>Chrome is about to load web pages a lot faster than you've experienced up until now. Thanks to a new compression algorithm called Brotli, which Googleintroducedlast September, Chrome will be able to compress data up to 26 percent more than its existing compression engine, Zopfli, which is an impressive jump
RIP in piece firecuck
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/20/10797268/googles-new-algorithm-chrome-run-faster
FASTER BOTNET FOR EVERYONE!
>>52526755
You know that brotli was already added to firefox right?
I remember they saying the bro extension was offensive so it was changed to br...
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559
>>52526835
OP BTFO
just updated canary
>mfw
Webpages go through Google's srevers first, which means they'll be slower and you can't block ads. Only retards use this shit.
>>52526862
>literally ripping "botnets" compression engine
Freetards BTFO
>>52526861
>I have asked a feminist friend from the North American culture-sphere, and she advised against bro
This is ridiculous.
>>52526878
and here's the change from bro to br:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1211916
kids these days... blazing fast is to slow for them
>>52526861
>>52526878
>>52526889
So OP is an uninformed faggot and firefox is sjw shit.
And it's not botnet, you can use this to compress the files in your server just like gzip.
and someone has hidden most of the oposing comments
it's done
call it pcfox and let it die and hopefully the feminazi pc and leftis would suffer in the process
>>52526876
That is a pretty pathetic attempt at making having a fast browser that doesn't constantly report back to big brother sound like a bad thing.
Compressing what? Cached data?
>>52526755
>new compression algorithm
>faster
more like almost no change because the servers you are getting data from won't use the improved compression for years
>>52526878
by changing bro to br they save, like, a byte
It will be faster because so much js goes through google's servers, and of course google will be using this new compression algorithm on their servers.
Personally I block all js from google, but for the rest of you botnet users it should get you ever more firmly wedged into google's craw. Cheers.
>try 1080@60 fps video on chrome / firefox HTML5
FF 10% CPU
Chrome 45%
>>52526755
>a new compression algorithm called Brotli
>>52526861
so it's just LZMA, thank god google for your new invention
This is just a haggling game.
Would you give Google 100% access to all your digital info if it meant 1 second downloads/uploads for any size of file from any kind of device?
>>52527145
No, it compress like lzma (sometimes better sometimes worse) but it's a lot faster decoding.
>>52527122
and mpc-hc uses like 3%
browsers are not and should not be media players
>>52527181
You don't need google to use brotli at all you can use like a gzip replacement.
dunno about windows, but on OS X chrome is a lot quicker at loading pages (especially ones you've never visited) compared to firefox
>>52526878
> >I have asked a feminist friend from the North American culture-sphere, and she advised against bro
>This is ridiculous.
>>52526945
>and firefox is sjw shit.
Wait wait wait.
While they of course are, the guy with the "asked feminist friend" thing is actually the developer of brotli and since brotli was developed at Google we can assume he is not a member of Mozilla.
>>52527040
>Compressing what? Cached data?
When your browser and the server communicate and agree they support the same compression then the server can send its data in compressed form using one of multiple algorithms (and brotli is a new one).
This means it's useless the server supports (and actually offers - costs CPU after all) it.
>>52527497
yes, but as far as i know this discussion about the BRO files was started by mozilla, then the author asked a few questions and changed the extensions from bro to br... but it's fucking ridiculous and a waste of time to be concern about this things in software development.
It could be right if the extension was slut or nigger but not for BRO.
>>52527313
And at the same time uses a ridiculous amount of more CPU. The increased CPU usage is in no relation to the quicker looking page load.
>>52527562
What's the point of not using more CPU if it's available?
>>52527554
>yes, but as far as i know this discussion about the BRO files was started by mozilla
Which discussion? Did you even look at the ticket?
Brotli's developer said he wants to establish a .bro file extension, then one person in a public bug tracker (everybody can post) said it's not a good idea and another one said bro is fine. Next thing brotli's developer announced to use br and the above mentioned feminist shit.
You can hardly call that a discussion and the people for/against bro were exactly 1/1...
>>52527597
Because depending on how you rent/whatever the servers it costs you money?
I'm not talking about the client. He doesn't care.
>>52527642
Oh. Well, I don't have a server so I don't really give a fuck.
>>52527554
There's a technical reason for .br as well though. .br being shorter uses slightly less bytes
>>52526755
Wait, doesn't that mean that either all webservers need to support this or that all traffic passes through Google servers?
>>52527911
Brotli is a open source compression format, it's not tied to chrome specifically OP is just a faggot
>>52527911
The former.
>I'mplying IIS will ever support this
>>52528055
Considering it's open source and brings better compression with low resource usage it would be kinda stupid not to at some point.
>>52526878
>>52526861
They should rename broccoli too
>>52527313
OS X Firefox is really bad. I'm not sure what the deal exactly is but it runs so, so much worse than Safari/Chrome.
So it loads pages 0.0001 seconds faster? Holy shit this is big!!!
>>52528140
Firefox runs like ass on linux as well in my experience. I'm kinda hoping e10s fixes that on linux
>>52528140
>OS X Firefox is really bad. I'm not sure what the deal exactly is but it runs so, so much worse than Safari/Chrome.
Please tell me where Chrome "runs" (not: looks) better. I would actually like to use it and already mirrored all my FF settings/plugins but it's just burning so much more CPU compared to FF.
Do you just not care?
>>52527313
It's hard to really compare them because chrome preloads pages in the background. Chrome does have the advantage of being multiprocess though which reduces the amount of hangs from content processes running too long
>>52528263
The scrolling is a lot more fluid, on FF it feels a lot more jumpy and laggy. It gets to the point where after several hours of use, I have to quit and reopen Firefox to stop it from lagging so damn much, especially when there's multiple tabs open.
I'm not really monitoring CPU usage, I just notice that FF gets stuck and slows down all the time for me. I'd be more than happy to switch to FF since it has better extensions and the history isn't completely worthless, but it just runs terribly for me. (Mid 2012 rMBP, 16GB RAM, 2.6GHz i7)
>>52528343
But that really sounds like a problem on your end. Using a 13" MBP from 2015 (16GB RAM, FF currently uses 1.4GB), with a system uptime of 8 days (the same for FF) and currently 63 tabs (according to Session Manager) and 23 addons -- everything runs butter smooth and just fine.
And in the same configuration Chrome uses for me approx. thrice the amount of CPU which just eats my battery way faster. Compared to Safari FF uses really a lot of battery but Chrome is just whole other league.
If there are any tricks to turn Chrome to FF level (or even lower) in terms of CPU usage... I'd really like to know...
>>52526755
>he doesn't use Pale Moon
https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon/commit/2ce4f11c3224ba0e621436a9a362137b6ed5ff3d
KEK
>>52529129
>he doesn't use Pale Moon
He's not a complete idiot then.
