You're viewing a single thread.
What is the aversion to FF? It is memory hungry, but not that much different than Chrome.
For daily usage, and as long as you use uBlock Origin, Firefox has been perfect for me for the past 10 years. I don't understand those who complain about it.
A lot of fanboys are just gonna irrationally hate competitors. Star Wars vs. Star Trek and all that.
To my knowledge the Chrome is the worse memory hog
Worse than Chrome? By how much? I use both browsers on multiple devices on multiple OSes and neither of them are even remotely lightweight.
chrome uses less base ram but more ram per tab i think
I think it's basically a wash. Anyone that says that one is particularly better or worse than the other is not being honest.
Chrome? Sure.
Vivaldi uses about half the RAM of FF when I have equivalent tabs open and running/idling.
Of course I have to have an ad blocker installed on FF whereas Vivaldi just does it natively, so that might be causing the difference in memory.
Here come all the anti chromium bois with "tHeReS nO wAy vivALdi bLoCkS aDs aS gOoD as u BlOcK oRiGin!''
To that I say... Have you ever fucking tried it? Lol I've tried both side by side, don't argue unless you've actually done so as well. V's ad blocking didn't break when Manifest V3 dropped and until it stops being as good or better than UBO I'm just gonna keep using it. When that day happens, well like I said I've already got FF up and running anyways.
but Vivaldi is just chrome in a coat of paint??
Is every Chromium browser just Chrome in a coat of paint to you?
If by "in a coat of paint" you actually mean "has built in tracker and ad blocking that works as good as UBO, was designed from the ground up by the guy who made OG Opera for the intended use case of being a privacy focused browser. Contains a lot of the same features as Opera like fully a customizable side panel, three different styles of tab stacking, workspaces, and a built in theme editor, with features like note taking baked in." Then sure, it's "just chrome with a paint job."
All of them are memory hungry, the point is how dynamic they are in their "hunger" and "excretion".
Does the 34 and 20 represent the number of tabs? If so, this is not a fair comparison, what with FF having 50% more open. But even if that number doesn't represent tabs, I am sure there can be websites that would put them much closer in performance.
Right now I have Chrome on my work machine. It has a 14 (again, not sure if those are active tabs or not) and it is eating 1.17 GB on my work machine. On my home FF (24) is eating 1.60 GB of RAM. FF is clearly using more RAM in each case, but it isn't slowing my desktop down any more than Chrome is on my work machine. I'd like for it to improve, but rather use something other than Google's tools on every single machine I use, I guess.
The number in parentheses is the number of processes that the application is performing. Win's task manager groups these under the parent app so you don't have to scroll through every "sub" in order to end a task. if you hit the ">" to the left of the app it will give you the expanded view and you will see the list.
Does the 34 and 20 represent the number of tabs?
Yes, more or less. I think some other extensions can take up processes too.
I actually have enough RAM and I'm glad that the RAM is being used to load all the stuff instead of the pagefile. It's my fault that I'm not closing stuff, not the browser's for not guessing what I'm going to re-load.
If you ask people, I think they'll just say that their main browser is like that. And that'll apply to all of them, so it's a user problem.
I remember these talks from a very long time ago. Very long time, when Opera had its own engine and before. I think the gaps have shrunk a lot, especially now that Internet Exploder is gone.
I've been maining Firefox for over a year now and this has been the case for me as well - it's such a resource hog. Which is fine, I've dealt with it, but I wish it didn't use so much battery life.
For some reason, upload speeds to YouTube are atrocious. And if you read through the ticket about this issue, it's not Google slowing it down artificially, but an actual Firefox issue. I have to resort to using Vivaldi as my dedicated upload browser.
That, and they have a weird drive to make their UI shittier and shittier. Introducing tons of whitespace, turning tabs into buttons, removing compact layout...
I have 15 extensions running on my 8GB work laptop and there is little to no difference from my 16GB PC battle station at home. And I have like 4 more apps run alongside 10 tabs of FF at work, way more than what I would ever open at home
Permanently Deleted
Of course your job would be even easier if there was only one engine left. Comparing it to what we had in the IE era though is completely bonkers.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Yeah, I’m also a web developer and this person is completely up their own ass. We’ve all struggled with browsers that lag behind standards (internet explorer) or implement them in weird ways (safari). But Mozilla has never even come close to being a problem like the others.
Also I doubt they are using the newest of new web standards that would actually need to be poly filled and even then with modern JS build tooling poly filling isn’t difficult or abnormal. Oh, the bundle for your crappy SPA might be a few kb bigger but that isn’t gonna make a difference.
To name a big one: the CSS :has() pseudo-class.
How is this still not enabled by default?
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Side panel, workspaces, tab-stacking, just to name a few.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
"What major standard features is Firefox missing these days?"
This was your question, nowhere did you say anything about web API's. You stupid or just forget which comment I was responding to?
Sure FF has extensions that "kinda do the same thing" except they're shit and bloat the browser beyond what it already is compared to Vivaldi.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]