3 ms·

Just a shame its a tiny bit slower than chromium based browsers still (the ui, not the web page rendering), and you dont have to take my word for it, a web sear

by esskay 4mo ago

Just a shame its a tiny bit slower than chromium based browsers still (the ui, not the web page rendering), and you dont have to take my word for it, a web search for something like 'firefox sluggish compared to chrome' will back this up too as I've tried switching multiple times but always end up back on a chromium variant because the firefox ui just doesn't feel like an upgrade. Personally I've just given up trying with firefox and I now put up with brave - its certainly not perfect but at least the ad blocker isnt about to break.

lenkite 4mo ago
I believe Firefox without ads is faster & safer than Chrome with Ads.
ramijames 4mo ago
Not using adware seems like a big upgrade to me.
aleksandrm 4mo ago
Not in my experience. Never had issues with FF feeling sluggish at all.
- dawnerd 4mo ago
  Only place I feel it slow is on Google Meet and clickup.
  - wpm 4mo ago
    Almost as if it's on purpose
  - sheept 4mo ago
    Google Meet is definitely not going to perform better outside Chrome since based on recent web APIs proposed by Chrome (e.g. document PIP[0], element capture[1]), the Chrome team has shown they'll change the browser specifically to improve the UX of Google Meet. [0]: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/document-picture-in-picture#video_conferencing https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/document-pict... [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/element-capture https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/element-captu...
kgwxd 4mo ago
tiny bit slower, all things being equal, maybe. For one, who cares? No one can see tenth of a millisecond speed difference. Second, without a proper ad blocker, rendering speed is meaningless, because all the power will be used to render garbage you never wanted to see in the first place.
skeledrew 4mo ago
> a tiny bit slower And that automatically disqualifies it? I find that wild. I've been using Firefox since it was at v2 I think, and never once considered switching for some speed gain. I actually use Vivaldi on the side sometimes for sites that aren't very Firefox-with-my-extensions-friendly, and find no difference in performance.
palmotea 4mo ago
> Just a shame its a tiny bit slower than chromium based browsers still (the ui, not the web page rendering) IIRC, it's got a much smaller memory footprint.
neogodless 4mo ago
Let me know how fast the internet without working ad block feels... (Personally I find Firefox is plenty fast! And the benefits vastly outweigh trying to deal with a Google-powered web browser.)
- esskay 4mo ago
  I dont need to, as I said I'm on brave, which isnt losing its adblocker.
drnick1 4mo ago
> a tiny bit slower This is no longer the case, at least not uniformly. My Speedometer 3.1 results are: - Chromium: 30.0 (± 1.2) - Firefox: 32.1 (± 1.6) Using the latest browser version on Arch Linux.
krackers 4mo ago
+1, I think (but may be wrong) this is because the firefox UI is non-native. This is especially visible on mac, it just reimplements everything on its own.

by esskay 4mo ago

lenkite 4mo ago

I believe Firefox without ads is faster & safer than Chrome with Ads.

ramijames 4mo ago

Not using adware seems like a big upgrade to me.

aleksandrm 4mo ago

Not in my experience. Never had issues with FF feeling sluggish at all.

dawnerd 4mo ago
Only place I feel it slow is on Google Meet and clickup.
- wpm 4mo ago
  Almost as if it's on purpose
- sheept 4mo ago
  Google Meet is definitely not going to perform better outside Chrome since based on recent web APIs proposed by Chrome (e.g. document PIP[0], element capture[1]), the Chrome team has shown they'll change the browser specifically to improve the UX of Google Meet. [0]: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/document-picture-in-picture#video_conferencing https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/document-pict... [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/element-capture https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/element-captu...

kgwxd 4mo ago

tiny bit slower, all things being equal, maybe. For one, who cares? No one can see tenth of a millisecond speed difference. Second, without a proper ad blocker, rendering speed is meaningless, because all the power will be used to render garbage you never wanted to see in the first place.

skeledrew 4mo ago

> a tiny bit slower And that automatically disqualifies it? I find that wild. I've been using Firefox since it was at v2 I think, and never once considered switching for some speed gain. I actually use Vivaldi on the side sometimes for sites that aren't very Firefox-with-my-extensions-friendly, and find no difference in performance.

palmotea 4mo ago

> Just a shame its a tiny bit slower than chromium based browsers still (the ui, not the web page rendering) IIRC, it's got a much smaller memory footprint.

neogodless 4mo ago

Let me know how fast the internet without working ad block feels... (Personally I find Firefox is plenty fast! And the benefits vastly outweigh trying to deal with a Google-powered web browser.)

esskay 4mo ago
I dont need to, as I said I'm on brave, which isnt losing its adblocker.

drnick1 4mo ago

> a tiny bit slower This is no longer the case, at least not uniformly. My Speedometer 3.1 results are: - Chromium: 30.0 (± 1.2) - Firefox: 32.1 (± 1.6) Using the latest browser version on Arch Linux.

krackers 4mo ago

+1, I think (but may be wrong) this is because the firefox UI is non-native. This is especially visible on mac, it just reimplements everything on its own.