[hectuero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bredin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I use Namoroka who's a pre-beta release of firefox.

Why would you use Namoroka? It's an old release, the 3.6 betas are out now, and have been since the end of October. They're up to 3.6b5 now, so you're at least five releases behind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bredin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Chrome is a POS. This page loads in about 1sec in namoroka and like 8 in chrome. 8 times slower << It doesn't handle private data as well as firefox, and the tab bar is a POS.

The fact that you're using addons in Firefox (in particular AdBlock, FlashBlock, & NoScript) makes comparing only page load time irrelevant, since all of those extensions greatly reduce, by default, the amount of content that has to be loaded. If you disabled those extensions I'd be surprised if Firefox was still faster, since Chrome is faster by all standard benchmarks that I've seen and run myself.

How exactly does Chrome not handle private data as well? They both have "private browsing" modes and options to delete data on-demand. Also, please explain how the tab bar is a POS as well. My only guess is that you don't like its location.

 

[10068]

.

 

[Bredin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hectuero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why would you use Namoroka? It's an old release, the 3.6 betas are out now, and have been since the end of October. They're up to 3.6b5 now, so you're at least five releases behind. The fact that you're using addons in Firefox (in particular AdBlock, FlashBlock, & NoScript) makes comparing only page load time irrelevant, since all of those extensions greatly reduce, by default, the amount of content that has to be loaded. If you disabled those extensions I'd be surprised if Firefox was still faster, since Chrome is faster by all standard benchmarks that I've seen and run myself. How exactly does Chrome not handle private data as well? They both have "private browsing" modes and options to delete data on-demand. Also, please explain how the tab bar is a POS as well. My only guess is that you don't like its location.

Actually your the one behind

, as Namoroka is at 3.6.6 atm, and compiled 6days ago. Ans yes, firefox might be faster due to the addons. But it has those addons, so why not use them? Is it unfair or fair to compare firefox with addons against something else? Why not use them if they can be used when the improvements are so vast.

About the privacy, I have my firefox set to only "auto complete" booksmarks in the addressbar, and it also deletes eveything that I want it to delete every time I close the browser. Meaning that I don't have to run it in a special private mode or delete my history manually.

 

[wantmyf1]

Firefox all the time. If a site doesn't work in Firefox I leave the POS and go elsewhere. The reason: Security. Not having ActiveX um...active is probably the best thing you can do for security. IE6 & below should just be banned from the web.

I also use Flashblock. What someone else called rich/active content I call "100 ways to infect your computer". I wish Flash would die.

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bredin /img/forum/go_quote.gif The use of them is to block everything that's unnecessary and dangerous. I don't see it as too much of a hassle as I normally visit the same sites that I've allowed to run certain scripts to make them functional.

Exactly. If some webpage requires some component to be running, I enable it, and leave others unchecked. A HUGE improvement in both privacy and infection protection.

 

[FallenAngel]

Chrome for browsing at home and office
Mozilla & IE for work testing, DAMN IE

 

[averydonovan]

I first started using Chrome on Windows about a year ago and it instantly became my browser of choice. It's fast, lightweight, stable, and stays out of the way. It is especially nice on netbooks since it helps maximise the usable screen space.

It also happens to be my browser of choice in Linux and Mac OS X.

 

[FallenAngel]

I agree with most of that, except the stability part - 3rd party add-on support still kind of sucks.

 

[ParadiseOnceLost]

Opera It has speed, add-ons, mouse gestures and Opera Turbo/Unite. Best. Browser. Ever.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wantmyf1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif IE6 & below should just be banned from the web.

HA! qft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wantmyf1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I also use Flashblock. What someone else called rich/active content I call "100 ways to infect your computer". I wish Flash would die.

Does it boost browsing speed? I could care less about 'infections', I haven't had a website do that to me in (literally) years. Speed and general performance though is very VERY important to me.

And for a laugh:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78414

 

[hectuero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bredin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually your the one behind , as Namoroka is at 3.6.6 atm, and compiled 6days ago. Ans yes, firefox might be faster due to the addons. But it has those addons, so why not use them? Is it unfair or fair to compare firefox with addons against something else? Why not use them if they can be used when the improvements are so vast. About the privacy, I have my firefox set to only "auto complete" booksmarks in the addressbar, and it also deletes eveything that I want it to delete every time I close the browser. Meaning that I don't have to run it in a special private mode or delete my history manually.

If it's not on the official Mozilla Firefox FTP release site, it's not a release (you can also find the latest beta release here). Firefox codenames are only used to describe them when in pre-beta states. As you can see, the last release named Namoroka was Oct 14, 2009. Firefox 3.5.7 is the latest release that's not considered "old". I have no idea what you're talking about with version "3.6.6", no such release exists, nor has any Firefox release been compiled within the past six days except 3.0.17.

My point with the addons is that Firefox's HTML and Javascript engines aren't actually faster than Chrome's, and instead you're just removing content from the page so it doesn't have to be rendered or processed, and in such invalidating a comparison between the two's performance (there's a reason any good browser benchmark uses vanilla installs). What you really want to say is the Firefox's addons are great and Chrome has no such equivalent at the time. Because with the same content, Chrome will beat Firefox in speed (aside from a few possible special cases).

Yes, Firefox offers more flexibility in its private data management, I'll give you that.

 

[jjinh]

firefox.. been using since its early days. I like the ability to customise my browsing experience

 

[righteousball]

My main browsers are portable versions of Chrome and Opera. Firefox portable is too resource-intensive, I use it in a regular installation on my netbook.

Opera is long touted as an ethical/moral choice (e.g. omg look at me I'm standards-compliant), but it's got certain small quirks under certain conditions that other browsers don't induce. Which is why I need to go back and forth between Opera and Chrome.

I didn't use FF for about two years because it was slow and lumpy for a certain period of time, and one day it just swallowed all of my bookmarks. Explain as you might, I don't care about the methodology by which it did that, and I'm not happy about it. But 3.5 is a lot better when I tried it, and downloadhelper is a cutie pie, so it stayed.

Safari is a very sorry piece of bleep. I don't use it, even in OS X.

 

[grokit]

I like Firefox for Windows and Mac because I use a bunch of different computers, and can use xMarks to keep my bookmarks the same on all the different machines and OS's. I can put the same skin on it (walnut2) on all versions as well as a bonus. Adblocker, Auto-pager, and No-script are also excellent plug-ins. Tabbed browsing rules. Safari has better auto-fill though.

 

[ljokerl]

Primary: Opera - for eliminating the need to install 6-7 addons on FF to get it to my ideal state. Opera Link is an excellent piece of kit; probably one I couldn't live without. Xmarks is close but just not as integrated. Unite/Turbo are mostly gimmicks at this stage but I give the devs credit for innovative integration. I know FF is catching up but a clean opera install has had mouse gestures, full-text history searches, advanced tabbed browsing, and a popup blocker that can match ABP for a while now. Plus it's got the most reliable session saving in my experience. And then there's acid3.

Secondary: ligtened ff w/ ABP+noscript - for sites I don't really trust and opening whatever links I'm sent by people I don't really trust.

Tertiary: Maxthon 2 - a bit rough around the edges but a great lightweight IE-compatible alternative. All the advanced features are there; just buried somewhere deep in the user interface/extensions.