Mozilla launches Firefox Quantum, the biggest change in it's history - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=SataniX;52895890]I'm curious, can you try running [url=http://jsben.ch/Y0Db1]this benchmark[/url] in both to compare? I'm curious to see if it's just my machines, or something to do with the update. It's only a simple JS metric but it explains why lots of sites feel so stupidly slow in Quantum for me. For comparison, I get: Chrome: 268ms 280ms 219ms 299ms Firefox: 885ms 993ms 7086ms 15287ms And that's with Firefox using nearly double the CPU/memory ??[/QUOTE] Quauntum is not a Javascript engine, It's a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser_engine]Web Engine[/url] The performance boost comes out of completely rewritting how the DOM, CSS, and GPU rendering performs. It has been using Gecko since forever, until now that is Pretty sure the javascript engine is still SpiderMonkey

[QUOTE=SataniX;52895890]-benchmarks-[/QUOTE] I'm fairly sure Quantum has nothing to do with JS performance, and SpiderMonkey has always been lagging behind V8, so those results aren't really surprising. It's just about doing page layout and styling faster, which gives a pretty nice speedup on sane pages. Not so much if there's 30MB of JS flying around though.

[QUOTE=Tobba;52896181]30MB of JS [/QUOTE] makes me sick reading this

Just installed it and damn is it lightning fast even compared to Chrome.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52896003]which if it's true then the benchmark site does a shit job of making clear, is that they're doing a huge amount of loops of each of those sets, which would again bring me back to the point of not correlating well with real world performance.[/QUOTE] Well yes, it's doing millions of iterations of each test. That doesn't explain the speed discrepancy at all - and that speed discrepancy, while only a benchmark, is still very noticeable in day to day use. Like does Mozilla not know Angular is a thing, or React, or any number of popular JavaScript frameworks? Say what you will about whether they're good options to use, they are undeniably popular and Mozilla should not be releasing an update that makes so many sites unusable. It makes way more sense that it's a bug IMO. [editline]16th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Scratch.;52896179] The performance boost comes out of completely rewritting how the DOM, CSS, and GPU rendering performs. It has been using Gecko since forever, until now that is Pretty sure the javascript engine is still SpiderMonkey[/QUOTE] This doesn't explain why 57 is >10x slower than 56 when it comes to JS.

[QUOTE=Scratch.;52888992] Doesn't look like you can import passwords you generally need a plugin to access the database if you exported them (since you need a 3rd party tool). And Mozilla hasn't made an API for webextensions to access the password database[/QUOTE] I just downloaded it and it asked if I wanted to import passwords from Chrome. It worked!

[QUOTE=SataniX;52896280]Well yes, it's doing millions of iterations of each test. That doesn't explain the speed discrepancy at all - and that speed discrepancy, while only a benchmark, is still very noticeable in day to day use.[/QUOTE] Yes but as I said there shouldn't even [I]be[/I] such a huge difference between Chrome and Firefox. Most certainly not one of 10x. [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/yUkFhC5.png[/IMG] Left is Firefox and right is Chrome. (First number is microseconds after page load before the if loop starts and second number is microseconds after page load that it ends.) This is the third test at 10,000,000,000 loops. Firefox is actually slightly faster here but at ten billion loops it's such a minute amount (a little under 10 seconds versus about 11.5) that it's completely negligible. I don't know what that benchmark is doing behind the scenes but it's doing something totally wrong in Chrome's favor. [QUOTE]Like does Mozilla not know Angular is a thing, or React, or any number of popular JavaScript frameworks? Say what you will about whether they're good options to use, they are undeniably popular and Mozilla should not be releasing an update that makes so many sites unusable.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I've had no issues loading sites on Quantum thus far, especially ones that already worked on FF56. [QUOTE]This doesn't explain why 57 is >10x slower than 56 when it comes to JS.[/QUOTE] Of course not. Because that's not even true to begin with.

[QUOTE=SataniX;52896280]Like does Mozilla not know Angular is a thing, or React, or any number of popular JavaScript frameworks? Say what you will about whether they're good options to use, they are undeniably popular and Mozilla should not be releasing an update that makes so many sites unusable.[/QUOTE] You say this as if they're completely broken in Firefox and they aren't. Like, I just tested and my two current JavaScript heavy web projects load just as fast as Chrome for me (and yes, they are being served over the web, not locally).

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52896312]Yes but as I said there shouldn't even [I]be[/I] such a huge difference between Chrome and Firefox. Most certainly not one of 10x. [/quote] No, there shouldn't be at all. But there is - for me, at least. [quote] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/yUkFhC5.png[/IMG]I don't know what that benchmark is doing behind the scenes but it's doing something totally wrong in Chrome's favor.[/quote] All it does is run the code a lot of times. There's nothing it [i]can[/i] be doing wrong. Potentially Firefox is fucking up with large numbers of iterations or something, or isn't re-assigning variables properly behind the scenes. IDK. [quote] I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I've had no issues loading sites on Quantum thus far, especially ones that already worked on FF56. [/quote] Try loading any Angular site (basically anything with a digest-based JS framework) - that's where you'll really notice it. Or perhaps it's something specific to my computers, although you having the same benchmark issues suggests it isn't.

[QUOTE=SataniX;52896344]All it does is run the code a lot of times. There's nothing it [i]can[/i] be doing wrong. Potentially Firefox is fucking up with large numbers of iterations or something, or isn't re-assigning variables properly behind the scenes. IDK.[/QUOTE] That's the thing though. According to my tests literally copy+pasting the benchmark's code, timestamping the start, looping through it until it's close to the time the benchmark reports, then timestamping at the end the benchmark is doing something totally different than the code they show. If they were just iterating through the code a huge number of times then the numbers would be much closer as I have already shown. But there's a 10x difference for the benchmark which implies the benchmark is doing something vastly different than what it claims to do. If it were an issue with Firefox then that wouldn't account for Chrome having a [I]slower[/I] execution time when I did the tests myself instead of using the benchmarking site. The site you linked is doing something behind the scenes that it's not being transparent about which is totally different than the code they show and which clearly favors Chrome in some way. [QUOTE]Try loading any Angular site (basically anything with a digest-based JS framework) - that's where you'll really notice it. Or perhaps it's something specific to my computers, although you having the same benchmark issues suggests it isn't.[/QUOTE] I've had no issues at all loading any sites regardless of framework so that may be some strange issue on your end.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52896385] I've had no issues at all loading any sites regardless of framework so that may be some strange issue on your end.[/QUOTE] I just tried loading a few Angular examples in Chrome versus Firefox and I could see no perceptible difference between each browser.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52895887][img]https://i.imgur.com/qFnXXti.png[/img] You can just remove a bookmark's title to get it to just be an icon. More flexible than simply not displaying the title text too since it allows you to leave a name for ones that might be difficult to identify.[/QUOTE] Or I can just hover over it, and it gives me the name of the bookmark that would normally appear as text. Also, I'm too lazy to edit every bookmark individually :v:

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;52896681]Or I can just hover over it, and it gives me the name of the bookmark that would normally appear as text. Also, I'm too lazy to edit every bookmark individually :v:[/QUOTE] You could also probably just figure it out from the url too since you get that when hovering over it, lol. But yeah, it definitely does take some more effort so if you can't be bothered with that then it's totally up to you.

Liking quantum so far but Chrome really does not want to export my passwords to LastPass, their importer shows absolutely nothing and CSV export just prints the table headers with nothing in it. Got a feeling its because I'm using Google Sync and the Dev channel of Chrome. Anyone got any ideas? Wouldn't mind moving over and giving it a chance as a daily driver, haven't touched Firefox as a daily since Firefox 2.

[QUOTE=Reagy;52896750]Liking quantum so far but Chrome really does not want to export my passwords to LastPass, their importer shows absolutely nothing and CSV export just prints the table headers with nothing in it. Got a feeling its because I'm using Google Sync and the Dev channel of Chrome. Anyone got any ideas? Wouldn't mind moving over and giving it a chance as a daily driver, haven't touched Firefox as a daily since Firefox 2.[/QUOTE] Chrome disabled password exporting ChromePass should be able to dump them, but data being importable to other services is not something I can say for sure

At this point, there's only two things that are still keeping me from switching over: • 4chanX is its own extension in Chrome, but in Firefox, it's a (rather slow and broken) Greasemonkey script. Apart from the script taking longer to load than the actual page, image expansion is also completely out of whack • Chrome's way of organizing and displaying bookmarks, with the option of having the bar always visible or only visible after opening a new tab. I've grown very accustomed to having my bookmarks bar hidden until I can easily access them in a new tab, so this will take a while to get adjusted to

[QUOTE=Tangerine;52896957]At this point, there's only two things that are still keeping me from switching over: • 4chanX is its own extension in Chrome, but in Firefox, it's a (rather slow and broken) Greasemonkey script. Apart from the script taking longer to load than the actual page, image expansion is also completely out of whack • Chrome's way of organizing and displaying bookmarks, with the option of having the bar always visible or only visible after opening a new tab. I've grown very accustomed to having my bookmarks bar hidden until I can easily access them in a new tab, so this will take a while to get adjusted to[/QUOTE] 4chanX does work on Firefox Webextensions, they just have not submitted it to AMO for signing. Could ask to submit now. Old extensions used to be months before they got any feedback (Inc. Denial), now since it's all Webextensions, Mozilla fast track them through automation, a recent change.

[QUOTE=Scratch.;52896913]Chrome disabled password exporting ChromePass should be able to dump them, but data being importable to other services is not something I can say for sure[/QUOTE] Worked out, problem was the dev channel uses a different directory structure so all the other tools were just assuming wrong. Gonna give this a try now and see if its worth moving to.

[QUOTE=Tangerine;52896957]At this point, there's only two things that are still keeping me from switching over: • 4chanX is its own extension in Chrome, but in Firefox, it's a (rather slow and broken) Greasemonkey script. Apart from the script taking longer to load than the actual page, image expansion is also completely out of whack • Chrome's way of organizing and displaying bookmarks, with the option of having the bar always visible or only visible after opening a new tab. I've grown very accustomed to having my bookmarks bar hidden until I can easily access them in a new tab, so this will take a while to get adjusted to[/QUOTE] 4chan x works fine on tampermonkey, greasemonkey is broken af currently

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;52897184]4chan x works fine on tampermonkey, greasemonkey is broken af currently[/QUOTE] From what I've seen almost every userscript that doesn't embrace Greasemonkey's new focus (which is a focus that's entirely irrelevant to the vast majority of userscripts) is totally broken in Greasemonkey. Dunno why they'd make such a complete paradigm shift after so many years of development.

[IMG]https://s18.postimg.org/i9s7pgxmh/image.png[/IMG] Ew. It does seem faster though. But everything above the toolbar feels weird

get a better theme

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52898275]get a better theme[/QUOTE] Thats the one I had and liked from before the forced update.

Litefox still looks great. [t]https://i.imgur.com/gGu7dJ3.png[/t]

I cleaned it up a bit. Got rid of alot of the dead space. I think I am gonna look for a new theme

[QUOTE=InsanePyro;52898889]I cleaned it up a bit. Got rid of alot of the dead space. I think I am gonna look for a new theme[/QUOTE] You can always just use the same images on a new colour scheme

Weird, on a lot of sites itll randomly say "Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete." "This problem can sometimes be caused by disabling or refusing to accept cookies" I dont have them disabled.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;52899148]Weird, on a lot of sites itll randomly say "Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete." "This problem can sometimes be caused by disabling or refusing to accept cookies" I dont have them disabled.[/QUOTE] Check the requests the browser makes on the dev tools (F12), usually a browser shouldn't do this, as it's just following instructions sent from the server. Saying 'it's happening on random sites' is what confuses me to why the browser is doing it, likely doing its own thing. Could be an addon installed, but you know I can't just say that

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;52899148]Weird, on a lot of sites itll randomly say "Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete." "This problem can sometimes be caused by disabling or refusing to accept cookies" I dont have them disabled.[/QUOTE] If you don't have them disabled, the site is probably doing things incorrectly then.

Has anyone else's Youtube viewports shrunk with the new Firefox? It used to be 1280x720 but the size shrank to 854x480 and I don't know how to change it back. If I zoom the whole page out it goes back to normal, but then text is too small...