Firefox 2.0!

Post by **benryves** » Thu 26 Oct, 2006 1:46 pm

Have they fixed the utterly abysmal memory usage of previous versions?

KermMartian · Post by **KermMartian** » Thu 26 Oct, 2006 2:12 pm

benryves wrote:Have they fixed the utterly abysmal memory usage of previous versions?

I sure hope so. /me checks task manager. O.o 215MB? For three tabs?! Nope, they haven't fixed it.

Arcane WIzard · Post by **Arcane WIzard** » Thu 26 Oct, 2006 5:06 pm

threefingeredguy wrote:
Jim e wrote:
threefingeredguy wrote:*cough*Opera is better*cough*
No not really, just faster and smaller.
And more secure, more standards compliant, and less CPU intensive. But I guess you can't live without adblock...oh wait, Opera has that built-in. I guess you need your popup blocker...oh wait, Opera has that built-in. I guess you need your Webdev toolbar...oh wait, you can download it here. I honestly don't see the appeal of the bloatware known as Firefox when there is a much more capable browser available for the same price.

You do realise that bloated means a piece of software has a lot of functionality, right? Like Opera, and unlike FireFox. (If your extensions are slowing you down then you're doing it wrong.)

benryves wrote:
kv83 wrote:I'm trying Opera atm... it's so slow... why?
Given that it's generally regarded as one of the fastest browsers - are you running it in a 486?

Opera being the fastest is soooo 5 years ago, now the hardware and browser configuration actually matters when it comes to either browser's performance.

kerm_martian wrote:
benryves wrote:Have they fixed the utterly abysmal memory usage of previous versions?
I sure hope so. /me checks task manager. O.o 215MB? For three tabs?! Nope, they haven't fixed it.

I daily run into times where I have over 100 tabs open in FF without taking up more than 300MB RAM. learn2browse?

FF2 is utter crap for now because it doesn't support 99.999999999999% of all currently excisting usefull extensions and it probably never ever will support all of them again.

ps.

WGET $1 | VI $1 IS SUPERIOR TO ALL BROWSERS

also fasterfox for the win

KermMartian · Post by **KermMartian** » Thu 26 Oct, 2006 5:11 pm

Arcane WIzard wrote:
kerm_martian wrote:
benryves wrote:Have they fixed the utterly abysmal memory usage of previous versions?
I sure hope so. /me checks task manager. O.o 215MB? For three tabs?! Nope, they haven't fixed it.
I daily run into times where I have over 100 tabs open in FF without taking up more than 300MB RAM. learn2browse?

Yeah, but each of my tabs had several dozens of pages of history; perhaps I just need to tweak my about:config settings for page caching.

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Thu 26 Oct, 2006 5:48 pm

Arcane WIzard wrote:You do realise that bloated means a piece of software has a lot of functionality, right? Like Opera, and unlike FireFox. (If your extensions are slowing you down then you're doing it wrong.)

FF with extensions is bloated. And a barebone FF install isn’t that much smaller than Opera...

Arcane WIzard wrote:FF2 is utter crap for now because it doesn't support 99.999999999999% of all currently excisting usefull extensions and it probably never ever will support all of them again.

It’s not the first time extensions are getting broken with new versions...

Arcane WIzard wrote:WGET $1 | VI $1 IS SUPERIOR TO ALL BROWSERS

Except if you want to browse the web.

threefingeredguy · Post by **threefingeredguy** » Thu 26 Oct, 2006 8:52 pm

kv83 wrote:I'm trying Opera atm... it's so slow... why?

Perhaps the current build is bugged. If you want, try 9.01 Final. I'll check and see if there are any problems with the current one being reported.

anykey · Post by **anykey** » Fri 27 Oct, 2006 1:18 am

I wouldn't call firefox bloatware at all!
From my experience with opera on my mac, I'll stick with firefox. The whole Opera interface felt buggy, and I had trouble loading video content, which firefox handled without a hitch. Opera felt really slow, especially compared with how fast firefox runs on this computer.

I was afraid this thread would be taken over by browser wars...can we *please* just give it a rest and talk about this firefox release? No flamewars.

Shadow Phoenix · Post by **Shadow Phoenix** » Fri 27 Oct, 2006 4:37 am

kerm_martian wrote:
benryves wrote:Have they fixed the utterly abysmal memory usage of previous versions?
I sure hope so. /me checks task manager. O.o 215MB? For three tabs?! Nope, they haven't fixed it.

91 Megabytes for 10 tabs right now.....

FF2 is utter crap for now because it doesn't support 99.999999999999% of all currently excisting usefull extensions and it probably never ever will support all of them again.

Work for me fine.....

coelurus · Post by **coelurus** » Fri 27 Oct, 2006 7:16 am

(Small sidenote: I hope IE7 is better than IE6, I've never really used it so I shouldn't comment.)

Alright, back to firefox. Used 2.0 for a couple of days, works nice. That's all there is to it for me

Arcane WIzard · Post by **Arcane WIzard** » Fri 27 Oct, 2006 2:03 pm

CoBB wrote:
Arcane WIzard wrote:FF2 is utter crap for now because it doesn't support 99.999999999999% of all currently excisting usefull extensions and it probably never ever will support all of them again.
ItÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not the first time extensions are getting broken with new versions...

orly?

Arcane WIzard wrote:WGET $1 | VI $1 IS SUPERIOR TO ALL BROWSERS
Except if you want to browse the web.

hence wget ; )

FF2 is utter crap for now because it doesn't support 99.999999999999% of all currently excisting usefull extensions and it probably never ever will support all of them again.
Work for me fine.....

Good for you. You must not be using many/usefull extensions.

CompWiz · Post by **CompWiz** » Fri 27 Oct, 2006 2:47 pm

kerm_martian wrote:
benryves wrote:Have they fixed the utterly abysmal memory usage of previous versions?
I sure hope so. /me checks task manager. O.o 215MB? For three tabs?! Nope, they haven't fixed it.

I think that Firefox 3 is the version they plan on dramatically reducing memory usage. From what I've read though, they call it a feature. They say it increases performance if you return to pages you have recently visited or something. Anyway, there's an easy fix on the config page if you don't like it. Or, just download the Firefox 3 alpha.

Arcane WIzard · Post by **Arcane WIzard** » Fri 27 Oct, 2006 4:18 pm

CompWiz wrote:They say it increases performance if you return to pages you have recently visited or something.

That's browser caching, which is not a new feature.

Anyway, there's an easy fix on the config page if you don't like it.

Which only fixes the memory leak, not the need for high amounts of memory.

Or, just download the Firefox 3 alpha.

link?

CompWiz · Post by **CompWiz** » Fri 27 Oct, 2006 4:25 pm

Arcane WIzard wrote:
Or, just download the Firefox 3 alpha.
link?

link

anykey · Post by **anykey** » Sun 29 Oct, 2006 4:21 am

@ArcaneWIzard: lets see...from reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you don't like firefox. Good for you. Maybe if you stopped reminding us in EVERY SINGLE POST, we could all get on with our lives and have constructive conversation.

Arcane WIzard · Post by **Arcane WIzard** » Sun 29 Oct, 2006 7:19 am

@whoever you are: lets see...from reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you don't understand a thing I've said. Good for you. Maybe if you stopped reminding us in EVERY SINGLE POST, we could all get on with our lives and have constructive conversation.