It seems you prefer the more "modern" style of relying on Google's online services and Chrome's frequent updates. That's fine, but it's not an objective standard.

For example, some of us consider a UI that doesn't keep moving around every few weeks to be a feature, not a bug. I have absolutely no problem with a practical tool like Thunderbird still using the same layout it had 5 years ago, if that layout works well.

Likewise, some of us consider the separate search box of Firefox to be a plus point. I don't want or need everything I type in a URL bar being sent to Google's mothership, and my screen has ample space for both bars.

Meanwhile, I'm getting awfully bored of dealing with customer support issues that come down to someone using Google for their mail and not receiving legitimate messages because of whatever Google have broken, deemed spam, or unilaterally declared not to be acceptable this week. I shudder to think how much time and effort are being wasted like this around the world if everyone else's experience is as negative as ours has been lately.

>Chrome had search integrated in the address bar from version 1, every time I opened Firefox year after year and I saw that little separate input for searching I felt like using grandma's browser.

As did Firefox, kinda, and they keep flip flopping on it. It used to be that if you type any string, it does a "I'm Feeling Lucky" search. Now, on my FF, it does a Google search. So it still works...

>From a technological point of view, it took them years to implement sandboxing, and they're still not done. If a tab misbehaves in Firefox it can take down the whole thing. Chrome had it right away.

I keep hearing this. Yet, Chrome still crashes for me. And at this point, FF is very stable.

I know every time I looked, FF + extensions still had much that I could not do in Chrome (including extensions). But it's been a few years - I wonder if Chrome has caught up in functionality?

>Just the fact that the address bar font is the same size as the rest of the UI gives me the impression that they didn't think it through. >.. >Chrome had search integrated in the address bar from version 1, every time I opened Firefox year after year and I saw that little separate input for searching I felt like using grandma's browser.

Most of these seem like opinion of aesthetics and fashion? Syncing and sandboxing seem to be the ones that are about actual functionalities.

Regarding those: I don't have many devices (actually only desktops), but syncing seems to work ok. Lack of sandboxing is actually valid point, but I don't remember any crashes in recent times. On the other hand, I block most of the JS, so there's less opportunities for things to crash.

The web standards and avoiding Chrome/Google Search-based monoculture are also important things for me, so I'm sticking with FF as long as it is OK.

> Syncing of bookmarks, settings, addons, passwords, tabs across devices etc. on Firefox is a lot less efficient.

Anything to back that up? I'm pretty happy with Firefox syncing.

I tried to switch to Chrome but it used a lot more memory than Firefox (and it was in days when Firefox was know for using much memory, Chrome somehow was able to get ahead on that also).

FireFox extensions are more powerful than Chrome's, but FF is killing that off this November...