google chrome

It could do, eventually, but there's a lot of fans of Firefox, and it's a very popular web browser (3 download record anyone?). I myself didn't see any speed difference.

Google Chrome is handy, but it lay-out etc. is kinda stolen from FF, like it that's it faster though..

Yeah, the original thing they did was keep the tab chart at the top, above the address bar.

n0thealthyIMO, Chrome will never surpass Firefox. After all, only 2 or 3 of the desktop applications Google developed became successful. Plus, Firefox has a devoted user base, so it will take a lot of innovation on Google's part to get users to switch. Not to mention the thousands of Add-Ons available for Firefox, which make it unbelievably customizable. To me, this is more important than a milli-second saved when loading pages.

1) You act as if no add-ons will ever be made for Chrome or something.
2) Google has made TONS of great shit. GMail, Google Translator, Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Chrome, Google News, etc. They know what they're going, and they tend to do stuff right.
3) People who use Firefox (or anything but IE, including Opera and such) are people who, uh, know2internet. This is why Chrome will hurt Opera and Firefox the most (as people who use IE fail at interwebs and use default windows browser anyways). People who are in intelligent enough to use a decent browser should be able to recognize a better one if one does come along.
4) Google has paid a large amount of Firefox' overall revenue, and has even had Google employees work on Firefox.
5) Google has a huge fanbase too.Don't count Chrome out just yet.

Replying to #24

1)It will be a while before we see add-ons for Chrome, IF we ever see them at all.
2)I clearly said desktop apps, Mail, translator and news are web apps.
3)Chrome is no way better than Firefox right now. People who "know2internet" can customize settings to make FF faster anyway.
4)Google will only stop paying if Chrome takes off. The search deals with FF brings in millions of extra hits.
5)Of its search engine and online apps not it's desktop apps.

Replying to #25

1) I disagree. It's still in early BETA, I don't know what you're expection.
2) Who cares if they're desktop or online -- Google has made successful products in both branches (and I forgot to mention google video/youtube in my last post), there's no data suggesting that Google's desktop applications have been unsuccessful in the least. Who doesn't have Google Earth?
3) Again, early BETA. It loads pages very quick, and starts up much quicker, as well as using significantly less resources. If you expected the first BETA release of Chrome to be better than FireFox 3, code that has been worked on FOREVER, then you have no sense of judgment. Chrome will most definitely improve in time.
4) Even if Firefox were still a decent-sized minority, I'm sure Google would still do it. Firstly because it brings in default homepage hits, secondly because Firefox needs it more than Google does, and Google a cool company to do stuff like that.
5) Does not matter. Google has the majority of their services online and has been more than sufficiently-successful with the majority of their releases -- desktop or web application.

Replying to #26

1)If it doesn't gain popularity ,BETA or not, people won't bother making add-ons.
2)I said 2 or 3 are successful. Earth was successful because it was a unique product. Google Desktop, Google Web Accelarator and Picasa all aren't that popular and failed to become overtake their competitors. Who's to say it won't happen to their web browser.
3)Why shouldn't I expect the best? They didn't have to release it as it is. No one was rushing them: they had all the time they wanted.
4)Google is a business. Not a charity. Believe me, they want the hits. More hits=more advertising revenue.
5)It does matter. Chrome is a desktop app. Most users still use more of their web apps rather than their desktop apps.P.S. Can we agree to disagree on this one? Otherwise this will go on forever. :)

Still though, I'm sure Firefox's first release wasn't as spectacular as it was now. You can't really write Chrome off as not having a chance towards success, it has a good chance in my opinion.

Replying to #27

Yeah I have nothing new to address your opinion with, no point in circling.

In my opinion Chrome won't surpass Firefox.

Replying to #28

Neither do I. :)LOL, this should be moved to "Debates" now.

Of course Google Chrome will be worked on a lot like Firefox is, as Google is worth billions, so they can afford a lot of programmers.

I must say that Gmail Notifier is pretty handy.I also find it funny that Gmail is still beta even after 4 years.I'm gonna guess that Chrome is going to be beta for a long time.

Firefox is the best browser ::)

Why the ::)? It's true. :P

[quote author=red the black link=topic=9802.msg109814#msg109814 date=1222534013]
Firefox is the best browser ::)
[/quote]Had you used Chrome before? It's pretty nice, actually. I've had Chrome as my default browser for a while already. A note for Vista users, though. You need to open Chrome as Administrator in order to set it as the default browser.

It's nice, but not great.

Replying to #35

I'm hoping the firefox developers will take a look at chrome and include some of the efficiency improvements in their next update.

i dont see why chrome wouldn't... google is rich they can do whatever they want to the webbrowser like make it super fast which it is and chrome has a better theme. I personally like Chrome better.

An interesting thing about Chrome is that each tab is a separate process. So if one of the tabs lock up, the others will continue to function properly.I learned a bit about the inner workings of Chrome from their "comic".http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html

Google has a terrible record of their "apps" leaving beta, Their video, mail and some other things I forgot are still in Beta. The only non-beta services google offer are the ones they bought. I haven't used Chrome but I know from the people who did and called it faster that they use FF with tons of add-ons, I don't use FF either (Opera guy here!) but I suppose the bloat of add-ons the users use slows down FF's performance. Not to mention Chrome is nowhere near finished. Isn't it at 0.2 right now? and this is after 2 years of making. Chromium (Open-source version of Chrome) is probably going to be a hit and could very well compete aganist FF, especially if it's easy to implement instead of "adding on" features.

i also got it after download google earth...