firefox and chrome freaking SUCK

the web is moving too fast and in a shitty direction.

browsers are pretty phenomenal code, it's just all the shitty pajeet javascript they have to run

you must've not tried chromium

>Firefox and chrome use up all my ram
>opera uses up all my cpu

>>59715646
Because, at the moment, we're stuck with two mainstream engines (Blink/Gecko) and two holdover engines from the 2000s (WebKit/Trident). With Presto effectively gone and Firefox quickly becoming nothing more than a clone of Chrome, the current state of things is bleak.

I'm using Vivaldi at the moment since it's kind of our only hope at the moment. Right now, it's still conjoined to Chromium. But the dev team (who just happens to be the original Opera/Presto dev team) has hinted that they're developing a new engine that will be ready in about a year or so.

Safari doesn't have this problem.

>>59715708
Would you suggest Vivaldi or Brave? I've heard a lot of good things about it on the other thread.

>>59715646
there is literally nothing wrong with either
both are fast as fuck, something must be wrong with your setup
websites are getting more bloated, but browsers themselves are only getting more efficient

>>59715708
thought vivaldi was incredibly fucking slow compared to chrome in how i used it anyway

File: tumblr_omdcy8j6GK1vhrajxo2_400.gif (1MB, 264x205px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 264x205px

>>59715646

>Not using Palemoon
typical dumb weeb

They suck because the internet sucks. Enjoy your shit load of crappy javascript and """features""" like Reader (which wouldn't need to exist if the internet didn't suck).

>>59716037
Yiff in hell furfag

>>59715646
That's a very cute picture.

Browsers suck because the web sucks because the web is created by web devs and web devs really fucking suck hard. Web devs are the people that make loading a blog article as slow in 2017 as it was in 1999.

>>59716153
Oh, and I suppose YOU have a better idea on how to load a plain HTML file without using 5MB of scripts from 30 different sources?

> not using google ultron

>>59716165
Seriously, why the fuck does every site do this?

File: a.png (521KB, 1352x1056px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1352x1056px

palemoon does the job for me

>>59716235
Well not every site does it, but more and more do. Certainly those blog platforms are very guilty of this. I don't know why they are doing it. Either they really are stupid hipsters that follow every trend they see on hacker news or it makes it easier for them to add surveillance scripts. Probably a bit of both.

File: FB_IMG_1477494820303.jpg (48KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 720x960px

sorry for offtopic-ish, but is there a browser that doesn't devour my cpu and still works?
bonus points for no mandatory spying

>tfw browsing the web on a p4/512mb with opera v7+ was 3x-4x snappier than firechrome on an overclocked quad core in the current year

>tfw opera never got progressively laggy until you could literally feel the crash coming (and it always restored your session)

>tfw the entire interface was fully customizable (to perfection) in a matter of minutes

really made myself think

>select all images
>select all images
>select all images
>select all images
>select all images
>select all images

File: 1401224220515.png (108KB, 250x373px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 250x373px

>>59716153
>he doesn't have at least a 350 Mbps connection so he can load those pages in less than 1 second

>>59716261
ungoogled-chromium

>>59716268
Dude, I've browsed the web with a fucking Amiga (25MHz and 2MB RAM) and it was only marginally worse than my 5 year old laptop. The real "failing" was its minimal CSS and zero JS support.

A computer like that should not even be comparable even as a joke, but it sadly is.

Firefox is pretty fuckin good. Stay angered cunt.

>>59716402
this

You think Firefox is bad now just wait until November.

File: qtchan.png (248KB, 1247x817px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1247x817px

>>59715646
yes, all browsers suck; do something about it. That's why I started developing qtchan. It's slowly getting comfy.

>>59715708
Do have a source for them hinting that cause I cant seem to find anything about then developing their own engine

>>59717042
>qt

into the trash it goes.

>>59715646
I heard about a browser here called gnomeweb, try that maybeand see if it works for you, it uses webkit

>>59715646

Webdev here. Safari sucks more than any other browser in the market and is NEVER compatible with anything. Safari is the new IE.

>>59715646
using vivaldi
its pretty shit but better than most browsers

>>59715646
I suspect Firefox is a pile of trash because it's a lot of really old code now maintained by SJW's.

Chrome/Chromium appears to be maintained by people who are used to programming in languages with a memory garbage collector like Java. Seriously, it's like they think they can just claim and use memory and not give a single thought to when that should be cleared and freed up.

Right now radeontop shows that Chrome with 5 open windows is using 1600 MB of my GPU memory. It's also using a lot of system RAM.

This is a real problem on GNU/Linux. I actually ordered a RX 470 8GB the other day because both Chrome and Chromium sometimes crashes after using up all available video card memory. That's just silly. A few open web browser windows shouldn't be demanding more video card memory than some rather advanced game like GTA V.

As for Firefox, that still suffers badly from being single-threaded. And yes, that is still it's major problem. It's kind of easy to demonstrate how badly Firefox is coded, btw.

Firefox has something called "profile managers" which let's you start firefox with one profile for work and one for home.

Try starting Firefox and open 5 windows with something that runs updating Javascript like cryptowat.ch. You'll notice that each window lags and stutters and comes to a halting crawl.

Now start firefox with firefox --profile 1 and firefox --profie 2 and so on until you have 5 firefox windows, all with it's own settings and bookmarks and separate thread. Guess what, it's a world of difference from running one firefox with 5 windows and 5 firefox processes. This isn't exactly an ideal way of using a web browser and it's a stupid fix, really. But it does show how Firefox runs every open tab and every open window in some kind of single superthread that makes everything go to a halt if a single tab/window/page is running some advanced JavaScript.

File: 1483231557699.jpg (104KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 640x640px

>>59715646
chromium is alright, except the pdf viewer scrolls too fast.


any way i can fix that?

>>59715646
You can overcome these problems by ingesting a pen

>>59717176
makes sense, consider safari took the place of ie in osx

>>59717176
>Webdev here.

Opinion discarded

>>59716037
>>59716238
>palemoon
Why do people like to harm themselves?

>>59717238
you tell me, you visit /g/ as well

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-03 at 10.56.15 pm.png (556KB, 2366x1424px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 2366x1424px

>>59717216
memory was installed to be used. it's swapping from the (hdd) disk you wanna worry about

>>59717254
>memory was installed to be used
GPU memory doesn't swap. It will just crash the process.

When you want to play vidya but you only have 8GB of ram 7 of which is used by chrome so you need to close your browser to play. Is PC becoming new PS3?

>>59717353
I wasn't aware the ps3 was capable of multitasking.

>>59717364
it seems the joke went over your head

>>59717353
i tried chromium recently to see what all the hype was about
when it went over 10G memory usage i knew it had to go

File: chrome.png (9KB, 657x411px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 657x411px

>>59717263
How does two open browser windows use 700MB of GPU memory?

Seriously, Chrome and Chromium...

>>59717372
It did I guess

>>59717455
the joke was that chrome used all his ram, forcing him to close it in order to run a game
effectively meaning he's running one task at a time, like a PS3

>>59717219
Off-topic

Where did you find that pic? I've used it as profile pic for steam for like years!

>>59717154
can you give me a better recommendation?

File: 1485170812361.jpg (29KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x240px

>>59717254
You can't solve all your problems by throwing hardware at them. And you should not.

File: 1491144075012.gif (429KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 480x270px

Modern web fucking sucks.
>go to news site with third party scripts blocked and first party scripts allowed
>totally white screen, nothing loads
>enable some innocent looking third party scripts
>site loads with an announcement saying that this site requires JS to work
>block ALL scripts
>the content (the written article) loads perfectly
>mfw

>>59718058
>>totally white screen, nothing loads
I think this is somewhat intentional. If you're blocking the advertisements or not able to see them then fuck you!

I understand why some sites require JavaScript, but totally static pages like news articles? So annoying.

>>59717602
ncurses

>>59715646
one's full of people that ant to sell your soul and one's full of idiots that want to be those other guys

>>59717602
Not really dude. I was just needlessly shitposting. If you're making anything at all you're cool in my book.

>>59715646
because they realized they can mine bitcoin with it

File: 1483460836828.jpg (122KB, 500x740px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 500x740px

>>59718058
>order a pizza
>suddenly remember the "botnet wants me to starve meme" I see on here so much
>decide to look at page's source
>all of the content is served through Javascript, with not a bit of HTML or CSS in sight

I wholeheartedly agree with you.
What happened to simply using HTML and CSS for your front-end?

>>59715668
>chrome sucks
>you must've not used literally the same thing as chrome
??