4 ms·

>Firefox is too slow. Despite all the evidence to the contrary? >As a power user I notice millisecond differences in page render times. No you don't. As a we

• piyush_soni 12y ago
  Oh you can easily figure out render performance differences in milliseconds with your eyes. Try that. For example, a difference of 300 milliseconds is noticeable by me. I don't know what are you 'attesting' there. I'm not a web-developer, but just 'a developer'. Also, what evidence you have that says Firefox can't be slow(even with all the add-ons it supports). In fact, those hundreds of bugs will be quite a sufficient evidence that it indeed is for many people. (It's coming from someone who still hasn't converted to Chrome)
  • minitech 12y ago
    When you say “I notice millisecond differences”, that means “one millisecond”. If you meant something more on the order of hundreds of milliseconds, you should probably clarify that.
    • Agathos 12y ago
      I can survive on milliseconds of sleep every night. Preferably 27 to 28 million milliseconds, if you have to be so picky.
      • mryan 12y ago
        Exactly, that's the point minitech was making. Your statement is accurate. Saying you survive on a single millisecond of sleep each night would be clearly impossible - as is noticing single-millisecond differences in page rendering times. You might dismiss it as pedantry, but there is a clear linguistic difference between "I notice millisecond differences" and "I notice differences of 300ms".
        • lylejohnson 12y ago
          Whoosh.
        • piyush_soni 12y ago
          That's one of those places where common sense should take over literal English. When someone says 'millisecond differences', there are high chances that they mean 'milliseconds differences', and not exactly ONE millisecond difference.
    • piyush_soni 12y ago
      Oh well, first, I was not the one who said that. Then, there are HIGH chances that the original comment meant 'milliseconds' differences and not one millisecond difference, which all of you didn't even try to consider.
• creshal 12y ago
  > Despite all the evidence to the contrary? It's fast in benchmarks… but it's either single-threaded or has horrible locking. One slow script somewhere will not just block the tab, but the entire browser. Good luck hunting it down with 40+ open tabs. (I really miss Opera 12, it's still the only browser to decouple the UI to its own thread so a long-running script doesn't lock up the page. Or the whole browser…)
  • mcwidget 12y ago
    As an Opera 12 fan, have you tried https://vivaldi.net https://vivaldi.net ? You're the target audience.
    • creshal 12y ago
      Yet another Chromium reskin, with semi-mandatory "social" features? No, I don't think I'm the target audience.
      • wantab 12y ago
        Chrome and Chromium are not Blink. Blink is the rendering engine alone. Opera uses Blink.
• madaxe_again 12y ago
  You may not consciously notice, but you sure as shit do. I've got some lovely scatter plots sampled across billions of user sessions that show that average page load time in a session has a direct inverse correlation with conversion rate. Humans are impatient to the core.
  • wantab 12y ago
    Millisecond differences? No you don't.
    • madaxe_again 12y ago
      Over a population, statistically? Yeah, you do.