Recommended Posts

I heard of Cyber Fox but the website was sketchy so I gave up. Are the performance gains really worth it?

In my own testing of both Waterfox and Cyberfox against Firefox I didn't notice any differences when it came to the overall speed, page loading, etc. Meaning, your results may vary.

Well you've just gotten lucky, I guess. 

Things that come to mind you can try is updating your GPU drivers, disabling hardware acceleration, minimizing your use of extensions and plugins, disabling PPAPI Flash, etc. Other than that all I do with Chrome and Firefox is I use a clean profile with every new stable milestone release.

Who said FireFox was better? - FireFox user (2004-2012) 

 

Chrome is More Stable and Faster. Feels Much Snappier than FireFox.

Don't believe me? go search for Benchmarks between two and test HTML5 yourself here:

http://beta.html5test.com/ 

 

The people who like Firefox are the one's who still like to live in Past. You know Windows 7 with start menu, Cool looking XP etc.

 

LOL, right... Because running Windows 8.1 and 10 with Firefox makes me (and others) Dinosaurs :laugh: ... Oh you're such a funny guy :rolleyes:

 

I like the options more, like "TRUE" bookmarks separators that according to Google search, they (Google) think are unnecessary, it's much better to use bookmarks with ---------------------- on address/favicon on it to make a separator on Google Chrome :rolleyes: ...

 

And benchmarks??? Yep the majority of them are really important... :rolleyes:  My eyes can distinguish 10 or even 100ms of delay  :pinch: ... Wait I'm positive I saw the 10ms of delay difference when clicking "create post" between Firefox and Chrome, OH MY GOD YOU'RE SO RIGHT...

Id go back to FF if I didnt have so many issues with HTML5 & flash or whatever it is that keeps me from watching videos on Youtube

I like FF better, but switched to Chrome because of this


Who said FireFox was better? - FireFox user (2004-2012) 

 

Chrome is More Stable and Faster. Feels Much Snappier than FireFox.

Don't believe me? go search for Benchmarks between two and test HTML5 yourself here:

http://beta.html5test.com/ 

 

The people who like Firefox are the one's who still like to live in Past. You know Windows 7 with start menu, Cool looking XP etc.

Oh I do love it when people of such profound wisdom decide to grace neowin forum's and enlighten the rest of us.  Especially the fossilized ones who use Windows 7         :rolleyes:

Id go back to FF if I didnt have so many issues with HTML5 & flash or whatever it is that keeps me from watching videos on Youtube

Firefox 36 supports HTML5 video playback on YouTube just fine. Just make sure you go to about:config and set media.mediasource.webm.enabled to true and go to https://www.youtube.com/html5 and request the HTML5 player. All works fine.

Firefox 36 supports HTML5 video playback on YouTube just fine. Just make sure you go to about:config and set media.mediasource.webm.enabled to true and go to https://www.youtube.com/html5 and request the HTML5 player. All works fine.

 

Thank you - I have been waiting for someone to tell me why this is such a PIIA -

I'll do that now

Firefox 36 supports HTML5 video playback on YouTube just fine. Just make sure you go to about:config and set media.mediasource.webm.enabled to true and go to https://www.youtube.com/html5 and request the HTML5 player. All works fine.

Unfortunately that did absolutely nothing.

I still get a black box on every video.  If I goto youtube.com/html5 and select flash - I can watch videos... 

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.

What in the hell? More lightweight?

Faster?

 

L-O-L

Unfortunately that did absolutely nothing.

I still get a black box on every video.  If I goto youtube.com/html5 and select flash - I can watch videos... 

 

Are you sure?  Did you go to about:config and change the value for media.mediasource.webm.enabled as what Boo Berry said?

 

It works on my end since Flash is not installed on my system.

Unfortunately that did absolutely nothing.

I still get a black box on every video.  If I goto youtube.com/html5 and select flash - I can watch videos... 

Are you using any YouTube extensions or userscripts (like YouTube downloaders, YouTube Center, etc.)? If so, disable them and try again. If all else fails I'd backup my bookmarks and do a clean profile and test with no extensions.

Are you sure?  Did you go to about:config and change the value for media.mediasource.webm.enabled as what Boo Berry said?

 

It works on my end since Flash is not installed on my system.

Yes I made the change from False to True in about:config - it used to wrk - dont know what changed it

 

 

Are you using any YouTube extensions or userscripts (like YouTube downloaders, YouTube Center, etc.)? If so, disable them and try again. If all else fails I'd backup my bookmarks and do a clean profile and test with no extensions.

 

I have the YouTube HD addon which automatically plays the highest rez possible... I'll disable that and see.  I dont know what the issue is because I have the same setup on my work laptop and vids play great.... 

I bailed on FF because it was a bloated mess slowly becoming IE6, had to force myself to use Chrome till I realized not having all that FF junk and crap addons was a good thing 

lmao, If anything is becoming like ie6 its chrome, not firefox:

 

AIxYzl9.png

  • Like 3

That is false. I'm using Windows 8.1 with the Start Screen, and I can tell you Firefox just seems to work better than Chrome without a doubt. Plus, Firefox seems to barely crash compared to Chrome, which crashes quite a lot.

That's like your opinion man

Unfortunately that did absolutely nothing.

I still get a black box on every video.  If I goto youtube.com/html5 and select flash - I can watch videos... 

That's why its not enabled by default yet, it works fine for most people but some users get the black screen issue. It works fine here on both my windows 8 desktop and my macbook running osx.

Another example of the crazy flexibility. Looks looks a lot like Chrome out of the box (ish) now.. but can shake it up any way you like. I prefer a more traditional setup, and hell lets throw on a tiled window manager instead having to use tabs that you can't see, just because sometimes I want to see a few things at the same time for giggles. (Scaled way down.) With Chrome it's their way or no way, never mind addons doing anything remotely flexible with their own dialogs/menus/etc.. just can't do it.

 

firefompm.png

 

 

That's why its not enabled by default yet, it works fine for most people but some users get the black screen issue. It works fine here on both my windows 8 desktop and my macbook running osx.

 

Running quite nicely here too, especially since Beta 37.. the one thing that I actually preferred previously in Chrome was video playback on YouTube, but now I get the same in Firefox too.  I can see people preferring Chrome but *shrug* it just doesn't bring anything I need to the table anymore and sacrifices functionality in the process, pass.

That's why its not enabled by default yet, it works fine for most people but some users get the black screen issue. It works fine here on both my windows 8 desktop and my macbook running osx.

 

I always have to be that small %

Also make sure media.mediasource.enabled and media.mediasource.mp4.enabled in about:config is set to true too.

Made all the changes and disabled my YouTube HD addon - still no love.  Guess I'll go back to flash

 

FF has more extensions, mode mods, more themes...just more customization.  I use FF primarily on desktop systems.  On my mobile, I use Chrome since I have no need for all the extensions and such on a mobile device.  Plus, chrome just works better on mobile.  AT least that has been my experience.

 

People comment about the speed of software whether it be a desktop OS, a mobile OS, or browsers.  What I can do with an app means more to me that a little bit of speed increase.

What in the hell? More lightweight?

Faster?

 

L-O-L

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.

 

 

Guess I'll go back to flash

 

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

Ya, Chrome is a ram sucking pig.

Yeah long gone are the days of chrome being 'lightweight'. It does a good job of interface responsiveness and rendering speed, but when it comes to resource usage its pretty much the heaviest browser out there.

 

I switched from chrome to opera on my pc at work that only has 2 gigs of ram, the tab hibernation flag is nifty: 

 

EAS4pz8.png

I use Firefox because neither IE or Chrome have a decent version of Adblock Plus. i wouldn't use chrome because I'm sick of Google's crap lately. IE's bookmark manager sucks. There is no meaningful difference in speed between the three as far as I'm concerned.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
    • So how did you solve the problem? Disabling Secure Boot isn’t a solution.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!