LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Claimed to double the speed of Firefox, and use 30pc less memory than Chrome.
Read more.Claimed to double the speed of Firefox, and use 30pc less memory than Chrome.
Good thing I switched to Waterfox recently. Not interested in another Chrome clone.
+
=
??
Eta?
Unless I'm misreading it isn't. It's still their own code base from the ground up rather than reskinning Chromium a la Opera.Originally Posted by azrael-
Why do you think it's "another Chrome clone"??
I dunno... What does the thread title say?
I'll give you a hint - It's none of the following:
- Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
- Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!
- Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!
- Joff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!
- Chacha-chacha-chacha-chow!
- Fraka-kaka-kaka-kaka-kow!
- A-hee-ahee ha-hee!
- A-oo-oo-oo-ooo!
Disturbedguy (14-11-2017),MLyons (15-11-2017)
It's their code, but they're doing everything possible to make it another Chrome clone. To the extent of throwing out the one feature that really (used to) set Firefox apart, the ability to alter pretty much everything in the browser via plug-ins (XUL). Now they're using Chrome's Web Extensions, which doesn't support anywhere near the level of customization. And of course that means the death of many plug-ins that either can't or won't be ported to the new extension framework.
Besides, Firefox has been *looking* more and more like Chrome for every release.
It's not Chrome's Web Extensions, it's an API that has been agreed upon to allow cross-browser compatibility for extensions.It's their code, but they're doing everything possible to make it another Chrome clone. To the extent of throwing out the one feature that really (used to) set Firefox apart, the ability to alter pretty much everything in the browser via plug-ins (XUL). Now they're using Chrome's Web Extensions, which doesn't support anywhere near the level of customization. And of course that means the death of many plug-ins that either can't or won't be ported to the new extension framework.
Besides, Firefox has been *looking* more and more like Chrome for every release.
Only thing I disagree with is they should have allowed a period where both old and new extensions were allowed, giving devs time to port over.
Is a years notice not enough time in your book?!
Still a big ol' memory hog, looking at them charts. I was using normal firefox until recently. On my 8gb machine, it was using ~950mb on average, peaking at around 1200mb. Quantum looks like (in an ideal world) only slightly less than that.
I switched to pale moon, which uses ~300mb, peaking at around 450mb. I'd consider Quantum if it was near those figures, not the current firefox ones.
Been using the beta for this for a while and to be honest I love it.
It's faster than edge, uses much less memory than chrome and does everything I need.
I would recomend it to anyone.
EDGE ftw!!!
As a long time user of FF - I like this. All my extensions carried over and this is noticeably faster.
Those comments about memory usage don't reflect my experience. The above shows IE and FF. FF has 4 tabs open and IE only two.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
This. A lot of the complaints seem to be to do with the UI, which is odd as many seemed to dislike the old one.
You change the shape of the tab edges and the Internet loses its mind. Weird.
Agree with Phage, haven't had any problems with addons and its definitely quicker, and think it looks nice too.
No problems with memory use here.
Jon
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
