6 ms·

Can we please stop repeating the provably wrong statement that Firefox is too slow to use? Tom's Hardware has recently shown Firefox beating the performance of

by ewzimm 13y ago

Can we please stop repeating the provably wrong statement that Firefox is too slow to use? Tom's Hardware has recently shown Firefox beating the performance of both Chrome and Opera. No benchmark is absolute, but you can just use it and see for yourself. Also, it still has better extensions. Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-ope...

alipang 13y ago
Benchmarks are not everything. Firefox feels sluggish and less responsibe when scrolling, switching between tabs, on startup and just in general. This might not be the case one every machine, I don't know, but it's been consistently true for my usage, it just doesn't feel right. Unlike the new Opera I might add, it provides a really great experience. The fact that you can now install chrome plugins did it for me as I was a vimium addict. I think the move to blink was the right move for them.
- pacomerh 13y ago
  I agree with this, FF might get great benchmark results, but the overall experience is what matters and I still think chrome feels snappier overall.
  - zachlatta 13y ago
    While we're talking about what "feels snappier," why hasn't anyone mentioned Safari. It is, by far, the smoothest browser on my computer. It may not do as well as Chrome in the benchmarks, but the scrolling is a thousand times smoother and everything feels quicker.
    - ewzimm 13y ago
      If the default scrolling isn't to your taste, you might want to try addons like this one for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/smoothwheel/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/smoothwheel/?... Of course, if you're happy with Safari, by all means stick with it.
- Yoric 13y ago
  I believe that there are two things being discussed here. One is performance. The other is reactivity. Performance (aka throughput) measures the total duration of operations, e.g. how long does it take to display a page once it is loaded, how fast a script will be executed, etc. When Chrome was introduced, its performance was much greater than Firefox, largely due to v8. Some other factors involved were add-ons (it used to be really easy to write Firefox add-ons that kill performance, and it used to be impossible in Chrome), or old bloated profiles (which of course didn't exist in Chrome). Now, after lots of hard work, the Mozilla community has managed to make Firefox faster than Chrome. That's what is measured by benchmarks, and that's one point for Firefox. Simultaneously (and this doesn't appear in benchmarks) the Chrome add-on and profile situation have started to show the same weaknesses as Firefox'. Reactivity (aka snappiness) measures how fast an application appears to be, i.e. the total duration of user-visible pauses, e.g. how long does it take to switch between tabs, or how much one tab eating all CPU affects other tabs. When Chrome was introduced, its reactivity was also much greater than Firefox, largely due to the multi-process architecture. Some other factors involved were add-ons, once again, or old bloated profile, or simply the fact that the Mozilla culture initially didn't take into account this factor. It took some time for the Mozilla community to realize that reactivity was just as important as speed. After lots of hard work, the Mozilla community has managed to make Firefox... well, much better than it used to be. Improvements include off main thread rendering, off main thread disk I/O, asynchronous add-ons, etc. Unfortunately, desktop Firefox does not have multi-process architecture yet. This gives a considerable advantage to Chrome in this domain. Work is ongoing to bring this multi-process architecture to Firefox desktop. The task is long and difficult and might, unfortunately, kill a number add-ons, but I am confident that the Mozilla community will achieve it. Incidentally, FirefoxOS has a multi-process architecture already. Caveat: I'm a Mozillian, and I'm involved in Reactivity work in Firefox.
  - gojomo 13y ago
    Perhaps the "long and difficult" multi-process architecture will be the ultimate fix, but it'd be great in the meantime to get some tiny hint about which tabs are sucking up memory/cycles. This could be very crude - a count of the tab's timeout-firings, object allocations or whatever - and it would still allow significant self-help.
abrowne 13y ago
Even worse is the second part of their sentence. They say, "Unfortunately, Firefox is too slow and far behind the Chrome." Far behind in what exactly?
- givehimagun 13y ago
  The article is an op-ed piece...not a technology article.
  - abrowne 13y ago
    Sure, but even so they could be more clear. The statement is so vague I don't know if I can even choose to agree or disagree with it!
a3n 13y ago
Provably wrong depends on when the proof was done. Firefox releases occasionally go through performance low points, to the point that I can't stand it. I then switch to Chromium, until I can't stand the user experience anymore, then I switch back to Firefox which by then has usually been fixed. Until next time.
crazygringo 13y ago
Can we please stop repeating the misleading statement that Firefox is fast enough, because of benchmarks? When people talk about Firefox being slow, they're not talking about page rendering speeds or JavaScript execution times. They're talking about the longer delays in switching between tabs, in closing tabs, opening a bunch of tabs at once and still having the interface be responsive, and so on. User interface stuff. Unfortunately, I don't know of any user-interface-responsiveness-speed benchmarks, so it's basically impossible to "prove". But that doesn't mean that people who complain about Firefox being slow are imagining it. The only reason I use Chrome instead of FF on my machine is precisely because the UI is an order of magnitude faster in mundane things -- instantaneous rather than pausing a bit on every little thing.
- effn 13y ago
  My experience is the opposite. I find Chrome horribly, horribly slow to use. Safari is ultrafast and FF somewhere in between. I still use it because I've become so accustomed to its UI but I switch to Safari on some sites to avoid spinning up the fan.
  - Watabou 13y ago
    My experience has also been the same. Chrome on the mac is absolutely dog slow to use, especially after you open up a few tabs. Seriously, why do people say it's fast? I really don't get it. It was fast at one point but now it feels slow, bloated and the tabs crash far more often than either Firefox or Safari. If I only had a penny for every time I see the sad face on tab crashes. Firefox has no lag whatsoever when switching tabs, and general usage. Maybe people think it's slow because of its dated UI? Maybe they haven't used it at all? Maybe they're still using Firefox 10 or older? Firefox 22 is awesome. People just need to give it an unbiased try. Safari is the fastest of them all, both in rendering speed and general usage, though it tends to use a LOT of memory.
    - straight_talk 13y ago
      Chrome is very fast on my 4.8Ghz Windows PC with literally hundreds of tabs open sometimes. Almost as fast as Waterfox. If it slows with a few tabs my guess would be the OS is swapping Chrome processes memory to the swap file (or files). FWIW I just put 32GiB in my machines and remove all swap files.
pooriaazimi 13y ago
I have the latest versions of Safari and Firefox, on the latest version of OS X. Safari has about 15 extensions, has been used daily for the past 5 years (and I haven't deleted its history, though I clear the cache one every couple of months). And I use Firefox "only" if I need to access the web-based GMail (which happens roughly every 2 months), and there are no extensions installed in Firefox. Considering the above, Safari still is (much) faster than Firefox on my machine. I don't care if it can render JS 5% faster - the whole experience is sluggish and slow on my machine. Of course, YMMV. Just wanted to point it out to you that there are legitimate reasons why people say Firefox is slow.
- Yoric 13y ago
  Out of curiosity: have you tried "Reset Firefox" (in about:config – you won't lose anything if you don't have add-ons)? Most users experience a huge speedup when they use it.
  - gojomo 13y ago
    I don't see a 'Reset Firefox' option when I visit 'about:config' (FF/23.0 'beta channel' MacOS). (UPDATE:) Per <http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-problems> http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix..., it appears 'about:support' is the right place. I suspect this would help, but the problem would recur as soon as I restore my core Add-ons and usual tabs. In my experience, Firefox gets slower and slower the longer it's been open and with many tabs open. I believe it to be related to GC. Unfortunately, there aren't any hints (like per-tab activity/memory/allocation/timer readouts) as to which tabs are contributing the most to the problem. Sometimes I'll guess the miscreants and closing enough of them helps, but more often things only improve after a restart (essentially unloading all tabs until revisited). It does seem add-ons are implicated (and perhaps especially Firebug, even if Firebug is not activated in any tab). NoScript may also be implicated; especially with regard to pages that have some but not all script sources enabled.
    - pooriaazimi 13y ago
      It's in Help -> Troubleshooting Read this article to see what it preserves (or "tries to preserve"): http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-problems http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix... FWIW, I just tried it and it indeed made things a whole lot faster.

by ewzimm 13y ago

alipang 13y ago

Benchmarks are not everything. Firefox feels sluggish and less responsibe when scrolling, switching between tabs, on startup and just in general. This might not be the case one every machine, I don't know, but it's been consistently true for my usage, it just doesn't feel right. Unlike the new Opera I might add, it provides a really great experience. The fact that you can now install chrome plugins did it for me as I was a vimium addict. I think the move to blink was the right move for them.

pacomerh 13y ago
I agree with this, FF might get great benchmark results, but the overall experience is what matters and I still think chrome feels snappier overall.
- zachlatta 13y ago
  While we're talking about what "feels snappier," why hasn't anyone mentioned Safari. It is, by far, the smoothest browser on my computer. It may not do as well as Chrome in the benchmarks, but the scrolling is a thousand times smoother and everything feels quicker.
  - ewzimm 13y ago
    If the default scrolling isn't to your taste, you might want to try addons like this one for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/smoothwheel/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/smoothwheel/?... Of course, if you're happy with Safari, by all means stick with it.
Yoric 13y ago
I believe that there are two things being discussed here. One is performance. The other is reactivity. Performance (aka throughput) measures the total duration of operations, e.g. how long does it take to display a page once it is loaded, how fast a script will be executed, etc. When Chrome was introduced, its performance was much greater than Firefox, largely due to v8. Some other factors involved were add-ons (it used to be really easy to write Firefox add-ons that kill performance, and it used to be impossible in Chrome), or old bloated profiles (which of course didn't exist in Chrome). Now, after lots of hard work, the Mozilla community has managed to make Firefox faster than Chrome. That's what is measured by benchmarks, and that's one point for Firefox. Simultaneously (and this doesn't appear in benchmarks) the Chrome add-on and profile situation have started to show the same weaknesses as Firefox'. Reactivity (aka snappiness) measures how fast an application appears to be, i.e. the total duration of user-visible pauses, e.g. how long does it take to switch between tabs, or how much one tab eating all CPU affects other tabs. When Chrome was introduced, its reactivity was also much greater than Firefox, largely due to the multi-process architecture. Some other factors involved were add-ons, once again, or old bloated profile, or simply the fact that the Mozilla culture initially didn't take into account this factor. It took some time for the Mozilla community to realize that reactivity was just as important as speed. After lots of hard work, the Mozilla community has managed to make Firefox... well, much better than it used to be. Improvements include off main thread rendering, off main thread disk I/O, asynchronous add-ons, etc. Unfortunately, desktop Firefox does not have multi-process architecture yet. This gives a considerable advantage to Chrome in this domain. Work is ongoing to bring this multi-process architecture to Firefox desktop. The task is long and difficult and might, unfortunately, kill a number add-ons, but I am confident that the Mozilla community will achieve it. Incidentally, FirefoxOS has a multi-process architecture already. Caveat: I'm a Mozillian, and I'm involved in Reactivity work in Firefox.
- gojomo 13y ago
  Perhaps the "long and difficult" multi-process architecture will be the ultimate fix, but it'd be great in the meantime to get some tiny hint about which tabs are sucking up memory/cycles. This could be very crude - a count of the tab's timeout-firings, object allocations or whatever - and it would still allow significant self-help.

abrowne 13y ago

Even worse is the second part of their sentence. They say, "Unfortunately, Firefox is too slow and far behind the Chrome." Far behind in what exactly?

givehimagun 13y ago
The article is an op-ed piece...not a technology article.
- abrowne 13y ago
  Sure, but even so they could be more clear. The statement is so vague I don't know if I can even choose to agree or disagree with it!

a3n 13y ago

Provably wrong depends on when the proof was done. Firefox releases occasionally go through performance low points, to the point that I can't stand it. I then switch to Chromium, until I can't stand the user experience anymore, then I switch back to Firefox which by then has usually been fixed. Until next time.

crazygringo 13y ago

Can we please stop repeating the misleading statement that Firefox is fast enough, because of benchmarks? When people talk about Firefox being slow, they're not talking about page rendering speeds or JavaScript execution times. They're talking about the longer delays in switching between tabs, in closing tabs, opening a bunch of tabs at once and still having the interface be responsive, and so on. User interface stuff. Unfortunately, I don't know of any user-interface-responsiveness-speed benchmarks, so it's basically impossible to "prove". But that doesn't mean that people who complain about Firefox being slow are imagining it. The only reason I use Chrome instead of FF on my machine is precisely because the UI is an order of magnitude faster in mundane things -- instantaneous rather than pausing a bit on every little thing.

effn 13y ago
My experience is the opposite. I find Chrome horribly, horribly slow to use. Safari is ultrafast and FF somewhere in between. I still use it because I've become so accustomed to its UI but I switch to Safari on some sites to avoid spinning up the fan.
- Watabou 13y ago
  My experience has also been the same. Chrome on the mac is absolutely dog slow to use, especially after you open up a few tabs. Seriously, why do people say it's fast? I really don't get it. It was fast at one point but now it feels slow, bloated and the tabs crash far more often than either Firefox or Safari. If I only had a penny for every time I see the sad face on tab crashes. Firefox has no lag whatsoever when switching tabs, and general usage. Maybe people think it's slow because of its dated UI? Maybe they haven't used it at all? Maybe they're still using Firefox 10 or older? Firefox 22 is awesome. People just need to give it an unbiased try. Safari is the fastest of them all, both in rendering speed and general usage, though it tends to use a LOT of memory.
  - straight_talk 13y ago
    Chrome is very fast on my 4.8Ghz Windows PC with literally hundreds of tabs open sometimes. Almost as fast as Waterfox. If it slows with a few tabs my guess would be the OS is swapping Chrome processes memory to the swap file (or files). FWIW I just put 32GiB in my machines and remove all swap files.

pooriaazimi 13y ago

I have the latest versions of Safari and Firefox, on the latest version of OS X. Safari has about 15 extensions, has been used daily for the past 5 years (and I haven't deleted its history, though I clear the cache one every couple of months). And I use Firefox "only" if I need to access the web-based GMail (which happens roughly every 2 months), and there are no extensions installed in Firefox. Considering the above, Safari still is (much) faster than Firefox on my machine. I don't care if it can render JS 5% faster - the whole experience is sluggish and slow on my machine. Of course, YMMV. Just wanted to point it out to you that there are legitimate reasons why people say Firefox is slow.

Yoric 13y ago
Out of curiosity: have you tried "Reset Firefox" (in about:config – you won't lose anything if you don't have add-ons)? Most users experience a huge speedup when they use it.
- gojomo 13y ago
  I don't see a 'Reset Firefox' option when I visit 'about:config' (FF/23.0 'beta channel' MacOS). (UPDATE:) Per <http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-problems> http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix..., it appears 'about:support' is the right place. I suspect this would help, but the problem would recur as soon as I restore my core Add-ons and usual tabs. In my experience, Firefox gets slower and slower the longer it's been open and with many tabs open. I believe it to be related to GC. Unfortunately, there aren't any hints (like per-tab activity/memory/allocation/timer readouts) as to which tabs are contributing the most to the problem. Sometimes I'll guess the miscreants and closing enough of them helps, but more often things only improve after a restart (essentially unloading all tabs until revisited). It does seem add-ons are implicated (and perhaps especially Firebug, even if Firebug is not activated in any tab). NoScript may also be implicated; especially with regard to pages that have some but not all script sources enabled.
  - pooriaazimi 13y ago
    It's in Help -> Troubleshooting Read this article to see what it preserves (or "tries to preserve"): http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-problems http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix... FWIW, I just tried it and it indeed made things a whole lot faster.