RSSFirefox 3.6 needs more, better features to compete against Chrome 3
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published August 10, 2009, 5:34 PM
Last April, Mozilla gave the first public indication of the feature set it was planning for the version of Firefox that could be released in the fall of this year. Among them were the following: a thumbnail preview mode for tab switching using Ctrl+Tab; an integrated, if limited, version of the Ubiquity command line tool; live theme changes without reboots; a new and more fully loaded "New Tab" feature; a complete status window that answers to the URL about:me; and integration of the desktop Web application platform Prism.
But in releasing the first public edition of the Firefox 3.6 alpha, code-named "Namoroka," general testers will find none of these features -- at least, not yet. Only in the private nightly builds may some testers begin to see features including Ctrl+Tab preview, but now it's believed that integrated Prism and other features will not make it into the final release.
According to Mozilla's official schedule, whatever front end enhancements the organization will end up making to this particular release, will have to be ready for Beta 1 sometime next month. Meanwhile, testers will have to deal with a 3.6 platform that's slightly faster than Firefox 3.5.2 in some respects, but noticeably slower in others, most likely due to developers' error control code as indicated by Betanews performance tests.
What Firefox aficionados say they love most about the browser compared to Google Chrome -- currently its biggest competition as an alternative to Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 -- is its rich feature set and customizability. Chrome, by contrast, is fairly bare-bones, although its bare chassis can now claim to be nearly twice as fast as Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows XP SP3, the fastest (though arguably the least secure) of Microsoft's three modern operating systems. Although Chrome has demonstrated some fancy windowing functionality, probably as a show of Google's prowess in producing something more resembling an operating system; and last week it adopted something that could be laughably described as "themes", Google's developers are finding buckets full of performance for Dev channel editions on an almost daily basis.
Since Betanews' tests just last Friday, Chrome 3 has clinched nearly one point of performance, and on our Windows XP SP3 physical test platform is now flirting with 20 times the performance of IE7 on Vista, now at a record 19.90 on our XP index. This while Mozilla's public release of Namoroka Alpha 1, on our Windows 7 RTM index slips almost one full point over Mozilla's final Namoroka release candidate, due mainly to visibly slower scores in the general math departments. The latest private daily build of Firefox 3.5.3 "Shiretoko," however, gained back some ground to pull just ahead of the stable 3.5.2.
If a full feature set is the factor that distinguishes Firefox over Chrome, then Mozilla will need to pack as many features from that April wish list as it can cram into Firefox 3.6 Beta 1 and Beta 2 next month.
Google Chrome is a piece of crap. The morons over at Google can't even figure out why Chrome is unable to download files larger than 2GB. This problem happens regardless of whether the download is occurring on a FAT32 volume or an NTFS volume. This bug alone makes Google Chrome worse than IE 6.
Score: 0
|I'm sorry. I can't put a lot of merit in these articles. Which browsers is better, which browser is faster and oo-ah features; it's all crap. There's too many factors and the biggest one is human... what does the user like?
I'm not going to argue which browser is better; that's futile, but what you can argue is which browser offers more functionality and security.
Firefox has Chrome beat on functionality and Chrome has Firefox beat on security and the funny part is they're both moving in the competitors direction. Chrome is moving towards adding more extentions and Firefox is progressing to sandbox processing for safer browsing- and both are equally driven on the speed of the browser engines...
But really, how much faster can they make them? Is it really going to gain you another whole second... surely it makes all the difference for those rushed EBAY moments at 2am.
They're both good browsers and both have better security than INTERNET EXPLORER, so it's really a win situation for any user.
These type articles are never going to prove anything... Just go with your flavor and be happy; there's no need to argue.
Thanks,
LHenryJr.
www.lehsys.com
Score: 0
|Maybe I can save a couple seconds of my time after a couple hours of use.
Score: 0
|[sarcasm] Yes, we need more speed so our browser can crash faster. [/sarcasm]
Really, they need to spend some time making the browser more stable and resistant to pages/plugins/extensions wrongdoings. With Firefox 3.5.2 I had more crashes than with all the 3.0.x versions I had.
Score: 1
|Firefox will require an operating system to compete with Google Chrome, Nokia's Webkit, Apple's Safari and Microsoft Windows IE. Where is the FireOS?
Score: 0
|To the web browser makers: enough already with the kitchen sink browsers! How about fixing the issues and crashes with the current crop of browsers, instead of bothering with 100 new whiz-bang, we-have-it-the-rest-don't features?
Score: 4
|This is all a tempest in a teapot. Those who like Firefox will not switch to Chrome unless they get paid to, because the typical user experience is not the same as the 'browser flogger'. Milliseconds add up, which is the sort of statement that once gave rise to the maxim " Figures don't lie, but any liar can figure."
I happen to like Opera, and until Opera no longer suits my purposes, I will use it. Others prefer Firefox, or Safari. Chrome seems to appeal to the same crowd that likes to speak glowingly about their computers (sort of the analog to car enthusiasts who engage in benchmark racing sessions).
For most, it does not matter one iota.
Score: 2
|What firefox needs to get rid of is that java XUL crap.. From the user perspective that makes the browser slow.
It is difficult because of its multiplataform architecture, but it is the way it needs to change...
Score: 0
|Does anyone really notice these speed differences? Like what, less than a second to bring up a site. Give me the ton of add ons and themes in Firefox, even with a tad slower result, than what Chrome has to offer.
Score: 0
|"...only in private nightly builds may some testers begin to see features".
Ah, yes, private nightlies...like the ones they make publicly available every night on the FTP server and the source code for which is in the appropriate branch (or trunk).
PS - We're speed-testing alpha 1 releases of future Fireox versions now?
Score: 2
|When Chrome and Safari come to the level with Firefox on features, then we can have an even test on speed. Right now, they're both a bit lacking. Speed in itself is wonderful, but productivity and throughput is a whole lot better.
Score: 2
|*laughing*
That's about the dumbest thing I've read barring JW's articles here in a long time.
Firefox needs *less* features. Someone needs to fork it, remove all the BS and keep extension compatibility. Lean, fast, extendable.
Chrome *might* make it there by version 3...but not by adding feature-bloat. Speed doesn't drive the browser market.
Score: -1
|Wow I actually agree with something you've said... O_o You must have posted that from a Mac? There can be no other explanation.
Anyway I also thought this article was incredibly silly considering all of the features and extensions currently available in Firefox 3.5. Mozilla should only concentrate on every aspect of performance. This is why I often prefer Camino 2.0 beta 3 over Firefox, it uses the same gecko rendering engine BUT unlike Firefox it is very lean and fast, especially upon start up not to mention it is an actually native cocoa app and not just an ugly theme faking a Mac OS X Aqua look.
Performance, performance, performance, everything else can take a backseat for now.
Score: 0
|Well said.
FF team: please keep building a solid, fast, and streamlined framework and let the addon community continue to make it everything for everybody. That's what keeps me using FF.
Score: 2
|Exactly as Thartist said. Firefox doesn't need more features. It is properly the most features rich browser on the planet atm. ( Including Plug In of coz )
Firefox needs SPEED, needs trimming down, and needs more security. Which is lacking behind Chrome.
I was hoping Firefox 3.6 gets more speed increase.....
Score: 2
|ain't it exactly the other way round? Google needs more and better features to compete with Firefox? at least that's what everyone thinks, including me.
Score: 4
|"...about the browser compared to Google Chrome -- currently its biggest competition as an alternative to Microsoft Internet Explorer 8",
lol. no surprise BetaNews "accidently" forgot about Safari which is a million times better than Internet Exploder 8.
Score: -6
|its the f*ckin same thing... except safari is worthless and bloated, i keep chromium on hand in case i screw firefox up mucking around til i fix firefox
Score: 1
|a million probably doesn't mean a lot in your world then.
chrome and safari are based off the same webkit fyi.
Score: 0
|It is not the same thing as evidenced by the differing performance scores. You seem to post dumber things by the day. Of course, everyone knows you are just a troll.
Score: -2
|no kidding they both use Web Kit. They are different browsers offering some differing capabilities and performance characteristics. Take a look at the chart...
Score: -2
|I loved Chrome but it was unstable in some instances (w/ Flash especially iirc.) I got tired of it and went back to Firefox.
I'm sure I'll give it a shot sometime in the future, but it also seemed a bit excessive wrt all the files it pasted on my hard drive...I thought that was unnecessary.
Score: 4
|the barebones of Chrome is good for people who don't want any features they think they don't need, but they really need a method of means to add in more features, either officially or unofficially. Make Chrome modular, with as much support as Firefox has, and it can be a winner.
Score: 6
|Compete against Chrome 3? You must be joking. Chrome is no competition to anyone yet.
Score: -2
|Chrome...? Chrome... Are we talking about the wannabe browser that is lacking any plugin support whatsoever?
Score: 2
|https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/
Chrome needs 10,000 or more features before I will consider it.
Score: 6
|why is it always the one dimensional speed test? I am sincerely just curious. Is it just because there is really is no comparison except for the speed aspect?
Score: 0
|You might be right on that tp.
Score: 0
|