> For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". 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. Well yes, that was apparently the OP's feeling, along with the belief that overall, the "sacrifices" are worth it. > It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems". etc.Īs a happy, longtime Firefox user, have to hard disagree here. On how Sidebery or other tree-style tabs can make the experience so nice. 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). Like how to use the multi-account containers I mentioned. I'd rather have an article on "Switching from Chrome to Firefox? Here are some tips on great features in Firefox". So it's not like Fx's version is "bad", just different. The download manager being different isn't a "problem", and even Chrome is changing it to become more like Fx's. Hence why no one cares about making profiles in Fx better, there is already a better solution to the problem profiles solve. It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems".įor instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". I feel this article almost do more harm than good.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |