i read them all and so far it's just arguments about the superior browser.
okay koopa, honestly, you have no solid points to put out for firefox. you never did.
Yes, I did. It uses less memory and CPU time than Chrome and overall performs better on older systems compared to Chrome. Again, being under bias to claim that my points have flaws, when in reality I'm completely correct.
i find it horribly bland and featureless and just all around slow. chrome is just proven to be faster and is much nicer looking as well as packing tons of already built in features that you would have to download manually for firefox. extension crashes are very very rare, but are almost common with firefox.
Chrome downloads the HTML and images before you click the URL. If you don't click it, that's wasted bandwidth.
Firefox is open-source and is not allowed to include any non-free (proprietary) software, such as Adobe Flash.
It's not the browser's fault that the plug-in is shoddily maintained. Comparing browsers based on a plug-in for a dead language isn't a decent comparison. (I do understand I used this about Adobe Shockwave. It's an unfair comparison but at least there's a flash plug-in for both Firefox and Chrome)
You find it horribly bland because you're not willing to find a decent skin for it. Overall I'd say the most beautiful browser is Opera, and personalizing it compared to Chrome is like trying to compare an an apple to a coconut.
besides, i've already noticed quite a few features firefox is now copying from chrome.
No comment.
