3 ms·
I'll be interested in Firefox again when they get process-per-page going. After becoming so spoiled by this in Chrome, I just can't go back...yet...
by rufugee 17y ago
I'll be interested in Firefox again when they get process-per-page going. After becoming so spoiled by this in Chrome, I just can't go back...yet...
- yason 17y agoExactly the same thing going here. It's funny how such a seemingly meaningless architectural decision can turn into such a disruptive feature.
- cookiecaper 17y agoMozilla really needs to step it up. TraceMonkey is still way behind V8. They need to do something to get competitive with Chrome in terms of performance, or there's no possibility of ever switching back for me. Chrome is always 2-3x faster.
- FooBarWidget 17y ago"Always"? Check out http://portfoli.no/ http://portfoli.no/, Firefox 3.6 vs Chrome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ2PDbffKuQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ2PDbffKuQ
- jdc 17y agoMaybe Firefox is superior on OS X. Chrome definitely runs it faster on my XP box.
- cookiecaper 17y ago"Always" in my experience, anecdotally. I am sure there are some crafted benchmarks that favor Mozilla, but they're not really fair; in every real-life deployment I've seen personally, Chrome has crushed Firefox. There may be some edge cases where Firefox performs better, but Chrome is by far the faster browser for real-life browsing.
- alanthonyc 17y agoI second that. I've been using Chrome the past couple of weeks on my Mac. But the last few days, that stupid font bug has been coming up again and I've been forced to switch back to Firefox...and it sucks.
- jrockway 17y agoI'm sure they would gladly accept your patch for this!
- AndrewDucker 17y agoOut of interest, what does that give you? I haven't had FF crash in months, so it wouldn't make it any more stable for me - is there some other gain from process-per-tab?