11–20 of 654 posts
The biggest issue I have with Chrome is how aggressive it's been about linking Google IDs with the browser. I've lost data twice by bugs related to not having a linked ID. Please Google, understand this; I don't want my browser linked with my Google account.
My only beef with Firefox is multiple webpages don't render well for me, but those pages render fine in Chrome and IE. I haven't stop once to debug why (I just switch to Chrome but sometimes do report the websites to Mozilla), can the reason be in Firefox being more pure and the others browsers allowing more quirks? If this is the case, isn't this bad UX?
Safari is much faster than it used to be. It's also tightly integrated with my phone, including password management functionality (similar to LastPass) that works on all my devices. You can also get AdBlock for Safari now, which wasn't always the case. It also has a snazzy built-in RSS reader and just looks better than Chrome.
To leverage his analogy that it is like coming home to a new house to find that most of your stuff is already there, it is like not cleaning your house and not taking out the trash for three years and then moving into a new house. Yeah, it's clean and new, but why is it better and will it stay better?
I think people overstate Chrome's memory usage as a factor of performance; IME it's still less than FF in total most times, and largely that memory cost doesn't seem to come with the performance impact of FF's because of the way Chrome handles processes.
On my Win8.1 system at the moment, Chrome uses about 400mb of RAM. Firefox routinely ballooned up to a full 1GB or more. Even on FreeBSD, it was not at all unheard of to glance at top and find FF consuming as much as 1.4GB.
The idea of switching back to FF because of Chrome's memory consumption seems frankly laughable to me. FF's memory leakage is infamous, and literally goes clear back to FF Beta, and still hasn't been fixed a decade on.
And since Opera is a joke now, and Safari a toy, and there being zero real viable alternatives, that means Chrome, for good or ill.
I'd really appreciate it if they'd stop telling me what I'm allowed to download though. At least they disabled the autodelete function.
The biggest issue I have with Chrome is how aggressive it's been about linking Google IDs with the browser. I've lost data twice by bugs related to not having a linked ID. Please Google, understand this; I don't want my browser linked with my Google account.
exactly!! I don't want Google everywhere.That's why I changed the default search engine to duckduckgo. Let's see how it goes.
Plus Firefox crashing is a huge downside.
As for privacy implications, there's no reason to believe Google does anything inappropriate, and I rather like having my internet experience tailored based on past behaviour.
To each their own I guess.
The biggest issue I have with Chrome is how aggressive it's been about linking Google IDs with the browser. I've lost data twice by bugs related to not having a linked ID. Please Google, understand this; I don't want my browser linked with my Google account.
Personally, I've also found that, despite Firefox's distinction as the browser to popularize the idea of extensions, it now tends to lag in that department. Sure, you can get Adblock, but the stuff available on Chrome tends to be much more diverse these days. Finally, it's still not multi-process (though it's finally getting there.) [2]
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_activity.cgi?id=636564 [2] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis/Roadmap
The biggest issue I have with Chrome is how aggressive it's been about linking Google IDs with the browser. I've lost data twice by bugs related to not having a linked ID. Please Google, understand this; I don't want my browser linked with my Google account.
They want to make their little OS inside your current OS, so that's it, they introduce accounts, users, apps, notifications... Meanwhile most people (including me) just want to browse the damn open internet.