4 ms·
Less powerful hardware does not seem like the best place for Firefox.
by absconditus 16y ago
Less powerful hardware does not seem like the best place for Firefox.
- cryptoz 16y agoThere are plenty of Android devices that have dual core CPUs with more RAM and storage than most netbooks. Just because we still call them "phones" for some reason doesn't mean they aren't pretty powerful.
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoIndependent test by people like Microsoft and Cnet seem to indicate that Firefox is doing well with resource usage. What makes you think otherwise?: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/03/28/browser-power-consumption-leading-the-industry-with-internet-explorer-9.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/03/28/browser-power-... http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20047314-12.html http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20047314-12.html
- nextparadigms 16y agoMicrosoft is an independent source? What?
- shadowfox 16y agoI thought he just said 'independent test' and not that MS was an independent source?
- tedunangst 16y agoThey are independent of mozilla and the people who make firefox.
- lukeschlather 16y agoYou obviously haven't used Firefox 4.
- ralphc 16y agoIt works as fast as any of the other browsers on my Galaxy Tab.
- IgorPartola 16y agoA couple of open tabs on moderately complex web pages (no web apps though) runs it at around 75 MB on my phone. Seems perfectly snappy on the Atrix, but I don't know about older devices.