Recommended Posts

Is it only me that when some images have some time of error, they simple don't show up?

That is a bit anoying since when we are seing some websites there is nothing that can tell us that should be there one image that is not working fine :s

Cheers

I had a problem like that, my router was causing it. Does it happen on every browser or just firefox ?

Scrolling really sucks in Firefox on Mac OS X. Instead of being smooth it jerks around when using a Magic Mouse or Magic Trackpad. In general Firefox' animations are awkward and nowhere near as smooth as throughout the rest of the OS and its applications, or completely missing. Yet another reason why using customs interface APIs instead of the native ones is a really bad idea.

Scrolling really sucks in Firefox on Mac OS X. Instead of being smooth it jerks around when using a Magic Mouse or Magic Trackpad. In general Firefox' animations are awkward and nowhere near as smooth as throughout the rest of the OS and its applications, or completely missing. Yet another reason why using customs interface APIs instead of the native ones is a really bad idea.

Not my experience. My Alu MacBook has perfect scrolling on nearly all sites I visit.

Not my experience. My Alu MacBook has perfect scrolling on nearly all sites I visit.

Compared to Safari, Finder, Mail, iCal etc. Firefox' scrolling is really jerky with inertia enabled. Firefox only scrolls smoothly when holding down my fingers without letting go when I move around. But when I give a flick with two fingers to scroll and inertia kicks in scrolling starts to stutter.

They really changed the about:config strings to make it almost unrecognizable for some settings compared to FF3.

I was trying to change the default search for the address bar to Bing by searching for the keyword.url as I used to, but now it is browser.search.defaultsearchengine.

Compared to Safari, Finder, Mail, iCal etc. Firefox' scrolling is really jerky with inertia enabled. Firefox only scrolls smoothly when holding down my fingers without letting go when I move around. But when I give a flick with two fingers to scroll and inertia kicks in scrolling starts to stutter.

I don't have any of that.

Needs a new option: "Are We Relevant Yet?"

Mozilla really needs to step up their game if they don't want to be left in the dust. FF4 is a joke at this point.

How exactly is it a joke?... Sure it's slow on development process... but it's still better then Chrome IMO. Firefox for me was lacking a bit in speed with Firefox 3. With Firefox 4 the speed has picked up a lot and is now the clear winner for me. Chrome is missing quite a few features I just cannot live without.

And what exacyly is the joke?Can you be more specific???

I don't know about you,but the only joke i see is your post Educated Idiot.Firefox is faster,has betterUI and a lot more options and addons than chrome(this is my personal opinion).For me on sunspider or kraken benchmark or in real life browsing FF 4 is better than chrome in any way.As Kaoxt said development is not as fast as we would like, but after FF4 they are going in a faster release cycle so this will not be a problem anymore.

Needs a new option: "Are We Relevant Yet?"

Mozilla really needs to step up their game if they don't want to be left in the dust. FF4 is a joke at this point.

To be honest I think 4.0 is a GREAT update. I considered using Chrome but ended up going back to FF4 :/ I might give Safari 5.1 another shot in Lion but we'll see... I'm not holding my breath

How exactly is it a joke?... Sure it's slow on development process... but it's still better then Chrome IMO. Firefox for me was lacking a bit in speed with Firefox 3. With Firefox 4 the speed has picked up a lot and is now the clear winner for me. Chrome is missing quite a few features I just cannot live without.

The current dev build in chrome is bit laggy for me, which is why I decided to finally go ahead and test out FF4b12 (originally was planning to wait until rtm since I had not need). Having used FF3 in the past, it certainly is a great improvement in performance, features, and customization (perhaps biggest key point here) and I am impressed despite their slow development. But overall, speed and performance is the most important for me, which is where Chrome excels (at least for the time being). FF4 feels very bloated at times and gets a bit laggy, partly because of the large initial memory load despite having 6GB of ram. It still lacks some of the innovative features that makes chrome so great, like the ability to manually add search engines, which is something I find essential for fast/convenient browsing. I will be back to using chrome by next week following this little experiment, but I still have faith that the mozilla team can make FF more competitive by the end of the year.

To be honest I think 4.0 is a GREAT update. I considered using Chrome but ended up going back to FF4 :/ I might give Safari 5.1 another shot in Lion but we'll see... I'm not holding my breath

I am one of the few people that actually likes Safari on Windows (the browser itself, not the crap it comes with). It has always been fast (as fast as earlier builds of Chrome, even) and looks decent enough to use full-time. In fact, I can't remember a single crash. I have, however, managed to crash Chrome a couple times, but that's another story.

Anyway, what I meant to say is the development of FF4 is a joke: one delay after another, 12 billion betas, engineers leapfrogging one-another, and so on. Mozilla itself isn't like it use to be, and I'm not even referring to Google's financial support. I don't know what happened to them, but I'm guessing the world passed them by while they were screwing around. That's the thing about the tech world (especially on the software side): you miss one month and it'll take years to catch up.

The browser itself is pretty reliable--It doesn't crash (much), websites render cleanly and I can't live without some extensions (i.e. Adblock+). However, it takes forever and a day for it to start up, and it takes even longer to get it working right. I think I spend more time tweaking and customizing the damn thing than I do using it, and that's a problem. I can't live with a slow, ugly browser.

I rag on Mozilla a lot because I am extremely dissapointed in them. I use to consider them one of the greatest companies on the web at one point, but now it seems like each department has its own agenda. It's just sad that they've lost focus and they're pulling in different directions.

Since people keep claiming Firefox 4 is taking so long, I decided to actually go and look up the time between versions.

1.0 to 1.5: 1 year, 20 days

1.5 to 2.0: 10 months, 25 days

2.0 to 3.0: 1 year, 7 months, 24 days

3.0 to 3.5: 1 year, 13 days

3.5 to 3.6: 6 months, 22 days

3.6 to 4.0 (now): 1 year, 1 month, 9 days

So yeah, the time between 3.6 and 4.0 isn't that bad, and isn't even as long as the time between 2.0 to 3.0.

People said the same things about 3.0 as they're saying about 4.0 (Taking too long, too many beats, irrelevant, etc.). And funnily enough 3.0 was also the release that set the world record for downloads :laugh:

How exactly is it a joke?... Sure it's slow on development process... but it's still better then Chrome IMO.

How FF development process is better than Chrome's? Google at least doesn't tease users with features they can't add in time and doesn't move release date forever ...

Needs a new option: "Are We Relevant Yet?"

Mozilla really needs to step up their game if they don't want to be left in the dust. FF4 is a joke at this point.

Its not joke , Mozilla had been very "open" with their public and that's how it has been , yeah i accept the development was very slow , but i can bear that if they deliver a very stable product (considering even nightlies are very very stable)

I remember when the first beta came , their wiki page said "w00t!" , that's mozilla and i love them this way :D

Since people keep claiming Firefox 4 is taking so long, I decided to actually go and look up the time between versions.

1.0 to 1.5: 1 year, 20 days

1.5 to 2.0: 10 months, 25 days

2.0 to 3.0: 1 year, 7 months, 24 days

3.0 to 3.5: 1 year, 13 days

3.5 to 3.6: 6 months, 22 days

3.6 to 4.0 (now): 1 year, 1 month, 9 days

So yeah, the time between 3.6 and 4.0 isn't that bad, and isn't even as long as the time between 2.0 to 3.0.

People said the same things about 3.0 as they're saying about 4.0 (Taking too long, too many beats, irrelevant, etc.). And funnily enough 3.0 was also the release that set the world record for downloads :laugh:

Several reasons why we claim it is too slow and is still a relevant argument:

-Chrome has been blazing along for the past year gaining a huge lead on performance while FF was lagging behind. This put extra pressure on Mozilla to push out a new release to at least maintain the gap, which they have taken too long relative to the pace of Chrome. The function of "long" is purely to the present rather than the past.

-At the time when FF3.0 launched, Chrome was still under development and was still a couple months away from launch. FF was considered the best browser available at the time until Chrome came along and changed the philosophy of web browsing. It forced people to decide which was more important to them: faster page load times and less system resource use for a basic browsing, yet highly responsive experience, or a decently fast and tons of addons for a more robust browsing experiences. This led to the major divide we see in the thread. Diehard FF fans said they could not live without their addons, while others like myself were willing to sacrifice addons to have the fastest web performance.

Also, it is one thing to download a browser, another to actually use it as default browser. I would not be surprised if FF manages to set another record with the FF4 launch, but the number of people who will actually use it every day is certain to be far below the number of downloads and installs.

Since people keep claiming Firefox 4 is taking so long, I decided to actually go and look up the time between versions.

1.0 to 1.5: 1 year, 20 days

1.5 to 2.0: 10 months, 25 days

2.0 to 3.0: 1 year, 7 months, 24 days

3.0 to 3.5: 1 year, 13 days

3.5 to 3.6: 6 months, 22 days

3.6 to 4.0 (now): 1 year, 1 month, 9 days

So yeah, the time between 3.6 and 4.0 isn't that bad, and isn't even as long as the time between 2.0 to 3.0.

People said the same things about 3.0 as they're saying about 4.0 (Taking too long, too many beats, irrelevant, etc.). And funnily enough 3.0 was also the release that set the world record for downloads :laugh:

Awesome find , also one must consider that Firefox 4 compared to Firefox 3.6 is AGGEESSS AHEEADD and the time taken seems less to me sometimes , its just that they failed to deliver products at the time they promised (or rather targeted in wiki notes and we took it as promise) , that's what made us feel they are slow , if they had said Firefox 4 would come next year Q1 , no one would have said development is slow

The current dev build in chrome is bit laggy for me, which is why I decided to finally go ahead and test out FF4b12 (originally was planning to wait until rtm since I had not need). Having used FF3 in the past, it certainly is a great improvement in performance, features, and customization (perhaps biggest key point here) and I am impressed despite their slow development. But overall, speed and performance is the most important for me, which is where Chrome excels (at least for the time being). FF4 feels very bloated at times and gets a bit laggy, partly because of the large initial memory load despite having 6GB of ram. It still lacks some of the innovative features that makes chrome so great, like the ability to manually add search engines, which is something I find essential for fast/convenient browsing. I will be back to using chrome by next week following this little experiment, but I still have faith that the mozilla team can make FF more competitive by the end of the year.

Firefox 4 (since preb13 builds) uses much much less memory than chrome , what innovation did chrome do? They went to the market , picked up fastest browser engine , added some features from each browser and tada! We have chrome ready to be served ! Even now with the latest version (11 i guess) they used tracermonkey like method , which again is an "innovation" by mozilla "used" by Chrome. Its just the omnibar , tabs on top and slight other changes which i accept , are innovative.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • "...a low price of just $340..." I don't think it means what you think it means.
    • This Corsair Vengeance DDR5-6000 32GB RAM with RGB is a great deal for limited time by Sayan Sen Memory prices have been through the roof for a while, though it seems like things might finally be getting better. If you are in the market for one, then grab this Corsair Vengeance DDR5 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5 6000 CL36 kit with RGB for a low price of just $340 (purchase link under the specs table down below). The kit is compatible with both AMD and Intel systems as it supports both EXPO and XMP overclocking profiles, respectively. 6000 MT/s is often the sweet spot for many systems as it provides ample data transfer speed while still being on Gear 1 mode. This Vengeance variant has RGB so if you love bright setups with such lighting, this is a win-win for you. The technical specifications of the Corsair Vengeance memory kit are given in the table below: Specification Value Memory Type DDR5 Memory Size (Total) 32GB Kit Configuration 2 × 16GB Form Factor UDIMM (Desktop) Pin Count 288-pin Speed (Data Rate) 6000 MT/s Speed Rating PC5-48000 Tested CAS Latency 38-44-44-96 Voltage (Tested) 1.35V Performance Profile AMD EXPO & Intel XMP Heat Spreader Aluminum heatspreader Cooling Type Passive (Heatsink) Lighting Ten Zone RGB Software Support Corsair iCUE Get it at the link below: CORSAIR Vengeance RGB DDR5 32GB (2 x 16GB) 6000 CL38 – Gray (CMH32GX5M1E6000Z38): $339.99 (Sold and Shipped by Woot US, Fulfilled by Amazon US) This Woot deal is US-specific and not available in other regions unless specified. This is a first-party seller link (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you also purchase from a first-party seller link only. If you don't like it or want to look at more options, check out the previous deals that we have covered, OR you can also visit Amazon US deals page. Get Prime (SNAP), Prime Video, Audible Plus or Kindle / Music Unlimited. Free for 30 days. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • The very fact that a TPM (v2.0 specifically which is part of the issue I suspect) is now a baseline for any supported Windows installation will naturally mean other vendors will start to leverage it as they know it'll be there. It's called progress, and it's always been the way. A TPM isn't a windows thing, it's just a module designed to securely store keys. Secure boot isn't a Windows thing (although MS are the TCA as I recall hence the upheaval this year as the 2011 certs expire), it's just a way to verify a bootloader is signed. Windows simply leverages them.
    • It's a local account with the ability to reset a password at a very base level. I really don't get the issue that gets whipped up around it But you do you
  • Recent Achievements

    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      Mark Spruce earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      479
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      244
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      66
    5. 5
      Skyfrog
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!