Speed almost doesn't matter for me, since Chrome allows ads and Firefox actually lets me use adblockers and privacy badger. The time wasted on ads are way larger than the time spent loading a page.
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
1050 points (99.3% liked)
Firefox
17884 readers
96 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
never thought about it, but I tend to concur
Yeah. A pihole sped up the internet for me big time.
I'm a Firefox user, but doesn't Chrome allow adblockers too? Both uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger are supported extensions on Chrome.
They do, but Chrome is actively trying to remove support for most advanced ad-blocking capabilities. Further, Google has no financial incentive to make their browser hospitable to ad blockers as Google makes most of their money from advertising.
Google has pushed some half-baked ideas for how the web could work without having to block ads. Ad blocks aren't best buddies with Google.
Thanks for the response and info. Another day where I'm glad to be a FF user.
Correct, but Chrome recently allowed ads through that weren't block-able by uBlock Origin or any other blocker at the time. That's when I switched back to Firefox, so I don't know if anyone figured out a way around it.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I rarely feel like the slowness of a website was due to the browser. I mean .4 seconds or .5 seconds does it really matter? I've been using Firefox since it was Firebird and speed has never really been a complaint. People need to measure and quantify everything.
What appeals to me about Firefox is how customizable it is, and all the extensions.
On old HW it does matter. I use X220 Thinkpad, it's still fast using chrome, and slow using firefox. But since 115, it's noticeably fast... so... it matter, for me.
My bigger complaint is memory usage
load more comments
(6 replies)
Why is Chromium slower than Chrome?
I wouldn't be surprised if Google is keeping certain performance enhancements closed source so they can have a competive advantage over the competition that uses the Chromium source. They have been slowly making Android open source worse by not updating parts and moving things to closed source Google Play apps.
So when Google removed don't be evil, they really meant it. It shows more and more each day.
load more comments
(6 replies)
~~Wild guess: APM? ~~
Edit:
It seems that chromium here on these benchmarks is unoptimized and it depends on what flags where enabled during building time: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-dev/c/6q3AyYacjOo/m/XKQMdW4fBgAJ
The real question
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nice! Although I have been using Firefox for years and never felt there was an issue with speed. Always been reliable for me.
Same here. And wasn't some of that speed difference artificial? Didn't Google serve their pages slower on FF on purpose for a while? "Do no evil" and all...
load more comments
(2 replies)
I use FF to help keep the browser "market" competitive. We don't want to end up in the same situation as early 2ks where html standardisation was essentially "internet explorer compatibility", and if you wanted to use newer features as a web dev you had to put multiple implementations, one for IE, and one for the others, as in the browsers actually implementing the specifications correctly. Now MS didn't exactly do nefarious things with their market power, it was rather neglect, but it damaged the industry nevertheless. For Google, in today's market, I'd anticipate they would use it to make it very difficult to block ads etc. Internet will become less free.
I use FF because it's good.
MS didn't do nefarious things with their market power? They virtually killed all competition in the market.
Chrome is worse. Because Chrome isn't about having you use the browser, its about knowing what you do with the browser. Google already changes it's search page, for example, on mobile Firefox can't see the same sports results and league tables, and can't easily see the reviews of local restaurants etc.
The graph totally threw me off, first I thought this post was a joke that Firefox got slower and is now as slow as Chrome.
For some dumb reason the y-axis shows the score, but it's inverted..
It's inverted because on most occasions the y axis represents time, so less is better.
In order to not have bemchmarks where a lower result on the Y-axis is worse, they kind of invert it for scores.
I know it is confusing, but it helps non-technical people.
If you are on linux wayland, enable wayland mode for firefox and enjoy the huge performance boost
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm proud of Firefox, but man, that's a bad graph :)
Crazy fact. Firefox, for me, has ALWAYS been much faster/stronger on YouTube than any chromium based browser I've used. Better than chrome on their own site. This makes it even better. I love this browser.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Great, now implement modern exploit mitigations and sandboxing like Chrome uses. Firefox is objectively less resistant to exploitation. Some Firefox security has improved since the article was written, such as some sandboxing on Windows, but it's definitely not as mature.
I'm not writing that Firefox is insecure. Security is very important to Firefox! However, Chrome has had more work done in the realm of browser hardening.
That is fair, but Chrome is undeniably more open to corporate exploitation. See things like the dramatically reduced utility of ad blockers on Chromium browsers.
I guess it depends on who you see as the greater threat at present.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Why does anyone use chome, its way worse then any other browser you can install, they put so much junk on it.
Forced to with work.
I utterly hate it. I don't have it on my personal setup or android mobile - been using Firefox for twenty years now, not gonna stop!
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
And that's even considering the fact that Google deliberately throttles Firefox on their sites
load more comments
(4 replies)
Is this for both desktop and mobile versions? Sorry if that is a silly question.
Probably desktop. Or desktop and android. Remember that iOS locked down the browser years ago and require any third parties to run on safari’s bones.
Chrome and Firefox are building iOS browsers that do not require the apple WebKit. Everyone, including apple, expect apple to drop that requirement soon to help avoid antitrust issues.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Firefox has been and will continue to be the best browser available
What does speed mean in this regard? Download speed?
JS Render speed, so in past website like facebook, new.reddit.com, discourse based forum, etc that rely heavily in JS, now load and render faster in Firefox than ever
Oh, well that's good. I've never thought Firefox took too long to load but I'm happy with shit being faster.
For anyone else wondering, I'm assuming they're talking about JavaScript.
I have been using Firefox for basically as long as I can remember and I love it. However, there's one website that I go to Chromium for: GeoGuessr/Google Street View. For some reason it's unbelievably slow and sluggish in Firefox whereas it works normally in Chromium. Why could this be? To be clear, it's only the Street View part (and moving/panning/zooming) that's slow on GeoGuessr.
It wouldn't surprise me if the implementation has bias towards Chromium based browsers as both street view and Chromium are from Google.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Anything that Google site engineering mostly against web standard, and pushing chromium standard. So I don't even... Surprised I guess?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›