211–220 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, they probably just detect if your user agent is not Chrome. It'd be silly to complicate it further by checking if it's not some relatively obscure thing that's super techy just for the benefit of excluding people that will for sure not use Chrome.
It's literally their job to run relevant advertising.. it's a testament to Google's advertising that we expect better of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Browsers aren't like Windows 98. You don't need to reformat or defragment from time to time.
Installing extensions can dramatically slow down browsers. I wonder if the lack of extensions is responsible for the quickness users experience with a fresh install.
1. “(Firefox|Chrome) is slow” 2. “Did you try removing Ad-Block Plus, etc.?” 3. “Now it's fast again!”
I think we're well past the point where the browsers are going to need to start having some UI around monitoring and exposing slow extensions to make it easier for users to learn this.
I'm not sure if Google used the misleading "upgrade" terminology -- I'm also not sure if most people know the difference between "upgrading" and "switching" anyway, and those who do are obviously the ones who won't be misled anyway.
It still makes them look sleazy to those who do know the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IME, Chrome is slower in terms of UI responsiveness, especially when starting up (massive disk usage) and switching tabs/making new tabs (pegs at least one core of my CPU, whole browser goes catatonic).
IME chrome is faster when I have enough RAM. I have a notebook with 16G of memory and Chrome runs great on it- seems quicker than Firefox. But on my workstation I only have 8G and usually have more things fighting for it. When memory is low Chrome gets unusable but Firefox keeps going along at its not-quite-as-fast-as-chrome-with-enough-memory pace.
I always joke to my friends that why Chrome didn't bring extension support to Android - Because extension support will hurt Google's mobile ads revenue so deeply if you can install adblock with one click. So, please also consider support a non-profit organization like Mozilla, when their products are actually not weaker.
>non-profit organization Apart from when they switch existing users settings over to Yahoo by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think most of the complaints are about the user interface nowadays. It sometimes does have other problems, but that is probably because it takes a while for Yahoo to change.
Why do people still continue to use the crappy web interfaces for email?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet in the other latency test in Octane, MandreelLatency, Firefox does about 50% better than Chrome. Perceived performance depends on a lot of things, not just JS speed and consistency - also graphics, UI responsiveness, etc. Chrome has had an advantage in some of those areas, but the difference is pretty small at this point, especially if you are on Firefox Nightly.
Isn't Mandreel just another Emscripten style test that avoids the garbage collector in favor of typed arrays? I think we definitely need some GC throughput/latency benchmarks in the standard suites.