alt Hacker NewsJust a shame its a tiny bit slower than chromium based browsers still (the ui, not the web page rendering), and you dont have to take my word for it, a web search for something like 'firefox sluggish compared to chrome' will back this up too as I've tried switching multiple times but always end up back on a chromium variant because the firefox ui just doesn't feel like an upgrade.
Personally I've just given up trying with firefox and I now put up with brave - its certainly not perfect but at least the ad blocker isnt about to break.
Replies
> a tiny bit slower
And that automatically disqualifies it? I find that wild. I've been using Firefox since it was at v2 I think, and never once considered switching for some speed gain. I actually use Vivaldi on the side sometimes for sites that aren't very Firefox-with-my-extensions-friendly, and find no difference in performance.
Not using adware seems like a big upgrade to me.
Let me know how fast the internet without working ad block feels...
(Personally I find Firefox is plenty fast! And the benefits vastly outweigh trying to deal with a Google-powered web browser.)
> a tiny bit slower
This is no longer the case, at least not uniformly. My Speedometer 3.1 results are:
- Chromium: 30.0 (± 1.2)
- Firefox: 32.1 (± 1.6)
Using the latest browser version on Arch Linux.
> Just a shame its a tiny bit slower than chromium based browsers still (the ui, not the web page rendering)
IIRC, it's got a much smaller memory footprint.
I believe Firefox without ads is faster & safer than Chrome with Ads.
tiny bit slower, all things being equal, maybe. For one, who cares? No one can see tenth of a millisecond speed difference. Second, without a proper ad blocker, rendering speed is meaningless, because all the power will be used to render garbage you never wanted to see in the first place.
Not in my experience. Never had issues with FF feeling sluggish at all.