47
m1ks
6y

I tried the beta version of Mozilla Firefox Browser.

I opened 10 sites which consists of social media, email and youtube. And I found out it consumes less RAM resources than Google Chrome. Not bad Mozilla.

Here is an article about it: https://thenextweb.com/tech/2017/...

Comments
  • 3
    that moment when I opened your image then started scrolling to see the rest of that rant of "guys only want one thing..."
    I need coffee T_T
  • 3
    @gitpush no, you need sleep. Haha
  • 2
    @m1ks its still 10:30 AM can't ask for that from boss lol
  • 1
    @gitpush you just need a shot of java coffee šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚
  • 1
    @illusion466 It is in order to be butterly smooth and relative easy on the CPU
  • 1
    What version ur mozilla ?
  • 1
    @m1ks šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚
  • 5
    @m1ks or a shot of this bad boy......
  • 1
    Can't wait for this friday!
  • 1
    @lulzsec that’s beta version of newest mozilla firefox browser.
  • 1
    @avitron damn. I think I need that.
  • 5
    I see that on your chrome you have some extensions installed. Do you have those on Mozilla as well? Or just compared tabs and ignored extensions?
  • 7
    Firefox quantum is awesome
  • 1
    Neat, but broke everyone’s plugins.
  • 0
    @Karunamon Still it was the right step to drop old shit. Too often innovations are deferred because of backwards compatibility.
    And if someone really needs some Extensions then you can switch to Firefox ESR. So everyone can be happy this time. :)
  • 0
    @MrThompson the problem is the new shit doesn’t have anywhere near the same level of functionality. There’s no reason they had to push this version out half baked. Everyone’s going on about speed and meanwhile I mourn the loss of pentadactyl, downthemall, and tree style tabs (not the gimped webex version that’s floating around). Much of this stuff never can work on the new system because the APIs are just not there.
  • 0
    @Karunamon They now use a more or less common API utilized by all modern Browsers. Dropping the old extension API was necessary afaik to bring the multi process changes further. They have dropped it for good reasons and not to annoy their users.
    This step was communicated more than a year ago. If an extension has not been updated meanwhile then it is also the fault of the extension owners.
    Ok some extensions might be cut in features because of smaller API but for those few percent go and grab Firefox ESR.

    My two cents
  • 0
    @irene Edge does is use, too. And many other browsers fork from chromium. So now we have a common API across all browsers. Indeed a nice development.

    I am not an expert on the old API but maybe it was also too open and provided possibilities to harm security.
    Of course I miss some extensions, too and other replacements do not provide all the features i would like to have. But a secure and fast browser is more important to me.
  • 0
    @MrThompson you mean a monoculture? I think I liked Iļøt better when the browsers competed rather than all being limited the same way...
  • 0
    @irene @Karunamon I do not support the "yet another ..." approach common to the Linux community. It is good to create an alternative if you have the opportunity to provide real value, like git did it. But yet another browser engine which just follows the official W3C specs doesn't change the world.
    It is like the countless window managers or startup mechanisms (upstart, systemd,...) which may have small advantages over their alternatives but more or less they reinvent the wheel.

    So forking a feature rich and fast browser engine is fine. And to share a common API for such an integral part as the extensions is nice, too.
    You might be right that the API needs improvement but inventing an incompatible alternative is no the solution, extending the existing API is.
  • 0
    Yeah, I also think that Mozilla is not bad to use.
  • 0
    @illusion466
    Yeah, you are right about the Ram usage by Chrome. Like I have 6 GB ram in my laptop and when I start Chrome, it takes approximately 1.5 GB ram.
  • 0
    Even windows it self uses less ram than chrome
  • 0
    @mazabin Yeah, I love how everyone overlooked the extensions/plugins that are installed on Chrome. While Chrome IS heavier on memory, not at all a fair comparasion unless the environment is identical.
  • 0
    The version 57 is already out. No need to use the beta version
Add Comment