Comments on: Looking Ahead to Firefox 3.6: Speed Matters http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/ Open Source, Open Standards Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:48:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: jsilve1 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6847 jsilve1 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6847 <p>STABILITY! PROCESS ISOLATION! Those are more important than speed improvements. It would be nice if FF did not crash daily, or crash in response to being really hammered hard. I routinely open up 100+ tabs and have active processes in each. But FF is not happy with that situation...</p> <p>I know, the \"crashes daily\" is not a common experience, but it has been my experience with pretty much every version of FF, so not sure what I\'m doing wrong. It\'s probably all the extensions I add. No, wait? All the? I only add like three extensions... hmm, alright, 9. But that doesn\'t seem like that many, really.</p> <p>Ah, well...</p> <p>Now Opera -- *that* is a great browser![1]</p> <p>[1] I actually like FF just fine, on the whole. But I don\'t love it like I do some software, like, say, Gvim, or rsync, or even Apache. Opera is a browser one can fall in love with -- FireFox is not. It\'s subtle, that difference. </p> STABILITY! PROCESS ISOLATION! Those are more important than speed improvements. It would be nice if FF did not crash daily, or crash in response to being really hammered hard. I routinely open up 100+ tabs and have active processes in each. But FF is not happy with that situation…

I know, the \”crashes daily\” is not a common experience, but it has been my experience with pretty much every version of FF, so not sure what I\’m doing wrong. It\’s probably all the extensions I add. No, wait? All the? I only add like three extensions… hmm, alright, 9. But that doesn\’t seem like that many, really.

Ah, well…

Now Opera — *that* is a great browser![1]

[1] I actually like FF just fine, on the whole. But I don\’t love it like I do some software, like, say, Gvim, or rsync, or even Apache. Opera is a browser one can fall in love with — FireFox is not. It\’s subtle, that difference.

]]> By: jhooper http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6848 jhooper Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6848 <p>stop talking</p> <p>.. </p> stop talking

..

]]> By: masinick http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6849 masinick Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6849 <p>Firefox has steadily improved. Firefox 3 was easily faster than 2.0, Firefox 3.5 was easily faster than 3.0, and improvements continue to come.</p> <p>Firefox is considerably more feature rich compared to Google Chrome. Only individuals can decide whether the rich features or the absolute fastest performance are the most critical reasons to choose a browser.</p> <p>I don\'t choose one or the other; I use a variety of browsers. Seamonkey Nightly Build is my regular browser, Firefox Nightly Build is next, then I use Midori, Chrome, and several others from time to time. Midori beats Chrome in my book. It is difficult to distinguish speed between Chrome and Midori, but Midori is closer to Firefox in features, such as font management and bookmark handling, so to me that matters. </p> Firefox has steadily improved. Firefox 3 was easily faster than 2.0, Firefox 3.5 was easily faster than 3.0, and improvements continue to come.

Firefox is considerably more feature rich compared to Google Chrome. Only individuals can decide whether the rich features or the absolute fastest performance are the most critical reasons to choose a browser.

I don\’t choose one or the other; I use a variety of browsers. Seamonkey Nightly Build is my regular browser, Firefox Nightly Build is next, then I use Midori, Chrome, and several others from time to time. Midori beats Chrome in my book. It is difficult to distinguish speed between Chrome and Midori, but Midori is closer to Firefox in features, such as font management and bookmark handling, so to me that matters.

]]> By: dwolsten http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6850 dwolsten Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6850 <p>That gradients page would have been a lot more interesting if they had made it work on other browsers, since not exactly a lot of people are using FF 3.6a. All they had to do was put in .png pictures of what they look like so we could get a glimpse of what\'s coming, instead of some stupid white boxes. </p> That gradients page would have been a lot more interesting if they had made it work on other browsers, since not exactly a lot of people are using FF 3.6a. All they had to do was put in .png pictures of what they look like so we could get a glimpse of what\’s coming, instead of some stupid white boxes.

]]> By: sstory http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6851 sstory Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6851 <p>My main concern with Chrome, is can we really trust Google? What do you think the company that wants to index everything in existence, will do if you use their browser? Log every place you go and every piece of information so that they can channel the appropriate advertising to you. That\'s my suspicion and it is enough to keep me from using Chrome browser or Chrome OS. </p> My main concern with Chrome, is can we really trust Google? What do you think the company that wants to index everything in existence, will do if you use their browser? Log every place you go and every piece of information so that they can channel the appropriate advertising to you. That\’s my suspicion and it is enough to keep me from using Chrome browser or Chrome OS.

]]> By: burdebc http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6852 burdebc Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6852 <p>Just as a joke I ran SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark with IE and IE 64. The times were 8405ms and 8548ms respectively. Compared to 1550ms for Firefox 3.5.2 and 1029ms for Chrome 2.0.172.39. I never thought the numbers would be this bad. </p> Just as a joke I ran SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark with IE and IE 64. The times were 8405ms and 8548ms respectively. Compared to 1550ms for Firefox 3.5.2 and 1029ms for Chrome 2.0.172.39. I never thought the numbers would be this bad.

]]> By: sfarber53 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6853 sfarber53 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6853 <p>jsilve1 should wake-up to the idea that 100+ open tabs might be unreasonable. How do you keep track of that many? Do you suffer from ADD and keep opening tabs without regard to those you have read?</p> <p>Everything has its limits. Expecting a browser to keep track of your bad habits without crashing strikes me as seriously unreasonable. </p> jsilve1 should wake-up to the idea that 100+ open tabs might be unreasonable. How do you keep track of that many? Do you suffer from ADD and keep opening tabs without regard to those you have read?

Everything has its limits. Expecting a browser to keep track of your bad habits without crashing strikes me as seriously unreasonable.

]]> By: pinebud http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6854 pinebud Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6854 <p>Other criteria like fairness or multitasking might be more important than the performance. We did some test with a scenario that plays HD video during web-browsing on HyperThreading enabled CPU. Internet Explorer just works flawlessly, but Firefox hogs CPU with Flash or javascript pages and the video clip shows blinking. Users might not notice 1 sec better loading time or faster javascript execution, but it is annoying if multiple web browsers affects the performance of other applications in case of me. </p> Other criteria like fairness or multitasking might be more important than the performance. We did some test with a scenario that plays HD video during web-browsing on HyperThreading enabled CPU. Internet Explorer just works flawlessly, but Firefox hogs CPU with Flash or javascript pages and the video clip shows blinking. Users might not notice 1 sec better loading time or faster javascript execution, but it is annoying if multiple web browsers affects the performance of other applications in case of me.

]]> By: jsilve1 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6855 jsilve1 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7471/#comment-6855 <p>@sfarber53</p> <p>I\'m not *browsing* when I open up 100+ tabs; I\'m updating websites as part of my job. The update process for this particular software is hands-off, but does require HTTP access of the update page. Also, although I can semi-automate the process with a (wget or cURL)+shell script, I still unfortunately need to touch the sites manually at one or two points in the process.</p> <p>Anyway, yes, I realize that I am over-utilizing the thing (FF, I mean).</p> <p>But I do still experience crashing on at a minimum weekly, if not daily, basis, of FF. Although of late, it seems to have gotten better. after updating to FF 3.0.11+ (on 3.0.13 currently -- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009080315 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Firefox/3.0.13 Glubble/2.0.4.7) )</p> <p>later, linuxolians </p> @sfarber53

I\’m not *browsing* when I open up 100+ tabs; I\’m updating websites as part of my job. The update process for this particular software is hands-off, but does require HTTP access of the update page. Also, although I can semi-automate the process with a (wget or cURL)+shell script, I still unfortunately need to touch the sites manually at one or two points in the process.

Anyway, yes, I realize that I am over-utilizing the thing (FF, I mean).

But I do still experience crashing on at a minimum weekly, if not daily, basis, of FF. Although of late, it seems to have gotten better. after updating to FF 3.0.11+ (on 3.0.13 currently — Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009080315 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Firefox/3.0.13 Glubble/2.0.4.7) )

later, linuxolians

]]>