Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

Cdh · 2010-07-01 21:49:57

The problem is a weak CPU: Try loading http://thedailywh.at/ for example and you'll notice what I mean. All this facebook, reddit, stumbleupon etc. stuff creates incredible cpu load.

hunterthomson · 2010-07-02 00:28:23

Google wrote:

I think Uzbl is the best browser out there. I am loving it, and after a little more tweaking I will replace Chromium entirely. I highly recommend it. It takes some getting used to, but it's incredibly fast and simple.
Other than Uzbl, Chromium gets my vote. I dropped FF over a year ago.
edit:
PS, I don't use adblock on Chromium or FF because it slows down browsing a lot. I use a fiber optic connection and it is much faster to load a page rather than load+compare to a block list and filter out.

Well, the thing with Ad's is that they are basically Spy-ware. It just depends on what is important to you, but blocking Ad's is not just to avoid annoying Ad's.

I was reading about Uzbl a few days ago. It dose look kool.

Last edited by hunterthomson (2010-07-03 02:27:36)

kokoko3k · 2010-07-08 11:09:07

I made some tests to measure the ram taken by firefox (3.6.6 and 4.0b),chromium and opera.
Basically i opened the browser, loaded 31tabs without external plugins, flushed caches,measured free ram,closed the browser,flushed the caches,measured the free ram.
The difference between the ram used before and after gives the idea of how much impact the operation had on the memory subsystem (and so the overall system performance).

Chromium 5.0.377.0 (44350)
608484KB (!)

Firefox 4.0b
152056KB (the clear winner)

Firefox 3.6.6
182448KB

Opera 10.60
229688KB (remarkable, considering how fast that thing is)

here in details, with some italian comments:
http://pastebin.com/KA9LvsUv

joefasza · 2010-07-11 13:10:45

The most important things are usability, stability, customization...and FF beats Chrome in theese. Some sites I need to use just dont work with Chrome and I dont want to keep different browsers for different sites, in FF everything works so far, Chrome uses more memory, you can tweak FF to use less, and the best thing I like in FF is its customizability...and the plugins are like icing on a cake..You can compare the speeds on various sites or look at different benchmarks but in real usage Firefox is the winner. I dont say Firefox is perfect but its definitely the best browser.

Last edited by joefasza (2010-07-11 13:11:59)

surfed · 2010-07-11 18:20:01

count-corrupt wrote:

Vamp898 wrote:
AdBlock is already there
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/de … kkbiglidom
Adblock for Chrome wrote:
3. We're waiting on a Chrome feature that will allow us to block ads from being downloaded. Until then, we remove them after the fact. This means that even if you subscribe to the EasyPrivacy list, your browser will still be pinging the URLs that track you. Star the issue at http://bit.ly/chromebug35897 to get this fixed sooner!
That's an entirely different thing. Adblock for FF prevents ads from being downloaded, hence makes your web experience faster and less annoying. The 'Adblock' for chromium is just a CSS hack that will hide the ads after they've been downloaded (and sometimes shown for parts of a second which is even more annoying).
So this is not at all a comparison by third party plugins but by existence of lack of an API to support those. The chrome devs choose not to implement such an API because it would ridicule Google's business model.
But you guys could all go ahead and star the issue mentioned.

Tis issue is fixed, no adds are downloaded.

kokoko3k · 2010-08-03 11:31:32

@surfed:
Chrome bug 35897 still appears to be open, d'you have a reference?

zenlord · 2010-08-03 13:36:33

I've been testing FF 4.0b2 for a few days now, and I'm very impressed by its speed, especially with complex (JS) websites... The real advantage that Chromium had, has disappeared this way. I'll stick to FF (4.0).

Gusar · 2010-08-03 14:51:24

zenlord wrote:

I've been testing FF 4.0b2 for a few days now, and I'm very impressed by its speed, especially with complex (JS) websites... The real advantage that Chromium had, has disappeared this way. I'll stick to FF (4.0).

Heh. And beta2 doesn't even have the new JS engine yet.

archman-cro · 2010-08-03 15:12:47

Seen the reply here and gave firefox4 beta from AUR a try. But Chromium still wins for me, as it's still evidently faster.
Chromium - fast as f**k! :>

nXqd · 2010-08-06 07:05:37

I use chromium at this time but it crashes very often when I try to upload images [ don't know why, using latest dev ver now ]
Just stare at uzbl, it'll be my main browser , since I'd change to uzbl, i think i'll be back with firefox if needed [ for web dev ]

aashay · 2010-08-25 07:47:25

Firefox 4.0 onwards uses Chromium as a base. So a lot of the Chrome advantages are now availed in FF. As an example you can see that a google image search displays differently in chrome v/s other browsers (in chrome you see a lot more images in a single page). FF 4.0 (any beta or nightly) also features this same display due to the chromium base code

Gusar · 2010-08-25 08:50:41

aashay wrote:

Firefox 4.0 onwards uses Chromium as a base.

Wtf, where did you read that?? It's nonsense. Firefox is and will remain based on Gecko (HTML engine) and SpiderMonkey (JS engine).

shak · 2010-08-28 13:59:25

I still use firefox for the great addons that it has . If chromium ever support downthemall and the adblock plugin gets better i will switch over to chromium

barzam · 2010-08-28 14:38:48

I reinstalled my Arch system on my netbook and decided to give FF another chance. I only lasted two days as a FF user due to the feeling of sluggishness I suffered. Most notably in the startup. I am now currently and happily using Vimprobable which starts in less than a second, works sorta like Vimperator. I black my ads in my hosts file, I can't see why Adblock is better really.

count-corrupt · 2010-08-28 16:35:10

barzam wrote:

I reinstalled my Arch system on my netbook and decided to give FF another chance. I only lasted two days as a FF user due to the feeling of sluggishness I suffered. Most notably in the startup. I am now currently and happily using Vimprobable which starts in less than a second, works sorta like Vimperator. I black my ads in my hosts file, I can't see why Adblock is better really.

With AdBlock you can selectively block things, not just ads. You can go to a website, decide you don't want to see a particular image or div and use AdBlock to hide it. I customized most of my frequently visited websites that way. And the hosts file is way too static. NoScript allows for selective enabling script when needed with just a single click. It also allows settings for scripts from a particular domain per website loading it. For example, I want google analytics on on my own pages, but not on others.
If those points make it better really is just points of view. But it is really convenient. And it binds to firefox until google leaves their arrogance behind and delivers the API.

And the other thing, what a factor is startup time anyway? Don't most of us open a browser once and then use it for the rest of the session?

msx · 2010-10-11 05:13:17

Chromium is awesome, the only two weak points are:

1. it eats RAM as if it would be infinite
on my 2.66 QuadCore 4gb RAM everything starts crawling with 20+ tabs open and with 40+ tabs open the whole system is unusable, this never happens with FF
2. Chrome & Chromium are Google spies
Although not so well polished, SRWare Iron is a good choice.

On the other hand I dropped uzbl for Luakit since I'm learning Lua to config Awesome it makes sence

axel668 · 2010-10-11 07:05:27

Chromium vs Firefox ... hmm ... Both have their advantages.

Chrome: Faster, synchronizes Extensions (!!!!!!!!!! reducing setup time on a new Linux install to less than 1 minute), synced bookmarks accessible on the web
Firefox: better Customizing / theming, more compact (!!), better (GTK) desktop integration, runs EVERY web page out there, uses less resources

Right now it's a draw, if you ask me. But with Google shipping a new release every 6 weeks it's likely that Chromium is the browser of the future, unless they mess it up with "features" like web store or mandatory Google Instant from the URL bar

Arch Linux

#51 2010-07-01 21:49:57

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#52 2010-07-02 00:28:23

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#53 2010-07-08 11:09:07

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#54 2010-07-11 13:10:45

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#55 2010-07-11 18:20:01

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#56 2010-08-03 11:31:32

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#57 2010-08-03 13:36:33

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#58 2010-08-03 14:51:24

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#59 2010-08-03 15:12:47

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#60 2010-08-06 07:05:37

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#61 2010-08-25 07:47:25

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#62 2010-08-25 08:50:41

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#63 2010-08-28 13:59:25

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#64 2010-08-28 14:38:48

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#65 2010-08-28 16:35:10

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#66 2010-10-11 05:13:17

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

#67 2010-10-11 07:05:27

Re: Firefox vs. Chromium - The final verdict

Board footer