I switched a long time ago!

People en-masse need a *really* good reason to switch from what they're used to. Unfortunately, firefox just doesn't provide that reason.

I did try the latest hyped version some time ago, but it just kept crashing on my machine - so I went back to Chrome.

Because Google lures people in using it

I started using it when it first came as phoenix v0.1 and have used it as primary browser to this day.

Before that I used mozilla suit starting at milestone 18.

Chrome has a few things I miss in Firefox currently but overall I still prefer FF.

Now I feel bad... still need those plug-ins tho.

I agree 100% firefox is faster... But I'm like neck deep in the Google ecosystem that switching would do me more pain than good at this stage

I use opera, it is basicly works on firefox engine so does it count?

Because Chrome (& chromium-based alternatives) get native support for new stuff waaay faster than FF.

Since most devs nowadays prefer to utilise new, simplified way to do things (think <video> vs Flash) and solve backwards compatibility using polyfills, better support for recent features directly translates to better performance.

@Gregozor2121 Nope, Opera uses Blink & V8, just like Chrome.

Because Mozilla is an asshole foundation with total disregard for their users, that's why I got rid of FF in favour of Vivaldi.

The FF UI team just removes features or switches GUI styles back and forth for no benefit. The plugins have made FF big, but Mozilla has killed the whole ecosystem. Extensions are technically unable to provide the same stuff, plus that Mozilla has been uncooperative towards the devs. Then they put the Cliqz spyware into FF.

Mozilla has run out of steam and thinks that FF as Chrome clone will be more successful. Wrong, because people don't need a bad clone if they can have the original.

It's like switching to Linux. I'll wait another year or two

@Fast-Nop the plugin support changed because the switched to multi process and the old plugin support cannot work on top of that without completely negating any benefits.

Sadly some features are not available under the new one yet.

But I do agree that many if the GUI changes was for the worse, at least for long time users :/

As for slower incorporation of features, thats probably due to a massive rewrite of many of the core parts to increase speed and stability.

And finally, no matter how good chrome gets, no browser should be alone in the top, that is never good in the long run.

Some competition is required to keep the course straight.

@Voxera the old plugins did finally work with multithreading, that was the Electrolysis project. Actually another fuckup to make that migration with lots of work for the plugin authors just to abandon the whole plugin thing afterwards.

Extensions will never ever provide the same functionality as plugins because that was one of the points why plugins where abandoned. The new API is smaller and more high level. On the upside, there's more speed exactly because the browser cannot be customised that much anymore.

BUT: that also limits the extensions to what's possible with Chrome, burying FF's former unique selling point.

I agree that competition is good, but Mozilla doesn't seem to agree and instead favour a copycat / lookalike.

@oreru

Because it doesn't have all the features I need, simple as that :)

Probably because the average Joe has heard about "Google" and thinks "well, a famous company made it; it must be good".

Firefox was the very first browser I used (because my brother used it) and it's there even till today.

@Fast-Nop Google and Mozilla currently have the most influence on new web specifications. While Google is fast to implement and field-test new specifications in their browser, Mozilla sometimes takes years after the specification is already accepted to finally implement it in theirs.

That's far from what Firefox should be if it is to remain relevant and compete against Chromium-based browsers on the long run.

Well, I only use firefox on my mobile in order to play my YouTube mixtapes with the display turned off. 😁

Because it is still slow AF. At least on OSx. With a few tabs open it already starts to lag and crashes every ten minutes 🤷🏼‍♂️. I would really like to switch but it still isn’n a serious for me option these days.

And one more thing: with Chrome, I never have to wait for an updater before it starts. Why can't Firefox update in the background as well?

@hitko It does... At least for my version i get a "Firefox has been updated - restart to effect" message.

@GiddyNaya That only works if Firefox is running when it gets updated. If you, say, don't use your laptop for a month, Chrome will start right away, while Firefox will take time to update first.

@Eversor tell me about it, try kernel panic already once a day caused by chrome on MacOS when more than 10 tabs open with some front end heavy pages. Not a single time that happened since I switched to Firefox

Because of this:

@Robinha That's considered as bad? Why?

@Fexell Because it sucks when your browser uses a different certificate store than the rest of the OS, and the two don't agree. If you're using Firefox, you always have to install a certificate twice, once for the Firefox certificate store, and once for the rest of the OS. There are cases where this may come in handy, but most of the time it just sucks, especially in corporate environments where sysadmins can install additional certificates through domain management tools, but Firefox just ignores them.

* Firefox can use the OS certificates since version 49, however that option is hidden behind a flag and has to be set manually. While it can be done, it's a rather annoying extra step.

@hitko I see. :)

Their font and overall look and feel sucks though, and there's other tiny annoying bugs, like asking me to save pw after failing to login to a website