4 ms·
> Firefox was great, but the performance was sub-par around version 3 Before Chrome, Firefox's performance was sub-par compared to... what? Definitely not to S
by JohnBooty 12y ago
> Firefox was great, but the performance was sub-par around version 3
Before Chrome, Firefox's performance was sub-par compared to... what? Definitely not to Safari, Chrome, or IE.
The main knock on Firefox at that time was that it was too memory-hungry. That was always somewhat of an inaccurate rap. Not totally undeserved, but not totally deserved either.
> Chrome definitely gave Mozilla a nice kick in the backside, which I am very thankful for. These days Firefox is now close to, if not faster and less memory hungry than Chrome.
Heck yes to all of that.
- ultramancool 12y ago> Heck yes to all of that. The performance improvements have been great, but I have to admit the UI changes are highly concerning to me. Fortunately the FF extension APIs are the best around, so now I just can't use Firefox without "Classic Theme Restorer".
- yellowapple 12y agoI personally never minded Australis, since I've been used to it via Thunderbird (which rolled it out first). That said, it really doesn't affect me that much since I use Tree View Tabs anyway (and I don't use the menu enough to really care beyond having nice big buttons to click on when my morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet).