[matsemann]

I feel this article almost do more harm than good. It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems".

For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. Hundred times more smooth than profiles. Hence why no one cares about making profiles in Fx better, there is already a better solution to the problem profiles solve.

Never had problems with font rendering. The download manager being different isn't a "problem", and even Chrome is changing it to become more like Fx's [0]. So it's not like Fx's version is "bad", just different.

I'd rather have an article on "Switching from Chrome to Firefox? Here are some tips on great features in Firefox".

Like how to use the multi-account containers I mentioned. Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks). On how Sidebery or other tree-style tabs can make the experience so nice. etc.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36996287

[luuurker]

(I'm replying to the original version of your comment.)

How can you have different bookmarks, extensions, and maybe even a different theme (so you know you're using the right window) with containers?

The answer is: you can't. Because containers and profiles are different things.

That's the "sacrifice" you're asking users to make. To change the way they use browsers, to adapt to something that is useful, but not a complete replacement for the features they want. You're asking them to mix stuff and to be careful not to type personal stuff on a work container (or something like that).

Yes, changing from Chrome to Firefox (and vice-versa) means that you need to make some sacrifices. I moved to Firefox and lost good profile support, have a higher battery drain, and have to deal with Firefox's inconsistencies (UI, ctrl+click behaving differently on links vs bookmarks, etc). I'm okay with the trade-off, but PR talk and positive outlooks don't make these annoyances and downsides go away.

[littlestymaar]

> How can you have different bookmarks, extensions, and maybe even a different theme (so you know you're using the right window)

> The answer is: you can't. Because containers and profiles are different things.

If that's what you need then just use Firefox profiles then! The thing is, most people don't need that, and containers offert better ergonomics for the majority use-case (like the one described in the post). But if you still need the niche use-case, then go ahead and use a profile in Firefox too.

[prmoustache]

Most people don't use chrome profiles either, this is definitely a power user functionnality.

[thesuitonym]

I'm not entirely certain this is true. Maybe at one point it was, but nowadays since signing into any Google site signs you into Chrome, a lot of folks have their work and personal email addresses as profiles in Chrome.

[qwertox]

Also from what I've noted is that when you sign into a secondary account on the main profile's account, Chrome is prompting you if you don't want it to create a new profile for you.

Then again, they have the problem that they think that it's appropriate to open the last used profile if you start Chrome again, which can lock out inexperienced users out of the other profile since they don't know how to get that one started.

For me the normal solution of creating separate profiles in Firefox is to use Firefox Portable and have each profile live in their own directory / installation.

[bmicraft]

> For me the normal solution of creating separate profiles in Firefox is to use Firefox Portable and have each profile live in their own directory / installation.

That seems a bit overkill to me. Creating profiles can be done at about:profiles and starting a profile with a shortcut to firefox --profile $PROFILENAME. Not sure how that could be simpler

[prmoustache]

Most people just don't troll on hn all day and don't do personnal stuff on their work computer. We are a different kind. I know a lot of people who are afraid of possibly be fired for logging on their webmail with their work computer.

Additionnaly virtually everybody owns a smartphone which is used for the personnal stuff.

[thesuitonym]

I wish you were right, but that's simply not the case.

[darkwater]

These are still power-users. There are millions of power users out there, obviously, but relatively speaking they are a niche.

[sameerds]

So the real problem is that Google forces you to sign in to your browser with your Google account?

[cozzyd]

indeed, this is one of the many reasons I don't use Chrome (except sometimes for buggy web pages that don't work properly in firefox, sigh).

[brabel]

You guys don't just use different browsers for this :D?

I've got Firefox, Opera and Chrome and each one has different logins :D gotta be honest, didn't even know Chrome and FF can also do that!

[thesuitonym]

I do, but your common office drone isn't even aware that there are options.

[bwat49]

Firefox has a really poor implementation of multi-profile compared to chrome though. There's no built in way to create shortcuts for each profile, no profile switcher icon on the toolbar, etc... Not to mention how much of a PIA it is to get windows to pin multiple firefox shortcuts for different profiles to your taskbar and get them to behave properly.

Edge's multi-profile support blows them both out of the water though, with the ability to right click tabs and move them between profiles, automatically open links for certain domains in certain profiles, being able to set a default profile for external links, etc...

[nerdponx]

I would use Firefox profiles if it were easier.

[littlestymaar]

What does “easier” mean in that context? You just need to enable it once, and then you get a prompt every time you start the browser, almost like in Chrome in fact… Enabling it for the first time is less intuitive than it could/should be but since everybody just googles “how to use Chrome profiles” without trying to figure of out by themselves, it's not too big of a difference…

[mariusor]

Try this extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/profile-switc...

[AnonC]

Not GP, but this extension seems to only allow switching profiles. Is there something that allows opening a new window using a different profile? People who use Chrome with multiple profiles may have multiple windows open at the same time, with some windows using (or possibly) sharing profiles.

[asciimov]

You can directly launch a firefox profile with "firefox -p 'profile-name'"

This will create a separate firefox instance running with that profile. It's not as nice as having a button in firefox to accomplish this, but if you use different shortcuts or keyboard commands to launch things it works quite well.

[Semaphor]

No sharing, but I can easily open different profiles in a new window in about:profiles (I rarely use profiles, preferring containers, so I don’t care about other ways to open/switch profiles)

[mariusor]

It allows running multiple profiles at the same time. You can't open links from one into the others though, which I'm sure Chrome doesn't do either.

[luuurker]

"Additional software is required for this extension to function, you will be prompted to install it after installing the extension."

[mariusor]

Yep, sadly Firefox requires external shims if you want to open binaries from the host machine (which in this case is the browser executable with a different profile).

[retrocryptid]

Why are they not easy? You go to "about:profiles" and click the "launch profile in new browser." You don't have to install an extension or remember to start-up with a particular command line option.

[luuurker]

Compare that page and how you get to that page to Chromium's profiles UI and you'll understand what the problem is.

[zuhsetaqi]

So your argument is, most people don't need it so it's justified that the UX is horrible?

[littlestymaar]

The profile UX on Chrome is almost as horrible as it is on Firefox from a user's perspective, namely you need to reinstall all your addons and have no shared history so you need to check twice every time you're looking for something. The only difference is that on Chrome, it's the only way to have two different accounts on the same site, whereas on Firefox you generally don't need it unless you need the highest level of separation.

[luuurker]

Profiles and Containers are different things.

If more people understood this, we would be asking for better profile support on Firefox and for container support on Chromium, not suggesting containers to people who need profiles or trying to use profiles as if they were tab containers.

I want profiles because they provide exactly what you mentioned: separation. I need different extensions, bookmarks, history, etc. And inside each profile I can use containers if I want to.

[littlestymaar]

If you want profiles and not containers, you can use profiles too in Firefox, it works well (I do it on the shared family computer). It's just not what most people use profiles for in Chrome, which lacks the separation between profiles and container.

[retrocryptid]

meh. installing extensions. i'm too old for that.

[redkoala]

Chrome still has buggy behavior working with multiple Google account profiles. Firefox with containers works smoothly for that use case.

[luuurker]

Yes, containers on Firefox are better for that use case. Now imagine Firefox with containers and user friendly profile support. The best of both worlds in one browser.

[dataflow]

> Never had problems with font rendering

Okay, so what's the logical conclusion here? That the person is lying?

The font rendering is very much off, some people just don't notice or don't care. Denying something others see with their own eyes doesn't help anybody.

[TonyTrapp]

As a 15+ years Firefox user: What is "very much off" about Firefox' font rendering? For me it's the opposite, Chrome's rendering looks completely off to me - thin and it looks like the ClearType effect is set to 11. On the other hand, Firefox' font rendering in that screenshot looks like native Windows font rendering to me.

[grrandalf]

Yeah same. I vastly prefer Firefox’s rendering on windows, Mac, and Linux to chrome’s. In fact that was the main reason I switched many years ago.

Something about chrome DIY’ing font rendering instead of using the platform’s when I last looked into this

Even Edge font rendering started looking way better — only after they switched away from chrome’s diy font rendering.

(Aside: IMO chrome on android is good but all others are bad at font rendering. Probably uses platform rendering on Android)

[rjmunro]

The problem with "very much off" for font rendering is that it is relative to what you are used to, not relative to any actual standard font rendering. If you've been using Firefox a while, Chrome will look off. If you've been using Chrome, Firefox will look off.

[TonyTrapp]

Maybe I am reading too much into the sentence but to me, "some people just don't notice or don't care" implies that there is something objectively broken about it that can be quantified.

[dataflow]

There is. I just posted a screenshot and explained it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37231149

[unethical_ban]

"off" implies an error. Which browser does it correctly? Having used Vivaldi and Firefox in close succession I never noticed a difference.

[crazygringo]

No, "off" in this case merely implies different from what you're used to.

This is aesthetic preference, there's no such thing as "correct". It goes back to the old debate on Mac vs. Windows font rendering -- do you like pixel alignment or do you like letterform accuracy? There's no right answer.

[dataflow]

> No, "off" in this case merely implies different from what you're used to.

Kind of enough, but...

> This is aesthetic preference, there's no such thing as "correct".

"Correct" for the purposes of this discussion could be the normal OS rendering, and deviation from that is what would be "off"-ness.

[Dylan16807]

There's no right answer to that question, but Mac does render fonts too thin because of gamma issues, if I'm remembering right.

[dataflow]

> Firefox' font rendering in that screenshot looks like native Windows font rendering to me.

How?!

This is how example.com renders: https://i.imgur.com/MFo7ACg.png

Pay attention to how the word "illustrative" renders: https://i.imgur.com/lFJIEZG.png

See e.g. the boldness on e.g. the first "l"? Firefox's clearly has two very dark vertical strokes in adjacent pixels -- one black, one dark blue right next to it. Its rendering is substantially bolder than Windows's. I can understand if you personally prefer that, but how can you claim they look the same?!

[wildrhythms]

I see exactly what you're talking about (quite noticable on the 'a' characters) and I wish somebody could explain why Firefox is rendering like that, and if it's a Windows platform specific issue.

[dataflow]

Thanks. I've found it futile to argue with people about font rendering over the years. It's always like people are just in denial of reality. Which I feel is emblematic of how Firefox (and Linux, and lots of other libre software) lose desktop market share, IMO - by denying the reality everyone else sees.

[Zardoz84]

I had a work companion that was using Chrome rendering the text in a really ugly way on Windows. We never discovered why it was doing that. It only got fixed when the sys admin updated to Windows 10.

[deadbunny]

As a Firefox user I had to open Chrome to check this to see if I had just been living with bad font rendering for the last 20 years.

Firefox uses my system defined default fonts (DejaVu Sans, DejaVu Serif, Hack) where Chrome completely ignores the system fonts.

IMO using the system defaults is the correct action here.

Anyway after manually configuring Chrome to use the system defaults they look identical to me:

Firefox: https://i.imgur.com/Zplpyiq.png

Chrome: https://i.imgur.com/YWkeZjh.png

So no, font rendering on FF seems fine to me...

Maybe I'm getting old and my eyes aren't seeing the differences but they look the same to me.

[maskros]

Last time I tried it was impossible to get Chrome on linux to use the system font rendering settings. There's no way to tell Chrome to:

a) Don't hint/grid fit. b) Don't use cleartype color fringing.

That's reason enough to avoid Chrome for me. Compound that with Chrome's low quality image rescaling algorithms (and the absolute boneheadedness of their bug triaging, where any reports about it will invariably get filed under the wrong component and be closed before anyone who can actually understand the problem will look at it) and oh so many SVG rendering quality issues. I really hope Firefox can survive the current leadership and remain a strong alternative for decades more to come.

[tcfunk]

Chrome's font makes me want to squint. Probably I'm just used to FF.

[retrocryptid]

Are you using macOS, Windows or Linux? There are (mostly subtle) differences between these platforms which may expose more differences between fonts. I get it that it doesn't look different on your system, but I'm not discounting the possibility that the OS platform can also affect rendering.

[deadbunny]

I'm running Linux atm but I've used Firefox in Windows recently and the fonts were fine.

[dblohm7]

Chrome's font rendering is the outlier among browsers. The author of the article is seeing that difference and they want Firefox to look like Chrome.

I think the commentary is taking an issue with the suggestion that there's something "wrong" with Firefox's font rendering, when it's really Chrome who is the outlier.

[moffkalast]

Maybe we need a screenshot from Safari to compare and break the tie.

As of right now there's substantially more browsers that use Blink (and comprise over half of the market share) though so Firefox and Safari will always be outliers.

[MatthiasPortzel]

On macOS, it looks like Firefox uses native defaults. It’s very nearly identical to Chrome (same fonts, same weight, same spacing; Chrome might more aggressively aligning verticals to pixel boundaries, but that’s hard to tell on a Retina screen).

Safari for some reason is rendering everything at different sizes than Chrome or Firefox, I don’t know why.

[dblohm7]

You're splitting hairs, here, but fine: I'm referring to browser engines.

[burkaman]

They aren't lying, the screenshots are clearly different, but it's strange to describe it as a problem with Firefox. It's a completely subjective difference, to me that Chrome screenshot looks blurry and faint compared to the Firefox one. It's also confusing that they say "fonts are smaller on Firefox" - in those two screenshots the Chrome font is clearly smaller.

[jklinger410]

> For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. Hundred times more smooth than profiles.

Except for those of us with profile specific extensions, which containers don't help with at all.

[retrocryptid]

Check back in in a couple of years when the containers extension has been deprecated.

[omniglottal]

How are profile-specific Chrome extensions a problem in a Firefox install?

[jklinger410]

Let's say I have an extension that I use for work, that has a work-specific login or API key. I want to keep that plugin separate from the rest of my stuff because it's for work. You can't do that with tab containers.

The profile interface for FF is archaic and hard to manage.

Separate profiles was always a better solution than contained tabs.

[cycomanic]

And what are those? I have yet to encounter anyone using a extension that contains some sort of work secrets/api. I'm not doubting it exists, but I think it's a use case which is maybe in the 0.00001% (if even that).

On the other hand containers allow me to specify which ones to open on automatically and so I can use lots of different containers for different uses that I want to separate, e.g. Facebook, Gmail, HN... Something lots of people want to do, but you can't really do with profiles (well you could but it would be super annoying). Moreover I can use temporary containers so I have isolated tabs for all the general browsing (all websites where I haven't specified a specific container) with all the tracking information being deleted as soon as I close the tab.

[jklinger410]

> but I think it's a use case which is maybe in the 0.00001% (if even that).

Actually password managers are very common, and immediately relevant to this conversation. I have a password manager for work, and one for personal. That puts us a bit higher than your pretty dismissive 0.00001% estimate.

Literally the first thing that came to mind and there are many more examples.

I use a tool called Junction which allows me to choose which browser opens up a link, which solves for your second issue.

Isolated browsers are much better than isolated tabs.

[KptMarchewa]

>For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. Hundred times more smooth than profiles. Hence why no one cares about making profiles in Fx better, there is already a better solution to the problem profiles solve.

I would do that if I could get separate history for a different containers.

[unethical_ban]

I will say the process for creating a new container per website is bad.

* Create new container "target"

* Open new Target container

* Go to target.com

* Click the container menu and choose "Always open in..." and if you have a lot of containers, scroll down to "Target"

And then, you still get asked "Hey, you told us to open this in the target container, is that correct?" even though I have *explicitly* said that's exactly what I want.

---

I would like a shortcut button for any site that isn't assigned to a container, where I could click the container menu and say "Create new container and assign this site to it" where it all happens at once. Boom, site isolated.

[rakoo]

Use Multi-Account Containers (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...), it does exactly what you want.

[unethical_ban]

That's what I'm using. And I like its capability. But as I said, the first-time process for getting a site isolated (if you tend to isolate sites often) is cumbersome and I feel there could be a shortcut button for [create new container -> assign site to new container].

[rakoo]

Ah, I see; I tend to isolate all sites I trust in the same container and everything else goes in a temporary container so I mostly have one trusted container (along with one for each of Facebook, LinkedIn and Google).

To add a new site to a new container, I manually edit the file (accessed through the pencil button) and add the line with the proper syntax:

    !*.sketchy-website.tld , My Isolation Container

It allows me to define that I want that for all subdomains in the same workflow. But I have to admit it is far from easy for someone who is not already used to this.

[earth2jason]

Click the multi-container tab. Click "open in new tab". Then pick the container. This will give you a blank page in container. Type the url. Boom! The site url will now be attached to that container.

[ttctciyf]

> [containers are a] better solution to the problem profiles solve

If this problem is persona/identity/account isolation, then yes.

If you want multiple parallel settings and add-on combinations, then no. I use profiles in firefox for this specific reason.

I've no idea about chrome because I don't use it, but I haven't found any problem with firefox profiles for this purpose anyhow - I just configure the desktop to start firefox with -new-instance -ProfileManager and choose the profile at startup.

If I want multiple profiles simultaneously, I just start them up on different virtual desktops.

[dano]

The Firefox documentation says to Enable Containers through General Settings -> Tabs [1] but there is no such checkbox [2]. Going into about:config and changing privacy.userContext.enabled and privacy.userContext.ui.enabled to true [3] enables the checkbox in the settings page [4]. This is Firefox Version 116.0.3 under Ubuntu.

I use Chrome and Firefox interchangeably so I don't have a dog in this fight. Containers aka Personalities needs to be made a first class feature in Firefox and not require the above steps to make it useful to the less tech savy end user.

1. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain... 2. https://imgur.com/a/mX1P25J 3. https://imgur.com/a/fNyRnLk 4. https://imgur.com/a/GjxJwIP

[heftig]

Yeah, they're enabled by default only on Nightly. Apparently they're still considered "experimental".

Officially, you enable them through the MAC extension, which also adds some more UI.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

Other extensions (like Tree Style Tab) can also cause container tabs to be enabled.

[BeefWellington]

The checkbox is indeed there for me in 111.x.

Perhaps the documentation needs an update for the latest version if it's been moved elsewhere.

Edit: I just checked in 116; it appears to just be always enabled now.

[deadbunny]

I disagree here as an avid user of containers. Profiles are still a better separation between personas I have my "home" profile and "work" profile in FF and they are trivially launched with `firefox -P "name"` and keep all data completely separated.

[gnicholas]

Yep, there should be a mention of how TST is better on FF than on any other browser (especially Chrome).

[lolinder]

I agree with OP that the tone is needlessly negative, but while some people are super into TST, most of us don't care about it at all. I wouldn't say that any given article on Firefox "should" mention TST, because odds are the author won't be in the group that cares.

[gnicholas]

In an article talking about the pros and cons of Chrome and FF, it would make sense to mention cult favorites like TST. I'm not sure where you get the notion that "most of us don't care about it at all" — perhaps you have more inside info than the rest of us?

Regardless, I don't care about profiles or any of this other stuff, but I don't begrudge the author for mentioning things that aren't up my alley. In my mind, when I read a list-based article, I don't expect everything to be relevant to me.

[lolinder]

I'm not saying I would begrudge the author for mentioning TST, I'm saying that they're not obliged to mention things that they don't personally care about. I don't mind if a list of someone's favorite features has features I don't care about, nor do I mind if they neglect to mention features that I do care about.

As for my information, I'm comparing the install base for TST with that of uBlock Origin (both only counting Firefox). It's not a perfect measurement, since not all Firefox users have uBO either, but it should if anything overestimate TST's relative popularity.

Tree-style tabs [0] has 163,716 users.

uBlock Origin [1] has 6,175,439 users (only counting Firefox).

That places TST at about 2% of the install base of uBO, which is plenty small to justify my saying that most Firefox users (and prospective users) don't care about TST.

[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

[reaperducer]

The thing that keeps me from using Firefox is that it doesn't use certain standard macOS interface methods.

That keeps me from using macOS's built-in keybinding system to change tabs with the touch of a function key.

Every other program I use from Finder to my database manager allows me to switch tabs with one button. Firefox has no way to accomplish this, which would make it an interruption to my muscle memory and therefore my productivity.

Duck allows it, so that's what I use instead of Chrome.

[krackers]

There's a way to rebind keys in Firefox, but it's extremely convoluted: something about editing omni.ja. I feel like Firefox goes out of its way to make it impossible for you to do so. Not to mention that they also go out of their way to be hostile to extension developers (unlike Chrome where you can just load an unpacked extension, with Firefox they impose the arbitrary limit that it gets removed after a restart).

Also they don't seem to care one bit about user experience (in the genuine sense). There's a long-standing bug open for > 10yrs that Firefox does not disable sleep when uploading or downloading files. The day that I started a long-running downloaded and came back to find that my laptop had gone to sleep before it even hit 5% was when I uninstalled Firefox in a rage.

[jlokier]

I'm not sure if this fits what you want with "allows me to switch tabs with one button", but in macOS Firefox keys ⌘1 to ⌘9 (cmd-1 to cmd-9) switch to tabs 1 to 9 respectively in the current window. ⌥⌘← and ⌥⌘→ (alt-cmd-left and alt-cmd-right) switch to tabs left/right.

[reaperducer]

That's two buttons, and different from how every single other program in my computer is configured, which is why I use Duck, instead.

[xg15]

As a happy, longtime Firefox user, have to hard disagree here.

> It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems".

Well yes, that was apparently the OP's feeling, along with the belief that overall, the "sacrifices" are worth it. So whether or not the issues felt important (or real) to you, they evidently were for the OP - and possibly other people who are considering switching but as of now are used to Chrome's way of doing things.

> For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers.

If some issue arises because a user hasn't adapted their workflow to the new software and there is in fact a different way of doing things that will result in the same features, that's a legitimate thing to point out. But as the sibling comments make clear, that doesn't seem to be the case here, as containers are missing lots of features that profiles have.

> Never had problems with font rendering.

That's just "works on my machine". OP did have problems, they posted screenshots.

> The download manager being different isn't a "problem", and even Chrome is changing it to become more like Fx's [0]. So it's not like Fx's version is "bad", just different.

FF's download manager is missing a feature that OP actively used, which is drag and drop of downloaded files. So from that point of view, it's clearly a downgrade.

> I'd rather have an article on "Switching from Chrome to Firefox? Here are some tips on great features in Firefox".

Like how to use the multi-account containers I mentioned. Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks). On how Sidebery or other tree-style tabs can make the experience so nice. etc.

If users have issues with a software, I think it makes a better impression to pick them up from where they are than to do some "there are no problems, move along, citizen" approach.

It's the users who decide what the important issues of a software are, not the developers.

[matsemann]

> That's just "works on my machine". OP did have problems, they posted screenshots.

Well, it worked on their machine as well without their fixes. Chrome's font rendering is the one that's the most off from my system behavior, but the article makes it sound like Fx has broken fonts. While it's just a preference from the author.

> FF's download manager is missing a feature that OP actively used, which is drag and drop of downloaded files. So from that point of view, it's clearly a downgrade.

No, it supports that. I use it all the time.

> If users have issues with a software, I think it makes a better impression to pick them up from where they are than to do some "there are no problems, move along, citizen" approach.

My point was that this isn't issues so much as things just being slightly different. When framed as "problems" it however paints them negatively, as if Fx way of doing things are somehow "wrong". That's my issue with the article, not that it points these things out.

[tshaddox]

> I feel this article almost do more harm than good. It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems".

Your comment is roughly of the form “that detailed article lists poor solutions to the problems you’ll likely encounter when switching to Firefox, so please instead follow my detailed instructions about alternate ways to fix the problems you’ll likely encounter when switching to Firefox.” It hardly makes anything feel simpler or more enticing!

[boredhedgehog]

> Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks).

What exactly does Firefox do differently? I find that the Chrome bar learns very quickly which results to prioritize, based on my input.

[Dwedit]

Chrome's bar is restricted to word boundaries, while Firefox's is not.

You can type three characters from the middle of a word, and Firefox will match it, while Chrome will not.

[crossroadsguy]

Yes. You need to sacrifice. Almost zero of my banking and credit card websites work flawlessly on Firefox which does so on Chrome. So that’s a huge enough sacrifice for me — the end user.

[r00fus]

Name them. All of mine do fine. Anecdotes are not data.

[cvladan]

Exactly. I've commented on article about containers.

[trallnag]

What about PWA?