Recommended Posts

Sorry that you're still living in 2007.

Chrome uses around 1.5GB on my computer.

Firefox uses 300MB.

And yes, Firefox loads pages faster for me.

 

 

 

For Firefox HTML5 YouTube videos, I would recommend this addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-all-html5/

I used that just to experiment and it did not do anything differently.  But Thanks

One thing I have noticed, when everything is working correctly, many videos on youtube would show "an error occurred" for a split second then the video started - its gone before I could click on the "find out more"

Firefox is better at standards.

Chrome is... just a tool for Google to be evil.

Also Firefox is massively slower than IE/Chrome. It crawls on a quad core Xeon with only Ablock Edge and Firebug.

What does everyone mean by one browser is slower than the other ?

When someone says one browser "crawls" - what specifically are you referring to ?

My first question would be if you're referring to pages coming up - what is your connxn speed and what are you using as a DNS server ?

I cant say that any browser is faster or slower - I have 80/80 connection - everything is instant

Also Firefox is massively slower than IE/Chrome. It crawls on a quad core Xeon with only Ablock Edge and Firebug.

Error: you are using Adblock Edge. It is a resource hog. Try using uBlock (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock).

I used that just to experiment and it did not do anything differently.  But Thanks

One thing I have noticed, when everything is working correctly, many videos on youtube would show "an error occurred" for a split second then the video started - its gone before I could click on the "find out more"

What version of firefox are you using? I believe the developer version has support for more media types than the current one.

What does everyone mean by one browser is slower than the other ?

For me it's rendering speed in general, but mostly sites that are script heavy will really show off just how fast your browser isn't. Firefox used to be pretty bad with that a year+ ago but it's near Chrome's speed now, and with the stuff Mozilla has in development it's just going to get even faster still.  Using beta 37 now with a fairly large number of addons (even something bloated like ABP), and most sites are more or less instant to load now.  Massively slower was true a few years ago.. now that's nonsense.

For me it's rendering speed in general, but mostly sites that are script heavy will really show off just how fast your browser isn't. Firefox used to be pretty bad with that a year+ ago but it's near Chrome's speed now, and with the stuff Mozilla has in development it's just going to get even faster still.  Using beta 37 now with a fairly large number of addons (even something bloated like ABP), and most sites are more or less instant to load now.  Massively slower was true a few years ago.. now that's nonsense.

Yeah I find firefox has improved a lot and is getting close enough to chrome these days speed wise.

 

I have to echo the above statements about switching from APB/ABE to ublock. This helps a lot *especially* on extremely heavy pages in firefox. For example I have a seedbox with an rutorrent webui and many seeding torrents.

 

With firefox + APB loading it totally locks up firefox for nearly a minute, the interface goes completely unresponsive.

 

Firefox + ublock (or no adblock extension) it comes up almost right away, just a hair slower than chrome.

 

APB kills performance on rendering heavy pages in firefox.

Error: you are using Adblock Edge. It is a resource hog. Try using uBlock (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock).

What version of firefox are you using? I believe the developer version has support for more media types than the current one.

normal release version - 36

Checking out ublock now

normal release version - 36

If I wanted to switch to ublock to check it out - what do I click on ?  I went to the link above and only saw a bunch of java script stuff

There's a link to the .xpi here: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases

 

also available on AMO: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock/

Former Firefox user here. I started using Firefox when it was Firebird 0.9.2. I thought Chrome was silly for not having a search box and didn't take it seriously for years.

 

Main reason I stuck with Firefox was the extensions. Chrome doesn't have Tab Mix Plus or TextArea Cache. For the latter, Lazarus just isn't as good. For the former, there are a handful of extensions that patch it over but it still falls short.

 

I switched to Chrome because Firefox was being a laggy monster on my home computer (AMD Phenom II dual core rig) whenever I used Facebook. At work it was fine, but my work computer is an i5 3570 quad core. Don't ask me why I have that much power, I certainly don't need it. Firefox does Facebook fine there, when I get time to make my rounds online. On both machines, Chrome performs admirably. So I started using it.

 

Plus, if you have a smartphone, Chrome syncs its bookmarks with Chrome on the phone. That's pretty cool. Firefox sync is garbage. And Firefox for Android is just bad.

 

I still kind of like Firefox, but I don't like their changes to search.

 

Now that I'm a Chrome user, I think either Firefox has to do something big to win me back, or Chrome has to do something wrong to push me back. But I keep both up to date. Especially since my wife prefers Firefox. And I don't hate Firefox or any of that crap... They're both tools and one works better for me, simple as that.

Firefox (on my hardware) more often than not renders pages faster than Chrome.. pretty much the only time Chrome beats it (again on my hardware) is on benchmark sites, and lately that's getting really close.   Extensions are 1000% better than the Chrome variants and usually provides more functionality as well.  Performance is almost as fast as Chrome and getting better with each release. Doesn't take up over a gig of memory just for a couple of tabs.  I can make the interface look how I want and not locked into what Google says.. no matter how crazy I want it I can do it, but with Chrome you're locked into that one layout, period.  I've used Chrome off and on but it just really doesn't give me anything that Firefox can't.  I do think their Android version's a bit better than the Android version of Firefox though, but I use Firefox there too for the syncing.  Getting really disappointed with Google in general lately as a whole. 

 

But that's just me, Chrome's a good browser too.

 

 

It's completely open source.

Mozilla's values are in the right place, and they are a non-profit.

It's faster than Chrome.

It's more lightweight than Chrome.

Gecko is awesome. I love it! (I develop for the web). It is very representative of how your site will look like in any modern browser. It conforms to the standards exactly.

Addons.

 

 

Firefox is much more customizable than Chrome. Chrome's extension are nothing compared to Firefox's add-ons. Chrome extensions can add a little functionality, but really doesn't change the experience. On the other hand, Firefox add-ons can change the browser completely. I feel like Chrome is becoming the 'new IE' as they're moving away from the idea of an open web to an idea that Google should be in charge of what the web is. 

 

I've been using Cyberfox, a 64-bit variant of Firefox as my secondary browser and it's feels snappier than Chrome.

 

I'll simply use those 3 replies as my answer. Can't spell it out any better than that!

 

Besides, Chromes bookmark menu is just absolutely ridiculous! It's to stupid to even alphabetize them, or, at least it used to be. Haven't tried it again in quite some time, except on my tablet, and then I still prefer Firefox.

I used Chrome for quite a while. But it kept breaking, whenever they updated stuff. They sneaked in App-shortcuts, added icons to my toolbar, broke some webpages (and fixed them again the next update) etc.

 

Simply put, Chrome was unreliable, so I switched back to Firefox.

Chrome on Windows > Firefox on Windows

 

Firefox on GNU plus Linux > Chrome on GNU plus Linux 

 

/thread

 

Any further discussion should be about my above statements. It will now forever be known as the "Johns browser principle." People will remember it in 50 years from now. They will misspell it as "John's browser principle" only to be corrected by a more knowledgeable peer that it is actually "Johns" without an apostrophe. That peer will have 15 seconds of pure, well-earned and well-deserved fame.

I recently tried to switch from Chrome to Firefox and had the following 2 issues that made me switch back.

 

1) Sites would "randomly" give me a "This Connection is Untrusted."  I say randomly because sometimes sites would work and other times they wouldn't.  The #1 response for a fix was that the time on my computer was wrong.  I had tried the browser on my work computer and my home computer.  Work PC has time managed by domain, home PC is wit time.windows.com.  Both would give me the error.  The #2 response was to whitelist the site.  I thought that would work for a site then it would go back to Untrusted.  Very frustrating.

2) Sites (e.g. Neowin) would be logged out when I revisited them after a day.  It was annoying having to continuously log into sites that would stay logged in with Chrome.

 

I really like to try change every so often to see if other choices have improved vs what I'm using.

On a modern machine if you can tell a difference in "browser speed" on Windows between IE, FF or Chrome then I'd argue you have much greater issues or are in a lab-benchmarking environment. I personally couldn't fault either (excluding Adobe ActiveX vs Adobe Plug-in performance/stability for Flash).

 

Feature wise, I do like Firefox Sync as it's a great multi-platform tool enabling me to take my browser favourites & settings with me to any desktop based OS I use - including my current Android phone. For that reason, I use Firefox more often than the others.

I recently tried to switch from Chrome to Firefox and had the following 2 issues that made me switch back.

 

1) Sites would "randomly" give me a "This Connection is Untrusted."  I say randomly because sometimes sites would work and other times they wouldn't.  The #1 response for a fix was that the time on my computer was wrong.  I had tried the browser on my work computer and my home computer.  Work PC has time managed by domain, home PC is wit time.windows.com.  Both would give me the error.  The #2 response was to whitelist the site.  I thought that would work for a site then it would go back to Untrusted.  Very frustrating.

2) Sites (e.g. Neowin) would be logged out when I revisited them after a day.  It was annoying having to continuously log into sites that would stay logged in with Chrome.

 

I really like to try change every so often to see if other choices have improved vs what I'm using.

I've never had either of these problems with firefox.

 

the connection untrusted thing usually means either something wrong with the site's ssl cert...

I've never had either of these problems with firefox.

 

the connection untrusted thing usually means either something wrong with the site's ssl cert...

Firefox does not use system proxy settings on Windows whereas Chrome / IE does.

Firefox does not use system proxy settings on Windows whereas Chrome / IE does.

I forget how it is in the older versions (not something I ever really look at), but in 37 beta it does.

proxy.png

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
    • I’m still using an Xbox One S, so time for an upgrade to play this but as much as I hate Sony, I think I’ll get the ps5 pro
    • I bought this game. Played it for an hour, and then got a refund from Steam. Not a fun game at all.
    • Nothing Ear buds with active noise cancellation are at their lowest price ever with 51% off by Fiza Ali Amazon is currently offering the Nothing Ear wireless earbuds at their lowest price ever with 51% off limited prime deal. The earbuds feature an 11mm dynamic drivers with a ceramic diaphragm, and support high-resolution audio codecs including AAC, SBC, LDAC, and LHDC 5.0. They support active noise cancellation of up to 45dB across a frequency range of up to 5000Hz, and include a smart ANC algorithm, adaptive noise cancellation, and a transparency mode that allows surrounding sounds to be heard when needed. Connectivity is provided via Bluetooth 5.3, with support for multiple profiles including HFP, A2DP, AVRCP, and others. The earbuds also support dual connection, allowing them to be paired with two devices at the same time. Additional features include IP54 water and dust resistance for the earbuds and IP55 for the charging case, in-ear detection, pinch controls, low-latency mode, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, and a three-microphone system per earbud for clearer voice calls. The Nothing X app, available on Android and iOS, provides access to custom EQ settings, bass enhancement, personal sound profiles, ear tip fit testing, firmware updates, customisable controls, dual-device management, and a find-my-earbuds feature. In terms of battery performance, each earbud has a 46mAh battery and the charging case has a 500mAh capacity. With active noise cancellation (ANC) turned off, the earbuds should offer up to 8.5 hours of playback on a single charge and up to 40.5 hours in total with the charging case. With ANC enabled, playback should last up to 5.2 hours on the earbuds and up to 24 hours with the case. For calls, talk time should reach up to 5 hours on the earbuds and 23 hours with the case when ANC is off, while ANC on should provide up to 4 hours on the earbuds and 18 hours with the case. Finally, fast charging should deliver up to 10 hours of playback from 10 minutes of charging when ANC is disabled. Nothing Ear Wireless Earbuds Bluetooth: $73.15 (Amazon US) - 51% off Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      577
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!