[sinaiman]

Firefox is much more viable of a browser now that the Mozilla team has addressed memory and performance issues, additionally the new "Firefox button" view gives the browser the slim and minimal look that brought many to Chrome in the first place. I've been using Chrome as my main browser for over a year and I have to say, Chrome's still got issues (i.e. excessive memory use, instability/slowdown sometimes due to orphaned processes). As for IE9, well it won't run on XP, but I haven't used it myself so I can't list any further problems it has, but I'm willing to bet a few exist.

I guess the point is, no one browser is perfect and until that point is reached any serious offering will definitely have a future.

[jedsmith]

> Chrome's still got issues (i.e. excessive memory use, instability/slowdown sometimes due to orphaned processes)

Not to ignite a browser war, since I use and like both (and there's no point bickering about it), but:

I've had my copy of Chrome dev channel, which you'd expect to be a little less stable, open for about a week and I have under 300 MB committed (total) with 7 tabs open. I've closed a few, but here's what I mean:

http://dropbox.jedsmith.org/hn/activity.png

http://dropbox.jedsmith.org/hn/browser.png

Whenever I pitch Chrome to Firefox diehards, I always get the instability argument like you're presenting. I've used Chrome as my primary browser since about v3 when my desktop was still Windows, and the instability has largely disappeared in the last year or so. I wish I could see evidence of the issues that you and others describe, but it just doesn't happen to me on OS X and Linux any more. I haven't had a sad tab or a browser crash in months. And I develop in it!

What's different between you and me? I feel left out from the instability.

[sinaiman]

I observe orphaned (unkillable) child processes on a regular basis (once a month or so) that prevent me from updating Chrome until I restart my computer sometimes. Additionally, when this happens, I have noticed definite slowdowns in page rendering and the responsiveness of the browser as a whole.

I've seen this behavior on my two machines: WinXP and Win7 (64-bit).

I have also seen Chrome using an excessive amount of memory on both machines. The reason for this, most of the time, is due to Chrome's design. As I'm sure you're aware, nearly each tab and plugin requires a separate process to allow for features like preventing the closing of the entire browser when a plugin crashes or dragging-and-dropping tabs from/to separate windows, etc. However, this is a trade-off between features vs memory usage, and Chrome's will inherently use more RAM than a browser like Firefox which doesn't follow the same process-spawning design.

This is the most common cause for excessive RAM usage, which could be labeled as user error (you shouldn't have so many tabs open, gosh darnit!!) but this isn't the only cause for Chrome's excessive RAM usage. I've definitely seen big spikes of memory being taken up for individual tabs, without any apparent reason. I've never taken out the time to really investigate the cause of this, but if it's not WebKit memory leaks I'm not sure what makes sense to blame.

Honestly, it has gotten better in the last few releases, but still not up to the bar Firefox 4 just brought it to. That browser just got so fast and lightweight. I switched to Chrome (and have stayed for a while) because I really dig its interface, and it feels fast. But lately, I've been dealing with weird performance issues especially when these unkillable child processes are present. I love Chrome for development though, it's got a really good set of tools right out of the box.

Basically, if Chrome's process spawning stuff was rock solid I would think it's just about perfect, and now I'm starting to think FF4 is getting there faster.

*Note: definitely not trying to start a debate on which browser is better, I use both and I like both, but I was just elaborating on what I had said about performance before.

[fluidcruft]

Chrome (64-bit Ubuntu) is currently eating 934 GB with three tabs after being open just under five hours. It's been a big enough problem for me that I bit the bullet and upgraded my desktop to 8GB (to be fair, I was sort of looking for an excuse). Flash is more stable under Firefox, but... Flash will bring down Firefox occasionally. Flash doesn't bring down Chrome, but it also just about never works. On the other hand, Flash can burn in hell for all I care.

[BobSacamano]

It's chewing up almost a terabyte of memory?

[fluidcruft]

Whoops, s/GB/MB/