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

We Need Chrome No More

redalemeden.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 536 posts

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#511

Post by acjohnson55 »

starik36 wrote: post #417
acjohnson55 wrote: post #386

I'm an avid Firefox user, but I just can't ignore the fact that it's way less performant. Consequently, I use it for my personal life, but when it comes to all the web apps I need for work, I have to go with Chrome, or my computer slows to a crawl. I keep fairly extreme numbers of tabs open, but Chrome is significantly better at coping.

In what way is it less performant? The start up is faster on Firefox on both PCs that I use. When there are a ton of tabs, both browsers eat on all RAM, but I wouldn't say that Firefox drags the system down anymore than Chrome. I am on Windows 10.

I'm on Mac OS. It bogs down all the time. I have very little in the way of add-ons. Don't know why I've been downvoted, because this is just my experience. I've been and remain a user since Firefox 2.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#512

Post by dTal »

slurpeedog wrote: post #496
pojzon wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reason alone is tragic enough to NEVER use Chrome. And of course it has a complete garbage resources management which can be easly tested by opening few hundred empty tabs.. (mostly freezes whole OS around 180-270 tabs on modern desktops)

which browser right now can handle 180-270 tabs lol?

289 tabs open right now in Firefox (I have a little addon installed that counts them for you).

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#513

Post by hortense »

ethelward wrote: post #14
mapgrep wrote: post #7

I 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…

> Chrome's appeal was primarily technical Among the tech crowd, probably. For the remaining 99.99% of users, absolutely not. Chrome's appeal came from the pervasive advertisement campaigns, from the bundling strategy with other pieces of software, for the pre-installation on new computers or from the ads on Google SEarch homepage.

> Among the tech crowd, probably. For the remaining 99.99% of users, absolutely not.

Guess who sets up the computers for the remaining 99.99%? If you seduce the tech crowd, you also get the other users.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#514

Post by eitland »

speedplane wrote: post #492
eitland wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't argue about the performance, you might very well be right and I cannot prove anything. Feel free to expand on what features you still miss in Firefox that exists in Chrome though. Looking from the other side Chromes extension API looks like a toy compared to Firefox, even after Mozilla "nerfed" it. (And ours is improving while Chrome is actively trying to remove even some of the most used features from theirs.)

My issue with Firefox is that it's just slower. I've read the articles showing that the rendering engine is just as fast or faster, and I don't doubt it, but it definitely feels a lot slower in real-life tasks with dozens of tabs and windows, constantly switching, opening, closing. I know Chrome "fakes" it's speediness using tricks, but I wish Firefox did the same.

I don't know who downvoted you but here's my upvote. Your experience is as valid as mine.

I wish we could be honest about things like you && at the same time behave like grown ups.

Yes: I've been arguing against a couple of Chrome fans here but hopefully only when they're plain wrong or are presenting their personal ideas as truisms without any evidence :-)

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#515

Post by chmln »

eikenberry wrote: post #208
chmln wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

Both synthetic and real-world benchmarks show the opposite [0] [1]. My own experience and unresolved performance bugs that I've filed show the same [2].

I want Firefox to be faster and superior to chrome in every way. Ignoring it's problems won't make them go away and definitely won't make them a priority for the devs.

[0] https://blog.macsales.com/46993-rocket-yard-testing-lab-whic...

[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox-...

[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1408699

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#516

Post by voidmain0001 »

mapgrep wrote: post #7

I 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…

This is what I remember about Chrome's release: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

The first change it referenced was a process per tab, and then on page 13 it referenced V8.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#517

Post by clairity »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #363
clairity wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, chrome was part of google's hedge against microsoft, but microsoft poorly understand the web and badly bungled their internet strategy, to the point that it seemed that they were desperately trying to cede the leadership position to anyone but themselves. google really hadn't needed to worry about microsoft there. make no mistake, chrome's primary strategic purpose was to control the web in ways that extended an…

Microsoft has always been a non-innovator. Their whole MO has been to wait to see what innovations catch on, and then dominate that space. The software/products they create in these spaces tend to be competent but not brilliant. They are almost a market-follower which happens to gain significant market share due to shrewd business tactics and, eventually, their sheer size. They have always mostly taken a 'wait and se…

i’m not sure i’d go as far as to say they were non-innovators. microsoft famously employed “embrace, extend, extinguish” but it required quite a bit of “extend” to be successful. ms-dos, windows, office, exchange, sql server, etc. were all solid advancements in their time.

but they’ve certainly stagnated in my mind. i still use outlook/exchange and excel, but generally migrated away from microsoft many years ago now.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#518

Post by [deleted] »

perlgeek wrote: post #25
mapgrep wrote: post #7

I 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…

> Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. Curious, I remember speed being the primary reason. Google invented V8 (the javascript engine), with some pretty decent optimizations and a well-working JIT on i386/amd64 platforms. At the time when chromium came out, it handled some JS-heavy applications very nicely that Firefox struggled w…

[deleted]

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#519

Post by reciprocity »

mbesto wrote: post #271
Jldevictoria wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave Firefox a solid test last year (about 3 months of dedicated use at work + home) and I ended up coming back to Chrome. There are some really great things about Firefox. It has gotten so much better and faster than it was, but Chrome still struggles less with troublesome websites, and seems to load all pages faster overall. I'm keeping my eye on Firefox, but Chrome still gets my business for now.

Same here - made a switch and switched back quickly after. 1. Compatibility - random sites would just break...I reckon 15% of the time 2. Battery life - FF destroyed my battery life. To the tune of 8 hours on Chrome vs like 2 on FF.

I suspect more detail regarding your setup would prove to be useful for context as neither one of your bullets point towards an issue with Firefox directly.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#520

Post by craftinator »

droidist2 wrote: post #491
peruvian wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more likely that most of the "critical thinkers" you speak of write JavaScript for money everyday. Even on HN the amount of JS blockers is tiny but it seems higher because they always have to mention they block JS.

So is "I block JS" the new "I don't own a TV"?

I also don't own a TV. And as soon as I go vegan, I'll gain superpowers and ascend into the Mothership, where I can hang out with Tom Cruise and Ronny Hubbard!
Post reply on HN