4 ms·
That may be a small part of the truth but even a 12 year old me wouldn't believe such a fairy tale to be the whole reason. MS also used to optimize DOS in ways
by beebeepka 4y ago
That may be a small part of the truth but even a 12 year old me wouldn't believe such a fairy tale to be the whole reason.
MS also used to optimize DOS in ways that clearly hurt their competitors. We've seen Intel aggressively optimize their compiler to slow down AMD... I am sure people have been "optimizing" in such ways for as long as there have been people.
- mattarm 4y agoI can agree that Google simply neglects Firefox performance and features. I think this alone is enough to explain why Google products work better on Chrome. Are you saying that there are people at Google whose job description is to tweak Google web products to perform worse on Firefox, just so Chrome appears better in comparison?
- shadowgovt 4y agoGoogle doesn't have to do any of that. They can literally just keep implementing WHATWG features that are hard to get right because they're technically challenging and let Mozilla not have the resources to keep up. They don't control the operating system, but they have the resources to propose a protocol or API they can implement correctly and competitors might not (well, one competitor... Apple and Microsoft seem to keep up). Name a feature that Firefox doesn't have that prevents people from using the web. I can't. But I can name several that I've seen work more correctly on Chrome because they have the resources to make it work in the context of very complicated and legacy-filled rendering engines (flexbox comes to mind) where Mozilla appears to not (ask me about my favorite Firefox-only flex performance issues... To their credit, they have all been fixed, but FF spent a lot of time behind the curve).