It depends on the page, and what you call a modern PC. On my modern PC, Yahoo! loads much faster on google chrome, because atm Firefox isn't nearly as optimized, however in the future I bet it will be.
-
Steam recently changed the default privacy settings for all users. This may impact tracking. Ensure your profile has the correct settings by following the guide on our forums.
Firefox or Chrome?
- Thread starter KezraPlanes
- Start date
It depends on the page, and what you call a modern PC. On my modern PC, Yahoo! loads much faster on google chrome, because atm Firefox isn't nearly as optimized, however in the future I bet it will be.
I'm with Torch on this. It's less about the browser itself as it is about the processing power and speed of your connection that determines how fast a page loads. I find that the difference between Chrome and Firefox is minimal on most sites and thus just go with the browser that I prefer. I prefer Firefox because it doesn't go to a blank white screen when loading a new page like Chrome does (which is really annoying for me).
Fennec is a great mobile browser (Firefox for Nokia/Android right now) and would love to see development on it progressing faster...it's so slow right now.
Chrome is noticeably faster than FF (current stable, haven't tried the beta) on my PC when it comes to rendering JS. Tons of sites make extensive use of JS these days - Yahoo is a good example - and on a slower machine the added load can lead to a delay in page loading, even if you have a super fast internet connection.
More and more sites are using JS for dynamic interfaces, so optimizations in this regard will become increasingly important when it comes to gauging browser performance.
More and more sites are using JS for dynamic interfaces, so optimizations in this regard will become increasingly important when it comes to gauging browser performance.
For me, Firefox loads Yahoo! just as fast as Chrome (granted, I have adblock plus on firefox)
ChurchedAtheist
Your resident psycho hobo
Adblock on chrome now actually blocks ads from loading! It uses a new resource blocking feature in webkit
LocutusEstBorg
Active Member
Fennec provided one of the crappiest mobile browsing experiences I ever had. Every single page locks up briefly at the smallest <script> tag or DHTML. Forget about pages with flash objects. You scroll down and the moment the first pixel of a flash object appears at the bottom it locks up. When it finally loads the rest of the browser runs at 2 FPS while the flash object is the only thing running smoothly. And forget about watching flash video unless you want to wait 30 seconds for the audio to catch up.
Even on normal pages you have to claw at the screen repeatedly to even get it to scroll or respond, and it finally it jumps to the bottom of the page skipping everything you wanted to read before that.
The whole phone is a fucking disaster. The N900 I mean. It doesn't even appeal to geeks because its so unpolished.
Their mobile version of it never seems to be up to par. I've used it on my UMPC however (running Windows XP) and it's the best mobile/touch-friendly browser for small computers. However most built-in browsers on phones are good enough - fennec is just too slow to catch up
LocutusEstBorg
Active Member
Firefox renders much faster and smoother if you enable Direct2D drawing. It only works on Windows 7 or Vista SP2 with driver platform update. Tested this in FF 4.0b2 BTW.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1775755
Contrary to what most people say, text looks much better with 16xAF forced in the control panel, at least on ATi 5xxx series cards. Without 16xAF text looks crappy no matter what cleartype and smoothing settings are set in about:config.
That's some real high quality text there. The edges are blended perfectly unlike the cleartype edges.
Much better than the windows rendering. It might seem odd or uncomfortable at first after being used to the darker windows text, but shouldn't take more than 20 mins to adjust to it.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1775755
Contrary to what most people say, text looks much better with 16xAF forced in the control panel, at least on ATi 5xxx series cards. Without 16xAF text looks crappy no matter what cleartype and smoothing settings are set in about:config.
That's some real high quality text there. The edges are blended perfectly unlike the cleartype edges.
Much better than the windows rendering. It might seem odd or uncomfortable at first after being used to the darker windows text, but shouldn't take more than 20 mins to adjust to it.
Andy
Champion of the Sun
The text in that image looks pretty bad to me...
LocutusEstBorg
Active Member
With the normal text I had letters touching each other. I guess the monitor's pixel density would affect one's perception. I'm looking at it on a CRT and it looks REALLY good compared to the normal font with bleeding colours along the edges. Will have to get back and see what it looks like on an LCD.
eldiablov
Contributor
LocutusEstBorg
Active Member
Andy
Champion of the Sun
The top text looks better on this screen.
Its not my monitor
It is your monitor
LocutusEstBorg
Active Member
I mean I'm not looking at it on my home LCD. Using a relatively old CRT here.
LocutusEstBorg
Active Member
What happens when you enable/disable AF?
No difference.
LocutusEstBorg
Active Member
Sure it working? 0xAF and 16xAF makes a massive difference here. Basically seeing double with 0xAF.