Why Chrome is Now My Default Browser

Why Chrome is Now My Default Browser

Words by Dirk Calloway

I'm no "power-user" of Google products. Maybe it's the, perceived, lack of ownership. I grew up using DOS, then Windows 3.1, then every subsequent iteration of Microsoft's products. Simply put, I'm used to the concept of version-controlled software. If you didn't like something in Windows 95, you'd wait for a few years and Windows 98 then fixed it for you. If you didn't like the way they chose to fix it in '98, you wouldn't bother installing it. Some kept '95 on there for as long as they wanted, and they were allowed to, because they owned it. In those days, we all bought software in a box, usually for a large sum of money, so we deserved to be rewarded by having some comfort in the product's stability / longevity.

It's probably unfair to have used Microsoft products as an example though. Don't  worry, I'm not headed towards a "Microsoft vs Google" debate. The example was used because it was so ubiquitous in the mid-90s, and it was made by Bill Gates & Co. Good on them; they changed the world. However, the example could go for anything - that video-game you bought five years ago, a copy of Lotus Notes, or even your average store-front Virus Protection Software. If it came in a box, then you can use that as a substitute example.

Google products don't come "in a box" though. In fact, that makes them "out of the box," I guess. If you're using one of their web-based applications, your experience with it can sometimes change daily. By using such an application, you essentially lose your ownership rights over it. They can upgrade your application without consulting or warning you. This isn't just for Google, mind. The same goes for Facebook, Hotmail, or whatever other web-app you log in to every day to be productive. How many times recently have you turned your PC on, signed in to your Facebook, and - "hey!! The homepage looks different! And what's this prompt thing that's asking me to accept their new default Privacy Settings?!"

Whether you like it or not, those sorts of changes are the future. Fast, iterative, development is exciting to watch and participate in. It means that bug-fixes or security vulnerabilities can be doled out quickly and make your user experience better, not to mention cheaper. 

Anyway, the point of this diatribe has been to state that the conceived lack of "ownership" has traditionally led me away from Google-products. This has all changed though, with Google Chrome. Maybe the main reason it's changed is that I have to install it on my PC, as an actual file... not just something that exists "in the cloud." Even though it's not in the box, it is tangible and finite and exists in my house (in the IT sector, we call this client-side ownership, instead of server-side).

Chrome hasn't always been my browser of choice though. In the case of web-browsers, for most of the 2000s I preferred Mozilla's Firefox. Customizable to the nth degree and utterly configurable, for many years it trumped the likes of IE, Safari and Opera. Firefox was extremely fast, conclusively able to run circles around the competition. It crashed less and had Tabs, which changed the way I used the internet.

Fast-forward several years though, and Firefox crashes a lot more than it used to. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this. It may be because I download the latest updates and they're not being tested very rigorously. More likely, Firefox's developers are ahead of many website developers. Each update I get seems to improve some sites, but then implode on others. A few weeks later, the website developers get enough complaints about this that they then hardcode a few changes, which then makes the site work with the latest version of Firefox. Next update though, we have to go through the same rigmarole. Stuff.co.nz, a popular news amalgamation site in New Zealand, is a good example of this behaviour. I don't know why, but ever since Firefox 3.5 was released, it's been that way. Even if Stuff is contained within only one of many open tabs in my browser, it still manages to crash everything. Windows freezes up,  Firefox freezes, and it takes five minutes to unclog the damage. Sometimes the best thing to do is restart. I don't know why... but that's been my experience. Incredibly frustrating.

Google Chrome is not faultless, but at least in those situations, it contains the damage. Like the repair workers who deal with oil slicks, they put a fence around the mess, just to make sure that it doesn't reach out and pollute everything in the nearby area. A crash in Chrome, by and large, is a crash that does not stop me from working.

The same logic applies with resource allocation. Nothing ever gets "too big" by itself. Look at this screenshot and compare the massive amount of memory for one single instance of Firefox (with several tabs open) and the multiple small amounts of memory for Chrome (also with several tabs open). Which one's more likely to crash, do you think? 

The other thing that's really working for me in Chrome, is the way it responds to WiFi glitches. Our internet capacity in New Zealand is often erratic. Users who work late into the evening may have sometimes found that your entire connection drops out at midnight, while some patch somewhere is applied. With Firefox 3.5, a dropped internet connection can ruin everything. With Chrome though... a friendly message displays. 

When I refresh the page, everything works again, like magic. For me, in my WiFi dominated new house at least, this is a deal-breaker. Google Chrome has proven to be a lifesaver and it is now my Default Browser. I'll still rely on some of Firefox's plugins (like WordCount Plus, or IE Tab, or Firebug, or etc etc) from time-to-time, but by and large my web browsing experience will be done in whatever application is fastest and most reliable. Chrome has proven itself to be that browser.

Your thoughts, internets?