Firefox To Let Users Control Memory Usage (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: Mozilla engineers are working on a new section in the browser's preferences that will let users control the browser's performance. Work on this new section started last Friday when an issue was opened in the Firefox bug tracker. Right now, the Firefox UI team has proposed a basic sketch of the settings section and its controls. Firefox developers are now working to isolate or implement the code needed to control those settings [1, 2, 3]. According to the current version of the planned Performance settings section UI, users will be able to control if they use UI animations (to be added in a future Firefox version), if they use page prefetching (feature to preload links listed on a page), and how many "content" processes Firefox uses (Firefox currently supports two processes [one for the Firefox core and one for content], but this will expand to more starting v54).

Comments

Host files

[110010001000]

You can reduce memory usage by using a custom host file to control malware and advertising. They are the biggest usage of memory.

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

You got this wrong. It should not be hosts files. It should stop at the level of your router, so you can protect all your computers and mobile devices with a singe configuration.

Re: Host files

[corychristison]

Exactly the same way the hosts file does it: Block (null route to 0.0.0.0) the DNS queries. No certificate or packet inspection necessary.

And, as an added bonus, if someone wanted to utilize an Authorative DNS Server other than the one provided by the Router/Gateway, they would be able without any trouble.

I block a lot of the low hanging stuff at the router level in my house using this technique, and then use uBlock Origin in Firefox/Chrome to block the higher level stuff.

The hosts file does not cosmetically clean up pages in addition to blocking ads, where uBlock/Adblock do.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

If your router supports dd-wrt, it's no tougher than copying and pasting. https://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/DNSMasq_-_DNS_for_your_local_network_-_HOWTO

Re:Host files

[grep -v '.*' *]

You can reduce memory usage by using a custom host file

But how do you do exceptions? I can't do:
0.0.0.0 *
and still read reddit.com.

For that matter, * doesn't really work either.

And adding aliases on a single line stops after 640K bytes -- it's like that's enough for everyone. Why can't I place every single FQDN on a single line? Stupid DNS. ;-)

Re:Host files

[iNaya]

It's got horrendous design. But, how does it look like malware? And it already is "one of the publicly available host files".

Re:Host files

[buss_error]

https://pi-hole.net/

Much better and protects the entire network.

Re:Host files

[Known Nutter]

Been using that for years... formally known as "Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts File" -- definitely not malware.

Re:Host files

[Rockoon]

Hey everybody... we now know how to fool this guy. He thinks simple site = malware and therefore must think fancy flashy = safe

Re: Host files

[fisted]

"Group policy" is a fucking nightmare on its own, as well as a Windows-specific concept.

Also, it's spelled cronjob. Thanks for playing.

Re: Host files

[fisted]

I think we have different definitions of 'ease of use'. The moment something doesn't work, you're SOL. Googling generic error messages, trying to fiddle with the blackbox. You can't trace anything, you can't debug anything, there are no straightforward logs, sometimes no logs whatsoever. Fuck that absolute nightmare.

Of course, if "trying random things until it eventually kinda sorta works" is your general approach to administration, then I see why you would defend that concept. Sorry to break it to you, but you're incompetent.

Re:Host files

[AmiMoJo]

uBlock Origin supports hosts file, but also wildcard and CSS selector rules. Also throw in Privacy Badger while you are there.

Re:Host files

[mrchaotica]

First of all, host files aren't flexible enough: I want to be able to block domains conditionally (e.g. block Google subdomains except when I'm visiting a Google page directly).

Second, even if something running on the router were good enough, I'd still want a uMatrix-like browser extension for making it easy to add new rules to it anyway.

Really what I'd like is for uMatrix rules to sync between the browsers on all my computers, and then for the subset of the rules that are always-deny (in uMatrix parlance, rules of the form

* [domain] * block

) to be exported to the router hosts file.

Re:Host files

[flappinbooger]

And how, pray tell, can you accomplish this without adding a trusted certificate on each device when the majority of websites are now (or will be) https?

Get a router with sufficient ram, (32megs or more) put on DD-WRT, add a script to block ads. I did it and it works. The info is out there and easy to find.

Re:Host files

[arth1]

Yeah, hosts files are so limited that they're worthless. How do you block every host in 116.128.0.0/10 or 42.208.0.0/12 in a hosts list?

My router can not only block netmasks, but block by ASN. So when Chinanet in Gongzhou adds more IP addresses, it will already block them.

But still, you need a blocker can do content based blocking. A hosts file or firewall rule cannot block ads here on /. where the ads are served from the same server - you'd block the non-ad contents too.
Adblock Plus/Latitude most certainly can.

But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is confusing. Whenever somebody pointed out that FF uses a lot of memory, FF supporters would come along and tell those people that they're wrong and that FF doesn't use unreasonable amounts of memory. But now they're putting in ways to limit the memory usage! So those FF advocates were wrong: FF can use too much memory!

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a perceived problem. My workstation has 32 GB of RAM yet Firefox will still use many GBs if I leave it open for a few days. This happens with addons enabled, and even with a new profile. Chrome doesn't do that. Edge doesn't do that. It's a problem that effects Firefox and not the other browsers. Maybe it's due to memory leaks in Firefox?

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[rudy_wayne]

It's not a perceived problem. My workstation has 32 GB of RAM yet Firefox will still use many GBs if I leave it open for a few days. This happens with addons enabled, and even with a new profile. Chrome doesn't do that. Edge doesn't do that. It's a problem that effects Firefox and not the other browsers. Maybe it's due to memory leaks in Firefox?

Well then, i guess I must be the luckiest person in the whole universe, because I've been using Firefox since v1.0 and have never had that problem.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Rockoon]

Yes you have. You just arent knowledgeable enough to know it.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[munch117]

about:memory would probably tell you something useful to put in the bug report.

Pro tip: slashdot AC commenting is not the optimal way to report bugs that you want fixed.

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[jellomizer]

Yes there is a lot of blaming the user in software and especially in open source where it is public. But often we have a lot of users pining for those 8 bit days where wonderful software ran on under 256k of ram. Not realizing the limitations of these systems and why you were suppose to spend $50 on what today would be a throwaway app. Most of the work in these old apps was about trying to get it it fit then work as expected.
You would need an early 32bit (80386) PC to play an MP3 fille. A lot of what is common now takes a great deal of power. Granted today most development will use extra ram because most people now have more than they need. But today's apps do have extra features that you don't realize.
Now that said. Being able to performance tune the browser is a good idea for an open source product as it allows you to tinker with setting and allow us to choose the trade offs. However a word of caution as the tendency to blame the user exists. They may use it as a crutch to stop making things better.

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Tranzistors]

Firefox is the single biggest memory hog on my machine

And what else is running? XFCE with bunch of terminals running vi and ssh?

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Serge_Tomiko]

Wow you're young. You need a Pentium to play MP3 files.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Rolgar]

You know, I shut it down when I log on to let my wife use the machine. When I login and launch, I get back all of my tabs, but I set the setting that does not load all of the tabs, so most of them don't use any memory, other than having a tab and knowing the URL. I periodically go back, and decide I'm never going to use many of those tabs and close them without reading them, but other than being clutter, they don't really impact my browser usage.

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[jellomizer]

No a 386 for a MP3 file. Without any other apps.

Re:A good browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. You might not even be able to browse Slashdot with 50 megs, and it's hardly the browser's fault that everyone wants to be so free with their resource usage.

I suppose

[93 Escort Wagon]

I would've voted for fixing the memory leaks, but I suppose this is an option too...

Re:I suppose

[phantomfive]

They're working on that, too. Firefox is fast becoming the best browser.

Re:I suppose

[Waccoon]

In my attempts to track down why Firefox has huge memory problems but Pale Moon v26 does not (and Pale Moon v27 does), I've determined that bad caching policy is responsible for memory consumption, not leaks.

Firefox will cache the hell out of everything it encounters regardless of the limits you set for the memory cache, up to a certain percentage of total available memory. In recent versions of the browser, most internal memory management settings not in the preferences file seem to be set to "-1" (fully automatic) so there's no way to change them unless you recompile. Bloody annoying.

Not being an application developer, my only lead on how to track down all the settings involves comparing the code of Pale Moon v26 to v27. Not an easy feat, seeing as how there's over 40,000 new or changed files between those two versions. I've not made much progress on compiling a less stupid build, but I do know the problem is that the browser is just insanely greedy with memory, not that it's "losing" it.

I have no idea how much memory FF uses

[Snotnose]

Nor do I care. I switched to Chrome years ago because FF flat out got slow, so much so I decided "hmmm, FF, IE, or Chrome. Let's try Chrome".

Chrome was much faster. 2.5 years ago I got a new laptop with a much faster processor and a lot more RAM. I kept Chrome. It works, usually.

I fire up FF once a week. My supermarket website (Vons) doesn't work with Chrome (could be the add ons, don't really care). But until Chrome starts to suck I don't feel any need to return to FF as my daily browser.

TLDR; piss off your long term users, they turn into long term users of something else

Opera had that feature

[locopuyo]

Cool, Opera had that feature 10 years ago.

GOOD direction

[markdavis]

This is a very good step in the right direction. There are non-majority but very valid use cases where one might need to limit memory and especially CPU usage and threading when wanted. For example, on hosted or application servers that serve thin clients. Please give as much control to users and system administrators as possible.

This also holds just as important for single-user systems. One thing I hope they especially pay attention to is some way to quell the rampant misuse of local resources by websites that throw more and more meaningless "fancy" effects at us. Barely a site remains that doesn't fade in and out every single element, loads endlessly, creates tight busy loops, presents continuous animation for no real reason, etc. It just chews through CPU and on battery powered devices, it unnecessarily decimates stored power, it presents never ending barriers and distractions to getting to useful information on sites. Give us tools and settings to slow and limit such nonsense. Return control of our resources to us.

In the past, Firefox was all about CHOICE and CONFIGURABILITY. For years as Firefox has become "Chrome-ified" in look and mission, user choice has wrongfully and systematically removed in favor of "simplicity". Stop trying to be Chrome, it is not helping anyone!

Firefox stands as the only remaining main-stream, completely open source, multiplatform browser developed by a community model. Here is a last chance to prevent it from become totally obscure.... EMBRACE USER CONTROL. Differentiate yourself based on that. It is something Chrome sorely lacks. We need real choices and real competition, not a world left with one browser controlled by a single information overlord who lives based on tracking, capturing, and sharing information about us. Been there, done that.... Mozilla set us free once. Please be there to prevent us from sliding back into it again :)

Re:GOOD direction

[gravewax]

I think it is already too late to save firefox. It has alienated and pissed off so many of its previously loyal userbase that I doubt it can recover now. It is all downhill from here on out.

Re:GOOD direction

[Gavagai80]

Don't underestimate how many disloyal people there are. I use chrome 99% of the time, but if firefox becomes a better experience I'll switch. Most of us aren't religious about browser use, we aren't pissed off at or alienated by firefox, we simply found it was no longer the best choice.

Re:GOOD direction

[gravewax]

I think you have actually just demonstrated the problem. firefox SHOULD NOT be chasing people that think Chrome is a great browser, being a clone is not the way to go. They don't have the resources or funding or distribution machine that google has to compete in that way, it is a recipe for death and has been well demonstrated by their farely rapid decline in marketshare, they need to address go back to addressing the browser audience that wants the power in their hands, sadly though I think it is too late for that.

Re:GOOD direction

[zifn4b]

Here is a last chance to prevent it from become totally obscure.... EMBRACE USER CONTROL. Differentiate yourself based on that. It is something Chrome sorely lacks.

Have fun storming the castle! It'll take a miracle...

Re:GOOD direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

The people who left Firefox because they love Chrome won't be coming back. The people who left Firefox because it's becoming too much like Chrome won't be coming back as long as Mozilla is chasing the first group by making Firefox more and more like Chrome.

Re:GOOD direction

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already taken far too many steps in a BAD direction to ever find its way back. In fact, it continues to RUN in that direction, bolting on crazy things to its chassis whenever and wherever possible.

I use and endorse Palemoon. (https://www.palemoon.org/)

It's what Firefox used to be before all the "update it for the sake of increasing the version number every couple days" idiocy ensued.

More memory the longer it runs

[Maxo-Texas]

After two to three days, my firefox memory runs out of control and then I have to restart it.

And then things are fine for two to three days.

Right now I have 12 tabs open and it's using 923 mb of memory and 2.7% of cpu (on an i7).

Re:More memory the longer it runs

[Anonymous Coward]

You know damn well that people have tried reporting this issue to the Mozilla team plenty of times in the past and just been told to "disable extensions" or "You're wrong".

Also FYI, right now the Firefox instance I'm using to write this comment with is using approximately 1.3 GiB of RAM with 12 tabs open...

Re:More memory the longer it runs

[Tranzistors]

"disable extensions" or "You're wrong"

Sounds about right. Why should Mozilla fix memory issues of other applications. If extension developer writes leaky code, what should FF do? Balcklist or restart extension somehow? And if you have 12 tabs of “web applications” like twitter, should FF reload page?

I'm not saying Firefox is without flaws or anything, but it is a sort of operating system on it's own. Keeping that in mind, we can paraphrase Maxo-Texas statement like this:

Right now I have 12 applications open and they're using 923 mb of memory and 2.7% of cpu (on an i7).

This is hardly scandalous. Without knowing details, just pointing out MBs and tab count is useless

Memory Missing from Summary

[jaminJay]

The new Performance page will allow tech-savvy users to control how much RAM Firefox will be using. The more "content" processes Firefox will be allowed to use, the more responsive the browser will get, and the easier will be to handle tens or hundreds of tabs.

The downside is that more "content" processes means more RAM usage, but if users have RAM to spare, this shouldn't be a problem. It is a problem, though, on older systems. This is where the new Performance section comes to help, allowing users to put a muzzle on Firefox's unwieldy memory usage, preventing crashes or computer freezes.

Also how much memory each tab was using

[UpnAtom]

A few years ago, Opera could also tell you how much memory each tab and extension was using. Ahhh the good old days.

Re:Also how much memory each tab was using

[chihowa]

I miss my easy insertion abilities. Maybe I'm just getting old.

They make a pill, er app, for that now.

Re:Also how much memory each tab was using

[x_t0ken_407]

Vivaldi (the successor in-spirit to Presto Opera) currently has that feature, FWIW :)

Need per site controls

[UpnAtom]

Facebook is a monster. It can easily use over a gig.

Yeah I know many Slashdotters pretend not to use it, and some actually don't.

Also, this sounds like 80s memory management eg turn off prefetching forever. Why can't we tell our browsers what to let go of first eg:
1. Prefetching
2. LRU tabs.
3. Hi-res images.
4. Bloated JS sites eg FB.com. Heck, worth putting in special rules for this monster.

Have a default then allow it to be accessible and changed for the rest of the session. Also, a box to ask it to return memory before the OS starts swapping like crazy.

Re:Need per site controls

[DontBeAMoran]

First off, prefetching is insane. Some of us have old, slow computers. We don't have gigabit internet connections and dozens of GB of RAM. Prefetching maxes out our connection all the time and makes the computer swap like crazy. No wonder I thought Firefox was a piece of crap.

Second, hi-res images. Ever since computer display resolution started going up, websites have been increasing their images. I don't NEED nor WANT a fucking 4K JPEG that's 30MB because my display only has 1280x1024 pixels. So my computer has to download a 30MB file, de-compress the 4K into memory and then re-sample the damn thing down to something appropriate for my display. That's just insane.

Hell I've even seen so-called "thumbnail" pages where the idiots loaded the full-size images to display them as thumbnails.

Re:Need per site controls

[rnturn]

Hardly Firefox's fault. You're not the first to notice that web site developers have gotten incredibly lazy over the years. The practices like you just described seem to the norm now. Adding more Firefox (or any other browser, for that matter) user controls isn't going to do much of anything to solve that problem.

Re:Need per site controls

[tepples]

I don't NEED nor WANT a fucking 4K JPEG that's 30MB because my display only has 1280x1024 pixels.

How does the server know that your display has only 1280x1024 pixels, not 3840x2160 pixels, before sending the JPEG? Or would you prefer that sites send images sized for 320x480-pixel phone screens and then replace those with images sized for 1280x1024 screens only once JavaScript runs?

Re:Need per site controls

[tepples]

It's called responsive CSS.

I'm familiar with media queries. But since when can CSS, such as the CSS conditioned by a media query, replace the value of the src attribute of an img element with a different URL? Or would each img element appear five times in the HTML, with a different URL for each of five different resolutions, where CSS assigns display:none to all but one?

Re:uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you know, you could use Google to find a decent hosts file without having to do any of the stuff you mentioned (http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/).

I use that hosts file + AdBlock Plus + NoScript on every computer. A hosts file and NoScript are not the same thing, and as such, should not be treated as such. They complement each other on the loosing battle against malware and in-your-face advertisements.

Re: uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript

[corychristison]

Everyone has different needs and wants.

NoScript does nothing for ads in Android Apps (especially YouTube) or my TV.

I actually like JavaScript (most of the time). If you want a shitty, barebones, reduced functionality browsing experience, why don't you just use Lynx? You'll save even more bandwidth, and it makes it literally impossible to see any image-based ads.

Re:How about...

[rudy_wayne]

Unfortunately, back around the time of Firefox 4.0, the people in charge at Mozilla became infected with some sort of toxic brain worms. Since then, they have been on an all-out campaign to completely destroy Firefox, and if you look at the market share numbers, they're doing a wonderful job. The best, most popular browser is now battling Opera for the title of most irrelevant browser.

And since there seems to be no end of companies who will give Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars, for nothing, no matter how badly Firefox sucks, it seems unlikely that anything will change.

Fortunately, thanks to Firefox being open source, there are forks, such as Palemoon, that retain the good features that Mozilla eliminated and avoid the useless crap and pointless changes that Mozilla seems to love so much.

No system impact when using +4 gigabyte

[thesjaakspoiler]

was what those engineering geniuses were always responding when people complained that FF was using 10~50 times as much memory compared to any other mainstream browser. Somehow I still don't believe them.

UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

UBlock/Adblock (the latter 'souled-out' to advertisers letting ads thru by default) are inefficient on RAM & slower usermode. NoScript has to parse tags to block ads (here is how ads really work (downloading scripts you run to render them on web pages) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221859/ & hosts does it before NoScript even begins to work & in 1 step blocking them as part of the IP stack itself operating in FAR faster kernelmode - NoScript by comparison works in slower usermode & has to parse page tags (far more expensive & complex process in steps etc.)

Routers have TONS of security issues galore (partial list shown here only of MANY types from many manufacturers) https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/

APK

P.S.=> None are native to your OS & IP stack - hosts are (bonus)... apk

Re:UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[mrchaotica]

WTF? APK writes like a schizophrenic retard and constantly spams about hosts files, but I don't recall him ever being anti-semitic.

Just like with Windows

[CptLoRes]

it seems my preferred settings are the exact opposite of what the default ones are.

Thank God

[TheOuterLinux]

I became a Palemoon user a while back simply because Firefox stopped being worth a damn about half a year ago. It's too slow to open and uses WAY too much RAM. It even runs like crap on a new MacBook (dodges thrown vegetables). I think they put too much eye candy work into it rather than in performance. But, computers aren't actually getting much better as far as RAM and Gz are concerned in the last decade and probably won't if everything goes to cloud computing. You're going to pay outrageous prices for a 1.2 Gz 4 GB RAM tablet. Oh wait....lol.

Re:Thank God

[Blaskowicz]

I do think newer versions perform better, i.e. Firefox 51, 52 are good.
Slow to open? I've not noticed as for five seconds to open something that will run for hours or weeks, I don't care. But yes it will gobbles resources, unless you seek to use lightweight web sites only!
By this point computer hardware without RAM slots feel dumber and dumber. Like, bringing the max RAM limit to 32GB or 16GB (on Atom) or 64GB or possibly more could be a reason to upgrade from old hardware.

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Palemoon odesn't even want linux users to use their cut and paste buffers and seem intent in 'unifying cross platform behavor' so that it's just like windows. This dispite the fact the windows cut and paste buffers are there for their use. I don't think they're on our side either.

Yet another bandaid that will break

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just another bandaid that will break, and that won't address the root cause of the problem at all.

JUST FIX THE GODDAMN MEMORY LEAKS.

Wow, going old skool

[zifn4b]

A long time ago on an internet far far away, there was a setting in crusty old browsers like Netscape Navigator that allowed you to control whether you wanted images to load automatically. It's the new old thing!

Re:How about...

[Merk42]

...there are forks, such as Palemoon, that retain the good features that Mozilla eliminated and avoid the useless crap and pointless changes that Mozilla seems to love so much.

But since Palemoon has an even smaller marketshare, it is, by your logic, worse than Firefox.

Re:I just want my "disable Javascript" checkbox ba

[Merk42]

Developer Tools > Advanced settings > Disable JavaScript ???

Or use NoScript

Re:I just want my "disable Javascript" checkbox ba

[rnturn]

Question: Is it Firefox's Javascript engine that sucks like a tornado or is it NoScript? The majority of the time that Firefox has to recover from a crash, I get a tab announcing a new version of NoScript. I could live with allowing Javascript to run in my browser if it didn't perform so badly when using Firefox. Enabling Javascript in other browsers doesn't seem to be the problem that it is in Firefox.

Re:Hosts do more than any single other solution

[mrchaotica]

Clearly, you did not actually read what I wrote (not that I actually expected you to, but hope springs eternal).

Among the things that you missed were:

1. I referenced uMatrix, not adblock, which implements a plain old "default deny/allow whitelisted" policy that can't be sold out to advertisers since you do all the whitelisting yourself.
2. No host file-based solution, including yours, is capable of blocking conditionally, which is absolutely necessary.
3. If you're going to use a host file, you might as well keep it on the router instead of maintaining it on every computer on the LAN. Your "engine" doesn't do that.

By the way, it almost goes without saying that there's no way in Hell I'd ever use closed-source software written by a raving lunatic like you anyway, even if it did fulfill the requirements listed above.

CPU use

[Espectr0]

I would rather have a fix so i wouldn't have to restart firefox once every few days because it eats 25%-35% of CPU without any tab running videos or animations. And this is with ublock installed.

Re:/.ers disagree (ur outnumbered nametosser)

[mrchaotica]

I don't give a shit about testimonials. Tits^W Source code or GTFO.

Re:uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript

[phantomfive]

That hosts file routes everything to 127.0.0.1, which can be kind of inconvenient if you have a web server running on port 80 on your local computer. Better to route it to 0.0.0.0

How to speed up a bit the UI

[Parker Lewis]

One setting that I always use is to disable the tabs animation. In about:config, search for browser.tabs.animate and toggle to false.

Re:/.ers disagree: You're outnumbered

[arth1]

In other words:
A million flies can't be wrong: eat shit!

I want it to use more memory.

[tailgunner_050]

The thing that seems to be slowing down firefox more than anything for me is the bookmarks toolbar at the top. I love my bookmarks toolbar but as it get filled up with more and more links it really bogs down Firefox. If you right click on one of you links in the horizontal bookmarks bar at the top > properties > delete the name = nice simple icon in the bookmark bar. I've go nearly 50 of them now running along the top of firefox and its just sooo handy but you feel it when it comes to performance. This needs heavy optimization imo.

Re:I want it to use more memory.

[Blaskowicz]

Others might not like to hear this but this might get fixed for good when Firefox hits version 57 and it doesn't include XUL for the interface anymore. I'm not even blaming XUL, I think it's been great - Firefox just looked like a normal desktop application no matter the OS, I'm just saying the GUI implementation will be different.
If that theory works out, you might try Firefox Aurora 57 a few months from now and see if it's fast.

It's a srcset to everybody

[tepples]

The page on caniuse.com about srcset states that IE 11 does not support srcset, and Edge will display distorted images until the majority of Windows 10 users install the Creators Update. Is it considered acceptable to show distorted images to users of pre-Creators Edge and force users of IE 11 to gulp data transfer allowance while allowing Chrome, Firefox, and Safari to sip it?

Not much difference

[NewYork]

http://arewefastyet.com/