It took like 10 years to implement it (in Chrome it took a couple months). Double tap to zoom: there’s a recent improvement in this direction.
Firefox not responding lots mac#
That’s something a Mac user is not used to do and raises a big barrier to get more uses for a very simple thing. Instead the user has to manually find that it’s not working and manually add languages and dictionaries. There’s a request for it since more than ten years ago, but nobody listens. 99% of Mac apps use it because why not? The only two ones I know don’t use it are Microsoft Onenote and Firefox. Spellchecker: the OS includes one that is great, and auto detects the language and makes your life easier. MacOS includes some features that are basic and fundamental to all Mac users: This is a major issue now to conquer the whole MacOS world, and they could if they listened to their users: I agree with all you said and I would add a thing Firefox could improve: Integration with the OS it’s installed on. But it would have been a viable market niche, and one that Chrome couldn't have easily wormed itself into because Firefox was established at the time.īut wanting to chase Google at what they've just shown to be able to do better was instead the wrong choice, albeit an easy one to make. The sluggish beast that everyone still creates web pages for. Yeah, they would have become the IE6 of modern days. There's a reason Firefox was so much slower than Chrome, and frankly if that made me switch back then, when Chrome had ~no extensions and Firefox had tens of thousands, do you really think "deeper addon integration" is something that could win me back now that 99% of addons are for Chrome? Really?Īnd mind you I use Firefox as my main browser, but the argument that extensions do market share is stupid because clearly they didn't, we've already seen that. This was in fact one of the better changes I feel. Quantum helped a bit of the performance problems, but I fear we lost far more than we gained: Deep extension integration is gone, and UI customization is very, very poor now.
Firefox not responding lots zip#
Instead of trying to create a different focus, they saw someone zip past them and attempted to match them, which cannot work against a multi-billion dollar company. I feel this is where Mozilla really went off the rails and lost a lot of people
Firefox not responding lots full#
Mozilla tried to chase Chrome with what I personally think is a very ill-informed choice to rapidly release full Firefox point releases starting with 5.0 all the way up to whatever version we're on now. Plus, it had the far superior dev tools once they started adding them, that's when they also won web developers over. It made the whole web more pleasant to use. The speed Chrome showed in comparison to Firefox? That was noticable, every time you clicked any link, anywhere. If anyone remembers the discussion what a difference 200ms vs 300ms can make when loading Google results, well, that's something few of us actively notice while using Google. The second part is severly understated, tbh.īack when Chrome was new, it wasn't just "faster". It took a while, but Google's raw advertising power won a lot of people over, and for a long time, Chrome was faster and more efficient than Firefox. Since Firefox lost its user base during the "dark days," it's basically never regained that market share and we're in the position we're in now.Ĭhrome's release in 2008 signaled Firefox's first real competition.Quantum helped a bit of the performance problems, but I fear we lost far more than we gained: Deep extension integration is gone, and UI customization is very, very poor now.Mozilla tried to chase Chrome with what I personally think is a very ill-informed choice to rapidly release full Firefox point releases starting with 5.0 all the way up to whatever version we're on now.