[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/g/ - Technology



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: maxresdefault.jpg (120 KB, 1280x720)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
The Chrome Killer
>>
its a damn browse use whatever works for you
>>
File: Screenshot_1.png (30 KB, 315x277)
30 KB
30 KB PNG
>>63364468
Senpai pls go away. I just upgraded 32-bit FFq to 64-bit one and it's fuckin glitches also spellcheck is not working.
Wtf, mozilla?
>>
>>63364468
are.. are they using ask.com as a benchmark?
it still exist?
>>
So I have Chrome and FF Quantum open with the same number of pages. Both doing nothing, FF constantly has a fluctuating CPU usage of 2%-20% whereas Chrome is staying below 1%, mostly at .2%.

Both running youtube videos, Chrome is using ~9% at 1080p60 whereas FFQ is using ~24% for the same video.

Both are about the same memory usage at 1.7GB. I have 18 pages open on both including Gmail, youtube and The Chan.

So far, it isn't really faster but it IS using more resources. Pretty eh, as usual, but it is just a beta so we shall see.
>>
>>63364586
But FF is not reporting your key strokes to NSA and (((their))) own server. De-google yourself.
>>
>>63364598
How about you de-cliqz yourself.
>>
>>63364598
Sure they aren't. : ^ )
>>
So here they are at idle, both have the exact same pages open. I do not know why FF reports 6 and Chrome 31 but eh.
>>
File: FFQ-Failing to Chrome.jpg (25 KB, 1117x85)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>63364749
And here they are both playing 720p60 videos side by side. Notice how high the CPU utilization is for FFQ vs Chrome, as well as my fans started to spin up.

I also tried this with Edge but it was ridiculous at ~3GB usage and ~40% CPU usage as well as made my fans spin up.
>>
>>63364468
r/Firefox is full complains.
>>
>>63364761
Here's FFQ playing a 720p60 video by itself with high usage and fan spinning
>>
>>63364810
Here's Chrome playing the same 720p60 video with no fans being spun up.
You'll notice that FFQ is still using more resources and CPU cycles even though it's now in the background.
>>
>>63364821
Here's Chrome doing that same 720p60 video while running off battery since I'm on a laptop. Alienware 13 r3.
Average usage is lower and there's no loss in performance, I have it set to max CPU speed of 50% and the GPU is set to Maximum Battery, should be running off the HD630 but it might be running on the 1060, which is also set to max batt.
>>
>>63364870
Same story here but for FFQ.
Notice it isn't restricting anything at all, although there's no perceptible performance loss here either.
>>
File: Final screenie.jpg (23 KB, 902x133)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>>63364880
And finally, after some minutes have passed, here's where we are at for memory usage.
>>
>>63364914
lol mozilla diversity hires are top programmers xD
>>
>>63364749
>>63364761
>>63364810
>>63364821
>>63364870
>>63364880
>>63364914
This looks fake. We have no way to verify that this is the same video or tabs. Anyways, enjoy your botnet.
>>
>>63364956
The video was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqgF4YyssgY

Can't cuck the tuck!

Anyways, yeah, I get that you... don't want to believe me, I'm just showing you what I'm experiencing.
>>
File: notanargument5.png (11 KB, 624x616)
11 KB
11 KB PNG
>>63365037
Nice argument. Now go back to /pol/ and stay there.
>>
File: 1479488245499.jpg (141 KB, 543x405)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
I have 11 legacy add-ons, on a scale of 1-10 how fucked am I
>>
>>63365124
Why?
What does anything have to do with /pol/, this was independent browser testing...
>>
File: Untitled.png (8 KB, 685x117)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
>>63364749
>>63364914
$10 you've got a bitcoin miner installed on Firefox. This is after running for 10 hours.
>>
>>63365316
That's nightly, I'm using Quantum Beta.
I do not have anything installed on FF, I have not used FF before and so this is a fresh install.
>>
>>63365202
11/11-legacy-addons-not-working-anymore fucked
>>
File: shit.png (312 KB, 486x383)
312 KB
312 KB PNG
>>63365414
>>
>>63365387
You're lying chrome shill
>>
The Virgin Browser?
>>
>>63364810
>>63364821
>>63364870
>>63364880
>>63364914
Now please post a screenshot of all the background processes that chrome is running.
>>
Misread the watermark as "webpajeet" and chuckled a bit
>>
>>>63364749
>>>63364761
>>>63364810
>>>63364821
>>>63364870
>>>63364880
>>>63364914
I'm getting similar results, except that Chrome can't reproduce 720p60 on my potato without dropping lots of frame, something that doesn't happen with Waterfox.

Is there any chrome:flag to fix that or something?
>>
What's the best browser?
>>
>>63364468
>no overlay scrollbars
>chrome has overlay scrollbars built in
>>
>>63365202
Super fucked. Either avoid the update or use ESR.
>>
>>63364492
edgy
>>
>using windows task manager to benchmark memory usage

man please blow yourself up
>>
>>63364749
>>63364761
>>63364810
>>63364821
>>63364870
>>63364880
>>63364914
(>>63365950) here.
browser.cache.disk.capacity;0 reduces by half the CPU Usage. From 35-40% it was reduced to 15-20%, it still eats like 300MB of RAM on my end, compared to Chrome who's eating like 35-40MB though.
>>
>>63365958
links
>>
Am I already using Quantum if I'm running FF Nightly?
>>
>>63364586
You can't use google sites as benchmarks because chrome is optimized for them.
>>
Well shit, 4chan X got FUCKED
>>
>>63366074
Yes
>>
>>63366074
shouldn't nightly be on 59 by now? You've been using quantum for like 2 months.
>>
>>63364598
>He thinks his system is off the grid
Just because you're using ff or compile your own shitty web browser from some autist on GitHub doesn't mean the NSA can't see everything you're doing. They saw every keystroke of your last comment and knew that you were scratching the underside of your enormous man-titty halfway through typing it because they analyzed the waveform of the audio file that was generated during their surveillance.
>>
>>63366183
>implying I'm not behind 7 proxies
Sucks to be you, normie.
>>
>>63366286
Admirable response, faggot
>>
>>63366323
I "anonymised" myself well.
It's not about "oh hey, (((they))) auto-surveillaning me, I better kill myself" It's about not giving what they want. And it's obivious that they don't care if I fap to trap porn at sundays and futa on random times. Who to fuck can use this information, seriously? Ads? I use adblocker. Nothing to make profit of it.
Selling my entire life to shady dudes? Do you really think it's me? Or some paranoid's persona for fooling (((Them))). You'll never know, anon.
>>
File: 2015-05-10 22.37.05.png (209 KB, 291x398)
209 KB
209 KB PNG
>>
Using Firefox for privacy is like using Mcaffee for security against viruses
>>
>>63366561
i sure do hope you're being an idiot on purpose
>>
>>63366572
He is correct. What are you rambling about?
>>
>>63364761
you can clearly see thanks to W10's recent update that Chrome is using gpu video decoding while Firefox is not.
>>
File: Screenshot_2.jpg (13 KB, 682x60)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
Same 4 tabs open in both.
>>
>>63366629
Do you actually think your placebo hipster version of firefox or chrome has better privacy than the actual browsers? Why would you think that? All these obscure browser devs are much more likely to fuck you over than big companies, because they don't have to worry about class action lawsuits.
>>
>>63364749
FF doesn't have one process per tab, it sets a max number os processes based on your max ram, but you can manually set in about:config

>>63364810
>>63364821
>>63364870
That's pretty much the same here, don't know why FF has such higher gpu use
I tried to look up at bugzilla and shit, but couldn't find a single clue
shit should be the same (as mpc/mpv).
also, shit has better numbers with EDGE, so I'm guessing is their hwaccel implementation
>>
>>63366678
Englando comprende, pajeet?
He metaphorically said that using firefox by itself won't protect one's privacy. Who said anything about using some shady forks of popular browsers?
>>
>>63366058
elinks
>>
>>63366678
...ok? Where did I mention other browsers?
>>
>>63366693
>don't know why FF has such higher gpu use
the whole pitch surrounding Quantum is that it's supposed to take advantage of more modern CPU and use GPU acceleration where it can.
>>
>>63366719
>He metaphorically said that using firefox by itself won't protect one's privacy.
His implication by comparing it to McAffee was that it actually compromises your privacy moreso than other browsers, which is wrong and simply stupid.
>>
>>63364468
I tried it on speedtest, it runs slower than Edge and barely even half as fast as Chromium. Insta-dropped.
>>
>>63366754
>that it actually compromises your privacy moreso than other browsers
>moreso than other browsers
are you fucking retarded?
how did you draw this conclusion?
what is your dosage of methamphetamine?
>>
>>63366761
What do people even mean when they talk about browser speed? I literally see no difference between Chrome and FF when browsing 4chan, youtube etc. The bottleneck is always the site itself, never the browser.
>>
>>63366754
I didn't imply that at all but ok, have fun understanding me better than myself nigga
>>
The only thing I miss from Chrome is the ability to switch profiles. I have one profile for regular use and one for porn use, with porn bookmarks and logins. I know there's a profile switcher in Firefox, but it sucks.
>>
>>63366922
you can just have two installs of firefox and have the profiles be in different folders if you're really afraid of mommy seeing your pornies.
>>
>>63366922
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles
>>
File: make_me_proud.jpg (278 KB, 3216x2412)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
>>63364468
Make me proud.
>>
>>63364749
>>63364761
>>63364810
>>63364821
>>63364870
>>63364880
>>63364914

Chrome shills in full force.
>>
>>63364492
How fucking dare you
>>
>>63364468
Nothing will ever beat chrome
>>
>>63367786
...in data collection
>>
This makes me want to try an alternative to both Firefox and Chrome.
>>
>>63364468
SJWs browser for males that hates themself
>>
Palemoon or Iridium for the ultra hip status
>>
File: unknown.png (3 KB, 629x32)
3 KB
3 KB PNG
FF54 64 bit here
like 10 tabs open, one is youtube music playing
shitton of userscripts and addons
I don't know what you niggas are doing really
>>
Why is the CPU usage so goddamn high?
20% idle, constantly fluctuating 60-90% watching a twitch stream.
Before Quantum, 0% idle and 25% watching the same twitch stream.
>>
>>63367987
I used that version. It was slow as fuck compared to chrome, especially with like 20+ tabs open. It was hitching when switching to an old tab. Never had that problem since I switched to Chrome, except I had some crashing problems for a small period. All fixed now though.
>>
>>63368034
I had this problem too. Not sure what caused it I tried disabling all addons and still had this. I did a reinstall and all is back to normal.
>>
>>63365237
He/She is one of the firefox's furry shill, no point in explaining benchmarks or test results. He closed his eyes and ears very well for not listening any bad review of ff
>>
>>63368087
I guess I'll try reinstalling then.
Thanks.
>>
>>63367698
> Butthurt Furry shill.
>>
File: RREEEE this man.gif (1.96 MB, 514x205)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB GIF
>>63364492
>letting others go on with their lives
>>
>>63364468
Meanwhile, in the rest of this Mozilla-made comparison
>>
>>63368165
>>
File: 1492276517440.png (13 KB, 600x158)
13 KB
13 KB PNG
both running with the same tabs and video on same settings everything. i feel conflicted
>>
>>63368180
>>
>>63364468
not if you have logged in with a google account into chrome. chrome is more convenient for work. at home pale meme is good enough.
>>
>>63364761
and with what codec is streaming, you stupid nigger. VP9, or h264?? fucking retarded monkey. You're running vp9 on firefox, but your stupid old crap doesn't have hardware acceleration for it.
>>
>>63368165
>>63368180
>>63368193
How about you post the other ones were FF57 was ahead? Oh no wait, that would hurt business, google shill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIywpvHewc0
>>
>>63368273
And yet I didn't see you complaining at all about OP cherry picking one instance out of the video where Firefox won. But as soon as someone does the same thing for Chrome, you're mad about it.

Makes me wonder who's really the shill.
>>
>>63368269
They're both VP9. What the hell are you on about?
>>
File: Jerma.png (346 KB, 1016x633)
346 KB
346 KB PNG
One they need to fix asap, is this.
>>
>>63364468
I didn't even know ask.com still existed
>>
Why do people even care about ram usage?
>>
Who here switched to /ESR/
>>
>>63368273
so this is a comparison between a beta version of firefox and the stable version of chrome, made by the company that develops firefox, and firefox still only "won" on about half the pages?
does mozilla really consider this a victory? The tests weren't even run multiple times and averaged. this test is garbage and could have as much to do with network quality or available hardware resources than the browser, and even with all that unscientificness to give them the opportunity to easily bias the test towards their browser, it still was just barely comparable?
>>
>>63364468
>Chrome killer

I've been using FF57 for five minutes and I've already found that it has broken 4chan's settings, they are no longer saved across tabs. What the fuck I hate Mozilla.
>>
>>63368273
>using were instead of where
>being a brainlet
>using firecucks
>>
>>63368410
ahah nice meme friend!
>>
File: 514231412.png (30 KB, 200x193)
30 KB
30 KB PNG
>>63368396
>>
>>63368366
The only thing chrome had over firefox was that it was faster. Now they are pretty much the same.
>>
>>63368470
>Now they are pretty much the same
According to a really badly done comparison that mozilla itself performed
>>
>>63364468
CPU USAGE KILLER MORE LIKE XDD
>>
>>63368491
That could easily be proven false if it was in fact so.
>>
>>63364468
More like add-on killer amirite
>>
>>63367786
I wish Firefox was packaged in softwares and mobo CDs like adware as much as Chrome is
>>
>>63368396
And I just found another awesome new feature: I can't open 4chan in two tabs because it just reverts to the first tab.

Thanks papa Mozilla, you sure do know what I want to do more than I do!
>>
Chrome has been giving me problems on this Mac Pro I rescued for some time, so I decided to try Firefox and so far its fixed all my problems (hardware acceleration had a bunch of issues).

Glad all of my mods are available on Firefox too. I guess it's a little faster but not much. Plus fuck google.

Werks4me
>>
>>63367698
>oh no they are talking shit about my preferred program, they must be shills!
>>
File: file.png (152 KB, 1440x872)
152 KB
152 KB PNG
>>63368541
Works here
>>
>>63368506
I just loaded ask.com in Firefox Nightly and Chromium several times each with cache disabled and averaged the results.

Firefox took 3.89s average
Chromium took 3.87s average

Even Mozilla's best "wins" in that comparison video are at best ties.

Youtube on the other hand, takes an average of 3.35s in Chromium and 7.13s in Firefox for me. A pretty fucking big loss by Firefox for one of the most popular sites on the internet.

I can't find a single site that Firefox actually loads faster in a real test that involves more than one useless data point.
>>
>>63368663
>0.02 seconds
>tie
>>
>>63368663
>google site loads faster with google browser
>>
>>63368563
>this Mac Pro I rescued
literally go forcefully insert explosives into your ass and detonate them. you are why everything is as fucked as it is with the technology industry today
>>
>>63368668
It's within margin of error, so yes.

>>63368687
Can you point out the part of youtube that detects if the user is running Firefox and deliberately slows it down? What's that? You can't because it's not there?
>>
>>63368541
No problems in FF 59 desu
>>
>>63368659
I figured out what the problem was, using the auto-complete link it thinks I want to go back through my browser history instead of making a new instance. Typing out the link bypasses that.
>>
>>63368687
So you deliberately use the slower browser because you are a status quo hipster fighting the man?
>>
>>63366561
This hurts Firefags
>>
>>63368736
are you trying to be an obnoxious idiot on purpose?
>>
>>63368773
Hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head eh?

inb4 list of political reasons to use sjwfox
>>
>>63368797
that's a yes
>>
File: 116.jpg (24 KB, 257x253)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>63368541
how corrupt is your profile nigger
>>
>>63368719

Why? Someone threw away a Mac Pro, I took it out of the recycle pile and spent a couple hundred bucks upgrading it. It's a great workstation and benches higher than any Mac on the market.

This was a really rude comment to make. I wonder what you look like, in your environment right now? What do you think your family would say if they read this comment? I feel sad to live in a world with people that spit drivel like this. Hopefully you experience some happiness in your life someday.
>>
>>63364586
>Both running youtube videos, Chrome is using ~9% at 1080p60 whereas FFQ is using ~24% for the same video.
FF has no hardware video decode, at least not on Linux.
>>
>>63366561
Using chrome is like leaving your door open because someone could get in anyways.
>>
>>63364468

is Brave worth it yet?
>>
>>63368817
See
>>63368732

The first problem even occurs in safe mode though. It loses 4chan settings if I open a thread in a new tab.
>>
>>63368837
Your analogy doesn't work because you can close a browser and a door.

Your crippling autism undermines any real attempt at you being clever regardless of how your dumb ass perceives your own comments.
>>
>>63368193
On what kind of fucking toaster did they do these benchmarks? Who the fuck uses a computers that takes 10 seconds to load a page on youtube?
If you have a decent computer built in the last 10 years or something it doesn't make any difference whatsoever what browser you use, they all load pages instantaneously, unless the server is shit obviously
>>
>>63364468
Just wait till webrender.

When websites are finally rendered on the GPU as they should be, Firefox will run circles around Chrome.
>>
>>63368941
Are you actually retarded or just pretending?
>>
>>63368968
Don't really use either one. Keep ffox around only for DRM stuff like Netflix.
>>
>>63366088
its ublock origin that is fucking 4chan x up
>>
>>63364509
well google would be biased
>>
>>63364598
Firefox is funded by Soros now hence them naming the new browser after his Quantum Fund

>https://www.activistpost.com/2017/08/mozilla-joins-george-soross-efforts-launching-strike-fake-news.html
>https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/08/08/mozilla-information-trust-initiative-building-movement-fight-misinformation-online/

You suckers are fucking retarded
>>
>>63369043
Works fine for me. Had problems a few months ago when using greasemonkey and switching to tampermonkey solved it.
>>
File: your-furryfox-future.png (24 KB, 1024x527)
24 KB
24 KB PNG
>>63369085
You know those giant red pages that pop up when you go to a site with an expired cert on chrome? Don't be surprised when you start getting them for going to even normie tier sites like Breitbart. Chrome is going to end up doing it too as well. Normies will never click past the warnings and therefore will only be allowed Soros and Jew approved "news." Brought to you straight from the Ministry of Truth.
>>
>>63368837
>Live in town full of gypsies
>Leave door open
>Nobody gives a shit
>Close the door
>Everyone trying to break in
>>
>>63369181
No shit. They even pull "offensive" addons
>>
>>63364468
be me
install new update 57 today
suddenly 60% of my addons are disabled, ones still allowed by browser have no accessible interface such as a preferences or config option in about addons page

how is this thing not basically dead now because they have pretty much removed the addons feature all together as far as i can tell.... I now no longer have any reason to try and bother with firefox because the entire reason i use them is the addons ability




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.