> No matter how much you had, it would eat it. I remember being mocked for the number of tabs I would always have open, but secretly, they were just jealous that it was actually possible.
Confused about this comment. At all points during the history of even single-process Firefox, as far as I know, it could handle far more tabs than Chrome, as in not even worth comparing. Chrome would start actively falling apart at 100 tabs. Firefox could eat up all of your memory with 20 tabs, but would only be marginally worse at 1000 tabs.
Firefox died because it systematically started eliminating all of its advantages over Chrome and imitating it in even superficial ways, and became openly user-hostile as it became completely financially dependent on Google. Imo it had only a little bit to do with Chrome's performance, which was often based on visually cheating and assuming that nobody needed more than 20 tabs, but also had tab isolation so the browser wasn't always hard crashing. Still, plenty of people are impressed by a quickly appearing unresponsive UI, plenty don't need more than 20 tabs, and hard crashes suck.
> For the tabs man, I needed those tabs.
I needed tree-style vertical tabs, so I was locked in because Chrome wasn't flexible enough to build them.
