5 ms·

After using Chrome for 6-8 weeks, I can't go back. Firefox has so many things going for it (history, extensions, compatibility, etc, etc).. but I can't handle t

by mpakes 17y ago

After using Chrome for 6-8 weeks, I can't go back. Firefox has so many things going for it (history, extensions, compatibility, etc, etc).. but I can't handle the slowness. The JavaScript performance deficit is bad enough, but the outrageous startup time puts it over the top. I'll keep it around for occasional compatibility testing, but it's no longer the go-to browser.

pdubroy 17y ago
Startup time is MUCH improved in Firefox 3.6. Chrome still feels slightly quicker, but we're talking on the order of 100s of milliseconds. For something that I do once a day, at most, the difference is negligible.
- mpakes 17y ago
  It does seem to be improved, but on my system (new-ish MBP running OS X), Chrome and Safari startup is nearly instantaneous, and Firefox still lags. I don't know how it compares on Windows. Still.. bravo to the Firefox team for making a big improvement in this department. My ire is now refocused on the (lack of) JavaScript performance. :-)
  - pdubroy 17y ago
    Do you have a lot of plugins installed? I tested on a 6-month-old MacBook Pro 13", on both OS X and Win7, and Firefox starts up pretty much instantly (less than 500msecs). Agreed, Chrome and Safari seem marginally faster, but I don't close my browser very often, so it really doesn't matter.
- slyn 17y ago
  "Startup time is MUCH improved in Firefox 3.6. Chrome still feels slightly quicker, but we're talking on the order of 100s of milliseconds. For something that I do once a day, at most, the difference is negligible." http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/psychology-web-performance/ http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/psychology-we... Read the "The Effects of Slow Download Times" section. Those miniscule effects add up big over time, and lead to better overall satisfaction of the service. The link specifically refers to various web services, but I would be extremely surprised if there was not a similar effect in relation between satisfaction and general speediness (UI snappiness, JS/HTML/etc rendering speed) of various browsers. Thats not to say that speed is the only reason to choose a browser, but it likely has more of an effect on how you use your browser (and therefore how you use the internet) than you would be able to consciously discern.
sandGorgon 17y ago
Linux 64-bit Sunspider benchmarks FF 3.6 x86_64: 2940 ms Chromium x86_64 : 656 ms enuff said
Herring 17y ago
Startup time is usually a matter of vacuuming your sqlite. I actually ended up running firefox entirely from ram, which makes it significantly faster.
- weaksauce 17y ago
  How? Just clearing the cache?
  - Herring 17y ago
    ram: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1120475 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1120475 (I think I've seen windows guides somewhere) defragmenting: http://lifehacker.com/5344418/make-firefox-faster-by-vacuuming-your-database http://lifehacker.com/5344418/make-firefox-faster-by-vacuumi...
zargon 17y ago
I start up my browsers once or twice a month, so start time is pretty irrelevant. I must not use javascript-heavy sites because I have never noticed a performance difference in Chrome.

by mpakes 17y ago

pdubroy 17y ago

Startup time is MUCH improved in Firefox 3.6. Chrome still feels slightly quicker, but we're talking on the order of 100s of milliseconds. For something that I do once a day, at most, the difference is negligible.

mpakes 17y ago
It does seem to be improved, but on my system (new-ish MBP running OS X), Chrome and Safari startup is nearly instantaneous, and Firefox still lags. I don't know how it compares on Windows. Still.. bravo to the Firefox team for making a big improvement in this department. My ire is now refocused on the (lack of) JavaScript performance. :-)
- pdubroy 17y ago
  Do you have a lot of plugins installed? I tested on a 6-month-old MacBook Pro 13", on both OS X and Win7, and Firefox starts up pretty much instantly (less than 500msecs). Agreed, Chrome and Safari seem marginally faster, but I don't close my browser very often, so it really doesn't matter.
slyn 17y ago
"Startup time is MUCH improved in Firefox 3.6. Chrome still feels slightly quicker, but we're talking on the order of 100s of milliseconds. For something that I do once a day, at most, the difference is negligible." http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/psychology-web-performance/ http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/psychology-we... Read the "The Effects of Slow Download Times" section. Those miniscule effects add up big over time, and lead to better overall satisfaction of the service. The link specifically refers to various web services, but I would be extremely surprised if there was not a similar effect in relation between satisfaction and general speediness (UI snappiness, JS/HTML/etc rendering speed) of various browsers. Thats not to say that speed is the only reason to choose a browser, but it likely has more of an effect on how you use your browser (and therefore how you use the internet) than you would be able to consciously discern.

sandGorgon 17y ago

Linux 64-bit Sunspider benchmarks FF 3.6 x86_64: 2940 ms Chromium x86_64 : 656 ms enuff said

Herring 17y ago

Startup time is usually a matter of vacuuming your sqlite. I actually ended up running firefox entirely from ram, which makes it significantly faster.

weaksauce 17y ago
How? Just clearing the cache?
- Herring 17y ago
  ram: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1120475 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1120475 (I think I've seen windows guides somewhere) defragmenting: http://lifehacker.com/5344418/make-firefox-faster-by-vacuuming-your-database http://lifehacker.com/5344418/make-firefox-faster-by-vacuumi...

zargon 17y ago

I start up my browsers once or twice a month, so start time is pretty irrelevant. I must not use javascript-heavy sites because I have never noticed a performance difference in Chrome.