Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Mozilla Firefox 22 Is Now Available

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wargames View Post
    Every time they release a new version, I see "performance improvements". The truth is that firefox performance sucks, it feels slow*, runs slow and crashes often.

    *On a Dual Core 3Ghz processor with 4GB of RAM.
    Speak for yourself, rock solid here on a single core Athlon64 3500+(Clawhammer) and only 2Gb of DDR 266Mhz, on a 32 bit Linux Mint no less. I can have a few HUNDRED tabs open without slowdowns, though I have no Flash installed and have all ads blocked.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Same here, I often have 200+ tabs open and I never notice any slowdowns. Memory usage is another issue though, it soars to the heavens once in a while, but that's fixed by closing and restarting firefox.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wargames View Post
    Every time they release a new version, I see "performance improvements". The truth is that firefox performance sucks, it feels slow*, runs slow and crashes often.

    *On a Dual Core 3Ghz processor with 4GB of RAM.
    The running slower are not necessarily performance problems but responsiveness problems. The performance and responsiveness problems are also in the plugins which mozilla can't always fix coupled with the age, legacy of the Firefox codebase.
    Firefox definitely need to do more with threaded stuff and solve more stability problems.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris200x9 View Post
    Firefox can't even scroll for me, it's so choppy.
    Eh? Smooth Scrolling enabled in preferences, coupled with Autoscrolling is smooth like a 'baby's bottom' here.

    As for Autoscrolling, someone know if there is some option to enable that in Chrome/Chromium? I've looked but couldn't find any.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JS987 View Post
    Both Firefox and Chrome work great on my dual core.
    Same here, I can't say I notice any real performance difference (though that doesn't mean there isn't any), Chrome does use more RAM for me though, but not by any huge amount.

    From a user standpoint I can't really recommend one over the other, I find myself using Firefox as my primary browser more out of habit than anything else.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JS987 View Post
    Both Firefox and Chrome work great on my dual core.
    I'm going to assume that you mean an x86 dual core.... or in other words, a moderate desktop with enough power to smooth out the gross inefficiencies beyond your capability to detect. Now how about you go ahead and try the same two browsers out on something that is actually *WEAK*, like a single core atom z530, or anything-ARM. At this point, you will be able to actually see the massive difference between the two, and believe me, it is SHOCKING. Firefox OBLITERATES chrome.

    Here's the thing with performance observations;
    In a web browser, in theory, you spend most of your time sitting there LOOKING at it, the second most time actually downloading. Looking at it just sitting there doesn't require anything besides the ability to show a static image. Downloading is network-bound, and can't be changed by the browser itself. What that leaves, is really rendering performance, and javascript performance, for the most part.

    Now lets say your dual core CPU can do all of the rendering for a page in Firefox in 0.2 seconds. Maybe chrome takes 0.6 seconds, or even ONE WHOLE second. That would make Firefox FIVE TIMES FASTER. But you wouldn't notice it, because (1) its a difference of only 0.8 seconds, and (2) it is WELL within the variation in network performance, so even if you could notice a difference of 0.8 seconds, you are used to assuming that its network difference.

    Now when you switch to a much slower CPU, things start to look a little different. In Firefox, that 0.2 second rendering time stretches out to 2 seconds. Not bad. Not a lot to worry about. Its still five times faster than chrome though, which now takes TEN seconds. Now we are looking at a difference of EIGHT SECONDS, and THAT is something you can actually observe.
    Last edited by droidhacker; 06-26-2013 at 08:46 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    I'm going to assume that you mean an x86 dual core.... or in other words, a moderate desktop with enough power to smooth out the gross inefficiencies beyond your capability to detect. Now how about you go ahead and try the same two browsers out on something that is actually *WEAK*, like a single core atom z530, or anything-ARM. At this point, you will be able to actually see the massive difference between the two, and believe me, it is SHOCKING. Firefox OBLITERATES chrome.
    I have only 2 devices: desktop PC and low end phone. Neither Firefox nor Chrome will run on my phone.
    Now lets say your dual core CPU can do all of the rendering for a page in Firefox in 0.2 seconds. Maybe chrome takes 0.6 seconds, or even ONE WHOLE second. That would make Firefox FIVE TIMES FASTER. But you wouldn't notice it, because (1) its a difference of only 0.8 seconds, and (2) it is WELL within the variation in network performance, so even if you could notice a difference of 0.8 seconds, you are used to assuming that its network difference.

    Now when you switch to a much slower CPU, things start to look a little different. In Firefox, that 0.2 second rendering time stretches out to 2 seconds. Not bad. Not a lot to worry about. Its still five times faster than chrome though, which now takes TEN seconds. Now we are looking at a difference of EIGHT SECONDS, and THAT is something you can actually observe.
    Where did you get those numbers? According to various benchmarks Chrome is mostly faster or has same speed as Firefox.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Now lets say your dual core CPU can do all of the rendering for a page in Firefox in 0.2 seconds. Maybe chrome takes 0.6 seconds, or even ONE WHOLE second. That would make Firefox FIVE TIMES FASTER. But you wouldn't notice it, because (1) its a difference of only 0.8 seconds, and (2) it is WELL within the variation in network performance, so even if you could notice a difference of 0.8 seconds, you are used to assuming that its network difference.
    Now let's say chrome takes 0.2 seconds to render the page and firefox takes 0.6, 0.8 or even 1.0, then - Uhuh - it's the other way around and chrome OBLITERATES Firefox. BAMM!

    What I want to say: You do not proof anything by throwing random numbers at your audience.

    Having said that: firefox-22.0 is the first release after quite some time where the promise of "better performance" actually did not mean the opposite, but really made my experience nicer. I was able to enable Smooth Scrolling after - I don't know - how many releases. maps.google.com was unusable with at least 19.x to 21.x - Scrolling with the mouse wheel did take seconds until it actually zoomed, making it quite hard to get the right "distance". 22.0 still is not as smooth as crome in this regard, but the lag now can be tolerated (fractions of a second). Also the whole UI responds way better, I start enjoying firefox again The vimperator popup comes up instantly, same with the site icons (I could watch them gettings painted one by one in the vimperator popup...)

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivada View Post
    Speak for yourself, rock solid here on a single core Athlon64 3500+(Clawhammer) and only 2Gb of DDR 266Mhz, on a 32 bit Linux Mint no less. I can have a few HUNDRED tabs open without slowdowns, though I have no Flash installed and have all ads blocked.
    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Same here, I often have 200+ tabs open and I never notice any slowdowns. Memory usage is another issue though, it soars to the heavens once in a while, but that's fixed by closing and restarting firefox.
    I often find myself having over 50 tabs and experience UI slowdown and more importantly the inefficiency that traditional tab managing causes. The only 2 permanent remedies that sorta improve tab management is a 2line tab bar (via TMP) and occasionally the tab group button (which is still far from perfectly smooth). How do you people manage hundreds of tabs?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kostas View Post
    I often find myself having over 50 tabs and experience UI slowdown and more importantly the inefficiency that traditional tab managing causes. The only 2 permanent remedies that sorta improve tab management is a 2line tab bar (via TMP) and occasionally the tab group button (which is still far from perfectly smooth). How do you people manage hundreds of tabs?
    Vimperator makes using tab groups a breeze, if only it came with nicer bindings/shortcuts for them out-of-the-box (it only has long command names by default).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •