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

    • I think it depends on what you're looking for to do, and the time you have to spare. With my Dwarf 3, I easily spend 3-4 hour sessions; half an hour driving to an un-light polluted place, another half hour unpacking and setting up the smart scope + tripod for equatorial tracking, then 15 more minutes mucking around with settings and shooting calibration frames, spending a few hours shooting, merging with past photo sessions, etc. It's crazy how time flies and I often get home later than I expected. It's something I still need to set aside a good part of an evening to do, all in all. For one session, where you often need like four for best results when it comes to deep space objects. Even with a smart scope like Dwarf 3, regular non-astro photography is still way more approachable to people getting into photography. I find this is a time consuming niche no matter how I go about it. With practice, I can probably begin cutting time here but I think where smart scopes find their home is among people who love to shoot the night sky but don't have the spare time to go deep with the "navigator level" attunement to the night sky itself in addition to everything else. Having said this, _if_ you have even more time to spend on this hobby, it will probably be even more rewarding to do it more by hand and learn the skies and the details of how it all works.
    • I misread the title and thought Teams itself would be redesigned. Imagine having this one as a native WinUI app.
    • Dell, HP PCs ran into endless reboot, BitLocker recovery loops but Windows 11 isn't to blame by Sayan Sen Last month Neowin reported on a major issue on Dell systems wherein a bug in its official support tool was leading to endless blue screen of death (BSOD) and restarts. Following our report, Dell officially acknowledged its SupportAssist-related crash issue, confirming that the culprit is not Microsoft's operating system but rather a faulty version of its own remediation software. In a newly published support advisory, Dell stated that version 5.5.16.0 of Dell SupportAssist Remediation and Alienware SupportAssist Remediation can trigger blue screen errors and unexpected system restarts. The company notes that the problematic component operates independently of the main SupportAssist application, meaning users should not remove the primary SupportAssist software when troubleshooting the issue. According to Dell, the crashes are linked specifically to the SupportAssist Remediation service, which is bundled with SupportAssist OS Recovery Tools, and as such it has since released an updated version, 5.5.16.1, which is said to resolve the problem. Affected users are advised to first verify whether version 5.5.16.0 is installed by checking the Installed Apps section in Windows Settings. If so, Dell recommends updating SupportAssist OS Recovery Tools through either SupportAssist's "Update Software" feature or Dell Command Update. Dell also advises users to back up important data before performing the update and to ensure systems remain connected to power throughout the installation process. If you are still having issues though make sure to report to the Dell support forum. As it turns out though Dell is not the only PC maker currently dealing with update-related headaches as HP is also facing a separate but probably equally frustrating issue involving recent Windows Secure Boot updates that were released with recent Windows 11 Patch Tuesdays. Similar to Dell, HP also put up its own support article where it explains the issue. The company says that affected devices could hit a brick wall when booting as they run into a BitLocker recovery loop after the April 2026 updates. The problem appears to affect systems wherein the new UEFI Secure Boot CA 2023 certificates fail to apply properly. As such affected users will find themselves entering their recovery key over and over again despite the system otherwise functioning normally. HP says such PCs should be updated to the latest available BIOS version and configured with the necessary Secure Boot certificates before installing Microsoft's Windows 11 Patch Tuesday updates. Systems that are already experiencing the problem may require BIOS configuration changes to restore normal boot behavior. Admins can find information regarding that in the support article here on HP's official website.
    • Getting further away from the artistic study of mental disease that was the first game... (which never needed any sequels to begin with) But I get it, a company has to make money. And the second was at least visually impressive, if not in any other way.
    • If its the devs fault you would think Unreal would help M$ take full advantage of Unreal and work with them to fix the performance issues. Otherwise they are catching unwarranted bad press.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • 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
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      246
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!