I have three browsers in my computer, IE, FF, Chrome and I like all three. This endless debate over which browser is better, which is faster or which is more secure is boring and useless. Everything comes to a end and I suspect that 20 years from now none of this would matter one bit. I choose the browser that suits my needs or that which I like best, nothing more. I could care less of the opinions of Microsoft or Mozilla and they all gone on and on and to what end? So in reality, does any of this matter at all?

I have become browser agnostic, I don't feel anymore which browser and version I use. Chrome is webkit, FF is gecko. Webkit is probably better designed and used by Google, Apple, Nokia. Gecko is also funded by Google. Microsoft is unwilling to outsource to open source its browser and develops a product that does not generate any profit, what an investment. The whole browser competition will end in a perfect competition black hole, no turning back. A superfast, superstable standard compliant browser with an unprecedented degree of interoperability. Where it is absolutely irrelevant for the use which engine you use. Where you can use the browser under any operating system and device.

I have to agree with most of the other posts - users choose their web browsers based upon their own browsing needs and/or it's ease of use. That said, as an open source developer who has worked with FF, Chromium, Opera, Apple and MS (to name a few), I don't see any clear winner EXCEPT for the end user in the current browser "war". Personally, I love Chrome for it's speed during research, FF for it's compatibility with web apps, Amaya for code work, and a little known browser called Lunascape 5 for testing web apps using three different standard engines in one browser. It seems unlikely that firefox will die when it is clear that the community it has built is apparently as die-hard as the one apple has built over the years for it's machines. I welcome the free flowing debate and competition that the browser "war" promotes. It seems that constant improvement of all the major browsers capabilities can only be good for all of us. While this article may indeed be a bit of propaganda used to get end users to comment, forums like this are where developers turn to to gauge reactions and to get ideas on what improvements to work on next. Adblock for Google Chrome, or a similar product will most likely be developed as a result. Will one browser ever win over any other? Probably not, and I for one certainly hope not - it would mean less choice for each of us. Monopoly always crushes creative invention.

I have sad news for the FF fans that think the addons are what is important and that blocking ads is important to the survival of FF. While I still like my FF I have done some more digging which is always fun and Chrome supports XPInstall and grease monkey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Gears
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greasemonkey

Yes, I like using the wiki as a shortcut to typing an explanation that is more complex than a line or two. If it supports JAR's also then FF has to compete at them same level as Chrome. This is serious for FF and it could be as simple as a pre-install war. It has to be a popularity contest based on speed, support, and addons that people like. FF makes it easy to mod the code and Mozilla has more than FF on their side so it could be something that would be a problem for them to keep up on. The way the code is built though it would be a fairly easy fix if someone were to write it.

If Google were to push a gears development tool with an extreme ease of use, then eclipse and 7-Zip would look like tinker toys. Heck, just saying that gives me the creeps but I like to find what people seem to think is not possible. I use all kinds of toys to edit code and if G-GIDE were to pop up and it were something that could be used in a way that makes VB look hard then FF is going to be on a spit. I edited it for spelling errors.

Chrome by Google is just junk! Google makes junk! Heck, even their search has become crap.

Google has never finished a product, everything is half baked. Good ideas but no follow through.

Although I would certainly welcome some improvements for Firefox (a better configuration system other than about:config, and may be a lower memory foot print). But what I care the most is the Ad Blocker. This feature is far more important to me that actually I don't care about speed.

Here is a low risk bet that would allow Firefox to kill the browser market. As there are users who don't know about AdBlock (may be most of them ?) Then how about integrating an Ad Blocker NATIVELY in the browser? Please think about that. If the analysis of the author is correct, the day Firefox lost its place to chrome, it would be too late to regret. Now it is the time to take a chance to do something innovative, not just rely passively on the 'geeky' ecosystem of the add-ons of skins to to the miracle.

Hi,
I am a chat rep from firefox live chat, and i can assure you that within the year, firefox 3.5(formerly 3.1) will be released.

Thank You.

-Pilif12p

I think Mozilla Firefox will remain a competitor and/or a lead browser in the future. If only because people like the extensions. I love Google Chrome but I need to find a good ad blocker for it. If IE8 allows for an ad blocking "add-on" it will gain ground against Firefox I think. Even though my preliminary use and testing (minimal) has shown IE8 as slow when compared to IE7 and Firefox 3.0.7.

I am really looking forward to Google Chrome in later versions. I doubt FireFox will be impacted at all by IE8. Most people who use FireFox, Chrome, Opera, etc, do so to avoid Microsoft products. I really doubt a new Microsoft release will change that.

ditto yountmj!!!

If Google Chrome makes an add-on system that allows a really good Adblocker, and if someone steps up to the plate and provides that Adblocker, I think I agree that Firefox will basically die. The great thing about Firefox is the extensions. If Google Chrome is able to build an ecosystem of good extensions, the development rate of Chrome is much faster, and for the behemoth quad core systems that most people are buying, a browser that has many processes works better. Firefox is way behind in tab separation, and 3.1 that was supposed to take half a year to release is taking a year.
The only holdouts who will keep Firefox alive at a minimal level are people who are attached to the particular extensions they know and love, and Linux "freedom loonies" who will be afraid that Google is spying on them.

On the other hand, if Google's "add ons" are limited and lame like those in IE, etc., they have no chance.

Google's business is advertisement. Why do you expect them to block ads?

Oh please, its free and open source....

LOL. Probably the best comment yet! :)

I have to commend the author of this article for knowing how to drive a heap of traffic to BetaNews. A topic like this is definitely flame bait and most of you bit.

You have to be stuck on stupid and waiting for silly if you think Firefox is even slightly affected by either IE8 (Yuck!) or Chrome. I have both Safari 4 beta 1 and Firefox 3.1 beta 3 on my Mac and I love them both.

...says the expert on flame bait. ;-)

You want to be me so bad don't you? You could start by getting a Mac but you'd still be short and fat and getting laid only when you pay for it...

Here's the thing that this article completely misses out on. Extensions and capabilities. I have no doubt that in this test and that test, XYZ does whatever. But that's not the real world usage. Manage to get Safari to work with a big slice of the secured websites? So far, not working so hot here.. and extension capability for Safari? Yeah, pretty terrible. The same is basically true for Chrome. Both of those products are, at this point, incredibly buggy. So, whether or not it loads a sample page super fast or not really doesn't matter. Safari's tab system is absolutely god awful; and despite the idea from someone below, I happen to like the standard menus (file/edit/etc.) and always turn them on for use..

But Firefox's biggest advantage doesn't come from firefox. There is no product like AdBlock our MP3 readers, extension capability for Safari, and I doubt it's coming. Surprisngly, webpages render much faster when you cut the ads out and don't download them. Other features, like direct extensions for access to different portals, etc. help put Firefox in it's own realm, and it's easy management of extensions is far more intuitive then anything going elsewhere.

Firefox's large base is because it is completely multiplatform, something IE definitely isn't, and something that Safari also is not.

Is Firefox "Doomed"? Yeah, I'm not that worried about that. In regards to Opera.. let's face it, it's a micro to minimal percent on the PC side; they killed themselves early on when they wanted to charge for it. The only place Opera really works out is on the Nintendo Wii and phones, where it does a decent job of rendering on a smaller screen.

Wow, hot button topic here. I have read most of the posts here and basically found that most people here must be under the age of 40 or so. SF3 seems pretty good but I will have to say that of all the browsers to date FF has lasted the longest in some form or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...rcomputing_Applications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_web_browser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator

Just in case no one believes me. FF lives and breaths based on all that and possibly on some of this too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaya_(web_browser)

So, far have not seen anyone mention it and figured it would be fun to see what people know. As for how the combat strategies came about. It is pretty simple yes beat your opponent but and make sure they can not rise again to beat you. FF is based on something that AOL bought because MS was killing them on their own. Navigator, Communicator, & Composer were born of Mosaic (Wonder if Mozilla got their name as a derivative) which was created to render SGML & later HTML a subset. All this creation of course started when the NCSA openned its doors. So, we can sit here and talk about motives for all kinds of things but FF started free, became proprietary and died, and then became reborn into freedom where it lives today.

In case you are I have the source for all this crap being a pack rat and all. I have been using BSD and Slackware for years while still using MS products. I have seen things come and go and most things that stay around, stay because people get to care about them and play with them. This happened with things like Wolfenstien and Star Trek games of all kinds (Like Armada and A2). The more you can tweak something the longer it lasts.

CP/M died the same way Netscape died with the simple fact that things were not pre-installed. DOS was pre-install and before Warp. When IBM found out how popular it was they wanted the riches for themselves and tried to out do DOS with PC-DOS. The major problem was that it was competing against itself similar to the XP vs Vista problem. The fact is people like computers to be easy to use tools and the cheaper and easier they are to use the better. Having things ready to use means no work so MS learned from their earlier triumph and created IE. It had an up hill battle against the popular Navigator which died due to the pre-install monopoly. If you have one why get something else that means you have to look for it.

Now, when it comes to the pre-install wars we have the eeePC that comes with a console like Xandros and FF as the default browser. While to some this use of FF could be a shock Konqueror is the file browser similar setup to Knoppix and other KDE products. FF could die and while it is possible they have it seems learned from MS-pre strategy. The FF has also been bundled in every version of Linux that uses Gnome or KDE. I have played with it on Slackware too but I do not browser with that machine so not really needed (it being WRT54).

Chrome is super small and fast but it has to come to the dark side and preinstall. The preinstall is the biggest way to get people locked in and started. If people then dislike you enough to make the effort to switch then you really need to improve. IE is only going to change but if more people continue to migrate to Linux and possibly FreeDos (yeah right) then IE and MS will suffer. Just remember the primary reasons things die in computer world are mostly due to lack of grassroots, lack of user love, and lack of pre-install.

The legal maxim "follow the money" applies here, and we all know that Micrsoft and Google have lots of cash. That certainly enhances their chances of winning the browser wars.

"The battle does not always go to the strong or the race to the swift, but that's the way you bet."

Firefox's advantages can be summed up as faster, user friendly features, and vast number of addons.

As far as speed is concerned, Firefox's advantage is gone. Google brought Webkit to Windows and sparked this performance war. I am not sure if Mozilla has the resource to keep Gecko up with the other development teams. Mozilla is right now catching up in the Javascript engine area and no doubt is diverting resources from other development goals.

Firefox did very well bringing user friendly features to the mass market. They were able to build their user base quickly while Microsoft was bogged down by their long development process. With firefox 3, however, features don't feel like they fit together very well for some reason. IE8 has catched up in the feature area and Chrome has short release cycle.

Firefox's current ecosystem of addons is very healthy and will probably keep users for now.

Firefox's advantages are being eroded rather quickly. I am not sure if there is anything they can do. Ideally, they should just switch to Webkit and ride on the other companies' investment. They would concentrate on developing the user experience. Unfortunately, I am sure technical and political issues would prevent this idea from ever getting any traction.

wekit doesn't allow firefox to do what it has been doing now, and when you add all the functions to webkit to reach the level of firefox, it would be already too big and bloated.

Not to mention apple has that black hole bug tracking system, why would mozilla want to be controlled by apple?

Firefox 3.5 is said to come out in 3 months. By that time Chrome 2.0 will be out with add-on support ("by May") and RSS-awareness. Chrome will be superslick like everything from Google.

Firefox is done.

Didn't Firefox just come out with a new update? I can't keep up with them all, lol. I WOULD like to try out Chrome sometime. I didn't realize how much better Firefox was than IE unil I tried. Now, I can't stand to use IE. :-D

Angela

Backlinks

All I can say is to just try each one of the browsers. I bet most people will choose Firefox. Does Chrome or IE allow you to choose the minimum font which can display? I love that feature in Firefox and Opera. I have not idea, after trying our Chrome, why it is suppose to be superior. Guess I would choose it over say ie7 or ie8. The list of features which are truly useful is long with Firefox, and for that matter, Opera as well. Both are just so much slicker to use everyday, than are the rest. Firefox3 for me, or Portable Firefox3, with the Chromifox 1.0 theme-lookin' good!

You know they have misplaced their priorities when they spent time on the keyhole cross platform branding buttons instead of making the browser looking modern on each platform. Instead, it looks native, but it's a bit... off. Why does it still have a menu bar? Why does the menu bar still underline the shortcut keys? Why is the stop button blue...? Why does the tab bar looks so foreign?

Instead, they came up with the theory that in order to have a browser look native, you only need to use similar color...

you know mozilla has multiple modular system that the UI team is just doing that, the UI. thats not misplaced priority, because even if you grad UI team over, they can do anything else.

A shame that Opera was again left out of an article regarding the browser wars. I believe that the main reason Opera has so little exposure is not because it's worse than IE, FF, Chrome or Safari, but simply because the media ignores it, while promoting FF and Chrome, both vastly inferior browsers. Please give some credit to Opera - there should be more major browsers out there, and a two-browser world is not much better than an IE monopoly.

Vastly inferior? Get a grip.

The media ignores Opera simply because it has so little market share. It's not like Opera has never been mentioned in the tech press. It has had more than one chance of gaining users, but it just hasn't caught on.

Perhaps it's simply the case that Opera was too early and didn't get that perfect launch that Firefox did. The Netscape history definitely helped Firefox get coverage.

So, Firefox is losing just because IE version 8 and Google Chrome came along?

In 15 minutes of using IE version 8, I found it to be better than IE version 7 but terribly broken, so back to Firefox. Chrome is an unfinished browser, so back to Firefox. Safari version 4 has a ridiculous tab interface, but good speed but plenty of security vulnerabilities.

I'm using Firefox version 3.5, a nightly build, right now and it's quite good and speedy. Do I need speed at all costs? No. I want a well-rounded browser and that's what Firefox is.

The people at Mozilla need to slim down their development process more than their software products. Being light and lithe would serve them better. They might remind themselves that Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix started from taking a look at Camino. Firefox' developers have obviously forgotten its roots.

Awww snap! :(

Right

Here is my take on this:

http://davidnaylor.org/b...x-3-is-not-bloated.html

Who is this Kier Thomas idiot, making wild assumptions about the future of Mozilla/Firefox?

"I fear that the Firefox project is a juggernaut that can't stop," Thomas wrote. "It's got too much momentum and is determined to head in the direction it has chosen. In short, I honestly think it's too late. Despite the fact it's not really ready for human consumption, Chrome has won. Firefox is already dead."

Really? Firefox is the most successful open source project in the history of computing. So, now that it is at its peak, its death is already foretold? This guy should be buying lottery tickets if he's that good at seeing the future.

Why is a predestined death the most likely scenario? Why is that more likely than Mozilla figuring out a way to make money from Firefox or another one of its products?

And who is this Carmi Levy idiot, claiming to know the mindset of Firefox's early adopters?

"Firefox early adopters jumped the IE ship because they saw everyday use of the upstart browser as a counterculture commentary against the IE juggernaut that for years had dominated the competition-free browser world. At the time, performance- and usability-hungry end-users were so hungry for something -- indeed anything -- that showed real innovation in a stagnant sector that they latched onto the first viable alternative that showed any staying power. That alternative was Firefox, and in its early iterations, it ran circles around the staid and pokey IE."

Could it be that they switched to Firefox because it happened to be a much better browser? It was faster and more customizable than Internet Explorer, and it had tabbed browsing. Firefox had everything going for it compared to IE, that's obviously why people switched. It had nothing at all to do with being anti-Microsoft or anti-establishment.

Just because someone is an author or an analyst, that does not in any way imply they know what they're talking about. Clearly the two people cited in this article have no idea what garbage is coming out of their mouths.

I think you miss the point and are off a bit in the factuality of your data.

Linux is the most sucessfull example of an "open source" project in the existance of computing. Mozilla offers a product that is only partly open source. Go ahead, read the agreement next time defore you click "I Agree".

Mozilla makes it's money from search adveritsing and thus, is limited in it's ability to develop as a business and compete with other browsers. Did you know that they are using your data to make money? Did you know that AOL has a huge stake it's proffits? Didn't think so. Under the guise of an open source project, they keep a great deal of that revenue by having all of us develop, test and de-bug THEIR product.

In this way browsers like Crome and Firefox have pulled the wool over the eyes of most users. People love the word 'free' and ask few questions on what 'free' actually means. Are you comfortable will AOL searches rated on how you interface with Firefox? How often does Chrome talk to Google and what does it say when it does? I'll give you a hint; it says "$$$$$$".

To be fair, Firefox did have a better set features at release and has pioneered the way for modern browsers. It was also a great way to 'stick it to the Man' durring the MS anti-trust period.

But let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. MS has learned a great deal of lessons in the mean time. IE's advantage remains that it has always been a product. MS's development team is funded by other products and, as such, has a longer duty life and better support. (let's face it; It's not Bill Gates' fault that you couldn't call support/update your system due to your bogus XP CD key.)

The 'death of Firefox' may not be certain, but what is, lies in how much the public understands what they do with the software they use each and every day.

I fail to see how anything you said is relevant to an article about the "death" of Firefox. You miss the point entirely by nitpicking the definition of "open source". Can I download the source code for Firefox? Yes, at ftp://ftp.mozilla.org. That's good enough.

As for Linux being more successful than Firefox, how do you come to that obviously incorrect conclusion? What percentage of market share do you think Linux has? After nearly 20 years, it has approximately 1% market share on the desktop and 13% on servers. Compared to Firefox's 21% after just a few years of existence, I'd say that easily blows Linux out of the water.

Listen Troll, read the EULA. Your ignorace of it's contense show that, while you can get the code, you have never contemplated anything usefull to do with it, had you the wherewithall to do so.

Firefox is classified as Closed source by the EFF. Not 'some open, some closed'. It is proprietary. Linux is not. It's not nit-picking, it's a fact. Linux was build from the ground up with no corporate support. Firefox was and is not. I can edit and portion of linux code I see fit. Moving from nothing to something is a better example of success than, say, taking netscape code, adding to it, patenting some of it, putting up a false front about where it came from and what your intentions are.

You cant hide behind a fence and wave the flag of open source software when it has never been a truth. At what point will users out there question the motive of companies other than M$?

oh, right, when they go 'open-source'

If you knew the definition of "troll" you'd see that your posts qualify you as one, not me. Still nothing you said is relevant to an article about the "death" of Firefox. Thanks for playing.

from I've tried Chrome twice, once 6 months ago, and once yesterday. I quickly decided against it when some of my standard websites went haywire. If you don't test the thing enough to make sure it works with every existing type of site, don't release. It was a waste of time. I also downloaded IE8 for the second time, and it screwed up my homepage, and since the homepage uses "target=blank" for links, which Mozilla (and Chrome, for that matter) opens correctly within the browser window, IE opened the links in a reduced size new window that expands to full page, which now requires an extra click or two for each link and doesn't give me what I want and get Mozilla. OK, these may be minor to you, but they're major pains in the rear for me. I would say, please Mozilla, keep doing what you're doing. Who cares about speed when functionality is the issue? In the long-term, I'd say that Mozilla may remain in 2 or 3 spot, but with a larger percentage than it has now: Chrome and IE8 aren't competitors for my affections.

The goal of sensationalistic journalism like this is to get people's attention -- like selling a publication with large text informing potential buyers that there will be the steamy details of so and so's love life.

I saw this on the RSS feeds, jumped in to read, and have to say, there's no gravity to this article at all.

The article ignores Mozilla's positioning of Fennec, Prism and Thunderbird/Lightning. The article ignores the fact that Mozilla is in better standing right now than ever and that they don't just have a magical userbase - they have true momentum from corporations and other browser projects that rely on its codebase (Flock, Songbird, etc.) I would assume that most of those projects, if successful, will donate financially and technologically back to the main project.

But more importantly, the article seems to state that people use Firefox because it was an underdog. Um... and that it was all due to security ... um.

I'll give the article credit, it cites many credible sources and is helpful in almost providing an ultimatum to Firefox. But at the same time, selling a story that Firefox is sinking can almost cause the same to happen. If another publication is inspired by this story to do their own spin on it - it catches on and ultimately we'll end up with Time magazine stating that the browser is dead.

There were and are many reasons to use Firefox. I'm a web developer -- the best browser-based tools for web developers are within Firefox. I appreciate the SEO tools in Firefox. Many people enjoy Firefox's plugins, the bookmark management, the customization ... these are the things that cause people to become dedicated much like AOL's mail has kept them floating for years with dial-up service.

I think that it would be fair to also swap 'Opera' in place throughout this article and think about it. Opera actually has a fair amount of bloat in it (The Widgets are ridiculous and the interface has fallen behind in streamlining -- IE, FF, Chrome and Safari are all much more streamlined). And if you're an Opera user, then you too understand that you continue using the browser because it has found a way to suit your needs like no other. Then also - remember that Opera is one product that supports others such as the Wii Internet Channel, Opera Mini, etc. etc. -- Opera's flagship browser is their loss leader =)

Firefox has many many more directions to go too -- they are anything but throwing all their cards on the table. With Windows 7 and Internet Explorer being a bit more distant, I can easily see Mozilla code being integrated into any application needing web integration. I can see Fennec being the champion browser for all non-Android and non-Mac phones in the future... who knows.

Finally, Goodger and others from Firefox are involved in Chrome as this article does state. With their vested interest in both browsers, I think it's safe to say that there are some more intelligent conversations about the future of both browsers happening internally than this article gives credit for.

Nice try at a defense. the only problem with the illusion to war is that the battle in tech will never end. War, (except Iraq), has a beginning, a middle and an end.

Since this is my 1st post, I don't know all the "rules' but it seems to be that if Mr. Fulton can't combine what he said in a post with the article then he has no business in journalism. If he had interwoven the post with the article, he may still had taken some shots but he would of remained true to the integrity of the journalistic field. His headline is more appropriate in what he posted than in the article he had written. That alone states that no matter how many "decades" he has spent in the field, he has learned nothing.

One final point Mr. Fulton- Have you ever been to Europe? have you randomly asked 1000 Europeans the questions? If not then you have lied and used that lie to justify your position. too bad Bush isn't President- you would have fit in well with that liar. this is the problem with journalism today- People make statements that they feel no need to back up with real life experiences or statistics.
If you represent the quality of inept writing both in the articles and postings then this is my 1st and last post.

Wars end. It's the world that doesn't.

-SF3

While people do recognize Google, many also do not recognize Chrome or the need for a different Internet Browser. Google's laid back evangelism of their products has done a great job in building trust and attracting the smart consumers, advertisers, and users (Gmail is a great example). However, Chrome is failing to attract people in the way that I do think it should.

Many of the brainy people are already married to Firefox and for reasons that I still fail to understand, distrust Google. Firefox has strength in the fact that its difficult to pin alterior motives to it. Mozilla is Firefox and they knew it when they reorganized and split off Thunderbird and pretty much orphaned Seamonkey (formerly Mozilla).

I appreciated your response, but at the same time, Mozilla isn't sitting on the sidelines like Wordperfect. Their browser is free and they have already recognized the s***s in the market each consecutive year and responded properly. The fact that a new IE is out and the FF 3.5 final is on the horizon shows that the top 2 are continuing to be pro-active towards trends. I think it would be interesting to include perspective on Opera, which is in every way subject to the same analysis right now.

You're absolutely right, but you forgot the Microsoft - Novell fracas, back in the days of DOS. "The job's not done, until Novell won't run" Anyone who doubted that Microsoft, or anyone else in the software biz did not want to put up the fin, is living in a land of confusion.

Also, it's frequently the product that is inferior that wins. Otherwise, we would all be using Lotus 1-2-3, dBase XVII, and Word Perfect 19, on machines running OS/2 Warp 7.

I think that was, "The job's not done till Lotus won't run." Or maybe that was repeated later with Novell, as I'm not sure if Netware was out at the time of the original Lotus slogan.

And I hadn't heard that WordPerfect 19 was out...I'll have to upgrade! ;-)

People talk about memory usage, rendering times, stability, ...
Have you ever tested all the known browsers and look witch is the one that has the better combination of both?
I could enumerate what i have seen and tested, but most of you wouldn't believe so i ask you to do it.

IMO FF still wins here.
I will continue to make tests from time to time, but with the stability, memory usage, and rendering times of the latest FF beta version, i think i will keep using it for quite some time.

just my 2 cents opinion

Regards

My two cents....

Many of you have made some great points. I especially like what Noremacam offered in terms of how Firefox becomes what the user desires. And hippybear, you make a great point as well because most users don't care what they use they just want the website to open so they can look at their porn.

Firefox is a strong player in its market space and I don't see that changing anytime soon. But, was anyone standing on their soapbox warning the world that people's houses would be worth up to 50% less than it was last year? Did anyone ever think General Motors would be on the verge of bankruptcy? I love Firefox, but no one is bulletproof so don't become complacent Mozilla!!!

IE: A browser released two days ago, with all the hype, that scores 20/100 in acid 3 tests. This "new" browser supposed to improve standards compliance! Bull sh.... IE is the same crap it was.
Oh, wait, it has another way to render, with "compatibility mode" turned on it scores... 13! IE can be a crap, or even worse!
Opera scores 100/100 for some months now, Firefox scores 94/100 in their latest nightlies... And Scott Fulton III says that firefox will face a endgame? Right Scott, dream on! You cannot be so ignorant or biased to the corps... Grow up.

When I installed IE8 yesterday it slowed my startup time by 25 seconds and Win Explorer was noticeably slower. The clunky look of IE8 is what I expected from MS because aesthetics is something they have never been good at.

After a few hours of putting up with my slower computer and IE8 wanting to keep sending MS my links even though I disabled that filtering option I uninstalled it and got my speed back after reboot.

Firefox works and does not screw with my computer so the prediction of an early demise IMO would only come from Mozilla itself if they give up. Google Chrome is far from being something I would want as my default browser. I would move to Opera before that happened.

If the startup of IE8 is really slow, it could be the result of using a program like Spybot which adds thousands of entries to the Restricted Sites list when using the "Immunize" option.

The reason the first time after installing IE8, the system takes longer to reboot is that Internet Explorer is part of the core windows system, and those files are being updated DURING reboot. The next reboot after that should be normal.

I'm using the Chrome 2 developer builds for 3 weeks now and came from Firefox. UI-wise and Speed-wise Chrome is simply another generation than FF and IE. Now with IE8 being as good as FF sans Add-ons, there are very dark clouds ahead for FF indeed. There simply is no more reason to use FF.

I use Chrome with the hosts file from http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm. Works as good as Adblock for FF.

sorry, dup post

It seems as though the author has forgotten the basic laziness of most internet users. They simply hit the "yes" button on updating any software they already have, and rarely think about changing unless they have a real reason. Only those who have deliberately sought out FF have it on their machines. Mac users have Safari, Windows users have IE(insert version here). It's really a minority of the users who ever look beyond the bundled browser, and that user base may be more mobile, but the overall user base will continue to reflect the overall pre-installed trends until someone really REALLY changes the game.

I agree with many of the posts. I am going to wait a while before I download IE 8 just as I waited almost a year before downloading Windows XP SP3. Downloads from Microsoft should be put off by the average user until user forums like CNET and other experts can weigh in and demand fixes. As far a Google Chrome goes, it is bare bones and calling it a web browser is being generous. I have noticed that whenever I try to get Chrome to go to a website with search that it has never been to before, Google Chrome often displays "website cannot be found." It is very frustrating and has a long way to go.

I still proudly wear my FireFox 1.0 t-s*** to show just how long I've been using FireFox. I use IE only when I have to use it, and since I'm running 64-bit Vista and 64-bit IE7, there are many sites with which IE will not work - for example any running Flash or needing Silverlight (From Microsoft's Silverlight web-site - RECOMMENDED: Use Silverlight in the 32-bit Internet Explorer process on x64 systems. Most browser plug-ins (including Silverlight, Flash, Java and almost all ActiveX controls) only work in 32-bit browsers currently.).

OK, FireFox is only 32-bit, but it is fully compatible with all but a few web-sites outside of MS, and is so customizable that I cannot conceive of using IE as my primary browser.

Speed isn't the most important thing in a browser. For some applications like Google Maps, more speed is awesome, but for most web pages it just doesn't matter. The most important thing is easy, reliable adblocking. Firefox adblocking with Adblock Plus is easy, and it "just works" - it never gets in my way, never slows down browsing or causes errors (hosts files and other ad blocking utilities made browsing much slower). Until another browser has Adblocking that is as easy and reliable as Adblock Plus, there really is no other practical choice. Yes, you can block ads in other browsers, but most methods require you to update the blocklists yourself, and many methods make pages load slowly or get errors.

Also, saying there is feature bloat in Firefox is a joke - Firefox 3.5 has hardly any new features compared to Firefox 3.0.*. It is faster, has bug fixes and that is about it. Nearly no new features at all - that certainly isn't bloating. Firefox 3, compared to Firefox 2, the main new feature was the smart location bar - yes, a vocal but small minority don't like it, and in Firefox 3.5 they will have more options to turn it off or customize it. There hasn't been any bloat added to Firefox, in fact, the memory usage of Firefox 3.* is less than the memory used by Firefox 2, and tiny compared to IE8 and Chrome because they waste tons of memory by using a new process for most tabs. Yes, this increases browser stability if you are using buggy plugins (if one tab crashes, the others survive), but if your use of plugins is minimal, Firefox uses much less memory and is plenty stable.

Why would you want to put all your eggs in big brother's basket? I don't see chrome taking over firefox EVER. You should check this out though... very suppressed information: http://tinyurl.com/cupw5u
It works...
wake up!

I agree with tready. And look, the author quotes PC World, a trashy pro Microsoft rag if ever there was one.

This reads like another one of those IE 7 "trumps Firefox" articles that later it turned out MS had bribed those souless scum writers to pen. Now its IE 8- oh, ok, this time you really, REALLY mean it! Please, give it a rest! MS is in the same category with AIG and other corporate beheamoths, i.e. (ha ha) ones that are TOTALLY DISCREDITED!!! Can Windows still run those .exe programs? Then I don't want to hear about their "security" advances! Does IE 8 still run on the shell of IE 6, the one major product in HISTORY that a major tech source told consumers NOT to use?

You guys are so corrupt its not even funny! Firefox is attractive, quick, secure and at this point of its life- KNOWN. I would never switch, no matter what- how much faster can a web page load? What ridiculous nonsense! IE is the AOL of browsers, and when I see people using it, I feel bad for them.

And then I go off with my MacBook Pro running Firefox and make slow, sweet love to the Internet, safe and secure- unlike the Bangkok wh***house of disease and virus that is MS, its OS, its browser, all of it! What a joke! Firefox is KING!

For me, it seems when I installed IE8, my boot time increased by over 30 seconds. May just be me, but I wasn't happy about it

i have the same problem but also when you launch ie8 it also slow down compare to ie7 ,to the point that firefox launch much slower with ie8 installed

feature bloat? how about severe feature deficiency of chrome and webkit?

sure everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion, but to push his own opinion down 250million people's throat, that might be over the top....

I couldn't help but laugh through the first few paragraphs of this story, before I finally gave up on it entirely.

Firefox is here to stay; It still has advantages no other browsers offer (Adblock and many other excellent addons), It has a huge market share lead over everything but IE, and there's no need to worry about the ulterior motives of the company that brings it to the unwashed masses (Google).

"from a percentage of revenues from searches generated though"

I'm thinking that should be through

The real potential advantage of Chrome is security - and that has yet to be convincingly demonstrated. It's disadvantage is that as yet no rally solid plans for extensions / customisation.

It's not clear that in it's native form Chrome any easier than FF for the base level user, most of whom clearly aren't interested in security except in the brief moments of post viral repentance.

So I'm not convinced that FF has an acceptance problem as yet! Of course they may develop a funding problem, but you can argue that either way.

As to featuritis - well yes: that's probably a fair comment. However, I think that to an extent it's part of the appeal. Most of those who really find it distasteful probably prefer to use a Mac and safari...

I still cannot see where this article is coming from. If you were to download a new copy of firefox and install it - it would be heavily unbloated in all senses of the word. Bookmark bar, address bar, status bar, navigation buttons, menubar and search bar.

Firefox is lean enough. The extra features, like spell checking, better bookmarking with tagging, etc are all relatively hidden joys to discover - but require no extra learning on the part of the consumer that interferes with the functionality of the browser as it stuck to the basic paradigm for how a browser should look.

The only thing firefox has gotten behind was the speed reviews, and in my opinion we are rapidly approaching the law of diminishing returns, where javascript engine performance is becoming well enough in all the browsers that any improvements to it do not significantly improve(in any meaningful way by themselves) the browsing experience as a whole, at least in comparison to other factors.

What firefox has going for it, that no other browser has, is flexibility AND community. If I want to bloat my firefox with all the features I want I CAN. If I want to keep it lean I CAN. Does Chrome have flashblock? No. Does Safari display how many unread google reader news articles in a statusbar? How about the weather, complete with a doppler map when clicked on? Can either use stumbleupon's toolbar? Browsing flickr and youtube videos in 3D with cooliris? Hate all that junk? Don't install the addons for it.

I can go on, but the selling point of firefox is its flexibility to be molded into whatever the user desires. Even if other browsers enabled this kind of flexibility, they would have to gather the kind of addon development community that firefox enjoys. I am skeptical google can compete with it - but even if google dropped firefox on its butt, there's lots of other hands at play who'd pay money to put their search as the default in FF(yahoo?).

FF is awesome yes that is true, IE was never good but it was a forced universal. The fact is FF is more adaptable to changes in interface than most browsers. I have used Navigator, Mosiac, Lynx, and well you name it. FF wins out because if there is a feature missing I can make it for FF and then if someone else might like it then good to work with. It is always a good thing to be able to build and rebuild things in accordance with need. Then there is the issue of how open and simplistic it is so if you want to tool around with XUL runner or the ECMA engine (js) then you can. If you want FF to work well with encrypted applets and store them then you can rebuild FF.

Chrome is a BSD instead of a GPL. This whole thing creates a bigger problem in one sense but it means that I do not have to tell them how I change or that I change chrome. The only thing that really is a problem is that it is really hard to find the source and it is huge. V8 is huge and then there is the porting issue. You have to know how to compile it for your system if you do not run the standard windows. Then there is the lack of a tweak engine of any kind. No XUL means no ability to add tools or encrypt your cache. It also means no gmail addons even though Chrome runs ECMA quite well. If V8 or something like it were to suddenly be added to FF Chrome would seriously lose its edge. That is the fun when it comes to non proprietary source code. I will say it is low to do though.

http://dev.chromium.org/developers

Just for fun.

IE8 is certainly fast becoming irrelevant. That's what this article should be about. A browser that only runs on one OS - and not nearly as featured or fast as the competition.

Firefox, with its fantastic range of addons along with OS X, Linux and Windoze compatibility will give it an edge for some time. The relatively small Javascript speed rendering differences aren't nearly as big an issue as the news-starved blogs try to paint it.

Poor article. Bellluga, B-S off the port bow!

I still to this day can not understand why Safari and Chrome both do not have a drop down address bar! Until they do I am not going to even consider them. Firefox still remains my #1 browser.

Scott is quickly becoming an "avoid to read" journalist.
He is trying to promote Safari (and now IE) against Firefox for no valid reasons. Biased and just plainly wrong. Shame on Scott Fulton III

Nice try SF3 at generating traffic. I hardly pop in since the latest BN 'facelift' but I hope it works out for you guys. Saves me a lot of time at least ;-)

firefox is dead yea oooo k u need help lol firefox rules :)

Erm, I grant that I skimmed some of this article, but what? Kier Thomas' opinion is that Firerfox is already dead? I wonder if there are any FF fans here who would have something to say about that.

Being pragmatic, yes, I grant the plausibility of such a statement, but that strikes me as being a bit too unrealistic of a postulation.

"So, the bottom line is, if Firefox 3.5 doesn't exhibit differentially competitive interface design and bottom-line, real-world performance, it'll be vulnerable to a whole range of agile competitors -- namely Google's Chrome, Apple's Safari, and Microsoft's IE8."

Performance, sure, but differentially competitive interface design? Meaning the UI just has to be "different" enough? Maybe I miss something in this statement, but most every browser I've used is operated in the same basic manner. If someone can clarify, by all means.

Given each browser's installed user base, fan base, and the number of people just willing to use it for whatever period of time, I'd have to say Levy's answer about sums up the entire piece: It's too early.

Could the author pass along the crack that he is smoking? Firefox is dead! Yeah, right... Keep dreaming

You dont even have to read the article, just read the headline, and you would realize that it does not say anywhere that firefox is dead. Its not even suggested that it is. Scott Fulton is merely discussing possible long term problems that Firefox is facing in this browser race that changes every 2 months with new releases raining down.

Often I strongly disagree with Scott on the browser issues (focusing too much on FF, Safari and Chrome and not giving Opera enough credit) but in this case many of the points raised in this article, I found I agreed with. Very interesting article.

I instructed a staff member to download IE* today. She was surprised to get a MS Window pop up statng that she could not download IE8, until some important updates were installed. She allowed the installation of the updates and what was it???????? Only Microsoft checking to see if her copy of Windows was genuine. That's when I knew that IE8 was a waste of f*$kin& time. Then I sat down and used Firefox with Adblock to browse ad-free. The rest fo the world will continue to move away from IE.

By the way I fixed all the misspelling on this post thanks to FF spellcheck.

OMG! Not!

Cool feature - I must look up the words "statng" and "fo"... ;)

With Google laying off their employees left and right will there be anyone left to bring their toys to the user? Another Google idea that will get no further then the beta phase.