I can't tell you how many times I've told myself that I wish IE and FF would just die. One day, I'd love to just focus on building for Webkit and not have to worry about supporting all these other engines.
I can't tell you how many times I've told myself that I wish Chrome and Safari would just die. One day, I'd love to just focus on building for Gecko and not have to worry about supporting all these other engines.
Though I agree a single render engine would make things easier for most front-end webdevelopers, I'm not sure whether a monopoly is such a good idea.
I can't tell you how many times I've told myself that I wish Webkit and Gecko would just die. One day, I'd love to just focus on building for Trident and not have to worry about supporting all these other engines.
Though I agree a single render engine would make things easier for most front-end webdevelopers, I'm not sure whether a monopoly is such a good idea.
;-)
Actually writing for STANDARDS would be a better idea....
I can't tell you how many times I've told myself that I wish the INTERNET just dies. One day, I'd love to just focus on having a good real life and not have to worry about all these "virtual life" things.
Sorry for the joke but, sometimes, it is really what I think. =)
Did Mozillians' responses to Opera's switch to WebKit not convince you that a monoculture is a bad thing on principle? I suggest that you read this and think twice about wanting one engine to rule them all.
I switched from Chrome to Firefox... tab groups, the extensions available, and actually being able to save and sync my search keywords across computers (instead of being stuck with a 2 yr old settings) are some big features for me.
Oh, also that Greasemonkey itself is very easy to use.
I might consider trying out Opera again in the future, since its mouse gestures are very responsive and the interface looks nice (to me). However, lots of web pages didn't render properly for me the last time I used it (3+ yrs ago)
Me too. I switched back to Firefox after 2+ years using Chrome. But it's more because I like Mozilla's way of doing things, principles and filosofy. And I'm trying to avoid stuff that companies like Google offers.
I switched from IE to Firefox and, looking back, I don't regret it, for the very same reason. Mozilla is the only non-profit and Mozilla is by far the best FOSS browser. Besides, Mozilla keeps pushing for new and better schemes and is one of the few companies that won't track your web usage.
I just wish more people knew about these. Most people just look at the speed with one tab open and pick Chrome.
I find it very annoying when I try to open a site and it says something like:
"Why the hell are you using IE? Please switch to a modern browser and come back later!".
It turns out I'm not using IE, I'm using Chrome configured to say it is IE (user agent) because the company I work for has a proxy that only answers to IE...
The article really tries to be serious, with lots of charts and data. But they are all from StatCounter. There is an endless debate about which source of browser market share is best, and no clear answer, so why consider only one?
They should've stated that the data comes from StatCounter upfront. I thought they had their own metrics.
Pasting from an earlier comment:
One big difference is that NetMarketShare tries to measure unique clients, while StatCounter measures web page hits.
Since the power users browse (probably a magnitude of order) more web pages than the normal users, Chrome and to a lesser extent Firefox is overrepresented in power users who browse a ton.
Toothpaste marketshare analogy. It's possible that 70% of people use Colgate and 30% use Crest, but Colgate sales by volume are only 40% vs. 60% for Crest, since Crest users tend to brush more daily and use more of the toothpaste when they do for some reason.
Or a car analogy: Toyota sells 40% of cars and Honda only 30%, but 60% of miles driven on roads are by Honda cars since they use it more. Which has a higher marketshare?
"Market vs. Usage share" is a debate that rages every time these numbers come out. It's really apples and oranges. For me, market share is an interesting piece of trivia and usage share is a snapshot of the zeitgeist of more heavily engaged users. Which one matters most to you as a developer?
I feel a bit sorry for Firefox here. They're doing things right but they cannot really compete with Chrome on a equal footing because Chrome gets bundled with almost every Java and Flash update and those are installed on 99%+ of PCs. Not to mention being pushed on high traffic sites like Youtube and Gmail and being bundled with some PCs by paying the OEMs.
I remember switching a lot of non-techie friends/family to Firefox but I see them using Chrome now. When I ask about Firefox the answer almost invariably is that they didn't know how Chrome got on their PC.
Site owners get as much as $1 per Chrome download that they're able to push their visitors to. I don't think Firefox has these kinds of resources against Google trying to minimize how much they pay Firefox by cutting down the middle man and building a moat around their search engine and ad profits. The next good search engine to come by will certainly not be the default on a large percentage of browsers.
It's not as straightforward as "they're doing things right." As a Web developer I have all the major browsers installed, and even in that fair fight I prefer Chrome.
There are certain things I like about FF better, but Chrome's minimalism really appeals to me. There are only two total rows of UI elements and each row contains only the bare essentials. I love that.
I won't speculate on others' reasons for switching, and certainly bundling has served Chrome's market share well, but I can't really feel sorry Firefox is lagging when I don't even personally prefer it on the merits.
Chrome's UI is also completely and totally inflexible. As you can see in this screenshot, http://i.imgur.com/D8rMRBa.png , my firefox's UI takes up less space and is only two rows. Chrome has three rows (the close/max/min buttons, tabs, and navigation). There is no way on windows to reduce that top height. Firefox is flexible enough that you can trivially do what I have with only some simple css. The defaults for firefox are roughly as minimalistic as chrome too. Also, on my linux box my firefox is thinned down even more, while chrome just looks horribly out of place since you can't alter its appearance to closer match the native environment.
I prefer firefox for quite a few reasons, but since you bring up the UI, that's the only one I'll mention here.
On my Windows 7 there's a big huge bar behind the tabs. (This was also there on OS X, and that's worse because of the OS X menu bar which is unremovable)
I really really want an easy way to squidge that background bar down a bit.
This is windows 7. Notice that neither of them are maximized. The behavior you talk about only occurs when you maximize the window, not when it is "half-maximized" as shown.
Actually both browsers look out of place on my Linux box, because they deviate from the desktop theme. I'd rather they looked native. It's really window manager territory. I'm sick of the inconsistencies with tab control etc, accross applications.
At the end of the day, both UIs are primitive. I'm of the believe that the browser can be so much move than a web page viewer.
The only thing that really matters is your site's audience. Our site has Safari in the lead at 39% (IE 24%, Chrome 17%). So, StatCounter's data is interesting, but Chrome is the least important to us.
28 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 77.6 ms ] threadThough I agree a single render engine would make things easier for most front-end webdevelopers, I'm not sure whether a monopoly is such a good idea.
;-)
Actually writing for STANDARDS would be a better idea....
Sorry for the joke but, sometimes, it is really what I think. =)
https://blog.mozilla.org/sfink/2013/02/14/browser-wars-the-g...
Oh, also that Greasemonkey itself is very easy to use.
I might consider trying out Opera again in the future, since its mouse gestures are very responsive and the interface looks nice (to me). However, lots of web pages didn't render properly for me the last time I used it (3+ yrs ago)
TamperMonkey[1] works exactly the same in Chrome/Chromium and to some extent in Android.
[1] http://tampermonkey.net/
Good on the guys who develop it though. I really didn't see any feasible alternatives for userscript management.
I just wish more people knew about these. Most people just look at the speed with one tab open and pick Chrome.
"Why the hell are you using IE? Please switch to a modern browser and come back later!".
It turns out I'm not using IE, I'm using Chrome configured to say it is IE (user agent) because the company I work for has a proxy that only answers to IE...
Pasting from an earlier comment:
One big difference is that NetMarketShare tries to measure unique clients, while StatCounter measures web page hits.
Since the power users browse (probably a magnitude of order) more web pages than the normal users, Chrome and to a lesser extent Firefox is overrepresented in power users who browse a ton.
Toothpaste marketshare analogy. It's possible that 70% of people use Colgate and 30% use Crest, but Colgate sales by volume are only 40% vs. 60% for Crest, since Crest users tend to brush more daily and use more of the toothpaste when they do for some reason.
Or a car analogy: Toyota sells 40% of cars and Honda only 30%, but 60% of miles driven on roads are by Honda cars since they use it more. Which has a higher marketshare?
"Market vs. Usage share" is a debate that rages every time these numbers come out. It's really apples and oranges. For me, market share is an interesting piece of trivia and usage share is a snapshot of the zeitgeist of more heavily engaged users. Which one matters most to you as a developer?
I remember switching a lot of non-techie friends/family to Firefox but I see them using Chrome now. When I ask about Firefox the answer almost invariably is that they didn't know how Chrome got on their PC.
Site owners get as much as $1 per Chrome download that they're able to push their visitors to. I don't think Firefox has these kinds of resources against Google trying to minimize how much they pay Firefox by cutting down the middle man and building a moat around their search engine and ad profits. The next good search engine to come by will certainly not be the default on a large percentage of browsers.
There are certain things I like about FF better, but Chrome's minimalism really appeals to me. There are only two total rows of UI elements and each row contains only the bare essentials. I love that.
I won't speculate on others' reasons for switching, and certainly bundling has served Chrome's market share well, but I can't really feel sorry Firefox is lagging when I don't even personally prefer it on the merits.
I prefer firefox for quite a few reasons, but since you bring up the UI, that's the only one I'll mention here.
I really really want an easy way to squidge that background bar down a bit.
At the end of the day, both UIs are primitive. I'm of the believe that the browser can be so much move than a web page viewer.