Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Firefox Chrome Google Mozilla

Firefox Quantum Is 'Better, Faster, Smarter than Chrome', Says Wired (wired.com) 383

Posted by EditorDavid from the Mozilla-strikes-back dept.
Wired's senior staff writer David Pierce says Firefox Quantum "feels like a bunch of power users got together and built a browser that fixed all the little things that annoyed them about other browsers." The new Firefox actually manages to evolve the entire browser experience, recognizing the multi-device, ultra-mobile lives we all lead and building a browser that plays along. It's a browser built with privacy in mind, automatically stopping invisible trackers and making your history available to you and no one else. It's better than Chrome, faster than Chrome, smarter than Chrome. It's my new go-to browser.

The speed thing is real, by the way. Mozilla did a lot of engineering work to allow its browser to take advantage of all the multi-core processing power on modern devices, and it shows... I routinely find myself with 30 or 40 tabs open while I'm researching a story, and at that point Chrome effectively drags my computer into quicksand. So far, I haven't been able to slow Firefox Quantum down at all, no matter how many tabs I use... [But] it's the little things, the things you do with and around the web pages themselves, that make Firefox really work. For instance: If you're looking at a page on your phone and want to load that same page on your laptop, you just tap "Send to Device," pick your laptop, and it opens and loads in the background as if it had always been there. You can save pages to a reading list, or to the great read-it-later service Pocket (which Mozilla owns), both with a single tap...

Mozilla has a huge library of add-ons, and if you use the Foxified extension, you can even run Chrome extensions in Firefox. Best I can tell, there's nothing you can do in Chrome that you can't in Firefox. And Firefox does them all faster.
I've noticed that when you open a new tab in Chrome's mobile version, it forces you to also see news headlines that Google picked out for you. But how about Slashdot's readers? Chrome, Firefox -- or undecided?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Quantum Is 'Better, Faster, Smarter than Chrome', Says Wired More

Firefox Quantum Is 'Better, Faster, Smarter than Chrome', Says Wired

Comments Filter:

  • Make it stop.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beheaderaswp ( 549877 ) * on Sunday November 26, 2017 @04:46AM (#55623683)

    Yes Firefox has improved an amazing amount with the Quantum update. Yes- I moved off of Chrome.

    But seriously... it's not like the messiah has returned. The hype surrounding this is unbelievable...

    My experience is that Quantum is acceptably fast. Not impressively fast. It's only impressively fast when compared to previous versions of Firefox.

    Why did I switch? Because Chrome causes problems with my audio subsystem which gets heavy use. I'd like to use my browser while the computer is routing audio streams. Chrome made that impossible (and was the only program which caused that kind of problem).

    After 16 months of trying to solve the problem Firefox eeked out Chrome simply because it was no longer a "dog".

    • Re:Make it stop.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 26, 2017 @05:17AM (#55623743)

      Agreed, however I have had to handle loads of complaints for Quantum and I just can not even sort them out. It's the loss of TabMixPlus as an extension that is causing all these issues with staff now closing FF by mistake, losing tabs by not opening in a new tab and also multirow tabs.
      When you have 200 staff all using Tabmix, that's a lot of people Mozilla have destroyed. Sure FF is faster but people are now taking longer to work around the extensions issues so it's not really a win-win situation. Hopefully oneman of Tabmixplus will be rewritting the extension soon

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hylandr ( 813770 )

        It's the expiring extensions and the too frequent updates that drove me from FF to begin with. Sounds like I won't be going back any time soon.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by r1348 ( 2567295 )

        Why did you allow your users to upgrade then?

      • I consider TabMixPlus indispensable and so do many of my colleagues. Glad to be on 52ESR courtesy of my distro, and hoping by the time they upgrade that TMP has been ported.

        It would be best if Mozilla got off this "We know better than you do what you want or need in your UI" attitude, though.

      • Re:Make it stop.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:36AM (#55624137)

        When you have 200 staff all using Tabmix, that's a lot of people Mozilla have destroyed. Sure FF is faster but people are now taking longer to work around the extensions issues so it's not really a win-win situation.

        That's the big problem. Speed is nice, but speed by itself, isn't meaningful. The new Firefox design didn't just kill my favorite extensions, the developers of those extensions have given up because the new design makes it impossible to create a new version of certain extensions. There are some things that you simply can't do any more.

        So, what good is a "fast" browser if it doesn't so what I want?

    • Re:Make it stop.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by buswolley ( 591500 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @06:06AM (#55623825) Journal

      Well its this. We were approaching a monoculture in browsers. Firefox's move to Quantum was years in the making. It is a MAJOR overhaul of the browser that took years to pull off. It now competes head to head in performance and features, and offers an alternative with improved privacy. This is good for the web. It is good for freedom. Quantum is getting the press they deserve, IMO

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You can save pages to a reading list, or to the great read-it-later service Pocket (which Mozilla owns)

      Thank you Mr. Mozilla Shill.

      Every comment from anyone I've seen so far about the new Firefox has been "it's pretty good but how do I get rid of this Pocket bullshit".

    • Did you interact with any engineers on the Chrome team to find out if they know what is causing that behavior? I'd be interested to know. Makes me curious if it has to do with the DRM for audio and video in Chrome

      One thing I've noticed in my experience - if a tab has active sounds and you haven't muted it, but you're playing a game, like say Doom, then it will 100% of the time seize control of the audio system from the game and only return control after a set period of time. If the tab is muted, this doesn'

  • Hype (Score:3)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @04:55AM (#55623691)

    It's a nice improvement and it seems to be a success with users — except the ones that obsessively collect plugins and extensions — but no, it doesn't beat Chrome. Chrome's PDF handling is still better. Applications that involve panning around maps (google maps, zillow, etc.) work better in Chrome. And Firefox has a long way to go to match Chrome Developer Tools.

    Never really thought much of Wired. Between the click bait and the left wing group think I'd say I've had it right all along.

    • The slowness is Google Maps is actually deliberate (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 26, 2017 @05:15AM (#55623737)

      I looked at the code and behavior, and Google Maps deliberately uses massive amounts of requests in Firefox but much fewer requests in Chrome. Even though the exact same thing would have worked in Firefix too. Which leaves only deliberate behavior as an option.
      Not surprising, coming from Data Kraken "do more evil" Google.

      • Re:The slowness is Google Maps is actually deliber (Score:5, Funny)

        by BlueStrat ( 756137 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @07:02AM (#55623939)

        I looked at the code and behavior, and Google Maps deliberately uses massive amounts of requests in Firefox but much fewer requests in Chrome. Even though the exact same thing would have worked in Firefix too. Which leaves only deliberate behavior as an option.
        Not surprising, coming from Data Kraken "do more evil" Google.

        "Google Maps aren't done until FireFox won't run", then? :D

        Strat

        • Nevermind that Maps has to make those requests because it needs to see if the browser actually has the functionality it's asking for but is already baked into Chrome.

          • Re:The slowness is Google Maps is actually deliber (Score:4, Insightful)

            by MatthiasF ( 1853064 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @05:06PM (#55626061)
            Excuse me? "Already baked into Chrome"? The web works on open, clearly defined standards. If Chrome is doing something that's not a standard, then it's the problem not the other browsers.

            Chrome quickly became the newest version of Internet Explorer with all the "standards" Google is deciding to make up and change without any consensus from anyone outside Mountain View.

            And I make that comparison without regret, because Google is using the same creative dissonance Microsoft did to try to force Internet Explorer's dominance back in the day, but everyone using Chrome probably doesn't remember that, either too young, too ignorant or too gullible.
      • Google Chrome might have some proprietary APIs used by Google Maps that improve its functioning ; that wouldn't be surprising, and these would only be used by Google products. APIs that obviously Firefox cannot have.

  • Interesting, not really what I've been hearing. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Narcocide ( 102829 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @05:00AM (#55623701) Homepage

    I wonder how much they got paid.

  • How about with extensions? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @05:03AM (#55623711) Homepage
    So, all this "it's blazing fast" hype is a barebones Firefox with no extensions. The *whole idea* of Firefox is that you add extensions to it to make it usable. Without them, Firefox is weak and useless. So, once you've installed the necessary 10-15 extensions that make the browser worth using, how's that performance then?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by theweatherelectric ( 2007596 )

      once you've installed the necessary 10-15 extensions

      What are the necessary 10-15 extensions?

      how's that performance then?

      Benchmark it and report back.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Why do people post condescending shit answers like this?

        The necessary 10-15 extensions are the ones they're using. You can search for people with similar problems.

        "Benchmark it and report back"

        Why bother when all they'll get is some condescending quip. They tried it and had issues. It's their experience.

        For plugin comptibility, Quantum had no advantage over Chrome... that is... up until the last month or so. It seems there is a lot of momentum to move plugins to the new browser, which is excell

        • Why do people post condescending shit answers like this?

          How is it condescending? I asked simple questions with simple answers. You can answer them or you can't. Either way there's no need to panic.

          • iâ(TM)d guess, because.
            condescending:having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority.

            implying what he said is not true because you donâ(TM)t know what 10-15 addons they rely on would definately count as condescending.

            Personally, it will take a lot for me to go back to firefox or chrome. A custom build of chromium does just fine and none of the nasty extras.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          The necessary 10-15 extensions are the ones they're using.

          I imagine theweatherelectric wanted the names of the necessary 10-15 extensions that DNS-and-BIND is using in order to analyze a sample.

          maybe say "hey, if Greasemonkey and Noscript made the jump in the past couple months, write your plugin developers or hang in there... equivlents will likely appear"

          Or how about "the author of the extension I need is waiting on a resolution of Bug #XXXXXXX"? In my case, it's Keybinder, and it's Bug 1325692 [mozilla.org].

      • Seriously? You browse without extensions? The whole idea of Firefox is an extensible browser that requires extensions to be full-featured. Did we not know this...or...?

        Let's see, Google Translate, something to generate QR codes to read pages on your phone, a download manager, something to download internet videos, privacy badger, ad blocker, no-script, art & creativity extensions because the default theme is bland and flavorless, you can keep going from there. Just go browse the depository and start

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by theweatherelectric ( 2007596 )

          You browse without extensions?

          No.

          I feel it's fundamentally dishonest to brag about browser speed

          So provide the benchmarks with all your particular extensions installed that show the performance difference with and without extensions. Comments with no evidence provided to back the claims are tedious.

        • the default theme is bland and flavorless

          Bland and flavorless is just the way we like it. Now get off my lawn.

    • Whole idea of Firefox is privacy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 26, 2017 @05:22AM (#55623755)

      The whole idea of Firefox is *PRIVACY*. Chrome has access to the Google 'Advertiser ID', which in turn is linked to Google play, and google accounts, your credit card, name, address, phone number, linked to the location service (i.e. GPS track), the Wifi near you (i.e. who you are with) and if Google Assistant is onboard then recordings of everything you every said to it, and every website you ever visited that has a Google advert, Google metrics, Google content service, Google Tag Service etc etc etc etc. i.e. every website you ever visited.

      So, anyone who's understands what Google is actually doing, switches to DuckDuckGo and Firefox to reduce the amount of data we voluntarily hand over to Google.

      Firefox's main selling point is privacy.

      • The whole idea of Firefox is *PRIVACY*. Chrome has access to the Google 'Advertiser ID', which in turn is linked to Google play, and google accounts, your credit card, name, address, phone number, linked to the location service (i.e. GPS track), the Wifi near you (i.e. who you are with) and if Google Assistant is onboard then recordings of everything you every said to it, and every website you ever visited that has a Google advert, Google metrics, Google content service, Google Tag Service etc etc etc etc. i.e. every website you ever visited.

        So, anyone who's understands what Google is actually doing, switches to DuckDuckGo and Firefox to reduce the amount of data we voluntarily hand over to Google.

        Firefox's main selling point is privacy.

        And where does Mozilla get 98% of its revenue (currently about $375 Million a year)?

        GOOGLE

        Except for a brief fling with Yahoo, nearly all of Mozilla's revenue has come from Google. More than 2 Billion Dollars over the last 10 years. If you think that money is just some sort of gift, well, I think you just might be a little delusional. There is no way Google just hands over that amount of money and expects nothing in return.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

        Privacy is a weak selling point. It may be important to some but it is not what will make Firefox competitive over Chrome.

        I know many people who understand what Google is doing and everything that it means regarding privacy, but they still are using Google as their search engine, because the search results are better.

        For Firefox, it means that they need to make a good browser first. The privacy bits don't matter if no one wants to use a browser because it sucks. Firefox took over IE because it was just an o

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I've been testing Firefox Quantum out and it's not quite as fast as Chrome for me. Very competitive and often indistinguishable, but for example it's attempts to save memory slow it down. I've got loads of RAM, so I'd prefer if it didn't purge tabs or delay decoding images.

      The main attraction is the privacy features. At the moment Chrome has parity with a few light weight extensions, but Firefox seems to move much faster to block new abuses as they are discovered.

      I'll probably wait for the next pwn2own to s

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • how's that performance then?

      Depending on the extension, probably faster still.

  • Great performance on the desktop and the newer addons work well Agree the article is a proper representation of the new firefox missing a great image magnifier, but it is coming soon

  • I love the new Firefox. It IS fast.
    and Google sucks for privacy, openness, and choice.

  • If they want me to use this browser they need to allow other options for sign in, such as Google and/or Facebook and/or Twitter. There is no way I am making another account just for Firefox. I am in fact rapidly getting to the point where I refuse to make accounts with any new sites... Offer me an OpenID login or I walk.

  • I have noticed significant performance improvements in Firefox 57, so I'm happy about that. I have noticed a HUGE improvement when running Firefox 57 on my tablet. Prior versions would barely even load, much less function on my tablet. But 57 loads quickly and is then usable. Good job, Mozilla!

    The only thing that was keeping me from completely ditching Chrome in favor of Firefox 57 was the unavailability of NoScript. But today, when checking on the progress of NoScript in Firefox 56, I was notified tha

  • sharp (Score:3)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @09:03AM (#55624217)
    Adblock finally works on my phone, but the tabs.... They're so sharp...

  • That was part of the title of TFA.

    Too bad 2018 is a month and change away.

    By then FFox will be the browser for 2017, and some other will be the browser built for 2018 (and beyond)

  • Memory might be a challenge? (Score:3)

    by fygment ( 444210 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @10:40AM (#55624515)

    Speed? No idea actually, don't visit sites that need 'speedy' rendering I guess.

    But the memory footprint is huge. Right now I have two FF browser instances open with task manager showing 5 FF processes running with their cumulative memory footprint being 800MB and I've had two occurrences of FF using just over 5GB of memory (according to task manager in Win10) which slowed my entire machine to a crawl. Interestingly the page involved in both those occurrences was slashdot! Meanwhile the same layout in Chrome has 11 processes running with a cumulative memory footprint of ~480MB. Not sure what exactly that all means, but pretty sure there's a memory challenge in FF.

    • So far, I have yet to see the problem I had in the previous version, where FF would end up taking up almost 1.5 - 2GB of RAM - with only a couple of tabs open, but I'll definitely be keeping an eye on FF as I use it to see if I noticed any oddities.
    • That's unusual. Have tried the new FF since first day (on Linux) and it is really fast, and doesn't take more mem than CHrome/
  • I didn't like the new Firefox v57 (extensions problem) so I just re-installed Ubuntu 16.04 from my DVD and am refusing all offered browser updates. So it's Firefox v47.0 for me! It's probably very out of date security-wise but at least I don't have to struggle with this "best Firefox ever" s**t.

  • "recognizing the multi-device, ultra-mobile lives we all lead"? Speak for yourself. I do 99.9% of my web browsing from my desktop PC, and so do a lot of people, even if it's not trendy. How about making some software for untrendy stationary people?

  • Quantum works very well on my Asus EEE 1GB (Score:5, Interesting)

    by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @11:20AM (#55624673)

    That's a 32-bit, 1GB, Windows 7 based mini-laptop that I use when I travel. Previous versions of Firefox ran so slowly that I was about to replace the laptop by something more capable (think '20s delay when switching tabs'), but Firefox 57 runs well enough on it that this won't be necessary.

    Oh, and why I like that laptop: unlike a tablet, it has a large enough disk that I can make backups of my photos during the trip. And it's light, small, and so cheap that it isn't worth stealing, so I don't feel worried leaving it in the hotel.

  • Firefox Quantum Is 'Better, Faster, Smarter, and Much Less Functional than Chrome' now that most plug-ins do not work.

  • Chrome to Phone (Score:3)

    by darkain ( 749283 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @03:20PM (#55625655) Homepage

    Remember back when Google had Chrome to Phone!? You could simply send ANY web page from desktop to mobile with just a simple click. Also, it was great for phone numbers, too. You could just highlight a phone number, say "Chrome to Phone", and you phone would start calling it. Then Google axed that feature, like they always seem to do, and now it is an "exciting new and great feature in Firefox" all these years later.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close