Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome Won

andreasgal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 583 posts

Re: Chrome Won

#301

Post by majewsky »

ishbits wrote: post #73
buu700 wrote: post #17

In fairness to Firefox, at this point I'm just waiting for their dev tools to get as good as Chrome's before I seriously consider switching, and other efforts like Quantum certainly make the prospect even more attractive. Once they have me on desktop, I'll want to switch on mobile as well for the state syncing benefits. I wouldn't be surprised if a sizeable portion of Chrome users were in a similar boat, quietly wait…

2 things keep me on Chrome. First, the overly large titlebar on Linux. I've tried some addons to make it more like Chrome but they all look like shit. And second, the dev tools. I find dev tools in Firefox clumsy to use. I believe I originally switched to Chrome for the dev tools when I ventured into frontend development.

> the overly large titlebar on Linux

Just installed Chromium to compare. When maximized, the Chromium title bar is 65px high on my system, whereas Firefox's takes 70px. I should note, though, that I have set my window manager to hide the default window decoration on maximized windows, which helps.

Re: Chrome Won

#302

Post by a_imho »

Imo all rendering engines are fine as they are, content and 3rd party blocking is what makes web browsing fast. My 2 cents is if you want to offer the best web experience today you need to add in blazing fast native content blocking and make it default (without shady whitelists). Don't underestimate the power of defaults and network effect.

Then let's see how long does it take from start to watch a youtube video. Will beat default Chrome experience anywhere between 20-90 secs. Let's see whether Google can match that.

Re: Chrome Won

#303

Post by SteveCr48 »

EddieSpeaks wrote: post #151
gkoberger wrote: post #51

I agree with this blog post. But I don't think Mozilla lost. I worked for Mozilla for a few years, after seeing John Lily (CEO at the time) speak. It was right after Chrome started getting popular, and a smug person in the crowd asked him about how he felt about Chrome. John's response was awesome. "This is the web that we wanted. We exist not because we want everyone to use Firefox, but because we wanted people to h…

Edge is fairly decent on windows as well, I know I'll get downvoted but it works very well - try it

Second your comment about Edge. As a long time Chromie, I'm transitioning​ to Edge on Win 10. Edge renders pages elegantly. Very nice. Try it!

Re: Chrome Won

#304

Post by toyg »

microcolonel wrote: post #299
MBCook wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is we're moving extremely fast to a chrome only world. If it wasn't for corporate sites and the success of the iPhone chrome would probably be dominating the way IE used to. I definitely run into sites that only work on chrome and not in any other browser. In my opinion chrome isn't doing a good job either. It's a massive energy hog and waste more CPU than it needs to. Unlike IE and FireFox and Safari it…

> Unlike IE and FireFox and Safari it comes from a company that is notorious for wanting to know everything about you. Are you suggesting that Chrome gathers data about you? Because unless you tick that box (which they show pretty prominently) it doesn't. It doesn't by default in most linux distribution packages. > Unlike IE I don't know if you've been following, but Microsoft is now the king of knowing everything ab…

> People forget that Microsoft made box-model

No, I didn't forget. But you forgot to say that MS did all that with draft specifications or even no spec at all (XMLHttpRequest), just to beat everyone to market, then refused to correct their implementation once the standard was revised and agreed by others. And they sprinkled ActiveX on top, for good measure.

> developers (and their managers) lapped it up

Disagree. Developers were the ones that pushed Mozilla and then Firefox (and then Chrome) as soon as they could.

> Microsoft did the right thing and didn't break compat

Microsoft did the right thing for their own bank account: they smashed the competition with bundling then left IE to flounder, even obliterating their dedicated team, because they had reached their objective, which was to dominate the web so that they could sell what they really cared about: ActiveX and other Windows-only technologies.

> the problem is that everyone likes the boss.

No, the problem is that people are lazy. IE won with OEM bundling on Windows. Chrome is winning with OEM bundling on Android. As long as the default is good enough, people won't switch, especially 15 years ago when downloads took a degree of effort (waiting several minutes, restarting after failure etc etc) and now on mobile where it is awkward and/or completely forbidden to switch browser. This is basically what the article says as well: they couldn't push a browser, they had to push an OS with a browser bundled. If people don't switch, developers can't build for alternative browsers, because their managers won't allow the additional time and effort.

Re: Chrome Won

#305

Post by Vinnl »

gkoberger wrote: post #51

I agree with this blog post. But I don't think Mozilla lost. I worked for Mozilla for a few years, after seeing John Lily (CEO at the time) speak. It was right after Chrome started getting popular, and a smug person in the crowd asked him about how he felt about Chrome. John's response was awesome. "This is the web that we wanted. We exist not because we want everyone to use Firefox, but because we wanted people to h…

> I hope Mozilla sees that. I hope they take credit, and move on to what's next: privacy and net neutrality. Our privacy is under attack, and Mozilla is one of the few companies that can (and would want to) help.

Mozilla _is_ fighting that fight. See their posts here: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/

Re: Chrome Won

#306

Post by Vinnl »

StevePerkins wrote: post #137
cies wrote: post #63

So Mozilla lost Firefox OS. And their browser share is smaller then Chrome, and then it was, but still top tier and winning from M$. I'm much less pessimistic. Besides a cross platform and extensible browser we see also the following coming out of Mozilla: * Rust, a modern low-level programming language with cutting edge "safety" build in at zero runt time cost, luring many system programmers. * Servo, tomorrow brows…

I understand that people who like rust REALLY like Rust, but you do realize that your examples of a purpose for existence consist of: 1. A programming language, that hasn't yet shown "escape velocity" to go beyond D and other would-be-C++-successors in traction. 2. The only major application of that language... a pre-alpha browser engine, which may or may not eventually replace the engine in a browser that is serious…

> a pre-alpha browser engine, which may or may not eventually replace the engine in a browser that is seriously declining in market share with no reversal in sight.

There are other promising applications. For example, it could be used for web technologies-based applications (e.g. hybrid mobile apps, Electron, ...).

Re: Chrome Won

#307

Post by Markoff »

the reason went Firefox lost it's because it's extremely see and unstable

i try it usually once a year to confirm there is no progress and experienced this few weeks ago, loading and rendering pages it's slowest compared to Chrome, CAF browsers or Brave, heck Firefox doesn't even have pull down to refresh which is showstopper, add-ons are nice but most of the users don't care and i can block ads just with adaway

as for desktop, again unable to handle more tabs properly, freezing and unresponsive while no such problems on Chrome

i dunno maybe Chrome devs test their browser on actual real life desktops and mobiles, while Firefox devs think everyone has flagship and computer with 16gb of RAM?

TLDR: Firefox is significantly (not slightly as article honey talk) slower on mobile and freezing and unresponsive on desktop compared to Chrome and real users notice this, they don't care about add-ons

Re: Chrome Won

#308

Post by insickness »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #29

I use firefox for entirely idealistic reasons, but it's hard to ignore the fact that it is slower. There are times when it just feels so bloated, though thankfully a quick restart gets it running smoothly again. I know firefox team has had passes of perf improvements in the past, but it seems like it still isn't a high priority. When it comes to browsers, speed is the #1 feature.

I switched from Firefox to Chrome just last week. I was using Firefox for years until it began crashing multiple times per day. Chrome is far faster at browsing. Tabs close quicker.

Re: Chrome Won

#309

Post by Markoff »

yamaneko wrote: post #146

I switched to Firefox because Chrome was keeping my fan always busy (high CPU usage and temperature) and using too much RAM. It was always around 5GB for my common usage. In Firefox it's always around 2.7GB. There were some privacy concerns too. Having said that, Firefox also has its issues. It is so unresponsive sometimes, giving long hangs. That's the main problem to me. There are others, like it being slower in so…

funnily i have exactly opposite experience on 2gb desktop, Chrome is responsive and works work many tabs, Firefox just freeze and freeze and freeze and i don't have time to wait all the time to switch tab

Re: Chrome Won

#310

Post by toyg »

Joeri wrote: post #243
diminish wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla lost the mobile OS war unfortunately if that what's inspiring you. What's next isn't clear to me

Everybody lost the mobile OS war. Apple lost it by getting boxed into a market share corner by android. Google lost it by losing control over android. Android OEM's lost it by getting stuck in a cutthroat competition. Microsoft lost it by being microsoft. Users lost it by having no good choices left (either go with the golden cage iphone, or go with the privacy and security mess android).

> Apple lost it by getting boxed into a market share corner by android.

Apple was never likely to license iOS to other manufacturers, nor were they likely to have enough capacity to satisfy the whole market. I reckon they are where they always wanted to be: owning a very profitable and locked-in niche.

Post reply on HN