|
| ▲ | andrew_lettuce 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I switched my family off Google after almost 20 years on our own domain. In hindsight it was ridiculously easy, although there are still some weird Google account required links that ultimately have me just moving on. Yt does run worse on FF but that's because of unlock (I believe) they tend to stall out intentionally instead of showing you ads and attempt to get you to switch. |
| |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I believe the stall-out issue is sabotage, but it also visibly takes longer to just render the page. On FF, a YT page jumps around for almost two whole seconds while it renders for me (not to play the video - to render the page). This may also be sabotage by Google, I don't know. |
|
|
| ▲ | folkrav 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That second part was indeed pretty self evident years ago, but I regularly watch 4k content on YouTube on low powered machine these days and can't say I see the difference anymore. |
| |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not saying it's FF's fault, but it undeniably runs worse on my machine. | |
| ▲ | flir 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You might still in a power usage graph. | | |
| ▲ | folkrav 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Eh, maybe, maybe not. I watch YouTube content, not power usage graphs, perceived performance is good enough for what I do with it. If I'm on battery I'm probably not watching in 4k anyway, at which point the difference in power use should be pretty negligible. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | culi 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| YouTube runs worse on FF if you have uBO. They do it on purpose. But if you were to use a clean Firefox install it's pretty comparable. Ofc YT is optimized for Chromium which is another factor |
