Firefox 57 (aka Quantum) out now. Huge performance improvements.

[vanished]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Tell your install of FF Q to git gud.

I tried but it's already set right as far as I can tell

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

At least it doesn't become unresponsive after about an hour of just being on LTT.

I haven't ever noticed that happening in any browser

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I tried but it's already set right as far as I can tell

Tell it to git gud(er)

 

11 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I haven't ever noticed that happening in any browser

It only happens in FF 57 on Win10 on my main machine so far.

[suicidalfranco]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand I'm back on Vivaldi

 

Was fun while it lasted

[MEC-777]

Can someone explain to me how it can be "faster" if you're already limited by your connection speed?

 

I will be giving FF57 a try, but I'm not expecting any difference from Chrome because of my connection. 

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

Can someone explain to me how it can be "faster" if you're already limited by your connection speed?

 

I will be giving FF57 a try, but I'm not expecting any difference from Chrome because of my connection. 

I would imagine UI and rendering (The browser or webpage) would be smoother/faster.

[MEC-777]

Well, I don't know how, but it actually does seem to run/load pages faster. Even with a fresh install (no cookies or history to "cheat"). Impressed so far but will see how it is, long-term.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, MEC-777 said:

Can someone explain to me how it can be "faster" if you're already limited by your connection speed?

 

I will be giving FF57 a try, but I'm not expecting any difference from Chrome because of my connection. 

Response time, and rendering speed.

 

Even with a very fast connection, the browser needs to take some amount of time to send and receive the request, process it, then render it.

[vanished]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Response time, and rendering speed.

 

Even with a very fast connection, the browser needs to take some amount of time to send and receive the request, process it, then render it.

Yeah I've always found this odd but a lot more than connection speed seems to factor in, even on a powerful computer with a fast connection

[MEC-777]

Funny thing is, one of the sites that I actually do notice faster loading times is this site (LTT forums).

[LAwLz]

17 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah I've always found this odd but a lot more than connection speed seems to factor in, even on a powerful computer with a fast connection

I was going to make a point that this website is very small and loading it takes up just a fraction of the time it takes to render it, but then I noticed that this page is bloated as hell.

This page, not counting my post, is 5,82MB after being decompressed. 2MB of that is @Drak3's profile picture. You should optimize that profile picture.

 

Anyway, rendering takes a fairly significant time so even with a really fast Internet connection, it's still important for the browser to do things efficiently.

 

 

I quickly optimized your profile picture a bit Drak3.

2MB down to 436KB. Could make it even smaller by lowering the frame rate, resolution and doing more precise cutting but it's a good start.

 

 

[Dabombinable]

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I was going to make a point that this website is very small and loading it takes up just a fraction of the time it takes to render it, but then I noticed that this page is bloated as hell.

This page, not counting my post, is 5,82MB after being decompressed. 2MB of that is @Drak3's profile picture. You should optimize that profile picture.

 

Anyway, rendering takes a fairly significant time so even with a really fast Internet connection, it's still important for the browser to do things efficiently.

There is a reason most forums have a far lower file size limit for profile pictures (and why I have my profile pic at various sizes+quality from 4.2MB at 500x500, all the way down to 50x50 at 131KB).

[vanished]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I was going to make a point that this website is very small and loading it takes up just a fraction of the time it takes to render it, but then I noticed that this page is bloated as hell.

This page, not counting my post, is 5,82MB after being decompressed. 2MB of that is @Drak3's profile picture. You should optimize that profile picture.

 

Anyway, rendering takes a fairly significant time so even with a really fast Internet connection, it's still important for the browser to do things efficiently.

 

 

I quickly optimized your profile picture a bit Drak3.

2MB down to 436KB. Could make it even smaller by lowering the frame rate, resolution and doing more precise cutting but it's a good start.

 

 

We do already have a 2 MB cap but your'e right we could probably get away with more like 500 kB.  There's no need for it to be over about 128 x 128, and as for framerate and length, if it's so complex it can't fit in that, you should probably pick something else

[Zodiark1593]

7 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

There is a reason most forums have a far lower file size limit for profile pictures (and why I have my profile pic at various sizes+quality from 4.2MB at 500x500, all the way down to 50x50 at 131KB).

Also need to be nice to people with data caps.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Also need to be nice to people with data caps.

I really couldn't use the forums if I was still at school, 80MB a month data cap there in 2013. And we were expected to use it to help with 5-6 classes.

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

I really couldn't use the forums if I was still at school, 80MB a month data cap there in 2013. And we were expected to use it to help with 5-6 classes.

80MB a month? Jesus. You'd blow through that in one day on a typical series of webpages.

[ScratchCat]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I was going to make a point that this website is very small and loading it takes up just a fraction of the time it takes to render it, but then I noticed that this page is bloated as hell.

This page, not counting my post, is 5,82MB after being decompressed. 2MB of that is @Drak3's profile picture. You should optimize that profile picture.

 

Anyway, rendering takes a fairly significant time so even with a really fast Internet connection, it's still important for the browser to do things efficiently.

 

 

I quickly optimized your profile picture a bit Drak3.

2MB down to 436KB. Could make it even smaller by lowering the frame rate, resolution and doing more precise cutting but it's a good start.

Page size is not everything, dealing with redirects and waiting for other content to load is also important. For example xda-developers.com has a page size of 1.6MB compared to 5.3MB for this site. However due to the insane number of requests needed at 281 compared to 95 means that this site loads 1.5x faster.

 

Allowing a web page to be rendered to the user while other requests are still being resolved i.e. leaving blank sections until a request has been completed. Google's AMP does a similar thing with the lazy loading of advertisements and other not important, allowing mobile sites to be loaded many times faster.

 

Interesting web page timing : https://tools.pingdom.com/

 

[AvocadosGuac]

Fuck the only thing wrong is that malwarebytes anti-exploit keeps closing it.

[AlanAlan]

On 11/23/2017 at 12:40 PM, Zodiark1593 said:

Yeah, I am aware they're trying. I'm impatient because I would like to ditch Chrome asap, but Firefox still isn't where I want it to be as far as performance goes. Nowhere close. Firefox hits the marks everywhere but fluidity and smoothness, and it has been at this point for some time (much too long).

 

1 minute ago, ScratchCat said:

Page size is not everything, dealing with redirects and waiting for other content to load is also important. For example xda-developers.com has a page size of 1.6MB compared to 5.3MB for this site. However due to the insane number of requests needed at 281 compared to 95 means that this site loads 1.5x faster.

 

Allowing a web page to be rendered to the user while other requests are still being resolved i.e. leaving blank sections until a request has been completed. Google's AMP does a similar thing with the lazy loading of advertisements and other not important, allowing mobile sites to be loaded many times faster.

 

Interesting web page timing : https://tools.pingdom.com/

 

 

22 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

80MB a month? Jesus. You'd blow through that in one day on a typical series of webpages.

Have any of you guys tried youtube on firefox quantum? Do any of you have the 4K option?

 

[Dabombinable]

Just now, AlanAlan said:

 

 

Have any of you guys tried youtube on firefox quantum? Do any of you have the 4K option?

 

No, I only have a 1080p screen at most, and internet that swings between 5-7Mbps isn't fast enough for 4K content.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, AlanAlan said:

 

 

Have any of you guys tried youtube on firefox quantum? Do any of you have the 4K option?

 

I just checked one of the newer LTT videos (pretty reliable for them uploading in 4K) and yes, 4K (2160p) does show up as an option.

 

I've been using Quantum since it's public release - YouTube works perfectly fine for me so far. Even pauses videos (or rather, doesn't start them) when loading to a new tab. Only starts the video when you actually go to that tab (I love this feature, Chrome has it too - I like to browse through my feed and pre-select the videos I intend on watching).

[LAwLz]

18 minutes ago, ScratchCat said:

Page size is not everything, dealing with redirects and waiting for other content to load is also important. For example xda-developers.com has a page size of 1.6MB compared to 5.3MB for this site. However due to the insane number of requests needed at 281 compared to 95 means that this site loads 1.5x faster.

Yeah, and just computing the code in general takes time too.

x=1
while True:
    print (x)
    x += 1

That will take quite a bit of time to compute, despite just being 43 bytes.

 

 

15 minutes ago, AlanAlan said:

Have any of you guys tried youtube on firefox quantum? Do any of you have the 4K option?

Works for me. It even passes the decoding to the GPU.

Sitting at a comfortable 3% CPU usage with 4K VP9 playing.

[ScratchCat]

1 hour ago, AlanAlan said:

 

 

Have any of you guys tried youtube on firefox quantum? Do any of you have the 4K option?

 

See this : https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1078015

The Webm codec seems to be disabled by default. 4K is now available for me.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, AlanAlan said:

 

 

Have any of you guys tried youtube on firefox quantum? Do any of you have the 4K option?

 

I have the option, though due to my data cap, I refrain from using it. When I tried it last (a year ago), the CPU was being used for VP9 decoding instead of my GPU.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, ScratchCat said:

See this : https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1078015

The Webm codec seems to be disabled by default. 4K is now available for me.

That's weird.

It says that webm is disabled in my about:config, but clearly it is working on youtube for me. You sure it's not some old issues that has since then been fixed?

[Dabombinable]

Getting around to comparing the way Firefox is now handling Youtube videos to Chrome:

• Videos start a lot faster
• significantly shorter wait when changing video resolution
• No dropped frames at all (stock 4790K+stock GTX 970 G1 Gaming)
• Lower CPU usage, higher GPU usage (I wonder if I could set FF to use my GTX 650ti for decoding).

And overall the user experience has been better.