Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 286 posts

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#261

Post by awiesenhofer »

coldtea wrote: post #27
est31 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5-15% on web content is significantly faster to me. Also, like many people, I mainly use my browser for visiting websites instead of running things like Octane, but obviously it would be nicer if Octane were faster too.

> 5-15% on web content is significantly faster to me. Is it though? Would you even notice it? If there was an already short processing action, e.g. 1 second, now it would be 850ms -- hardly noticable. If there was some long processing action, say 5 minutes, now it would take 4 minutes and 25 seconds. Hardly something to write home about in either case...

> Here are just a few of the Talos/Raptor graphs showing improvements

> when Warp landed:

>

> - 20% on Win64 GDocs loadtime: https://mzl.la/3cp6dAs

> - 13% on Android Reddit SpeedIndex: https://mzl.la/2RUWdp8

> - 18% on pdfpaint: https://mzl.la/2HtXb9W

> - 8% on tp6 JS memory: https://mzl.la/3j2VwGb

> - 8% on damp (devtools perf): https://mzl.la/3kLbhSM

Sounds pretty significant to me

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#262

Post by manquer »

floatboth wrote: post #260
manquer wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ultimately if there value , word of mouth works pretty well . Firefox does not have a brand visibility problem , no amount of marketing will convince users if the browser is not significantly better. If the value is marginal convenience trumps. Firefox did not gain market share orginally because they did better marketing than IE. They became big because they built a better product. Chrome became because of the same r…

Firefox did gain over IE because major websites pointed IE users to it. And of course Chrome became dominant the same way. Word of google.com main page > word of mouth :(

Website admins pointed IE users to Firefox because it worked better, supported APIs and features which made their site better.

Chrome was the same too. Yes Google does have unfair advantage because they own lot of properties people interact with every day, they are a significant player for user mind space, but they are not so large that people spend 50-60% time on google products only .

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#263

Post by Zenbit_UX »

cpmsmith wrote: post #226
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is Safari, there's only really two engines now, Chrome (Edge, Safari, Opera, Brave, et al) and Firefox (Tor).

Safari isn't Chromium-based, it's WebKit; Chromium forked Blink out of it .

Oh, my mistake.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#264

Post by forgotpwd16 »

HashingtheCode wrote: post #151
Miraste wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Mozilla has 750 employees (not all of whom work on the browser, but still) and hundreds of millions of dollars and they're constantly struggling to keep up with Chrome. 9 part-time devs cannot do this.

They can. Maybe releases would be every 6 months but it's possible. Look at the following browsers: Otter Browser Min Qutebrowser Links Basalisk Surf Bromite (only has 7 contributers) It is possible. Of course it's possible. Just depends if that situation were ever to occur, whether people would become passionate about that project

Otter and qutebrowser are based on QtWebEngine which is a wrapper around Blink (Chromium's engine), Min is using Electron which is also a wrapper around Blink, surf uses WebKitGTK which is a wrapper around WebKit (Safari's engine) and Bromite actually says is a Chromium's fork. The contributors for those browsers have to only maintain the GUI which is just the tip of the iceberg. As for Links, it cannot render most of the web.

Basilisk and its sibling Pale Moon are an example of how hard a fork is (both being pre-Quantum Firefox); features removed because cannot be maintained, incompatibilities, poor performance and many vulnerabilities.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#265

Post by Zenbit_UX »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #25

I believe in Mozilla.and their products. as much as they need to get their admin/ceo pay down.as much as they need to adjust the new Android Firefox UI Unless there is another foundation with a browser promoting a free and open internet, my vote will always remain with them.

What don't you like about the new android UI? I've been using it for about a week now and I quite like it.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#266

Post by forgotpwd16 »

mancerayder wrote: post #170
ihaveajob wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, Chrome has autoplay on? How can anyone stand that? It reminds me of IE7 with auto-installed toolbars that took 1/3 of the screen.

Firefox does... and I can't turn it off. The websites, especially news sites, completely and utterly override the "off" settings for autoplay in firefox. And the dev team keeps changing the way those options are named as well as confusingly having a bunch of similarly named options. I'm confident that they're doing it on purpose because autoplay off hurts ad serving and it also probably pisses off traditional media s…

It's actually where you expected it to be; under the privacy options.

  Preferences > Privacy > Autoplay Settings... > set "Block Audio" to "Block Audio and Video"
Or alternatively

  about:config > media.autoplay.default > 5

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#267

Post by abacadaba »

floatboth wrote: post #260
manquer wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ultimately if there value , word of mouth works pretty well . Firefox does not have a brand visibility problem , no amount of marketing will convince users if the browser is not significantly better. If the value is marginal convenience trumps. Firefox did not gain market share orginally because they did better marketing than IE. They became big because they built a better product. Chrome became because of the same r…

Firefox did gain over IE because major websites pointed IE users to it. And of course Chrome became dominant the same way. Word of google.com main page > word of mouth :(

All I'm really looking for out of any possible anti-trust is a big "try firefox for better privacy" popup on google.com.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#268

Post by birksherty »

manquer wrote: post #262
floatboth wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox did gain over IE because major websites pointed IE users to it. And of course Chrome became dominant the same way. Word of google.com main page > word of mouth :(

Website admins pointed IE users to Firefox because it worked better, supported APIs and features which made their site better. Chrome was the same too. Yes Google does have unfair advantage because they own lot of properties people interact with every day, they are a significant player for user mind space, but they are not so large that people spend 50-60% time on google products only .

I don't agree. Google is many times bigger than Mozilla. I am not talking about tech people here. Everyone uses search, youtube and android is huge outside usa. Chrome comes preinstalled in major plateforms. Even if it's not going to a google site tells them to install it. These people don't even know they can install firefox.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#269

Post by mancerayder »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #266
mancerayder wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox does... and I can't turn it off. The websites, especially news sites, completely and utterly override the "off" settings for autoplay in firefox. And the dev team keeps changing the way those options are named as well as confusingly having a bunch of similarly named options. I'm confident that they're doing it on purpose because autoplay off hurts ad serving and it also probably pisses off traditional media s…

It's actually where you expected it to be; under the privacy options. Preferences > Privacy > Autoplay Settings... > set "Block Audio" to "Block Audio and Video" Or alternatively about:config > media.autoplay.default > 5

That.Option.Does.Not.Work. I'm trying to scream it from the rooftops, but apparently I am not getting through. Go to CNN, Bloomberg, food recipe sites, medical sites, etc. Autoplay is Not Off. Windows 10 and Android, the very latest public releases.

You open a page. A big box at the top has something it it. That something is video. The video loads. By the time you scroll down, it starts to play. Oh, and it jumps into a smaller box so you're Forced to observe it and click into it to stop it.

Media autoplay is not off.

Another way to phrase that is, the media autoplay is On.

The option described above Does Not Work. Another way to describe that is, it should not have video playing by itself.

Alas, video plays by itself. Apologies in advance for being terse and not explaining myself earlier.

In short, autoplay is On and the option says it's Off.

Please let me know if I can clarify any part of this.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#270

Post by mancerayder »

cpeterso wrote: post #186
mancerayder wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox does... and I can't turn it off. The websites, especially news sites, completely and utterly override the "off" settings for autoplay in firefox. And the dev team keeps changing the way those options are named as well as confusingly having a bunch of similarly named options. I'm confident that they're doing it on purpose because autoplay off hurts ad serving and it also probably pisses off traditional media s…

Firefox currently autoplays video that has no audio. This is a delicate balance. If browsers disable autoplay by default, then advertisers will find other ways to push video ads in users' faces. I read an anecdote that Google tried disabling autoplay on mobile and advertisers started playing video ads using an H.264 video decoder in JavaScript that paints video frames to a canvas. So users still see the video ad, but…

Right. The developers are bad people because of this. Curses to them. Maybe they're employees moonlighting as traitors to the human condition, already suffering from forced information shoved at us, and attention issues?

Any other browser recommendations?

Post reply on HN