Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Quantum Is 'Better, Faster, Smarter than Chrome', Says Wired (wired.com)
Wired's senior staff writer David Pierce says Firefox Quantum "feels like a bunch of power users got together and built a browser that fixed all the little things that annoyed them about other browsers."
The new Firefox actually manages to evolve the entire browser experience, recognizing the multi-device, ultra-mobile lives we all lead and building a browser that plays along. It's a browser built with privacy in mind, automatically stopping invisible trackers and making your history available to you and no one else. It's better than Chrome, faster than Chrome, smarter than Chrome. It's my new go-to browser.
The speed thing is real, by the way. Mozilla did a lot of engineering work to allow its browser to take advantage of all the multi-core processing power on modern devices, and it shows... I routinely find myself with 30 or 40 tabs open while I'm researching a story, and at that point Chrome effectively drags my computer into quicksand. So far, I haven't been able to slow Firefox Quantum down at all, no matter how many tabs I use... [But] it's the little things, the things you do with and around the web pages themselves, that make Firefox really work. For instance: If you're looking at a page on your phone and want to load that same page on your laptop, you just tap "Send to Device," pick your laptop, and it opens and loads in the background as if it had always been there. You can save pages to a reading list, or to the great read-it-later service Pocket (which Mozilla owns), both with a single tap...
Mozilla has a huge library of add-ons, and if you use the Foxified extension, you can even run Chrome extensions in Firefox. Best I can tell, there's nothing you can do in Chrome that you can't in Firefox. And Firefox does them all faster.
I've noticed that when you open a new tab in Chrome's mobile version, it forces you to also see news headlines that Google picked out for you. But how about Slashdot's readers? Chrome, Firefox -- or undecided?
The speed thing is real, by the way. Mozilla did a lot of engineering work to allow its browser to take advantage of all the multi-core processing power on modern devices, and it shows... I routinely find myself with 30 or 40 tabs open while I'm researching a story, and at that point Chrome effectively drags my computer into quicksand. So far, I haven't been able to slow Firefox Quantum down at all, no matter how many tabs I use... [But] it's the little things, the things you do with and around the web pages themselves, that make Firefox really work. For instance: If you're looking at a page on your phone and want to load that same page on your laptop, you just tap "Send to Device," pick your laptop, and it opens and loads in the background as if it had always been there. You can save pages to a reading list, or to the great read-it-later service Pocket (which Mozilla owns), both with a single tap...
Mozilla has a huge library of add-ons, and if you use the Foxified extension, you can even run Chrome extensions in Firefox. Best I can tell, there's nothing you can do in Chrome that you can't in Firefox. And Firefox does them all faster.
I've noticed that when you open a new tab in Chrome's mobile version, it forces you to also see news headlines that Google picked out for you. But how about Slashdot's readers? Chrome, Firefox -- or undecided?
Yes Firefox has improved an amazing amount with the Quantum update. Yes- I moved off of Chrome.
But seriously... it's not like the messiah has returned. The hype surrounding this is unbelievable...
My experience is that Quantum is acceptably fast. Not impressively fast. It's only impressively fast when compared to previous versions of Firefox.
Why did I switch? Because Chrome causes problems with my audio subsystem which gets heavy use. I'd like to use my browser while the computer is routing audio streams. Chrome made that impossible (and was the only program which caused that kind of problem).
After 16 months of trying to solve the problem Firefox eeked out Chrome simply because it was no longer a "dog".
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
It's a nice improvement and it seems to be a success with users — except the ones that obsessively collect plugins and extensions — but no, it doesn't beat Chrome. Chrome's PDF handling is still better. Applications that involve panning around maps (google maps, zillow, etc.) work better in Chrome. And Firefox has a long way to go to match Chrome Developer Tools.
Never really thought much of Wired. Between the click bait and the left wing group think I'd say I've had it right all along.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I wonder how much they got paid.
So, all this "it's blazing fast" hype is a barebones Firefox with no extensions. The *whole idea* of Firefox is that you add extensions to it to make it usable. Without them, Firefox is weak and useless. So, once you've installed the necessary 10-15 extensions that make the browser worth using, how's that performance then?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I looked at the code and behavior, and Google Maps deliberately uses massive amounts of requests in Firefox but much fewer requests in Chrome. Even though the exact same thing would have worked in Firefix too. Which leaves only deliberate behavior as an option.
Not surprising, coming from Data Kraken "do more evil" Google.
The whole idea of Firefox is *PRIVACY*. Chrome has access to the Google 'Advertiser ID', which in turn is linked to Google play, and google accounts, your credit card, name, address, phone number, linked to the location service (i.e. GPS track), the Wifi near you (i.e. who you are with) and if Google Assistant is onboard then recordings of everything you every said to it, and every website you ever visited that has a Google advert, Google metrics, Google content service, Google Tag Service etc etc etc etc. i.e. every website you ever visited.
So, anyone who's understands what Google is actually doing, switches to DuckDuckGo and Firefox to reduce the amount of data we voluntarily hand over to Google.
Firefox's main selling point is privacy.
Quantum completely broke noscript
NoScript is available for Firefox Quantum. Read the developer's blog to get the latest NoScript status.
Personally I use uBlock Origin and I've also set Firefox's built-in tracking protection to "always".
The reload button is in the "customize" window. It's three clicks (and a drag) to put it wherever you want.
Gone are pretty much all the extensions that separated Firefox from Chrome.
The developers of NoScript and uBlock Origin say Firefox's WebExtensions API is the best of any browser. The API isn't standing still. New features are getting added. Firefox's implementation of WebExtensions does more than Chrome's does.
This may be frustrating, but this is really just a temporary problem. The new extension platform will eventually increase the number of maintained extensions by easing development, increase security.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
NoScript is available for Firefox Quantum. Read the developer's blog to get the latest NoScript status.
Half works for me. Works fine on the desktop. Noscript Anywhere no longer works on my phone. NoScript half runs, displays the UI and so on... but doesn't actually block scripts.
Hoping they fix that because trying to browse the web without noscript is miserable. there's flashing, moving shit EVERYWHERE.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I looked at the code and behavior, and Google Maps deliberately uses massive amounts of requests in Firefox but much fewer requests in Chrome. Even though the exact same thing would have worked in Firefix too. Which leaves only deliberate behavior as an option.
Not surprising, coming from Data Kraken "do more evil" Google.
"Google Maps aren't done until FireFox won't run", then? :D
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I've read this sentence about 50 times and I still don't know what would possess someone to write something like this
Isn't it obvious? Ten. Thousand. Dollars. This is an ad, pure and simple. Just read it: This is rhetoric written by a Mozilla marketing person.
What is the point of writing this?
Increasing market share. Mozilla have been looking at their metrics and have discovered that they've lost a huge number of users since 57 came out. So they've bought an article in wired to try to lure some unsuspecting people back from chrome. It's all right there in the text, talking about how firefox is now more chrome than chrome.
If these things are true and manifestly evident, there's no need to write this at all
The people this is written for switched to chrome years ago and are happy with it. They haven't seen the new firefox, and they don't care. This ad is trying to lure them back.
what's the end game for this idea?
They're hoping they can get more people to switch from chrome to firefox than the number of people who switched to pale moon or waterfox last week.
Who would buy into this idea that hasn't already?
Nobody. What they fail to understand is that the people who use chrome like it. They just don't get that becoming a crappier version of chrome isn't a sensible business plan. They've been told this over and over again but they have their fingers in their ears and they're going "lalalalalala". And now they're in panic mode because the things their users have been saying for the past year turned out to be true.
This smacks of "hey fellow kids, I'm cool too" type rhetoric.
It's a paid ad.
I switched to Pale Moon long ago and regret nothing.
Waterfox here, pale moon and firefox 52 (locked at that version, never to be upgraded) on my last remaining 32 bit system. Both are faster than firefox and don't have a terrible UI. I was particularly impressed by the way waterfox imported everything from firefox: addons, the tabs I had open, everything. Was probably the most painless migration I've ever done.
it would seem that you've mistaken me for a search engine.
Ooooooh, you were asking for data to support my claims. I see. I assumed that you were asking a question and were just too lazy to look it up yourself.
Do you have supporting data or not?
Sure do!
How many did switch
More than 5.
what's the percentage user share of Pale Moon and Waterfox?
Higher than it was before FF57 came out. If you want an actual number, it's greater than zero.
If you'd like more accurate data, I'd suggest a search engine. Or you could log into whatever interface you Mozilla marketing people have for your telemetry data.
This is useless.
That's exactly the type of response I've come to expect from Mozilla. For someone who claims to not be associated with them, you sure sound like them.
I'm nothing to do with Mozilla
Tut tut! Now you're making a claim with no evidence.
Let me know when you have actual data
I sure won't. What do I care what some random mozilla shill thinks?
Adblock finally works on my phone, but the tabs.... They're so sharp...
Nevermind that Maps has to make those requests because it needs to see if the browser actually has the functionality it's asking for but is already baked into Chrome.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Speed? No idea actually, don't visit sites that need 'speedy' rendering I guess.
But the memory footprint is huge. Right now I have two FF browser instances open with task manager showing 5 FF processes running with their cumulative memory footprint being 800MB and I've had two occurrences of FF using just over 5GB of memory (according to task manager in Win10) which slowed my entire machine to a crawl. Interestingly the page involved in both those occurrences was slashdot! Meanwhile the same layout in Chrome has 11 processes running with a cumulative memory footprint of ~480MB. Not sure what exactly that all means, but pretty sure there's a memory challenge in FF.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Hard to believe a +5 for an AC saying "Which leaves only deliberate behavior as an option"
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
> I wish I knew a way to assign and send browser audio streams explicitly to one audio device output, say a set of headphones while keeping any other audio output attached to the primary playback device (speakers).
On Linux there are many ways to do that. This page lists three (plus another one just for Flash):
http://jackaudio.org/faq/routi...
Although the title of the page says Flash, three of the four methods are for the browser.
In Linux you can use patch bays to go crazy with arbitrarily complex connections between audio sources, effects, and outputs:
https://qjackctl.sourceforge.i...
That's a 32-bit, 1GB, Windows 7 based mini-laptop that I use when I travel. Previous versions of Firefox ran so slowly that I was about to replace the laptop by something more capable (think '20s delay when switching tabs'), but Firefox 57 runs well enough on it that this won't be necessary.
Oh, and why I like that laptop: unlike a tablet, it has a large enough disk that I can make backups of my photos during the trip. And it's light, small, and so cheap that it isn't worth stealing, so I don't feel worried leaving it in the hotel.
FTFY.
I've learned that there are three major classes of extensions.
First, those that improve security and privacy. These break nothing, other that badly or obnoxiously coded websites (which in the majority of cases are easily replaced by a different website, less badly or obnoxiously coded).
Second, minor tweaks to the UX. These also break nothing, other than totalitarian design fantasies of desktop + tablet supreme codebase unification. My most important UX tweak is the addition of a right click menu that enhances cut and paste behaviours (Make Link) by auto-formatting URLs in a variety of online formats along with various page metadata elements. I use it 100 times a day.
Third, major and intrusive tweaks to the UX. Into this category falls most of the tab bar tweaks. These extensions did consistently break, or become deprecated, or change their behaviour to cope with shifting ground under their feet.
Apparently you should curate your reading more carefully, because you've mainlined a biased sample. You've also fallen for the squeaky wheel fallacy, because this power user—who does know the difference between one type of extension and another—has never complained about technical developments to make Firefox more stable, and never abandoned FF in the first place.
I have complained about Mozilla's degenerating principles and priorities. Just on the communications front alone, they've treated their extension developers like shit. And why is that? Because Mozilla's decisions have been less and less technical, and more and more political.
I don't even know what values Mozilla truly holds anymore. I do know that it's not Chrome, and that Chrome is already too big for its britches, so I use Chrome as little as possible, because I value autonomy and self determination.
Self determination. You should try it some day. Sure beats posting as an AC fuckwad.
Firefox Quantum has a big parental control problem, which the previous versions did not have. I think that Firefox Quantum does not help me to protect my children! Thoses are essentials parental control features which don't find anywhere in firefox Quantum (57 and +) -Disable Private Browsing menu option and keyboard shortcut. (Password protected). -Disable deletion of browsing history. (Password protected). -Disable the "disabling" or removal of any installed add-ons (WebExtensions). (Password protected). ALL of the extension that helped me to activate those features are Not compatible with Firefox Quantum : -Disable Private Browsing Plus by RichieB2B. -Public Fox by publicfox. Firefox please help us protect our children! Those Feature should be included natively in Firefox ! I don't want my kids to be able to disable my Parental Control Add-ons like: -Enforce Safe Search / Adult Content Filter -ProCon Latte Content Filter by Hunter Paolini (Another problem! This one is Not compatible with Firefox Quantum!) I feel that Firefox Quantum does not care about the safety of our children. Please help us! Please let our children live their childhood! Please sign the petition: https://www.change.org/p/https... Thanks!
Remember back when Google had Chrome to Phone!? You could simply send ANY web page from desktop to mobile with just a simple click. Also, it was great for phone numbers, too. You could just highlight a phone number, say "Chrome to Phone", and you phone would start calling it. Then Google axed that feature, like they always seem to do, and now it is an "exciting new and great feature in Firefox" all these years later.
Excuse me? "Already baked into Chrome"? The web works on open, clearly defined standards. If Chrome is doing something that's not a standard, then it's the problem not the other browsers.
Chrome quickly became the newest version of Internet Explorer with all the "standards" Google is deciding to make up and change without any consensus from anyone outside Mountain View.
And I make that comparison without regret, because Google is using the same creative dissonance Microsoft did to try to force Internet Explorer's dominance back in the day, but everyone using Chrome probably doesn't remember that, either too young, too ignorant or too gullible.