CyberD.org
C:\ Home » Blog » Tech » The New FireFox, Part II

The New FireFox, Part II

That thing I wrote about FireFox? I was wrong! It does use more resources.

Though they claim that it's both faster and less resource-intense than Chrome, it's certainly not faster for me than it used to be. The bigger improvements seem to have come at the expense of additional system resource usage, and I'm sad to say my computer can't keep up with the added demand without lag. Maybe it's addons. Maybe they're not properly optimized for the new. I see a lot more processes now than I used to.

Before the update FireFox ran faster than Chrome, for me, on this computer, but the tables have now turned.

I've run into a few issues loading particular pages as well, though not sure this has to do with the browser or other addons.

The main problem though: tabs load slow. Toggling between tabs goes slow. Overall there's just a lot of slowness involved that I was hoping this new version would somehow not only manage to avoid but actually solve. Unfortunately all progress comes at a cost

Another irritating thing I've noticed is how that little collective menu I mentioned earlier also doesn't preserve folder structure, and I do have to open up the bookmarks section completely to reach those. I figured out the shortcut on my own though. CTRL + B.

To B or not to B... I think I'll look around for previous-format-preserving-plugins soon, like they used to have with the previous version: preserving the little bookmark icon you could have available directly in the bookmark bar. I still wonder why they removed that one. It was perfect.

Otherwise all is working well, and the design is starting to feel normal. The change did come with some improvements, but not as great ones as I was hoping, and the ones they marketed so much were not improvements, but rather degradations in functionality. For me.

What's the hardware norm 2017? Whatever it is it seems I'm falling behind, but then again I live in a privileged country, with considerably newer hardware than some, so it makes me wonder how others are experiencing this change. Is it really best for all? Is it right to increase hardware requirements so much for the one browser that's previously been the low-end alternative among the giants?

If it had all the features of Vivaldi, combined with current performance, then I wouldn't mind. But it feels like the cost is too large, when I see little overall improvement. For me.

The fire's fading, but I'll stick with the Fox for now. Hope these improvements further improve, and the load-decreasing miracle I hope for comes to be so we can once again browse the web in a blaze of speed.

Don't faux the fire.

Comments

Keep track of the discussion via rss? Read about comment etiquette? Or type in something below!
This was pretty damn interesting. And yet, nobody's spoken! Be the first!


The Comment Form

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your email is saved only to approve your future comments automatically (assuming you really are a human). ;) It's not visible or shared with anyone. You can read about how we handle your info here.

Question   Razz  Sad   Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Neutral

Privacy   Copyright   Sitemap   Statistics   RSS Feed   Valid XHTML   Valid CSS   Standards

© CyberD.org 2019
Keeping the world since 2004.