Firefox 68 vs. Chrome 76 Linux Web Browser Performance Benchmarks

[schmidtbag]

There's a difference between being a leech and piracy. Websites are publicly open for anyone to freely view. Hurting their ability to make revenue off you is being a leech, but you never agreed to anything more. If there was any kind of restrictions - either through an agreement you made, or a login/etc. (like the way news sites restrict access to articles) then bypassing that would be piracy.

Whatever you want to call it, it's still unethical and taking money from content creators.

My computer, my choice what code runs on it.

That's a laughably ridiculous statement in this context. The computers running the websites you visit aren't yours. You are, in effect, a guest of someone else's computer when you visit a website.
A mayor doesn't just get to walk into any store within their city, take what they want, and say "my city, my rules". Just because the mayor controls the city, doesn't mean the mayor gets to control the operation of businesses within it.

[Sonadow]

Benchmarks mean nothing. I use my own watch and perception to determine which is the better browser.

And it's still Chromium that is way ahead of FF in terms of performance and site compatibility.

[Sonadow]

Whatever you want to call it, it's still unethical and taking money from content creators.

I agree with almost everything. There is only one site that I use Adblock on, and that is tinypic. It's completely not reasonable to expect that an image hosting site throws three popups and one full-window popup add before even giving users the chance to upload their images.

In fact, a single visit to tinypic causes adblock to stop more than 15 ads upon initial loading of the site. This is just plain unacceptable.

Everything else can be tolerated to a certain extent.

That's a laughably ridiculous statement in this context. The computers running the websites you visit aren't yours. You are, in effect, a guest of someone else's computer when you visit a website.
A mayor doesn't just get to walk into any store within their city, take what they want, and say "my city, my rules". Just because the mayor controls the city, doesn't mean the mayor gets to control the operation of businesses within it.

Actually, administrators can dictate how businesses are supposed to operate in a city; it's their rules after all. Things such as employment conditions, outlet size, mandatory city-wide IT policies, etc all fall under the city's administration.

[Indomitable]

I don't know why you are blaming browsers for bad performance and a lot of memory consumption, when you need to blame all these "modern" websites that are full of ads and are using "modern" javascript frameworks written by "modern" developers who don't know how memory management works.

[Slartifartblast]

Whatever you want to call it, it's still unethical and taking money from content creators.


That's a laughably ridiculous statement in this context. The computers running the websites you visit aren't yours. You are, in effect, a guest of someone else's computer when you visit a website.
A mayor doesn't just get to walk into any store within their city, take what they want, and say "my city, my rules". Just because the mayor controls the city, doesn't mean the mayor gets to control the operation of businesses within it.

Lol, yeah right you have to be forced to read every bit of junk mail that drops through your letter box and you're not allowed to fast forward through the ads on your recording TV box. They are free to put up a paywall and I'm equally free to go elsewhere, do you work for Google Adsenese by any chance ?

Absurd argument.

[schmidtbag]

Lol, yeah right you have to be forced to read every bit of junk mail that drops through your letter box and you're not allowed to fast forward through the ads on your recording TV box. They are free to put up a paywall and I'm equally free to go elsewhere, do you work for Google Adsenese by any chance ?

Uh... no? First of all, nobody said you're forced to buy anything. Second, spam you get in your mail (or email) is a totally different subject. Spam isn't paying the bills for anyone you care about. Ads on websites do. How are you not understanding this?

Actually, administrators can dictate how businesses are supposed to operate in a city; it's their rules after all. Things such as employment conditions, outlet size, mandatory city-wide IT policies, etc all fall under the city's administration.

A mayor, on their own whim, does not have the power to just walk into a business, take things, and dictate how they're run. Maybe they could back in the wild west days, but not now. Mayors don't even have enough power to overrule a council.

[DrYak]

You're missing the point here... it doesn't matter if you actually click on the ads or watch them. The point is they generate revenue for content creators. To block the ads means the content creator doesn't get paid. You understand that, right?

No. The point for ads and marketing in general is to generate revenue (sold unit) for the company whose marketing department is running the ads. That the people providing the ad display space get some pennies out of the arrangement is just a collateral of how currently this marketing works.

If ads don't lead to the expected increase in revenue, the company producing the advertised product/services will pull the ad and stop paying, or drastically diminish the budget devoted at this (E.g.: over time the money earned per view on youtube has diminished).

Whether you're blocking it (stopping immediately prints now) or not paying attention to the ads (not increasing sales, and thus the company drop the ad eventually paying less for it) ends up the same final result, only one is quicker than the other.

So long as marketers think ads are worthwhile, they will continue to provide them. Ads are a very easy way for sites like this to operate at a minimal inconvenience to users. Whether or not they're successful is irrelevant.

Whether or not they're successful is entirely relevant to whether the marketers will think the ads are worthwhile.
By not watching them you're leading to the marketers realizing that they aren't that worthwhile and eventually leading to the same end result: ad revenue lowering.

Some people like Michael depend on ads to live, and you're just simply taking that money right out of his pocket and giving nothing in return.

That's why I am paying my membership. (Even more so as my job relies heavily on Linux and this kind of tech news are useful to me. I am a doctor, but work in research, not in clinic).

[schmidtbag]

No. The point for ads and marketing in general is to generate revenue (sold unit) for the company whose marketing department is running the ads. That the people providing the ad display space get some pennies out of the arrangement is just a collateral of how currently this marketing works.

You're an idiot if you think that's the only reason. That's the incentive to creating ads. But nobody in their right mind would host ads with their content without getting something in return. The point of ads (and sponsorships) is so companies can pay content creators to get their product known to the public. It's a mutual benefit: the content creators can make publicly available content at no monetary cost to their audience, and the corporations get publicity. This is why people funded by these companies have to be careful about the content they create, or else they'll get dropped by the companies and therefore get demonetized. Have you seriously not made this connection?

Whether you're blocking it (stopping immediately prints now) or not paying attention to the ads (not increasing sales, and thus the company drop the ad eventually paying less for it) ends up the same final result, only one is quicker than the other.

Except you keep ignoring the fact that the ads cover the cost of creating the content... Whether you ignore ads or block them, you aren't buying the product; the end result for you is the same. The difference is when you block the ads, the content creator doesn't get paid. So when you block ads, it's entirely selfish.

Whether or not they're successful is entirely relevant to whether the marketers will think the ads are worthwhile.
By not watching them you're leading to the marketers realizing that they aren't that worthwhile and eventually leading to the same end result: ad revenue lowering.

You clearly don't know why these ads are made or how marketing works. Marketers are very well aware of the incredibly low click-through rates of ads. They know most people aren't paying close attention. They're lucky to see 0.01% of each ad getting clicked on. Case in point: you can't directly interact with ads on TV. The point of these ads is to just get the name in front of you. Look at all of the most successful brands in the world, and notice how nearly all of them create ads despite already being a household name. A lot of the time, they're not even telling you what the product is. You'll have a hard time finding anyone in the world who never heard of companies like Coca Cola, Apple, Toyota, McDonald's, or Amazon, regardless of whether they were ever a customer. Most people have a good idea of what to expect of the products by those companies. And yet, we see ads for them all the time. These companies know that 99.99% of people are tuning out most of the ad, but, all they need is to just keep burning their brand into people's brains. As long as you see the logo, that's enough to reinforce those neural connections, and at that point, the ad worked.

[pal666]

wait, i thought when you write program in rust it can't be slow

[Citan]

Man you probably should not have that many tabs open, that's ridiculus!

Imo unfortunately the performance difference is pretty noticable in day to day usage, which forces me to stick to chrome kinda :/

EDIT:
Btw one thing I have noticed is that chrome just *feels* much faster while scrolling for example. This is becasue firefox scrolling alorithm is designed to have more "drag" and be less responive than the chrome counterpart. At least that's what my testing has suggested.

About the bolded sentence: just know that it is very ordinary to have a number of tags varying from 10 to 300+ during a lifecycle of a browser. It just requires several searches about topics you're not familiar about, or topics on which it's hard to find actual quality information ^^ (explanation: you launch several searches and quickly open results in new tab so the latter load in background while you start checking -and keeping or closing depending on their worth- the first).

As for the performance: Chrome has always been utter crap for me, systematically (all platforms), as soon as you get over 25~30 tabs and/or install an extension.
Firefox? I can have three profiles running at the same time, each under heavy load (average 100, some can peak over 300 when I have to put an unfinished topic under stasis for a while), and the thing is running smoothly. Only if I was stupid enough to order one of them to reload all tabs at once would it break.
AND on top of that I have a handful of completely lifesaver extensions (TreeStyleTabs, Counttabs, and Hugo) and still using an old Firefox (because new one is a big middlefinger pointed at people using vertical tabs and some extensions like Hugo).

Sooo... Yeah. For me, the only reasons Chrome has become the ruler is 1) many people have too basic browsing needs to benefit from extension (+ more and more are browsing for simple information/social network on mobile) and 2) more importantly, it has used the same techniques of silent install as many malwares before to force itself as the default browser on many, many Windows machines.
But it's really all looks. Once you start trying it for real work it falls apart hard.

(And yeah, only reason having such a high number of tabs is perfectly manageable is putting tabs aside and organizing them with Tree Style Tabs. With standard bartab, I don't understand how people could bear having more than 6-7 tabs active, considering how unreadable of a UX mess it is).