|
As a fanatic lover and defender of Firefox it pains me to admit it: Firefox is losing more and more positions to other internet browsers, especially compared to Chrome / Chromium, but also to Opera and Safari.
Do you want to know why? Well, in this post I explain what are, according to my humble knowledge and understanding, some of the main reasons ... |
Slow ... sooo leentoo ...
Firefox has been losing positions in the speed rankings for some time. It went from being one of the fastest scanners on the market to a slow and heavy scanner. That is, while some of its competitors drastically optimized their speed, Firefox, while it achieved some notable improvements, did not keep up with the others.
start
Both on "cold" boot (when Firefox was never started in the current session) and on "warm" boot (when Firefox is started shortly after shutting down) Firefox 3.6 lags behind its competitors. In the cold start, the absolute winner is Opera; on hot boot, Chrome.
Page loading speed
When loading 9 pages at once (without javascript or anything that can "make a difference") the results are pretty even. However, Firefox 3.6 has one of the worst performances. It is surpassed by all except Opera 10.01, not Opera 10.5 which is faster.
javascript
Well, here Firefox loses like in war. Absolutely all surpass it. Opera 10.5's performance is impressive and Chrome 4.0's quite remarkable. By the way, it seems that Chrome 5.0 further improves the loading speed of javascript, bringing it to a performance close to that of Opera, although still lower.
DOM / CSS
As web pages are increasingly complex and dynamic, the speed of loading SUN and CSS it is increasingly important in the final speed of page loading. At this point Firefox beats Opera, but loses heavily against Safari and Chrome.
Memory consumption
Actually, this is the only point where Firefox wins out. Yes, although it seems counterintuitive, since Firefox has become a slow and heavy application in the collective imagination, the truth is that, perhaps, the speed of the other browsers resides precisely in the greater memory consumption.
Although in this post I wanted to concentrate on the "bad" things that Firefox should correct or improve, it seemed to me that it was also fair to highlight this point in which Firefox easily beats the others and that, contrary to what many think , consumes significantly less memory than Chrome.
When launching the browser without any extensions installed, Firefox wins, especially the more tabs that are opened. Faster browsers may use cache more than Firefox. When loading the browser with some common extensions activated, Chrome's memory consumption skyrockets and, as in the previous case, the thing worsens the more tabs are opened.
A bit the conclusion of this mini section is: that (Chrome) is fast does not mean that it is "light". Yes, read and reread that sentence because it is true. In addition, it acquires special importance if we take into account that distributions designed for machines with fewer resources, such as Lubuntu, incorporate Chromium as the default browser. Maybe it wasn't the best option ... well, it left it stinging.
The thing is, as far as memory consumption goes, "thumbs up" for the Mozilla folks.
Plugins and tabs are not separate processes yet
This is a feature introduced by Google Chrome that today, I would dare to say, cannot be missing from any top-tier internet browser.
The folks at Mozilla have gotten this message and already announced that in version 3.6.4 the plugins will be independent processes, thus allowing a crash in one of the plugins (generally flash) does not crash the entire tab or even the entire program.
However, none of this has yet reached the hands of end users. In addition, it would still be a while until they implement the independence not only of the plugins but also of the tabs, that is, of each of the pages that we see simultaneously, thus avoiding greater crashes.
It doesn't have the best support for the (new and old) standards
acid 3
Not only is Firefox not the fastest for loading DOM and CSS, but it is still not 100% compatible with acid 3, unlike Chrome, Safari and Opera.
HTML 5
As we saw in this post in more detail, Firefox already incorporates support for many of the features of HTML 5. However, Opera, Safari and Chrome, Firefox's main competitors, outperform it on this point as well.
No support for H.264
As much as I love Firefox for making this decision, I have to admit that, as more and more videos uploaded to the internet use this codec, the problem worsens.
H.264 requires an annual license fee of $ 5 million. Internet Explorer, Chrome or Safari have no major problem paying that amount with Microsoft, Google and Apple behind. The Mozilla Foundation could try to collect that money and maybe it would, but what about the rest of the free browser projects? That is why I support Mozilla in this fight. The overcrowding of this codec could drastically reduce users' "legal" alternatives when it comes to Internet browsers.
In fact, the Foundation Mozilla won't pay for that license now and does not plan to do so in the future. As Mark Shaver, vice president of Mozilla, says, "the web is undeniably better because Mozilla entered the browser market, but it would have been impossible to do so if there had been a licensing fee required to use HTML, CSS, JavaScript and others"
The alternative proposed by the Mozilla Foundation is clear: use OGG / Theora as a standard video codec, since it is free technology that can be used in any software project without major problems.
H.264 is a proprietary technology in many countries that cannot be used without paying a license to MPEG-LA, and the one that Firefox supports, Ogg Theora, is licensed free to use. Without this license, it is prohibited to use or produce videos in H.264, as well as their distribution without the consent of said entity. For now there is a free distribution period, but it ends at the end of 2016. From that date, you have to pay the license, and depending on its use they are very large. Shaver suggests that in the case of Mozilla it would be around $ 5 million per year (Apple, Google and Microsoft have paid for the license, but it is not known how much it has cost them), and said license would not be extended to those who use the base code, a very common in Mozilla's case with all Gecko-based browsers. According to Shaver, Mozilla's intention is that there are no barriers if someone wants to program a browser based on their technology, and the adoption of this format would prevent it.
Be that as it may, YouTube and Vimeo have already announced a new HTML5 player for H.264 video, leaving Firefox out of the list of supported browsers.
Paradoxically, who could change this situation, apparently very adverse for lovers of free software, is Google. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) published a open letter asking Google to release the VP8 video codec it acquired in conjunction with the purchase of On2 Technologies company to "free the web from Flash and proprietary H.264." In the last days it was rumored very loudly that Google would release the VP8 codec in mid-May.
Some security holes have appeared
It is true, Firefox remains one of the safest alternatives when it comes to surfing the internet. However, in the gathering of the best hackers from around the world (Pwn2Own), in which they are paid to hack and reveal the security holes of different devices and software, with the only browser they couldn't was Chrome.
Be careful, it is also true that the people at Mozilla soon released several patches that fixed the security holes, which shows how fast they work and that they take our security very seriously.
However, I insist, the only one who remained standing was Chrome. So far it is the only browser that remains undefeated, something that it had already achieved during the 2009 edition of this event that takes place in Canada and that seeks to warn users of the vulnerabilities of the programs. “There are flaws in Chrome, but they are very difficult to exploit. They designed a model of 'sandbox' (sandbox), which is very difficult to breach, "said Charlie Miller, the famous hacker, who in this edition managed to take control of Safari on a Macbook Pro.
It is very extensible, but it is no longer the only one to be
Definitely, one of Firefox's strengths was and continues to be its extensibility through the use of addons. Firefox also has a very large and active community that has developed a HUGE library of addons to do practically everything with it.
However, it should be noted that other browsers, especially Chrome through "extensions", have made progress in this regard. Today, there is a huge library of extensions for Chrome, which does not stop growing.
Its design is inferior and does not make good use of spaces
Let's be honest, when it comes to visuals, all Firefox users want our browser to look more like Chrome. It is not just a question of "aesthetics" but of the use of spaces, especially "vertical" spaces, which are very important in small monitors, such as netbooks.
- Who uses that ugly menu that reminds us of older Windows 3.1 applications? Chrome, on the other hand, bundled all those menus into 2 measly buttons and made our lives easier.
- Refresh and stop have to be a single button… it's that simple. Putting 2 buttons for this is a bad use of space.
- The old status bars are completely superfluous. Chrome taught us that it is much better to use "floating" status bars that appear only when necessary.
- It makes a lot more sense for the lashes to be on top of everything. This for two reasons:
- They are supposed to indicate the current page we are viewing, so it should be at the top of everything. In that sense, it can be thought of as a "title."
- If used as in Chrome, it takes advantage of the space in the title bar of the window (the same one in which the window buttons appear: minimize, restore, close).
Conclusions
It really makes me very sad to have to write this post. Hopefully future versions of Firefox will fix some of these issues, especially those related to speed and standards compliance.
It was clear to me that you supported Firefox's decision and, obviously, the discussion is welcome. In fact, many of these discussions are normal within the community. Recently a person from the Italian community wrote the idea that in the face of the appearance of Chrome and the "loss" of market share, Mozilla had reacted by chromizing Firefox (changes to the interface, easier themes, Jetpack extensions, etc.) . But there were also answers to that, basically with what I wrote in the previous post.
And yes, we will keep you informed about new things that happen. Likewise, I suggest you subscribe to the feed of http://www.mozilla-hispano.org which is where we are concentrating the work of all Spanish-speaking communities.
FireFox is Free Software ...
that is an advantage that the rest do not have the luxury of ...
Disclaimer: I am a member of the Mozilla community in Argentina. I will answer you some points. The first and fastest, not all Firefox users want it to look like Chrome;). Introducing changes in the design is very difficult because it generates a lot of resistance, and you can see it in the many posts that the designers of the Firefox interface are uploading showing the developments so that users can comment. Beyond that, the changes are coming for the next versions.
With regard to speeds, progress continues on all fronts and, how well you say in the memory part, many times there is more of "everyone says" than real tests. And furthermore, we are talking about microseconds. In this case, I think I trade microseconds for trust in a project.
And I don't think it's Mozilla who now follows the rest. When you started with Chrome, you had the experience of years of other browsers to be able to rethink it and present something "new". Now that people are used to it, any of their changes creates problems. It is common in a software project, when you change a functionality that people were used to. In addition, within Mozilla there are many projects within Mozilla Labs that propose innovations, mainly on the functioning of the browser as a representative of our online "identity".
A clarification on the subject of the video codec. Google paid to use it on Chrome, but it won't be available on Chromium, the free version.
Extensions are another matter. There is the Jetpack project to facilitate the creation of extensions (a la Chrome) but this type of extensions also has its limits, since being of the type (web page) there are functions that cannot be implemented without it being a security problem.
The HTML5 features are still being written, so it is difficult to implement all of them. And it would be necessary to see which ones are implemented. For a few days, the "trunk" versions of Firefox (the previous versions of the next edition, for now under number 3.7) already have the HTML5 "parser" by default.
I don't think my days are numbered. Mainly because Firefox is only one tool within the great project that is Mozilla, a non-profit foundation that seeks to keep the Internet as a public and open platform. And, unfortunately, that function will continue to be necessary, much more when much more personal information is handled through the web browser.
Personally, I don't change Firefox for anything in the world; for many issues. First, because at least for me, it works wonders for me: no hangs, nothing that runs and loads slowly, everything works perfectly and with each new version that comes out, I see considerable improvements in performance.
I tried chrome and its wonderful tabbed processes and I really said "no thanks." When opening 5 tabs, everything is fine. But when you already have 20 lashes, things get very hard.
Safari does not work for me on linux so I have no idea and Opera I have used it very little and it did not seem as fast as it is painted (in terms of loading speed).
In the new versions of Firefox, the problems of separate plugins are solved, as is the issue of the graphical interface: you can put the tabs at the top as in Chrome.
Naming the argument that it does not have H.264 support seems very, very hair-raising to me. Mozilla does very well not to support that codec and I think even you realize why after developing the theme, you say that it is "okay" to use OGG. But putting it as a title in a post in which you are criticizing Firefox gives me a lot to think about!
Anyway, it's just my opinion, in times where the little fox is attacked from all sides. But as a friend from the Mozilla community told me between beers:
«Mozilla does not care that they use Chrome, Opera or whatever: it matters that the user has freedom of choice, because that is why Firefox was created. Many things on the web today would be impossible if Firefox had not existed »
I very much agree with what was said in the article… .. except for the section on "all Firefox users want our browser to look more like Chrome": that, FOR NOTHING, I can assure you after commenting on it with many users, the vast majority prefer the current design.
And add your security issues where IE8 wins out http://tinyurl.com/yffycgr
I would like to see what all the people who said that they did not like an interface change to Chrome or Opera think now that they have been copied in Firefox 4. Have they complained? bah, who knows, I guess not, "I know my people."
Another problem is the inconsistency of Firefox, let me explain, it cannot be that many (not one or two) people are terribly wrong and others (who do seem to be one or two) are doing wonderfully. The other thing is that when you install it, it works perfectly, but after months it goes that it is not worth half which Windows and it gets the typical firefox-style format. This does not happen with other browsers.
Oh, and comment that the adoption of H.264 would go against the sense of free software browsers, so what you have to do is focus on supporting free alternatives to H.264.
Wonderful post !!!
I am left wondering about the licensing of the codec, the royalties were not until 2016? Well, that doesn't matter anyway, the problem is the adoption of a proprietary codec, from what I see in those tests they didn't even bother to compare IE hehe, well that's why 🙂 🙂
Excellent! Thanks for commenting !! I agree with many things you say. Eye! Let it be clear that I LOVE Firefox ... I always use it and I plug it in to all my friends, especially those who ask me to rescue them after some bad "virus". It's just that some of these ideas were spinning in my head and I wanted to put them all together, make an argument and start a controversial debate ... 🙂
Just one point I would like to clarify: I am with Mozilla in the fight against H.264. On the blog you will find thousands of posts along the same lines. However, I think that, for many other users, not having compatibility for this codec, which is already the most used on the Internet, is going to be a problem and a "disadvantage" of Firefox. So I am praying that Google does release VP8 and use it on Youtube, as requested by the FSF. 🙂
Firefox does NOT have its days numbered ... not at all. It's just a controversial title for people to read an especially long article. 😛 Yes, a vile resource… 🙂 Anyway, let me tell you that I agree with absolutely everything you say… well, except for the part that visually I do want it to look a little more like Chrome .. 😛 I'll thank you for sending me emails about any updates or important decisions from Mozilla! I really bank them to death ... but that does not mean that one cannot criticize him and want him to improve some aspects.
I use Firefox on Linux, it is good, I have always had it, but something that we cannot deny is that since Chrome was released, it has a speed that Firefox does not have. I notice that Firefox is starting to lag behind. Opera I like its speed, we are just not used to it. I hope that Firefox developers take into account the opinions of many users that if we see a backward movement, small or large, in the browser that millions of people use par excellence.
Very good article. I am also a Firefox user and I have not really found any reason to change it for another, but I recognize these shortcomings.
As for the space issue, I solve it with extensions and things like that. How to put the menu and the bookmarks bar together on the same "line".
Haha… yes, half yellow, right?
I found it very interesting that IE is the most used and the worst in all "technical" tests. In short, that would imply that Firefox is not in danger because more or fewer users use it does not depend exclusively on the results of these tests. If Firefox takes a little longer to "catch up" no one will die ...
Hehehe .. something was missing, the instability of Firefox .. it hangs when one least expects it, even if extensions are not used ... I prefer Chrome
!!
Good Post, like many I am a lover of my Firefox browser but it is ugly to say, it is slow compared to chrome and lately I have noticed that it takes a million years to open and it hangs on me in certain circumstances, for example enter ( http://pinas.gov.ec/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=25&Itemid= ) and click on 'view' of any file ... it hangs every time I do that = S
when the extensions I use in firefox come out in opera or chrome I just changed ...
firefox rulz !!
I just tried it on Linux and it worked fine. It first opened a simile pop up and then gave me the option to download the file. It would be necessary to see what things you have installed and what version of Firefox you are using. Note that it is not critical, it is an attempt to help you
Well, I don't know what it will be, maybe a bad installation of an extension or finally the acrobat, because I can't do that without firefox dying, on the other hand, with chrome or opera, it opens beautifully ... = S
firefox is too complicated for casual users. It needs many applications to function fairly well. Many things are still missing, the most important: ease of use
Try Opera
As a Mac user of firefox… .. I don't have a single complaint about it, it's very fast and efficient in the mac environment. sorry for the rest.
well, in my opinion, firefox is still my favorite work engine on the net, but because I work in a MAC environment. my firefox has never been slow or anything like that ... and since I have no problems with viruses ... I work at ease.
It seems a lie But what has seemed to me is that the people of Google work too fast and well in their Product ... I think that the Future of the best Chrome Browsers will lead it soon, although we do not want to accept it since our love for Firefox is even greater because it was the tip of the spear for the other Browsers that are currently climbing positions.
I keep freaking out, how having KONQUEROR people use that Chrome crap. It's ugly, crappy, and the history and downloads are pathetic, embarrassing and gross.
I stick with firefox and konqueror. Performance and comfort.
Friend totally agree with you.
@Demidis
While it is true that everyone does not want it to look like Chrome at least you will agree that a new interface is necessary, I think it can even be better than Chrome, but the current design of FF is obsolete.
Maybe today is not the best, it is very far from disappearing or has its days numbered, for the very fact of being free software the community that supports it will not stop supporting it nor will they go from developing addons to developing plugins for chrome or something like that. This development career only helps the programs improve more and more and in the end the beneficiary is the user. Especially the one who does not like to pay to use anything 😉
Right now I have switched to Chromium.
Excellent article.
This post made me decide to switch browsers and not use firefox - while technical problems are resolved.
It was already known the delay that Firefox had been presenting with respect to other browsers, but this article was the one that spilled the straw to sentimentally detach myself from Firefox of whom I have been a faithful and jealous lover from its version 2.0 to 3.6
Excellent article.
I did the test with Firefox on Linux and nothing crashes, everything worked fine.
A very controversial title for the content of the post, actually the post is good for maybe some titles a little out of place…. I took the trouble to read the comments, and well there are people who say that Firefox is not slow at all, mmm well that is what they say because they have not seen it compared to others, at least that happened to me a long time ago, until one day I put it in comparison with chrome ...
I am currently a chrome user, my transition was a funny chance since I used both browsers at the same time, until I finally realized that chrome is better for what I want, what do I want? speed and that it loads fast if it is true, it consumes much more memory than firefox but in the end that is something small….
Firefox does not have the days numbered at all, it is crazy to say that, since it has very good characteristics, it is true that now it has more competition, but that's good ... the H.264 video codec, I don't know much about it. issue, but I think that if it is a problem since it is currently entering with great force (from what I have heard), I really did not know that it was the owner is a pity ...
Very good post, I would also like firefox to put the batteries to recover what it once had.
if the truth is a downturn, read this post. But good, google no longer puts its own in the development of firefox, as before, now they reserve it for chrome, which by the way is not free soft
It seems that many ignore the F11 key that allows you to use the browser in full screen mode. There is nothing better to take advantage of the space of netbooks.
In defense of Firefox and as a developer of applications for the web, I have to say that one of the extensions that I am most grateful for in this browser is Firebug. I really feel very comfortable with Firefox and I have no doubt that firefox is what it is thanks to the community behind it. I DON'T LIKE MONOPOLIES and I think Google is turning into that.
I like what you say. I feel the same. Chrome is an excellent browser, but Firefox is going to bypass it when version 4 comes out. 🙂
Thank you for commenting and sharing your experience! A hug! Paul.
I tried all the browsers on my pc (I clarify that I have it with Windows XP, although many regret it), a Pentium 4 with less than 512MB of ram, and the one that performs the best is Firefox, by far.
And finally I switched to Palemoon, a version of Firefox adapted to Windows (since, they say, Firefox is designed for Linux).
The Safari sticks to the basics, and it gets heavy at times.
The GChrome works fine at first, but it is terribly heavy afterwards, it seems that it eats my pc, like IE. And what's more, when I navigate between tabs they hang together, not loading the content I already had.
The Opera works very well, but I think they stayed a lot in what they were.
Firefox will not be the best now, but I have a lot of confidence in it, and more so in version 4.
(IE is not even named ..)
I'm glad you admitted it, because when I finished reading the text I said to myself: why such a yellowish title? Haha
I agree with Deimidis, in what he has raised. And I add another thing: Internet Explorer is by far the most used browser and is the one that practically has more problems. This indicates something essential: the categories that are usually measured are not the most relevant to the expansion or maintenance of a project. They are technical categories, which raise the "quality" of the product but are not necessarily the most relevant to reach more or even keep users. Furthermore, they do not directly correlate with the final user experience. Why not show a comparison between the "quality of the final user experience" in the different browsers?