this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
182 points (94.6% liked)
Privacy
32456 readers
627 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's a fair comparison. You're just moving the field goals, is all.
"Moving the goal posts" I fail to see how I'm changing the conditions. I'm explaining a clear and obvious issue in that image which is why it's not a good comparison.
Okay, extensions require container processes, for each one. Each new extension add to the RAM usage. For both Firefox and Chrome.
So already the comparison is flawed because Firefox now requires more base memory to load those extensions out the gate.
But now, Firefox is clearly showing Tampermonkey in the toolbar, a userscript extension. Let's just say I run a script that fetches competing price info from temu.com when you browse a site like amazon. Not uncommon.
Let's say I set that to loop, so it'll work on infinite scroll pages too.
Okay, now if you leave your browser alone for an hour and it's refreshing these scripts, guess what happens to the memory?
Every test of current builds of FF vs Chrome has found extremely negligible performance differences when both are stock installs.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/mozilla-firefox-chrome-review-comparison-2020/
This is from 4 years ago,. Again, stock browser without a busted extension causing a memory leak, the browser runs solid.
https://cloudzy.com/blog/which-browsers-use-the-least-memory/#Firefox_vs_Chrome_RAM_Usage_Comparison
Run a real world test and you'll see what I mean. Their RAM consumption is pretty much on par, and varies between update cycles but not wildly.
https://youtu.be/YQcslo9OqtE?si=FvI-Hk7vk46H5U67
From 3 months ago, with graphs. Firefox and Chrome have had near identical performance for years.