Firefox slow - Chrome a better choice?

[soybean]

Goes WAYYYYY slower then FF. I thought it might have been a cache issue, so I loaded my web page a few times in a row in Chrome.

Well, that's not the typical experience people have with Chrome.  If it was, they wouldn't be using it ... it's just that simple.  I have Chrome and Firefox installed on my notebook PC.  I have no inclination to defend Chrome.  I've mainly used Firefox for the last two years or longer.  In the last 2 or 3 months, I've been using Chrome - and Opera on another computer - just to get familiar with them in anticipation of a discussion on browsers as a topic at a monthly meeting of a computer users' group to which I belong.  Believe me, my use of Chrome would have ended quickly if it were noticeably slower than Firefox, but it isn't.  I find it generally quite responsive and definitely not slower than Firefox.

I have no  idea why Chrome generates instances of tasks in Task Manager each time an additional tab is opened unless it's a technique that's they found improves speed.  But, based on my observation, the sum of the CPU usage shown in Task Manager for Chrome is not greater than what Firefox uses to display the same websites.  So, I don't see this as a serious negative point regarding Chrome. 

[2x3i5x]

Seriously, WHY DID THEY USE MULTIPLE PROCESSES? unless they think their javascript engine is likely to crash completely, they should have just used multiple threads.

Read this: http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-models

[BC_Programmer]

Read this: http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-models

I'm well aware of why they did it. And it's still stupid. There is no reason not to use threads. It's complete nonsense.

But, based on my observation, the sum of the CPU usage shown in Task Manager for Chrome is not greater than what Firefox uses to display the same websites.  So, I don't see this as a serious negative point regarding Chrome. 

Your missing my point. every process is scheduled based on their priority- Each process is given a specific slice of processor time.

IF chrome has 2 processes- it will get twice as many timeslices as say, IE, since IE is a single process. This balloons with each "new process" it spawns. It doesn't matter wether that timeslice is used- you still lose the CPU time required to context switch to and from the processes.

[Cityscape]

whaaaaaa? You run mspaint through WINE on Ubuntu? That's just... crazy. Well, unless you mean Paint.NET.

No I meant MS Paint. I used it when I was on Windows and it did everything I needed. So when I switched to Ubuntu I just continued using it. But now that I've just installed Ubuntu I don't think I'll be using MS Paint anymore. I'll be using mtPaint or Krita.

But E-mail should be handled by something else. when I use the "Send" command in Paint Shop Pro, for example, it uses my default E-mail handler, thunderbird.

I fully agree here. Actually integrated email was tried with Netscape/Mozilla and it was not so successful. Then Mozilla decided to create a new browser (called Pheonix, later Firebird & Firefox) which offered all  these extra's in the form of addons. And guess what, it was successful. I personally like the addons idea to add things to a browser because not everyone will want say IRC chat.

[johngetter]

well chromes not as secire but heck its blazing fast