Well, when a piece of software is sluggish and crash prone, I think it's fair to consider it "bad software". Is that really such a controversial position to take?
If Chrome goes down the same path as Firefox, I'll happily trash it as well.
I'd rather be honest about a the quality of a piece of software instead of sitting around and making excuses for it.
It's controversial because we suspect that it's your fault that you think Firefox is sluggish and crash prone.
Most likely either you've got some bad plugins installed, or you haven't tried it recently, or both. It's possible that a clean install of a modern Firefox would also be bad for you, but we doubt it.
And I can assure that it is not my fault. I am a software engineer, for one, and I run a tight ship - my Windows system is perpetually bare-bones. I keep as little running as possible. It's not my system (which is modern and up-to-date, including keeping up with Windows Updates).
Plugin-wise, almost nothing. Flash (groan), but I tend to keep that turned off unless I actually need it.
Under that scenario, Firefox is still sluggish and crash-prone during normal browsing. Innocuous browsing, to boot - I'm talking things like news sites, reddit, HN, StackExchange.
It has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I have very little interest in trying to figure out what is actually behind this - especially when I can install Chrome and have a squeaky-clean browsing experience in an identical environment. I think it is pretty fair to place the blame squarely on Firefox.
While in retrospect, I regret the wording of my original post, I stand my position that I do not feel Firefox is fit to be considered a top browser.
Well, I have had none of the problems you describe, with a machine that's not maintained on your level I might add, so I guess my good experience cancels out your bad experience.
Therefore, Firefox is neither good nor bad, it is neutral.
But that's my point. The attitude is that since he has had issues with the software he labels it bad software on that basis. I don't have those problems but for some reason I'm not allowed to dispute his label of the software.
I'm just trying to use the false logic presented to me in the same manner. I do not have problems with Mozilla Firefox, therefore, I demand that the world agree with me that it is "good software". How is that any different?
But in the end, it's just "software" and different people have different experiences.
Since I cannot reply to burgerbrain below for some reason...
Yes, he is. He labels the software as bad and apparently expects everyone to agree.
Anyone who states that Product A is bad because of his negative experience with said product while ignoring/discounting other people's positive experience with the same product is demanding agreement.
A better response, to me at least, from someone in that situation is, "I have had problems with Firefox and therefore I choose to use Chrome as I feel it is a better browser."
There's a difference between saying one product is better than another and just labeling one of them as bad. Especially when it's based roughly on personal experience.
Here is the problem: "Try it without your plugins/extensions" and "Try a clean installation" have been the standard responses out of Mozilla when faced with any complaints for oh, say, half a decade? And every time I gave them any more of my time, I've been burned. Why should I believe it now? Particularly now that I've found someone^Wsomething that hasn't hurt me and treats me well?
Who knows, maybe firefox really did go to rehab, cleaned up his act, and worked out his problems, but it's too late.
But my questions are pretty straightforward: Does the software crash during "normal" workflows? Is the software slugish when compared to other similar software, on a similar platform? Is the memory consumption of the software unacceptably high when compared to other similar software on a similar platform?
If the answer to any of those questions is "yes", then I think you have a serious problem on your hands. Those are questions I ask myself when I am building software. I don't see why that decision making process should be controversial - those are fundamental indicators of quality in a software project.
Well, the people who down-voted my post disagree with you. Apparently it is controversial. But I'm glad you don't have an issue with disagreement as without it there is no debate.
Does the software crash during "normal" workflows? Without defining normal, I would say yes. But then again, I have various software packages crash during my workflow. Does that mean all of them are "bad"?
Is the software sluggish when compared to other similar software/platform? Define sluggish. What if on my machine Firefox is sluggish in loading new tabs but Chrome is sluggish in closing old tabs? Can I call them both "bad software"?
Is the memory consumption unacceptably high? What's unacceptably high? My work machine has 10 gigs of RAM while my home machine has two. Which one should I judge the high memory usage on? What was I doing at the time that might have added to the level? Does the high memory usage cause sluggishness on my machine? Is it because of a memory leak in the browser, a memory leak in a third-party plugin or maybe because I just felt like leaving thirty tabs open for more than 24 hours?
My point being that there are way too many factors involved for someone to just label software "bad" when so many people do not report the same problems. People act as if their experience and opinion is common knowledge when most likely it is not. What if the problems, whether real or perceived, are due to new features in the software? Should we all just roll back to Firefox 3.6?
Now, is it possible that Chrome is just a better browser than Firefox? Of course, I'm not disputing that at all and I would tend to agree. I just have an issue with labels that don't necessarily apply.
Now show me Firefox having these problems for, say, a substantial number of people then I would have to agree that there's an issue. But I'm talking something significant, such as 60 to 70% failure rate and then you have me. Even then it's possible the problem can be fixed so that it is no longer "bad software", but I'm sure no one will listen at that point. Because it seems that in these debates the negative ("bad experience") far outweighs the positive ("good experience") to the point that my positive opinion of Firefox means nothing.
If that's the criteria to label a product as "bad software", then I say that all of it is "bad software".
Or should I just say; "Chrome good, Firefox bad!" to avoid down votes?
If Chrome goes down the same path as Firefox, I'll happily trash it as well.
I'd rather be honest about a the quality of a piece of software instead of sitting around and making excuses for it.