What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
117 Comments
- mogebier, on 11/10/2009, -5/+107Chrome will not unseat Firefox until it comes out with addons. People love addons to make their browser what they want it to be.
- Aliwalla, on 11/10/2009, -10/+84Firefox "riddled with security holes and the innovation playing field seems to have leveled out some."
This sounds like Windows marketing spiel. Buried. - Brandonson112, on 11/10/2009, -2/+58Yes
- L0NER, on 11/10/2009, -2/+39could you imagine being firefox:
MS wants you out so IE can take over
Google wants you out so Chrome can take over
Apple wants Safari to rule.
You don't come preinstalled on any computers. your users have to activily seek you out.
and you don't charge a dime...
Most people would just kinda give up facing all this. - niradg, on 11/10/2009, -2/+37Could also be Apple or Google marketing spiel.
- sapd, on 11/10/2009, -0/+22Hell, Yes.
Even if Mozilla decides one day to stop Firefox development, I'm confident there'll be thousands lined up ready to continue on the path Mozilla has ignited. - footbag01, on 11/10/2009, -2/+24I'll stick to Firefox unless they give me a reason to leave.
- rizzo2008, on 11/10/2009, -2/+21agreed never really thought Chrome was anything special to begin with. The Firefox interface is still way more useful and comfortable than Chrome.
- kylere, on 11/10/2009, -1/+18Has the submitter actually USED Chrome? I hate fanbois
- rizzo2008, on 11/10/2009, -0/+12the beauty of free open source software
- Mr_Lyle, on 11/10/2009, -7/+19Maybe by the time it turns 10 they'll make it so that it stops using hundreds of megs of ram. Please?
- badqat, on 11/10/2009, -7/+19Chrome has add ons. Managing them is a pain (bookmark it) and they're a bit iffy.
However, Chrome has now replaced Firefox for me both in Mac OS X and Windows. - Trifold, on 11/10/2009, -1/+12I can confirm this is what's keeping me from switching to Chrome. I love chrome's speed, but until add-ons are seamless, I don't think I'd be able to stand to switch.
- hydrodev, on 11/10/2009, -0/+11Addons are REQUIRED if you are a web developer.
- richbradshaw, on 11/10/2009, -0/+10Exactly - being that the internet is so important, having a system that works properly on the internet isn't at odds with not using Windows.
- HonoredMule, on 11/10/2009, -0/+9Genuine criticism finds real faults.
- minorthreat, on 11/10/2009, -0/+9honestly, it seems like its been longer than 5 years to me.
- eqisow, on 11/10/2009, -0/+8Chrome has add-ons, but no (good) ad blocking still. Ad Sweep and AdBlock+ just hide the ads, but they're still downloaded. Unfortunately, that's a shortcoming of Chrome itself. I'm using Chrome atm, but I'm having to use privoxy to block ads.
- newbill123, on 11/10/2009, -2/+10Does it matter if they see 10? They have made the world sit up and take notice of open web standards.
If they have developed a design that can not scale to the needs browsers have 5 years from now, it's probably good that the Firefox implementation passes away. But the browser itself is merely one of many reasons I have a huge respect for Mozilla developers and what their work has brought to the web. - latinjones, on 11/10/2009, -1/+9This article is a joke.
- cstaylor, on 11/12/2009, -2/+9"Ironically, users of operating systems like Mac OS X and variations of Linux are the most vocal and ardent crusaders against Internet Explorer--and they can't use Internet Explorer if they wanted to."
That's not irony. - getoffmybridge, on 11/10/2009, -3/+10Chrome only wins in javascript benchmarks(and not by much) and startup speed. Call me crazy, but I'll take the 350 point hit on the Peacekeeper benchmark in exchange for GREATLY increased functionality.
- toxicityj, on 11/10/2009, -4/+10I would suspect apple over google, since so far google/firefox have played nice.
- TEMM, on 11/10/2009, -1/+7Saying that you don't use the browsers cache because you have broadband is like saying you don't need a remote for your TV because you have working legs. Loading from the disk is faster than loading something across a network, period.
- nouman1989, on 11/10/2009, -2/+8Hell yeah.
- thegamingguy, on 11/10/2009, -3/+9I use the browser plus wonderful plugins daily on both Mac and PC, and on both I am generally happy except for the crazy amount of resources it seems to hog at times.
- alflavor, on 11/10/2009, -10/+15Chrome does it for me, only use Firefox when I need a formfiller. If FF didn't hog so much resource and had the speed of Chrome, we could think again!
- SenoraObscura, on 11/10/2009, -3/+8I miss Netscape T_T
- AngryDeuce, on 11/10/2009, -1/+6I'm sure it will. I resisted Firefox for a long time (my argument was "I already have a web browser, why do I need another one??") but when I finally tried it out I was literally amazed at how much more responsive it was then the I.E. garbage I was used to. Then I got into the add-ons and there was no way in hell I could use anything else.
Until Adblock Plus, Noscript, and Grease Monkey are available on Chrome, there's no way I could ever even consider switching. - pizzaface200, on 11/10/2009, -3/+8I don't think its a question of if firefox will be around for another 5 years, its a question of will any other browser be around for 5 more years.
- Peck3277, on 11/10/2009, -1/+6"It looks like about a third. So probably not a huge determinant."
Going by the chart its actually 52% of users. Those numbers in the pretty pictures actually mean something. - eqisow, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4All of those settings are adjustable in about:config. Not only that, but FF automatically selects values based on your computer's resources. If you have more RAM, it uses it for cache. if you don't, it doesn't.
- mikelist, on 11/10/2009, -2/+6chrome is pretty good, and firefox seems to be getting slower, but at this point i still prefer firefox. extensions have a lot to do with it.
- Laminarcissus, on 11/10/2009, -13/+17Or it could be accurate. You can criticize something without being opposed to it.
- djdisconess, on 11/10/2009, -3/+7Firefox is the only one without a massive corporation advertising it, as well.
- jrobbi, on 11/10/2009, -2/+6Anyone else trying out the 3.6 beta 1, not that different from the 3.5.
- evil-doer, on 11/10/2009, -2/+6open a bunch of tabs in any other browser and youll see its also using hundreds of megs of ram as well. where do you think it stores all of the pictures and content?
in your ram.. - JustinTX, on 11/10/2009, -1/+5I'm of the opinion that Firefox will not be unseated by Chrome so long as Chrome is surrounded with privacy issues. I have no doubt that the information Chrome collects is used strictly to further Google's advertising business but I know that there are a significant number of people who don't really want their browser tracking their surfing habits. Seeing as how this is exactly what Chrome is intended to do, I can't imagine ever switching from Firefox.
- Nephersir7, on 11/11/2009, -1/+5Chrome will never unseat Firefox, because it doesnt attempt to be Firefox. Chrome and Firefox have two different philosophies:
Chrome = fast, simple, secure
Firefox = Customizable, flexible, powerful.
By both being open source, they can cooperate and profit from each other. Google doesn't want to "kill" Firefox and Mozilla doesn't want to "kill" Chrome and they have no incentive to do so because they share the same goal/mission: make the web better.
Is that so hard to understand, sensationnalist "tech journalists"? - grnicon, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4Firefox really needs to get back into its heritage, if it wants to survive. It was born out of Mozilla as an attempt to create a leaner, faster Mozilla. It had been that, but today it is not. It has turned into the bloated, crash-prone, resource hog. There are even projects today which aim to fork Firefox/Mozilla into a leaner, faster browser. 3.5 on Linux has been nothing but a pain in the ass.
Chrome is simply amazing, even in its early stage. With a few more rounds of bug fix releases, I could see it becoming the top browser. Firefox needs to stop adding every pet-feature (which is what killed Netscape), and start focusing on stability, efficiency, and resource usage. - UselessTrivia, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4What on earth makes you think that? Internet Explorer is the key to microsoft's entire business web strategy.
High end business applications are built using .NET Web technolgy, which only works on IE. And as a result IE is the browser everyone is familiar with, and since that's the browser they're familiar with that's the one that people develop their applications for.
It's very circular and self-propagating.
Microsoft doesn't really need to care that much about browser competition in the consumer space, because that's not their focus. IE is just there to facilitate the business web which is where it actually makes money. - Culyt, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4"Will it See 10?"
OpenSource projects can't die, I don't see anyway that it couldn't see 10.
The very worst that would happen is everyone starts using something else and it gets abandoned but even then it will still be around, generally with enough devs to keep it going. Look at GNU/Hurd, Mozilla, Minix, Gopher, etc...
Even if it got to the point where it was so abandoned where it would no longer runs on new hardware, the code is still available should someone want to fix it up (there only need to be 1 person out of 7 billion with the desire and skills to keep it running). For example Multics. That happening in the next 5 years isn't very likely.
Not only open source, there are more steam powered cars running now than any other point in history, although I would say that steam powered cars are probably open source since anyone can make the parts (with the right tools). - eqisow, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3What kind of ***** is this? I'm on Chrome right now, but last i checked it was still less than 5% market share. (2-7%, depending on the source)
I'm actually hoping Arora continues to gain traction. Cross-platform (Qt/C++), WebKit, desktop integration, extension support with flash and ad blocking, and comparable speed to Chrome.
http://code.google.com/p/arora/ - MScrip, on 11/10/2009, -1/+4They will probably stop using numbers and switch to letters and back. They already did that a few times.
Windows 3-95-98-2000-XP-Vista-7
Office 95-97-2000-XP-2003-2007 - paradigm1220, on 11/11/2009, -1/+4Chrome has a much lighter touch than Firefox seems to. Firefox on occasion goes a memory eating spree, but not once have I had Chrome hog much memory.
Firefox seems more fit for the person looking to customize their browser to their exact needs. Chrome is more like an excellent IE replacement. (I use both Chrome and Firefox) - getoffmybridge, on 11/10/2009, -2/+5Yep, I can't wait until they implement Mozilla ActiveX
- v4vishal, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3.. and author, a douchebag.
- piieerrrree, on 11/10/2009, -1/+4FF's the boss.
- heyjakecom, on 11/10/2009, -2/+5your computer doesn't run like ass because of firefox, it runs like ass cuz it's a mac
- zoeysdown, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3I used to use FF all the time.
I use it now just for certain sites and addons. Chrome has so much more speed and doesn't hog my resources. -
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is