3 ms·

I don't agree. In my opinion, even on my high-specification workstation, the performance of the modern web is below my expectation for 2017 (having been using

by bhauer 10y ago

I don't agree. In my opinion, even on my high-specification workstation, the performance of the modern web is below my expectation for 2017 (having been using the web since 1997). Browser and CPU performance have not kept pace with web site bloat. CPUs have gained more cores but they mostly sit idle when using a web browser. So focusing on more concurrency in the web browser is extremely compelling in my view. I don't believe we're going to see widespread trimming of bloat from the web at large. It's something a few conscientious companies think about, but the majority just keep throwing frameworks and third-party scripts at their sites with abandon. Web performance in 2017, even on high-capacity hardware, ranges from acceptable to bad. I'd prefer it ranged from superb to acceptable. If Servo moves us in that direction, I am a big fan. Perhaps to your point: UX includes performance. And in that sense, UX may help Mozilla market share.

z0r 10y ago
I am absolutely flabbergasted by how every fully featured browser is capable of bringing my modern workstation to its knees. Late last year I took a screenshot of a 32 kb text document running in a tab managed by chrome process with no other tabs to take care of occupying over 1 GB of ram. And when I say text document, I mean a file with a .txt extension with no javascript or anything else going on. The world is wrong!
- bozonil 10y ago
  This sounds like a bug. If you can reliably reproduce 32kb txt file taking up 1GB, would you mind filing a bug at https://crbug.com https://crbug.com? Or I can file a bug if you let me know how to reproduce this.
- tracker1 10y ago
  The management process, every tab, every extension, and a pool for registered offline workers are all running by firing up chrome... I'd presume there's similar overhead for FF, but not process isolated, that was work in progress iirc. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but can all add up, and it's hard to measuer/add up the separate processes.
simplehuman 10y ago
Of course, UX includes performance. If you go to the landing page of a website and it loads very slowly or has janky animations.. they are screwed. It's part of the UX.

by bhauer 10y ago

z0r 10y ago

I am absolutely flabbergasted by how every fully featured browser is capable of bringing my modern workstation to its knees. Late last year I took a screenshot of a 32 kb text document running in a tab managed by chrome process with no other tabs to take care of occupying over 1 GB of ram. And when I say text document, I mean a file with a .txt extension with no javascript or anything else going on. The world is wrong!

bozonil 10y ago
This sounds like a bug. If you can reliably reproduce 32kb txt file taking up 1GB, would you mind filing a bug at https://crbug.com https://crbug.com? Or I can file a bug if you let me know how to reproduce this.
tracker1 10y ago
The management process, every tab, every extension, and a pool for registered offline workers are all running by firing up chrome... I'd presume there's similar overhead for FF, but not process isolated, that was work in progress iirc. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but can all add up, and it's hard to measuer/add up the separate processes.

simplehuman 10y ago

Of course, UX includes performance. If you go to the landing page of a website and it loads very slowly or has janky animations.. they are screwed. It's part of the UX.