Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Chrome Firefox Google Internet Explorer Software Stats

Chrome 15 Overtakes IE 8 For Top Browser Spot 507

An anonymous reader writes "If you're reading this on Chrome, you're part of a wave that has ditched Internet Explorer or Firefox and helped vault Google's browser to the top Web browser spot worldwide." Are you reading this on Chrome? (I'm using Chromium right now, but that's pretty close.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome 15 Overtakes IE 8 For Top Browser Spot

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17, 2011 @07:55PM (#38412218)

    IE lagging behind again.

    • by InsightIn140Bytes ( 2522112 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @07:58PM (#38412252)
      It's just stupid comparison. Chrome automatically updates all old versions to their newest one while IE doesn't. This compares two exact versions, Chrome 15 and IE8. If you compare just browsers, IE is still easily number one at 50%, while Chrome has 25%.
      • by rhyder128k ( 1051042 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:10PM (#38412338) Homepage

        An excellent point. It's also worth noting that Firefox is the most popular browser in Europe. Probably due to those EU regulations about Windows offering a default choice. Y'know the ones that people said would have no effect anyway. []

        • by InsightIn140Bytes ( 2522112 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:22PM (#38412420)
          Same goes for Opera, which is extremely popular in Russia and CIS countries and actually beats any other browser. It has like 50% market share in some countries. []
          • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @10:05PM (#38412996) Homepage Journal
            Interesting...........completely anecdotal, but I don't know anyone that uses chrome, much less even knows it exists for the most part of them.

            Hell, most of them I had to explain what FF was....

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              Do you live in Cuba? Or a war-ravaged African country? Or bumfuck Utah?

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@world3.nBLUEet minus berry> on Sunday December 18, 2011 @06:26AM (#38415018) Homepage Journal

              I use Chrome at work (my choice) but Firefox at home. Chrome is usually very fast and being able to just hit ctrl-T and start typing to search with suggestions is very nice, but there are some annoyances that stop me switching over for personal browsing on my own PC.

              That is the problem with Chrome: a lack of customisability and APIs for extensions. It's fine if you happen to like the way Chrome works, but if it doesn't you probably can't fix the annoyance.

              - Smooth/fast scrolling. The SmoothScroll extension takes care of both of these but seems to have been removed from the Chrome extensions site. I found the last version and installed it locally.

              - RSS reading. I use Brief in Firefox and there is nothing even half as good for Chrome. Google Reader is bearable I suppose.

              - Cookie permissions. In Firefox I use Cookie Button to whitelist ones that I want and have the rest deleted when I close the browser. There is nothing like that for Chrome. There are similar looking extensions but they maintain their own whitelists instead of integrating with the built in one.

              - Search from the context menu switches to the search tab instantly. Again there is an extension but it still makes the screen flicker.

            • by f()rK()_Bomb ( 612162 ) on Sunday December 18, 2011 @07:45AM (#38415328)
              I'm in Ireland, attending college as a mature student, every single teenager uses chrome, as do all my friends. When someone complains about Firefox on Facebook everyone points them to chrome. Exact opposite experience, anecdotes are useless.
            • by berberine ( 1001975 ) on Sunday December 18, 2011 @08:28AM (#38415488) Homepage
              I work at a junior high where the science teacher has a Master's in Computer Science. She tells everyone not to use anything but IE because those other browsers aren't supported by Microsoft and you don't know what virus you're going to get with them. She's extremely vocal about it and nothing I've said makes a difference. She just keeps telling me I'll be sorry when I get a virus from "that Firefox you use." She has the teachers in the junior high convinced not to use anything else.

              Meanwhile, you go to the high school where my husband works and they use a mix of Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and IE, depending on their own preference.
        • by Requiem18th ( 742389 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @09:19PM (#38412758)

          I also want to add that all the popularity of Firefox is due to it's own quality.

          Chrome is aggressively advertised in all Google services, specially Youtube.
          It also has TV ads including Super Bowl ads, using celebrities like Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and even Hatsune Miku!

          It also tries to sneak installs by sponsoring freeware downloads with chrome bundled. Opt-out of course.

          They even messed up with the opt out option to make it hard to opt-out. I am specially offended by that *because* it is such a petty thing to muck with. It was a simple, straight forward Windows form but the opt-out option was semi-disabled. Oh come on that's just childish!

          So I'm not impressed by Chrome's market share. It mostly shows the efficacy of strong marketing. I'm not saying it is a bad browser, or that Firefox is perfect, just that Chrome's success isn't really due to some sense of superiority.

          And another thing.

          What is with Chrome fanboys? Google is a for-profit corporation vent on market domination. It is NOT a good thing if Chrome kills Firefox, the last thing we need is another browser monoculture.

          • by BrokenHalo ( 565198 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @10:03PM (#38412982)

            I also want to add that all the popularity of Firefox is due to it's own quality.

            True. Firefox is now a rock-solid, stable and mature browser. Having said that, I have actually been using Chromium as my default browser for a few months, for just two reasons:
            1. Chromium loads webpages perceptibly faster, and
            2. because Chromium by default takes up marginally less real-estate on my laptop screen with menubars, toolbars and whatnot that are not necessary.

            However, if Chromium were not available, I would not be persuaded to use Chrome, as I am not happy about the possibility of anything I do being relayed to Google.

            • by kangsterizer ( 1698322 ) on Sunday December 18, 2011 @12:38AM (#38413760)

              Hopefully 1. will be fixed soon. Chrome and Firefox are roughly as fast. Some pages load faster on Firefox. Some faster on Chrome.
              But ALL Google pages load faster on Chome (and Chromium of course). That's because they all use Google-only protocols (such as SPDY) which do make a difference.

              That's how you segment the web by the way, even if it's using open source stuff. Thanksfully, for that very one (SPDY) it's going to be in Firefox soon, hence, 1 would be fixed soon. But I'm *sure* Google will find other ways.

              They're probably going to include Chome-only tags (oh wait, they already do that! offline gmail anyone?) or NaCl components, or Dart only component.

              And that's why Google's actually turning evil after all.

          • by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @10:48PM (#38413168)

            I also want to add that all the popularity of Firefox is due to it's own quality.

            By "quality" I assume you really mean "qualities", i.e. the combination of its appearance, UI, stability, compatibility, and so on. And that's the problem with FF today, the market is broken up into people sticking with 3.6.x because it's a significant improvement on all of its successors, people on a random spread of versions up to whatever we're on this week (I don't want to post a version number because by the time this post appears it'll have changed), and people who've abandoned it for Chrome, which FF seems to be trying to copy, but badly.

          • by edalytical ( 671270 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @10:49PM (#38413182)

            Chrome's marketing is downright deceptive. After running a test on you'd be presented with a ad for Chrome that read something like: "Internet speed not what you expected? Try a faster browser." That's, in my opinion, a lie. Google isn't the saint we thought it was. It's a fucking advertising company. That's worse than any operating system or office suite company that was once the market leader.

      • Let's not let logic get in the way of "mathitized" activism.
        We no longer see it important to teach people real math so the group who can come up with MaGiCaL numbers must be right.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:52PM (#38412612)

        The ones who should be worried about this are not Microsoft. Rather, they are Mozilla. This news just goes to show how irrelevant Firefox is quickly becoming. Luckily for them, they still have time. All they need to do is stop doing the stupid shit that they've been doing the past couple of years.

        First, bring back the fucking menu bar and the status bar by default! The space gained by not showing them is much less valuable than the time saved by having the browser's functionality easily accessible (using the menus) and by having informational messages shown much more obviously (using the status bar). It was a really fucking stupid decision to hide these by default, and it has crippled Firefox's UI. No, I don't want to dig through about:config trying to find the right options to re-enable this functionality that shouldn't be disabled by default.

        Second, go back to a sensible release schedule! Put out solid, well-tested major releases once a year. Use version numbers that are actually meaningful. Don't succumb to stupid release policies or version number shenanigans just because Chrome does. Using a sensible release schedule will also help prevent the UI from changing drastically on a monthly basis, which only serves to drive users away.

        Third, fix the really fucking horrible memory and CPU consumption that Firefox has exhibited for years now. This alone is one of the major reasons why people use Chrome. It's not that they like Chrome, but rather they just don't like how Firefox consumes so much fucking memory even after short browsing sessions, and even when using a fresh installation with no extensions or add-ons installed yet. It's even less pleasant when Firefox feels so much slower than Chrome, Opera, and even IE these days.

        Fourth, show the damn protocol in the URL bar by default! Yes, it's important, and no, it doesn't waste space. It was a pathetic decision to remove it, and it really made Firefox much less usable. No, I don't want to dig through about:config trying to find the right option to re-enable this functionality that shouldn't be disabled by default.

        Mozilla had their most successful years before Firefox 4. It has been all downhill since then. It's also been long enough that it should be obvious that this new approach isn't working. It's driving away the core Firefox users who made Firefox what it once was. If Firefox is just going to be a poor imitation of Chrome, and inferior in many ways, then why the fuck don't people just use Chrome? Well, that's what's happening. Maybe Mozilla can get their shit together and fix this problem before Firefox is completely irrelevant.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Uh, all those things you're saying will will allow Firefox to become more relevant again are things that are done the same way in Chrome.

          "Well, people obviously prefer the way Chrome does this... let's go the opposite way!"

          Sounds like dumb geek theory to me. It doesn't win you converts... you've just admitted defeat and rolled back to the old stuff so you can die quietly.
        • by modmans2ndcoming ( 929661 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @09:41PM (#38412866)

          Your first two points kinds are meaningless since people have fled FF for a UI exactly like the one that you claim is a reason that they left FF.

          You are correct about FF's performance, but people will not just come back to it because it gets better performance... I left FF because I LIKE Chrome.

          Your fourth point is meaningless again because people have not left FF for a browser that does the same exact thing.

        • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @09:44PM (#38412884)

          "The ones who should be worried about this are not Microsoft. Rather, they are Mozilla. "

          If they cared, they'd change. They don't.

      • It's just stupid comparison. Chrome automatically updates all old versions to their newest one while IE doesn't. This compares two exact versions, Chrome 15 and IE8. If you compare just browsers, IE is still easily number one at 50%, while Chrome has 25%.

        Didn't Microsoft just release a statement [] saying they were going to be doing the same thing? So we'll have to wait for that to happen before the comparison could possibly be a valid judge of what browser is most used. My web logs still say IE, which does make me sad like bull. }:(

        • Microsoft said only Windows Vista and Windows 7 would be auto-updated to IE 9. Windows XP, with over two years of extended support remaining, would get only IE 8. The latest versions of Chrome and Firefox run on Windows XP, unlike IE 9.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        "IE is still easily number one at 50%, while Chrome has 25%."

        What's it matter? I'm much more interested in what percentage of web sites are W3C compliant. When that approaches 100%, then browsers will compete on true merit (speed, UI, etc.), not their support of proprietary extensions and how well they put up with badly coded HTML.

        I'm sick and tired of "browser x isn't supported," and "this site best viewed with..." crap, which is just indicative of clueless website developers.
        • It's crystal clear that you sir are not a website developer. Have you ever had to troubleshoot bugs specific to various versions of internet explorer? Including CSS, Javascript, and more, on LARGE scale websites? Yeah, I didn't think so.
      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        50%? No, more like below 40%, Chrome 27%, Firefox 25%, Safari about 6% and Opera 2%. At least according to statcounter it's a loooong time since IE passed the 50% mark. Like september last year or thereabouts.

      • by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @10:43PM (#38413140)

        Chrome automatically updates all old versions to their newest one while IE doesn't.

        So basically, it does the exact opposite of what Google does for Android.

  • Version war? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17, 2011 @07:57PM (#38412236)

    This is complete nonsense, if you take into account all versions of said browsers, IE still comes out on top. Who cares that a particular version (numbering incompatibility?!) is more used than another?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) *

      Who cares that a particular version (numbering incompatibility?!) is more used than another?

      I would say that a lot of people who have to provide support care a great deal whether you're using IE 6 or IE 8.


    • Re:Version war? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Terrasque ( 796014 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:42PM (#38412552) Homepage Journal

      Because IE6, IE7, IE8 and IE9 are more or less four completely different browsers. My experience is that there are usually more differences between two IE version's HTML / JS parsing than the difference between Opera, Firefox and Chrome combined.

      IE9 is the first browser where Microsoft actually tried. It's not perfect by far, but at least it's trying. IE6 is from the days where companies competed over who could make the most batshit insane browser. IE7 were a major change from IE6, and IE8 was a small change from IE7. But still carrying the El Batshitto legacy from old IE6. IE9 is, as said, a completely different ballpark (it's generally around the same level as firefox v3.6).

      Don't be fooled by the name similarity. They truly deserve to be counted separately for each major version.

      • by yuriyg ( 926419 )

        IE9 is the first browser where Microsoft actually tried. It's not perfect by far, but at least it's trying.

        Sorry, but I have to nitpick here. IE3 was the first browser where Microsoft actually tried. It was so beyond anything that Netscape/Mozilla offered, feature- and interface- wise. IE3 is the reason why IE is still in the lead 10-15 years later. Posting this from Chrome ;)

        • by jjohnson ( 62583 )

          Not sure what you're remembering. Netscape 3 was obviously better than IE3; the only thing IE3 offered was a browser good enough to be described as clearly worse than Netscape 3. It was IE4 that was marginally better than Netscape 4, and IE5 where it was obvious that IE was the leading browser because Netscape/Mozilla decided to just completely shit the bed with evolving the whole communicator suite.

    • Hardly anyone uses IE 6 or IE 7 in the US besides a few corporations. Maybe 4% of users according to statecounter. IE 9 barely has 10% as average Joes do not like the UI and many businesses feel IE 8 is fine.

      IE 8 is still over 80% of the IE market. It wont go away and it is the next IE 6 of the 2010s. So the article is pretty accurate.

  • by Meshach ( 578918 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @07:58PM (#38412240)
    Also are they lumping all versions of Chrome together? All versions of Firefox together?

    Seems misleading...
    • by InsightIn140Bytes ( 2522112 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:00PM (#38412258)
      Yes, they are. It even says so in the article, but someone just dedicated to copypaste one really specific sentence from it to Slashdot. IE still has 50% market share, while Chrome has 25%.
      • by icebike ( 68054 ) *

        Also are they lumping all versions of Chrome together? All versions of Firefox together?


        Yes, they are. It even says so in the article, but someone just dedicated to copypaste one really specific sentence from it to Slashdot. IE still has 50% market share, while Chrome has 25%.

        No they are not lumping all versions of Chrome together.

        The reason is that Chome auto-updates. Look at the graph, you can see the rise and fall of each chrome version.
        Hardly anyone is running old versions of chrome.

        IE is starting to Auto-update too, but this did not happen on older releases, so many people are stalled out on older IE releases and will never update until they get a new machine.

        See this statement in TFA:

        But wait, there is a caveat to this: Chrome 15 beat IE 8, specifically, this one week at the end of November, with 23.6 percent of the worldwide market, compared to IE 8's at 23.5 percent. With all the versions of IE floating around, IE is still No. 1 in the world, but Chrome is right behind it.

        The cherry picked statistic was version specific: Chrome 15 overtakes IE 8. And as s

    • Chrome is pretty much autoupdating anyway, FF (If I remember right) is almost as much. IE isn't that far behind in autoupdating, and on par if you are using Win7. And it really isn't that misleading: either you prefer Chrome, regardless of version, or you prefer IE, or FF, regardless of version. It still provides useful info.

    • If you look at the graph, chrome 15 has a bit over 24%, while all other versions of chrome are down around 0.1%.

      They are not lumping versions of chrome together.

  • by Stormwatch ( 703920 ) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <oarigogirdor>> on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:04PM (#38412302) Homepage

    I simply can't understand how a browser with such a godawful interface could get so popular.

    • Because it runs fast and seems to install on PC with strict security settings.
      That and the people who promote it probably doesn't give the free software virtue speach.
    • Probably because all the other browsers are adopting Chrome's layout and practices. In some cases it's a detriment to usability.

      For example, IE used to use a favorites sidebar to sort favorites as the default. This was nice because most bookmarks were easily accessible in one click (two with a folder) as long as the bar was in place, where chrome has a drop down menu for their bookmarks. IE9 adopted the chrome interface, so now you have to click favorites, then click on the link. (and yes you can get the si

    • by swillden ( 191260 ) <> on Sunday December 18, 2011 @12:31PM (#38417008) Homepage Journal

      I simply can't understand how a browser with such a godawful interface could get so popular.

      Because only a small percentage of users are like you. The vast majority really like Chrome's interface.

      Why? A big part is that it removes a lot of clutter that didn't ever mean anything to them anyway. Just yesterday I watched my brother-in-law using Firefox; he went to and searched for gmail to get to his e-mail. I asked him why he didn't type into the location bar, or gmail into the search bar. He responded that he'd never quite understood the difference between them, and had found that just typing what he wants into Google worked best.

      Now, this is a man in his 40s, who's been playing with computers for about 15 years now (since his early 30s), is something of a gamer, understands something about the internals of his computer and has upgraded video cards, processors, hard drives, etc., and done it by himself. He uses Windows (reinstalling it every few months, seems like), but has experimented with Linux, dual-booting Ubuntu for a while. He's not a geek, but he's a moderately-knowledgeable computer user.

      Next time I have a chance, I'm going to have him install Chrome, and I guarantee you he will love it. The unibar is perfect: "Just type whatever in here". The lack of status bar won't bother him in the slightest; I noticed yesterday that when a site was a little slow, he didn't even bother looking at the status bar to see what was happening: The icon on the tab was still moving, so he knew to keep waiting. He may or may not like the fact that the bookmarks bar only shows on a new tab. If he doesn't, it's easily changed. I'm sure he'll really like the default home page, with its display of commonly-visited sites. I know he'll love Chrome Sync, since he has three computers he uses regularly. And I know he'll like the speed.

      IMO, people try Chrome for the speed. But not only does the UI not drive them away, the vast majority like it better. It gets rid of stuff they didn't understand anyway, and makes the browser easier to use.

      Another data point: while typing this I asked my wife what she thinks. She's a heavy web user, but not at all technical, at least not in the way slashdotters would interpret the word. Lots of people ask her computer questions. Her comments on FF UI vs Chrome UI:

      • She thinks the unibar is fantastic. Much better than the divided location and search bars.
      • She really likes the Chrome startup page, with the thumbnails of her favorite sites.
      • She really likes that the "+ is always there", meaning the icon to open a new tab. FF uses the same plus icon but because it hides the tab bar when there's only a single page open, the "+" isn't always there.
      • She didn't know what I meant by "status" bar until I showed her. She said she never looked at that, except to look for the lock icon for secure web sites, and that's in the location bar on Chrome.
      • She doesn't know why anyone would care to see the URL protocol.
  • Well I never. Next you'll be saying they do a mobile OS, or even more far-fetched: a search engine.

  • What if you use both Chrome and Firefox or Chrome and Internet Explorer (not that I can see much incentive for Chrome and IE)? Wouldn't the results be inaccurate?
  • Used to at least like to think of myself as a free thinking, rebellious edgy kind of guy.

    Now just part of the herd, I guess.


  • by furbyhater ( 969847 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:10PM (#38412326)
    Posting this from Iceweasel 8.0/Debian Wheezy.
    Once you've got used to some of the better add-ons (adblock, noscript, peraperakun, tabmixplus, treeestyletabs) it's hard to make a change.
    I don't care enough about slightly lower memory usage or slightly shorter start-up times (4GB of RAM, browser running for a week on average).
    I don't get the advantages of chrome.
    I've used chrome, and I experience more of a vendor-lock-down feeling with it. Of course there are a lot of extensions, but they seem more of an afterthought as compared with Firefox.
    The biggest problem of Firefox ATM is that they are copying chrome too much instead of choosing their own direction.
    That's all.
    • by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:30PM (#38412468)
      without a proper NoScript solution, all other browsers fail. FF is a bloated beastly browser, but can't live without NoScript anymore.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by furbyhater ( 969847 )
        It's not only noscript, as the poster below indicates, once you've got used to tree-style-tabs there's no going back.
        It seems to me that firefox's development model fosters the creation of cool, innovative add-ons more than chrome.
        Even though their faster-than-light release cycle of late may put and end to this... :-(
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Threni ( 635302 )

      I just don't understand how bookmarks work on Chrome. Why can't I have what I have on Firefox - a menu item I can click on to get a scrollable list of bookmarks? I don't want a whole empty row just for a single bookmark button, and I don't want a bookmark `frame` or tab, or whatever. Why can't I have an icon somewhere which gets me my full list of bookmarks. Just like in Firefox.

  • Tree style tabs (Score:5, Informative)

    by DragonHawk ( 21256 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:13PM (#38412358) Homepage Journal

    The one thing that keeps me off Chrome for serious web browsing is the lack of a **full** equivalent to Tree Style Tab []. I've found various attempts, but until something with all the critical features is available, I can't leave Firefox.

    And yes, it's that important. I find serious web browsing without tree tabs is basically unusable.

    Some analysis of Chrome extensions I've tried follows below, along with a longer explaination of why tree tabs matter.

    Why tree tabs are important

    Critical features:

    * Arrange tabs in a hierarchy (subordinate/superior relationships)
    * Links middle-clicked to open in a new tab, open under the current tab
    * You can collapse branches of the tabs tree, like a folder tree in Explorer/Outlook
    * You can drag tabs around to restructure the tree

      For example, my current top-level hierarchies at work are "PVI clusterfsck", "vern buerg list", "to read", "vmware ctrl alt del", "new server", and "training". "training" has four immediate subtabs, each for various training providers we use at $WORK. Each of those is an exploration of their course hierarchy. I can expand or collapse any section or subsection as my focus changes. I can also bookmark branches for later.

      For me, at least, knowledge isn't linear, it's tree structured. The Back/Forward paradigm is totally inadequate for the task.


    Tree Style Tabs (Beta) []

      Unfortunately, it's lacking some features. The biggest is that it
    doesn't actually replace the tab bar across the top of the screen.
    Rather, it gives you a new toolbar button, which, when clicked, drops
    down a tree structure. No way to make that appear permanently, that I
    can see. (TreeStyleTab appears much like a "side bar" in Firefox.)
    The tree structure does reflect which tab opened from which. But I
    can't drag tabs or branches to organize them, nor can I
    collapse/expand branches.


    Tab Sense []

      Similar to the "Tree Style Tabs (Beta)" above. Same
    button-not-a-sidebar issue. Does allow collapse/expand, which is
    good. It opens up a new Google Chrome window to hold collapsed tabs
    (with the message to minimize it and forget about it), which is rather
    kludgey. Still can't drag tabs.


    Tabs Manager []

      Same button-not-a-sidebar issue. Tab structure doesn't appear to
    reflect browsing history. Seems to have only two levels, a "folder"
    it creates, and all your tabs. Does allow dragging of those tabs, but
    I'm not sure what the point is. Can't find a way to create a folder.
    I'm not quite sure what the point is.


      Some of these limitations might be due to Chrome's architecture,
    rather than the extension programmers. In particular, I suspect
    Chrome just doesn't let extensions have enough access to the UI to do
    anything really useful. Which is a shame, because Chrome feels so
    much faster than Firefox.

    • by sribe ( 304414 )

      The one thing that keeps me off Chrome for serious web browsing is the lack of a **full** equivalent to Tree Style Tab []. I've found various attempts, but until something with all the critical features is available, I can't leave Firefox.

      Wow, I had no idea such a thing existed. I've stuck with Safari out of familiarity, occasionally missing the old OmniWeb and its window sets (or whatever it called them). But this is exactly the thing to make me look into changing my primary browser. I deal with a lot of web pages at once, and the windows + tabs paradigm is really inadequate, and leaves me trying organize URLs in an external program, which is really tedious...

    • by 0ld_d0g ( 923931 )

      For me, at least, knowledge isn't linear, it's tree structured. The Back/Forward paradigm is totally inadequate for the task.

      In reality, knowledge isn't tree structured, its a graph. The Tree paradigm is totally inadequate for the task. ;-)

  • by whisper_jeff ( 680366 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:17PM (#38412382)
    While my personal preference is for Safari, as a designer, this is good news, on two fronts. First, anything that knocks IE market share down is a great thing because I, like every web designer out there, am sick and tired of uttering the phrase "it works perfectly in every browser _except_ IE..." Second, I think it's good because, pure and simple, I think the Webkit engine is phenomenal. Both Safari and Chrome have deep HTML5/CSS3 compatibility and, more importantly, they are capable of things that allow web designers to do some really spectacular things. While I would love to see Safari market share increase, I'll be very happy to see webkit market share increase any way it can.
  • by Haeleth ( 414428 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:18PM (#38412388) Journal

    Does Chrome have the ability yet to make text a readable size without widening the page so I have to scroll sideways?

    Does it have the ability to selectively stop/play animations?

    No? Then I'll be sticking with Firefox a while longer, I guess. Come back when your browser's accessible and then we'll talk.

  • Though a few people have pointed out that it's version specific, if you look at the actual numbers Chrome is still pretty close to IE, which is very cool. Of course, it's based on pageviews and not the number of users, and I bet most people who bother using Chrome probably use the web more than your average IE user. Is Firefox going to go bye-bye? I expect that there will always be an open source browser that has a reasonable market share. Will Firefox continue to be on top, or will we be seeing a diffe
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:22PM (#38412428)

    I've used Chrome a lot and like it even more. Unfortunately, a mere day's browsing generates 700,000 writes according to windows (almost an order of magnitude over any other browser). As an SSD user, this just isn't acceptable and all the fixes are a complicated way of 'shoving the cache onto a spinning disc drive'.

    • by sa666_666 ( 924613 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:52PM (#38412610)
      If you have some RAM to spare, consider moving the cache to a RAM disk instead. This will save the SSD, and is even a good thing to do if you're using a hard drive.
    • by Waccoon ( 1186667 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @11:16PM (#38413320)

      Firefox also lets me move the browser cache and profiles to my hard drive or any folder I want. Chrome only supports writing to the same folder to which its installed. There's not much point to an SSD if I have to install applications to a hard drive.

      When I tried Chrome, it read 20GB+ and wrote between 2-4GB every time I did a cold start. I ditched the browser very quickly. Aside from wondering what the fuck this advertising company was doing reading and writing so much data on startup, I wasn't going to let Chrome thrash my SSD to death.

      I've since discovered that Chromium and Iron don't torture drives. Not only have I banished Chrome from my system, but all other Google apps as well.

  • Bloat? What Bloat? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @08:29PM (#38412460)

    People keep claiming that Chrome uses less memory than Firefox so I decided to take a look.

    Memory used:
    Initial start up, no pages open:

    Firefox 39 MB
    Chrome 56 MB

    5 tabs open:

    Firefox 135 MB
    Chrome 152 MB

    Size on disk (Windows version)

    Firefox 44 MB
    Chrome 75 MB

    There are things that I like about Chrome and over the past couple of years Firefox has really pissed me off with their never ending bonehead design decisions. But the "Firefox is bloated" claims just don't make sense.

    • by abhi_beckert ( 785219 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @09:07PM (#38412682)

      With a stock firefox that's true.

      But throw in a few popular third party extensions, and leave FireFox running for a day or two. It will start consuming all your available RAM and a good chunk of virtual memory too (growing more and more the longer you leave it open).

      With other browsers, memory consumption is rarely even noticeable. I can leave safari running for *months* and it'll happily sit on around 200MB with my usual 15 or so tabs. And yes, I do have a bunch of third party extensions installed. Pretty much the same ones I had when I was using FireFox every day.

    • There are things that I like about Chrome and over the past couple of years Firefox has really pissed me off with their never ending bonehead design decisions...

      Please provide some examples. I my case, the problem is with Chrome: The inability to rearrange the tabs the way I see fit.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @09:27PM (#38412792) Homepage

      Well, my primary measure has been if I leave it open on Friday, how will it react on Monday when I get back. And on that FF has failed like horribly, both Chrome and IE respond much faster. Using process explorer it seems Firefox is busy reloading a billion stack pages which a) it'd has no reason using anyway and b) even if it did, just load the few I need and display those. Maybe I'm hitting some kind of issue that leaks memory like shit, but at least that's what I find. I haven't filed a bug because honestly I don't know WTF to file the bug on, I just switched to Chrome. If I got too paranoid about what Google is doing, I'd get Chromium.. but FF is really fucked up and I don't know what'd bring it back, it'd certainly be no quick fix.

    • Chrome includes flash and a pdf viewer and both are binary. Also a terminal client, native code implementation, yada yada. if anything chrome's "bloated"

      But the asynchronous UI is good. Fennec (Firefox for mobile) adopted *FINALLY* a truely asynchronous UI and let me tell you: it rocks. pure and simple.
      I just wish this will happen on Desktop too. That's the one thing to steal from Chrome (albeit it's a different technical implementation of it).

      It basically means UI never blocks, nothing ever feels laggy.

  • And now for more misleading statistics:
    Windows 7 usage has surpassed all Linux and Macintosh usage*. Windows XP retains 15% share.

    *statistics based on my household machine usage.

  • Ironically, I just switched back again. I mainly use Chromium for light-weight browsing, because it starts faster, and Firefox (or rather Nightly) when I need extensions or non-broken plugins. Apparently they still haven't managed to integrate a proper PDF viewer in Chromium, even years after one was included in the Windows version of Google Chrome.

  • by Cyko_01 ( 1092499 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @09:26PM (#38412780) Homepage
    Here is the real news - chrome (all versions) near tied Firefox (all versions ) in November and as of December has clearly overtaken it for the position of second most popular browser
  • by supersat ( 639745 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @11:42PM (#38413472)
    Microsoft is now planning to auto-update most IE users.
  • I read it on Firefox (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Daniel Phillips ( 238627 ) on Sunday December 18, 2011 @02:03AM (#38414102)

    Truth be told, I read it on Firefox, though I also have Chrome running. In fact, I do my "throwaway" browsing on Chrome and "serious" browsing on Firefox. Chrome not being able to bookmark all tabs to a folder is a serious deficiency that prevents me from saving sets of links that are the result of possibly lengthy research. Another constant annoyance is Chrome saving all files to Downloads instead of giving me the option to open. This litters my Download directory with lots of junk, a problem I do not have with Firefox. And Chrome cannot be trusted to remember its open tabs after an unexpected shutdown (such as a reboot).

  • by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Sunday December 18, 2011 @04:18AM (#38414618)
    I use pretty much all the browsers.

    Firefox: Usual generic browser with NoScript on.
    Chrome: My Google+ games account, YouTube and Topless Robot (since half the links on there are YouTube videos anyways.)
    Internet Explorer: My "private" G+ account.
    Opera: My Google Apps email account.

    Along with making it easy to log into different Google related accounts without worrying about fiddling with settings, it makes it easy to switch tasks quickly based on the icons in the taskbar.

    I probably ought to do some research and figure out something else to replace the IE slot with though. It feels kinda embarrassing to be using IE for anything at all on a regular basis =P
  • by wdef ( 1050680 ) on Sunday December 18, 2011 @04:50AM (#38414698)

    I used to use Firefox all the time. But I like fast software (I'd be using Dillo if it could handle modern web needs) and FF just seemed to get bigger, slower and more bloated all the time and no-one at Mozilla cared. Then Chrome came out and wiped the floor with Firefox: it opened much faster (still does) and had the faster experience I was looking for. I immediately switched to Chrome/Chromium along with many other people. Firefox then improved the responsiveness of their browser considerably but they'd already lost some key market share.

    A lot of desktop application coders, including some notables I used to work with, do not seem to care about the sluggish responsiveness of their frankenstein creations until someone jumps up and down and hits them with a big stick. Cases in point: Gnome, KDE and other monstrosities, massively endowed with alleged "features". On Linux I use fast light software where possible. I always enjoy watching applications and windows open instantly on five year old hardware. Posting from Chrome on Mac now.

    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      It's not browsing speed that is my main issue with Firefox. And if I really want browsing speed I choose Opera instead.

      But one reason for Chrome to get up on the ladder is that it's today bundled with a lot of other softwares which means that you may get it even if you don't want it. (not very different from how IE acts) while Firefox never have been seen bundled with any apps that I have seen unless the app itself required it.

      One thing that I like Firefox for is all the available add-ons like Firebug and A

  • Not suprising (Score:3, Interesting)

    by belgianguy ( 1954708 ) on Sunday December 18, 2011 @07:56AM (#38415358)
    While the comparison might be somewhat apples-oranges, I do think Chrome deserves credit for upgrading the majority of its clients to the latest version, independent of OS version and without hassling its users about it. In contrast to this, Internet Explorer has artificial ceilings installed, older versions of Windows cannot upgrade past a certain version and I believe Apple has similar policies towards the use of Safari. Chrome imposes no such 'sanctions' on its users, which I think is a great way to adapt the way we use the Internet to its ever faster evolution.

    Although I don't understand the resurfacing argument that IE6 is mainly kept alive by corporations. Would that not contradict some sort of evolutionary process? Those unwilling to change should be left behind, just because advances in web technology could provide advantages to internal applications of competitors, so if they decide not to upgrade, the competition should decide it for them. But this seems not to be the case. So my bet is that the majority of IE6 users probably come from bootlegged vanilla XP installations with (surprise-surprise) automatic upgrades turned off in regions like China.

    And then there once was Firefox, in its heyday the only alternative to The Microsoft Way. Now, it tries to maintain a release schedule that is only rivaled in speed by some out-of-whack neutrinos. Somehow its upper management got deluded into thinking they needed to mimic their new-found rival to stay relevant. While that sentiment has some truth to it, the way it was executed hurt their core user base more than they could siphon off users from either IE or Chrome. Because people who like Chrome, will use Chrome. And not something that desperately chases Chrome, but fails to address other critical issues in the process.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford