zlacker

>>akyuu+(OP)
Firefox is a great browser and Mozilla is a (generally) great organization. It's my daily driver on all my devices (except my TV ha), it's fast and has great plugins that also work in mobile. Philosophically I'm very much a "root for the underdog" type of person so it makes me happy that way, too. Only very rarely (every few months) am I forced to use Chrome for a site - and in my view, that's a huge ding on the site devs, not on Firefox.

It's strange hearing reports of "scroll lag" in the other comments. It's possible I'm just lucky. Or there's a misconfiguration somewhere in their setup that Chrome somehow avoids.

It's true that I still mostly use Chrome for webdev - I've become more used to it's (excellent) dev tools, even though Firefox and Firebug started that whole trend. It feels very right to separate my "user browser" from my "dev browser" in this way!

>>javajo+o8
>It's strange hearing reports of "scroll lag" in the other comments. It's possible I'm just lucky. Or there's a misconfiguration somewhere in their setup that Chrome somehow avoids.

Don't forget the other possibility: someone using Firefox having internalized this lag as "normal behavior".

>>coldte+ea
As an aside, I am very much against this trend of accusing people of "internalizing" a bad thing such that they aren't aware of it. It's using therapy-speak as an ad hominem attack, and in my view reflects poorly on the speaker. Most of the people on HN are software developers and are conversant in a wide variety of tools on many platforms, and certainly I am (one can infer that from my post). So to assert that I simply don't know what scroll lag looks like is not only absurd, but also fundamentally disrespectful and ignorant. The simple fact is that you do not, cannot, know what other people experience on their machines. Each physical system is characterized by roughly 10e10 bits - the number of combinations is (10e10)!. In other words, wild and alien configurations exist that you've never seen, and cannot imagine. Compared to this, the chances that someone has software that behaves slightly differently on their system than on your system is approaching 1.

Have some humility.

>>javajo+Ch
Except people really do internalize lag as "normal behavior". Back when PC monitors were stuck at 60Hz, people would unironically claim that "the human eye can't see more than 60 fps". Of course they changed their tune after experiencing lower input lag

>>NavinF+HW
I agree that the human eye can see higher than 60Hz, especially in the peripheral vision where VR research shows we need at least 90Hz to not get sick and 120Hz works better.

That said, there is something to be said for modern applications just running way below the limits of the refresh rate of our screens: https://twitter.com/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960

>>entrop+8e1
I saw that thread and could not relate. Both my desktop (5800x3d/64GB/4090/4K120) and laptop (M2 Pro/32GB/3K120) are just as snappy as that 600MHz machine. More importantly, my machines stay snappy under more demanding workloads which that old machine can't do.

In the next tweet he compares it to a stock Surface Go 2 (quad-core i5 processor at 2.4GHz, 8GB RAM, SSD) and seems to be surprised that it performs like crap. His 600MHz CPU is sufficient to get decent input lag from NT 3.51 which lists a 25 MHz CPU as it's minimum spec just as my machines get decent input lag from Windows/macOS which list a 1.2 GHz CPU as the minimum spec.

I know clock speed is a bad metric, but you get the point. Your hardware needs to be well above the minimum spec by an order of magnitude if you want acceptable latency