you think Google would have been around if they provided search out of the goodness of their hearts? They would have died with the .com bust of 2001.
From Wikipedia:
The purpose of a business
Most would argue that the main purpose of a business is to maximize profits for its owners, or in the case of a publicly-traded company, its stockholders. The late economist Milton Friedman was a proponent of this view. Others would say that its principal purpose is to serve the interests of a larger group of stakeholders, including employees, customers, and even society as a whole. Most philosophers would agree, however, that business activities ought to comport with legal regulations. One proponent of a broader view which includes a moral component has been U.S. businessman-turned-futurist John Renesch [1] who writes, "Corporations are human-made organisms, associations of human beings. To see this association as having one solitary purpose and responsibility, to grow only in economic terms, is such an extreme view that implosions like what happened to Enron, WorldCom and other corporate collapses will become more and more commonplace." Anu Aga, ex-chairperson of Thermax Limited, once said, "We survive by breathing but we can't say we live to breathe. Likewise, making money is very important for a business to survive, but money alone cannot be the reason for business to exist". However, profit maximization is extremely relevant when top management is mandated with the job of selecting the right strategy for the business. According to Jackson Mullane, the primary goal for any business strategy exercise must be that of maximizing profitability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_business
speedyinkFeb 12, 2012
Please tell me you don't use Facebook then...
bproperFeb 11, 2012
The irony being that Google supports Mozilla with a lucrative deal to be the default search engine.
jivatmanxFeb 11, 2012
Not Ironic, really.
Firefox isn't a company and doesn't have sell anything, so doesn't really compete with Google financially.
Google benefits its continued existence as another open standards, open source browser that they can copy developments from.
As a more purely internet company, Google benefits from open standards more than anyone else, and would surely not prefer Firefox's market share go to Microsoft or Apple.
mcbridedFeb 11, 2012
Yes, ironic. The irony is in response to the original comment - that he trusts Mozilla over Google when dealing with data, ignoring the fact that Firefox defaults to Google for search functionality (among others).
...and don't kid yourself. While Mozilla may be NFP, they are absolutely still a company and are competing in every way when it comes to browser market share.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Um, that is not irony.
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-is-irony-with-examples/
bproperFeb 11, 2012
The theme of the article is that Firefox is dying because it's losing marketshare to Chrome and others. Chrome is built by Google which is also the biggest financial supporter of Mozilla. = Irony.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
First off, in case I didn't make it clear: Firefox is not dying.
Losing market share and dying are two completely different things. They might sometimes coincide but even really dumb people know the two terms are not interchangeable.
Second, Google has made it clear they are not Microsoft and don't want to slay competitors as an easy way to "dominate" a market as a monopoly-by-deadly-default.
Third, Google doesn't make any money directly from Chrome. Zilch. They give it away and they do not require you buy any software whatsoever to use it.
IE is the only major web browser that forces you to buy an expensive product from its maker in order to run it.
While Apple Safari requires you to buy either Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows, and IE forces you to shell out dollars for Microsoft Windows -- Google Chrome will run on both those commercial operating systems plus run on free versions of Linux as well.
Since Google does not make money by people merely acquiring Chrome web browser, nor does Google lose any money at all when people use Firefox -- the irony you imply is non-existant.
Yes, if facts were dramatically different than they were, that would be ironic.
roundyFeb 12, 2012
On the other hand, it can be argued that Google is making money from Chrome through data collection. Google pays Mozilla to be the default search engine in Firefox. So, when a user does a search in Firefox, Google collects that data. However, using Chrome, Google is constantly collecting data just from web browsing. So, it can be said that Google does "lose" money when someone chooses Firefox over Chrome. I guess it all depends on how much that web browsing data is worth to Google.
johnnysoftwareFeb 18, 2012
@lennysq Well, IE's market share has dropped as much as Firefox's during the period shown on the graph. IE has also become the plaything for hackers whereas Firefox lacks the most commonly abused features in IE that hackers use to take over web-accessed accounts and Windows systems/networks; ActiveX/COM, BHOs, self-installing cursors, etc.
So, there is losing market share "dying" and there is losing the battle of control of their own computers for users dying too, and there IE has fared really badly and continues to do so. IE9 might turn things around but I haven't heard definitive statements that it had.
If you have a limb and it has gangrene, you could argue that it is dying even though you still have it. Combining that with the losing market share, IE seems to be on more of a slippery slope than Firefox.
What really cinches things is that IE has been getting hacked worse and worse each year as its market share dwindles. That means IE's makers were lying when they said that popularity not flaws was the reason they were getting successfully hacked so much.
johnnysoftwareFeb 18, 2012
@roundy "Data collection" is a pretty opaque term.
Google doesn't make money from collecting & selling data from web users, they say, and no one has proven something to the contrary yet.
They make money from aptly choosing ads to display based on what they see you are searching for and picking to read from web search results.
At least that is what they were doing prior to purchasing DoubleClick. Once Google bought them, the details of what Google does gets fuzzier because that company seemed to have altogether different technology for ads than AdSense technology at Google used.
kochevnik2001Feb 11, 2012
I like not being forced to 'trust' some anonymous multinational conglomerate, which is a 100% losing proposition. I can thumb through the source code of firefox and SEE they are legitimate.
I have no idea what people are claiming about FF memory hogging. FF loads up only the current tab on startup. If you have memory issues you really have personal issues, or you're using a computer from the last century. And the cost of RAM is what, cheapskates?
norman619Feb 12, 2012
Why?
phpistastyFeb 12, 2012
Firefox (or more generally Mozilla) won't die as long as the community keeps it going. Companies can go bankrupt, but ideas cannot.
Boom, gimme some diggs for fireFauxing it up. (see what I did there?)
KaostricksFeb 11, 2012
Who cares...i am still using it still it is the best for me with its wonderful addons'.
tonyclevFeb 11, 2012
I have been using FF for years, I have never had a problem it is the only one I use.
miklkitFeb 11, 2012
Me too. I used Netscape until they went under and FF works fine for my needs. Besides, it is non profit.
Memory hog? I have never noticed it.
digitalgeekFeb 11, 2012
I'll never let go, Firefox, I'll Never Let Go.
leland1Feb 12, 2012
This video has *never* been more appropriate at this time:
(a dedication to Firefox)
http://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ
TravisWolfeFeb 11, 2012
As someone currently using firefox, I find it hard to remain loyal when my fiance constantly brags about chrome. The biggest cause of firefox's decline is chrome. It's pretty much taken over the "anything but internet explorer" demographic.
ehulganFeb 11, 2012
Just engaged and already p-whipped. Google is about one thing and one thing only...Profits. And Chrome is just another means of increasing those profits.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
You could say the same thing about chopsticks makers, dairies, or any publicly owned corporation in America or the world for that matter.
Of the 5 leading browser makers; Google, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, and Opera -- only one of them is a nonprofit: Mozilla, makers of Firefox. The other four are all for profit corporations.
Wanting to make a profit is not a bad thing. In and of itself it does not make a corporation evil.
The character of the management determines how inhumanly or fairly they treat those they interact with. Capitalism does not have to be bad, particularly at the corporate or product line level.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
I would not worry about the concept of loyalty. Good web engineers would prefer you use the competition a little from time to time than not at all, and wind up continuing to like using their product frequently because it remains better.
Different browsers have different qualities and features by nature, and you can amplify these characteristics by using -- or omitting -- addons.
So you can canfigure one web browser as your fleet, quickly launched/exited one for doing something when you are in a hurry and want your browser open for as little time as possible. You can use another web browser as the one you load up with gazillions of bookmarks and dozens of addons.
That's good use of tools. Don't sweat loyalty to developers. They want you to be loyal to yourself if they are good developers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
WabbitslayerFeb 11, 2012
That is because Since Firefox seven was upgraded. It has been crashing and stalling out more and more. That is not an upgrade. That is IE behavior
duncan202Feb 11, 2012
I only use IE for testing. But I can't say I've had it crash and or stall in along time.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Are you using the beta channel version or the production release channel version?
Crashes are to be somewhat expected on beta or alpha version channels.
WabbitslayerFeb 11, 2012
The auto update version. Not been really happy with it for a while and considering switching....
wkrausmannFeb 11, 2012
I don't see ads when I browse because of Firefox and its wonderful extensions. I can go to any website and banners, popups, sidebars...all gone. Nothing on Facebook, no ads to see when I log into You Tube or to watch a live stream on JTV. All the garbage is gone and all I see is content. I used a friend's computer one day and saw all the ads I've been blocking and I realized that I forgot that these sites posted ads. If Chrome can do all of this and allow me to browse anonymously, I'll switch. But until then, I'll take the memory hog.
alexkorovaFeb 11, 2012
Chrome can do that, but Firefox has more extensions (that I use anyway). Browse anonymously? Don't really know what you mean by that, since you need proxies and similar things to do that - not really tied to a specific browser.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
No one who knows how things work totally trusts 3rd party proxies to protect their identity. It is always a gamble. You don't control them and they don't inform you.
Supposedly, Microsoft's engineers came up with really good privacy features programmed into an early pre-release version of IE 9, but the Marketing department killed it because they wanted to make lots of cash and have lots of power by monetizing people's privacy instead of protecting it.
So they shipped something that was half decent, just like everyone else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Feb 12, 2012
Quit being stupid. It's not anonymous browsing if the IP a web server sees is yours. It's called a VPN and something called TOR is fairly secure and much more anonymous then not using any proxies.
wkrausmannFeb 12, 2012
Yes, I mean that, and also not leaving traces of my whereabouts on this computer without having to dump the cache every time I close the browser.
rogerevans1Feb 12, 2012
You mean incognito browsing. Chrome has that too.
johnnysoftwareFeb 18, 2012
VPNs turned out to be insecure.
Didn't you hear about the aftermath of the RSA hacks, where the source code to their VPN utilities was hacked and then large defense contractors among others were hacked, breaching them via the VPN access.
You're talking about how things are supposed to work, if everyone plays by the rules, nobody cheats, nobody breaks the law, nobody makes mistakes, and law enforcement never demands anybody ever do anything.
Clearly, that's not the world we live in and you have missed my point.
You might as well genuflect to protect your privacy on the web if you are relying on such tools to protect your identity while breaking laws.
I'm just saying don't count on these things for more than they will really wind up delivering. You're just in denial that these shortcomings exist and the failures happened.
Good luck.
ehulganFeb 11, 2012
Firefox is just plain fun to use, all of the add-on's allow unlimited customization. My only concern with FF is that it's memory hungry. FF has features IE can only dream of and Google...please. I haven't used Chrome much but from the minute I loaded and opened it I wasn't impressed. I hope Firefox hangs in there and I will hang in there with it, and to all the developers I say thanks.
k3bravoFeb 11, 2012
I have been a diehard supporter of FF since it first came out. It took some convincing to switch to Chrome, but what really sold me was the auto-translate function for webpages. Living overseas this, feature has become indispensible to me. It is not perfect, but it is really good and it can only get better.
novenatorFeb 11, 2012
I'm a HUGE Firefox fan, but have honestly been finding myself using Chrome more and more often lately. The memory issues on FF are just getting burdensome, and Chrome doesn't seem to have them. I'll continue to use multiple browsers as I've always done, but I really hope FF can turn this around. They still have a lot of loyalty from me for everything they've done in the past.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Firefox has had some memory management programming mistakes in it since the dawn of time. They made a kind of foolish mistake aeons ago of basing some of their native binary executable code components as something they called XPCOM which was based on ActiveX.
This was kind of foolish because ActiveX does not run on any platform but Windows and Firefox runs on many different platforms besides Windows, and because this decision forced XPCOM dynamic object management to be based upon a piddling chore called "reference counting" that programmers never seem to get right.
They should have had a scheme where dynamic allocation/initialization of objects in the application's memory heap was handled automatically the way it is in Java, Microsoft's relatively newer "managed" model C#, and Apple's somewhat recent Mac Objective-C 3.0 and later programming.
The scheme they chose is risk prone for having mistakes in the first place which result in memory leaks/corruption, and somewhat hard for programmers to debug unless someone creates special inspection/monitoring diagnostic tools for them. Which is like work, so it often doesn't happen.
As a user, you can't do anything about that decision or any programming errors that have crept in other than ask a programmer friend to plow some of his time into inspecting/debugging the code and finding/fixing problems, then reporting the to Mozilla.
Layered atop that are addons which you can do something about as a user. Pare back the number you use if your computer has limited memory.
The latest operating systems are saying you need about 3 gigabytes [I know, crazy] to run them effectively with big programs -- and modern web browsers with 20+ years of current and legacy standards support are freaking huge programs. Someone would have to be in a state of virtual cognitive hibernation not to notice that modern browsers are honking huge.
I think people do realize that but what few have had explained to them is that Firefox addons are written in a combination of two computer languages: JavaScript which is NOT a fast programming language, and XML which a computer can read pretty fast but can consume quite a bit of memory if architectural decisions are not planned out carefully and correctly in advance by the arch designers of an overall environment [e.g. Firefox] and each and every component [i.e. all the Firefox addons you install].
Firefox has a good addon manager nowadays. You can find out how much of a heavy hand they put on your browser's shoulder while you browse the web by telling it to not load ANY addons, restarting Firefox (quit/relaunch), and then browsing your commonly used sites. Make sure you do a lot of browsing around a lot of other sites before taking your objective timings.
My strong hunch is you will see that in fact not running with a dozen or two addons speeds up browsing tremendously.
Chrome addons are the more fast/deadly native executable kind that we are all familiar with from our days of tolerating ActiveX addons in Internet Explorer. Trusting strangers' binary executables in something as security-sensitive as a web browser needs to be done extremely carefully; most people do not realize that or choose to ignore it.
You are definitely getting a trade off when you exchange security for speed in switching from one browser to another. If you eschew addons on both platforms, you kind of level the playing field though in terms of not adding extra security risks or burdensome extra memory requirements.
The bookmark manager which is built into Firefox is far superior to what you find in Safari, Internet Explorer, or Chrome.
The web was never intended to be used by only one brand of web browser so I hope you continue to keep an open mind and try different browser configurations and different web browsers from time to time. "Better" changes rather frequently on the web.
That was always intended.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tbttfoxFeb 11, 2012
tl;dr version:
Firefox made a big mistake early on by using something called XPCOM, and a lot of memory issues come from that.
There's a bunch of legacy crap that all browsers have to take into account, so they tend to get bloated/complicated/messy.
If you think FF is slow, try turning off all of your extensions: they use slow and memory intensive technologies.
FenderStratocasterFeb 11, 2012
Do you use TOR with your multiple browsers, Odd-Ball? I bet you do! LOL!
lvaneedeFeb 12, 2012
I still prefer Firefox
jackielan2000Feb 11, 2012
I just add (not switch from Firefox) Chrome to my option of browsers because IE is too slow on my old PC. I like Firefox because it's so powerful that I think no other browser can exceed it in the near future. But I like the new Chrome, with its online app store now, not like its previous versions, skinny but fast. Chrome will be the true contender of FF. But for now, its apps are just a few and many of them are like s**t (Can you imagine an app with a name 'Twitter' only contains the link to Twitter? It's ridiculous). So, there's a long way for Chrome, and, for IE as well.
jlodyga083Feb 11, 2012
simple , geeks like the fox . Very easy to use , great pop up and ad blocker , small size and well footprint compares to the others and hands on better security in my opinion then the others , ( others twice ... need more pepsi ). Also who gives a crap about market shares . Years ago I found out about firefox on a tech board . Users that know what they are doing go to the bushy tail , not metal .
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
I think you can get Ad Block Plus and NoScript on a lot of different browsers now, not just Firefox.
Market share maters significantly for only two things: survival/improvement of the browse as a whole, and the quality/quantity of addons available.
People make a lot more out of web browser user share than they should, since the web was always supposed to be about good, strong independence from any particular brand/model/version of web browser.
I think opinions got wrongfully skewed for while when Microsoft marketing/management went on an insane rampage to eliminate competition and convert the web into some ActiveX-based Microsoft Windows-only walled garden.
However, that has largely collapsed and even the culprits implicitly acknowledge today that was not a good way to go. They also make no bones about not supporting any OS but their own, unlike every other web browser maker out there -- all of which are multi-OS compatible.
I have always used more than one browser on a weekly or even hourly basis, going back two decades, starting when "Netscape" was first introduced as the first real competition to Mosaic.
Due to performance reasons, varying features, and certain pages/media crashing a particular browser from time to time -- not to mention those "turn off JavaScript in browser brand X says its maker this week" kind of security bulletins, using only one web browser is never a serious possibility.
Making the best use of your time and protecting your computer & info requires you to hopscotch around sometimes.
That's why we have an open web, not just a bunch of file servers for some proprietary client-server app.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nascenttFeb 11, 2012
The thing is, most firefox users never used firefox properly. they'd use maybe 1 or 2 addons at most. Firefox is amazing for it's customizability, Chrome, even today, just can't even begin to compete with firefox's addons. So sure Chrome is gaining market share, there's no real advanced options, few decent addons, and an auto updating -no user involved - service.
Firefox is for users that want to customize the web, you can do pretty much anything with firefox. Chrome addons still don't have anywhere near the power of firefox and greasemonkey.
Sure Chrome is gaining userbase, I recommend Chrome to non-tech people all the time, but firefox will always prosper to people that actually know what they're doing.
chaos7Feb 11, 2012
i have firefox and its addons customized too perfectly to switch. i've tried chrome and can't yet make it as great as firefox is now. maybe in a few years chrome will have all the addons firefox does.
paul2kadFeb 11, 2012
Safari? Who uses that? I haven't even seen it in about 4 years - thought it was gone.
debasisgFeb 11, 2012
That is because you don't use a Mac.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Safari screams on the Mac. It runs blazing fast if you don't bog it down with lots of Extensions (addons).
If you look at
It kind of blows that its JavaScript version has fallen pretty well to the rear of the pack, now that Microsoft chose to leap one year ago from haing a dozen year old very out of date JavaScript ... to having a JavaScript version on par with what Firefox was shipping a year ago.
The standard JavaScript that was published year before last not to mention the ones published a couple years before that are light years ahead of the early 2000s JavaScript versions.
Developers of web sites for Apple Safari cannot take advantage of that without writing separate support for old Safari JavaScript and modern
When Apple argued for HTML 5 as JavaScript + HTML instead of perhaps way more secure/reliable/easy XForms, they were implying that their JavaScript would not become an anachronism. I feel like today, Safari's is. I hope Apple catches up soon with the rest of the web in this vital area.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
antialiasFeb 11, 2012
In what way is Safari's Javascript outdated? I write Javascript daily and while I wouldn't say I'm a guru, I haven't come across any case where I had to write special cases for Safari. Especially if you are using Prototype or Jquery, there really aren't many issues with Javascript compatibility these days unless you are doing some specialized stuff.
johnnysoftwareFeb 12, 2012
This chart will make it very clear that Apple's Safari versions 3, 4, and 5 (current) are using a pretty old version of JavaScript.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Versions
Mozilla Firefox is essentially the testbed for newly approved JavaScript language features and syntax enhancements. So it tends to be in the lead all the time, trailing just behind the standard's spec for just a short time after they are approved/released/official.
Microsoft could only be described as sitting on its hands, content with a 1990s version of JavaScript. That is, until early last year when unveiled a JavaScript language that had caught up with Mozilla Firefox's latest version which itself was caught up with the latest ECMAScript spec.
Apple Safari and Google Chrome (the two WebKit based browsers) are rooted in JavaScript 1.5, which is the 2000 version.
Here is what you are missing:
+ JavaScript 1.6: E4X which lets you reference parts of an XML structure using traditional programming language operators which are more concise/readable than DOM API calls
+ JavaScript 1.7: powerful Python-inspired features
+ JavaScript 1.8: expression based generators & closures
+ JavaScript 1.8.1: native JSON
+ JavaScript 1.8.2: ECMAScript 5 compliance
Apple and Google have not moved forward at adopting new versions of the language spec since the November 2000 one.
By contrast, you have Mozilla and Microsoft all caught up, running the July 2010 version of JavaScript.
So on Safari and Chrome, what you are missing are native support for Python-like generators & iterators, more powerful ways to employ expressions, ability to deference parts an an XML info structure using familiar programming language expression constructs, and so forth.
The 2005-2010 enhancements make the language much richer. They do it in a standardized way. They don't lock you in to a particular library.
The need to use jQuery or more heavyweight libraries is alleviated or removed. If nothing else, your platform's particular version of JQuery, or Dojo, or whatever could probably be simplified.
For a lot of application purposes, that might not matter.
But for things like Safari extensions and Firefox addons, having these language features built in probably speeds things up and/or uses less RAM enough to be noticeable.
And since addons/extensions can run with every web page load, that is a huge opportunity to make things more pleasant for users -- and developers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
effathaeuFeb 12, 2012
nice! :)
antialiasFeb 12, 2012
Quite interesting. I had read about some of Javascript's upcoming features, but hadn't realized anything had been standardized/implemented yet. Thanks for the heads up.
kochevnik2001Feb 11, 2012
I have a virtual Mac. Mostly to laugh at. Seems I saved $10000 or such. I can delete it when I need the disk space.
onkar406Feb 12, 2012
Death of FireFox??
Seriously.......
Do you understand the meaning of Death??
It means cease to exist. but here I am using my Firefox and commenting here on Digg.
So technically it isn't dead yet ! And it won't die until every FF user stop using it.
So FireFox isn't dying anytime soon......
kropidnickiFeb 12, 2012
Firefox is the most popular browser in Poland and the second one is Chrome. But hey, Poland cannot into space anyway.
sotthapanaFeb 11, 2012
While I can agree that there are memory-footprint benefits in switching from FF to Chrome, I don't think there's a serious web developer out there who doesn't use Firebug. There's no way I'm switching to Chrome until Firebug is fully ported to it.
creaperFeb 11, 2012
Most of the people love firefox, still it's the best browser so far.
i dont care if firefox lives or not, i will use it till it lasts, then i will switch to something else.
mazebotFeb 11, 2012
Firefox helped users know that another choice was possible, as comparing firefox 4 years to get 20% and chrome taking 2 years is very unfair.
dualaudiFeb 11, 2012
So.. just got a notification to upgrade to 10.0.1, and it said the developer toolbar will not work... "GUESS I"M NOT f**kEN UPGRADING"
glimp7Feb 11, 2012
Chrome bookmark manager is slow as molasses. That's why I switched back to Firefox, and for AdBlock Plus.
johnnysoftwareFeb 18, 2012
AdBlock Plus has been running on Chrome for some time.
http://adblockplus.org/en/chrome
AdBlock Plus runs on a lot of platforms.
http://adblockplus.org/en/requirements
footbag01Feb 11, 2012
I like Firefox, and primarily use it, but there seems to have been a number of new versions over the last two years. I just couldn't get some of them stable. I ended up doing a few reinstall and finally something I did fixed it, but I don't think the typical user would go through this just to use a specific browser.
I would bet all of those new versions and their problems turned off a lot of users. How many left Firefox because they couldn't get it to work?
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Firefox has always seemed to work when first downloaded and its automatic version updater as been around for many years. It is one of the least tied-to-operating system web browsers out there so this causes little problem.
The only time I have had difficulties launching it 2was because of a serious flaw which arose in a third party addon. Practically never happened to me but on the rare time or two it did, I dimply used a different web browser to go to Mozilla's Firefox support site and looked up how to disable/remove a troublesome addon that was preventing launch.
If users don't like to futz with their browser any whatsoever then that means they are not adding addons in the first place, and they likely had no problems.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
suzanepolgarFeb 11, 2012
Brighter Side. Firefox latest version is really gud.
suzanepolgarFeb 11, 2012
Brighter Side. Firefox latest version is really gud.
neotechniFeb 11, 2012
The only reason I use other browsers is cause firefox takes so much ram
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Reducing your number of addons, if it is not already zero, will lead to faster page load times and much faster browser launch times. It will also reduce RAM usage.
Cutting down the number of bookmarks by exporting some and then deleting them will likely speed up browser launch time too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aixxtFeb 11, 2012
10 Firefox windows open with over 400 tabs open between those windows, Firefox is using 890MB of ram. Firefox is leaner than Chrome...
norman619Feb 12, 2012
How little ram do you have in your computer that the amount of ram your browser uses is important?
JollyMacFeb 11, 2012
The quick chromed browser jumped over the lazy memory leaking fox
michaelpintoFeb 11, 2012
it may be that on a larger level the decline of firefox is really more about the decline of the desktop PC
duncan202Feb 11, 2012
Can't extrapolate from one person, but I started using chrome and eventually stopped using FF. I suspect that happened a lot.
norman619Feb 12, 2012
I only use Chrome at work because i have to. Otherwise I use FireFox. I dislike Chrome.
jivatmanxFeb 11, 2012
Note a new development:
There's now finally an actual version of Chrome on android if you have the 4.0 OS. (You need a Galaxy Nexus or a rooted phone, otherwise you need to wait to get it).
That was the biggest disadvantage that Android had over IOS, it's browser.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
debasisgFeb 11, 2012
I use Firefox and Chrome. Stopped using Firefox. Don't like Safari.
corinthosFeb 11, 2012
I have coworker who uses safari on windows. I can't stand the thing.
alexkorovaFeb 11, 2012
I like the text antialiasing, but I don't use it. I mainly use Firefox, but also a lot Chrome.
scabnabbitFeb 11, 2012
People using Safari on Windows is chuckle-worthy every time.
(Yeah, I know why at least some do it. And it's pretty damn funny.)
johnnysoftwareFeb 12, 2012
It's WebKit. Same web browser core as Google Chrome, iPhone, and iPad. One of the most commercially successful web browsing engines around at the moment.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
evildeadashFeb 11, 2012
How do you use Firefox if you have stopped using Firefox?
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Microsoft IE ** lost over 40% ** of its market share sagging from its peak in the late 1990s of over 90% to less than 50% market share as of 2009.
Same source as this article:
http://gs.statcounter.com/press/microsoft-internet-explorer-browser-falls-below-50-perc-of-worldwide-market-for-first-time
Conclusion: the author/reporter doesn't know what they are talking about and has very little prognostication ability regarding browser survival given extraordinarily visible historical statics/analysis for computers, web browsers, computer companies, etc.
ben7337Feb 11, 2012
I used to love firefox, it used less memory than IE, and was faster and more customizable. I even grew attached to it when I found a theme I liked, which I knew no other browser would ever replicate. However firefox got slower and slower and used more and more memory even with only a couple basic addons like adblock plus and download statusbar.
Chrome however has only gotten faster or maintained its speed at least, and though it used to have issues with a webpage or two that I usually visited, these have mostly been remedied. Though it does still have trouble printing labels and coupons.
Overall both Chrome and Firefox can use a lot of memory, right now chrome has 3 tabs open, 5 chrome.exe's running, and is using 210MB of memory. Firefox regularly when I used it could go up to 1GB or more, the longer it was open the worse it got. Thus since firefox is slower, doesn't offer much in the way of benefit, and still uses 2-5x as much memory, I tend to avoid it and keep it as a backup.
neamerjellFeb 11, 2012
While I agree with the memory issues (my antivirus of all things throws a popup saying FF is hogging memory!), I have to say I like FF better than Chrome, at least for now. Honestly, I run Opera on my smartphone - its the only one whose UI I like.
bijaFeb 11, 2012
I use FireFox once in a while but it takes forever to open. Safari is open in a second.
darrweeksFeb 11, 2012
I'm still using FF but I don't like it when it starts to make my PC slow
rotfoxFeb 11, 2012
Not entirely sure about this but I believe that Firefox was an open source browser that was a volunteer your time basis of involvement. Maybe they'll just have to go back to their roots and open it back up to the public (if it's not already.. again I don't follow Firefox all that much). That's usually when the most interesting things get developed for the system.
humanitFeb 11, 2012
My first choice is Firefox. But having been wondering lately: perhaps there is some mole in the firefox memory consumption department? 8P
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Yup.
https://www.google.com/search?q=XPCOM+memory+leak
ferrellcreationsFeb 11, 2012
I really like firefox, but chrome is faster.
treasuredreminisceFeb 11, 2012
I have to say that although I have been a longtime fan of Firefox. Its browser seems to be getting slower and slower. I switched to Chrome this last month.
johnnysoftwareFeb 11, 2012
Death of articles by the trade press/blogs when market share is hovering in the 5 to forty percent range seem very retarded. Their track record for prognostication on such statistics is abysmal. Five percent of a market comprised of almost every company and person on Earth is huge.
Look at what it did for Apple, who plowed its one into R&D and ground-breaking web/networking, computing, and application programming technologies.
It went from "oh, they should just sell themselves and they will never amount to anything next to great, mighty Microsoft" and the equally retarded "aluminum alloy detected - conclusion: all consumers are attracted to aluminum and that must be why Apple sales are soaring" to "oh, they have seized the reigns of mass marketed application programs from Microsoft -- how vullllgar" and "oh, my god, their phone makes more revenue than every product+service sold by Microsoft ... somebody stop them!".
Companies with really good, high value, massively accepted/used products don't necessarily vanish when they have less than fifty percent market share.
At the moment, I am reading this page with Firefox and that makes Extreme Tech look extremely dense.
Google just renewed their search agreement with Mozilla and Firefox has tons of users. They will not be dying anytime soon. The authors might have changed professions by the time that happens.
DarthZaradFeb 20, 2012
I have moved to Chrome for some time now. I still have others installed but never use......
liron90Feb 17, 2012
thats too bad, loved the browser
epremorelFeb 16, 2012
I am not a tech geek, but I started using FireFox about a month ago and love it...
As long as they produce a product that gives people what they want they will be fine. If not someone else will come along to fill the void. In business there is the 500 lb gorilla, the contender, and there always seems to be that other guy they just can't seem to get rid of.
witney_in_memoryFeb 15, 2012
Firefox best.
reverantFeb 14, 2012
Sad, I still like Firefox second best, but I just like Chrome better for now.
freedom74Feb 14, 2012
I tried Chrome for a month but went back to Firefox. As for market share if they are including the mobile segment (which I think they should) then sure Firefox is losing as they don't have a strong mobile presence - people generally use the browser their phone came with hence safari, and chrome.
BegginMuttFeb 13, 2012
Seems like Chrome has been high on the list of vulnerabilities.
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB12-044.html
johnnysoftwareFeb 18, 2012
Chrome certainly is high this month on the list of reported vulnerabilities.
Still, you have to look at broader periods of time retrospectively to see what the real deal is, relative to other browsers and products.
Reported vulnerabilities are not the same thing as actual ones.
Microsoft repeatedly attacked security researchers in the media and even got one guru ejected from his job after he said in the news that having a non-diversified monoculture of system software was dangerous.
The following year, Microsoft took exactly what he said, turning its wording around and inside out, and said it mostly got hacked because it was popular.
That was essentially what he said, minus the fact that he pointed out that was a risk and the logical implication of his statement was you should avoid the risk by using or letting other people use different products. Microsoft's PR flacks' phrasing made the hacking sound like some kind of a sign of virtue; i.e. popularity. It stuck; few in the press take issue with the assertion, but it's absurd.
At the time Microsoft was defending itself with the popularity ploy, it was shipping IE 6 and Windows XP. For the past 3 years, Microsoft has been saying that IE 6 and Windows XP are security train wrecks. Its sole reasons for doing so are that it is true, and it wants to sell people Windows 7.
Which means it was not popularity but insecurity through flaws in architecture, design, and coding of the programs that were at the root of their extraordinarily frequently successful and devastating hackage.
Microsoft just forestalled admitting that until the products were out of life cycle and had replacement products ready to generate more revenue.
My point isn't that Microsoft distorts the truth, though that is a certainly a factor when looking narrowly at "this month's" latest statistics.
My point is that until vulnerabilities are revealed, you can't tell what they are.
Unlike the other companies with the better track records over the long haul, Microsoft bars parties from discussing the numerous bugs the folks find, and itself does not reveal their existence until it has a patch prepared, tested, and ready to ship as a general rule.
So if you are looking at charts, look at the past. If you are testing/inspecting the browsers' code themselves, then by all means take a look at the latest and share your info with others to draw your own conclusions about their present state.
BegginMuttFeb 18, 2012
I think your environment has a lot to do with it. If I was on windows I probably opt for a chrome derivative.
Unlike Firefox, IE and Chrome have to balance their code between their users and business partners which could unwittingly leave unseen holes that can be exploited.