Slashdot Mirror
Firefox vs Chrome: Speed and Memory (laptopmag.com)
Mashable aleady reported Firefox Quantum performs better than Chrome on web applications (based on BrowserBench's JetStream tests), but that Chrome performed better on other benchmarks. Now Laptop Mag has run more tests, agreeing that Firefox performs beter on JetStream tests -- and on WebXPRT's six HTML5- and JavaScript-based workload tests.
Firefox Quantum was the winner here, with a score of 491 (from an average of five runs, with the highest and lowest results tossed out) to Chrome's 460 -- but that wasn't quite the whole story. Whereas Firefox performed noticeably better on the Organize Album and Explore DNA Sequencing workloads, Chrome proved more adept at Photo Enhancement and Local Notes, demonstrating that the two browsers have different strengths...
You might think that Octane 2.0, which started out as a Google Developers project, would favor Chrome -- and you'd be (slightly) right. This JavaScript benchmark runs 21 individual tests (over such functions as core language features, bit and math operations, strings and arrays, and more) and combines the results into a single score. Chrome's was 35,622 to Firefox's 35,148 -- a win, if only a minuscule one.
In a series RAM-usage tests, Chrome's average score showed it used "marginally" less memory, though the average can be misleading. "In two of our three tests, Firefox did finish leaner, but in no case did it live up to Mozilla's claim that Quantum consumes 'roughly 30 percent less RAM than Chrome,'" reports Laptop Mag.
Both browsers launched within 0.302 seconds, and the article concludes that "no matter which browser you choose, you're getting one that's decently fast and capable when both handle all of the content you're likely to encounter during your regular surfing sessions."
You might think that Octane 2.0, which started out as a Google Developers project, would favor Chrome -- and you'd be (slightly) right. This JavaScript benchmark runs 21 individual tests (over such functions as core language features, bit and math operations, strings and arrays, and more) and combines the results into a single score. Chrome's was 35,622 to Firefox's 35,148 -- a win, if only a minuscule one.
In a series RAM-usage tests, Chrome's average score showed it used "marginally" less memory, though the average can be misleading. "In two of our three tests, Firefox did finish leaner, but in no case did it live up to Mozilla's claim that Quantum consumes 'roughly 30 percent less RAM than Chrome,'" reports Laptop Mag.
Both browsers launched within 0.302 seconds, and the article concludes that "no matter which browser you choose, you're getting one that's decently fast and capable when both handle all of the content you're likely to encounter during your regular surfing sessions."
WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT SPEED?! It's not been about SPEED since... 2001? It's about all the KEYLOGGERS and SPYWARE and fucking BLOAT BULLSHIT that these assholes fill their shitty browsers with these days. They have ALL become useless. The latest Firefox is so bad that I finally went to try out Palemoon, but was so turned off by its bizarre, sketchy installer that I forgot about that again.
Sigh. There is not one browser that is usable these days.
Until an XUL compatibility layer is developed Firefox Quantum is useless, forcing people to use ESR or forks.
When will Noscript 10 be available for Firefox? Until that's released, Firefox is garbage. If developer builds allow legacy extensions to run , the Firefox developers were more than capable of doing so in official releases. Quite simply, the goal is to prevent users from running legacy extensions. In the process, security and functionality have been reduced for everyone.
Exactly.
Brave, on the other hand, has NoScript-like functionality built into the core software and works out of the box, along with ad/tracker blocking and fingerprint protection.
It makes sense, as Brave is led by Eich, who was helping lead Mozilla when it was actually good.
Okay, so you dislike Chrome. So do I.
But Chromium is open source and has no proprietary Google code.
I think you better read the Firefox EULA...
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The Firefox privacy policy suggests that they do, indeed, spy on you. Your browsing activity is potentially sent to Google and a number of other companies.
I wonder how these two compare with MS edge browser.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
download statusbar, classic theme restorer, noscript. Without all the addons that made Firefox 3.0 great, speed is useless. Like a car without seats, or a bar without beer.
That's if you use their auto-complete/domain checking services, which are enabled by default, but you can turn them off.
Uhh...maybe that's because the current upgrade wasn't related to JavaScript features? That's not a good test to test it with.
Ezekiel 23:20
But which browser would a boomer use?
Found the terrorist!
Jeez I mean come on! They didn't want to test IE 6? The real reason is because there has not been a single browser made for the web since IE 6. Don't believe me? Well go to abovetopsecret or infowars forums and ask if the world is flat. Then you'll have your answer.
only fascist alt left and the unitary juche right believe in and use those other wannabe browsers. True AOL internet aficionados use internet explorer 6 and we explored every nook and cranny with IE6, and the more genius amongst us even staked claims on the Geocities territories where they could be safe from those "others", and enjoy their html blink tags and animated gifts in peace.
Bring back IE6! Make America Online Great Again!
I'm sure that Mozilla will be happy.
We're now just like Chrome!
Jeez, just like a 12-year-old wanting to be just like the most popular kid - it's sad.
Sorry, Mini-me ain't Dr. Evil. In fact, Mini-me is a joke...
If they're enabled by default, and they unexpectedly (for most users, at least) send data to Google, then we should consider Firefox to be a form of malware. Being able to disable this spyware aspect of it doesn't excuse this negative behavior in any way.
Tell us which one is faster to remove all the ads, shutting up all the audio and video, blocking facebook , pinterest and twitter buttons, preventing fingerprinting and trackers, blocking webRTC and all 30 external javascript links that each page seems to 'need' these days and ... then we can talk.
Artificial benchmarks are irrelevant. All that matters is real world performance. And this is where FF, including FF 57, fails badly in my experience. Edge, Chrome, Vivaldi, Brave, Safari and Opera have all been much faster than FF 57 on the various computers I've tried them on.
Keep it evil-free.
> So by your logic...
There is no logic. Just trolling. It's AC, and completely off-topic, even the title. Might have been dropped here by a bot, or at best a drive-by cut-n-paste. There's no conversation here, poster is likely long gone. Not worth your time.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
These Mozilla/Firefox submissions are very important and relevant. It's critical for us to let people know the truth about FF 57. It's being portrayed as a great release, but in my experience with it it's the opposite; it's terrible, I think. If it weren't for these submissions, it would be a lot easier for innocent victims to be mislead about FF 57. At least people might learn about their broken extensions before upgrading. And these submissions are a great place to let Firefox victims know about alternatives like Brave, Chrome and Vivaldi.
But every one of these stories is slanted towards how great FF57 is.
It is specifically engineered around privacy and security by default. And it very fast.
I have been trying 57 for a day. To be fair, it seems pretty decent so let's give those poor Mozilla devs a break!
It only choked on the pdf from this article where cpu went nuts until I was done reading and closed the tab. Then, everything went back to normal. Still, it made it look bad.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
I had to learn to use uBlock and uMatrix to replace noscript and I am not sure I will go back to noscript now once they release a coming soon compatible version.
My other addons kept working or had a replacement version already available. ghostery, adblockplus, decentraleyes...
Overall, at first glance, I like it.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Firefox Quantum sucks at video playback, and eats battery like nobody's business.
It's also a memory hog, for me it uses over 1 GB for four tabs.
People keep quoting low memory numbers but seem to be missing the forked processes.
I use both Firefox and Chrome on an older Mac. I got the Mac in 2009. I use Firefox for the New York Times website and have been using it for years. Performance was never a problem until I upgraded to Firefox Quantum. The performance sucks and it takes around 2 minutes 30 seconds to load the NYT homepage. Other sites, such as Slashdot, load fine. Any ideas?
Generally ok, but strangely enough, only /. seems to load more slowly than it did under 56. : |
perceived speed VS actual speed.
A lot of software uses neat tricks to give the illusion of higher speed. E.g. in iOS, when switching to another app, at the beginning, you would only see a screenshot, until the actual app would be loaded. But since you’d never choose where to tap that fast, it worked. Also, Windows used to load many of its essential services only after showing the desktop and task bar.
I wonder which tricks browsers already use and which could be added.
(I know that ye olde Opera used to seem a lot quicker because the rendered pages (including those in history) were cached, while Firefox would re-render pages far more often for no reason. E.g. when going back and forward.
> I moved my primary browser to Brave. Script control is natively enabled so no more waiting for outside developers. And Brave is faster than Firefox has ever been.
Can it be faster than FF running on my 32-bit Mint? Because I just went to brave.com and it seems there is a 32-bit version, but it's for W7. Linux, it seems, has only 64-bit versions, which is slower on my computers. https://community.brave.com/t/why-is-the-32-bit-version-is-only-available-for-windows-not-linux/2791
Just a few days of experience, but FF57 looks more fluid. I don't use Chrome/Chromium a lot, but FF57 seems not to be slower.
Regarding the many Mozilla articles, well, at least they're not about Micro$oft.
then you're probably too dumb to use a browser in the first place. The 4 top browsers, Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer 11, and Edge, are all really fast-performing and feature-complete.
The real difference is in the set of functionality and privacy/security, and Firefox 57 beats the rest of them on that point. This is what you should be thinking about when you decide what browser to use.
So Firefox Quantum, what is next, Firefox Cherry? Firefox Dark? Firefox Quartz? Firefox Victory?
I will only upgrade if it gives my screen a cool blue glow... and I can mix in some Abraxo Cleaner and Turpentine for a big bang.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Thats all well and good, but when will Firefox start properly supporting large enterprise deployments and management?
- No inbuilt group policy support - management of browser is terrible when compared against IE, Edge and Chrome
- Terrible proxy support for major enterprise level proxies
- Easy deployment of certificates (ie being able to utilise the OS cert store)
Until Mozilla takes enterprise seriously, then enterprise won't take Firefox seriously. At my work place we have removed Firefox completely due to the above issues, and standardised between IE (for legacy sites) and Chrome.
I've been testing it out too. It's good, I'm just not sure if there is any reason to switch from Chromium.
Chromium seems to have a better security model, at least based on how much it gets hacked at pwn2own or in terms of CVEs/year. Firefox is a bit more flexible with the UI and has some privacy features built in that Chromium needs add-ons for.
What other compelling features does Firefox have to make me switch back?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
besides being the only independent non for profit platform? you mean
Ah, one more thing, Slashdot became usable, javascript and all... it probably is faster than in Chromium.
For the record, this is a Dual Core i686 ~3GHz (yeah, it can do 64-bit, but it has "only" 2GB RAM). I changed a "Content processes limit" from the default 4 to 2.
Which of those benchmarks measures browser performance after leaving a couple dozen tabs open for three weeks? Huh?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Installed it, browsed a few sites, and uninstalled. Went back to Chrome - no problems.
MS has no role in browser war. here we have a window for them.
Again: Who cares.
Even if and when Firefox is slower, it still to be preferred. The obvious reason is that Chrome is the new Internet Explorer: Google's attempt at owning the internet.
That they learned from Microsoft's mistakes and as a result manage to play the abuse smoother does not make it less true.
People who use Chrome are either uninterested in matters of internet freedom, naive, or harmful.
So what? If the product is inferior, who cares if it is run by a non-profit?
If you want a browser that's both fast, and doesn't spy on you, the answer is simple - Safari
On my machine, JetStream results in this:
Firefox Quantom: 164.86
Chrome: 181.52
Safari: 238.86
I concur. Tried FF (vs Chrome) for a couple days and 1) indeed very fast 2) cuts lots of crap as is (ie without add ons) 3) efficient media / video.
Welcome back, FF!
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The other day I saw an ad for Firefox 57.
On TV.
On a weekday.
On TBS.
During American Dad.
And the commercial barely communicated why people should switch to Firefox!
Prepare for bankruptcy.
You know how I judge that? It takes longer to do things. You know why that is? Because they broke my plugins and the best replacements I can find are clumsier and less streamlined.
Time will tell whether it _becomes_ faster than it was before, but it isn't faster now.
For those turned off by how much uMatrix has going on but want more control than uBlock, they can use uBlock with the "I am an advanced user" checked so they can take advantage of dynamic filtering.
I dumped both Firefox and Chrome and now use Opera [url:http://www.opera.com] instead. Opera isn't the memory hog that Firefox is and doesn't crash/burn/get stupid as Chrome often does.
Opera has a very cool feature: highlight text and Opera displays Search and Copy boxes. This is a time saver if you copy/paste or search much.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Sure, it's nice that the Firefox devs keep working to improve speed, memory, and performance, but these are a lot more trivial than they were in the past.
What really makes or breaks the user's experience these days is the front-end stuff. Whenever the devs shuffle your buttons, move your tabs, change your menus, toggle your settings, and break your add-ons before replacements are available (all of which happens far too often in Firefox updates), there is nothing but frustration and anger. In that regard, FF57 is an abomination.
Which makes script management very simple and straight-forward with no add-ons needed.
You are just a troll. I guess you feel like you are doing something useful tolling as an Anonymous Coward, but really not. Perhaps if you grow up and post as a real person- or are you afraid that people will stalk you like seem you seem to be doing now?
But keep picking on point #3 of *6*. Had you been polite and a real person, then maybe I would have discussed it even further, but it is a waste of time.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Please use caution when reading the parent comment. It has apparently been posted by Mark Davis.
This past Thursday, when discussing Firefox 57, Mark Davis incorrectly claimed that Firefox "Contains no Googleisms and Google tracking". Of course, this bullshit claim of his was quickly shown to be wrong, with Firefox's very own privacy policy proving just how wrong his claim is.
After seeing such a blatantly incorrect claim like that associated with this "markdavis" account here at Slashdot, I can't bring myself to trust any other comment made using that account.
At this point, I have to assume that the opposite of what he is claiming is actually the truth. If he says that Firefox is "faster", then the only sensible thing to do is assume that it's actually slower. That matches what a lot of other people are saying about Firefox 57, not just here at Slashdot, but in various other discussion forums, too.
So please show caution when reading his comments. In my opinion, they can't be trusted, especially after what we witnessed last Thursday.
Everything everyone says is to be met with skepticism until proven otherwise or at least, demonstrated with reason to be valid. Including this post. Everyone or nearly everyone has some kind of opinion to validate, agenda to push, or bias to express. To think otherwise is naive and foolish.
Your suspicion could be right. Or he could merely have been ignorant about the privacy policy (not too different from knowledge of a EULA really) and you're quick to assign blame. I don't know. So I will gladly entertain both of your viewpoints but no decision can be based on it without something more to go on.
It's not independent.
And all the comments about how there are so many stories about FF57 and that they're all positive spin are modded down. Mozilla's marketing machine must be paying a pretty penny. Perhaps they're panicking because they know their marketshare has dropped even lower than it was.
FTFA: "no matter which browser you choose, you're getting one that's decently fast and capable when both handle all of the content you're likely to encounter during your regular surfing sessions."
In other words, "Either one of these browsers is better than any turd Microsoft shovels out."
It only choked on the pdf from this article where cpu went nuts
So the real problem is using a browser to render PDFs. We're using browsers to do half-assed duplicate work while proper tools for the job already exist.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
And not by a large margin: http://www.zdnet.com/article/j...
We'll make great pets
You are full of it.
Any one remotely interested in security and especially privacy can in Firefox switch off the various transmissions, try that in Edge or Chrome...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
What is that LaptopMag.com source? Underneath the article I found scams in my language pointing to "interesting" articles "FROM THE WEB". It cointained even links to obvious cosmetics-selling scams posing as state-established Czech doctors' organization (Camera Medica Bohemica - "eská lékaská komora"). That is totally outlawed in my country!
Don't trust a source that takes money from scammers.
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
Care to elaborate on what you think is so bad about it? I've used it the last week and have had no issues.
I know it's pedantic and nerd-rage-y but I won't use Chrome because the lack of a menu bar is too distracting for me.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This! If I had mod points, you'd get one. Thank you for pointing out that we should be using pdf readers for rendering pdfs, and that this does not need to be built into the browser. Every new feature added, especially to web browsers- which have become such complex pieces of software- needs to be carefully evaluated from a security and redundancy perspective.
My Mom has run stock Firefox for years, with auto-updates turned on. No add-ons or plugins. FF 57 auto-installed and was completely unusable, taking minutes to do anything. It is now shut down and Chrome installed in its place.
What other compelling features does Firefox have to make me switch back?
Some prominent extension's writer (might have been uBlock Origin) said that even without the legacy extension interface, FF57's extension API is already more powerful than chrome's and this meant their extension was more capable/efficient on FF.
As for security, we don't yet know - given that the withdrawal of the legacy extension API was supposed to be at least partly because it was a security minefield, so it's possible FF may be as good or better than Chrome now.
Even if it's only equal to Chrome overall, competition is good.
Personally, a proper bookmarks sidebar is very important for be and Chrome doesn't have that.
How do the two compare on availability and functionality of extensions in their latest versions?
Still, Firefox needs to get it's base of valuable plug-ins ported to Quantum.
Hate to say it, yet I value "Tab Groups" more than what Quantum offers. So I am sticking w/ Firefox v56.
C'mon, you Firefox developers and contributors, PLEASE get those valuable plug-ins/extensions ported up!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
I'm afraid we're too late trying to turn back the clock. Videos on webpages are some of the worst kind of this problem, and they're been popular at least since Youtube started around 2005. At the time, I thought it was idiotic to watch videos on a tiny part of a webpage vs. full screen with a proper player, but I guess that's what people wanted. Or perhaps normal people are completely helpless with their own computers, so everything has to be ready-made for the browser. And the advertisers must love the fact of autoplaying video clips.
PDF readers have their own stigma, IMHO, with websites urging you to download the one official Acrobat Reader, as if no free/open readers existed. So I can understand how the in-browser reader may feel like a better choice -- it's often open source anyway. And there's some logic in having a document renderer in an application that already renders documents. Still, the near history of computing looks like one worse choice after another, with the better choices being phased away.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.