|
| ▲ | VCFundedGenYer 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I was also a power FF user at that time. It was not fast. Not at all. Chrome was simply touted as an insanely fast browser. At the time, Firefox was an absolute dog when it came to performance and heaviness. That was enough to win - Chrome kneecapped Firefox over that metric alone. |
| |
| ▲ | BeetleB 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I was also a power FF user at that time. It was not fast. Not at all. For me, the speed improvement in Chrome was marginal. Perhaps my PC at the time was simply too slow to notice the difference. | | |
| ▲ | Izkata 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Two vague memories here: I think most of the Firefox slowness was caused by addons (both loading them at startup and adding to page latency), and Chrome's fast startup that caught casual users' eye was from completing things in the background that Firefox did before presenting the user with a UI. | | |
| ▲ | BeetleB 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh yes. Addons did slow things down. I think that's why I was skeptical about speed comparisons. When I ran FF on a brand new profile, it didn't feel that much slower than Chrome. The thing is - I was happy to sacrifice speed to get the features in the addons. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | brigandish a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 2. It was occasionally faster, and more stable. That is ahead for the majority of people. |
|
| ▲ | dartharva a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 3. For a significant period of time (that continues to this day) websites were made using only Chrome as the target platform, turning Firefox into an eternal second fiddle that would occasionally break important/work websites. |
| |
| ▲ | joquarky 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | And before that, it was IE And before that it was Netscape All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again. |
|
