Going fullscreen in youtube is always instant in Chrome. In Firefox however, it is very slow (like 5s) when you have 1000 tabs open.

Even opening a select box is slow, if you have several 1000 tabs.

Funny enough, opening a new window (and keeping all the other tabs open) makes it fast again, if you are in that window.

Seems like Firefox has some slow code paths, like notifying every tab about going fullscreen?

> Going fullscreen in youtube is always instant in Chrome. In Firefox however, it is very slow (like 5s) when you have 1000 tabs open.

Is it possible to have 1000 tabs open in Chrome? When I had like 50, it ate my whole 8GB last time I tried it.

In Firefox I frequently have 1000 tabs with no issues. (almost none, recently I noticed that there is some memory leak and the ram slowly disappears).

This is the reason why I went back to Firefox after using Chrome for like 2 weeks, it is great for 1-10 tabs.

I don't know if anybody REALLY can have more than 1000 tabs open as in completely loaded into RAM. When my computer is slow I pray that I don't have any unsent edit windows or unfinished youtube/twitch videos and just kill all the render processes.

Chrome kills them regularly on it's own, which means they simply crash with out of memory.

For me, Chrome generally handles killed renderers better, e.g. it shows a popup about crashed extensions and just reloads them. Firefox requires me to quickly disable and enable adblock and I lose the build in screenshot extension permanently (except disabling and renabling it with about:config). But for chrome a renderer often just freezes and only a day later there is a popup about it which offers to kill it.

Firefox seems to handle the tabs better overall, but at some point session resume fails with javascript errors in the shell. Chrome seems to handle session restore a bit better.

Yes. I remember when I first tried Chrome. It launched within 10 seconds while Firefox 3? 4?, my default browser back then, took almost half a minute to launch. It was fast.

That's relatively irrelevant - Chrome was much faster at the most important sites - which are coincidentally mostly google owned - but still faster - GMail, Youtube, Google itself felt faster on Chrome back then. Then there's the flash handling which was important back then.

Also FF was shitty at stability, it didn't have multi process architecture for the longest time and I've had a page crash my entire browser (especially in the flash days) regularly.

And then chrome started pushing excellent dev tools (even in FF nightly I get dev tools hanging on complex sites because of how slow they are)

Chrome was the better browser back then and it won the power users and developers, then it took over the casuals as it was advertised on google and it was recommended as the best by everyone - it took FF too long to catch up and now a lot of sites don't even test compatibility - I've been trying to switch back to FF before this fiasco for a month and it wasn't a smooth experience compatibility wise.

It sounds like you're describing how long it takes the browser to launch, when earlier you were describing how long it took to load pages? Browser launch time isn't nearly as important to most people as speed once running, because mostly you open the browser once, and then load many pages.