|
On June 25 2011 05:47 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 02:58 ruthless69 wrote:On June 25 2011 01:17 Nizaris wrote:On June 25 2011 00:43 xarthaz wrote:On June 25 2011 00:21 Snipershot wrote:
is it any good i switched to chrome along time ago :d On June 25 2011 00:22 Zhiroo wrote:
If it's as bad as Firefox 4.0 I will not bother. Happy with Chrome at the moment. On June 25 2011 00:37 TadH wrote:
I actually like IE9.
I still use chrome though ;/ Ironic really. Chrome users claim to be the ones aspiring toward fast speed and efficient usage, while their browser fails at both these facets: its slower than opera, uses the most memory of all mainstream browsers, and doesnt have plugin flexibility to make up for it. In short, Chrome is a load of hot air. just because the latest iteration of a previously crap browser is 0.1% faster then chrome doesn't mean i'm gonna switch. Chrome will implement hardware acceleration soon too. Besides i call bullshit about chrome using more mem then ff or ie got a source? Chrome the only browser to resist pwn2own for years. I'm gonna ask you to open 15 tabs in chrome and then in FF. Chrome will most probably have 1 process for each tab with however much memory used because of it crash protection thingy. And then check FF with same 15 tabs open Should be one process and less memory because only one instance of an application is open. Not sure about IE but it sucks no matter what they do. I like the fact that Chrome keeps things in separate processes, for numerous reasons. If one tab crashes the whole thing doesn't burn and I don't have to restart the browser. As for increased memory usage from this it is really a negligible amount. Chrome is weakest in the add-ons. Firefox is still the best at this since it's very open source and been like this for a while, AdBlockPlus and NoScript are just a couple of examples. As for switching browsers, I've been on Opera and Chrome for years, switching is a pretty big hassle.
Come on, at least be honest dude. Try opening 50 tabs in opera/ff. its gonna take around 500.600 meg assuming typical blog/forum style pages. then try it in chrome: it will take 2 gigs or more. Chrome is flat out terrible in memory use, its that simple.
|
On June 25 2011 04:04 R1CH wrote:
There's pretty much no difference between 4 and 5, they're just trying to play catch up to Chrome which is at version 12 (not that anyone notices or cares). Kind of silly.
it's because 12 sounds more impressive then 5 so like chrome they run off the idea ppl like higher numbers frankly it's going to sound silly at like 20
|
chrome awesome yo. I ragequit firefox cuz that shit was freezing up LoL.
|
|
|
I don't really have any complaints with firefox..theres the occasional crash but it always restores my page and everything. I can model the window like I want with the several settings.
I used chrome a while back but switched back to firefox. Chrome was good too but nothing was wrong with FF so I don't know why I'd switch.
|
Its funny how browsers have turned into one of those "what i use is obviously better" debates just like phones, operating systems, consoles, etc.
They all do the same thing slightly different imo.
as for myself, i used FF but found chrome to be much faster and cleaner when i gave it a spin. been a chrome fan since. FF is still great and ill never uninstall it. Maybe ill give 5 a look. My issue with firefox is when it was trendy and new it was super fast and stable. But over the years i feel like they have added so much junk to it that i no longer have any desire to use it. but like i said, ill give 5 a look 
|
It's better than previous incarnations, but I haven't felt compelled to switch away from Chrome yet. Have only had it for a bit though, we'll see.
This release schedule (and the end of lifing of previous versions) is.. silly however. They can never hope to catch up with MS on the corporate side of things like this. I know their defense is "we don't wanna", but that doesn't seem consistent with past complaints or, you know, common sense.
Though this is not a problem with the browser itself of course Just saying.
|
Is it just me or does Adblock for Chrome not work for Jtv ads? It's definitely installed for me, but it doesn't seem to block ads embedded into Flash. It works fine with FF4/5 though.
|
On June 25 2011 00:43 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 00:21 Snipershot wrote:
is it any good i switched to chrome along time ago :d Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 00:22 Zhiroo wrote:
If it's as bad as Firefox 4.0 I will not bother. Happy with Chrome at the moment. Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 00:37 TadH wrote:
I actually like IE9.
I still use chrome though ;/ Ironic really. Chrome users claim to be the ones aspiring toward fast speed and efficient usage, while their browser fails at both these facets: its slower than opera, uses the most memory of all mainstream browsers, and doesnt have plugin flexibility to make up for it. In short, Chrome is a load of hot air.
I think that a big selling point for Chrome is that it looks minimalistic (and by extension, fast and efficient).
I never really made an informed decision over which browser to use, and I'm pretty sure majority people don't either. But the moment I saw Chrome for the first time, I instantly thought - this looks so slick, simple and fast, it's so awesome. And from that point on, I could never comfortably use another browser. 
|
Yay it doesn't freeze ;D... Oh well another browser I can use... I still use Opera as my main browser... except maybe for streaming...
|
Chrome is far more superior than Firefox and IE. Firefox feels so clunky.
|
On June 25 2011 09:03 xarthaz wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 25 2011 05:47 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 02:58 ruthless69 wrote:On June 25 2011 01:17 Nizaris wrote:On June 25 2011 00:43 xarthaz wrote:On June 25 2011 00:21 Snipershot wrote:
is it any good i switched to chrome along time ago :d On June 25 2011 00:22 Zhiroo wrote:
If it's as bad as Firefox 4.0 I will not bother. Happy with Chrome at the moment. On June 25 2011 00:37 TadH wrote:
I actually like IE9.
I still use chrome though ;/ Ironic really. Chrome users claim to be the ones aspiring toward fast speed and efficient usage, while their browser fails at both these facets: its slower than opera, uses the most memory of all mainstream browsers, and doesnt have plugin flexibility to make up for it. In short, Chrome is a load of hot air. just because the latest iteration of a previously crap browser is 0.1% faster then chrome doesn't mean i'm gonna switch. Chrome will implement hardware acceleration soon too. Besides i call bullshit about chrome using more mem then ff or ie got a source? Chrome the only browser to resist pwn2own for years. I'm gonna ask you to open 15 tabs in chrome and then in FF. Chrome will most probably have 1 process for each tab with however much memory used because of it crash protection thingy. And then check FF with same 15 tabs open Should be one process and less memory because only one instance of an application is open. Not sure about IE but it sucks no matter what they do. I like the fact that Chrome keeps things in separate processes, for numerous reasons. If one tab crashes the whole thing doesn't burn and I don't have to restart the browser. As for increased memory usage from this it is really a negligible amount. Chrome is weakest in the add-ons. Firefox is still the best at this since it's very open source and been like this for a while, AdBlockPlus and NoScript are just a couple of examples. As for switching browsers, I've been on Opera and Chrome for years, switching is a pretty big hassle. Come on, at least be honest dude. Try opening 50 tabs in opera/ff. its gonna take around 500.600 meg assuming typical blog/forum style pages. then try it in chrome: it will take 2 gigs or more. Chrome is flat out terrible in memory use, its that simple.
Why in the world would you need more then 2 to 3 tabs open at once? I can understand maybe 5 to 10 at once but 50? Why? If you're not looking at 5 different sites, why have them open?
|
5.0 seems to have fixed the lag problems I had in previous versions.
|
On June 25 2011 05:55 iTzAnglory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 01:16 Monokeros wrote:
Firefox : ripping music, although now I just use JDownloader
Chrome : Standard Browser
Opera : porn. Why is that for Opera lol?
Opera's really good when you need to have a LOT of tabs
|
On June 25 2011 13:55 SleepTech wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 09:03 xarthaz wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 25 2011 05:47 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 02:58 ruthless69 wrote:On June 25 2011 01:17 Nizaris wrote:On June 25 2011 00:43 xarthaz wrote:On June 25 2011 00:21 Snipershot wrote:
is it any good i switched to chrome along time ago :d On June 25 2011 00:22 Zhiroo wrote:
If it's as bad as Firefox 4.0 I will not bother. Happy with Chrome at the moment. On June 25 2011 00:37 TadH wrote:
I actually like IE9.
I still use chrome though ;/ Ironic really. Chrome users claim to be the ones aspiring toward fast speed and efficient usage, while their browser fails at both these facets: its slower than opera, uses the most memory of all mainstream browsers, and doesnt have plugin flexibility to make up for it. In short, Chrome is a load of hot air. just because the latest iteration of a previously crap browser is 0.1% faster then chrome doesn't mean i'm gonna switch. Chrome will implement hardware acceleration soon too. Besides i call bullshit about chrome using more mem then ff or ie got a source? Chrome the only browser to resist pwn2own for years. I'm gonna ask you to open 15 tabs in chrome and then in FF. Chrome will most probably have 1 process for each tab with however much memory used because of it crash protection thingy. And then check FF with same 15 tabs open Should be one process and less memory because only one instance of an application is open. Not sure about IE but it sucks no matter what they do. I like the fact that Chrome keeps things in separate processes, for numerous reasons. If one tab crashes the whole thing doesn't burn and I don't have to restart the browser. As for increased memory usage from this it is really a negligible amount. Chrome is weakest in the add-ons. Firefox is still the best at this since it's very open source and been like this for a while, AdBlockPlus and NoScript are just a couple of examples. As for switching browsers, I've been on Opera and Chrome for years, switching is a pretty big hassle. Come on, at least be honest dude. Try opening 50 tabs in opera/ff. its gonna take around 500.600 meg assuming typical blog/forum style pages. then try it in chrome: it will take 2 gigs or more. Chrome is flat out terrible in memory use, its that simple. Why in the world would you need more then 2 to 3 tabs open at once? I can understand maybe 5 to 10 at once but 50? Why? If you're not looking at 5 different sites, why have them open?
who are you to say how many tabs people need to open?
I personally keep ~20 tabs open at any given time, some regular sites I visit (which I now pin as "app tabs" in FF5), others contain somewhat useful info that doesn't deserve bookmarking but I'll come back to later.
Both chrome and FF have memory leak issues, but I think FF has done better in alleviating it in recent updates. And I need the noscript addon that's only found in FF because it just makes my browsing experience so much better (blocking ads, annoying Flash elements on websites, preventing potentially malicious code from running, etc)
|
Can mods please put up a disclaimer about Chrome fanboys...this is a thread about Firefox 5, not a Pokeball Pride thread.
I haven't updated yet, it seems awfully quick off the back of 4.0, but I am happy indeed especially considering the Linux changes I read about...Firefox 4.0 for Linux had very little attention to it and had some pretty major flaws. Maybe 5.0 was what 4.0 was supposed to be, although I love some of the changes that 4.0 had. Firefox Sync is amazing for someone like me who has a million computers.
|
when i upgraded to 5, it deleted all my bookmarks. and i couldn't restore them. sigh T_T
|
On June 25 2011 09:07 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 04:04 R1CH wrote:
There's pretty much no difference between 4 and 5, they're just trying to play catch up to Chrome which is at version 12 (not that anyone notices or cares). Kind of silly. it's because 12 sounds more impressive then 5 so like chrome they run off the idea ppl like higher numbers frankly it's going to sound silly at like 20
But that's the thing: with chrome, they don't even care about the version numbers. If you go to download chrome, there's no mention of the version number AT ALL. I really like their approach - they've made the updating process so seamless that there's no need to make any fuss about versions. I remember they had one firefox update that just changed one config variable to fix a farmville issue, and yet it required an update confirmation + a multi-megabyte download. wtf?
|
On June 25 2011 13:55 SleepTech wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 09:03 xarthaz wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 25 2011 05:47 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 02:58 ruthless69 wrote:On June 25 2011 01:17 Nizaris wrote:On June 25 2011 00:43 xarthaz wrote:On June 25 2011 00:21 Snipershot wrote:
is it any good i switched to chrome along time ago :d On June 25 2011 00:22 Zhiroo wrote:
If it's as bad as Firefox 4.0 I will not bother. Happy with Chrome at the moment. On June 25 2011 00:37 TadH wrote:
I actually like IE9.
I still use chrome though ;/ Ironic really. Chrome users claim to be the ones aspiring toward fast speed and efficient usage, while their browser fails at both these facets: its slower than opera, uses the most memory of all mainstream browsers, and doesnt have plugin flexibility to make up for it. In short, Chrome is a load of hot air. just because the latest iteration of a previously crap browser is 0.1% faster then chrome doesn't mean i'm gonna switch. Chrome will implement hardware acceleration soon too. Besides i call bullshit about chrome using more mem then ff or ie got a source? Chrome the only browser to resist pwn2own for years. I'm gonna ask you to open 15 tabs in chrome and then in FF. Chrome will most probably have 1 process for each tab with however much memory used because of it crash protection thingy. And then check FF with same 15 tabs open Should be one process and less memory because only one instance of an application is open. Not sure about IE but it sucks no matter what they do. I like the fact that Chrome keeps things in separate processes, for numerous reasons. If one tab crashes the whole thing doesn't burn and I don't have to restart the browser. As for increased memory usage from this it is really a negligible amount. Chrome is weakest in the add-ons. Firefox is still the best at this since it's very open source and been like this for a while, AdBlockPlus and NoScript are just a couple of examples. As for switching browsers, I've been on Opera and Chrome for years, switching is a pretty big hassle. Come on, at least be honest dude. Try opening 50 tabs in opera/ff. its gonna take around 500.600 meg assuming typical blog/forum style pages. then try it in chrome: it will take 2 gigs or more. Chrome is flat out terrible in memory use, its that simple. Why in the world would you need more then 2 to 3 tabs open at once? I can understand maybe 5 to 10 at once but 50? Why? If you're not looking at 5 different sites, why have them open?
I'm by no means a tab fanatic, and yet I keep a routine 5-10 tabs open and I consider myself a minimalist .. Right now for example, I have 2 TL tabs, gmail, facebook, 2 tabs from another forum, and a miscellaneous webpage (SS platform videos). I can certainly see how people can routinely use much more than 10 tabs, especially if they don't constantly close them, something I'm quite diligent about since every tab that's opened I have used in the past couple of minutes.
On June 25 2011 09:15 Destro wrote:
Its funny how browsers have turned into one of those "what i use is obviously better" debates just like phones, operating systems, consoles, etc.
They all do the same thing slightly different imo.
To be fair, there's objective marks for browsers, those can't be marred by opinion and objectively make a browser better than another like memory usage for example.
That's quite unlike ie phones, where most of the discussion is about ui/looks (something that applies to browsers as well, but is subjective so no point discussing it)
|
I've had issues with some flash players breaking on Chrome. Firefox is going to load everything because it's been around for so long web designers are used to programing for it. With 5.0 Firefox is also catching back up in terms of speed. I find all the chrome fanboys strange. I tried chrome, it didn't load pages correctly broke flash players. Maybe it's gotten better but not loading all webpages is fail for a browser.
That said I keep switching back and forth between safari(on Mac) and firefox. Safari keeps flash from loading in new tabs until you actually switch to the tab saving battery life for laptops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
