Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hundreds? No way. It runs like crap with a few dozen tabs and I always have to restart it so it doesn't start slowing down and behaving badly.
I am a chronic tabber. Chrome can barely handle 20 tabs at a time on my machine (A T410 - nearly 5 years old). Firefox can chug along fine with more than a hundred tabs may be a 200. it starts to show problems only when the session restore file reaches 300mb or more. (Yes that is as far as I have pushed firefox.) Firefox is much much better than Chrome. Only chrome can put it's foot in the door and sneak in anywhere…
Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
301–303 of 303 posts
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#302Besides that, the more they know about me, the better their products get. I am personally thrilled when I open Google maps and it magically whos where I live, where I work, etc. It just makes my life easier.
I think this might be a cultural thing though, people from some third-world countries (like me) may not take privacy and freedom for granted.
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a misleading comparison. You imply that firefox is far behind chrome in terms of general quality. Although I use chrome a lot, I also use firefox daily. And the quality difference is essentially nil(1). In many relevant ways firefox was at times better; but the details shift from release to release. I certainly isn't true that typical users would run into huge problems by using firefox. 1: on a desktop. I als…
For starters, Firefox lacks in speed, security and stability compared to Chromium and this is not a matter of opinion, but hard facts. Sandboxing is not fully implemented, there's no process/tab separation and Webkit renders most pages faster than Gecko. The developer tools are slow, lacking in features and can reproducibly be crashed. FF is relying on broken extensions for things that should be core functionality. T…
Process sandboxing is not a user-visible feature; it's (1) a largely hypothetical security feature (hypothetical in the sense that it's not empirically obvious that complete sandboxing is better than alternatives), (2) a means to discourage locking and make the browser snappier.
Note that by now, firefox does use process sandboxing, and indeed has used process sandboxing for the most critical bits (plugins-i.e. flash) for years. Benchmarks do not back up your claim that Firefox is a lot slower than chromium; nor is that my experience. For a long time, scrolling was smoother on firefox than on chrome - I often read long webpages in auto-scroll, and chrome was janky on some pages firefox was not - and the reverse was true too (although to this day, when it works, it never works as well on chrome as it does on FF, for some reason).
The FF developer tools have at times lacked some features, but there have also been features they've had before chrome, e.g. the rendered font display. I can't right now think of a devtools feature in chrome that I'm missing in FF. I certainly debug in both all the time.
For a very long time, font rendering on windows was better, and hi-dpi worked while it didn't on chrome.
Chrome's a good browser, and it's still snappier today. But the difference is really splitting hairs at this point. There are much larger differences in day-to-day usability that people put up with all the time. I don't buy that chrome's undeniable strengths are sufficient to be noticeable unless you're actively looking for them; and chrome also has bugs and issues other browsers don't; it's not a pure win.