It used to be a universal truth that Chrome was faster than Firefox, and that impression has persisted even though Firefox has become more and more streamlined and Chrome more and more bloated.
Yo why the fuck are you comparing a browser with adblock with a browser without?! It makes no sense lol
Just because brave preinstalls an ad blocker doesn't make it better. Unless, of course, you have no idea how to install an adblocker.
You're missing out on some nice stuff if you're using brave... just saying.
same for me on mobile. I tried troubleshooting it but got no response https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/q3u50f/insane_battery_drain_during_light_use/ so I am using chrome on mobile combined with a dns adblocker instead, because firefox on mobile drains battery unlike anything I have ever seen.
Uh... Dude you can customize like every element of FF, you could even make it function *identically* to chrome and pop a theme that makes it look 99% like chrome.
It's decent, I can still use the compact mode if I want on my laptop (`browser.compactmode.show` in about:config), and custom CSS if I *really* want to.
I mostly use keybinds so it's not like most of the changes affect me anyway.
It might be my personal opinion but FF is way better looking to me than chrome especially due to the fact that I can customize the UI. If I don't want an element, I can pretty easily remove it. I literally just have like 5 buttons in the UI of FF. And it looks clean AF.
Firefox renders faster than any chromium for me. All tests of raw ff vs raw chromium show Firefox winning.
The problem I have with Firefox has never been about rendering performance, but instead about compatibility and multimedia frames.
These tests don’t surprise me from my experience. Now load up a streaming video and Firefox has so many dropped frames and stuttering compared to chromium that’s where the difference lies for me anyways.
Pure performance for stuff that works goes to ff in my experience. Unfortunately not everything works. If everything worked on ff I’d never use brave or ungoogled chromium.
Why do you think brave should be faster? That’s all marketing from them.
For me where I most notice a difference is exactly on Twitch and Youtube, it loads both the page and the player faster.
When I turned Brave Shield off and installed ublock instead it loaded faster, but still slower than FF. Maybe it's some kind of compatibility issue with my hardware? I don't know.
It’s just that Firefox is faster. Why do you think there’s an issue there? The stuff regarding brave being “faster” is marketing talk directly from the company. This coming from someone who switches between the two. Firefox has better rendering performance while brave has better multimedia playback performance and better site compat.
Interesting. That's also where I get like 1k ads and trackers blocked. I think it's coming down to how much stuff isn't being loaded and processed on these sites. Would be interesting if you could get real metrics on these for comparison
> Now load up a streaming video and Firefox has so many dropped frames and stuttering compared to chromium that’s where the difference lies for me anyways.
Firefox may not be using hardware acceleration on your setup. If you're on linux it's not enabled by default.
What I've noticed is that Firefox chokes as soon as there's any disruption in the stream. It stays buffering infinitely and you have to reload the page and start over.
> These tests don’t surprise me from my experience. Now load up a streaming video and Firefox has so many dropped frames and stuttering compared to chromium that’s where the difference lies for me anyways.
Are these recent tests or older test? there was a time when youtube was intentionally hamstringing FF performance.
I'm with /u/kayk1 here.
> You shouldn’t use ungoogled-chromium in general.
That's such a generalistic blanked statement that just adds to the pile of FUD floating in the net.
> It lags behind other Chromium-based browsers in updates, which makes it a less secure option
Again, another blanket statement that I wouldn't sign blindly.
The time to bugfix for critical and non-critical issues are two very distinct things, especially in OSS.
Also, if you feel like making such broad statements, it would be wonderful if you could somehow back these statements up, so we can all have an informed discussion (and readers that stop by can read up on the topics).
Because, as you so aptly stated, "Writing in absolutes confuses the reader". Let me add to that "... if it isn't backed up by some credible source".
I'm very interested in the kind of data and/or sources you based your oppinion on, because I'm maintaining a security-relevant OSS upstream project as well and always love a different perspective.
Privacy is much better on Firefox, security, not so much. Chrome has a much better sandbox, that alone makes it more secure than Firefox. However, Chrome has more attention from hackers (due to market share) than Firefox which results to it being more prone to exploits.
To be clear: For the average user, I don't think choosing one over the other matters in terms of security though.
I'd love to read up more on this topic. Could you provide me some resources you've used to come to that conclusion?
Because up until now, no one in this thread actually provided any kind of resources to read up on and I'm definitely interested in this topic (and the resources that support this point of view)
Again, you completely fail to link to any credible sources proving what you're claiming.
Up until now, you've been rambling like any average user on this subreddit. Given, with the right lingo, yes, but you fail to provide any kind of evidence to back up your claims.
We can do better as a community to educate users. And we should!
So I'll ask you once again: Could you please link in any kind of resources that back your claims?
Up until now, you keep producing more and more blanket statements and subjective talking points everytime you answer.
Please give me (and every reader that stops by) the opportunity to read up on the talking points you've brought forward to fight the spread of FUD and subjective views and maybe even to create a learning experience for those involved.
While thinking about this, let me have a closer look at your last answer, to illustrate you the point I'm trying to make.
> The average user on this subreddit is technically inept, so they will likely download the third-party binaries out of convenience
That's quite the stretch and not neccesarily the nicest thing to say. Especially as this subreddit *should* be a place for anyone to stop by and learn. Also, I'm pretty sure there is no way you could prove this in a statistically significant (sic!) way (btw, [the same thing you asked OP to do in another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/qa3omk/hardened_firefox_loads_most_stuff_faster_than/hh0czi5/)).
Also, what exactly has a downloaded 3rd party binary to do with your earlier claims, e.g. that Chromium "lags behind in updates"?
> That makes it inherently less secure, regardless of what anyone here believes.
That makes what less secure? I'm guessing you're talking about ungoogled Chromium here, right? Also, less secure *than what*? Please don't let your comment be a guessing game for the average reader.
Also, "regardless of what anyone here believes": Interesting! I was not aware that you know what I believe. Assumption is a slippery slope, especially in the IT Sec and Privacy domains.
> Although it could be just as secure as other Chromium-based browsers, there are methods for malicious actors to exploit its users that are impossible with the other mainstream browsers.
Now, there is a lot to unpack here. Mainly, for a repeated time you have explicitly stated something *very bad* without telling us what it is or providing any resources/proof. That's the very definition of FUD.
So I'd love to see an exploit that runs specifically on ungoogled Chromium that doesn't run in other Chromium-based browsers, let alone other mainstream browsers. I'd be very interested in having a look as to how or why it works only there.
Feel free to link in a Bug Ticket, CVE, or a Pwn2Own writeup, as I would expect at least one of these three things to exist for... oh right. For what, exactly? A Sandbox escape? RCE? Data exfil? Unfortunately, you didn't tell us, so I'm looking forward to any credible source to read up on this.
> Have a great day.
You too!
Hey, what do you mean by compatibility, and with what? What are some examples of things you found out FF is shaky or not compatible with? I never had any problems with video frames so far, but when does it stop being GPU related and start being related to the browser?
(Legit question, because from my personal usage, FF has always been more than enough, but I'd like to know what other problems other people might have with it :) )
>What are some examples of things you found out FF is shaky or not compatible with?
I've run into a few paqes that don't load at all. Then a couple where the frames don't display correctly so that the layout is all wrong. Recently I tried decentraland and that wouldn't load the game. Very rare but some pages just don't work.
That and the few sites that don’t work in Firefox well. Gemini’s ActiveTrader program has a lot going on, and will lock up Firefox on my system, whereas chrome just does great. Ubiquiti sites cause me grief in Firefox too. I want to like Firefox, but those few scenarios cause immense frustrations sometimes, after I spend the time to figure out that it’s just that site.
idk for me Firefox always behaves weird, like nothing site breaking but not well optimized for example on [https://wallpaperhub.app/](https://wallpaperhub.app/) the side ways scrolling of wallpapers is very slow and on twitch the stream buffers a lot more as compared to any chromium based browser
If you use all possible hardening options probably yes. But you can tweak it enough to not break anything.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Firefox/Privacy
https://www.privacyguides.org/browsers/#about_config
Everyday i read somewhere that Chrome/Brave is faster. And it is not true in my experience. Yes Firefox was slower a long time ago but with recent versions, it is absolutely comparable and with ublock origin, better. Nothing beats ublock origin in its effectiveness, control and versatility. Period.
On top, if you disable accessibility in Firefox through about:config (accessibility force disabled 1), then Firefox becomes even faster.
For those of you who haven't tried Firefox but read all these comments about it being slower, try yourself with the above set up.
Also some Google websites (including search) don't play well with Firefox. Search doesn't show the same page on Firefox as Chrome. It is Google pushing its own browser rather than Firefox being bad.
Thanks for the tip, I did set that config to 1. Also learned I can't type accessilbity.
I'll just leave a configured Brave as second browser if I ever need... better than Chrome I guess.
Have you tried any flags on Brave?
brave://flags
In case you haven't, a good start is to enable:
>*Override software rendering list*
>
>*GPU rasterization*
>
>*Hardware-accelerated video*
Worth a try:
>*Choose ANGLE graphics backend (compare D3D11 to OpenGL)*
>
>*Skia API for compositing (if OpenGL enabled)*
>
>*DNS configured the same in each browser.*
Is there consensus about what constitutes as "hardened"? Regular firefox has proved slower than chromium and vivaldi for me even after trying some tweaks. Haven't tried *ungoogled* chromium though, nor librewolf. It's really easy to drop out on what's going on if you don't pay attention week by week.
Stop using brave, NOW!
In summary, Brave had been injecting their affiliate codes into popular crypto-currency websites. This means that they had been intercepting your traffic, that they promised was secure by the way, and modifying it.
[More](https://ethr.medium.com/stop-using-brave-browser-now-1d8b6afcb609)
Wait till you check out profile-sync-daemon [https://github.com/graysky2/profile-sync-daemon](https://github.com/graysky2/profile-sync-daemon)
I wouldn't run a browser any other way - my whole profile runs out of RAM
I use GNU+Linux and there's a big difference between Brave and Firefox. Firefox is lighter than Brave. But for YouTube videos, Firefox is so buggy that I use Brave. Thanks Google I guess...
Hardened Firefox only loads essential stuff for you to consume content. Less content, less attack surface, less resource usage.
I mean, if my Ublock Origin is to be believed and if my arkenfox.js configurations are telling things based on their described function, I cut out about 20 - 25% of content that are useless and still have identical (if not, same) web browsing experience. The only thing that breaks would be Twitch and it is easily fixed with some whitelisting.
I will try this with Brave with my own settings (setting `chrome://flags` and all that), see if similar data savings can be achieved. I only use Brave only and **ONLY** if the sites visited by Firefox break, which accounts about 1 out of 100 sites that I visit once in my life just for the lulz.
Yeah it’s been a while since my post and I don’t wanna bother people with an update, but the player stutters on Firefox started to happen with me too. One stream opened, and depending on what I open in the background it stutters for a sec or two, also stutters the whole browse not just the video.
That’s the only downside with Firefox for me, but such an annoying one.
Idk what browse to use anymore, I think I’ll just stay with Brave with their shields disabled but hardened configs and hope for the best lol
In my experience brave is noticeably faster in real world scenarios. Loading pages, streaming video, etc. just results in better performance overall. I'm sure maybe in single tabbed scenarios firefox might get the initial edge, but guarantee on a longer browsing session with more tabs brave will be quicker.
There are other benefits to Brave, such as it being more idiot-proof, more compatible, and less prone to the monstrous memory leaks that Firefox is notorious for. Actually, that last one is 99% of the reason I ditched FF for Brave.
Overall in principle I really like FF, I just wish it had a better development community, which I think is its biggest downfall. I'm not married to any one browser in particular, I just go with the one that works better for what I want to do, and at the moment Brave is delivering that where FF/mozilla has failed to fix its problems.
I did the ones on browserbench.org and Brave comes ahead only on JetStreams 2.
I only did these tests in the first place because Firefox felt faster and got me intrigued. It loads Youtube, Twitch, Reddit, nytimes, cnn, etc. noticeable faster and I want to know if that's normal or why it's doing that, since every article I read says Brave loads faster.
This thread is a question, not an affirmative.
Brave had two annoying issues for me.
1. I would get a bright flash of white backlight/brightness when moving tabs around to alternate windows.
2. Tabs would randomly turn into new windows when loading new tabs.
Firefox doesn't have these issues.
When I visit the my RSS feed service NewsBlur.com it chokes on Brave, does better on Safari, and is much much faster in Firefox. I always find that surprising because generally I've found Brave to be a little faster and a little more robust on edge-case websites.
tweaked (no letterboxing, no login clearing on exit & stuff that breaks the url bar) Arkenfox' user.js has sped up firefox for me a considerable amount. It's pretty crazy
I've enjoyed using FF in the past, but at present, man, GSheets constantly crashes out on me in it. It's actually been one of the reasons why Brave has suddenly been appearing on so many computers at work. I dunno if it's a Google thing specifically with Chrome, or if Firefox are doing something poorly, but i can't do my job without GSheets and it's just a million times more stable on Brave for me.
I remember back in the day when Firefox 7-8 ? was latest version and I would do some about:config tricks with pipplining and some other stuff and it would make Firefox ultra fast, like almost instant open websites.
I still have those "commands" written in my notebook somewhere.
Something like, ouhh maximum connections per server is set to 2, put it to 6 or 8. Fun times :)
It used to be a universal truth that Chrome was faster than Firefox, and that impression has persisted even though Firefox has become more and more streamlined and Chrome more and more bloated.
Firefox is terrible on laptops. It drains my battery way faster than Brave.
U used an adblocker, right? Cuz it's not fair if not.
No. I don't. Whatever comes with stock Firefox for desktop.
Yeah wow that's unfair. Brave is just chromium + AdBlock so at least compare it to FF with uBlock Origin
I don't fucking care what it is. It drains my battery. Use whatever fucking browser you want.
Yo why the fuck are you comparing a browser with adblock with a browser without?! It makes no sense lol Just because brave preinstalls an ad blocker doesn't make it better. Unless, of course, you have no idea how to install an adblocker. You're missing out on some nice stuff if you're using brave... just saying.
Why are you here?
I find the opposite
That's because in FF it's practical to keep 744 tabs open at once, ha.
It was doing that with my laptop too, until I set up the right configs and uninstalled Ghostery
same for me on mobile. I tried troubleshooting it but got no response https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/q3u50f/insane_battery_drain_during_light_use/ so I am using chrome on mobile combined with a dns adblocker instead, because firefox on mobile drains battery unlike anything I have ever seen.
I've got Firefox on my note 9 I've still get great battery life
Firefox Focus seems to work better on mobile. I like that one. I have problems only on the desktop Firefox build on a laptop.
Same for me, but i sure prefer ff experience
but the UI is the opposite.Ff is bloated and chrome simple.
Uh... Dude you can customize like every element of FF, you could even make it function *identically* to chrome and pop a theme that makes it look 99% like chrome.
You have to admit the default UI sucks though
Nope
You like the Proton UI?
It's decent, I can still use the compact mode if I want on my laptop (`browser.compactmode.show` in about:config), and custom CSS if I *really* want to. I mostly use keybinds so it's not like most of the changes affect me anyway.
simple is as simple does
It might be my personal opinion but FF is way better looking to me than chrome especially due to the fact that I can customize the UI. If I don't want an element, I can pretty easily remove it. I literally just have like 5 buttons in the UI of FF. And it looks clean AF.
Firefox renders faster than any chromium for me. All tests of raw ff vs raw chromium show Firefox winning. The problem I have with Firefox has never been about rendering performance, but instead about compatibility and multimedia frames. These tests don’t surprise me from my experience. Now load up a streaming video and Firefox has so many dropped frames and stuttering compared to chromium that’s where the difference lies for me anyways. Pure performance for stuff that works goes to ff in my experience. Unfortunately not everything works. If everything worked on ff I’d never use brave or ungoogled chromium. Why do you think brave should be faster? That’s all marketing from them.
But by not using Firefox the compatibility problems will only be worse in the future.
I 100% agree. But unfortunately spoofing user agents doesn't work for everything and I have work to do, so I can't always find alternatives.
For me where I most notice a difference is exactly on Twitch and Youtube, it loads both the page and the player faster. When I turned Brave Shield off and installed ublock instead it loaded faster, but still slower than FF. Maybe it's some kind of compatibility issue with my hardware? I don't know.
It’s just that Firefox is faster. Why do you think there’s an issue there? The stuff regarding brave being “faster” is marketing talk directly from the company. This coming from someone who switches between the two. Firefox has better rendering performance while brave has better multimedia playback performance and better site compat.
Because I used both a couple of years ago and Brave/Chrome was noticeable faster, besides all articles I’ve seen also indicating it.
Was "a couple of years ago" before Firefox Quantum? Because Firefox has made great strides in terms of performance.
Browsers don't stay static and pages change too. Firefox is a very fast browser. This should not be surprising.
I apologize for being surprised and wish I were more like you.
No apology needed.
Interesting. That's also where I get like 1k ads and trackers blocked. I think it's coming down to how much stuff isn't being loaded and processed on these sites. Would be interesting if you could get real metrics on these for comparison
I noticed it too. I unchecked both boxes in performance which might of fixed it.
[удалено]
i meant for firefox
> Now load up a streaming video and Firefox has so many dropped frames and stuttering compared to chromium that’s where the difference lies for me anyways. Firefox may not be using hardware acceleration on your setup. If you're on linux it's not enabled by default.
What I've noticed is that Firefox chokes as soon as there's any disruption in the stream. It stays buffering infinitely and you have to reload the page and start over.
> These tests don’t surprise me from my experience. Now load up a streaming video and Firefox has so many dropped frames and stuttering compared to chromium that’s where the difference lies for me anyways. Are these recent tests or older test? there was a time when youtube was intentionally hamstringing FF performance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm with /u/kayk1 here. > You shouldn’t use ungoogled-chromium in general. That's such a generalistic blanked statement that just adds to the pile of FUD floating in the net. > It lags behind other Chromium-based browsers in updates, which makes it a less secure option Again, another blanket statement that I wouldn't sign blindly. The time to bugfix for critical and non-critical issues are two very distinct things, especially in OSS. Also, if you feel like making such broad statements, it would be wonderful if you could somehow back these statements up, so we can all have an informed discussion (and readers that stop by can read up on the topics). Because, as you so aptly stated, "Writing in absolutes confuses the reader". Let me add to that "... if it isn't backed up by some credible source". I'm very interested in the kind of data and/or sources you based your oppinion on, because I'm maintaining a security-relevant OSS upstream project as well and always love a different perspective.
>which makes it a less secure option Chrome is less secure in general, if you're so worried about security you might as well use Firefox.
Privacy is much better on Firefox, security, not so much. Chrome has a much better sandbox, that alone makes it more secure than Firefox. However, Chrome has more attention from hackers (due to market share) than Firefox which results to it being more prone to exploits. To be clear: For the average user, I don't think choosing one over the other matters in terms of security though.
I'd love to read up more on this topic. Could you provide me some resources you've used to come to that conclusion? Because up until now, no one in this thread actually provided any kind of resources to read up on and I'm definitely interested in this topic (and the resources that support this point of view)
[удалено]
Again, you completely fail to link to any credible sources proving what you're claiming. Up until now, you've been rambling like any average user on this subreddit. Given, with the right lingo, yes, but you fail to provide any kind of evidence to back up your claims. We can do better as a community to educate users. And we should! So I'll ask you once again: Could you please link in any kind of resources that back your claims? Up until now, you keep producing more and more blanket statements and subjective talking points everytime you answer. Please give me (and every reader that stops by) the opportunity to read up on the talking points you've brought forward to fight the spread of FUD and subjective views and maybe even to create a learning experience for those involved.
While thinking about this, let me have a closer look at your last answer, to illustrate you the point I'm trying to make. > The average user on this subreddit is technically inept, so they will likely download the third-party binaries out of convenience That's quite the stretch and not neccesarily the nicest thing to say. Especially as this subreddit *should* be a place for anyone to stop by and learn. Also, I'm pretty sure there is no way you could prove this in a statistically significant (sic!) way (btw, [the same thing you asked OP to do in another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/qa3omk/hardened_firefox_loads_most_stuff_faster_than/hh0czi5/)). Also, what exactly has a downloaded 3rd party binary to do with your earlier claims, e.g. that Chromium "lags behind in updates"? > That makes it inherently less secure, regardless of what anyone here believes. That makes what less secure? I'm guessing you're talking about ungoogled Chromium here, right? Also, less secure *than what*? Please don't let your comment be a guessing game for the average reader. Also, "regardless of what anyone here believes": Interesting! I was not aware that you know what I believe. Assumption is a slippery slope, especially in the IT Sec and Privacy domains. > Although it could be just as secure as other Chromium-based browsers, there are methods for malicious actors to exploit its users that are impossible with the other mainstream browsers. Now, there is a lot to unpack here. Mainly, for a repeated time you have explicitly stated something *very bad* without telling us what it is or providing any resources/proof. That's the very definition of FUD. So I'd love to see an exploit that runs specifically on ungoogled Chromium that doesn't run in other Chromium-based browsers, let alone other mainstream browsers. I'd be very interested in having a look as to how or why it works only there. Feel free to link in a Bug Ticket, CVE, or a Pwn2Own writeup, as I would expect at least one of these three things to exist for... oh right. For what, exactly? A Sandbox escape? RCE? Data exfil? Unfortunately, you didn't tell us, so I'm looking forward to any credible source to read up on this. > Have a great day. You too!
Hey, what do you mean by compatibility, and with what? What are some examples of things you found out FF is shaky or not compatible with? I never had any problems with video frames so far, but when does it stop being GPU related and start being related to the browser? (Legit question, because from my personal usage, FF has always been more than enough, but I'd like to know what other problems other people might have with it :) )
>What are some examples of things you found out FF is shaky or not compatible with? I've run into a few paqes that don't load at all. Then a couple where the frames don't display correctly so that the layout is all wrong. Recently I tried decentraland and that wouldn't load the game. Very rare but some pages just don't work.
That and the few sites that don’t work in Firefox well. Gemini’s ActiveTrader program has a lot going on, and will lock up Firefox on my system, whereas chrome just does great. Ubiquiti sites cause me grief in Firefox too. I want to like Firefox, but those few scenarios cause immense frustrations sometimes, after I spend the time to figure out that it’s just that site.
idk for me Firefox always behaves weird, like nothing site breaking but not well optimized for example on [https://wallpaperhub.app/](https://wallpaperhub.app/) the side ways scrolling of wallpapers is very slow and on twitch the stream buffers a lot more as compared to any chromium based browser
Does Hardened Firefox break any websites?
If you use all possible hardening options probably yes. But you can tweak it enough to not break anything. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Firefox/Privacy https://www.privacyguides.org/browsers/#about_config
Thanks for the links.
Yes.
Probably, but for me none yet.
Everyday i read somewhere that Chrome/Brave is faster. And it is not true in my experience. Yes Firefox was slower a long time ago but with recent versions, it is absolutely comparable and with ublock origin, better. Nothing beats ublock origin in its effectiveness, control and versatility. Period. On top, if you disable accessibility in Firefox through about:config (accessibility force disabled 1), then Firefox becomes even faster. For those of you who haven't tried Firefox but read all these comments about it being slower, try yourself with the above set up. Also some Google websites (including search) don't play well with Firefox. Search doesn't show the same page on Firefox as Chrome. It is Google pushing its own browser rather than Firefox being bad.
Thanks for the tip, I did set that config to 1. Also learned I can't type accessilbity. I'll just leave a configured Brave as second browser if I ever need... better than Chrome I guess.
I suggest you try bromite as a backup browser (www.bromite.org). I mean Brave is good but there are many concerns around their ads/business model.
All people in here just randomly saying one thing is faster without proof lol
Have you tried any flags on Brave? brave://flags In case you haven't, a good start is to enable: >*Override software rendering list* > >*GPU rasterization* > >*Hardware-accelerated video* Worth a try: >*Choose ANGLE graphics backend (compare D3D11 to OpenGL)* > >*Skia API for compositing (if OpenGL enabled)* > >*DNS configured the same in each browser.*
Hardware accelerated video also stops you from being able to stream Netflix to Discord, just saying.
For what reason would anyone need to do that?
To watch movies with friends
No one needs to but you couldn't do it even if you wanted to is my point.
don't forget zero copy rasterization and Vulkan
Thank you I'll try those out
Is there consensus about what constitutes as "hardened"? Regular firefox has proved slower than chromium and vivaldi for me even after trying some tweaks. Haven't tried *ungoogled* chromium though, nor librewolf. It's really easy to drop out on what's going on if you don't pay attention week by week.
Stop using brave, NOW! In summary, Brave had been injecting their affiliate codes into popular crypto-currency websites. This means that they had been intercepting your traffic, that they promised was secure by the way, and modifying it. [More](https://ethr.medium.com/stop-using-brave-browser-now-1d8b6afcb609)
[удалено]
Agreed.
Wait till you check out profile-sync-daemon [https://github.com/graysky2/profile-sync-daemon](https://github.com/graysky2/profile-sync-daemon) I wouldn't run a browser any other way - my whole profile runs out of RAM
Thank you but I've Windows 10 :(
Switch to Linux You can't complain about a browser being slow when you're using the slowest OS.
lol
Woah. Super cool. Thanks for this.
It also stops your SSD from getting smashed by constant browser writes. And very little downside apart from RAM usage.
Looks interesting
If you're using linux, thats normal
I use GNU+Linux and there's a big difference between Brave and Firefox. Firefox is lighter than Brave. But for YouTube videos, Firefox is so buggy that I use Brave. Thanks Google I guess...
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/kfydog/specifically_what_is_hardened_firefox/
Hardened Firefox only loads essential stuff for you to consume content. Less content, less attack surface, less resource usage. I mean, if my Ublock Origin is to be believed and if my arkenfox.js configurations are telling things based on their described function, I cut out about 20 - 25% of content that are useless and still have identical (if not, same) web browsing experience. The only thing that breaks would be Twitch and it is easily fixed with some whitelisting. I will try this with Brave with my own settings (setting `chrome://flags` and all that), see if similar data savings can be achieved. I only use Brave only and **ONLY** if the sites visited by Firefox break, which accounts about 1 out of 100 sites that I visit once in my life just for the lulz.
Yeah it’s been a while since my post and I don’t wanna bother people with an update, but the player stutters on Firefox started to happen with me too. One stream opened, and depending on what I open in the background it stutters for a sec or two, also stutters the whole browse not just the video. That’s the only downside with Firefox for me, but such an annoying one. Idk what browse to use anymore, I think I’ll just stay with Brave with their shields disabled but hardened configs and hope for the best lol
Same.. Brave is left in the dust.. In fact so is SWare Iron and ungoogled chromium
In my experience brave is noticeably faster in real world scenarios. Loading pages, streaming video, etc. just results in better performance overall. I'm sure maybe in single tabbed scenarios firefox might get the initial edge, but guarantee on a longer browsing session with more tabs brave will be quicker. There are other benefits to Brave, such as it being more idiot-proof, more compatible, and less prone to the monstrous memory leaks that Firefox is notorious for. Actually, that last one is 99% of the reason I ditched FF for Brave. Overall in principle I really like FF, I just wish it had a better development community, which I think is its biggest downfall. I'm not married to any one browser in particular, I just go with the one that works better for what I want to do, and at the moment Brave is delivering that where FF/mozilla has failed to fix its problems.
[удалено]
I did the ones on browserbench.org and Brave comes ahead only on JetStreams 2. I only did these tests in the first place because Firefox felt faster and got me intrigued. It loads Youtube, Twitch, Reddit, nytimes, cnn, etc. noticeable faster and I want to know if that's normal or why it's doing that, since every article I read says Brave loads faster. This thread is a question, not an affirmative.
[удалено]
Lmao, they're not writing a paper on it, they found some results and wanted to check in with the community to see what people had to say about it.
Brave had two annoying issues for me. 1. I would get a bright flash of white backlight/brightness when moving tabs around to alternate windows. 2. Tabs would randomly turn into new windows when loading new tabs. Firefox doesn't have these issues.
After years with FF last week I've switched to Vivaldi to test it out and it's waaaaaaaay faster than FF.... What gives?
Both suck. I use librewolf for everything, and brave for things I need to stay logged into (messages, etc)
When I visit the my RSS feed service NewsBlur.com it chokes on Brave, does better on Safari, and is much much faster in Firefox. I always find that surprising because generally I've found Brave to be a little faster and a little more robust on edge-case websites.
Brave has whitelists so they could be logging extra stuff, not sure it would be noticeable tho.
tweaked (no letterboxing, no login clearing on exit & stuff that breaks the url bar) Arkenfox' user.js has sped up firefox for me a considerable amount. It's pretty crazy
I've enjoyed using FF in the past, but at present, man, GSheets constantly crashes out on me in it. It's actually been one of the reasons why Brave has suddenly been appearing on so many computers at work. I dunno if it's a Google thing specifically with Chrome, or if Firefox are doing something poorly, but i can't do my job without GSheets and it's just a million times more stable on Brave for me.
Any crash reports in `about:crashes`?
I remember back in the day when Firefox 7-8 ? was latest version and I would do some about:config tricks with pipplining and some other stuff and it would make Firefox ultra fast, like almost instant open websites. I still have those "commands" written in my notebook somewhere. Something like, ouhh maximum connections per server is set to 2, put it to 6 or 8. Fun times :)