Personal computing discussed
Flatland_Spider wrote:I haven't noticed any performance problems associated with Firefox that weren't related to Flash. I have the Flash plugin set to ask to activate, and Ad Block Plus to make doubly sure Flash doesn't get loaded. This is with 14 windows and 70 some odd tabs.
I seem to remember this problem when I had 4GB of RAM and was hitting the swap file pretty hard. That was a while ago.
I jump between the two, and Chrome uses more RAM. It also launches processes for each extension and Chrome app. I tried Chrome out and loaded it up with extensions and apps to get the full effect, and I was surprised to find dozens of Chrome processes were spawned when I started it up. This was with just a blank page.
jackbomb wrote:I recently switched to Firefox. Since v32, Chrome has run noticeably slower on my older (core 2 and Athlon X2) machines. I've also been receiving the "Aw Snap" errors more frequently.
One other thing I've noticed with Chrome is that YouTube won't use hardware-accelerated video decoding, no matter if the machine has an old GeForce 8600GT or a GTX 670. Firefox (and IE) both switch on hardware decoding. While hardware acceleration doesn't seem to matter at all on the Core i7 desktop, it does makes 1080p Flash video completely smooth on the old X2-4600.
Welch wrote:Very interesting that Google's own Youtube does not interact in a way you'd expect to make it run better. Odd, I'm curious if the symptoms you had (and myself with FF) aren't just a matter of long term use/installs. I'd believe that if it weren't an issue I have on every single machine I install FF on though... strange indeed.
Captain Ned wrote:As one waiting for the 14.04 LTS to drop to replace XP (last patched today) I have noticed a recent tendency to brick with lots of tabs.
steelcity_ballin wrote:Flash is actually quite good, it's the developers who suck, cut corners, don't understand fully what they're doing, and generally give Flash a bad name.
DancinJack wrote:I use Chrome primarily, and FF sometimes. Both do the job just fine.
FWIW, in my experience, Chrome(Chromium) tends to run better on Linux than FF does on Linux.
steelcity_ballin wrote:Flash is actually quite good, it's the developers who suck, cut corners, don't understand fully what they're doing, and generally give Flash a bad name.
c1arity wrote:Firefox user here.
Between the two I can't really see a difference in speed. I've definitely had some weird flash issues in the last couple versions on firefox but other than I haven't had any issues. I do seem to see a lot more chrome users with malware related issues at work. Hell, it's starting to seem like some of these malware companies are even targeting chrome.
steelcity_ballin wrote:Flash is actually quite good, it's the developers who suck, cut corners, don't understand fully what they're doing, and generally give Flash a bad name.
NotSureIfSeriousOrTroll wrote:Can you provide links to good flash developers?
Welch wrote:As for the policy thing, I plain out don't care. Do I really think the big guys like Google give a damn about any deep down personal data?
Welch wrote:@Chrono - I don't think in my case it searching the disk for any sort of history or cache file would slow it down this much. I've got a Samsung 840 Evo (250g) on a SATA 6gb/s port. Things are ultra snappy.
l33t-g4m3r wrote:Welch wrote:As for the policy thing, I plain out don't care. Do I really think the big guys like Google give a damn about any deep down personal data?
Sounds like Chrome shilling. I find it odd that every time a "browser comparison" thread pops up, it's usually about how chrome is faster than firefox and you should switch, google's privacy policy or security be damned. Plus, where's Opera/IE in this discussion?
I use FF for it's functionality, and it works. I don't like walled gardens or poor privacy policies, so a 5% speed improvement isn't going to make me switch. If I do use another browser, it's usually IE if I want to load a single page quickly or watch video, and I'll recommend Opera for people with slow computers, because it's less resource intensive and runs faster on their hardware. Chrome is the last browser I'd consider using, and even then I'd be using SRWare Iron, and not Chrome. Speaking of alternatives, I don't know why you wouldn't try waterfox, cyberfox, or palemoon if you actually wanted to get a perf boost out of FF, but then again this probably isn't a real comparison thread anyway.
ChronoReverse wrote:Welch wrote:@Chrono - I don't think in my case it searching the disk for any sort of history or cache file would slow it down this much. I've got a Samsung 840 Evo (250g) on a SATA 6gb/s port. Things are ultra snappy.
It's not necessarily a disk thrash issue. It could simply be some sort of locking issue where the system is waiting when it doesn't need to. Vacuum places is trivial to run though so you might as well try it.
Welch wrote:I'm all eyes, what are you suggesting I look for to remedy that issue? The browser has that 3-4+ second pause on initial load up. Opening additional empty tabs isn't affected, however loading a website is. I'm curious what file could possibly be locked? Its odd because the same issue is apparent on multiple machines, possibly some bad coding?