Why I Switched From Firefox to Chrome

Im am very interested in peoples issues with Firefox starting up slowly. I have said it before in this thread, by FF opens and loads my homepage before I even lift my finder off the mouse button. I have 6 extensions installed aswell. Why is it so slow for some people?
 
criccio said:
Im am very interested in peoples issues with Firefox starting up slowly. I have said it before in this thread, by FF opens and loads my homepage before I even lift my finder off the mouse button. I have 6 extensions installed aswell. Why is it so slow for some people?
Click to expand...

It's not slow, it's just not as fast as Chrome :)

It's going 65mph, and 70mph, both are fast, but the other is faster.
 
criccio said:
Im am very interested in peoples issues with Firefox starting up slowly.
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Like I said, on these Celeron machines, Firefox is abysmally slow to open. I just timed it on this particular machine and it took eleven seconds on first launch. No add-ons at all. Chrome, on the other hand, takes two to three seconds on first launch.

These drives get defragged and reg-cleaned every two weeks. They run like a top otherwise...but Firefox? Forget it.

 
phide said:
I have no idea. Like I said, on these Celeron machines, Firefox is abysmally slow to open. I just timed it on this particular machine and it took eleven seconds on first launch. No add-ons at all. Chrome, on the other hand, takes two to three seconds on first launch.

These drives get defragged and reg-cleaned every two weeks. They run like a top otherwise...but Firefox? Forget it.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've found FF is also slow on INITIAL launch.
Seriously nothing I'd usually gripe about as it truly isn't bad, but when I did try Chrome it loaded initially faster.
 
Well damn, a Celeron? I was talking about current gen machines. Initial opening of FF with extensions and Chrome are exactly the same for me. Instantly. This is on my rig in my sig though.
 
Speed wise Chrome wins not only on startup, but in general surfing..HOWEVER until I get adblock,and a few other things I will stick with the fox.

I AM surprised that even though we know it is alpha/beta stage that there was not an option for a "chromeblock" ad on since it is what 99% of the people download as soon as the browser has been installed
 
Even in it'a heyday on IE 6 Firefox was always the slowest browser.

With much faster browsers that are just as secure, I can't imagine anyone who wants to just surf and not use a billion add-ons (Which is still Firefox's strong point) would use Firefox.
 
ssrat said:
Speed wise Chrome wins not only on startup, but in general surfing..HOWEVER until I get adblock,and a few other things I will stick with the fox.

I AM surprised that even though we know it is alpha/beta stage that there was not an option for a "chromeblock" ad on since it is what 99% of the people download as soon as the browser has been installed
Click to expand...

Adblocker is already out for Chrome as an add-on and is build into Iron.
 
Zellio2009 said:
Even in it'a heyday on IE 6 Firefox was always the slowest browser.

With much faster browsers that are just as secure, I can't imagine anyone who wants to just surf and not use a billion add-ons (Which is still Firefox's strong point) would use Firefox.
Click to expand...

I like the firefox interface better, the slowness of opening doesn't stop me from using it on a 500Mhz PIII 384 MB of ram.
 
I will always use FF so long as I have complete control over what loads through NoScript. I have now forced all my end-users to install and actually learn to use NoScript. It has been a god-send! People like how it will block ads and I like how it gives them an extra layer of security before they do something stupid.

FF = less work for me
 
snowden said:
I will always use FF so long as I have complete control over what loads through NoScript. I have now forced all my end-users to install and actually learn to use NoScript. It has been a god-send! People like how it will block ads and I like how it gives them an extra layer of security before they do something stupid.

FF = less work for me
Click to expand...

I never tried noscript. Mostly because I am to lazy.
 
randomdean100 said:
I like the firefox interface better, the slowness of opening doesn't stop me from using it on a 500Mhz PIII 384 MB of ram.
Click to expand...

Yeah the FF interface was always excellent, but today there's so many choices of browsers with excellent interfaces too, and I don't see the value of FF being the same unless you need to do a million things on FF.
 
Btw, damn the lack of edit.

FF was THE nerd choice during the IE5 and IE6 days. You had a simple interface of IE, combined with it's knack for getting trojans, versus the complicated interface of FF with it's security.

I dunno though. I kinda think people stay with FF not because it still owns, but because it did. I really can't be sure, but the fact is FF truely owned that time period, and I stayed with them until I figured out I liked IE7 and Opera better.
 
Meh, chrome was ok, but the tracking is def not. Of course you can get a hack/version to stop that . . . but still. . .

Anyway, chrome was good, but nothing earth-shattering. And I'd have to agree with the "I need my add-ons" deal. . .
 
Zellio2009 said:
Btw, damn the lack of edit.

FF was THE nerd choice during the IE5 and IE6 days. You had a simple interface of IE, combined with it's knack for getting trojans, versus the complicated interface of FF with it's security.

I dunno though. I kinda think people stay with FF not because it still owns, but because it did. I really can't be sure, but the fact is FF truely owned that time period, and I stayed with them until I figured out I liked IE7 and Opera better.
Click to expand...

nope, still was using opera back then... FF in my opinion is not faster at drawing websites, and the constant updates harassing you are just annoying at best...

also on my old sony picturebook (667mhz curosue processor) FF is significantly slower to start up than opera
 
The one big issue I have with Chrome is that, while scrolling up and down on a page with a tiled background, there's a lag between tiles. I've tested this out on many web pages, all to the same result. Firefox scrolls smoothly for me, with no problems. If they could get this fixed, and possibly add some more customization options concerning the UI, then I'd definitely be using Chrome all the time.

But until then, I'll stick with Firefox. But, seriously - I'm REALLY hoping they get a few issues fixed. Scrolling is a big issue for me - I hate scroll lag. If they get it fixed, though, I'll more than likely switch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top