Can Chrome supplant Firefox?

I use FF, the addons are what keeps me on FF. I see people compalining about memory and slowness in FF, my question is how much memory do you have? 4Gb is like R 800, just get more RAM.
 
MarthinusSwart said:
I use FF, the addons are what keeps me on FF. I see people compalining about memory and slowness in FF, my question is how much memory do you have? 4Gb is like R 800, just get more RAM.
Click to expand...

yep, no use having power if you don't use it!
 
Well I think Chrome will be a solid 3rd behind Firefox right now. That's still an impressive achievement. Eclipsing Safari is one thing, eclipsing Firefox is another.

I've switched to Chrome but my mom loves Firefox too much to switch!
 
Knersus said:
Wow with pics like that to compare the browsers, we are all winners! I wonder what the IE girl looks like?
Click to expand...

1) Big.
2) Fat.
3) And tied to a platform.

I guess there is something for all types of weirdo's :-)
 
Globetrotter said:
Firefox is my preferred browser since it's easy to customise and the fact that I rely heavily on the extensions/add-ons. Chrome is my 2nd choice and I use it often as well (and their add-ons are increasing). I never use IE.

Problem with video format in HTML5 which could affect Firefox users (or users of open standards browsers)
There's a big debate going on about default support for video formats in HTML5 which *could* (unfortunately) force users away from Firefox in future. Firefox is open source and support open standards so they chose the Ogg video format for HTML5 video. Ogg is also open so there are not licencing of patents involved which makes Firefox happy.
But here's the problem; Google Chrome, Apple's Safari and IE (v.9) support the H.264 video format for HTML5 video. H.264 is patented... so that means Firefox will have to pay licensing fees if they want to support it. Since they're open source, they don't want to.

The problem is that popular video sites like Youtube (3rd most popular site in the world if I remember correctly) support H.264 so that effectively means once all is said and done (and HTML5 is fully implemented on most sites over time), Firefox users may end up having to open another browser just to view Youtube videos correctly (in future); or find a plugin to view 'H.264 only' sites in Firefox. (H.264 does better compression and delivers better video quality than Ogg so most sites will deliver videos using the H.264 codec, instead of Ogg)

Firefox may end up dying due to restrictions on proprietary codecs due to their open standards approach. I'm surprised the article didn't even mention the whole video format issue in HTML5, considering the article's subject matter.
Click to expand...

H.264 is royalty free now... Just that Mozilla isn't moved by it.
 
Chrome is going to Eclipse FF, its just a matter of when. Chrome already has a growing number of addons, and when Google finally releases ChromeOS with web app store, FF will just have to hold on to 2nd spot.

Chrome for King :D
 
news24 said:
Chrome is going to Eclipse FF, its just a matter of when. Chrome already has a growing number of addons, and when Google finally releases ChromeOS with web app store, FF will just have to hold on to 2nd spot.

Chrome for King :D
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I regularly investigate chrome, I am not in the dark ages and I am not a FF fanboy. I then compare the addons I can not live without to what Chrome has to offer, either natively or via addons, and thus far, I could not match what I regard as deal breakers when it comes to Chrome. So maybe one day Chrome will match FF, but then again, FF also moves forward all the time, so Chrome then needs to match the next line of features of FF.
 
I'll be plenty happy if any of the standards compliant non-IE browsers take the lead and even better, eat up IE's marketshare. They are all pretty good, significantly easier to develop for than IE and do their bit to advance the web. IE on the other hand at best follows suit many years too late and is always a bug ridden mess.
 
Blackhand said:
I'll be plenty happy if any of the standards compliant non-IE browsers take the lead and even better, eat up IE's marketshare. They are all pretty good, significantly easier to develop for than IE and do their bit to advance the web. IE on the other hand at best follows suit many years too late and is always a bug ridden mess.
Click to expand...

Microsoft could spend A LOT more time developing [ READ: Fixing ] their OS if they just gave up the losing battle and sell IE to someone who actually DOES know how to make a standards compliant browser.

But then again, how will they be able to display adverts and earn money from the MSN website if IE wasnt the default browser? Keeping in mind that the MSN default page probably stays the default page on 50% of all windows computers?
 
The only thing IMO that chrome has going for it, is that it is fast.

FF remains king on my PC's.
 
DJNgoma said:
H.264 is royalty free now... Just that Mozilla isn't moved by it.
Click to expand...

Uhm ... no, it's not. Mozilla Foundation will still have to pay a few million a year in license fees to build a decoder into FF. Encoders/decoders are not royalty-free, you don't have to pay royalties to stream the data over the internet if it's free content.

Also, anyone that makes a FF fork will have to obtain a separate H.264 license.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X