After A Four Year Run, Firefox Is No Longer The Top Browser On TechCrunch | Hacker News Reader

After A Four Year Run, Firefox Is No Longer The Top Browser On TechCrunch

techcrunch.com

124 pointsabraham136 comments

What got me hooked on chrome was the unified address bar that just worked, and tabs on top (and the close button stays in the right place when you close half a dozen tabs), basically it just took up less space, firefox feels like IE with way too much clutter and a prompt to ask you if you really meant to do whatever, yes I really want my browser to close, update etc.

Chrome just does whatever it feels like and I'm ok with that as it makes decent choices. It's really not the end of the world if a dozen tabs close, especially if you can just reopen them with a click.

The difference between chrome and firefox is usability. I always feel like I'm fighting firefox to do what I want.

I feel almost diametrically opposite :) I find the Chrome interface so simple as to be almost brain dead. Chrome's handling of tabs and sessions is much worse than Firefox. As a power user of browsers I just feel Firefox is streets ahead of Chrome. I honestly cannot think of a single thing I prefer about Chrome. The only reasons I have it installed is just to see what the fuss is all about and as an alternative to Firefox if I have display or other problems in 1 browser.

How is it's handling of tabs or sessions radically different? And come on, its impossible to look at Firefox 4 (or IE9 for that matter) and not know where ALL of the major design shifts came from...

What about speed? On my machines, startup time and rendering time are both noticeably shorter in Chrome. That was my primary reason I switched.

What about speed?

I empathize.

I'm a bookmark junkie, keeping 10,000+ bookmarks in my browser at a given time. Firefox just couldn't handle that (on my admittedly older computer,) taking ~30 seconds to both start up and shut down, and ~5 seconds to navigate to a new URL.

I blame it largely on the switch to SQLite as backing store, but unfortunately I don't have any hard numbers.

Have you looked into using an online bookmark system instead?

Del.icio.us responds at the same rate, whether you have 10 bookmarks or 10 thousand.

Interesting, I'll give you sessions hands down, but tabs? I'm really interested to know what I'm missing in FF.

I think FF4 may get me to switch back as there are a few extensions I miss, oh, and the in page search sucks compared to firefox. Nothing like pressing / to search, maybe I should install Vimium.

With many tabs, they shrink so small they lose the text and favicon. Eventually they stop shrinking and new tabs are not displayed, and clicking the new tab button just activates the tab under it.

Use Tree Style Tabs for a week and I guarantee you will never go back to top style tabs. I have about 40 tabs open right now and it feels completely organized (I am obsessive about minimizing clutter).

but search term highlighting is much better in chrome. When Firefox has search highlighting in the scrollbar I'll switch back.

For me, Chrome has nothing Firefox don't have. Both have almost same set of features now . A year back, Chrome was in fact lagging in features. IMHO, the only difference i find is startup speed is better in chrome. But Firefox 4 nightly builds are rapidly catching up in that area. Load times for me are 5-10 seconds with a big Adblock list pre loading. Without Adblock list, it's a snap.

Both are rapidly catching up with each others features and so I don't find reason for me to switch to Chrome.

Firefox + Sync + Adblock + No Script + Awesome Bar is virtually unbeatable for me even though Chrome has equivalents.

I can't live without Tab Mix Plus in Firefox. I want anything I click on to open in a new tab. Chrome hasn't been able to provide that to me yet although I guess I could just try to learn middle click or whatever.

Even worse, I would prefer my searches (and new address bar entries) go in a separate tab. I just don't understand why this feature (especially "open search results in a new tab") can't be an option in the default software. Sure, it doesn't take long to Ctrl+T, but I've become accustomed to TMP behavior in FF.

(edit: and option -> an option)

I see someone doesn't like pro Firefox comments and came and downvoted all pro Firefox entries....

The main thing that turns me off of Chrome is that there is no way to zoom text only. If I want to zoom in, I have to resize the entire layout. That means that column of text I wanted to read that fit nicely in the browser window, but was simply too small, now requires a lot of horizontal scrolling to read.

Sure, sometimes text-only zoom breaks the layout, but usually only if you zoom in a very large amount, and often times, it is still preferable and easier to work with.

I surf the web with my text zoomed in 4-6x.

If you're using Firefox, you might find NoSquint[0] useful. It allows you to customize per-site settings for font sizes and colors (as well as more precise global defaults than Firefox does naturally).

[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2592/

Thanks! That's quite handy.

> What got me hooked on chrome was the unified address bar that just worked

Has anyone used CyberSearch add-on for Firefox? It's one of the add-ons I got so used to, that's the biggest reason I am sticking with Firefox.

I switched to Chrome from Safari, and while I still find Safari's design to be neater, and prefer it's Reader to Readability, I just can't go back to the separate URL and search bars. I can't un-know that subtle yet profound improvement in usability.

I'm sure there's a SIMBL plugin to add this to Safari but I find SIMBL to be a source of memory leaks. Hopefully Apple comes to the party and just adds it.

Yes, I like that too. But how about all those Firefox add-ons?

The only one I really miss on Chrome is Firebug.

After having switched to Chrome I miss three things from FF: FireBug, TreeView tabs and the awesomebar. The awesomebar searches through my browsing history in a way that feels way superior to Chrome. I can see that Chrome tries to do the same but it doesn't work nearly as well. In Firefox, I feel that if I can remember something from a page I have visited, I can find it. In Chrome, I have to re-google it.

I can see that Chrome tries to do the same but it doesn't work nearly as well.

It doesn't. And it's so very unfortunate, because it seems like it could: my Chrome installation currently stores 1 GB of data as "History Index 2010-xx". For what? I don't know.

Excellent point. My C:\ partition of Windows 7 is just barely 15GB and Windows takes almost 90% of it. The remaining 10% is almost used by Chrome. Whopping 1.5 GB for 6 months of history!! What the heck it's storing there? Comparatively, my Firefox's 4 years history is stored in a 85MB file.

For anyone who has doubts check your AppData folder in Windows. This is a moot point considering the storage points available nowadays, but still i have no explanation why Chrome is taking so much space. I had to use a portable version of Chrome to make it not install itself into the User directories deep inside the Windows system folders.

du -hs ~/.config/google-chrome 89M /home/cole/.config/google-chrome

Hm.

>For what? I don't know.

Full text indexing of your history: press C-h and search.

Since Chrome uses sqlite to store data, you can use something like http://sourceforge.net/projects/sqlitebrowser/ to poke around in those databases if you're curious.

> Firebug

I used to feel the same way, but after I made a conscious effort to learn the Webkit developer tools in Chrome, I have to say that it much easier to use than Firebug, looks nicer (even on Linux), and feels faster. You should give it a try.

I hate it on mac solely because of the font, non anti aliased fonts look plain offensive on a mac.

chrome: http://i.min.us/idxbzo.png firebug: http://i.min.us/idx95s.png

Don't be bashin' our Monaco 11pt.

Chrome's behavior is actually WebKit's behavior, and WebKit is developed by Apple. Open up a default terminal.app session: same font.

that doesn't make look any less ugly :P I changed the settings on my terminal.app long ago, antialiased monaco 13 <3

How do you feel about Firefox 4 beta then?

> What got me hooked on chrome was the unified address bar that just worked, and tabs on top (and the close button stays in the right place when you close half a dozen tabs), basically it just took up less space, firefox feels like IE with way too much clutter and a prompt to ask you if you really meant to do whatever, yes I really want my browser to close, update etc.

Exactly the same here, but then I got sick of various changes to chrome that went against how I felt a browser should work, and google wouldn't honor a config setting for. (Oddly, removal of http:// prefix isn't one of these things, I supported that...)

So I went back to firefox, albeit FF4 as MineField, and added in Omnibar and gTranslate extensions to get the functionality of chrome that I depended on (the combined nav bar and the ability to auto-translate web pages).

Haven't regretted it since, although I do keep a chrome install around as my backup browser - every few weeks minefield will have some earth-shattering bug that causes it to be unusable for a few hours or so..

I do wish the Chrome team would fix the inability to view local XML files.

I'm a fan of Chrome, but let's remember the demographic here before we get out of hand:

Techcrunch, and similar websites and blogs, cater to the technologically savvy elite. The people visiting websites like Techcrunch are very much in tune with the latest software and the latest tech trends and movements.

Websites that do not cater to this demographic paint a very different story, ie. Wikimedia in October 2010:

IE - 44.72%; Firefox - 29.67%; Chrome - 9.71%; Safari - 5.57%; Opera - 3.48%; Mobile Browser - 4.70%;

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Wikimedia...

On a website visited by a much wider swath of the Internet citizenry, IE still dominates. Hopefully, and I believe quite likely, Firefox and Chrome will become the definitive standard for sites like this in the not-so-distant future.

Good thing the article explicitly included text that disclaimed that. Repeatedly. And in the title. Good thing you're ensuring we don't get out of hand. (Especially considering this is the first and only post I've even seen that mentions the numbers or percentages.)

Statistics for the whole of Russia in October 2010:

IE - 32.0%; Firefox - 26.3; Chrome - 7.3%; Safari - 0.8%; Opera - 23.9%; Opera Mini - 8.5%.

This is from liveinternet.ru, the most popular site tracker (visitor counter) in Russia. http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?period=mont...

Do you know why Opera is doing so well in Russia?

AFAIK, Opera is one of the most popular browsers throughout all of Eastern Europe (I think it's #1 in Ukraine).

From what I know, a large part of this is that back in the day, internet connections in those regions were so slow that Opera's feature set (which at the time was far and away better than other options) made browsing a much better experience. It aggressively cached content, allowed easy access to disabling images, didn't automatically reload pages while navigating back through history, etc.

Just FYI, Chrome drains your laptop battery, on Linux at least - just play with powertop and see for yourself. Not sure why it causes so many CPU wakeups, but I get about 30 minutes less 3:30 vs 4hr if I'm surfing in Chrome vs Firefox.

I presume that's a trade off for fast javascript?

I don't see why fast Javascript should equal frequent CPU wakeups.

No, but getting lower latency javascript with tab-level independent parallelism makes a lot more CPU available.

Firefox simply runs all javascript in one physical thread, so it can only ever use about 100% CPU, while Chrome can use N00% CPU.

If the same amount of overall work is getting done, that shouldn't matter. At any rate, these wakeups will be when chrome is idle in the background, so I doubt it will be using more than one whole CPU.

Yet Firefox 4 is faster in both Sunspider and Kraken. (And V8 if you discount silly things like raytracing and process scheduling- why would anyone do those in javascript?)

Yet Chrome is still far faster if you have a multi-core system and are actually running more than one tab. FF4 can be as fast as it wants in processing Javascript, but it still can't scale that performance like Chrome can.

And then Chrome tries to render some complex Canvas or SVG and grinds to a halt.

Actually, after initially starting it up and liking the speed, I found that Chrome quickly approached Firefox like performance levels once I started using more and more tabs.

The things that lead to the most innovation are the things that don't seem sensible to do at first. For example, if you mean raytracing in the sense of computer graphics, improving its performance would lead to a possible greater presence of 3d applications on the web.

Doing raytracing in javascript is a bad idea. Period. There are many ways to do 3d on the web with greater flexibility and WAY more performance. WebGL is one, CUDA support in javascript is another: http://mozillalabs.com/jetpack/2010/01/25/elevating-javascri.... There is no reason to do that type of computation in the interpretation layer of javascript. (This is akin to saying you would prefer a pure python implementation of disk io, as opposed to the built in method which is implemented in C.)

It seems Google suck at efficient battery use. GTalk reconfigures the windows system timer for 1 ms granularity even when minimized.

On my macbook (with intel/nvidia auto switching graphics) chrome will grab the nvidia card and never release it. If i force it to use the onboard intel card it works fine, and doesn't get insanely hot running flash videos. That hurts battery life too.

Chrome gets installed and set as the default browser for all friends and family, if for no other reason, because it has four killer advantages: * Auto-updates itself -- no prompts for those less tech-savvy or wanting to just use the web RIGHT NOW * Auto-updates Flash * Natively supports PDF reading -- I make sure Adobe Reader never gets a chance to take another's life

Oh yeah, it's damn fast at startup, browsing, and shutdown -- is my Firefox STILL closing?

All of the above has the added bonus of nudging other browsers along, which I believe is a big part of Google's intent. I don't think they necessarily care to be the monolith that was IE4-6. Rather, Google has shown they simply want everyone browsing, using ANY browser and ANY connection (Google wants to install fiber in a large metro as a blueprint / demonstration for others to follow), so long as you are browsing as fast as possible. I give a lot of credit to Google for lighting the fire under the FF4 and IE9 (and Safari) teams.

Killer app for chrome for me is that one tab crashing doesn't take the whole browser with it. So I do most of my surfing with it.

Also helps with memory consumption because its per tab so I can easily regain more killing tabs as opposed to killing tabs and then reloading the browser.

I really miss the awesome bar though (got really used to having all of my history show up from typing a few characters) so I still use beta / minefield branch for some surfing and do most development in the stable firefox so that I can use the bulk of plugins that help with web dev

On the other hand it hurts memory consumption b/c there's a lot of repeated memory in each process (at least that's the explanation I can come up with for why chrome eats up way more memory than any other browser besides opera)

I fondly remember the early dev builds where a tab crash randomly took other tabs with it... and none would reload w/o a browser restart. :)

History in the awesome bar is pretty sweet. There's a bunch of sites that I've been too lazy to bookmark just because I can type one or two letters into the bar and go right to it (and no they're not porn, just normal webpages).

The reason I recommend Chrome to all my non-techie friends is due to its automatic upgrades. I can be reasonably sure that my friend would be using a modern secure browser at all times.

Firefox has had automatic (prompt-required) updates since 1.0.

Granted, but the way Chrome updates itself in the background is magical.

...for some definition of magical.

Every time Chrome auto-updates itself, I notice it because it exposes some new "fit and finish" bug.

The update to Chrome 7, for example, broke the Bookmark Manager if you have your font size increased - e.g. due to eyesight issues. The update to 7.0.517.44 (or maybe an earlier version? I have no idea) changed the word boundaries used when selecting text using the keyboard.

It's frustrating.

Open source magic? http://code.google.com/p/omaha/

Meh to prompts. They are a usability nightmare -- they come at the exact time they are most inconvenient: when I am using the browser. And for 99% of people the answer should always be yes. You should have to specifically opt in to prompting and the default should be silent automatic updates.

Firefox's prompts are a pain in the neck. "Do you want to install the latest Firefox?" No! I want to browse the web. That's why I opened my browser. Every time I get that message I groan because I know I should upgrade but I don't want to sit through a download, install and browser restart.

I always thought a "upgrade Firefox on next restart" checkbox which downloaded in the background and kicked off the installer on browser shutdown would be nice.

Firefox 4 does upgrades automatically just like Chrome

The Mozilla guys wanted to get automatic no-prompt updates in for Windows for Fx4, but it looks like it might slip to the next version…

Chrome did to Firefox what Firefox originally did to Netscape. I feel that Mozilla are missing what made Firefox a success originally - keeping it light, clean, extensible and default feature that block the crud on the web.

Chrome on Windows and Mac is simply a lot faster and feels lighter than Firefox. I have managed to switch almost all of my non-tech friends from Firefox or IE to Chrome - and they have gone on to refer their non-tech friends to Chrome.

The impression that I get from non-tech people is that after installing it the immediate reaction is that Chrome is a lot cleaner and faster. I expect based on my anecdotal evidence that we will see the Chrome market share rise amongst non-tech users in the next 6-12 months.

I've been using Chrome as my primary browser for almost two years now, but the Firefox 4 nightlies are really getting impressive and it's starting to become a viable alternative to me. The Omnibar extension, superior font rendering, and tabs-on-top address a lot of the common usability complaints and Firefox's JS performance is finally on-par, and in some cases much better (especially where graphics are intense), than Chrome/V8's.

Chrome still has much more pliable tabs, but things are finally looking up again for Firefox, and it's about time.

Fully agree, and now that FF4beta7 fixed some of it's font issues, I'm switching back to it from Chrome. Here's why:

1) Panorama (a.k.a. tab candy). I can finally organize my tabs into little projects.

2) Much less restricted extension support. There a number of extensions that just aren't possible on chrome.

3) I hate the chrome start page, while helpful I find it usually leads me to distracting sites CoughHNCough instead of the reason I opened the browser instead. I call it Google's "Keep browsing" tactic. More annoying It always comes up on new tab/new window, even if you have the default home page set otherwise.

Oddly enough, I decided earlier today to move back to Firefox as my go-to browser after using Chrome for about a year. Vimperator is just too good.

Not a fan of Vimium? https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/dbepggeogbaibhgn...

I used Vimium while on Chrome, but Vimperator seems to more completely replace default browser behaviors. I also like the ability to add plugins and keep a .vimperatorrc.

There has been a fork due to developer squabbles. The new one, with quite a few new features, is here: http://dactyl.sourceforge.net/pentadactyl/index

This explains the squabble: http://dactyl.sourceforge.net/pentadactyl/faq#faq-fork

I started using Pentadactyl when I switched to Firefox nightlies, and I must say I like it. I can't place my finger on anything in particular, but it feels... better. And faster.

Everybody seems to miss the biggest part of the story. 15 percent of readers use internet explorer.

Maybe people at work who are forced to use it?

I'm pretty sure we could come up with all sorts of rationalizations.

That graph just strikes me as a really healthy browser ecosystem. If only the rest of the web's traffic reflected that.

In Europe (according to these stats at least) Firefox has just caught up with IE at 39% each (though personally I feel including the 3% still on IE6 is cheating in their favour).

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-monthly-200912-201011

And IE fell below 50% globally a few months ago.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200912-201011

Generally I feel the not-IE percentage is a much more important figure than how the rest breaks down and it would appear from this stat source that Chrome is stealing more from IE than from Firefox, so it's all good.

The reason I returned to Firefox from Chrome was the privacy stuff, such as everything you type in the address bar is sent back, and they probably each site you visit (to protect you from fishing, etc.).

Has any of this improved, or do you just put up with it?

Some of us actually prefer that functionality. I "put up" with it because I find it useful.

Out of curiousity.. I often hear Safari being grouped with the iOS browsers, but is there any reason the default Android browser isn't counted there, since it's UA-String includes Mobile Safari as well.

Incidently, I'm on Android now, but Opera ;)

What's interesting to me is that 48% are using a webkit browser

Chrome doesn't (or didn't) quite work right on OSX. Whenever I copied an image off a page and pasted it into mail there was a broken image.

I have a programming, computer security, and cryptography blog and it seems that that crowd either doesn't have, or runs another browser, Macs as often as the TechCrunch crowd.

Firefox 27,725 45.15%

Chrome 16,856 27.45%

Internet Explorer 6,191 10.08%

Safari 6,085 9.91%

Opera 2,165 3.53%

Mozilla Compatible Agent 1,395 2.27%

Mozilla 418 0.68%

Konqueror 185 0.30%

Opera Mini 126 0.21%

SeaMonkey 107 0.17%

OS:

Windows 35,928 58.51%

Linux 10,855 17.68%

Macintosh 10,709 17.44%

iPhone 1,726 2.81%

Android 926 1.51%

iPad 625 1.02%

not set 181 0.29%

iPod 159 0.26%

FreeBSD 88 0.14%

SunOS 69 0.11%

17% Mac users (even more if you count iPhone, iPad, & iPod) but still only 10% Safari.

It must be about time for TechCrunch to hyperbolically declare the death of Firefox, then.

"If you’re wondering how Apple’s web browser is so high on the list, remember that it’s the browser used on every iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch now. These devices boost Safari’s numbers by well over 10 percentage points. And if mobile traffic keeps growing the way it is, there’s a chance (just a chance) that Safari could even eclipse Chrome and Firefox as the top browser viewing TechCrunch. Since August, Safari has grown by two percentage points, while Chrome has gained just one."

It's sort of irritating they say that, but don't cite any figures to back it up. What % of users view techcrunch from an iPhone/iPad/mobile etc?

The statistics from Techcrunch match the browser stats from my blog pretty well, except that Safari has a slighter larger percentage, because many visitors come to my blog for an iPhone app programming tutorial I wrote a while back.

However, the stats from Techcrunch and my blog are both skewed relative to the rest of the internet. The people visiting such sites are more likely to be running Chrome, Safari, or Firefox. Other non tech sites will see a much higher percentage of IE users.

I really didn't want to like Chrome. I was like "Come on Google, do we really need another browser? You're just going all Microsoft and trying to dominate every market". But then they kept improving it. It's so darn fast compared to Firefox which had really became a bloat monster. I still use Firefox for testing/web developing because of it's huge library of extensions, but Chrome is the daily surfer just for the speed factor.

Chrome is fast, that's what appeals to me. Opening the browser is a dream.

Firefox is comparatively slow to load and feels sluggish on most machines I've used (Linux/MacOSX)

I use both but Chrome is certainly my primary browser. On any clean install of Ubuntu I immediately download and install Chrome while treating the default OS browser, Firefox, with a status of second class citizen.

This was precisely how it was for me years ago on Windows but with Firefox in the Chrome role and the default OS browser, IE, in the now Firefox role.

I stuck with Firefox because of the large amount of useful extensions. I have noticed that Chrome is a lot faster though. I'm gonna stick with Firefox until I see how Firefox 4 plays out. If Firefox 4 isn't significantly faster, I'll be switching over to Chrome.

Firefox 4 feels a lot faster to me, but try it for yourself: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/beta/ . RCs should be coming early next year, if you'd rather wait for a bit more stability.

I tried Chrome (well Chromium) a few months back. I found that apart from startup and (very) Javascript heavy sites most pages actually render slower in Chromium as compared to Firefox (3.5 and 3.6).

Does Chrome have a good adblock plugin or firebug equiv yet?

Chrome has a Firebug equilvalent baked in: Developer Tools http://www.chromium.org/devtools

And an AdBlock extension (though I don't use it): https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepj...

Both Chrome and Safari come with Web Inspector built in - right click anywhere on the page and choose "inspect element". It's still a bit lacking in some areas, but good enough in most cases and there are things it is better at than FB.

Was IE the top browser before this four-year run?

IE9 appears to have missed the game entirely.

Was anyone else's first though "people still use Firefox?"

at my university, I see a lot of people using firefox simply because they don't like chrome's tabs-on-top thing, and they don't know how (if it's even possible) to change chrome to have tabs on bottom.

This is the reason why I don't use Chrome myself. I want the tabs where they make sense from a design perspective next to the web page itself. The tab should be attached to the page itself. I don't want the URL bar in the way.

The content of the URL field is dependent on the tab. It arguably makes far more sense to have this strong relationship represented by containing the URL field in the tab itself rather than having a global URL field in one part of the window with content that changes as different tabs are selected in another part of the window.

That makes sense, however, I don't spend time looking at the URL. I look at the tab titles much more than I ever look at URL's. Additionally, to the common user the URL is a mysterious, meaningless thing anyway. They are more concerned with what the title of the page is.

Having to look over and past the URL bar to see what the title is, or having to look over the URL bar to select a tab, then back down past the URL bar to the page is less efficient visually.

I'm sure there are pros to the tab placement in Chrome, just as there are cons. Personally, it just isn't for me.

Tabs are on top in FF4 per default: http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2010/06/24/why-tabs-are-on-t...

With at least three ways to change it to tabs on bottom.

This stops making design sense when the tab bar (which shows info for many pages at once) is sandwiched between the window title and the address bar (which show info for exactly one page at a time). You go from specific to general then back to specific again.

I wish I were on my desktop, but maybe someone else can give you a link to it.... but the Mozilla team put together a presentation why it makes sense in every aspect of the experience for the tabs to be on top, least of which is because it preserves context. You change the tab on the top, it changes the url bar below it, and the content below it.

Edit, went and found it on my mobile (http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2010/06/24/why-tabs-are-on-t...)

Or are you one of those people that like the way Americans record their dates? (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0B3Gz7CcrZc/TG3Fex66wvI/AAAAAAAAMS...)

It's true that tabs on top are more sensible structurally, but they fail in one big way: there's no place on the screen that shows the full page title. I look at my Chrome, and the titles in the tabs are all truncated. I go to FF, and the title of the current tab is in the window's title bar.

:) I've got that one solved too! http://imgur.com/DO5SQ.png

This is actually the reason why I use Chrome. Just seems more efficient and logical.

All thats holding me back from using chrome is that the plugins search-status and noscript are not available for it.

Noscript functionality is built in. It's not quite as full featured but it works well enough for me.

Wrench Menu -> Preferences -> Under the Hood -> Content Settings -> JavaScript

Chrome's JS blocking doesn't allow you to distinguish between first-party scripts and third-party scripts, which makes it almost useless as a security tool, even if you ignore all the non-JS-blocking features of NoScript. The best thing about NoScript is the ability to break only the ads, not the whole site.

NoScript is much more than just disabling JavaScript: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808801

When NoScript is ported to Chrome, I will happily switch.

Actually, people still use Firefox. And most probably, they will continue. And its quite good (at least for me).

Chrome's proxy plug-ins still suck. Last time I checked, Chrome still leaks DNS requests.

Adblock is also gimped because of the browser API, making it impossible to block ads before they load, slowing your internet connection and sometimes making ads flash momentarily before disappearing.

Not true since version 2.0 of the plugin.

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepj...

What? Chrome uses the built in OS level proxies... so blame your OS. Additionally, Firefox out of box leaks DNS queries. Ever tired to use tor/.onion in a default firefox setup? Doesn't work because by default, firefox doesn't subject its DNS queries to the proxy...

But in Firefox that's easy to fix.

Just type about:config, set network.proxy.socks_remote_dns = true.

And in Chrome it's automatic and it uses the system level proxy system so DNS queries are automatically included. I didn't say it was hard in Firefox, but it was simply false criticism and it was too easy to turn it around on Firefox.

I was a former avid mania of Firefox. I once installed hundreds of extensions and kept waiting for their updating progress whenever I launched the browser. Even when Google released Chrome, I didn't consider the possibility of switch due to the "godsendy extensibility" of Firefox. However, Firefox got slower, slower, slower and its memory leak drove me almost crazy. I reduced the number of active extensions to my essential set under ten, but it always ended up consuming more than 1GB of memory in few hours. So, I switched to Chrome and became its maniac user. I'm not that sure, why I am writing this boring story, but I settled down to Conkeror and w3m now. I don't launch Chrome. When it comes to the choice of browser, it's more about ease of customization and user-interface, not about speed anymore to me.

I love Chrome, but the one big -- and really nasty -- surprise for me was that it has IE-style (i.e. invisible, exploitable, in the wild) security vulnerabilities.

I've used Firefox since the very earliest betas and it has never, ever been exploited to infect my machine. Sure, it's had big holes, but I've never seen them widely deployed in the wild. I ran without antivirus software from 2003, because it just wasn't necessary.

Chrome, on the other hand, has been clearly and unambiguously the only possible vector for three separate, massive viral infections on my machine in the last 6 months, infections severe enough to take out my entire OS and require a reinstall[1]. Sure, in two cases they were viruses delivered by ad networks on sites that I probably shouldn't have been visiting -- but one was just a rogue ad hit while browsing Twitpic. Now I run Antivirus software again, and every couple of weeks a compromised ad network -- even on quite reputable sites -- will trigger an alert and automatic cleaning. For some sites I switch back to Firefox.

Chrome's amazing performance has to come from somewhere, and my impression is that that boost comes because it runs "closer to the metal", i.e. fewer layers of virtual machines and sandboxes. But that design decision has drawbacks, and one of them seems to be security.

[1] Infection details: Chrome running on Windows XP (first two times) and Windows 7 (final time). I didn't do forensics on the actual vector, but all three times rogue Java applications started up and then installed additional infections, which appeared within seconds of the first attack, making it hard to say which virus was the first to break in.

Surely, given your description and timeframes, the most likely vector is Flash, not Chrome?

Does Chrome bundle Flash and handle updates itself? Would be interested to compare the lag if that were true.

Chrome, itself, bundles and releases updated, Flash builds. The latest vulnerability-fix release of Flash was released to Chrome users before even Adobe made it public for download, for other [browser] flavors.

His post explicitly mentions Java. Seeing as how some 99% of users run Flash, and 100% of Chrome users are guaranteed on the latest version... I find it hard to fault chrome/flash integration.

Its all good for the user, it can be disabled, and they've just added clikc-to-enable for plugins!! (Which also greatly increases its flash stability in linux, yay!)

His post explicitly mentions Java.

Not at the time of my comment it didn't ;)

Seeing as how some 99% of users run Flash, and 100% of Chrome users are guaranteed on the latest version... I find it hard to fault chrome/flash integration

Go back over the last 12 months - are you honestly trying to tell me that there were no ad networks serving ads containing Flash exploits? And that's only one area they appear.

Edit: I'm not ignoring Chrome's Flash integration, but you have to remember that was only released at the end of June: http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/25/google-chrome-flash/

"Go back over the last 12 months - are you honestly trying to tell me that there were no ad networks serving ads containing Flash exploits? And that's only one area they appear."

You're missing the point. Considering that nearly everyone has flash, most people don't update it, and Chrome forces you to always have the latest security patches (AND it can be disabled AND it can be click-to-enable plugin), they're protecting users, literally as much as possible.

It's certainly better than the Firefox model which is what it's being compared to...

Haha. This makes this humorous topic even funnier: http://www.techi.com/2010/12/one-small-step-for-flash-one-de...

I accidentally down-voted you. My apologies — your contribution is genuinely helpful.

No offence, but FUD? What _exactly_ has allowed you to assert that Chrome is up there with IE vulnerabilities and that Firefox can be cleansed of having been exploited.

Chrome doesn't have "the best" sandboxing?

Excuse me, but WTH? I had to go to my browser to make sure the HN app wasn't lying... but all of your complaint boils down to an unproven, nontechnical anecdotal indictment that even at best, still crumples with the clencher...

The vulnerability was in Java, making Firefox just as vulnerable, and Chrome's flash integration* is brilliant unless you think all, most or really even more than a few Flash users are actually up to date. I can't count how many Windows computers I've been on recently where both the Flash and Java were significantly out of date and were un-updatable due to a lack of admin permissions.

Is this post a joke and something is flying over my head? Since when did such unsubstantiated junk as "fewer layers of virtual machines" and the notion that Chrome wasn't fesigned with security in mind become acceptable here?

* for those that don't know, chrome bundles flash and keeps it always up to date.

I tried to make clear that this is my personal experience and impressions, not a declaration of fact: "seems to have", "my impression", etc.. I should have gone further and said "this happens to me, has anybody else had this problem?" My apologies.

However, and however anecdotal the evidence, the vulnerability was in the browser -- Chrome is what allowed the Java applet to run without my consent. Firefox, visiting the very same sites over the same period was not affected, nor at any other time in the past 8 years of using it. That was my point.

Sounds likely Java was the attack vector, it quite often is.

From a professional perspective; Chrome is probably on a par with Firefox (which has had some really nasty exploits recall), possibly better. Not that it matters.

You were infected due to "driving dangerously", which is what will happen. I'm going to throw this out there but you would have had similar issues on any other browser.

(you will often get an "AV hit" on reputable sites where ads try to set a tracking cookie - there is nothing inherently dangerous about that, just annoyance and the fact they are trying to track you :) I'm going to guess that is what you are seeing)

So go to chrome://plugins/ and disable the Java plugin!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com