4 ms·

> why would it make people switch back to FF? because it's 1% faster than chrome? General responsiveness is definitely something I consider when choosing any t

> why would it make people switch back to FF? because it's 1% faster than chrome? General responsiveness is definitely something I consider when choosing any tool. 1%? I don't think that's a real number. It can be much faster, especially since this is just one of many-to-come improvements. When you have lots of tabs open, lots of extensions, etc, pages can actually be quite slow to render. As webpages become more complex (I'm thinking about my company's web-app product) or as we start leveraging renderers for more than just web content, performance is more important. Beyond that, given mobile devices low memory usage, strong energy requirements, and insane popularity, it makes sense to care about how well we utilize resources in our applications. > FF had its selling point to power users which is why i'm currently browsing from ff. "Power users" like to believe this, and they're certainly the loudest, but I don't think it's true. Most people are not power users, and I think it stands to reason that most Firefox users are not "power users". Many are just regular people using their browser to get to Facebook, a site that loads a huge a mount of content. Things like "I visited a website and got hacked, I hate firefox now" or "Ugh firefox hung on facebook" or "ugh instagram is taking forever to load" matter a lot to these users. > Now there is no reason at all to use it. Well, performance is one reason. Security could easily be another - as Firefox moves to a memory safe language we can expect to see lower critical bug rates. I know for a lot of the older people whose computers I've set up "I don't want to get viruses" is a huge ask from them. So moving your renderer to a memory safe language is a nice win there. Most users extensions are likely to continue to work with the new Firefox. Maybe not the 'power users', who almost by definition are a minority, but most.

ko27 9y ago
> 1%? I don't think that's a real number. It can be much faster, especially since this is just one of many-to-come improvements. I am getting 73 in Speedometer 2 on Chrome Canary vs 66 Mozilla is touting here. Also as shown in their own video, Chrome loads faster on some pages. So FF might actually be slower. It's definitely not noticeably faster than Chrome. > Well, performance is one reason. Security could easily be another Both of those things can be counted in Chrome's favor as well.
- staticassertion 9y ago
  > So FF might actually be slower. It's definitely not noticeably faster than Chrome. Yep, on some pages, on some benchmarks, it can go either way. I think this more brings Firefox to a competitive place, and shows the potential for the project Quantum - there's much more to come, webrender in particular. > Both of those things can be counted in Chrome's favor as well. Totally. Whether one browser is more secure than another is a complicated topic.

ko27 9y ago

> 1%? I don't think that's a real number. It can be much faster, especially since this is just one of many-to-come improvements. I am getting 73 in Speedometer 2 on Chrome Canary vs 66 Mozilla is touting here. Also as shown in their own video, Chrome loads faster on some pages. So FF might actually be slower. It's definitely not noticeably faster than Chrome. > Well, performance is one reason. Security could easily be another Both of those things can be counted in Chrome's favor as well.

staticassertion 9y ago
> So FF might actually be slower. It's definitely not noticeably faster than Chrome. Yep, on some pages, on some benchmarks, it can go either way. I think this more brings Firefox to a competitive place, and shows the potential for the project Quantum - there's much more to come, webrender in particular. > Both of those things can be counted in Chrome's favor as well. Totally. Whether one browser is more secure than another is a complicated topic.