4 ms·

This. Have the scales tipped the other way recently? Chrome still feels faster to me, but I only have one active extension (Ad Blocker).

zxcvcxz 12y ago
I think most people on HN using FF are running nightly versions, I know I was. The nightly versions of FF have always had the edge on Chrome, but I think it's just recently that the stable version of FF has really gotten pretty much on par with Chrome, and I'd say definitely better on the Linux 64bit.
- wooger 12y ago
  Nightly -> Stable every ~12 weeks or so, so should feel just as fast. I noticed this difference too, but I believe that's as I use it with a fresh profile each time.
Ar-Curunir 12y ago
Chrome doesn't work well for me on Linux at all, whereas Firefox functions beautifully.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  While "work well at all" might be an exaggeration, I have found Firefox to run much better than Chrome/Chromium on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS as well.
cpeterso 12y ago
The Ad Block Plus extension is itself a notorious memory and CPU hog [1]. Chrome's slimmer uBlock extension has now been ported to Firefox [2]. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-on-firefoxs-memory-usage/ https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-plus... [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases
- wtallis 12y ago
  Please don't put the blame solely on AdBlock Plus. Most of the problem is due to the rulesets, not the extension itself. EasyList and friends have a truly frightening number of broad CSS element hiding rules, which are much less efficient than the URL blocking rules that were the original AdBlock mode and should have stayed the primary means of blocking.
  - wooger 12y ago
    This is patently untrue, as I subscribe to the exact same filter rulesets in uBlock, and it makes a dramatic, incredible difference to the browser's performance.
    - wtallis 12y ago
      I didn't say that there was no difference in performance between uBlock and ABP. I was explaining that the performance problems with ABP are a result of it being misused. uBlock tolerates the abuse much better, but URL based blocking should still be the first line of defense.
- vandahm 12y ago
  Thanks for the link to uBlock. I've been growing frustrated with Ghostery and AdBlock Plus, but didn't know of a good alternative. I'm giving uBlock a try, and so far, so good.
  - slasaus 12y ago
    Although µBlock might be a lot slimmer than AdBlock Plus, according to this article [1] it's comparable with Ghostery. Ofcours µBlock is open source where Ghostery is not and I personlly really like µBlock's philosophy [2] about tracking and privacy. [1] http://www.extremetech.com/computing/199188-%C2%B5block-aims-to-block-ads-without-draining-system-resources http://www.extremetech.com/computing/199188-%C2%B5block-aims... [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy

zxcvcxz 12y ago

I think most people on HN using FF are running nightly versions, I know I was. The nightly versions of FF have always had the edge on Chrome, but I think it's just recently that the stable version of FF has really gotten pretty much on par with Chrome, and I'd say definitely better on the Linux 64bit.

wooger 12y ago
Nightly -> Stable every ~12 weeks or so, so should feel just as fast. I noticed this difference too, but I believe that's as I use it with a fresh profile each time.

Ar-Curunir 12y ago

Chrome doesn't work well for me on Linux at all, whereas Firefox functions beautifully.

voidlogic 12y ago
While "work well at all" might be an exaggeration, I have found Firefox to run much better than Chrome/Chromium on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS as well.

cpeterso 12y ago

The Ad Block Plus extension is itself a notorious memory and CPU hog [1]. Chrome's slimmer uBlock extension has now been ported to Firefox [2]. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-on-firefoxs-memory-usage/ https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-plus... [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases

wtallis 12y ago
Please don't put the blame solely on AdBlock Plus. Most of the problem is due to the rulesets, not the extension itself. EasyList and friends have a truly frightening number of broad CSS element hiding rules, which are much less efficient than the URL blocking rules that were the original AdBlock mode and should have stayed the primary means of blocking.
- wooger 12y ago
  This is patently untrue, as I subscribe to the exact same filter rulesets in uBlock, and it makes a dramatic, incredible difference to the browser's performance.
  - wtallis 12y ago
    I didn't say that there was no difference in performance between uBlock and ABP. I was explaining that the performance problems with ABP are a result of it being misused. uBlock tolerates the abuse much better, but URL based blocking should still be the first line of defense.
vandahm 12y ago
Thanks for the link to uBlock. I've been growing frustrated with Ghostery and AdBlock Plus, but didn't know of a good alternative. I'm giving uBlock a try, and so far, so good.
- slasaus 12y ago
  Although µBlock might be a lot slimmer than AdBlock Plus, according to this article [1] it's comparable with Ghostery. Ofcours µBlock is open source where Ghostery is not and I personlly really like µBlock's philosophy [2] about tracking and privacy. [1] http://www.extremetech.com/computing/199188-%C2%B5block-aims-to-block-ads-without-draining-system-resources http://www.extremetech.com/computing/199188-%C2%B5block-aims... [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy