...to abandoning FF for Chrome. FF6 had a habit of spiking my CPU every time a page with an embedded Flash object was loaded... To the point where, even *after* Firefox was closed, the CPU remained pegged at 100% for prolonged periods of time, often until I gave up and rebooted.
Now, that was on my work laptop, which I just had re-imaged, so I'm going to give FF7 the old college try. But it's on notice.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
That is an issue with the flash plugin, not Firefox. I have encountered that same issue with Firefox, Chrome and IE on Windows XP/7 (probably Opera too).
On GNU/Linux, flash still does not use the GPU or Xvideo and full screen video suffers from it. It is also unstable, and a memory hog.
On GNU/Linux, flash still does not use the GPU or Xvideo and full screen video suffers from it. It is also unstable, and a memory hog.
No-Script, until chrome has a similar add-on/extension, I won't switch personally.
Between SSL everywhere, perspectives and no-script I'm happy with FF security as long as I don't have bad users. Now if I can't trust my user I'd say Chrome wins.
Let us not talk about how many scrapped systems from users of IE that I've rebuilt.
Between SSL everywhere, perspectives and no-script I'm happy with FF security as long as I don't have bad users. Now if I can't trust my user I'd say Chrome wins.
Let us not talk about how many scrapped systems from users of IE that I've rebuilt.
I have become so dependent on the addons and being able to configure the layout that until Chrome comes close to that kind of adaptability I too will not switch. Other irritating feature - if you call it that - is never does a clean exit. Too often I get a message that "it is running in the background but not respondig". At which point I have to revert to good old IBProcMan.
BTW i experienced someting new and extremely pleasant today. Just got a new & very basic D-Link wifi router. It simply cannot be configured using its web interface on Firefox without IE tab. Surprisingly Chrome could without any hassles whatsoever. Will try it on other IE sites. If it works, GOODBYE IE !.
BTW i experienced someting new and extremely pleasant today. Just got a new & very basic D-Link wifi router. It simply cannot be configured using its web interface on Firefox without IE tab. Surprisingly Chrome could without any hassles whatsoever. Will try it on other IE sites. If it works, GOODBYE IE !.
I've been noticing when watching a TV episode on Hulu that Firefox will cause multiple (i.e. 5+) instances of "plugin-container.exe" to show up in Task Manager. Has happened as well (although not quite as bad) with their Seamonkey suite as well (I prefer it for my regular browsing). Don't use IE as much -- usually only when Firefox has a bad day -- & don't use Chrome, but I'll have to check to see if the behavior happens there as well.
I've experienced similar issues with streaming media (in my case, cbc.ca). I've found multiple versions of the plug-in container running in the task manager on numerous occasions - the number of which seem to correlate to the number of times the stream has dropped and had to be reloaded. Looks to me like that's a big culprit.
It is a sandbox for scripts to run in. You will have one container for each instance of flash or java you are running. This is great for security and also if there is a problem with the script it won't crash the whole browser. You can close the containers and keep going. This is similar to how chrome runs each tab in a seperate process.
Please forgive me if I'm way off base, but if Firefox has slowed to a crawl (as it unfortunately seems to do), could these containers be the problem, and, if so, would it help to kill those containers (all of them) with TaskManager?
The upgrade to FF6 was causing constant stalls and "application not responding" problem. I upgraded to FF7 as soon as possible but the probems continued. So I exported by bookmarks and my NoScript whitelist and completely wiped all traces of FF and all plugins. Clean reinstall, added back NoScript and a few other plugins and FF has been great ever since. Since I only use FF w/ NoScript, next I'm going to try turning off McAfee's real time scanning of scripts as I suspect that's slowing things down - I wouldn't say FF is sluggish, but after reading an article on Tom's Hardware it made me realize I might be able to find more performance gains I didn't know I was missing.
OK, that's good to know, then.
Of course, it'd be easier if I could guess at which one each corresponds to, but I'll have to remember that trick. Thanks.
Of course, it'd be easier if I could guess at which one each corresponds to, but I'll have to remember that trick. Thanks.
I've faced a lot a crashes using FF 6.x. It's really very slow to start up and the Plugin Cotainer consumes a lot of CPU. I've also tried Chrome 14, but I've found a lot of little bugs and some crashes. Now I'm using IE 9. Its dev tools are getting better and its stability is great. I'm still waiting for a really stable 64 bits version of Flash and Silverlight. And I can't live anymore without the Bing Translator's accelerator. No fanboys, please. We have to admit, MS is making a good job with IE. The 9 is not a piece of crap like 6, 7 and 8.
First, I've pretty much stopped using Internet Explorer on all of my machines. I've gotten tired of the bullsh*t for lack of *user* preferences with IE, in as much everything requiring money for additional features that are free-ware with Firefox.
Core in that was Google's use of the black background for their GGL Bar .. yeah.... that's right.. *GOOGLE* finally forced me to use someone else's browser permanently though its not their crap called Chrome. Google's refusal to allow a user to select a color preference, and more recently their redesign to force page preview in the search results is what finally pushed me over the edge.
So entered the Stylish themes/scripts, and with Adblock I have now fully disabled that f**king preview ... it was bad enough when an accidental click ANYWHERE to the right of a result would open the preview ... but oh no, that wasn't good enough for google they had to start turning it on when ever my mouse happens to just rest.. NO CLICK NEEDED, just RESTING in that ">>" boxed area... I'd had enough and Firefox did for me what IE could not .. set **MY** preferences back.
IE9 crashed every time I tried it (beta or release) due to its defaulted hardware acceleration. I mean how f**king arrogant of Microsoft.. you force hardware acceleration onto users without 100% compatibility, or without some routine to test it and set it to OFF if the test fails.. Would it have killed microsoft to build a simple test "can you see this page" after its started.. and if not (ie. a continuous tab reload or browser crash) leave the feature off ... but not microsoft.. it knows all to well whats on a users system..
Then there's the stupidity microsoft did with the Tabs and URL bar, and turning off the menus? And with IE9 you don't (or didn't) get the option to have URL & Tabs on two separate rows ... you couldn't drag to move, etc.. so what they told me is that the person that *DOES* use 8 or more tabs on a browser .. *that* user is not to be accommodated, we'll only allow 3 or 4 tabs before crunching since NO ONE needs more than that... like no user *ever* needed more than 640k ... closed minded stupidity is what fills microsoft these days..
I'm the user that wants their file menu .. and while Firefox disabled it, a simple extension adds it back, and the same for the status bar (stausbar4ever) and even after the initial dislike of Firefox's URL/Tabs placement I could have reverted with an extension ... but did finally see why they'd changed it, and the change made sense to me so I grew to like their change...
But at no time have I ever wanted a browser to hide behind Uni-Brow ..er.. Uni-Button .. the cog or other icon as the single sole top level menu ... I like my Edit, View, Tools menus.. so *I* choose which I need and go into it for a function, rather than open the unified icon, then go to a menu, then go to a menu, then go to a selection ... etc.. stupidity in the extreme.. burying menus under additional levels of hell, doesn't endear you to the public. But even that was un-do-able.. with Firefox easily enough..
Where Firefox has seriously screwed up, is upping their Major Version numbers, when their release is *NOT* a *MAJOR* version release! Why they had to be so f**king retarded is beyond me.. even now they're starting to back pedal ... so in v10 they will finally stop defaulting extensions off or forcing them off/presuming incompatibility or give the user better options to control the upgrade with/without ... all of which wouldn't have been necessary when they haven't changed a major functional issue from 5 to 6 ... or so it seems from 6 to 7 ... just slap a new number on it, with bug fixes.. real thoughtful ... f*ing morons is more like it..
But the CORE of the reasons to use Firefox *or* Chrome are still there.. that because IE is such a closed programing platform, no one wants to build for it without the ROI ($$) ... The extensions, adblock, firebug, stylish ... ALL of which are free/freeware, and allow users to get around idiots like Google, Adware peddlers & ads that annoy (major push there was the last time an ad turned on the sound by default, as if downloading a 3 or 4 meg SWF/FLV file wasn't bad enough).
SO.. while Firefox has issues... like that startup delay I take a hit for, are far outweighed by the benefits ... like that its *not* tied to Outlook's online/offline operation, and Firefox's ability to get ride of google stupidity .. Its benefits made it my mainstay browser.. so much so that I actually selected the option to make it the Default Browser in my XP & Vista machines.. that's something I'd *NEVER* done before ... all brought on by Google, and exacerbated thanks to IE9.
Core in that was Google's use of the black background for their GGL Bar .. yeah.... that's right.. *GOOGLE* finally forced me to use someone else's browser permanently though its not their crap called Chrome. Google's refusal to allow a user to select a color preference, and more recently their redesign to force page preview in the search results is what finally pushed me over the edge.
So entered the Stylish themes/scripts, and with Adblock I have now fully disabled that f**king preview ... it was bad enough when an accidental click ANYWHERE to the right of a result would open the preview ... but oh no, that wasn't good enough for google they had to start turning it on when ever my mouse happens to just rest.. NO CLICK NEEDED, just RESTING in that ">>" boxed area... I'd had enough and Firefox did for me what IE could not .. set **MY** preferences back.
IE9 crashed every time I tried it (beta or release) due to its defaulted hardware acceleration. I mean how f**king arrogant of Microsoft.. you force hardware acceleration onto users without 100% compatibility, or without some routine to test it and set it to OFF if the test fails.. Would it have killed microsoft to build a simple test "can you see this page" after its started.. and if not (ie. a continuous tab reload or browser crash) leave the feature off ... but not microsoft.. it knows all to well whats on a users system..
Then there's the stupidity microsoft did with the Tabs and URL bar, and turning off the menus? And with IE9 you don't (or didn't) get the option to have URL & Tabs on two separate rows ... you couldn't drag to move, etc.. so what they told me is that the person that *DOES* use 8 or more tabs on a browser .. *that* user is not to be accommodated, we'll only allow 3 or 4 tabs before crunching since NO ONE needs more than that... like no user *ever* needed more than 640k ... closed minded stupidity is what fills microsoft these days..
I'm the user that wants their file menu .. and while Firefox disabled it, a simple extension adds it back, and the same for the status bar (stausbar4ever) and even after the initial dislike of Firefox's URL/Tabs placement I could have reverted with an extension ... but did finally see why they'd changed it, and the change made sense to me so I grew to like their change...
But at no time have I ever wanted a browser to hide behind Uni-Brow ..er.. Uni-Button .. the cog or other icon as the single sole top level menu ... I like my Edit, View, Tools menus.. so *I* choose which I need and go into it for a function, rather than open the unified icon, then go to a menu, then go to a menu, then go to a selection ... etc.. stupidity in the extreme.. burying menus under additional levels of hell, doesn't endear you to the public. But even that was un-do-able.. with Firefox easily enough..
Where Firefox has seriously screwed up, is upping their Major Version numbers, when their release is *NOT* a *MAJOR* version release! Why they had to be so f**king retarded is beyond me.. even now they're starting to back pedal ... so in v10 they will finally stop defaulting extensions off or forcing them off/presuming incompatibility or give the user better options to control the upgrade with/without ... all of which wouldn't have been necessary when they haven't changed a major functional issue from 5 to 6 ... or so it seems from 6 to 7 ... just slap a new number on it, with bug fixes.. real thoughtful ... f*ing morons is more like it..
But the CORE of the reasons to use Firefox *or* Chrome are still there.. that because IE is such a closed programing platform, no one wants to build for it without the ROI ($$) ... The extensions, adblock, firebug, stylish ... ALL of which are free/freeware, and allow users to get around idiots like Google, Adware peddlers & ads that annoy (major push there was the last time an ad turned on the sound by default, as if downloading a 3 or 4 meg SWF/FLV file wasn't bad enough).
SO.. while Firefox has issues... like that startup delay I take a hit for, are far outweighed by the benefits ... like that its *not* tied to Outlook's online/offline operation, and Firefox's ability to get ride of google stupidity .. Its benefits made it my mainstay browser.. so much so that I actually selected the option to make it the Default Browser in my XP & Vista machines.. that's something I'd *NEVER* done before ... all brought on by Google, and exacerbated thanks to IE9.
I like your passion so much, I felt as though I was reading my own mind! faved&fanned:) I have 4 GBs RAM on an HP Laptop (DV7 1243cl) and FF kills my memory all the time, so googled and I found a pretty light weight browser which is fast but ads popup are a turn-off.
http://www.slimbrowser.net/en/
I think I will have to go tinker with it and see if it can be customized to be a viable option to the browsers.
http://www.slimbrowser.net/en/
I think I will have to go tinker with it and see if it can be customized to be a viable option to the browsers.
Just right-click anywhere in the title bar of IE9, you can select the Menu bar that gives you your File, Edit, Tools, etc menus and there's another option in the same right-click menu that allows you to put the tabs on a different level than the address bar. In the same right-click menu you can also select the Status Bar option.
After showing the menu following SEMANCE instructions, go to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced > Accelerated graphics > check "Use fotware rendering instead of GPU rendering" and restart your browser. I'm using an 2008 R2 on a Pentium Core 2 Duo processador, a little old, and I have no problems with IE. And I'm anxious for try IE 10.
And, do you know Prozac? =) Have any nice beach near you?
And, do you know Prozac? =) Have any nice beach near you?
I have to say MS finally came back into the fold with IE9 - it runs like s##t off the proverbial shovel, it's not bloated with so many menu options you can't even see the web page.. Tabs, don't know what the problem is - I've had over 25 open on the same browser and it doesn't blink, just the previews above the task bar go vertically instead of horizontally.
So far haven't been able to fault the beta or the release version - it leaves everything else in the shade, and I don't often say that about anything that comes out of the MS stable
So far haven't been able to fault the beta or the release version - it leaves everything else in the shade, and I don't often say that about anything that comes out of the MS stable
For Firefox 3.5, I could have about 700 tabs open before I started having any problems. With 3.6, it was more like 300 tabs. With 4.0, it was about 100. I don't remember the last time I had only 25 tabs open in Firefox.
I agree that memory issues are there with Firefox, still its relatively good browser than Chrome and IE when it comes to page load, stability and reliable surfing. Chrome often goes offline which requires a cookie clear and restart of the browser. It lacks add-ons, as effective as Firefox. IE has improved a lot with speed and security, still add-ons is a draw back. The GUI of IE is also not user friendly.
Apart from memory, it has everything under control. I am not concerned with that much, so Firefox is still my best choice!
PS: I am a Windows 7 user
Apart from memory, it has everything under control. I am not concerned with that much, so Firefox is still my best choice!
PS: I am a Windows 7 user
I fell in love with FF at version 2. But since version 5, I started having all kinds of problems. Version 6 kept crashing. Now version 7 crashes and freezes all the time. I also went to Google Chrome. Good bye Firefox; it's not me, it's you!
I think that most people that have problems with programs have too much garbage on their computer. I've used FF since pre-version 1, and I've NEVER had problems.
I think that sometimes it simply comes down to configuration issues or improper maintenance of the machine. I don't leave me browser open 24/7 and have never had a huge issue with the memory leak.
As for FB; with all of the crap that loads with ANY FB page, is Jack *really* surprised that it hits the CPU so badly? I've had ZERO issues with FB, so I'm not exactly understanding his issue, other than maybe he needs new fans or a new PC....
As for FB; with all of the crap that loads with ANY FB page, is Jack *really* surprised that it hits the CPU so badly? I've had ZERO issues with FB, so I'm not exactly understanding his issue, other than maybe he needs new fans or a new PC....
The fact you only use Firefox lightly and close it often does not mean that people who use their browsers differently should blame themselves for how Firefox fails where other browsers succeed. That's a "blame the victim" mentality.
Lightly? I tend to run many open tabs. I usually only run into problems on my HP laptop when I have more than 40 tabs open. Right now, it's down to 12 or so. I usually go through my email and open anything that looks interesting. Of course, I disable most java script and flash, as that makes the downloads go so slow. Sometimes I do have to go back and reload with Java Script and/or flash re-enabled, but not often.
I don't really see the points the Author goes on about. Chrome doesn't have some of the features that I like in Firefox. I am currently using Version 6. I'm not wild about their new versioning system. Version 6 is really 3.8 or thereabouts.
My son likes Chrome, it seems more facebook friendly to him. My wife prefers to stay on the old version 3.4 or so.
Everybody has their own preferences. Firefox is still the Number Two browser, with IE in first and dropping slowly, and Chrome coming up from behind. The Fox is still growing, albeit slowly.
I don't really see the points the Author goes on about. Chrome doesn't have some of the features that I like in Firefox. I am currently using Version 6. I'm not wild about their new versioning system. Version 6 is really 3.8 or thereabouts.
My son likes Chrome, it seems more facebook friendly to him. My wife prefers to stay on the old version 3.4 or so.
Everybody has their own preferences. Firefox is still the Number Two browser, with IE in first and dropping slowly, and Chrome coming up from behind. The Fox is still growing, albeit slowly.
See this spoon? It's nice and round, fits a lot of soup in it and doesn't spill easily.
See this spoon? It's almond-shaped, less stable than the round one, but it gets to where it needs to, faster.
See this spoon?...
The point is, yes, there exists significant things such as security issues and compatibilities.
Beyond that, tastes start to factor in... just pick the one you like, and DON'T proselytize... if you get the whole world to use your browser, it will soon stop doing what you like it to do.
Let the browsers become specialized for different use patterns and tastes. Don't let the browser manufacturer CEOs believe they could get all the customers if they jammed in a few extra features. Make them concentrate on doing what they're good at the best they can...
by not rewarding customer-fishing.
See this spoon? It's almond-shaped, less stable than the round one, but it gets to where it needs to, faster.
See this spoon?...
The point is, yes, there exists significant things such as security issues and compatibilities.
Beyond that, tastes start to factor in... just pick the one you like, and DON'T proselytize... if you get the whole world to use your browser, it will soon stop doing what you like it to do.
Let the browsers become specialized for different use patterns and tastes. Don't let the browser manufacturer CEOs believe they could get all the customers if they jammed in a few extra features. Make them concentrate on doing what they're good at the best they can...
by not rewarding customer-fishing.
The problem that arises for me is that, because of Firefox ceasing to be good at pretty much anything under heavy load -- especially with its extension system pretty much guaranteed to break about once every six weeks under the new release schedule -- there's no longer a browser that really suits my needs satisfactorily. I manage to get by with a combination of three different browsers for daily use, and about once a day a major frustration surfaces in my use of Firefox. The only frustration I have with the other two is that they do not have as "powerful" (for lack of a better term) an extension system as Firefox offers.
Sounds like it has more power than it can handle... or it handles it too loosely.
Why don't you use 3.6? Isn't that the "Last known good FF"?
Why don't you use 3.6? Isn't that the "Last known good FF"?
One of the extensions I need isn't currently available for 3.6 without substantial effort involved -- and 3.6 wasn't actually the last good version. The last good was somewhere around 1.0, which is way back in the day. I just use the browser heavily enough to notice the problems it started developing back then; most people think 25 tabs is an insanely heavy usage of the browser, but I've actually been over 800 on a couple of occasions (not since 3.5, though, because 3.6 wasn't stable under loads that heavy).
> Lightly? I tend to run many open tabs. I usually only run into problems on my HP laptop when I have more than 40 tabs open.
It's a very good day when I can get down to 40 tabs. Right now, I have 193 of them open. Yes, you use Firefox lightly.
I'm actually shocked Firefox is being stable with 193 tabs open right now. A couple months ago, it was crashy around 80 tabs -- an intolerably low threshold.
> Chrome doesn't have some of the features that I like in Firefox.
Chromium's extension system is so substandard that if I had to stop using Firefox entirely tomorrow I'd probably bypass Chromium entirely as my choice of primary browser and go directly to Uzbl, much as I dislike it. I know what you mean about Firefox features, where the only feature on Firefox that really sets it apart from other browsers these days is its extension system.
> I'm not wild about their new versioning system. Version 6 is really 3.8 or thereabouts.
The new upgrade schedule for Firefox is utter madness. An article I wrote about it is somewhere on TechRepublic. Considering the damage that upgrade schedule is doing to extension stability, Firefox is screwing with the one feature of the browser that keeps me from abandoning it altogether, considering all the crappy bugs and other annoyances of it.
It's a very good day when I can get down to 40 tabs. Right now, I have 193 of them open. Yes, you use Firefox lightly.
I'm actually shocked Firefox is being stable with 193 tabs open right now. A couple months ago, it was crashy around 80 tabs -- an intolerably low threshold.
> Chrome doesn't have some of the features that I like in Firefox.
Chromium's extension system is so substandard that if I had to stop using Firefox entirely tomorrow I'd probably bypass Chromium entirely as my choice of primary browser and go directly to Uzbl, much as I dislike it. I know what you mean about Firefox features, where the only feature on Firefox that really sets it apart from other browsers these days is its extension system.
> I'm not wild about their new versioning system. Version 6 is really 3.8 or thereabouts.
The new upgrade schedule for Firefox is utter madness. An article I wrote about it is somewhere on TechRepublic. Considering the damage that upgrade schedule is doing to extension stability, Firefox is screwing with the one feature of the browser that keeps me from abandoning it altogether, considering all the crappy bugs and other annoyances of it.
Understanding that the phrase; "To each his/her own" strictly applies here, having 193 (200, 300, 400, any-number-above-100) tabs open in Firefox in my experience (more than several years) would be considered more than excessive by most Firefox users and not the "norm" so to speak. That being said, I'm rather amazed myself that Firefox would be stable with that many tabs open. Of course, a lot depends on the hardware Firefox happens to be running on. Attempting to run Firefox on a dual core (name your flavor) with 2 GB (with 32-bit OS) to 4 GBs (with 64-bit OS) of memory, you'll be lucky to keep 20 to 30 tabs open without choking. Get up into the quad core and 8+ GB of memory and now you have the kind of serious horsepower to run any browser with 100 or more tabs open.
It's not so much the browser these days but the WWW itself that requires a rather large amount of power hardware-wise in order to browse without problems. The days of static HTML based sites are long over. Now it's all Flash (apps and video), Java, javascript, HTML 5, PHP, etc, etc. It's a safe bet that nearly all sites use a combination of 2 or more of these.
It's not so much the browser these days but the WWW itself that requires a rather large amount of power hardware-wise in order to browse without problems. The days of static HTML based sites are long over. Now it's all Flash (apps and video), Java, javascript, HTML 5, PHP, etc, etc. It's a safe bet that nearly all sites use a combination of 2 or more of these.
> Understanding that the phrase; "To each his/her own" strictly applies here, having 193 (200, 300, 400, any-number-above-100) tabs open in Firefox in my experience (more than several years) would be considered more than excessive by most Firefox users and not the "norm" so to speak.
This is why I refer to that as heavy use, rather than light use. Please try to keep up with the discussion.
> Of course, a lot depends on the hardware Firefox happens to be running on. Attempting to run Firefox on a dual core (name your flavor) with 2 GB (with 32-bit OS) to 4 GBs (with 64-bit OS) of memory, you'll be lucky to keep 20 to 30 tabs open without choking.
This is exactly the problem. Back when all the x86 processors were 23 bit single-core CPUs, and speeds were still measured in MHz as often as in GHz, Firefox could stand up to much heavier use than it can now with quad-core 64 bit CPUs with interstellar hyperdrive technology and 8-16GB of RAM. On 3.0, I had close to a thousand tabs open once or twice. Now, we're lucky to be able to keep a few dozen open.
> It's not so much the browser these days but the WWW itself that requires a rather large amount of power hardware-wise in order to browse without problems.
That is not strictly true. The browser itself has declined in its capacity for operation under load. I have gone from 800+ tabs with Flash enabled and AJAXy sites open to times when 100 tabs is too many even without Flash installed, where most of the tabs are pretty simple content. Sure, the Web is getting worse in terms of the weight of clock cycle and memory consumption, but Firefox itself is getting worse, too. As the browser gets more feature-infested, its memory fragmentation problems are only magnified, its stability decreases, its ability to keep individual tabs from affecting complete browser stability decreases, and so on.
> Now it's all Flash (apps and video), Java, javascript, HTML 5, PHP, etc, etc. It's a safe bet that nearly all sites use a combination of 2 or more of these.
I have neither Java nor Flash plugins installed in Firefox.
PHP has zero effect on the browser. It's entirely server-side code.
I make a point of closing tabs where the pages use HTML 5 of automatically updating JavaScript-driven interfaces as quickly as reasonably possible to maintain stability.
. . . and Firefox still consistently gets worse. I think v7.1 may be the first case of a version increase that has actually run more smoothly and stably than its predecessor since it was called Firebird rather than Firefox. It's difficult to make a comparison between 7.0 and 7.1, though, because 7.0 was replaced by 7.1 due to security issues so quickly that I never even got to test out its capabilities.
You don't get to blame what I've observed on an OS. I run Firefox on three or four different OSes (three at the moment, about to go back up to four thanks to an alteration in career direction). You also don't get to blame it on extensions; I use a small number of extensions that are either of critical importance (they are the reasons I use Firefox) or chosen strictly and specifically to make up for the stability deficiencies of Firefox itself.
This is why I refer to that as heavy use, rather than light use. Please try to keep up with the discussion.
> Of course, a lot depends on the hardware Firefox happens to be running on. Attempting to run Firefox on a dual core (name your flavor) with 2 GB (with 32-bit OS) to 4 GBs (with 64-bit OS) of memory, you'll be lucky to keep 20 to 30 tabs open without choking.
This is exactly the problem. Back when all the x86 processors were 23 bit single-core CPUs, and speeds were still measured in MHz as often as in GHz, Firefox could stand up to much heavier use than it can now with quad-core 64 bit CPUs with interstellar hyperdrive technology and 8-16GB of RAM. On 3.0, I had close to a thousand tabs open once or twice. Now, we're lucky to be able to keep a few dozen open.
> It's not so much the browser these days but the WWW itself that requires a rather large amount of power hardware-wise in order to browse without problems.
That is not strictly true. The browser itself has declined in its capacity for operation under load. I have gone from 800+ tabs with Flash enabled and AJAXy sites open to times when 100 tabs is too many even without Flash installed, where most of the tabs are pretty simple content. Sure, the Web is getting worse in terms of the weight of clock cycle and memory consumption, but Firefox itself is getting worse, too. As the browser gets more feature-infested, its memory fragmentation problems are only magnified, its stability decreases, its ability to keep individual tabs from affecting complete browser stability decreases, and so on.
> Now it's all Flash (apps and video), Java, javascript, HTML 5, PHP, etc, etc. It's a safe bet that nearly all sites use a combination of 2 or more of these.
I have neither Java nor Flash plugins installed in Firefox.
PHP has zero effect on the browser. It's entirely server-side code.
I make a point of closing tabs where the pages use HTML 5 of automatically updating JavaScript-driven interfaces as quickly as reasonably possible to maintain stability.
. . . and Firefox still consistently gets worse. I think v7.1 may be the first case of a version increase that has actually run more smoothly and stably than its predecessor since it was called Firebird rather than Firefox. It's difficult to make a comparison between 7.0 and 7.1, though, because 7.0 was replaced by 7.1 due to security issues so quickly that I never even got to test out its capabilities.
You don't get to blame what I've observed on an OS. I run Firefox on three or four different OSes (three at the moment, about to go back up to four thanks to an alteration in career direction). You also don't get to blame it on extensions; I use a small number of extensions that are either of critical importance (they are the reasons I use Firefox) or chosen strictly and specifically to make up for the stability deficiencies of Firefox itself.
I've been on FF since shortly after it became available. I had more problems with 4 than most seem to have had, but few since. FF 6 ran fine, and I was surprised to see 7 come along so soon. But I have had *no* problems with 7, nor 7.1 that didn't turn out to be a website issue. CPU doesn't warm up, memory stays around 40% with T-bird running and God knows how many tabs, I never counted. I short it has been trouble-free.
What am I doing right (for a change)?
POSTSCRIPT: I've had far more strange problem with TR lately, though, like having to log in every time I hit "reply"-?!?!.
What am I doing right (for a change)?
POSTSCRIPT: I've had far more strange problem with TR lately, though, like having to log in every time I hit "reply"-?!?!.
I've had more problems than you since 4.0, evidently, but 7.1 has been far less troublesome than the last few versions I've seen.
I've seen the login issues at TR lately, as well as some others. TR issues come and go with some regularity, though, and it seems like there's always at least something wrong.
I've been using Firefox since it was called Phoenix. After Phoenix, it became Firebird, then finally became Firefox around the time it reached version 1.0. That was about the point where I really started noticing it getting worse with each new version, at least until very recently.
Of course, even if 7.1 itself has not had huge problems, the very fact that new major version numbers come so quickly is its own problem, and as a result I keep seeing issues crop up -- to a significant degree because of the way the new development model and release schedule seriously damages theusefulness of the killer feature of Firefox, its extension system.
I've seen the login issues at TR lately, as well as some others. TR issues come and go with some regularity, though, and it seems like there's always at least something wrong.
I've been using Firefox since it was called Phoenix. After Phoenix, it became Firebird, then finally became Firefox around the time it reached version 1.0. That was about the point where I really started noticing it getting worse with each new version, at least until very recently.
Of course, even if 7.1 itself has not had huge problems, the very fact that new major version numbers come so quickly is its own problem, and as a result I keep seeing issues crop up -- to a significant degree because of the way the new development model and release schedule seriously damages theusefulness of the killer feature of Firefox, its extension system.
I have found FF7 to be incredibly light compared to previous versions. I had all but switched to Chrome until the latest update came out. Most people that I know of who have horrible speed problems associated with Firefox have numerous unnecessary add-ons running all the time.
If you are experiencing speed and CPU consumption issues try doing a spring cleaning of your add-ons. It has always been the best way to fix the problem whenever I have people complain to me with the same problem you are having.
If you are experiencing speed and CPU consumption issues try doing a spring cleaning of your add-ons. It has always been the best way to fix the problem whenever I have people complain to me with the same problem you are having.
I have never had a problem with FF. And for one you should of read this issue of Tech republic http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/10-handy-firefox-aboutconfig-hacks/719 this will allow you to adjust your FF to accept more bandwidth and bigger packets and turn off spell check and scanning each page. Please if you want to bash FF for a bad build try looking up some tips. If you would try running the hacks for fire fox you will notice a difference. Bash IE for that garbage they call a browser and as for Chrome well they are too young to talk about... smart move adding angry birds. But I have not found any good use for chrome except that its there. As for BLOAT-ware I would not call FF that, understand the meaning first then call names FF is far from processor intensive nor memory intensive once you turn off your extras. Maybe you should try some routine maintenance and turn off any other processor intensive programs most likely you have a program running and scanning each page you open not all sites are as big as Facebook. Also how much memory do you have we need facts here like processor size and what is your virtual memory set at? Do you have the latest flash update? Do you have a video card? What is your system how old is it? We need these fact before you try and call something bogus because your machine may be crap.
I don't know why browser vendors think this is a good idea.
That may have made sense when the majority of consumers had dialup or ISDN speeds, & even most corporate users or consumer "broadband" users were limited to 1.5Mb/T1 speeds. But for those of us that can remember paying as much for dialup as we now pay for our broadband connections, it could make more sense to maximize use of the connection by using our "down" time while we read the page that just finished loading to pre-load the links on the page.
Seems a good idea, but where do you do that? Found nothing in the Options nor in about:config...
It's actually the network.prefetch-next option in about:config, but I tend to just remember that "prefetch" is a good search term in the about:config filter bar.
Firefox 7 has been giving me huge problems, to the point where I open Task Manager/Performance before I launch FF.
Memory usage before launch +/- 200 MB.
View a Tech Republic, BNET or ZD page +/- 380MB.
Open FB and it jumps to 500MB.
Opening any FB link in another tab eats another 60MB, and then it just keeps on climbing.
I'm running XP2003 simply because I cannot stand Office 2007. So I probably wouldn't be able to run IE9.
But I have used FF for 4 years now and don't want to change unless I have to.
So I'll follow your link and try those hacks you recommend.
BTW after reading a ZD post I tried Autoruns but don't have the experience to interpret the output.
It's possible that all the Adobe and Quicktime loaders sitting modestly in the background spring to life when a graphics-intensive page is loaded, and gobble resources.
But if so, their CPU/Mem Usage in the Processes tab of Task Manager is probably charged to firefox.exe. They don't show up individually.
Memory usage before launch +/- 200 MB.
View a Tech Republic, BNET or ZD page +/- 380MB.
Open FB and it jumps to 500MB.
Opening any FB link in another tab eats another 60MB, and then it just keeps on climbing.
I'm running XP2003 simply because I cannot stand Office 2007. So I probably wouldn't be able to run IE9.
But I have used FF for 4 years now and don't want to change unless I have to.
So I'll follow your link and try those hacks you recommend.
BTW after reading a ZD post I tried Autoruns but don't have the experience to interpret the output.
It's possible that all the Adobe and Quicktime loaders sitting modestly in the background spring to life when a graphics-intensive page is loaded, and gobble resources.
But if so, their CPU/Mem Usage in the Processes tab of Task Manager is probably charged to firefox.exe. They don't show up individually.
I'm all for tweaking and speeding up firefox but the link you provided is from May 2009, three versions ago, are they still effective on the current version? Has anyone tried these on 7 to know if they make a difference? I agree with most everyone else here that FF has gotten lethargically slow, particularly with the plug-in container eating up so much proc. and memory. There has to be something to speed up that portion of the browser and yet still allow the functionality.
Well, they do! I checked and realized that I had already implemented more than half of them. But still, now FF is more or less "usable" to me. And if someone had a solution for that container stuff I might revert to FF again... (FF was my "default" browser for years, but definitely not anymore after FF 4). Going to try 3.6.22 as recommended in this "discussion".
Let me first say that life is getting crazy & things come at us much faster because of the 'knowledge' from the internet. Which I hunger for a little less than food.
With that being said... if FF is shooting for the average user good luck. The problem being people do NOT have the latest & greatest for one. Two I consider myself a nerd but I do NOT want to spend the time re-installing plug-ins on every major revision (unless I am doing something wrong?) and I clump myself w/ the lowly 'masses' in that I don't think they want to mess w/ it either. 'USERS' want to USE; not troubleshoot software & hardware. I have seen so many home systems w/ a messed up system both hardware & software but it???s what they can afford. AM I doing them a disservice when I don???t tell them there **** is crap (even in nice terms?) I hope not so I try & work w/ what they have. Which means multiple visits; which may be the disservice because of money. For me it is a dilemma. I think what software developers have to do is decide there target group & develop for them. If it is for the masses develop something STABILE & easy then let the nerds develop add-ons. If an add-on reaches a certain level compared to percentage of users then incorporate it into the next major revisions. Stop having ???major??? revisions every 2 months(which is what it seems like). If you have major revisions due to ???security??? issues then the DEVELOPER has problems w/ there developing & they need to correct that. I know things can NOT be static but give us something we can use a couple years before massive changes.
I hope this passes muster with the grammar police. I want my point to be made w/o it getting lost in the grammar battle.
side note: I get irritated w/ FF when I get a window popup to go to the next version. Notify us in some other LESS intrusive manner.
With that being said... if FF is shooting for the average user good luck. The problem being people do NOT have the latest & greatest for one. Two I consider myself a nerd but I do NOT want to spend the time re-installing plug-ins on every major revision (unless I am doing something wrong?) and I clump myself w/ the lowly 'masses' in that I don't think they want to mess w/ it either. 'USERS' want to USE; not troubleshoot software & hardware. I have seen so many home systems w/ a messed up system both hardware & software but it???s what they can afford. AM I doing them a disservice when I don???t tell them there **** is crap (even in nice terms?) I hope not so I try & work w/ what they have. Which means multiple visits; which may be the disservice because of money. For me it is a dilemma. I think what software developers have to do is decide there target group & develop for them. If it is for the masses develop something STABILE & easy then let the nerds develop add-ons. If an add-on reaches a certain level compared to percentage of users then incorporate it into the next major revisions. Stop having ???major??? revisions every 2 months(which is what it seems like). If you have major revisions due to ???security??? issues then the DEVELOPER has problems w/ there developing & they need to correct that. I know things can NOT be static but give us something we can use a couple years before massive changes.
I hope this passes muster with the grammar police. I want my point to be made w/o it getting lost in the grammar battle.
side note: I get irritated w/ FF when I get a window popup to go to the next version. Notify us in some other LESS intrusive manner.
You may be right that most people could have useless garbage on their PC which they did or did not install, however the issues that are talked about here with FF, have only to do with FF. BTW, what version of FF are you running and how much memory does it use, say when you go to FB? OS? Memory?Crap installed? So ca you give some specs on your PC so we could probably be better able to make a judgement? I used to think that MS engineered their systems so that other browsers would "fail" for instance, topic being discussed. But that the issue is similar on different OS has made me rethink.
I know I'll take flak, but all I can say is that Facebook is the AOL of current day. I have the same disdain for it as I had for AOL and the losers who troll it...
/EndRant
I do not trust Google in any form. I use what I must in small doses.
/EndRant
I do not trust Google in any form. I use what I must in small doses.
I only use NoScript and nothing else on the browser. That mayb be a help. I also have a new fiber connection. Overall speed went up from my old cable box. Maybe it is slow but compensating. I never seemed to notice poor performance with either internet provider with whom I have experience.
I took Chrome out for a test run because a Linux distro I was using loaded both FF and Chrome. I never liked Chrome and I have heard too many people complain about their attitude toward user privacy. I could have kept it around and still played with it from time to time, but I uninstalled it.
Maybe I'll put it back on and check it out from time to time.
I took Chrome out for a test run because a Linux distro I was using loaded both FF and Chrome. I never liked Chrome and I have heard too many people complain about their attitude toward user privacy. I could have kept it around and still played with it from time to time, but I uninstalled it.
Maybe I'll put it back on and check it out from time to time.
Try Chromium, the open source version without all of Google's privacy issues. If you're using Windows you can also try Comodo's supposedly more secure version called Dragon. They're both Chrome without Google.
Facebook-- Pied Piper of the New World Order's technological control grid
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Facebook--Pied-Piper-of-t-by-Andrew-Steele-110721-566.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Facebook--Pied-Piper-of-t-by-Andrew-Steele-110721-566.html
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
