Slashdot Mirror
Is Firefox 57 Faster Than Chrome? (mashable.com)
An anonymous reader quotes TechNewsWorld:
Firefox is not only fast on startup -- it remains zippy even when taxed by multitudes of tabs. "We have a better balance of memory to performance than all the other browsers," said Firefox Vice President for Product Nick Nguyen. "We use 30 percent less memory, and the reason for that is we can allocate the number of processes Firefox uses on your computer based on the hardware that you have," he told TechNewsWorld. The performance improvements in Quantum could be a drink from the fountain of youth for many Firefox users' systems. "A significant number of our users are on machines that are two cores or less, and less than 4 gigabytes of RAM," Nguyen explained.
Mashable ran JetStream 1.1 tests on the ability to run advanced web applications, and concluded that "Firefox comes out on top, but not by much. This means it's, according to JetStream, slightly better suited for 'advanced workloads and programming techniques.'" Firefox also performed better on "real-world speed tests" on Amazon.com and the New York Times' site, while Chrome performed better on National Geographic, CNN, and Mashable. Unfortunately for Mozilla, Chrome looks like it's keeping the top spot, at least for now. The only test that favors Quantum is JetStream, and that's by a hair. And in Ares-6 [which measures how quickly a browser can run new Javascript functions, including mathematical functions], Quantum gets eviscerated... Speedometer simulates user actions on web applications (specifically, adding items to a to-do list) and measures the time they take... When it comes to user interactions in web applications, Chrome takes the day...
In reality, however, Quantum is no slug. It's a capable, fast, and gorgeous browser with innovative bookmark functionality and a library full of creative add-ons. As Mozilla's developers fine-tune Quantum in the coming months, it's possible it could catch up to Chrome. In the meantime, the differences in page-load time are slight at best; you probably won't notice the difference.
Mashable ran JetStream 1.1 tests on the ability to run advanced web applications, and concluded that "Firefox comes out on top, but not by much. This means it's, according to JetStream, slightly better suited for 'advanced workloads and programming techniques.'" Firefox also performed better on "real-world speed tests" on Amazon.com and the New York Times' site, while Chrome performed better on National Geographic, CNN, and Mashable. Unfortunately for Mozilla, Chrome looks like it's keeping the top spot, at least for now. The only test that favors Quantum is JetStream, and that's by a hair. And in Ares-6 [which measures how quickly a browser can run new Javascript functions, including mathematical functions], Quantum gets eviscerated... Speedometer simulates user actions on web applications (specifically, adding items to a to-do list) and measures the time they take... When it comes to user interactions in web applications, Chrome takes the day...
In reality, however, Quantum is no slug. It's a capable, fast, and gorgeous browser with innovative bookmark functionality and a library full of creative add-ons. As Mozilla's developers fine-tune Quantum in the coming months, it's possible it could catch up to Chrome. In the meantime, the differences in page-load time are slight at best; you probably won't notice the difference.
It doesn't matter how fast either browser is, if they don't fix the memory leaks that they BOTH have. They both just slow to a crawl as they consume all the system memory. I switched from Firefox to Chrome because of this, then Chrome slowly got just as bad. Memory leaks are so 1975.
I thought it was faster than Chrome.
But honestly the huge amount of features FF has that Chrome doesn't makes the choice clear.
Switched to Chrome 6 months ago and never looked back. The Firefox bloat went from bad, to inexcusable, to infuriating.
says NO, it's the law.
Does it have:
- Tabs on bottom option.
- Status bar option.
- Show title bar option.
Compatibility with:
- Imagezoom
- FireFTP
- Adblock Plus
Without ad/tracking/script blockers installed by default the question is almost pointless.
NO browser is fast on the modern internet when you're not decrapifying everything first.
(Also, FF and Chromium don't send all your data and browsing history directly to google. Just throwing that out there).
Don't get me wrong I have no issue with change but a lot seems like change for change sake without adding anything useful.
Top sites is relegated to a thing of the past bar some tiny thumbnail icons that you can't edit. Only way around it is hacky and doesn't work as well as the old one.
Tabs are much larger now they incorporate the loading progress bar for no real need.
Changed icons that are no better at describing their purpose than the old ones.
Moving refresh outside the URL bar.
Slower initial loading of pages despite being faster when on it.
Theme not consistent dark theme has white scroll.
Updating without asking wtf.
Stop trying to shove pocket down my throat.
Great it's new and fancy but so much is just changed for change sake without adding functionality. If anything it's somewhat removed.
I was a long time FF user years ago, but ended up switching to Chrome due to its speed relative to FF. I tried 57 when it came out, and love it - I am back to FF now and happy to say that it at least seems as fast as Chrome, but I prefer the FF experience overall. Hopefully they can port over these improvements to FF on Android since Chrome still seems to have a noticeable edge there. Plus... you have to admit that it is kind of bad ass that a lot of these improvements are resulting from Rust - a language Mozilla developed in part to bring better resource utilization and security to FF. It appears this v57 improvement was largely resulting from the Stylo component (written in Rust) - but their roadmap calls for more components to be swapped out - so the good times may keep getting better for FF - I hope they do because competition is good for us all.
Hating the never ending trend of UI changes, I've been using Seamonkey (before that Mozilla Suite) since 2000. It's a simple solution modern rendering engine, same UI for the last 20 years. With the changes of Firefox 57, I fear for the future of Seamonkey. Do they switch to Palemoon as a backend? Or do they just die?
Luckily for those of us who were fans of Presto Opera, Otter Browser is shaping up to be a great replacement. (For both Opera and Seamonkey).
Because as far as performance and features go they're on par. You'd have to be the kind of full-of-your-self "expert on using Internet" to actually think one is better, faster, and the other being "literally unusable".
With the new FF 57, it all comes down to whether you care about privacy and the details of your Internet use kept out of Google's databases, and the 3rd party businesses and government instances they have to share it with. With Firefox you get this kind of privacy, with Chrome you don't.
That's a good deal to me.
It's really disturbing to see this nonsensical "Firefox doesn't send information to Google" myth being propagated again and again, especially here at Slashdot of all places.
READ FIREFOX'S PRIVACY POLICY!
The September 28, 2017 version of it states (with emphasis added):
It should be pretty clear to you now that Firefox very well can send information to Google, or otherwise uses Google nonsense like Google advertising IDs.
So don't give us this bullshit about Firefox somehow respecting our privacy. In my opinion it doesn't. In fact, I think it's worse than Chrome, in that it has tricked fools like you into thinking that Firefox doesn't violate your privacy by sending information to Google when, as Firefox's very own privacy policy clearly states, Firefox can send information to Google.
Ads served on a platter.
In the meantime, the differences in page-load time are slight at best; you probably won't notice the difference.
Where I notice the difference is that it broke the majority of the extensions that I'm using, most notably GreaseMonkey. I'm going to downgrade. I don't notice the speed difference, I do notice the missing functionality, because it broke my extensions that I was using.
I don't know if Fx is faster than Chrome generally, but considering how unstable Chrome is the difference would have to be pretty freaking substantial to make it worthwhile to switch.
Unfortunately, the devs working on both browsers have their heads stuck pretty far up their backsides when it comes to the user experience. They have increasingly terrible interfaces, but at least with Fx the devs spent the time to get the optimizations right. Chrome devs seem to care precisely zero about wasting tons of RAM and the constant freezes on Google websites.
Now, that's embarrassing. Having a browser consistently hanging on a random 3rd party website with questionable coding practices is sort of inevitable. Having a browser hanging on your own freaking websites is unforgivably inept.
And those features are what specifically?
But honestly the huge amount of features FF has that Chrome doesn't makes the choice clear.
Don't worry, they are doing everything they can to close that gap.
By removing the feature from Firefox.
with browsers, or Linux distros, just look at the top 5 distros at distrowatch, that top #1 spot is highly contended for and competition for it is fierce, ubuntu was on there for a long time, and finally got bumped down by Mint and Debian which is the grand-daddy of both distros is #1 and ubuntu has fallen to #4, and once something loses that #1 spot it is hard to get back to the top
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It's broke, as far as I am concerned.
It's like a Mercedes that has no radio/xm/cd/etc..., no a/c, no adjustable seats, no side mirrors, no gps, plastic seat covers, etc...
They optimized for the one feature that didn't matter to me.
And it's still Firefox, not Google's browser. Yeah yeah, add-ons. uBlock Origin still works. I'll allow it.
Last time I checked they hadn't, and while I'm sure googles coders think they're infallable and there won't be any exploitable bugs in their sandbox, I for one am not prepared to take that risk. There is ZERO reason for ANY part of a browser to strart up or run with root privs.
I don't see FF 57 improving the performance. It might be slightly faster than FF 56, but even then it's difficult to tell for sure. What I can say with certainty is that I've found it to be a lot slower than Edge and Chrome running on the same computer. It also uses far more memory.
FF 57 broke most extensions for an imperceptible performance gain that might not actually exist. It doesn't matter if FF 57 is faster than FF 56 if it's noticeably slower than its major competitors. Users want a fast browser, and FF 57 fails to meet that criterion.
I mean they changed the way bookmark and liked page are handled, and I have spent the better part of 2 or 3 hours reorganizing everything. So I am pissed.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
For one thing, Firefox defaults to NOT sending everything to Google. That's quite a feature.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Speed for what? To run the same program smoothly on my 8-core 4GHz monster, that natively runs smoothly on a 100MHz Pentium Pro? (And still runs orders of magnitude faster in a real proper VM.)
Extensions are the key thing of the last decades, that what improved the WWW experience! I mean real ones. As patches to compile into the binary, if necessary! Not WebExtensions!
Am I the only one who doesn't want his browser to be basically a shitty virtual machine with a legacy hypertext renderer? ... sockets. And TCP ports can be replaced by IP addresses too. Which doesn't even include the stuff that an experienced computer expert who's 30 years older than me still remembers.
I want my purely hypertext WWW back!
I’m not even against virtual machines or hardware-independent software. But there are way less shitty solutions. And they're older than me!
It's like layers on top of layers on top of layers, all doing a shittier version of what the layer below used to do.
Websockets on top of HTTP on top of TCP/IP to top of
Can nobody see that this is insanity??
Mozilla gets approximately $300 Million dollars a year from Google (Mozilla just recently terminated their contract with Yahoo and went back to their old girlfriend, Google.)
If you don't think Mozilla is giving Google anything and everything they want, in return for that money, you are insane.
Webpage and technical data to Google’s SafeBrowsing service:
FWIW, safebrowsing works by downloading a blacklist of hashed URLs that are known bad. If a page's URL hash is not in that list, then it loads normally. If the hash is in the blacklist, then firefox sends the hash to google and gets back the full URL from the blacklist and compares it to the full URL of the page you are visiting in case there is a hashing collision.
Safebrowsing could be abused - google could put known good URLs on there and record when browsers do a full hash lookup of those hashes. But the blacklist can only be so big before performance goes to shit and anybody can inspect the list too, so that level of evil is unlikely to work in the long term.
You really should read Firefox's privacy policy.
Firefox's very own privacy policy readily admits that it can share personal data with Google and other companies in a variety of ways.
The September 28, 2017 version of it states (with emphasis added):
It can also send information to SalesForce:
And to some "Adjust" company:
And to some "Leanplum" company:
If you're using Firefox because you want to avoid sending data to Google or other companies, well, you've fucked up!
In my opinion, Firefox does not respect its users privacy at all. It's even worse that there are people like you spreading misinformation about Firefox, suggesting it respects the privacy of its users when as far as I'm concerned it very clearly doesn't.
Somebody please mod down the parent comment. Browser speed, aka efficiency, matters a lot on the battery powered devices that are now used for the majority of web browsing. FF has consistently been inefficient compared to its major competitors. In my experience FF 57 is still no better than FF 56, and is a lot worse than Edge and Chrome. I can easily get 5+ hours of use out of my laptop's battery when using Edge or Chrome. I'm lucky to get half of that when using FF, even FF 57.
They only had to delay the Android version of the new engine for the mobile FF 57. It will come in the next version.
Who cares? I've been using Netscape for the last 20 years. There's still nothing better.
There's that little difference between can send and will send...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Instead, they were probably sending everything to Yahoo! and we all know how well they do security-wise.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
As long as this little feature is not present, few Chrome users will switch to Firefox. For me it was an instant turn off, even more so on an old Gnome desktop with those preposterously humongous (humongously preposterous?) title bars.
Come on FF, this is a _title_ bar, makes perfect sense to show tab titles there!
Not leaks per se. Just caches and buffers of tabs (including closed ones) with countless threads both from extensions and site content. (Especially with morons who abuse tabs as [a more shitty version of] bookmarks.)
It's the direct result of those "browsers" actually being operating systems and virtual machines in one. Requiring them to duplicate the same features that should be the OS's job.
Note how your OS uses a lot of RAM for cache and buffers too. But it is smart enough to drop those, if memory is required elsewhere.
Those "browser" VMs can do that too. But only for stuff *inside* their VM! But the VM's memory footprint itself is flexible! So instead of freeing those caches when new memory is required, it just inflates the entire thing, eating up real memory and not giving it back.
The OS could enforce a size limit, I guess. But that is silly. The VM itself should shrink itself when there is memory pressure!
Or, ideally, ... call me crazy ..., there shouldn't be any fucking layers of inner-platform effect!
Then the thing would not need to be faster, as it wouldn't be as slow as a 486 on a Ryzen in the first place!
When you get the mental masturbations of speed tests that seeming place ultimate speed above all other considerations. In the race to be the fastest browser, Firefox dumped a boat load of functionality that many would have preferred to keep instead of the speed improvement.
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it breaks compatibility with existing extensions.
I've grown to rely on a number of extensions that just don't work in FF57 (form history control, session manager, tab mix plus) and a bunch of these don't work.
FF57 lasted all of 10 minutes on my system before I rolled back to 56.
In case you're wondering how to do that on Ubunutu 17.10:
sudo apt-get install firefox=56.0+build6-0ubuntu1
sudo apt-mark hold firefox
In some cases (for example session manager) the author is claiming the appropriate api's haven't been made available so they can't write an update right now if they wanted to. I will probably continue to use FF56 or the ESR release as long as I can until I can find a suitable replacement in chrome or opera and then simply switch.
Killing historical extensions really makes me want to ditch FF entirely. Hey Mozilla ever heard of backward compatibility?
I've seen a lot of comments here and on other discussion sites saying that FF 57 is no faster than FF 56, and in some cases it's a lot slower. There are also a lot of comments saying that FF 57 is still slower than other browsers, too. If FF 57 actually is faster then I don't think we would see such a mixed reaction to it. If it really is faster then it would be faster for everyone, not just a small minority of FF fans and Mozilla employees. The uncertainty regarding these supposed performance improvements leads me to believe that they don't actually exist, and the complaints about FF 57's performance lead me to believe it may actually be slower.
Indeed. I miss my extensions, such as hiding a single tab to save space (I'm used to Alt-Tab).
FF should have supported the older engine line in parallel for a year or two until extensions catch up. Extensions are why people use FF. Why switch cold turkey? It's illogical, Captain. They Fucked Up!
Table-ized A.I.
The summary says: "...and a library full of creative add-ons"
I had eight extension/add-ons installed in firefox. After the upgrade, I have two. There are no usable replacements for most of the missing six.
This is a FAIL.
Don't get me wrong - the new version is very nice in other ways. But the idea that all of your extension developers are going to drop what they're doing to port their (now older) extensions to your new platform is naive at best. This should have been handled differently - preferably with a means to use older extensions on an as needed basis.
Mainly because it errors out fast when trying to display any big web page. In other-words, speed without working well is useless! Tim S
The people who whine about slowness and memory leaks are the same ones who would leave their car running day in and day out then complain it's using too much fuel.
As to the "new" Firefox, it looks like something from Soviet Russia. Ugly squared edges, no logic as to why useful items are hidden and have to be sought out, doodads which serve no apparent purpose other than they can be done, and of course the in-your-face, blaring advertisements when you open a new, blank tab, though they can be turned off once you figure out how to do so.
57 is a case study in shiny for shiny's sake.
I currently do not have chrome installed on my linux boxes for exactly this reason. Until and unless this changes, they won't get onto my machines.
If Google is laboring under the illusion that anyone 'trusts' them anymore, they are sadly mistaken.
See my subject: Now "THIS, is /." (haven't 'rtfa' yet but the summary pretty much lays it down well) & I like FF 57 Quantum!
* It IS faster vs. older builds & even 64-bit compiler switch optimized to CPU type (AMD vs. Intel) builds like CyberFox, WaterFox & Palemoon.
(The reason I post this is since Opera 12.18 is getting "long in the tooth" on scripted sites (it only used STANDARD EMCAScript is why afaik) & though I rarely use javascript etc.? There ARE times I need to!)
FF 57 Quantum's FAR FASTER than IE 11, but it's JUST as compatible for things I noted above... now, what I don't like is the fact MANY BROWSERS DO NOT LET YOU TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT the way Opera classic (not Chopera) did by creating a policy to GLOBALLY disable it on ALL sites EXCEPT ones you set 'exceptions' BySite preferences on!)
APK
P.S.=> I seriously cannot wait until say, Palemoon's folks do a build STRIPPING OUT the javascript tracking/advertising machine out of Quantum (IF it's there, probably is, advertisers & webmasters PUT PRESSURE on the Mozilla devs I'd wager to put it there) - AND do their compiler switch optimizations they do too! Then, we'll have a REALLY NICE browser that's as fast as anything out there YET SAFER too vs. infection/tracking/slowing us up etc. ... apk
I had used FF for a very long time, but FF 57 has forced me to abandon FF for Edge. FF 57 broke nearly all of my extensions, and these extensions were the only thing keeping me using FF. Now that they're gone FF is no better than Edge or Chrome or other browsers. It's actually a lot worse because FF 57 was still slow and bloated when I tried it. I don't want to use Chrome because I want to minimize my exposure to Google. So I've settled on Edge instead. It's actually a really good browser. It's not perfect, but at least it's a lot faster and much lighter than FF 57. I don't think I'll ever bother with FF again.
Slower to to point of being unsable.
I've migrated to Edge. As a so gap we can have all our SW fully Chrome certified.
browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.topSitesCount
There is ZERO reason for ANY part of a browser to strart up or run with root privs.
Would it be preferable to for a PC with five user accounts to have five copies of the browser executable installed, one for each user account? Because that's the only way you're going to have the browser update itself without root permissions on an operating system whose primary application repository forbids third-party browser engines.
You should read the FF privacy policy before making a statement like that. By default they send data to Google about your browsing session. It can be disabled, but the default is to send data to Google.
Mozilla do other things too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why UNIX?
I'm so tempted to use profanity to describe the jackasses at Mozilla for what they've done to Firefox. Very few of the millions of people who now call themselves "former Firefox users" will come back. That includes me. I'm certainly not a spokesman for this group, but I bet my situation is very much like theirs.
'Way back at the beginning, I did not choose Firefox because it was the fastest browser out there. I chose it because it gave reasonable performance, used tabs, and offered all kinds of interesting add-ons that put me unambiguously in charge of my on-line experience. Before long, I had my browser configured exactly the way I wanted it. Life was good.
So did I stop visiting the Firefox add-ons site? Hell no! It was both fun and interesting to see what some clever person had come up with that I might want to try...often things I'd never have thought of on my own. Test driving was incredibly fast and easy, and if I didn't like an app or got tired of it, I could get rid of it in seconds.
This was what I loved: I had a core browser that was reliable and fast enough for my purposes, and that I used when I actually needed to be productive. And I had an endlessly-fascinating toy that let me try out interesting, fun things whenever I wanted. When Chrome came out, I gave it a try...why wouldn't I? It was fast, alright. And utterly soulless. I uninstalled it after only a week.
So then the a-holes at Firefox decided they wanted to be Chrome. Even worse, they started screwing around with my GUI, apparently for sport. Classic Theme Restorer could only do so much. But that was only the symptom, not the disease. The disease was the Chrome obsession. And look at them now. "Add-ons" is now a dirty word. But oh my, they're the fastest (maybe).
So here we are today. The people who ruined Firefox are proudly trumpeting that they've turned it into an even faster Chrome. Good luck with that. I didn't want Chrome in the first place. I don't want it now. And I especially don't want a Chrome wannabe that reminds me every time I launch it what I have lost.
So thanks, Firefox, but I think I'll stay with Pale Moon as my regular browser, and Epic as my main backup. If you ever manage to buy back your soul, give me a call.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
yeah, uh huh.
mozilla, you're a fucking non-profit, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt one at that. you shouldn't be paying writers to shill for you.
what about the EVEN LARGER LIBRARY of now-obsolete, add-ons.. add-ons which were able to have more "creativity" than that which is allowed now?
I use Firefox and Chrome regularly, leaning heavily towards Firefox because I was quite satisfied with the add-ons I had for it. Pretty much 100% of my recreational browsing is on Firefox.
1) Yes, Firefox IS much faster to load and navigate to my usual websites. However, sites heavy with the usual endless third party scripts, ads and so on remain occasionally frustratingly slow. However; I have always attributed that to poor design choices and lack of network optimization on the part of those third party content delivery networks. (I'm using Ghostery, but no other ad-blocking software on purpose.)
2) Page rendering is MUCH faster. I think this is the biggest factor in perceived browser speed. Easily matching Chrome and actually surpassing it on image heavy sites like imgur.
3) The add on ecosystem has a long way to go to catch up to what previous versions of Firefox had available. To preserve speed, function and reliability, Firefox 57 has a much more modular arrangement. That means ALL previous add-ons will not work in Firefox 57. In addition; what add-ons that do exist do not seem to be nearly as powerful as the add-ons I used previously. That may be due to the modular design not allowing as much control of Firefox by add-ons, it may be because there simply hasn't been time for third party developers to come up with equally powerful replacements.
4) Firefox has a pretty slick system for handling the deprecation of old add-ons. After updating, when you go to the about:addons page, you'll notice that none of your old addons are visible, but there is a link at the top you can click to view them. Clicking one of your greyed out addons takes you to the get more addons page and usually shows you a pretty good replacement. (9 of the 12 addons I love most had acceptable replacements, learning curve aside) The diversity of addons, as I said, just isn't there yet. So if you have one of the lessor known, less popular addons, you probably won't be able to replace it.
5) There are many very popular addons where the original developer is unavailable or as announced that their addon will not be, or cannot be, rewritten for the new Firefox.
6) The themes situation frankly sucks. Simple themes, ones that basically change the colour of the address and menu bar space are still there and old ones you have will still work. But "complex themes" (what I call REAL themes, ones that change the icons used for buttons, bookmark folders, shape and dimensionality of tabs and so on flat out do not exist. From checking out Mozillas pages on 57, it seems that, as it stands now, Firefox 57 is simply not capable of supporting them. Mozilla does say that complex themes are something they are working on and plan on making available later. Personally, I don't want to make the address/menu bar space simply some colour, or use some wide, narrow image as a simple background. I want themes that help visually distinguish tabs, themes that accentuate the skeuomorph effect. I find this makes it easier to see and mentally manipulate. For me a browser is a tool and a tool doesn't need to look pretty and should never never never try to look pretty at the cost of ergonomics. For now, this is a total loss in my book.
Overall, I do like Firefox 57 and have no plans on reverting to an older one. I am however, going to keep spending a lot of time working on it until I can regain the look and above all function I prefer.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
Across multiple machines and operating systems I'm not seeing a big enough improvement to justify switching away from Chrome. However, the part I reall, really object to is the claim that it is a " gorgeous browser". Those horrible square tabs and hideous Windows 1 style icons are absolutely ugly, even more so when places near much more attractively presented items, such as the address and search boxes! Seriously, that's a styling huge fuckup taking us back to the dark ages.
No, please elaborate. What makes you think they were sending everything to Yahoo!, and what about their security track-record is bothersome?
No package should autoupdate its systemwide binaries. Especially if You have five user accounts on a machine, or on a production or development machine. Besides, why would anybody want applications to autoupdate in the first place?
The obvious answer to Your dilemma is this: application should run with user privileges, and only an admin can install an update to a binary provided with the system.
Not only is Quantum faster than Chrome, in my very subjective experience, but, more importantly, it preserves the only reason that I continue using FF over Chrome: the search field.
https://support.mozilla.org/en...
Here is the surprisingly obvious use case:
Now, do we all agree yet that a search field is a useful thing? Please, O design gurus, stop over simplicating our user interfaces. Yes, we need two mouse buttons, and we need a search field.
Might makes right irrelevant.
I found that Firefox may use less RAM then Chrome but streaming it tended to use slightly more CPU and GPU. Both could affect battery but tests will have to be done. Otherwise I would say Firefox has hit Par but not much more. Certainly not enough to significantly change the browser market share as it is now.
My reasoning is that Edge is every bit as fast and now has 70 popular extensions and we have seen a decline not increase in market share for Edge since it was introduced. If you look at human nature, people stick with what works and doesn't make changes unless that stops working. Given Chrome's significant market share I would say most Chrome users won't change. So who exactly is going to use Firefox?
If your using Google search how does it not send search inputs to Google?? Yes if your not signed into a Google account it won't save your search inquires. My question is why so soon did Mozilla abandon Yahoo search? Did Google start contributing again? How does that look if Google can manipulate Firefox in that way?
I switched to Vivaldi when 57 was released and I quite love it. Feels like the best of Opera and Chromium. I'm pretty sure I'd have switched anyway if I'd known about it before last week.
Firefox Quantum on android is the least bad mobile browser though.
I clicked on a link in google and it failed to relay it through the google pre-click domain or the rerouting javascript froze. So no.
Why has this always been missing, and now even all feed-reader add-ons are broken? Lack of native and user-friendly rss/atom support in all browsers is what caused facebook, twitter, and others to get where they are. They aggregate stuff people want to see. Because the stupid browsers cannot follow feeds.
"Feed Sidebar" was the one and only add-on that made Firefox complete. It was utilizing the live-links (that firefox supports, but cannot display in any meaningful manner), and maintains its own history for the visited feed-items, so it would even work with FF-history disabled (and even in private mode - but yes, keeping a feed-history in private mode of course somewhat defeats the purpose of private mode).
Now there's nothing.
Chromecast brokent, and, most, importantly, 57 broke NoScript.
Now all ugly creatures crawled out out of giant Internet arsehole and torture me on screen.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
if you insist on never closing your browser. Yeah, some folks get really upset when you suggest they do that, but most don't even notice that they periodically close their browser.
Resources are limited. What's a better use of time, tracking down a few kilos worth of memory leaks that annoy the less than 1% of your user base who never close their browser down and keep 100+ tabs open or making your JavaScript engine 10% faster?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
My PC has several user accounts. There is only one copy of the browser, installed system-wide so all users may use it. Each user run the browser underhis/her own identity. Obviously, none of them can update the browser. Only root updates the browser, along with any other system updates.
Ops - you're talking about some system that forbids third party browsers. Not the kind of system I use, sorry.
How's the memory footprint doing Firefox? That's what I thought. Still looking down at everyone from that ivory tower. It's lonely up there isn't it? That was Firefox's fatal mistake. It's too bad, I used Firefox for many years and then switched because Firefox would grind to a halt after being open for a relatively short period of time.
We'll make great pets
By the way if you want some real benchmarks, here. While 57 has improved performance over 56, these claims about Quantum being twice as fast as Chrome are just blatantly false. It varies depending on the benchmark.
We'll make great pets
Damn update caused my videos to overlay a purple and green layer. Refresh fixes the problem for about 5 minutes.Tried refreshing three times already. I have flash disabled and it still does it with HTML5 playback. Tried everything and videos play fine in chrome. Check drivers and they're up to date. Hardware acceleration blah blah blah.
Anyone have any idea what else it could be. Worked fine until the stupid update which updated despite me having the settings to ask me before updating. I'm about to be done with FF if I can't get this video issue fixed. I removed and reloaded the firefox program twice also. Need some help here, FF.
Autoupdating is actually illegal on my machine, it doesn't comply with my terms of service. A company that wants to perform auto-updates on my machine needs to obtain a license first.
Firefox 57 Nightly still support legacy addon(disabled but can enabled from about:config).
Let's start a vote on change.org to keep this feature on Firefox 57.1+, and advise user to use new addon if possible.
Someone, post a link of change.org!
well it runs twitch now , so that's good...
No.
Firefox memory footprint has never been an issue for me, especially when it's compared to Chromium-based browser (Chromium, Chrome, Opera, etc). 100+ tabs are not uncommon for my daily use. I use Linux though, but I think OS is irrelevant here. Add-ons are probably the main culprit if it comes to memory issue. FF57 uses a new add-on framework WebExtension, so it's probably be fixed.
I have used FF57 since 2 days ago, and I'd say it's quite impressive.
For fine grained JS control, you might want to try uMatrix add-on. It controls JS and much more (cookie, css, image, media, frame, xhr, etc).
No part of the browser runs as root unless your stupid enough to explicitly do so...
It runs as your user account, and then sandboxes things like javascript and plugins even further.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
There is ZERO reason for ANY part of a browser to strart up or run with root privs.
[How else are you] going to have the browser update itself without root permissions[?]
application should run with user privileges, and only an admin can install an update to a binary provided with the system.
Then what process, if not part of the browser, downloads and installs said updates? Is it desirable to leave a security vulnerability unpatched for days or weeks until the admin returns to the machine to apply an update?
My PC has several user accounts. Obviously, none of them can update the browser. Only root updates the browser
How long does it typically take from the day the browser publisher publishes an update addressing a security vulnerability to the day root arrives, such as from vacation, and installs said update?
Ops - you're talking about some system that forbids third party browsers.
I was referring to Windows. Windows has Windows Store, a mechanism to update EdgeHTML and wrappers around EdgeHTML. It can run Firefox or Chrome but doesn't have its own means to update Firefox or Chrome. It instead relies on means provided by each browser publisher.
What key feature FF has that Chrome doesn't? (except being OSS)
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
It's still much slower than FF56 was with noscript.
And I didn't have to constantly fight my package manager to keep it from forcing updates, and breaking shit.
I only use NoScript for 1 thing - finding 3rd party scripts to block FASTER than NoScript does it via hosts (no parse for script src tags in HTML source) doing it way, Way, WAY beforehand.
* As far as "on-site" scripts? I've noted that I use Opera 12.18 MOST of the time & it allows me to set a GLOBAL preference to NOT USE SCRIPT ANYWHERE (I don't trust the shit what w/ malware & bogus exploits + bitcoin mining etc.) & THEN, IF I need to use scripts? I set a BySite UNIQUE prefernce for it to be allowed on a site (say ecommerce or online banking for example where DataBase access is necessary).
APK
P.S.=> I am only really using (as I noted) FireFox "Quantum" on YouTube & NetFlix (& that's really about it) & I also wanted to see what "all the hoopla" was about as to its performance (& it is living up to expectations/promises, especially for scripting speed of execution vs. even PaleMoon/CyberFox/WaterFox builds) but Opera IMO @ least (Classic Opera, not Chinese Chromium "ChOpEra", lol) is STILL KING in my book (still the most flexible powerful browser around but using std. EMCAScript only, it falls short on NetFlix/Outlook.com & sometimes YouTube (even though it does HTML 5 to a good degree))... apk
...if you get people asking the wrong questions.
"Is Firefox 57 Faster Than Chrome?" doesn't matter. Firefox is free software (software users are free to run, inspect, share, and modify) and the basis for more free software browsers that do a better job respecting one's privacy than Firefox does by default. Google's Chrome, on the other hand, is nonfree (proprietary, user-subjugating) software published by a known spy agency and partner of the NSA (three cheers for Snowden for freeing the documents about what the American government and corporations are doing!). Using that program means literally handing Google as much control over your computer (including your browsing) as your computer account allows.
I don't care which browser is faster. It so happens that any recent revision of Firefox is fast enough to do the jobs I do. What's more important to me is software freedom; I care about retaining control over the computers I own and I think all other computer users deserve full control over their computers. So I recommend software freedom for its own sake even if that means an inconvenience on something as relatively unimportant as browser speed. Leave it to the corporate tech media, the corporate sycophants (readily found on /.), and people too naive about social issues to cultivate bad priorities like browser speed over software freedom.
Digital Citizen
It's similar for desktop, but only the Android version of Firefox support extensions, and frankly, feature set on a mobile version of Chrome is bit plain. Hence in order to use the feature, I would use Firefox.
Firefox also features master password, too.
Actually read the Firefox privacy policy.
These sections that refer to data sent to Google or other companies clearly do not use the word "may":
Both of those clearly fall under the "will" case.
The second one is particularly bad, because it says Firefox will "by default" send this "Google advertising ID" to this "Adjust" company.
It's truly pathetic how you Firefox freaks go out of your way to deny the obvious. Face it, Firefox sends user data to Google and other companies.
apt does
APT doesn't run natively on Windows. It runs in WSL, sure, but browsers are X apps, and WSL isn't intended to host X apps yet. For this reason, each browser on Windows must include its own update mechanism.
Uhh, let's see, their search engine and advertising deal with Yahoo, and we all know about Yahoo's data breach, unless you've been living under a rock for years.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Use Chromium?
Its a shame you don't apparently understand how to use google search as well as you seem to think you understand google chrome.
Are you seriously suggesting a program should run with root privs just for the sake of ease of updating?? I hope you're never employed as a sys admin, your company would be owned within months.
There is ZERO reason for ANY part of a browser to strart up or run with root privs.
[How else are you] going to have the browser update itself without root permissions[?]
application should run with user privileges, and only an admin can install an update to a binary provided with the system.
Then what process, if not part of the browser, downloads and installs said updates? Is it desirable to leave a security vulnerability unpatched for days or weeks until the admin returns to the machine to apply an update?
No, it's not desirable. Unfortunately it's become impossible to provide any sort of local admin rights anymore, because the average user is so fucking ignorant about computers that they'll most likely have it riddled with malware within a week. The entire ransomware industry runs on stupidity, and it's been obscenely successful.
If patching systems is taking weeks instead of a few days, you have a manpower problem, not a permissions problem. Any CIO worth a shit would have justified sufficient IT manpower and technical solutions to update systems efficiently, to include a testing process before updates are rolled out to Production systems.
Glad you have taken your heads out of your chromed b*tts to finally look honestly at ff 57.
I'm only interested in the speed of a browser with Ad Block Plus running. Not rendering the ads makes the biggest difference in performance.
This new FF quantum architecture has a major regression which they're very slow on fixing so far. If you have a large select list(html SELECT), FF takes several seconds to open it when you click on it. It's so bad that we had to tell users to use IE for now until they fix it. Chrome and Safari all display the select list in less than 1 second. Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
That's a common misconception. VMs are not a security solution.
It has been shown many times, that VMs are just as insecure as any other complex non-deterministic code interpreter. People are breaking out of them regularly.
You need privilege management in any case. As in: Any process should have access only to those calls and resources it needs to do its job, and its code itself should be restricted in the same way. RBAC solutions would be better suited for this.
Richard?
The one true benchmark is whether the new FF is faster at behaving in mostly the same way as my highly tweaked FF of yore, which was highly tweaked to make me faster at getting to where I wanted to go.
It's an interesting situation where the new FF is faster only for those users who didn't care enough about their own performance to carefully tweak their work process. So what we have here is performance as an ego good: when your browser is snappy, it makes your dick swell.
It doesn't, however, swell your CV of satisfying life accomplishments, though perhaps—if one views one's life history through the filter of a constantly swollen dick—it might lead you to perceive that your past life totally rocked.
Hence why the divorce papers came as such a shock.
Yes, ABP is working just fine in Firefox 57.
I don't know if the new Firefox is faster. But I don't care. It's now, finally, fast enough to be usable!
Previous versions struggled just to scroll down a Web page. This new version is fast enough that I can't really tell a performance difference between it and Chrome. That means that it's now a viable option for me. And I LOVE that it can block auto-play videos!
No package should autoupdate its systemwide binaries.
This traces back to a failure on the part of the OS to provide an adequate package manager. Both Windows and MacOS suffer from this. I don't see any reason why every OS shouldn't have something like apt/yum that can update the OS and all applications via a system-wide updater and configurable repositories. Not only would it do away with the need for applications to update themselves, it would make mass deployment/updates much easier for IT departments.
But forget security, and forget making people's lives easier. Apple and Microsoft need to force everyone into their app stores so they can get a cut.
that you don't turn off unless you're shutting down your business. So I cant' really blame them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I am happy that downloads can't be written wherever. Isn't that a good thing?
Web browsers lost our trust many moons ago.
While I like the improvements of Quantum, I still rely on "Tab Groups" plugin, which has yet to be developed for Quantum.
So, it's v56 for me until this one little plugin is ported!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
If patching systems is taking weeks instead of a few days, you have a manpower problem, not a permissions problem. Any CIO worth a shit
...isn't necessarily going to have the money to hire someone to update the PCs on his home LAN while he is on vacation.
For work, I agree with your assessment. But at home, I've seen cases where the administrator is present only once every couple weeks.
FF57 is about as fast as Chrome, it looks like Chrome and only the addons that would also run in Chrome run in FF57.
So what advantages does FF57 have over Chrome?
None.
A snail is faster than a stone. That just doesn't make it fast.
Give me a fast browser please that doesn't eat all available memory.
Who cares when it stutters when I scroll and it did not do that before. Go ahead and blame my extensions... oh, you can't. All of my extensions (only noscript) stopped working immediately. Meh.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen