>Chrome is about to load web pages a lot faster than you've experienced up until now. Thanks to a new compression algorithm called Brotli, which Googleintroducedlast September, Chrome will be able to compress data up to 26 percent more than its existing compression engine, Zopfli, which is an impressive jump
RIP in piece firecuck
You know that brotli was already added to firefox right?
I remember they saying the bro extension was offensive so it was changed to br...
It will be faster because so much js goes through google's servers, and of course google will be using this new compression algorithm on their servers.
Personally I block all js from google, but for the rest of you botnet users it should get you ever more firmly wedged into google's craw. Cheers.
>try 1080@60 fps video on chrome / firefox HTML5
FF 10% CPU
> >I have asked a feminist friend from the North American culture-sphere, and she advised against bro
>This is ridiculous.
>and firefox is sjw shit.
Wait wait wait.
While they of course are, the guy with the "asked feminist friend" thing is actually the developer of brotli and since brotli was developed at Google we can assume he is not a member of Mozilla.
>Compressing what? Cached data?
When your browser and the server communicate and agree they support the same compression then the server can send its data in compressed form using one of multiple algorithms (and brotli is a new one).
This means it's useless the server supports (and actually offers - costs CPU after all) it.
yes, but as far as i know this discussion about the BRO files was started by mozilla, then the author asked a few questions and changed the extensions from bro to br... but it's fucking ridiculous and a waste of time to be concern about this things in software development.
It could be right if the extension was slut or nigger but not for BRO.
>yes, but as far as i know this discussion about the BRO files was started by mozilla
Which discussion? Did you even look at the ticket?
Brotli's developer said he wants to establish a .bro file extension, then one person in a public bug tracker (everybody can post) said it's not a good idea and another one said bro is fine. Next thing brotli's developer announced to use br and the above mentioned feminist shit.
You can hardly call that a discussion and the people for/against bro were exactly 1/1...
>OS X Firefox is really bad. I'm not sure what the deal exactly is but it runs so, so much worse than Safari/Chrome.
Please tell me where Chrome "runs" (not: looks) better. I would actually like to use it and already mirrored all my FF settings/plugins but it's just burning so much more CPU compared to FF.
Do you just not care?
It's hard to really compare them because chrome preloads pages in the background. Chrome does have the advantage of being multiprocess though which reduces the amount of hangs from content processes running too long
The scrolling is a lot more fluid, on FF it feels a lot more jumpy and laggy. It gets to the point where after several hours of use, I have to quit and reopen Firefox to stop it from lagging so damn much, especially when there's multiple tabs open.
I'm not really monitoring CPU usage, I just notice that FF gets stuck and slows down all the time for me. I'd be more than happy to switch to FF since it has better extensions and the history isn't completely worthless, but it just runs terribly for me. (Mid 2012 rMBP, 16GB RAM, 2.6GHz i7)
But that really sounds like a problem on your end. Using a 13" MBP from 2015 (16GB RAM, FF currently uses 1.4GB), with a system uptime of 8 days (the same for FF) and currently 63 tabs (according to Session Manager) and 23 addons -- everything runs butter smooth and just fine.
And in the same configuration Chrome uses for me approx. thrice the amount of CPU which just eats my battery way faster. Compared to Safari FF uses really a lot of battery but Chrome is just whole other league.
If there are any tricks to turn Chrome to FF level (or even lower) in terms of CPU usage... I'd really like to know...