3 ms·

I find the reverse to be so true! I mean i have not tested it heavily on 100+ pages so maybe for that but WOW for a regular sized scientific paper the differenc

I find the reverse to be so true! I mean i have not tested it heavily on 100+ pages so maybe for that but WOW for a regular sized scientific paper the difference in both smooth scrolling and text selection accuracy and speed is insane compared to the default chrome native pdf renderer. The difference is instantly noticeable (although me being on a 4K screen might help) that is why I use the Chrome PDF.js extension to make it my default reader.

iggldiggl 4y ago
Interesting. For medium or heavy-weight CAD plans with loads of vector graphics the browser based PDF renderers (I tried both Firefox and Edge) are definitively slower for me.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  1) PDF.js can be faster on chrome than on firefox (needs the extension) 2) the chrome extension expose in settings a webGL renderer, which can be much faster for specific kinds of PDFs
usrn 4y ago
No. Try opening sea charts (from NOAA) in pdf.js. It just doesn't work at all. Meanwhile mupdf handles them fine like any other pdf.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  Can you share me a link? I searched on NOAA website and didn't knew where to look at. BTW I deeply recommend you the yt channel DeepseaOddities https://youtu.be/EkVY2EvFSgo https://youtu.be/EkVY2EvFSgo BTW I just tried muPDF and the rendering is blurry on my 4K screen, unfortunately