3 ms·

It does make sense when you look at it as a user. The result is the same.. requirements are not. With one you need a dedicated application, with other you need

• masklinn 12y ago
  > It does make sense when you look at it as a user. No. You misunderstand point 1, I'm not saying comparing Firefox to Foxit as PDF viewers is nonsensical[0], I'm saying GP comparing the number he gets on his machine to the numbers provided by OP is not sensible: OP uses 64b Firefox on 64b OSX on an rMBP (the retina part quadrupling the size of the render target if software is compatible) while GP uses unknown bitness Foxit on unknown bitness Windows on unknown hardware. That's a fractally nonsensical comparison, just about everything which can be changed is changed. A somewhat real comparison would require that GP install a FF33 nightly on his machine and look at what happens there, and only looks at the difference between browser open and browser open + PDF. That would give the browser and PDF.js's overhead over opening PDFs in a native client. > Also, there's about:memory available in firefox for quite detailed memory break-down. Which is not what's in OP's graphs, not what GP compares his numbers to, and not relevant to my comment. [0] although it kind-of is, firefox bundles a PDF viewing utility for convenience, it's not a PDF viewer (unless you're in firefox os maybe?)