Why It's so slow and laggy? I am trying it after using chrome

>>57366753
get a non shit thinkpad and install waterfox

also install gentoo

>>57366753
I just asked myself the same question. Turns out, the developer edition is as fast as chrome. So try that https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/ They've been cucking us mainline "normal" firefox users all this time.

Or you could just use chrome botnet who cares privacy is dead anyway

t. reddit

>>57366785
>Firefox Developer Edition automatically sends feedback to Mozilla.

uhm no thanks

Firefox Nightly compiled with -O3 -march=native

Das it mayne

>>57366753
trading functionality over speed

>>57366753
Your PC is shit

>>57367088
>trading functionality over speed

What can you do on slowfox that you can't do on chrome?

Works fine for me
>Closed: WONTFIX

>>57367100
This^^ . stop using a wank pc or delete some more child porn off it.

>>57367102
Block ads easily
Access more settings

Best add-ons, nigga. Aren't you willing to sacrifice a few milliseconds for them?

>>57367165
You can do that on chrome too.

>>57367169
why did you have to add "nigga", are you 13 or just a black wanabee?

>>57366753
it's not, you're just a shill

I literally don't know what people mean when they say Firefox is slow. I use it daily as my main browser and have no slowdowns at all, even with my laptop.

>>57367174
>block ads
>on Chrome
>about:config
>on Chrome
>useful addons
>on Chrome
No. If you're going to use a closed source browser then Opera is a better choice than chrome.

>>57367184
try chrome or chromium and you will see the difference, anyway what I don't like of firefox is that you can't open so many tabs as in chrome without the need to stroll the tab bar.

>>57367222
there's an definitely an addon for that if you're too lazy to fix it on about:config

>>57367222
Tried it, same speed.

>>57367222
I use Vivaldi as my second browser, the speed is exactly the same.
>inb4 Vivaldi is bad

File: 663-1.jpg (29KB, 420x380px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 420x380px

They are moving onto a new engine that will completely replace the old one.
It's only logical that it's slow now because it's worthless to tweak and update and fix the old engine.

The question you want to ask is:
>Will the new engine make Firefox properly fast?
The answer is:
>I don't fucking know, but i hope so.
The other question you want to ask is:
>Will Firefox resolve memory leak issues with the new engine?
The answer is:
>It's a completely new engine that's been done from scratch, so it should be without memory leaks.

I don't understand the "Chrome is faster than Firefox" meme. I've used both and they're basically the same speed.

>>57367261
how will this affect the addons?

>>57367275
try opening 30+ tabs at the same time

>enable e10s
>use ublock origin and https everywhere
Werks fine for me

>>57367307
and for what reason do you have 30+ tabs open?
Please explain as nobody whos normal does that.

>>57367307
>try doing the thing nobody does anyway
They are both slow in that case, except Chrome uses more RAM.

>>57367329
Please link me to a post on /his/

File: hearty laughter.jpg (43KB, 496x344px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 496x344px

>>57367261
>It's a completely new engine that's been done from scratch, so it should be without memory leaks.
lol

>>57367184
>>57367247
>>57367275
>>57367329
chrome is faster, there is no doubt about it, and this is coming from a firefox user, I still like ff because of the addons.

File: 74932f6edcf56bcd44ea9f6466ff4fd8.jpg (318KB, 800x988px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 800x988px

>>57367307
The addons and customization and other shit shouldn't be affected. It should mainly tackle performance.

The only thing that i don't understand is why they are planning to gradually substitute the old engine with the new one piece by piece,
instead of doing it all at once in one swift move.

I hope some code monkeys here can answer the positives and negatives and why the current decision was made.

>>57367307
>try opening 30+ tabs at the same time
Done. What do I win?

>do that on Chrome
>memory usage through the roof

>>57367352
Not for me it isn't.

>>57367335
You dont need that much jap cartoon pedo porn open all at once do you? or are you finding the best way to end your miserable life.

>>57367339
Well you'd assume that something done on a blank slate should have less memory leak issues than something that's been chaotically tweaked and fucked with over the years which naturally introduced lots of memory leakage.
I guess it all depends on whether the coders rushed this shit, and whether they properly planned and managed the whole code so that it remains polished by the time they were done with it.
We shall see.

>>57367378
This board browser is broken, I want to test this out

>>57366753
Why are Chrome shills always creating these threads? Anyway, your PC is shit maybe, Fx works fine on mine.

>>57366753
Enable new multiprocessing options and it speeds up immensely.

>>57367261
Wait, is this game actually good, because I never found it anywhere back when PS1 was a thing.

File: PLAYSTATION--Star Wars Demolition_Aug29 19_31_49.png (75KB, 350x240px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 350x240px

>>57367782
It's basically Twisted Metal with Star Wars vehicles.
AI is fun, vehicles are fun with variety in their characteristics and weapons and shit.
I probably spent more time on this game than any Twisted Metal games to be honest.

Battling with a Rancor on the Death Star was retarded fun.

>>57366993
Why not -0fast?

>>57368131
Because it's -Ofast and not -0fast :^)

But anyway I tried once and compilation failed

Firefox Internet Defense Force at it again, I see