5 ms·

Why is it better? just the two links I'm going to give should be enough to give you pause : http://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html?vendor_

Why is it better? just the two links I'm going to give should be enough to give you pause : http://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html?vendor_id=452 http://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html?... http://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?vendor_id=1224 http://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?v... During 2016, Firefox had 53 code execution CVE reports. Chrome had 2. Firefox only has around 8% of the browser marketshare. Chrome sits between 44% and 60% depending on the source. So it's not a case of Firefox being more popular and attracting more people to target it for hacks. It's just worse software. And then there's just user inconveniences like how Firefox becomes extremely slow if you open multiple heavy tabs. e10s has yet to fix it, currently, if you enable it, it only opens 2 processes, one for the UI, and one for the rendering engine. So the UI itself might not slow to a crawl but all your tabs will still feel slow if you open heavy stuff. Firefox also has a slower rendering engine. My eyesight isn't great and I browse web pages with zoom active in between 120% and 150% depending on pages. That makes Firefox behave extremely slow on some pages. It's particularly unbearable, on, say, slashdot pages with lots of comments. For the same reason smooth scrolling is the first thing Firefox users disable in Firefox. Smooth scrolling works fine on Chrome. FF has never managed to implement smooth scrolling in a way that doesn't slow things to a crawl and makes the scrolling look like stuttering or low framerate. People often rely on Javascript benchmarks to say "Hey firefox is as fast as chrome!!!11!!" but JS is only one part of what makes a browser fast or slow. What about the parts that actually render the page to something your screen can display? > Firefox 57 should be at least equivalent to Chromium. Chrome would have had to stop all development years ago for that sentence to be true.

kibwen 10y ago
And Firefox is less secure and slower because (drumroll, please...) the major architectural changes required to improve on those fronts is completely stymied by the desire to maintain backwards compatibility for addons. Firefox is at last forced to decide between being a bad but very extensible browser or a (hopefully) good but less extensible browser. IMO, the choice is pretty obvious.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- thatguy0900 10y ago
  But chrome is already a great and less extensible browser, which is the point. If chrome is great and less extensible, and Firefox is good and less extensible, there's little reason to use Firefox unless you just don't like Google.
  - oblio 10y ago
    Firefox's "less extensible" seems to be "more extensible" than Chrome's.
beerbaron23 10y ago
So true there is way more to the browser than the java script engine. So I ran ye old browser showdown on my comp (Fresh everything). Firefox and Chrome are very similar in speed with Java benchmarks, but once you get into the "real-world" type benchmarks, Firefox was faster by a large margin and was almost 3x as fast as Chrome in some tests. You can take a look at my results here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/58doo8csebp9l62/Bench.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/58doo8csebp9l62/Bench.pdf?dl=0 Each browser has it's strengths and weaknesses it seems, So I run all of them lol For my day to day tab filled behemoth I have to use Firefox, any other browser can't handle the ~80 tabs I have open at once. In fact me and my roommate have on going challenges on how many tabs we can keep open and up times of the browsers/OS's (He is on Win7). During our battles we have tried tweaking some things and using odd browsers and such, but to be competitive with one another we have to each use Firefox cause it just has that much better memory management/stability.

kibwen 10y ago

And Firefox is less secure and slower because (drumroll, please...) the major architectural changes required to improve on those fronts is completely stymied by the desire to maintain backwards compatibility for addons. Firefox is at last forced to decide between being a bad but very extensible browser or a (hopefully) good but less extensible browser. IMO, the choice is pretty obvious.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
thatguy0900 10y ago
But chrome is already a great and less extensible browser, which is the point. If chrome is great and less extensible, and Firefox is good and less extensible, there's little reason to use Firefox unless you just don't like Google.
- oblio 10y ago
  Firefox's "less extensible" seems to be "more extensible" than Chrome's.

beerbaron23 10y ago

So true there is way more to the browser than the java script engine. So I ran ye old browser showdown on my comp (Fresh everything). Firefox and Chrome are very similar in speed with Java benchmarks, but once you get into the "real-world" type benchmarks, Firefox was faster by a large margin and was almost 3x as fast as Chrome in some tests. You can take a look at my results here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/58doo8csebp9l62/Bench.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/58doo8csebp9l62/Bench.pdf?dl=0 Each browser has it's strengths and weaknesses it seems, So I run all of them lol For my day to day tab filled behemoth I have to use Firefox, any other browser can't handle the ~80 tabs I have open at once. In fact me and my roommate have on going challenges on how many tabs we can keep open and up times of the browsers/OS's (He is on Win7). During our battles we have tried tweaking some things and using odd browsers and such, but to be competitive with one another we have to each use Firefox cause it just has that much better memory management/stability.