Hey, newfag to /g/ here. Probably a stupid question on this board,

>>61760592
>what exactly is the issue with Chrome
There is none.
>what are alternatives?
None that are superior to it.

>>61760592
>issue
it's proprietary
>alternatives
GNU IceCat

>>61760592
>latest version fucks with my Wacom so badly it is unusable.
>still no fix more than a month later

>>61760592
>alternatives
Icecat
Brave
Iridium
Chromium
qupzilla
Waterfox
http://crportable.sourceforge.net/
https://chromium.woolyss.com/

>>61760592
>but what exactly is the issue with Chrome
Google
>and what are alternatives?
Firefox

>>61760592
Google is a shit conoany that makes the best browser.

>>61760894
>>61760927
>>61760656
Huh. I expected a bit more, to be honest, from what I've seen people talk about on this board. Maybe I just needed to lurk more.

>>61760956
People will always say some obscure browser (which might work for them but usually that's where usability ends)
If it works go for it but most of the time there is some flaw (which is usually speed or UI, both of which chrome is good for)

>>61760992
Yeah, it feels like a personal preference deal. I always hear people whine about Chrome, but I've never had any issue with it, so I just wanted an explanation as to why.

File: chrome web store.png (224KB, 1026x953px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1026x953px

>>61761025
Other than having a reputation of being a botnet and ram hog, the next worst thing about chrome are the add-ons.
yes, chrome has a fuckton of add-ons but holy shit, at least half of them are either, abadoned/near-abandoned, adfilled telemetry, or MALWARE.
Google has the fucking human and capital resources to review each add-on by humans, but nope, they fucking insist on their supposedly "fail-proof" AI to scan each addon.

A quick search of "chrome web store" on Google itself shows this.

>>61761025
Yeah, privacy concerns are definitely personal preferences. Some care, some don't. No offense

>>61760592
MUH BOTNET!!! GOOGLE'S SPYING ON US!!! DON'T USE THEIR BROWSER USE FIRESHIT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>61760656
this
>muh telemetry
yea well , i mean i could make a telemetry free browser , call it netscape 9 and sell it for 69.99 for a yearly licence

>>61760592
Try to get Ultron.

>>61760592
Once Firefox 57 is released on the stable channel there won't be any reason left to use Chrome anymore.

File: 1496939926506.jpg3.jpg (108KB, 925x1004px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 925x1004px

Waterfox > Firefox > Chrome

>>61760592

>issue:
DATA MINING
>solution:
Any chromium fork (for me: iridium)
Any firefox fork (chose the former for speed)

>>61762574
>chose the former for speed
but anon, firefox nightly is way faster than shitium browsers

>>61762538
Horseshit > Firefox > your opinion

File: 1479724492821.png (367KB, 431x512px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 431x512px

>>61762645
>99% of addons broken ON PURPOSE

>>61760592
people say it's botnet, but so is every other major browser. at least chrome can cast video and run google earth. most alternatives that aren't botnet are just abandonware forks of chrome and firefox.

File: 1499357681962.jpg (90KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1024x768px

I had to stop using it because it eats too much RAM on my personal case. I had occasional blue screens and freezing times, so I had to stop using it and find alternatives.

I'm now currently using Vivaldi. On whatever amount of RAM it uses, it's less than Chrome's consumption, which in turn solved my problem, at least. Plus, its support for extensions acts the same way Chrome handles it, so I recommend Vivaldi for you. I will have to warn you through that for some reason Vivaldi isn't really good at playing any video player that isn't from Youtube, but you can grab the snapshot versions to solve it.

File: 1501885507612.jpg (420KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 2048x1536px

>>61760592
nothing wrong with chrome. continue browsing /g/ with chrome on windows 8.1

File: 72c.jpg (19KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x450px

>>61760894
>fagfox
kek