I decided this is the best browser right now

Unless you can disable a page's CSS with your browser in that state it's going to remain worse than a Firefox with the menu bar enabled.

One way to make it better would be to just have an easy-access button to toggle CSS for a tab.

Thanks very much sir.

It's literally not. The best choice for retards who who only care about shitty meme extensions, maybe.

You're welcome. I'm a woman though.

Performance too, seems better than Chrome imo.

>Firefox performance
>better than Chrome

??????

I assume it depends on the connection. I have a 1Gbps connection, it doesn't perform like that for me.

Buy a mac and use safari, poorfag.

lolnothankyou

Fuck off, normie.

Woman don't have dick.

right, but it's the same connection for both browsers, here. It's not like he switched from dialup to cable before running Chrome.

I don't. Not attatched to my body anyway (;

nice argument, retard.

>what is cache

Idk, I anyiway set my browsers to load tabs on click only. I do open many links at once with snap links extension though and never faced that issue.

there's a bunch more webms like this and he wipes cache at the beginning of each one. nice try though.

>FF vs Chrome - 30 Random sites
webmshare.com/play/KBm8v
>FF vs Chrome - 11 News sites
webmshare.com/play/Meo8O
>FF vs Chrome - 40+ Instagram profiles on Windows
webmshare.com/play/Wn1GD
>FF vs Chrome - 40+ Instagram profiles on Arch Linux
webmshare.com/play/6wK0n
>FF vs Chrome on bad machine (2core/2thread - 2GB RAM)
webmshare.com/play/gBdJb
>FF vs Chrome with uBlock
webmshare.com/play/RAE86

LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

>i posted it again

aw, look. this triggers the firecuck.

Biased tests. Loading many tabs at the same time favors browsers that have multi-process optimizations, like chrome and firefox post-e10s.

Your benchmark favors these configurations even though they are actually slower, simply beacuse you're testing an unreasonable scenario (opening 30 tabs at the same time and waiting for them all to be completed) instead of a relevant scenario (e.g. responsiveness of a single website)

go back to sosach peetooh

this

>responsiveness of a single website
Chromium is better at this too.

t. firefox fan

Prove it.

t. qutebrowser user

I don't have any metrics, I can't prove it.

t. firefox fan

tits or gtfo

No (:

dicks out for harambe

>multi-process optimizations
its fucking 2016, cave mans can still use their prehistoric ff

>Loading many tabs at the same time favors browsers that have multi-process optimizations, like chrome and firefox post-e10s.

Tests were done in e10s Firefox.

IPC is slow

>gets BTFO
>its biased

I don't use Firefox. I ditched it months ago, because I got fed up with how slow and shitty it was as well as SJWzilla's constant fuckups.

But that doesn't mean I have to recognize or support a flawed test.

Unlike drumpfposters, I won't latch on to something that's technically wrong just because it agrees with my opinion.

Pale Moon.

Nuff said.

Firefox tends to be pretty slow not least of which because it thinks storing things on disks is appropriate for the 21st century. It's not a really bad botnet and with e10s (and hopefully servo) it's pretty cool.

If they (or you) hack the shit out of your profile to avoid writing anything to disk the performance is really quite good. Very likely it will perform favorably with chrome on retarded tab opening tests.