Log in to debate or
I'm not going to discuss whether Google Chrome is better for everyone but one thing is right: it works and faster than any other. Unlike Firefox, it won't consume large chunks of RAM Memory after only a few minutes. I just love how fast it starts, how I'm never going to lose any of my preferences since they can be easily cloud-stored, not to mention the growing number of apps that make my life a hundred times easier.
I even voted for my own point. That's how much I like it :)
Turns out FF has the lowest memory consumption when working with many tabs at the same time. It makes some sense since Chrome handles every new tab as a separate thread which although benefits for improves responsiveness, has its memory overhead for certain.http://media.bestofmicro.com/O/L/254901/original/wbgp2lin40tabs.jpg
@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev: Did it crash while googling? :)
Chrome is the best
Just had a terrible FF crash. Needed to restart windows. Becoming chrome fan more and more.
@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev: Nope, neither can I :D
@mipmip, Can the blockers be configured to click on the ads (of course only once in a while in order not to be too suspicious) thus reward also the hosts of the pay per click ads?
@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev Naah, I'm not sharing Murdoch's view on the future, I am sharing my view on the present. And my crystal ball says that in the future both models will continue to thrive. And yep, in this case I might give Chrome another shot. By the way adblockers give you the option to download the ads, thus rewarding the content provider, without rendering the ads themselves on page. Seems like a good compromise, thou again it won't work if everyone's doing it ;)
@mipmip, You seem to be sharing Rupert Murdoch's view on the future of Internet. He foresees paid content taking over the free content + ads mode and even plans to introduce this in News Corp editions. I am a little skeptical on this but the free market is to decide who is right.http://www.editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2009/05/murdoch_on_paid_content_the_current_days.phpBTW there are ad blockers for chrome, although I have not tested them and don't know how efficient they arehttps://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom
@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev, I'd rather pay for useful, well put together content than being constantly nagged by useless advertising. And let's not forget the system resource overhead, generated by the oh-so-cool flash banners. Even if FF is slower, not playing all the adnoyance for sure makes things better. Last but not least 99% of advertisements are not suited to the content and visual style of a particular site, thus creating interrupts and aesthetic dissonance, further reducing readability and overall experience.
@mipmip, Blocking ads is a good thing as long as not everybody do it. No ads views and clicks => no ads income for the web publishers. If this happens the web publishers are going to have choices - either stop publishing content at all or making the content access paid.Currently we all enjoy the majority of the Internet content for free thanks to the ads. Nobody works for free even the web content publishers.
FF for me .. no adblock - no game
@Terminator - being a web developer you should know that Chrome is the easiest to work with when it comes to cross browser compatibility. If you css/js is done correctly all you might need to worry are a few hacks for IE6.I agree that firefox may be slow because of extensions but they should be controlling this somehow if they want to have a competitive product.
When I started using Firefox, Chrome was not offering the same functionality. So, I'm a kind of biased.
Being a web developer I hate Chrome. As if there were not enough browsers already that you should support when building websites. There are situations in which chrome behaves different from FF, IE and Opera and now I need to pull my hair for these special cases too.Just read that google are intending to introduce new image standard WebP to replace JPEG, which again is going to cause troubles for web developers.@Google, please stick to searching!
Here is a fun video showing off how fast chrome ishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCgQDjiotG0
I didn't know of Firebug lite for Chrome existence. Thank you for this, @Petar_Dimov. I wonder why it's not called ChromeBug :)I read that Mozilla guys are blaming the third party extensions for Firefox being slow, not the core of the browser. Let's see how Chrome is going to behave when I load it with a bunch of extensions.
Chrome has now the necessary extensions you need as a developer and a marketer to do your job. Firebug lite is available, Google Global and SEO quake.Chrome is faster and performs better than the newer versions of Firefox. I work with both loaded at the same time and also all the newbies I recommend chrome to switch from firefox.So it looks like Chrome is actually better
I was surprised to find out how quickly Chrome is spreading round. According this post it has overtaken FF among the "power user" (whatever power users means):http://lifehacker.com/5645038/how-and-why-chrome-is-overtaking-firefox-among-power-users
Firefox does the job for me and I've never felt the need to look elsewhere.
Google chrome is definitely faster and very light-weight.
I don't even bother to include IE in the game. It still just sucks.