I was a Chrome user until like maybe 1 year ago. I kept away from Firefox because at the time it was very sticky and it seemed to use alot of resources, while chrome felt more sleek. From 3.5 (i think) mozilla stated that they had reduced resource usage so i thought i'd give it a try. Indeed it now runs way better than in the old times. Last time i tested it seemed Chrome would use more resources on multiple tabs while Mozilla seemed to perform a bit better. This is a very empiric statement and i'm no expert, that's why i ask you. So who do you think is better at this very moment?
Firefox vs Chrome
- Thread starter ayan
- Start date
lucasbytegenius
Well-Known Member
At the moment I think Chrome is better. It loads pages quicker, it has much better sync features, and doesn't give me a headache over little issues like Firefox does.
Firefox is slower, tends to hang, has horrible CSS3 transitions/animations support (they tend to be choppy), has a lot of little issues like a dashed border around links when you click them (really stupid and ruins the experience for me) and setting up sync is a PITA because you have to somehow carry around this long code with you to set things up.
Chrome does indeed use more memory than Firefox, but that's mostly due to the fact that Chrome is a multi-process browser, which means it hangs less, makes it more stable, and it's faster. Firefox on the other hand will crash if your Flash plugin has issues like earlier this year.
Firefox has great memory management but the sluggishness and other issues just doesn't make it worth using for me. Alternatives like Palemoon and Waterfox also don't work well, they're a little less sluggish but still not as fast as Chrome, and of course they can't fix the sync crap.
Firefox is slower, tends to hang, has horrible CSS3 transitions/animations support (they tend to be choppy), has a lot of little issues like a dashed border around links when you click them (really stupid and ruins the experience for me) and setting up sync is a PITA because you have to somehow carry around this long code with you to set things up.
Chrome does indeed use more memory than Firefox, but that's mostly due to the fact that Chrome is a multi-process browser, which means it hangs less, makes it more stable, and it's faster. Firefox on the other hand will crash if your Flash plugin has issues like earlier this year.
Firefox has great memory management but the sluggishness and other issues just doesn't make it worth using for me. Alternatives like Palemoon and Waterfox also don't work well, they're a little less sluggish but still not as fast as Chrome, and of course they can't fix the sync crap.
lucasbytegenius
Well-Known Member
I agree Firefox is still better than IE at rendering webpages, but the stability and the lack of hangs in IE 9 that I've seen have put it up almost at Firefox's level imo. Some people have referred to Firefox as the "open source IE".
recently I've been using waterfox, its the 64 bit version.
lucasbytegenius
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the silent automatic updates are awesome in Chrome. Firefox has something similar but I have yet to see it actually work.
lucasbytegenius
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your time and your response lucas. Really informative.:good:
You're welcome, glad to be able to get my opinion out about this.