4 ms·

I try every new firefox release for at least a week, and to be honest I haven't seen an advantage of using it since chrome came out. It is just way too slow[1]

I try every new firefox release for at least a week, and to be honest I haven't seen an advantage of using it since chrome came out. It is just way too slow[1], it may have better extensions better adblocking and a regular ui but it just can't compete. [1] Slow in both snappiness and perceived rendering compared to chrome, firefox also still likes to crash or freeze on me which rarely happens with chrome even though I run the dev channel.

oconnore 15y ago
I haven't had a crash yet in FF5 or 4 (flash crashed several times but did not bring down the browser). Also, I notice about 0 rendering delay.
- hollerith 15y ago
  What about "terminal unresponsiveness" in which the browser stay very unresponsive until you shut it down?
  - starwed 15y ago
    I don't think I've seen that in Firefox since they shunted Flash into a different process, which was a couple of years ago.
    - zobzu 15y ago
      Many people actually like to blame Firefox for imaginary problems since it's not the new kid on the block anymore. Likewise, IE9 ain't bad. This explains that ;-)
      - starwed 15y ago
        My favorite complaint is that firefox has become slower and more bloated over time. I'd like to see such folk browse today's web with the original version of FF... :) The average webpage today is way more complicated than 10 years ago.
  - oconnore 15y ago
    Not that either. Sorry for the short response, but I think that answers your question. It works great! You should try it :)
    - hollerith 15y ago
      I've been using it -- on Linux and on OS X. I'm guessing that if I got more RAM, the "terminal unresponsiveness" would mostly go away. I've got only a gig in my old Macbook.
- mestudent 15y ago
  Are you using linux, linux seems like a secondhand citizen with regards to firefox and that is where I see all my problems. I don't know if crashing is the right word but it does become completely unresponsive often enough that it is noticeable and annoying. (Unresponsive as in it has to be killed to regain functionality.)
  - oconnore 15y ago
    Ubuntu, yes.

oconnore 15y ago

I haven't had a crash yet in FF5 or 4 (flash crashed several times but did not bring down the browser). Also, I notice about 0 rendering delay.

hollerith 15y ago
What about "terminal unresponsiveness" in which the browser stay very unresponsive until you shut it down?
- starwed 15y ago
  I don't think I've seen that in Firefox since they shunted Flash into a different process, which was a couple of years ago.
  - zobzu 15y ago
    Many people actually like to blame Firefox for imaginary problems since it's not the new kid on the block anymore. Likewise, IE9 ain't bad. This explains that ;-)
    - starwed 15y ago
      My favorite complaint is that firefox has become slower and more bloated over time. I'd like to see such folk browse today's web with the original version of FF... :) The average webpage today is way more complicated than 10 years ago.
- oconnore 15y ago
  Not that either. Sorry for the short response, but I think that answers your question. It works great! You should try it :)
  - hollerith 15y ago
    I've been using it -- on Linux and on OS X. I'm guessing that if I got more RAM, the "terminal unresponsiveness" would mostly go away. I've got only a gig in my old Macbook.
mestudent 15y ago
Are you using linux, linux seems like a secondhand citizen with regards to firefox and that is where I see all my problems. I don't know if crashing is the right word but it does become completely unresponsive often enough that it is noticeable and annoying. (Unresponsive as in it has to be killed to regain functionality.)
- oconnore 15y ago
  Ubuntu, yes.