Is the 64-bit version of Firefox on Windows good now?

>>57550411
>firefox
>good
pick one m8

>>57550411
No

>>57550411
Nope.

>FF vs Chrome - 30 Random sites
https://webmshare.com/play/KBm8v
>FF vs Chrome - 11 News sites
https://webmshare.com/play/Meo8O
>FF vs Chrome - 40+ Instagram profiles on Windows
https://webmshare.com/play/Wn1GD
>FF vs Chrome - 40+ Instagram profiles on Arch Linux
https://webmshare.com/play/6wK0n
>FF vs Chrome on bad machine (2core/2thread - 2GB RAM)
https://webmshare.com/play/gBdJb
>FF vs Chrome with uBlock
https://webmshare.com/play/RAE86

>>57551533
Meanwhile in the real world there's no noticable difference in performance as long as your PC and internet connection isn't from 2008

You literally have to be on the spectrum to use "performance" as the main reason for choosing what browser you use

>>57551587
>performance isn't important
Moshilla literally believes in this

File: 1320736537310.png (104KB, 665x598px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 665x598px

>>57551587

>>57551587
Firefox will still be slower and load pages slower than Chrome no matter what your internet speeds are. Firefox is the definition of garbage, deal with it.

>>57550411
No. I recently switched from Release FF to Nightly because it was so fucking slow and surprise surprise, it's still fucking slow. Like unusably slow in some cases.

Pale Moon and IE are blazing fast in comparison, it's not even in the same league any more. Too bad IE is shit otherwise and PM lacks features cause it forked from such an old version of FF and didn't really keep up with new technologies.

Still using FF though cause I want muh tree style tabs.

ITT: poorfags using a pentium 4 complaining about firefox performance

>>57550411
>Firefox
>good

lol

>>57551854
The tests shown in >>57551533 were done on a Skylake Xeon, 16GB of RAM and a PCI-Express SSD. Also e10s was enabled and dom.ipc.processCount set to 50.

>>57551842
>Still using FF though cause I want muh tree style tabs.
Like this?
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggkanocgddhmamlbiijnphhppkpkmkl?hl=en

>>57551533
>Chrome loads ads faster
>this is somehow a "feature"

>Chrome loads Google javascript faster
>he thinks Google doesn't do this on purpose

>opening Chrome first
>what is dns-caching

>shilling a closed source browser which forces ads
>who's a good goy, yes you are :^)

>>57552078
>SJWzilla shills are THIS desperate

>>57552077
Yes, that's the idea. That chrome version is half-assed as fuck though. And I'm never going to switch to chrome anyway.

>>57552078
How much are you paid to promote SJW?

>>57552084
>>57552090
The truth is Firefox works just as fast and you're just posting low quality bait in each of these threads. If you think opening anything more than a single site is a viable test scenario then you're completely retarded. You also have no arguments against any of this >>57552078. Stop shilling Chrome, pajeet.

File: 1470781668445.jpg (69KB, 758x756px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 758x756px

>>57552078
>>57552157

firefox is fucking shit
>memory leaks whenever i browse /wsg/ for too long
>500mb ram on one tab
>hangs for no reason
>taskbar doesnt redraw itself properly
>windows show up even when firefox isnt on top
>having lots of bookmarks is like feeding firefox a whole jug of castor oil because it shits itself
>page wont appear as bookmarked unless you actually go into the menu and search for it
>forgets last session but remembers it anyway and tells you about it
>rss bookmarks dont update properly
i still use it though, because last time i used chrome i wanted to kill myself it was so depressingly bad

>>57552157
Shillzilla with no arguments as usual

water is the opposite of fire and firefox is shit so waterfox must b good

>>57551692
>>57551770
>>57551775
He is right though, security and privacy >>>> pages loading 0.5 seconds faster or using less of your 345 gbs of ram

>>57553589
>0.5 seconds
Try multiple seconds.
Facebook loads in like 5-10 seconds.
Typing a tweet has an input delay of 5-10 seconds.
FF is fucked.

>>57553709
Create a new profile and see if the behaviour repeats because that doesn't sound normal.

I've never had performance issues with firefox

Am I a wizard?

>>57553709
Works fine for me.
Seems the one who is fucked is you.

>>57550411
addons got fucked

>>57553765
Already did. New, clean profile, no add-ons. Even switched to Nightly. Nothing helped.

Microsoft Edge is better

File: Untitled.png (62KB, 1628x670px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1628x670px

>>57550411
It's always been good for me. Never had any performance issues.

>>57553812
What addons do you use? These all work for me.

>>57553933
Even on Windows I prefer Firefox. For me speeds are negligible and Firefox offers way more customization.

>>57553709
>using either of those botnets

youtube takes ~15 seconds to load on my machine anyway so I don't care if chrome or ff is half a second quicker from the other

anyway why is every fucking website so insanely resource heavy nowadays? a fucking year ago this old piece of shit loaded everything in under 5s

>>57551587
>tests literally shows real world performance
>claims it makes no difference in the real world

>>57553081
but wuts the opposete of a fox [asking for a frie d (not me)]

I dont see a problem with it. I would honestly have to be some kind of ADHD sperg to jump to chrome because I need web page loading optimized to the millisecond.