Linked by Wes Bascas on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 11:00 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones Over the weekend, the crew at Tom's Hardware was busy testing the recently-released Firefox 22 using the usual bevy of benchmarks. This roundup included Chrome 27, Firefox 22, IE10, and Opera 12, along with the new Chromium-based build of Opera Next (alos known as Opera 15).
Order by: Score:
Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 11:10 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

It might be faster in benchmarks, but the user interface is more clunky and prone to locking up, whereas I have never seen this behaviour in chrome.

Edited 2013-07-03 11:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by cdude on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 11:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

They (Firefox) worked and work on that. Try latest release.
http://dutherenverseauborddelatable.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/announ...

More at https://blog.mozilla.org/vdjeric/category/planet-mozilla/

Edited 2013-07-03 11:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I am running nightly at home and latest here. Nothing has changed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Fergy on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I am running nightly at home and latest here. Nothing has changed.

Something is seriously wrong with either your hardware or your Firefox profile.

Reply Score: 6

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I am running a 8 CPU Xeon box at work with 16GB of ram, which has uptimes of weeks. Nothing is wrong, Firefox just shits itself.

I work with 5 other developers and we all experience the same behaviour. Chrome doesn't display the same behaviour.

Also this excuse of "your profile is corrupted" you know I don't care it is corrupted or how it happened. No other software on my system does this, except for Firefox, the devs need to find out why it happens and fix it.

People keep up making excuses for why Firefox does weird things instead of getting this stuff fixed.

Edited 2013-07-04 08:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by kwanbis on Thu 4th Jul 2013 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

No problems like you describe here. You are either using a bad plugin, or your profile is f¨cked up.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by radix on Fri 5th Jul 2013 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
radix Member since:
2012-02-07

Well, I guess my profile and all of my coworkers' profiles are fucked up. I'd like to know how to unfuck it ... Or something like that, because if it works for you, there couldn't possibly be any problem with Firefox ...

Firefox is still locking up in the newest release and I don't believe they can do a lot in this regard without making the application run in multiple threads. Cooperative multitasking will always be problematic ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lvl21ogre on Sat 6th Jul 2013 00:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

Well, at least you'll find out as Mozilla continue their efforts to do just that.

Don't let others get to you with this profile stuff, though. Just try a fresh profile, and if it doesn't help, you'll know it's the particular hardware you have, sites you visit (etc).

And if it does help, then that just means there's something wrong with your profiles and you'll have to hope Mozilla can debug it with you or find a way to reset/restart. I had to do it, and it wasn't nearly as painful as I thought, but that was just me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by gilboa on Thu 4th Jul 2013 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe I missed something (and please forgive me if I did) but you're running nightly, it's unstable and you... complain?

I'm running FF on a large number of machines ranging from Nexus 7 up to a heavily loaded dual Xeon workstation and I can't say that I share your experience.
Though, all the machines are running Fedora Linux (minus the Nexus 7) w/ the nVidia binary driver.

- Gilboa

Edited 2013-07-04 21:19 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Morgan on Fri 5th Jul 2013 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm running a quad core i5 with 8GB here and I'm not having any serious issues with either browser under Windows 7. Though, both are prone to slowdowns with a bunch of tabs open, and occasionally Firefox does lock up on me, but usually only if my computer is already doing something crazy and other apps lock up too. I'm on the release channel for both browsers, so perhaps your issues may be related to being on the dev or beta channel?

On GNU/Linux (Crunchbang to be specific) Firefox (Iceweasel) is rock solid and fast, though I'm on version 20.0. Chromium is fast and stable too, but I'm having plugin issues with it so I'm sticking with Iceweasel for now.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by CaptainN- on Sun 7th Jul 2013 04:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

developers - you are probably using Firebug. That thing kills Firefox dead. The built in tools aren't good enough just yet to replace Firebug (they are getting closer though), but the way Firebug just kills Firefox, I've not been installing it anymore. It gets worse with each release. Firefox is much livelier without it.

I'd actually suggest Tom's should rerun all the FireFox benchmarks with Firebug installed, if anyone cared.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lvl21ogre on Sun 7th Jul 2013 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

To be fair, I've found that Firebug generally doesn't cause problems unless it happens to be active in the given tab you're on (or you're switching between such tabs).

That said, I'm with you. I only use it on a development profile now, since with --no-remote I can run two Firefoxes easily enough anyway.

I really hope that Firebug devs can finally move it to JSD2 and such more quickly, because it's clearly in dire need of some update love.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by CaptainN- on Sun 7th Jul 2013 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

It might be because I used it on an old slow mac mini, but I used to see Firebug pop up in between pages (like going from Google to some random results link) all the time, even though it wasn't active on either page. I think it shows up in more scenarios than it should, and that kills performance. Firefox is fast without it (although, Flash has recently been stalling Firefox, especially in version 21, things got better in 22).

Reply Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Something is seriously wrong with either your hardware or your Firefox profile.

Why do you keep blaming Firefox's problems on the user's profiles? Ever think that Firefox is not perfect, and that it is actually not free of bugs and performance problems?

I just updated from version 21 to 22 and now I'm starting to see brief lock-ups in the Firefox GUI in my (so far) brief time with it. Yay. What do you suggest? Delete my profile and create another? At that rate I might as well just switch to Chrome or Chromium and give it a try, because it won't be worth it getting all my settings back to the way I have had them for years. If I'm going to start fresh, I might as well consider the competition.

Then again, I might just consider Seamonkey. For some reason I keep forgetting about it these days, although it's traditionally been a good browser and in my experience has always... *gasp* tended to feel even more lightweight than Firefox, in terms of speed and responsiveness. Ironic, considering one of Firefox's core missions at the beginning was to fight bloat from the original Netscape/Mozilla suite.

Well... I guess on the bright side it appears that the latest version takes up just slightly less memory. Not much, it's still a hog, but slightly.

Edited 2013-07-05 09:09 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lvl21ogre on Fri 5th Jul 2013 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

I suggest trying a profile reset first, because that's usually far less painful for users than restarting entirely. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-p...

Historically, user profiles are an occasional problem in any app. The onus isn't just on the app developer, though. Sadly, it's the price we pay for being able to customize the thing so much. Mozilla do work rather hard on making sure profiles will continue working, but sometimes issues do crop up.

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

That doesn't sound too much different than just ditching my current profile and creating a new one, to be honest. What exactly could I expect to lose in the process of doing that as far as my settings go? At this point I'm seriously considering just backing up my bookmarks, and starting completely fresh. And if that doesn't work... hello SeaMonkey or Chrome/Chromium. Can't try the new Opera, because it's not available on Linux yet (as usual...).

I'm really getting tired of playing these stupid games with Mozilla. It's getting ridiculous.

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

By the way--too late to edit my previous post--anyone know if there's a way to find out when a Firefox profile was created? I'm just curious how old mine actually is before I do anything...

Edited 2013-07-06 03:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lvl21ogre on Sat 6th Jul 2013 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

The link goes into detail on what you'd lose and what's saved, but for most users the big bite will be having to reinstall add-ons, reopen your windows/tabs (login/cookie info/history are kept intact though) and re-add more advanced things like custom search engines, mime settings, and custom toolbars/user styles.

I'd personally just try a new profile first, since that won't touch your old one (close Firefox entirely, run it with -p, create a new profile, and try browsing with your usual session for a while to see if it's better). https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remo...

If that worked, then it's worth trying a profile reset since it's far less intense than a completely new profile (you can delete the test one easily enough). I'd only start from scratch if the new profile worked, but resetting your current one didn't. Of course I always advocate backing up your profile before tinkering with it to reset it/etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by CaptainN- on Sun 7th Jul 2013 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

Do you believe Chrome would be more perfect than Firefox? That hasn't been my experience. This article would seem to back that up.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by bassbeast on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 21:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

I have noticed that too and it has GOT to be the Gecko engine, because both IceDragon and Pale Moon do similar "senior moments" as I call them.

But for me it could be the fastest browser on the planet but until it supports low rights mode its just too risky for my customers. there are plenty of bugs like the "Yahoo Porn Bug" which will not work in any other browser, not even IE, that work in FF for me to give it to my customers.

Speed is fine but not when its at the cost of security and having the browser run at the same rights as the user is just dumb,especially when we are talking about a security feature that first came out in windows Vista which is about to become 4 releases ago. It would also probably be trivial to adapt low rights mode to work with AppArmor and SELinux so there really is no excuse not having such a useful security feature.

I have found a good 90% of the infections come from the browser so by having the browser run in lower rights drops infections right off the scale. No way I'm gonna risk my customers for a little speed,no way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Fergy on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Speed is fine but not when its at the cost of security and having the browser run at the same rights as the user is just dumb,especially when we are talking about a security feature that first came out in windows Vista which is about to become 4 releases ago. It would also probably be trivial to adapt low rights mode to work with AppArmor and SELinux so there really is no excuse not having such a useful security feature.

So this feature only works on vista/win7/win8 with IE? It does not work on linux, winxp, macos, android? And it does not work with Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari?

All those users must be nuts using the web on those machines!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by bassbeast on Thu 4th Jul 2013 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Nice straw man, shame if this match were to get too close...whoosh!

Nice attempt at trying to spread FUD but you fail when it comes to browser knowledge, since Chrome as well as any based on it or based on IE ALREADY HAVE low rights mode, in fact the Chromium team added support less than 6 months after the release of Vista.

As for Linux I'm sorry but a simplistic R/W/E schema doesn't cut it, hence why AppArmor and SELinux were created which again it should be trivial to adopt the same mechanism so that Linux could enjoy a low rights browser in SELinux and AppArmor so its really no excuse.

But if you want to claim FF is only usable on Linux fine, do that, but good security practices are good practices and bad is bad, and having the browser run at the same rights as the user is not only bad security practice its just plain stupid. Remove the browser as a vector and malware drops right off the chart, as I have found thanks to low rights mode, but if you want to support bad security practices that is your choice, just as its mine to warn people who may not know all browsers are NOT created equal.

But FYI I haven't used IE in over a decade and I don't recommend IE to my customers, but its kind of sad when even IE has better security practices than FF which is the case now. Use Chrome,Chromium, Comodo Dragon,SWIron, plenty to choose from that won't make you sacrifice security just to surf the web.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Fergy on Thu 4th Jul 2013 07:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Nice straw man
I have no idea where I strawman you.
Is that feature really that important? If it is is Mozilla just really really dumb or just incompetent?

Years ago when it was introduced in Vista there was talk about it at Mozilla. Their security people thought it was more a gimmick.

I am no security researcher but I trust Mozilla over MS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by bassbeast on Thu 4th Jul 2013 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Your straw man was saying that it was "IE or Mozilla" like they were the only choices, and again you try to make an "US VS Them" argument which again holds ZERO water.

Don't like Chrome? Great, you have MANY choices that also have low rights mode and don't call home. I personally use Comodo Dragon, it gives the user Privdog right off the bat (but can be disabled if you don't want it) and the only "phone home" it has is an update checker. You can choose to use their free DNS service which is great at blocking phishing sites but unlike Chrome its a checkbox at install or a simple checkbox in options so you can flip it on and off whenever you like. Don't like dragon either? SWIron, Chromium, heck even QTWeb supports low rights mode IIRC and its not only FOSS its cross platform as well.

At the end of the day all you are doing is making excuses and everybody knows that excuses are just like a certain orifice in that everybody has one and they all stink. Good security practices are good, bad security practices are bad, and for whatever reason Moz has decided to stick with the latter. If that serious risk is something you are willing to put up with? Fine that is your choice, just as its mine to warn people they are taking risks with their systems that they don't have to.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Fergy on Thu 4th Jul 2013 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Your straw man was saying that it was "IE or Mozilla" like they were the only choices, and again you try to make an "US VS Them" argument which again holds ZERO water.

You strawman me by changing my argument until it sounds ridiculous. I didn't know Chrome had that feature which is why I stated it as a question. So 2 browsers that support it on windows. The many skins of chrome like Comodo, Opera etc. count as one just as the many skins of IE count as one.

At the end of the day all you are doing is making excuses and everybody knows that excuses are just like a certain orifice in that everybody has one and they all stink. Good security practices are good, bad security practices are bad, and for whatever reason Moz has decided to stick with the latter. If that serious risk is something you are willing to put up with? Fine that is your choice, just as its mine to warn people they are taking risks with their systems that they don't have to.

I have asked questions and instead of answering you wave them away as if smart people should just now that you are right. You did not address a single argument I made.

A lot of statements and no arguments or anything that could convince someone like me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by bassbeast on Sat 6th Jul 2013 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

What questions? You made an "us versus them" strawman, and i pointed out a half a dozen choices, NONE of them running the IE trident engine (if I would have included those that use trident i could have upped the list to a dozen) and the only "question" you supposedly asked was, and I quote "So this feature only works on vista/win7/win8 with IE?"

So if you want your one highly rigged "question" answered i have already answered it, NO it doesn't only work in IE, pretty much any chromium or webkit based also supports this feature and NO it doesn't work only in windows, it would be trivial to add support in AppArmor or SELinux.

The default Linux security model of a simplistic (designed in the early 70s BTW, Linus got it from early Unix) model based on R/W/E is too primitive and coarse to be useful, but that is of course why AppArmor and SELinux were made, to give the MUCH better NTFS style ACLs (designed by Dave Cutler originally for VMS and he brought them to Windows when he designed NTFS) so that Linux could have fine grained security with permission levels.

So if you want to keep making straw men go right ahead but you can try to spin it all you want but in the end you can't change the facts, which are that good security practices are good, bad practices are bad, and that running the browser in the same permissions as the user is just dumb and that is EXACTLY what Firefox does and there is nothing you can say that will change that, nor will it change that there are browsers out there that don't make such a stupid mistake.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lvl21ogre on Thu 4th Jul 2013 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

Next you'll be telling me to not use Chrome because it uses the same NSS/NSPR networking library that Mozilla created. Take a look at cvedetails before trying to tell me that Chrome is safer.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I have noticed that too and it has GOT to be the Gecko engine, because both IceDragon and Pale Moon do similar "senior moments" as I call them.


I like Firefox's user interface, I dunno what it is, but I prefer it.

But I don't use it for development other than doing CSS anymore since Chrome's tools are far better.

IE9 and 10 IMHO are more than good enough for most people. I've also got well past the stage of evangelising a better browser ... if people have problems they will ask or find a better solution.

Having slightly better performance is great and all but I think there are so many little problems with Firefox these days it is a dubious honour (and for the person who wants to know what these are they are so numerous and odd that I could not possible list them all).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lvl21ogre on Fri 5th Jul 2013 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

A combination of Firebug, Chrome, and other dev tools is really the way to go. There are things each can do the others cannot, and even the native Firefox tools have some nice features you shouldn't overlook even if you reach for one over the others by default.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Sorry the new native tools are awful.

Chrome dev tools are more stable quite frankyly and are easier to use.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lvl21ogre on Sun 7th Jul 2013 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

But does Chrome have a 3D DOM viewer yet? What about a responsive design view? What about showing you the paints that are taking place as you play with the page?

Again, each browser has its own developer niceties in certain respects, and you should become familiar with them for the (probably rare) cases they're useful.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

But does Chrome have a 3D DOM viewer yet?


As a web dev, I have no idea why anyone would need it. It too much and tbh pretty much everyone in the office think it is a nice gimmick, nothing more.

God if you can't visual a DOM tree in your head, you've got bigger problems.

What about a responsive design view? What about showing you the paints that are taking place as you play with the page?


Half the time if you write the page properly you don't need half of this stuff.

Also testing on devices is the only way to sanely test whether you layout works successfully.

Again, each browser has its own developer niceties in certain respects, and you should become familiar with them for the (probably rare) cases they're useful


I am familiar with them and Chrome is far more predictable and stable with regards to it's dev tools.

I don't have the JS breakpoints suddenly just stop work (aka Firebug), I don't have random times when the CSS doesn't load on the page.

There is a reason why people and devs have flocked to chrome. It is simply better.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lvl21ogre on Sun 7th Jul 2013 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

Wow, seriously? I thought you were trying to have a useful discussion here, not start some sad, random e-peen measuring contest. I wasn't even suggesting Chrome was worse or Firefox was better. I was just saying it's nice to know your available tools, even if you're such a hotshot that you'll never need them. Enjoy your browser and your smug sense of superiority.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by bassbeast on Sat 6th Jul 2013 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

I think the UI is fine, although if we were judging strictly based on UI I would lean towards Pale Moon and IceDragon as they are much less likely to suddenly change, but its the "senior moments" I've found that drive people up the wall when it comes to gecko based browsers.

For those that don't know a "senior moment" is when an OS or program will "hang" or come unresponsive for a few seconds, not enough to call the program hung and attempt a hard shutdown, just long enough to interrupt the workflow and be REALLY annoying. For a good example of this try Vista RTM on a P4 with HT and Speedstep, or firefox now,especially if you have a lot of bookmarks or tabs going.

But I agree there are too many niggling problems with FF for speed to be the primary concern and in fact I've found on the average home connection browser speed is probably the least likely bottleneck, more often its the ISP DNS, line congestion, or bandwidth limitations that will bottleneck the system before the browser does. worrying about browser speed today is like putting a monster GPU into a system that is still running a 4200 RPM hard drive, all that speed isn't gonna fix the other bottlenecks.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lvl21ogre on Thu 4th Jul 2013 15:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

If we're talking anecdotes I've noticed this behavior in both Firefox and Chrome at times, but one of the big notes about Firefox performance in this review was that they've fixed a lot of their UI freezes to the point where it feels noticeably snappier.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I have to admit that nightly is a lot better than the stable version I use at work.

I think their mobile browser BTW is f--king amazing. So maybe their focus is there these days ... who knows.

Edited 2013-07-04 19:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Naomi
by Naomi on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 11:13 UTC
Naomi
Member since:
2013-05-27

This makes me very happy.

But the changes they've made to the beta version of their mobile browser make me very sad. The location bar now stays at the top of the page, disappearing when you scroll down. So to access the tab switching button you have to go all the way back to the to of the page. So frustrating.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Naomi
by albertgasset on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by Naomi"
albertgasset Member since:
2013-07-03

If you scroll up near the top of the screen, the location bar reappears immediately.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Naomi
by Naomi on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Naomi"
Naomi Member since:
2013-05-27

Ah, and so it does. That's not so bad.

But it still means three steps to switch tabs instead of two. I'll probably wait to upgrade the non-beta version until there's an add-on to disable that. Literally my two favorite things about ff mobile are that there's a working add-on that makes "Request Desktop Site" the default, and that the title-bar stays put.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Naomi
by samoanbiscuit on Thu 4th Jul 2013 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Naomi"
samoanbiscuit Member since:
2012-11-16

For some of us, it was a welcome change. Some people use devices with limited screen real estate, and so hiding the location bar gives back precious pixels to browse with.
Hopefully they will figure out a way to show the location bar in a simple and intuitive manner. Or just keep the current behaviour, and have some UI change indicate to the user the easy way to bring the location bar back.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Naomi
by bassbeast on Thu 4th Jul 2013 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Naomi"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

If you are wanting to stick with the Gecko engine but don't like the way FF does things maybe you should try one of the variants? There are plenty you know, for my customers that prefer gecko or have some extension they want to keep I give them Comodo IceDragon, while like Moz it doesn't have low rights mode its secure DNS does up the security.

Then there is Pale Moon which is an optimized build for Windows with both an X86 and X64 build so you can squeeze every drop of performance, there is Waterfox, heck if you don't mind being a little behind the curve but have an older system there is Kmeleon and Kmeleon CCF ME, those are probably 2 of the lightest browsers out there and in the case of CCF ME it can just be dropped on a thumbstick and with a couple of .DLLs will even run just fine on a system as old as Win98.

This is one thing I try to stress that so few seem to grasp, one of the truly great things that has come from the ending of IE dominance is how many great choices we have when it comes to browsers. With just the Gecko and Webkit variants we have easily a dozen to choose from, each with its pluses and minuses, so it really becomes more about finding a browser that fits YOUR style and YOUR way of doing things instead of the "my way or the highway" attitude of old.

Heck there are plenty that are going their own way still out there, for those that like or need cross platform they should check out QTWeb which is just what it says on the tin, a UI created in QT and the Webkit engine, comes with Adblock Plus, can run from a thumbstick and works on pretty much any X86 system out there. We have a LOT of choices in this area so you really shouldn't settle, try a few and find which fits your style of doing things.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Naomi
by mksoft on Thu 4th Jul 2013 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Naomi"
mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25

Ah, and so it does. That's not so bad.

But it still means three steps to switch tabs instead of two. I'll probably wait to upgrade the non-beta version until there's an add-on to disable that. Literally my two favorite things about ff mobile are that there's a working add-on that makes "Request Desktop Site" the default, and that the title-bar stays put.


I use the Three Finger Swipe add on for that, switch, close and open new tabs with single gestures:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/android/addon/three-finger-swipe/

Reply Score: 2

Cool again?
by bolomkxxviii on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 11:29 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Been using Firefox for years. I try Chrome every once in a while but I have become comfortable with Firefox and always switch back. Never had the issues others have complained about with the Fox. I have noticed the speed increase. All my critical plugins still work. All win!

Reply Score: 19

Speed at the expense of memory
by FreeGamer on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 11:30 UTC
FreeGamer
Member since:
2007-04-13

My browser experience suffers from me only having a 2gig laptop. Almost every day I reach a point where I have to restart the browser because it slows down. Chrome, Firefox, whatever.

Already I'm a few hours into my daily routine and Firefox is at 600mb. I try to make use of tab groups in Firefox to limit this, and it helps a bit.

I also suspect Gmail, Youtube of scripts that slow the browser down.

All I can say is the browser is now the heaviest application on my desktop and has been for some time. It's the price we have to pay for access to "the cloud" and fast/responsive interaction with the web; but it sucks that my browser experience is now outgrowing my 2gig laptop.

Reply Score: 7

HangLoose Member since:
2007-09-03

I know it is not a fix but I recommend using the mobile versions of the sites:
touch.facebook.com
m.gmail.com

And so on and so forth.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Speed at the expense of memory
by 1c3d0g on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 13:36 UTC in reply to "Speed at the expense of memory"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Sounds like you have a dirty profile to me, or a misbehaving extension. If you want to rule out the profile, back up your stuff (bookmarks etc.), wipe Firefox from your hard disk (including manually deleting all Mozilla folders - don't forget AppData!) and reinstall the browser. If this still doesn't fix it, then a misbehaving extension is to blame.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The thing is that I know it is an extension, and tbh I don't really think this should happen.

I know it isn't firebug, it's probably colorzilla but I need it semi-regularly.

The mobile version of Firefox I think it pretty awesome tbh, it does run noticeably faster than Chrome on my Samsung S3 mini.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MechR
by MechR on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 11:40 UTC
MechR
Member since:
2006-01-11

I'm surprised to hear Chrome's cold-start is slowest now. Start speed was the main reason I switched from Firefox to Chrome early on. Nowadays, on a newer computer with more RAM, it's not as noticeable. I should test this on my old computer sometime.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MechR
by lucas_maximus on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 16:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by MechR"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Since my SSDs failed (and I really can't be bothered to replace them at the moment), everytime I start Firefox I find it takes longer than Chrome ....

However on my home machine I am running nightly of Firefox and Chrome Canary.

The thing that I am really excited by which nobody mentions is WebRTC support which IMHO is bloody awesome after playing around with it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by MechR
by lvl21ogre on Fri 5th Jul 2013 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MechR"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

On Linux and normal HDDs I've found that Chrome (Canary and latest stable) take FOREVER to load.. well over 10 seconds. And that's with pretty much a new user profile!

Firefox hasn't had that problem since around version 3 or so, and it loads up in under 5 seconds depending on the number of tabs and extensions I have open.

So really, this is very much anecdotal and dependent on many factors. To the point where it might even be a useless statistic for all but the most basic users.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MechR
by lucas_maximus on Sun 7th Jul 2013 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MechR"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Dependant on many factors. At work we all have the same model of machine with the same OS, same AV ... you get the picture.

Firefox is always far slower than Chrome.

Reply Score: 2

Vimperator
by dbolgheroni on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 11:58 UTC
dbolgheroni
Member since:
2007-01-18

Never liked Chromium that much, but despite this, the killer feature of Firefox does not come from Mozilla at all.

And yes, I know there are alternatives for Chromium, but they are not comparable to Vimperator.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Vimperator
by woegjiub on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 14:24 UTC in reply to "Vimperator"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Agreed, although I use pentadactyl instead.
None of the webkit browsers can match firefox for features with that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Vimperator
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Vimperator"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I hadn't heard about pentadactyl. It appears that its the new version of vimperator. I'd love to try it, but firefox says its not version 22 compatible ....

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Vimperator
by woegjiub on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vimperator"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

It is compatible; I'm using the nightly build of it with 22.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Vimperator
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vimperator"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I typically don't like installing updates through anything other than mozilla's website. Any reason why they have limited that version to 14? Vimperator is not similarly limited.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Vimperator
by woegjiub on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Vimperator"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

There was an update to firefox with 15 which totally broke the add-on, and they are not satisfied that the changes made since deserve a new release.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Vimperator
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 5th Jul 2013 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Vimperator"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I've never understood that reasoning before, although it seems quite popular. An obvious bug prevents the current version from working with modern software, but there aren't enough "new features" to release an update that would fix the bug. Stuff happens, just release the fix on the official channel.

Reply Score: 2

Tried them all
by timosa on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 12:11 UTC
timosa
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have used Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, Epiphany, Midori, Opera and Internet Explorer. Out of them all my favorite is Firefox, because it has so many handy add-ons and is truly a non-profit community-driven project (that has become a "killer feature" since the beginning of the surveillance drama). Chrome/Chromium is a nice browser too, especially if you are using Google's services, as there are small nice things, like text formatting keyboard shortcuts, that work flawlesly.

Reply Score: 7

Firefox
by Dryhte on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 12:14 UTC
Dryhte
Member since:
2008-02-05

I'm a loyal Firefox user, but the latest couple of versions have broken my use of Citrix/Xen (.ica files are downloaded in stead of executed, and repeated re-installs of different versions of the citrix clients haven't done anything to change this).

Since reinstalling citrix doesn't help, and since IE10 has no trouble executing the .ica files and starting the actual citrix connections, I can't help but feel that Firefox broke something along the way, giving me no option but to use IE10 for those jobs which require citrix connections.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Firefox
by FreeGamer on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 12:17 UTC in reply to "Firefox"
FreeGamer Member since:
2007-04-13

Edit > Preferences > Applications

Have you tried setting it there?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Firefox
by vip2 on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 18:05 UTC in reply to "Firefox"
vip2 Member since:
2013-07-03

Hello there, I'm a long time lurker first time poster...

Citrix Client Plug-in Issues - Been there, fixed that.

All you have to do is copy the "\Mozilla Firefox\Plugins" folder to the "\Mozilla Firefox\Browser" folder. So you will end up with a Mozilla Firefox\Browser\Plugins folder.

Then about:plugins in the location bar should show Citrix ICA Client plugin again.

They moved the location of the Plugins folder without telling everybody.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Firefox
by Dryhte on Thu 4th Jul 2013 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Firefox"
Dryhte Member since:
2008-02-05

Thanks!

Reply Score: 1

Switching to Opera 15
by twitterfire on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 13:38 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I'm going to exclusively use Opera 15 for a week and see if it behaves well. I didn't use Opera for years due to poor rendering speed and lack of extensions. But now, that it uses Blink rendering engine and it already has lots of useful extensions, it might be a good browser for me.

The reason to switch to Opera 15 is that I'm getting fed with Chrome and Google logging my online activities. i'm also trying startpage.com which is basically google search engine with privacy and anonimity added, so no IP logging and tracking.

I installed Opera before reading this article and finding out about Tom Hardware's test but I'm glad that at page loading speed Opera 15 is the first along with Chrome.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Switching to Opera 15
by Kochise on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 14:37 UTC in reply to "Switching to Opera 15"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

At least the result page shows where Opera 12 really stands : behind IE 10, at the last position, for every score !

It's one thing to claim having fast Acid3 rendering and WebGL if one cannot enjoy WebGL and have medium HTML5 CSS3 rendering, benchmarks debunking the truth.

Now that gives Opera 15 more credit, since it's official launch from yesterday. But much of the credits goes to Blink, so it's not really Opera's fault/work.

Kochise, long time Opera fan, yet pragmatic.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Switching to Opera 15
by bolomkxxviii on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:48 UTC in reply to "Switching to Opera 15"
bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

If you don't like your browser spying on you why don't you try: https://ixquick.com/

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Switching to Opera 15
by twitterfire on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Switching to Opera 15"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

If you don't like your browser spying on you why don't you try: https://ixquick.com/

I use https://startpage.com made by same guys that did ixquick.

Thing is the browser can spy on you regardless of search engine. And search engine can track you apart from browser.

A high privacy solution will imply a browser like Firefox, Srware Iron, Opera 15 and a search engine like startpage and ixquick.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Switching to Opera 15
by Undomiel on Thu 4th Jul 2013 00:12 UTC in reply to "Switching to Opera 15"
Undomiel Member since:
2007-11-23

Posting this from Opera 15 myself but I'm finding it has a bit of catching up to do unfortunately. It does feel swifter than Opera 12 and has a bit of a cleaner look to it. But it is missing a number of features that I really liked from previous versions of Opera. Or even what you would expect from a modern browser these days. No ability to add search engines currently.

No true bookmarks solution. My wife misses the RSS reader and Notes from the previous version so she is refusing to upgrade until there is a decent replacement. I definitely miss being able to have a Diigo button in the toolbar. You can hack in Chrome extensions but the Diigo one doesn't work. No customization of the interface or customized gestures/keyboard shortcuts.

I'll stick it out for a while as I expect they'll fix a number of these issues as they go along. I do think they are tossing aside a number of their less patient user base needly though. It would have been better to hold off on a release until they had implemented some more of these features.

Reply Score: 3

King of the hill?
by twitterfire on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 13:50 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

FF might be king of the hill for some folks, but it's not king of the hill for me yet since in areas that matters to me like rendering speed, page loading, javascript engine it is behind Chrome and Opera 15, even if not by much.

Certainly FF has tremendously improved in all areas and if speed is not what matters to you most, it might be the best browser.

Good thing, competition.

Reply Score: 0

RE: King of the hill?
by Symgeosis on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 21:31 UTC in reply to "King of the hill?"
Symgeosis Member since:
2005-09-13

if speed is not what matters to you most, it might be the best browser.


Your statement makes no sense. The entire point of the article is that Firefox beat the other contenders over all in regards to performance. Did it win in all categories and benchmarks? No. Did it have the best score all around? Yes.

Edited 2013-07-03 21:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: King of the hill?
by twitterfire on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE: King of the hill?"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I use the browser for browsing the web. Maybe you have other usage scenarios?

If the browser is slow at loading web pages, it is not the best browser for me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: King of the hill?
by lvl21ogre on Thu 4th Jul 2013 00:11 UTC in reply to "King of the hill?"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

But does it really matter if Chrome is a bit faster at page loading if a quarter of the pages are broken when they load?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:01 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Hail to the king!, baby.

Is not only the fastest, it is also the one who has the better Javascript implementation, this works on FF but not in the other browsers:

let a = 10

and this:

x = (a,b)=>(a+b)

Thank you Firefox.

Edited 2013-07-03 15:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by twitterfire on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 18:55 UTC in reply to "..."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


Is not only the fastest,

Actually it is the faster to startup. Page load i.e. browsing is slower and I suspect javascript is slower, but can't tell from those two js benchmarks, one of them is even dated.

Edited 2013-07-03 18:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

How much do these benchmarks matter?
by Dave_K on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:23 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

I wonder what real impact these differences in speed have on people's productivity when browsing the web?

To me being able to manage tabs multiple tabs more efficiently, or even small time-saving touches like streamlined menus and toolbars with just the options I need, make more of a real world difference than an extra half second loading a page.

For me, with much of my day-to-day browsing, Chrome is actually the slowest browser by a mile. Open too many tabs on a slower PC (like the mini-laptop I use for quite a lot of browsing) and it crawls so slowly that it can take 5+ seconds just to switch between tabs. Of course by then the tab bar, on a small screen, is packed full and hunting for a particular page wastes even more time.

That's the kind of thing that benchmarks like this don't show up, but to me they're things that matter much more.

Reply Score: 5

lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

Actually, the nice thing is that Tom's roundup includes other important factors than just simple raw performance. For instance, reading it one can figure out that while Chrome loads pages more quickly, it also loads them less reliably. Likewise, while Chrome performs very well with HTML5, it uses far more memory.

Thankfully it seems that Mozilla isn't just racing to the bottom with these things. They're definitely playing catch-up in some respects, but I get the impression that other browser vendors are obsessing over certain metrics while Mozilla is obsessing over others.

Power usage, for instance. Some vendors have been shouting about how much more power-efficient their browsers are, but does it really matter when I can get to my content twice as fast in Firefox anyway? It would be interesting to see a benchmark that could take the human factor into account..

Reply Score: 3

FF versions!
by kateline on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:34 UTC
kateline
Member since:
2011-05-19

WTF is with Firefox's numbering system? It's really goofy. You log in some other system, and you don'tknow whether 12 or 18 or 20 is really outdated or ok to use. Switch the numbering back to version and release!

Other than that, a great browser.

Reply Score: 2

RE: FF versions!
by Hiev on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:43 UTC in reply to "FF versions!"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Help -> About Firefox.

Reply Score: 2

Chrome -> Firefox
by sb56637 on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 15:54 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

I've recently switched from Chrome to Firefox 21. Chrome was driving me crazy because it refused to save passwords on Google accounts. Yes, *Google* Chrome wouldn't save passwords for *Google* accounts. Pretty dumb. Yes, I know about multiple user profiles on Chrome, but I don't like using them. Additionally, Chrome changed a Flash buffer setting that made streaming audio unusably choppy. There was also a bug where my internet connection would temporarily drop, and Chrome would fail to detect that the connection was back up. Even new tabs would fail, claiming there was no connection. I would have to restart the entire Chrome browser to make it connect again. Chrome also lacked a tiny but critically important feature for me-- When I am working through a long list of links I open each one in a new tab, process the new tab, close it, and then return to the parent tab. But Chrome, unlike Firefox, does not show a little dotted underline mark under the most recently opened link, making me lose my place in a long list. And finally, Chrome was no longer fast to launch like it used to be.

So I switched to Firefox 21. I don't really like it either. It's slow to launch, and the interface frequently feels slow. Obviously due to its design, a slow script on any page freezes the entire UI. Rendering speed is fairly fast. I absolutely hate the combined "Firefox" menu that appears when the menu bar is disabled. Certain options that are available in the normal menu bar are simply not available in the combined menu. Really stupid, because the combined menu like Chrome has is normally a nice space saver, and there's no reason to not make certain options visible. And certain key Chrome features (like highlighting search term locations on the page with little tick marks in the scrollbar) are only available via extensions in Firefox, some of which feel like a bit of a hack.

So, I'm not very happy with the "big two" browsers. Looking forward to trying Firefox 22.

Edited 2013-07-03 16:00 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Chrome -> Firefox
by Fergy on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 22:50 UTC in reply to "Chrome -> Firefox"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Certain options that are available in the normal menu bar are simply not available in the combined menu.

Like what?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Chrome -> Firefox
by Delgarde on Thu 4th Jul 2013 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Chrome -> Firefox"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

"Certain options that are available in the normal menu bar are simply not available in the combined menu.

Like what?
"

I'm not the original poster, but the examples I'd give are the contents of the View and Tools menus. Want to zoom in or out, or reset the zoom level? The regular menubar has entries under View, but there's no equivalent for the compact Firefox menu. And the Tools menu has an option for clearing recent history, likewise with no obvious equivalent in the compact menu.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Chrome -> Firefox
by sb56637 on Thu 4th Jul 2013 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chrome -> Firefox"
sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

^^^
This ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Chrome -> Firefox
by mksoft on Thu 4th Jul 2013 04:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chrome -> Firefox"
mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25

For that I use the shortcuts, anyway, you still have access to the full menu while using the combined one:

Press ALT+V for the View menu, ALT+T for the tools menu, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Chrome -> Firefox
by Fergy on Thu 4th Jul 2013 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chrome -> Firefox"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I'm not the original poster, but the examples I'd give are the contents of the View and Tools menus. Want to zoom in or out, or reset the zoom level? The regular menubar has entries under View, but there's no equivalent for the compact Firefox menu. And the Tools menu has an option for clearing recent history, likewise with no obvious equivalent in the compact menu.

For zooming I would use CTRL+mousewheel. You could also drag zoom controls in Firefox. The new Firefox menu has zoom controls so maybe you are right and people really wanted to zoom a lot with the Firefox menu.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Chrome -> Firefox
by sb56637 on Thu 4th Jul 2013 12:41 UTC in reply to "Chrome -> Firefox"
sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

Well, I'm on Firefox 22 now. No noticeable improvements or regressions compared with Firefox 21.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 16:23 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

I updated my Firefox 21 to Firefox 22. As soon as 22 loaded, I got a bunch of error messages about not being able to find dlls. I installed 21 again and watched all those dlls magically reappear in the Firefox dir. So, I copied them to a temp dir, installed 22 again and watched them all vanish. I copied them back into the Firefox dir from my newly made temp copy and errors are gone now.

I don't know if this is a bug in their installer, if they moved those dlls elsewhere and didn't update Firefox to look in the new location, or what. Either way, something like that should have been caught before 22 was released publicly.

For the record, I'm running Windows 7 64bit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Fergy on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 22:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Either way, something like that should have been caught before 22 was released publicly.

And somehow millions of users kept quiet and said nothing. Or could it be that this is a rare bug that only sometimes gives problems? Or faulty hardware?

Either way, if you(maybe with the help of mozilla)find out if there is a problem you should share it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 4th Jul 2013 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"Either way, something like that should have been caught before 22 was released publicly.

And somehow millions of users kept quiet and said nothing. Or could it be that this is a rare bug that only sometimes gives problems? Or faulty hardware?

Either way, if you(maybe with the help of mozilla)find out if there is a problem you should share it.
"

That's really weak sarcasm for a myriad number of reasons. And btw, faulty hardware doesn't make dlls appear/disappear according to which version of an app you're installing.

Edited 2013-07-04 00:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Other than the relative performance of the browsers the thing that hasn't been mentioned on this site or much is WebRTC support which is far more interesting IMHO.

WebRTC with p2p camera and mic connection between browsers is fucking awesome. I have essentially built an open standards version of Skype for my own edification on the new proposed features.

I suggest checking out http://twelephone.com/ (not made by me ... wish it was).

Reply Score: 6

sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

Hey, that's pretty slick. Thanks for the link. I wish it would let me create a standalone account, since I don't use Twitter.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The library that they are using is called "holla.js" and is a library for node.js and is open source.

http://bloggeek.me/nodejs-webrtc/

I've been playing with it but haven't got anything past a proof of concept. Hopefully when they have an IRC channel up I might actually get a bit further with my app.

Reply Score: 3

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I think WebRTC has the potential to change the world.

And it's not just for the browser you can make desktop and mobile apps with it too, it's mostly a protocol and there are libraries for it.

Thus it can be used for many, many applications and it's encrypted by default.

Basically it allows for P2P real time communication.

Audio, video and also data. And it's always encrypted.

There is however no signaling (like XMPP or SIP) but this thus also allow it to be really flexible.

On the audio side, the codec it supports, Opus, is new and was designed for changing environments. Part of it was derived from a codec from Skype.

It can also use the same audio codec which is supported by many VoIP systems.

Video codecs is where the issue is at, it's not defined in the standard yet, there are people for patented H.264-like and more free WebM/VP8-like, but it can be worked around. And even if video is problematic it would allow for many, many useful things.

Doing video conferencing with more than 4 people is less than ideal, you'd want to use one or more central servers.

I've seen applications like:
- video chat
- audio chat
- text chat
- screensharing (not just the browser)
- file exchange
- collaborative editing

It can also pierce NAT like Skype or use a relay if it really can't work around NAT. The relay only sees encrypted data.

There are even people working on Push Notification. So you can receive notification of new calls even if your browser or app isn't open.

Some say it's the next best application/protocol of the Internet after the web.

The best thing would be if a protocol similar to VoIP is build on top which connect to a different identity, like your email address.

It could be like VoIP/SIP where everything is mostly interoperable or like not like a lot of the instant messaging systems.

There are 3 big webcompanies involved with WebRTC, Google, Microsoft and Mozilla. Also the Skype team and companies like AT&T and Ericsson

Edited 2013-07-04 13:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

There are 3 big webcompanies involved with WebRTC, Google, Microsoft and Mozilla. Also the Skype team and companies like AT&T and Ericsson

Even though Google closed Gtalk/Hangouts from interoperability? And why would MS be involved with the closed Skype?...

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Let's see, their are a few reasons.

But it is like asking why did Ericsson get involved with the development of the mobile phone system because they already had a really nice big share in existing telephony networks. The answer is simple: to be the expert in whatever is going to happen anyway.

On WebRTC and Microsoft specifically:

Because it is just a protocol, it's going to happen anyway, might as well try to influence what the protocol will look like and possibly slowdown it's development.

And don't worry, "signaling" is not part of the protocol. So you can use it with other existing protocols/application/social network (their own user base).

Any other reason Microsoft might be involved is because Skype probably already was involved before Microsoft bought them.

An other reason might be because people don't want plugins anymore. Remember that Microsoft Windows 8/Windows RT Metro environment doesn't allow plugins either I believe.

Edited 2013-07-06 18:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

No need for MS conspiracy theories :p
I was just wondering why MS Skype division would be involved while they have their own mature tech... "just a protocol" means they simply want to use it themselves, I suppose.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by jonoden
by jonoden on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 16:53 UTC
jonoden
Member since:
2012-02-13

This is like managing your 401K... you can keep switching funds every other day but it's probably best to stick with one. I personally find so much utility in chrome's profile switching to manage all my google accounts for personal+work+other stuff that any small annoyances are not that big a deal.

Reply Score: 2

Meh
by peteo on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 19:27 UTC
peteo
Member since:
2011-10-05

And now we yawn. The difference is in practice, none.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 19:43 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Have any of you been switching browsers lately? If so, from which to which? Any troubles you ran into?


no, but I'm looking at email clients again because they all STINK

Reply Score: 4

I keep saying...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 20:31 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I keep saying that I'm going to switch browsers, but it never happens. I'm still on Firefox. I'm still using my old profile (dating back to when Firefox had sane GUI defaults), so for now Firefox works fine. I cringe when I boot a modern live CD and am greeted by the "new" default interface and settings.

Once I lose this profile, the only thing keeping me on Firefox will be a couple of extensions, which are becoming less and less of a problem as alternatives are on Chrome. The problems with rapidly-depreciating Firefox extensions due to an overly-fast development model seems to have been resolved (for the most part), and so have the memory leaks.

Honestly, it's getting to the point where all the browsers really are practically the same. They're all memory hogs yet at the same time being increasingly being dumbed down. The real problem is that I dislike the way Chrome has went--which on its own is fine, I just wouldn't use it--but now that everyone else is making a clone of Chrome, I'm stuck with it or something disturbingly similar.

I don't know why, with its open nature, Firefox wasn't forked at 2.x or 3.6.x, back when its GUI was at its peak or at least just before it went all Chrome. There was enough complaining to warrant a fork. I guess no one wanted to undertake such a task (which, no doubt, would have been a difficult job).

Reply Score: 2

RE: I keep saying...
by Fergy on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 22:57 UTC in reply to "I keep saying..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Honestly, it's getting to the point where all the browsers really are practically the same. They're all memory hogs yet at the same time being increasingly being dumbed down.

Either you don't understand that websites are becoming memory hogs or your profile makes Firefox do weird things.
But from what you write here there is no pleasing you.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: I keep saying...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE: I keep saying..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Either you don't understand that websites are becoming memory hogs or your profile makes Firefox do weird things.

Oh, web sites are a part of the problem too. No denying that. At this point, many of them actually *are* worse than the browsers they run in. But that's not to say that browsers themselves haven't exploded over the last several years.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I keep saying...
by Fergy on Thu 4th Jul 2013 07:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I keep saying..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

But that's not to say that browsers themselves haven't exploded over the last several years.

I don't agree with that assessment. Most browsers have a memory report now to see why it is using memory. If you take Firefox 1.0 and add features like a jit, type inference, anti phishing, databases, gpu acceleration etc. it uses 40MB instead of 32MB at startup.
Everything above that 40MB is either extensions or websites. Try about:memory

What do you think a browser should use?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I keep saying...
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 4th Jul 2013 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I keep saying..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I don't care about what little individual bits and pieces of a browser use. It all adds up, and the end result is what matters. I care what a brand new, clean instance of a browser takes up with no web page open... and it shouldn't be anywhere near 200 MB. That's a whopping 20% of the total memory I have, with no web page even open! That's just ridiculous. Think about that for a second: should a web browser even have to take over 100 MB just to display a blank page? I seriously don't think so.

Sure... you could argue, get rid of the extensions, they take up memory. That only shaves off maybe about 50 MB... and 150 MB is still high. And you're still stuck with a browser hogging an unacceptable amount of memory on its own before you even enter a URL.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I keep saying...
by Fergy on Thu 4th Jul 2013 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I keep saying..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I don't care about what little individual bits and pieces of a browser use. It all adds up, and the end result is what matters. I care what a brand new, clean instance of a browser takes up with no web page open... and it shouldn't be anywhere near 200 MB. That's a whopping 20% of the total memory I have, with no web page even open! That's just ridiculous. Think about that for a second: should a web browser even have to take over 100 MB just to display a blank page? I seriously don't think so.

Sure... you could argue, get rid of the extensions, they take up memory. That only shaves off maybe about 50 MB... and 150 MB is still high. And you're still stuck with a browser hogging an unacceptable amount of memory on its own before you even enter a URL.

So have you looked at about:memory?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: I keep saying...
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 4th Jul 2013 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I keep saying..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

top and htop work perfectly fine to get the measurements I need, but since you insist:

about:memory Explicit Allocations:
185.77 MB (100.0%) -- explicit
...
about:memory Other Measurements:
251.84 MB ── resident
239.42 MB ── resident-unique

htop reading: 238M

So, again, what was the point of going through all that crap and looking through dozens of smaller values when I only care about the grand total--which any system monitor should return accurately? The end result is that the browser itself shows a very similar "total memory usage," and that's what I care about.

Note: The above was measured on a completely fresh copy of Firefox after completely exiting the previous instance. The only difference compared to my previous tests was that I went to "about:config" immediately after running the browser (which was, again, set to start with a blank page) and before taking any measurements, so they should all be in line.

Edited 2013-07-04 22:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I keep saying...
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 4th Jul 2013 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I keep saying..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Meh... I meant to say that I went to about:memory. I'm so used to following "about:" with "config" it's not even funny.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I keep saying...
by Fergy on Fri 5th Jul 2013 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I keep saying..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

So, again, what was the point of going through all that crap and looking through dozens of smaller values when I only care about the grand total--which any system monitor should return accurately? The end result is that the browser itself shows a very similar "total memory usage," and that's what I care about.

Because you still don't know why it is using that memory.
Mozilla measures memory usage of each build: https://areweslimyet.com/
This is my about:memory: http://pastebin.com/vAZywjmu

Edited 2013-07-05 06:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: I keep saying...
by zlynx on Fri 5th Jul 2013 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I keep saying..."
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20


So, again, what was the point of going through all that crap and looking through dozens of smaller values when I only care about the grand total--which any system monitor should return accurately? The end result is that the browser itself shows a very similar "total memory usage," and that's what I care about.


For example, when I just ran about:memory on my Firefox it showed me that plus.google.com was using about 55 MB in the browser. I closed that tab and voila, Firefox shrank by about 50 MB.

Almost all of the google web pages are more Javascript application than HTML page and use large amounts of RAM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I keep saying...
by lucas_maximus on Thu 4th Jul 2013 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE: I keep saying..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Lets blame iffy behaviour on what the end of the day is a set of text files on your machine.

How the fuck does a set of text files affect the reliability of a native desktop application? Obviously there is some iffy coding going on.

BTW I use Firefox.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I keep saying...
by Fergy on Thu 4th Jul 2013 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I keep saying..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Lets blame iffy behaviour on what the end of the day is a set of text files on your machine.

How the fuck does a set of text files affect the reliability of a native desktop application? Obviously there is some iffy coding going on.

BTW I use Firefox.

Your whole computer is working on a set of text files be they machine code or computer languages. Mozilla is afraid of losing your data by converting and optimizing it so they are very careful. A nice example is a sqlite optimization where you get a 2-4 speedup. It was only activated on a new profile. Now they are trying to update every profile. To me it is very little effort to create a new profile and go on with what I was doing. So just to be sure my Firefox stays optimized I create a new profile about every 6 months. Especially because I run every nightly build as my daily browser.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I keep saying...
by lucas_maximus on Thu 4th Jul 2013 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I keep saying..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

So they can't make a temp file or a backup file while they do that.

Keep on coming up with excuses and I will keep on coming up with easy ways they could have mitigated it.

I am typing this on nightly.

Edited 2013-07-04 21:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: I keep saying...
by Fergy on Thu 4th Jul 2013 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I keep saying..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Keep on coming up with excuses and I will keep on coming up with easy ways they could have mitigated it.

Sure. That solution would work for nerds. Nerds can also make a new profile. Normal users will just complain Firefox ate their data.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: I keep saying...
by lucas_maximus on Thu 4th Jul 2013 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I keep saying..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

So you don't have a argument as to why they didn't make up a process for older profiles.

Whether I can piss about with profiles is irrelevant, it has to be done transparently to the user. Which Firefox fails at by your own admission.

Edited 2013-07-04 21:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: I keep saying...
by Fergy on Fri 5th Jul 2013 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I keep saying..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

So you don't have a argument as to why they didn't make up a process for older profiles.

Because it would be really really difficult. They would have to choose between developing ion-monkey and this profile converting tool.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I keep saying...
by Soulbender on Fri 5th Jul 2013 06:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I keep saying..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

(double post)

Edited 2013-07-05 06:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I keep saying...
by Fergy on Fri 5th Jul 2013 06:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I keep saying..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Profile migration isn't rocket science. We're not talking about some homegrown browser with 2 devs, we're talking about a major consumer product.
Clearly they don't give a shit about this feature or otherwise it would already have been implemented.

Could be. Do you know of a similar piece of software that does this? Windows does not do this while they have billions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: I keep saying...
by Soulbender on Fri 5th Jul 2013 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I keep saying..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Normal users will just complain Firefox ate their data


Profile migration isn't rocket science. We're not talking about some homegrown browser with 2 devs, we're talking about a major consumer product.
Clearly they don't give a shit about this feature or otherwise it would already have been implemented.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: I keep saying...
by lvl21ogre on Fri 5th Jul 2013 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I keep saying..."
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

Actually, profile migration IS a bit like rocket science when you have a product this big and this customizable. Even the smallest change to something could break settings in third-party modules (add-ons/plugins) and you don't have control over those.

Other browsers have fewer profile-related issues precisely because Firefox is so customizable by comparison. Mozilla should be held to a high standard, of course, but it's easy to forget that.

Reply Score: 2

Still using Firefox
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 4th Jul 2013 01:08 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've tried switching to Chrome as my main browser 2 or 3 times, after various frustrations with earlier versions of Firefox. But in Firefox I typically have at least a dozen windows open and upwards of a hundred tabs (on busy days, when juggling a lot of different things, it can hit 40 windows/300+ tabs). And Firefox handles that surprisingly well, RAM permitting - but I find Chrome starts to get sluggish once I reach 5 windows/50 tabs or so, mainly in terms of taking a long time to show page content when switching tabs. I've also found that, all things being equal (same windows/tabs open in both browsers), Chrome uses more RAM that FF - I would assume that's a downside of its one-process-per-tab model.

And while I don't go as crazy as some with installing add-ons, there are a few FF add-ons that I depend on & haven't been able to find equivalents for in Chrome. Mainly tab hunter (let's you search open tabs by title/URL) and It's All Text (gives you a keyboard shortcut to open the contents of any textarea in an external editor). And I haven't found anything for Chrome that comes close to SessionManager, the most reliable way I've found to preserve Chrome settings is to just "taskkill /f /im" the process.

So these days, I typically have both of them open - with Firefox serving as my main browser, and Chrome (Iron, actually) with 1-2 windows open for stuff it does better. E.g. I'll usually switch over to Chrome for any browser-based uploading, since it shows a progress indicator - and I find Chrome a bit more stable for stuff like that, though in fairness I'm using Chrome for less & I'm also using the "Aurora" branch of Firefox (though I find Aurora on Win7 more stable than "stable" Firefox on XP, so YMMV). Though I've been using Chrome less on my laptop lately, since it's developed a nasty habit of crashing my video driver in the last 2 or 3 months.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Still using Firefox
by lucas_maximus on Thu 4th Jul 2013 19:50 UTC in reply to "Still using Firefox"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Being a web-dev I have 4 browsers open and two virtual machines with "proper" IE8 and IE9.

Maybe it the power of my machine at work (8 CPU Xeon), but Chrome never becomes sluggish while Firefox does.

It is odd that people have such different experiences.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Still using Firefox
by zima on Sat 6th Jul 2013 18:03 UTC in reply to "Still using Firefox"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

at least a dozen windows open and upwards of a hundred tabs (on busy days, when juggling a lot of different things, it can hit 40 windows/300+ tabs)

Better to get rid of such browsing habits... (and I speak from experience; for me, the too-many-tabs habits were enabled by Opera)

Edited 2013-07-06 18:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still using Firefox
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 6th Jul 2013 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Still using Firefox"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"at least a dozen windows open and upwards of a hundred tabs (on busy days, when juggling a lot of different things, it can hit 40 windows/300+ tabs)

Better to get rid of such browsing habits... (and I speak from experience; for me, the too-many-tabs habits were enabled by Opera)
"

I find that to be the most efficient way to work using a browser, at least for me. I find it faster to leave windows/tabs open that I'm likely to need again in the near future - and I tend to open most things in new tabs, because I prefer being able to just switch tabs rather than waiting for websites/web-based applications. Then once a week or so, I go through and close any tabs/windows I don't need anymore.

And Firefox handles that surprisingly well, at least with TabHunter and SessionManager installed. It also helps that, when restoring a session in recent versions, Firefox only loads pages in the active tabs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Still using Firefox
by zima on Wed 10th Jul 2013 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still using Firefox"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And Firefox handles that surprisingly well, at least with TabHunter and SessionManager installed

Wasn't my experience - FF tended to lose session file. Luckily, we have a choice in browsers :p

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still using Firefox
by lvl21ogre on Sat 6th Jul 2013 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Still using Firefox"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

With something like the Session Manager add-on, you don't have to "get rid" of the habit, you can just keep a set of tabs as a single session that's only opened when you want it to be. That way you only keep the tabs you want open, and sets of them are organized in a logical manner.

Of course, that's assuming you have so many tabs because you need them, like a cluttered desk that only you can make sense of. If it's just tabs you don't care about much yet don't close, then yes: that's a habit to adjust (use bookmarks, that's what they're for).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Still using Firefox
by zima on Wed 10th Jul 2013 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still using Firefox"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Opera had session management built-in ...but it's still better to get rid of the habit.

And apart from bookmarks there's also saving pages to disk (which Opera did nicely, as single archive; no "html + file directory" crap)

Reply Score: 2

Firefox killer feature
by brimstedt on Thu 4th Jul 2013 05:35 UTC
brimstedt
Member since:
2013-07-03

Firefox has one killer feature, which apparently Chrome developers are unable to implement:
A setting to turn of tabbed browsing.
This setting alone makes me loyal to Firefox and Chrome can only be considered a toy for now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Firefox killer feature
by Lion on Thu 4th Jul 2013 18:50 UTC in reply to "Firefox killer feature"
Lion Member since:
2007-03-22

I am very curious as to why you need this feature to such an extent that its absence makes other browsers seem like toys? I am the opposite... the absence of tab capabilities makes a browser feel broken for me.

Reply Score: 2

Google Services Integration
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 4th Jul 2013 21:30 UTC
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

Firefox needs to figure out how they can integrate their browser into the Google Ecosystem. If I could get bookmark/web history/ Password sync with my Google account then I would be tempted to try their browser. Right now I am locked into Chrome (and happy with it) because I enjoy the seamless integration with Google's Ecosystem.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Google Services Integration
by lvl21ogre on Fri 5th Jul 2013 16:14 UTC in reply to "Google Services Integration"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

Funny, I keep hearing from others who are MUCH happier with Firefox because it DOESN'T strongly integrate with any particular ecosystem.. especially Google's.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Google Services Integration
by Kivada on Sat 6th Jul 2013 08:28 UTC in reply to "Google Services Integration"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Why on earth would anyone in their right mind want more Google in their lives?

Reply Score: 2

From FF to Chrome
by caffewmilk on Fri 5th Jul 2013 18:27 UTC
caffewmilk
Member since:
2013-07-05

Last year I made the switch from Firefox to Chrome just to try it out and was immediately hooked. Having a Google account and mostly using Google's services, Chrome and its sync feature has been great for me. The only thing missing at first was mouse gestures which later on became available in the Extensions store. Now when friends and family complain about their browser, I send them to download Chrome.

Reply Score: 1

RE: From FF to Chrome
by lvl21ogre on Sat 6th Jul 2013 00:50 UTC in reply to "From FF to Chrome"
lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

I guess there are more people stuck on Google services than I thought. I tend to recommend a browser based on the user's needs, but that's just me. It's not like we've only got two options anymore.

Reply Score: 1

Copy/paste doesn't work in latest FF
by rubmon on Sat 6th Jul 2013 11:24 UTC
rubmon
Member since:
2012-06-02

Switched to Chrome until FF fixes copy/paste

Reply Score: 2

lvl21ogre Member since:
2013-07-04

I haven't seen any recent bug reports about breaking copy/paste entirely, so if you're sure it's not a wayward add-on or profile issue, I'd strongly recommend opening a Bugzilla ticket just in case they're unaware of it.

Reply Score: 1

Firefox, getting better and better
by cmost on Sat 6th Jul 2013 18:22 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I've been a Firefox user since it's very first version arrived back in 2004 when it was called Firebird. Before that, I was a staunch Netscape user; I have always detested Internet Explorer (and Microsoft products in general.) When I made the permanent switch to Linux, my trusty Firefox came right along with me. I've tried Chrome here and there and even Opera once; even though these are great browsers, I've grown accustomed to Firefox and I prefer it. The huge array of plugins and addons extend its features even further. I've never had any issues other than the occasional font problem, but that's usually quickly sorted.

Reply Score: 2

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I agree with you that all the addons and plugins for Firefox is a huge plus. Firefox is my main browser, with IE as a back for those times when something is wrong with Firefox. Between those two, I've never had a need to use any other browser. They work perfectly fine for me. I did, though, use Netscape, way back ages ago.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I've been a Firefox user since it's very first version arrived back in 2004 when it was called Firebird.

Phoenix, not Firebird - that was its 2nd name, before Firefox ;)

Reply Score: 2