Cooketh

April 09, 2010 at 12:27am

I don't like this feature.

The more processes an application runs the more memory and processing it consumes. 

I remember when Chrome used to open up a seperate process for each tab you had open, it was hell.

I like firefox as it is. If it ever crashes, which is generally rare, it restores you previous webpage(s), which fine because no program is crash proof. 

And because no program is crash proof, to try and make a program use more resources to resist crashing is silly. Do a better job at coding, don't copy another browser's methods and get lazy.

CTskifreak

April 08, 2010 at 11:38pm

The 3.7 alpha that's floating out there has this as well, along with a few other changes. Both of those versions have been stable, except this version in the article actually works with my add-ons, unlike the 3.7 Alpha 2, where I think only AdBlock works

Neufeldt2002

April 08, 2010 at 10:04pm

Funny thing this chrome browser. On my sons PC it is faster than firefox, on my PC it is slower. Slower to start, run, browse, everything. Not sure if I will try chrome again or not, maybe once things settle down. 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

I wanted a signature, but all I got was this ________

Nickompoop

April 08, 2010 at 8:22pm

I'm a fan of pretty much any Google software, and Chrome is the only browser for me unless it starts turning into Internet Explorer, which I heavily doubt.

aviaggio

April 08, 2010 at 7:51pm

Maybe you guys were using old versions of Chrome? It very rarely crashes on me (but I have on occasions had an extension crash, but it didn't take down the browser, just like ti's supposed to work).

Chrome is also many times faster on my laptop, which is 3 years old, an by no means a speed demon. So I'm not sure why you guys were having issues cause I'm not. 

dethdeks

April 08, 2010 at 7:15pm

the whole "chrome is more crash resistant" is bs my buddy has chrome on his pc which he just finished formatting it last week and chrome crashes more times in an hour then firefox does for a whole week on his system.

winterlude

April 08, 2010 at 7:05pm

I started using Chrome from it's inception since I use Gmail and Google docs and I love that I can type in searches directly into the address bar without needing any addons. But for whatever reason, Chrome became such a resource hog on my laptop that I couldn't multitask. It also crashed a lot and took ages to shut down (often locking up). I've got an old laptop (2005), so maybe Chrome flies on a newer system, but Firefox is far more responsive and robust for my low spec systems. Chrome got so bad (crashing within 30 seconds of opening every time) that I abandoned it. Firefox does take a lot longer than chrome to start up, but I can actually multitask with Firefox, or just minimize it and work on something else. With Chrome, even with flashblock on and nothing but a few tabs open, my CPU was usually at 100%, my RAM would max out causing my hard drive to crank, thereby grinding my system to a halt.

Chrome seems to perform better on my desktop--both just as reliable and faster than Firefox--but it's my laptop I mostly use. But Chrome is definitely a resource hog and seems to get more bloated each update. As a result, I've lost my enthusiasm for and curiosity about Chrome OS. 

I don't know if browsers do it (like OS's), but it would be nice if they optimized for a system's specs (i.e. use less RAM if a system is light on resources etc.)

Anyway, now that I've sorted all my favorites again, I don't think I'll be switching back to Chrome unless Firefox starts getting twitchy. I've been back to Firefox a month now and no crashes.It's nice to be able to have dozens of tabs open and still have a responsive system!

Winterlude

1337Goose

April 08, 2010 at 6:39pm

 Before Chrome became popular, Opera was my primary browser on Linux solely because whenever Flash crashed (and it did so often because of the inability of my processor to execute the LAHF instruction) it would take down Firefox with it. Opera, it appeared, was unaffected. Opera was also natively able to use 32-bit extension on my 64-bit machine in the event that the 64-bit versions were unstable.

I'm a little disappointed that Mozilla is so late to this game. It feels like Mozilla is lagging behind the curve: Chrome themes are better than Firefox personas, Chrome is faster and more secure. Although I feel bad condemning the browser that started the Open-Source browser revolution, I feel as if the browser doesn't have the same glory it did two years ago. 

~Goose

aviaggio

April 08, 2010 at 6:36pm

"So, any Chrome users planning to give Firefox another go with this feature?"

No multithreading and horrendous app load times = no.

Danthrax66

April 08, 2010 at 5:51pm

Chrome is still better, and they implemented this first making Mozilla a bunch of copy cats (or is it copy foxes?) :P