The only reason I use Chrome is because I have a chromecast and they only allow Chrome to native cast
We Need Chrome No More
201–210 of 536 posts
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#202I enjoyed this post, but I take issue with the idea that Chrome was initially adopted, or served, "to break the Web free from corporate greed." Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. No one else had this at the time, and it was a big deal because Flash was still widespread so sites were even less stable than they are today. Luckily…
I like the car analogy for browsers back then:
Back when I first started using Chrome (I think in 2008), I used to describe it as a weekend race car with all the seats, upholstery, and HVAC stripped out. Fast, no frills.
Firefox, on the other hand, was your 1970s custom van with a cool wizard painted on the side, really comfortable seats, and lots of room for further customization. Not fast, but certainly versatile and designed to your liking.
IE7, naturally, was a Yugo.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that was the deciding factor we'd still be using IE.
No we wouldn't. Microsoft was legally prevented from doing that, remember? Why Google has been allowed to get away with it I have no idea.
> Microsoft was legally prevented from doing that, remember?
> Why Google has been allowed to get away with it I have no idea.
Wasn't Microsoft only legally prevented from doing that due agreements made when they settled their antitrust case?
There needs to be another anti-trust case against Google, especially for the cases where it's used its monopoly in search to push its other products like Chrome, since that shouldn't even be controversial under current antitrust interpretations.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#204I enjoyed this post, but I take issue with the idea that Chrome was initially adopted, or served, "to break the Web free from corporate greed." Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. No one else had this at the time, and it was a big deal because Flash was still widespread so sites were even less stable than they are today. Luckily…
I've been heads down building an app which relies on Google Chrome and I go back and forth on this. Polar is an app for managing your reading. It also supports advanced features like caching web pages locally, annotating PDFs, tagging the documents you're reading, etc. https://getpolarized.io/ It's based on Electron and I've been going deep into Chrome internals as well as experimenting with Chrome extensions. It's d…
> I've been heads down building an app which relies on Google Chrome
IE6 called
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#205I don't particularly like the manifesto style of this post. The author attempts a hard sell by first admitting that the world needed Chrome and then after it succeeded he suggests throwing it to the depths after the wish came true. > Chrome is effectively everywhere you look. And that’s bad news. Why? It's the dream you wanted 10 years ago, but it comes with Google now. Ooops for you if you dislike Google, but the va…
Realistically, would we have cared if IE was everywhere if it wasn't garbage in supporting web standards? I'm not arguing for a lack of competition. It's just that someone needs to be on top of the heap. Might as well be a company that's invested in having their pages load fast rather than an OS maker with no incentive to improve their browser. I wish Google would go back to funding Mozilla like they used to. At one…
> Realistically, would we have cared if IE was everywhere if it wasn't garbage in supporting web standards?
No, I would have been perfectly happy if IE was a developer friendly, standards compliant browser, but they created a huge opportunity by ignoring this. I remember when I was super excited for a little floating JavaScript debug tool that you had to include in HTML and you could inspect variables without alerting them. I was amazed by it :)
> I wish Google would go back to funding Mozilla like they used to.
I think that's still the case:
https://www.cnet.com/news/google-firefox-search-deal-gives-m...
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience I can't stream video on firefox without the video freezing within the first 5 minutes, and it feels clunky even with non video webpages. I really hate google the company, and I'd love to stop using their software, but so far I have yet to see a browser that even comes close to chrome.
What OS, hardware and video platform(s)? I haven't had any issues with Desktop Firefox on Windows 10 on any of my Core i7 machines, when watching YouTube/Vimeo. Even my old dual-core budget Inspiron 3137 laptop works for YouTube and Firefox as well as Pandora/Firefox/bluetooth audio blasting. (It does like to consume RAM as if it was running SQL Server though.)
It happens both on my Mac Book Pro and my Windows 10 desktop. I don't have the problem as much with pre uploaded videos but with live streaming sites like twitch.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. While the Firefox dev-tools improved a lot over in recent years, they are still not up to where the chrome dev-tools are. Currently, I try to use the Firefox dev-tools as much as possible but keep chrome prepared for some special cases. From a consumer perspective, the story is very different: Any browser will probably do, but choosing Firefox has the best long term effect on the development of the internet.
You just said Chrome was the superior browser for developers. > the best long term effect What do you mean by this?
> What do you mean by this?
Supporting Google/Chrome is supporting corporate interest over user interest. We've seen them already taking steps to remove support for 3rd Party Ad Blocking and to ignore privacy related features.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#208I enjoyed this post, but I take issue with the idea that Chrome was initially adopted, or served, "to break the Web free from corporate greed." Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. No one else had this at the time, and it was a big deal because Flash was still widespread so sites were even less stable than they are today. Luckily…
> has now finally caught up to Chrome on stability and speed Arguably, with its market share dwindling fast, it's not enough to just be technically on par. Further, it is absolutely not up to par on Linux and from what I know, MacOS as well.
As someone who recently switched to Firefox on Linux partially due to performance.. it is really a toss up. Some sites FF renders faster, others Chrome. Chrome does tend to do a bit better on large javascript heavy 'single-page-app' type sites while Firefox crushes Chrome when displaying large (as in lots of text) pages. The latter made reading documentation impossible, such that I always had to use FF for it.
Plus you get the benefit of Firefox not corrupting its session weekly. Losing all your cookies, tabs and history frequently got super annoying.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#209I enjoyed this post, but I take issue with the idea that Chrome was initially adopted, or served, "to break the Web free from corporate greed." Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. No one else had this at the time, and it was a big deal because Flash was still widespread so sites were even less stable than they are today. Luckily…
In my experience I can't stream video on firefox without the video freezing within the first 5 minutes, and it feels clunky even with non video webpages. I really hate google the company, and I'd love to stop using their software, but so far I have yet to see a browser that even comes close to chrome.
The only problems I have with video in Firefox on Mac are with Hangouts / Meet sometimes not working correctly. This is likely due to Google not cross browser testing.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developing against Chrome is exactly "support every browser's quirks" instead of developing against the actual standards (usually Firefox has the truest implementation of which).
Developers have never, in the history of the world, cared about standards. Nothing can be more blindingly obvious when strolling through history. You don't even have to look at the web. Look at SMTP, IMAP, you name it. People don't write C++ and think about the standard, they write C++ and see if it compiles. Should they operate this way? Of course not. Are you going to change human psychology and cause this to happe…
Well, they care about standards when the consequences of _not_ caring about standards become painful in the ecosystem as a whole.
But if that gets fixed, they go back to not caring... until/unless the pain rises.
But in general I agree with you.
> People don't write C++ and think about the standard, they write C++ and see if it compiles.
Yep, you not just have to provide a _reason_, you have to provide tools that fit into workflow as efficiently as conveniently as that. (Ideally, that's a (in this case) compiler that's standard compliant!)