I understand and that’s fine for me. But if Mozilla would get their shit together and eventually offer a better, more competitive product, then the web would maybe not be as dominated by Chrome/Chromium as it is now. There’s a reason why everybody jumps on this wagon and the reason is that it’s just better in almost every aspect.
See, I’m not against FF. I used it for years. But there’s a point where, at least for me, ideology isn’t enough anymore. And FF reached this point already a few years ago.
I mean, just look at the second test, where I did only FF and only Brave. This one is even worse then the first test. FF uses 1GB more RAM, thats +66%!
I’ve noticed this same issue many times. FF will slowly creep into the GB range of memory used, especially if I keep tabs open with any type of media for 24h or more. Even with “auto tab discard” or similar, FF will start to consume far too much memory.
They will probably need funding. Google sells your soul for your free internet experience. So much in fact, they literally pay Firefox to be less good but still exist purely to not pay anti monopoly extortion taxes. Literally Firefox will never be better than their competition as long as their competition also pays the bills.
Firefox and almost every other competitor had been doing well till Google entered the scene. The past 10yrs has seen the fall of Opera(original not the chromium one), Microsoft Edge (among others), and the heavy decline of Firefox under the weight of the fact that Google sets the standards for web browsing right now. When you make the rules, its a bit easier to get the best performance.
The only ones left standing are ones like Safari or Gnome Web and Firefox. Its not because chromium is just so good, its that its so incredibly difficult to compete with Google in regards to the web that not even Microsoft could do it and threw in the towel (even though Edge was actually good). Only reason Apple hasnt given up is theyre too stubborn and would rather die in a fire.
This is probably the only reason Firefox still exists, simply to keep Google from getting hit with the book like Microsoft did with Internet Explorer in the 90s/early 2000s
Google pays for firefox to exist at all, and when youre scrapping by with pennies by comparison being better isnt easy. Firefox on a lot of websites has to implement hacks for things to work as theyre designed for chromium based browsers. I.E Steam Chat flat out doesnt work without hacks in Firefox which they have to repeatedly fix and even then its a coin toss.
EDIT: The TLDR of things is Google came to define the web in the early 2000s being the first to really invest in web apps with the Google Suite of applications/Youtube. They created Chrome tailor made for their intended web experience with the only real competition being Firefox with a fraction of the funds. Everyone else rushed to try and catch up but by the time they tried Google dominated the web, firefox had even less money, and everything but FF and Safari had fallen and moved to chromium base.
You may be right here! But what light does that shine on Mozilla? If it’s true then they opted to take Googles money and not do much besides keeping FF up to date in terms of security.
@Echoa So what you are saying, with a lot of words, is basically that Google just did a better job, correct?
Btw, besides all the talk about Mozilla, Google and ideology, does somebody have a technical explanation for this? As I said, we’re not talking about 10-15% more here but 66%, so there has to be more than just “Chromium is better” I guess.
Not so long ago ppl usually claimed that Chrome/Chromium is the RAM hog and FF is better in that aspect. Or did Chromium really just get THAT much better lately? Hard to believe…
it’s just strange, never felt any lag or difference between FF and chromium. But didn’t test with hard numbers yet. I will continue using and supporting FF, since it works great for me.
Still wondering if you would run it with no extensions at all if you see a difference.
What you show is a big difference between brave and FF.
I guess most of this came from ppl on Windows ofc. So maybe, just maybe, things are different on Windows? I can’t test this though. I still have a machine with Windows installed but it’s 8.1 and hasn’t been updated for ~1.5 years.
You can force Firefox to use less memory last I remember. I’d have to look up the settings but it can cause some bad behavior. One setting is content process limit which if reduced will lower CPU/memory usage but there are others in about:config and about:memory
Not at all, but good job being condescending AND dismissive
Depends on the content and extensions used, also which operating system. MacOS for example it tends to misbehave but I forget why exactly. Chrome is generally fairly decent on memory ootb but any browser when adding extensions and in the hands of a power user can get funky.
Also if ever comparing the iOS chrome is not at all the same as any of the other ones as Apple forces iOS browsers to all be WebKit and nothing else last I knew.
Ram usage isn’t necessarily a measure of performance. Some would argue that free Ram is wasted Ram but really that’s only within reason. If you’re running oom then its an issue but otherwise watching ram usage doesn’t really reflect on performance as you generally would want to keep data in use away from disk which is much slower or in memory if its not disk bound so you don’t need to fetch it across the extremely slow network again.
What’s crazy is something like 90% of that income is just from Google. Firefox as an entity is on borrowed time at the moment. Hopefully WebKitGTK can catch up and be useful as ATM lack of WebRTC and other features makes it meh for most people.
Firefox literally only exists to prevent Google being a complete monopoly at this point
That wasn’t my intention and I’m sorry if you understood it look this
It’s just that you posted a longer text (hence the “many words” in my answer) with many ascertainments (not sure if that’t the best term, but “facts” doesn’t sound right also; in German it’s “Feststellungen”, maybe someone has a better translation for this) but no conclusions. That’s why I made my own conclusion here.
Let’s go back to what you posted:
I agree!
Yes, correct!
That is also correct. But what’s the reason for this? Why did Google set those standards? Why not Mozilla or MS?
This is correct also. But you first have to reach the point where you are able to set the rules. Again: Why is Google able to set the rules but other companies aren’t? The (simplified) answer, for me, is that Google just did a better job.
I can’t fully agree here though. Again, yes, it’s incredibly hard to compete with Google today. But Google didn’t get so big and influencial by poor luck or because they sold their soul to the devil. See, I don’t like what Google does today, but I have respect for what they accomplished and did in the past!
And I indeed believe that Chromium is better than FF. I can’t proof it 'cause I’m not a coder and don’t have the technical knowledge fot this but I read a lot about tech and I’ve seen a lot of ppl with much more knowledge about this saying that the Blink engine is simply better than Gecko/Quantum.
When it comes to Edge and Safari I can also just speculate because I never used them. But as I said, I read a lot and the impression I got is that the first iteration of Edge just wasn’t any good and didn’t have any real advantages over Internet Explorer, so almost nobody wanted to use it. When MS switched to Blink things suddenly change. So maybe Chromium/Blink is just indeed the superior product.
Apple and Safari - well, it’s really hard to say something here because I’m simply not much into Apple at all. But from what I know Safari has good numbers/a strong and solid userbase in the Apple cosmos so there’s no immediate reason for Apple to make any changes here I guess.
