Hi, Pacabel! Can you give specific examples of this ridicule? While I don't claim that everything is perfect, my experience is that for the past few years Mozi

Hi, Pacabel! Can you give specific examples of this ridicule? While I don't claim that everything is perfect, my experience is that for the past few years Mozilla has taken Firefox performance issues extremely seriously. For example, I started a project called MemShrink exactly three years ago to reduce Firefox's memory consumption. In fact, I even wrote a blog post today that discussed the major improvements from the past year, and what areas we still fall short on: https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/06/16/memshrinks-3rd-birthday/ https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/06/16/memshrinks-3.... And if you want more detail about this particular effort, you can read the 70+ status reports I've written in those three years here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink. And since you mentions extensions, you could also read about how we solved the vast majority of the memory leaks that involved extensions here: https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2012/07/19/firefox-15-plugs-the-add-on-leaks/ https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2012/07/19/firefox-15-p.... That was almost two years ago. As for pdf.js, here's the bug I filed last year about it using too much memory: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=881974 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=881974. The title of the bug is "pdf.js uses too much memory". No ridicule or ignoring the problem there. MemShrink is just one of numerous performance-related projects that have been undertaken at Mozilla over the past few years. I'm sure with a little Googling you could find out about some of the others.