My not-so-recent post about Google’s browser, Chrome, touts the browser as an OS competitor instead of just another browser. After having read about Ted Dziuba’s feedback on Michael Arrington’s post on TechCrunch, I decided to take another look from a different perspective on Chrome again, and Ted’s article does make more sense than Michael’s post.

To me, an operating system consists of a kernel and some applications. Chrome is simply just that – an application. If it’s going to compete with Windows, *NIX, or OS X, it’s going to need more than a browser. Maybe Android is Google’s answer to competing with (netbook) operating systems, but only time will tell if that ever happens.

On my home desktop system that I use for work and other stuff, I use Windows XP SP3, dual-booted with Ubuntu 8.04 or Hardy Heron (Hardy). Of course, I use Firefox whenever I’m using Hardy but when I’m booted to XP SP3, I use Chrome and Firefox. So I compared Chrome with my most-beloved Firefox, and I realized how shameful it was to think about permanently replacing Firefox with Chrome. Now, I’m only using Firefox. Here’s why.

Two processes for one webpage?
What I noticed is that when I open an application while Chrome is running, the application’s startup time seems to have tripled, or more, than when I was using Firefox. Notepad takes about a second or two to start. Not when Chrome is running, though. It takes about 20 seconds to open up. Sure, Firefox takes a longer time starting up than Chrome, but I do have a need to use other applications as well, especially when I’m trying to accomplish my other-job’s tasks, and my browser takes a backseat when I’m coding. My system is on the brink of crashing whenever I try to launch any Adobe CS3 application while Chrome is running. I knew I had to find out what was causing this issue that was nonexistent pre-Chrome.

I then fired up the Task Manager, then quickly looked for Chrome’s process. It wasn’t too hoggy, just about 20+ to 30+ megs of RAM used. But I saw two processes for Chrome, and the other process was about 12+ to 15+ megs. This with just ONE webpage open in Chrome. And whenever I opened up a new tab, another 12+ to 15+ megs of ram gets eaten up by a new Chrome process. Imagine if you have 10+ tabs, that’s 120+ megs of RAM just for Chrome. Firefox maybe using up 130+ megs of RAM with about 12 tabs opened, but it doesn’t make my computer slow down to a crawl. Google still has to develop a way for Chrome to be more efficient when handling system resources.

Pretty, but not pretty enough.
Another thing that I missed sorely from Firefox while I was in my Chrome-induced hallucination is the ability to add extensions or plugins. I no longer care so much about skinning the browser. I’m happy with what Mozilla came up for Firefox 3, and Chrome’s tabs at the top instead of a menu bar is something that I’ll always look for in a new browser. For me, the menu bar (File, Edit, View, etc.) is a waste of screen real estate (especially for netbooks) and if there’s a way to hide or remove it, it should be added in the core. However, there are other Firefox plugins I can never live without, namely, Firebug, FireFTP, Foxmarks, and StumbleUpon. Chrome may have something similar to Firebug built-in, but there’s no integrated FTP client, no bookmark synchronization feature (that I know of), and it has to be “hacked” for a very limited demo of the StumbleUpon toolbar to work. Chrome is pretty, but not pretty enough, IMHO, to forsake Firefox.

With Google’s record of not coming out of beta for a long time (read: GMail), I wonder how long Chrome will stay in beta, if it ever comes out of it at all. For now, I’m cleansing my system (and myself) of Chrome.

So, are you still using Firefox or have you made the permanent switch to Chrome?