Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:54 UTC, submitted by lefty78312
Mozilla & Gecko clones The Mozilla Corporation today released Firefox 3 Beta 1, which is now available for download in a variety of languages. The beta includes updates to the default theme, the new places site management features, improved security architecture, and Gecko 1.9. Release notes with a more complete list of features, are also available.
Thread beginning with comment 285674
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Native widgets?
by meianoite on Wed 21st Nov 2007 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
meianoite
Member since:
2006-04-05

You are a retard. The irony of Kaiwai comment that you are you happy to quote is that its simply not the case. You will notice it is *I* who mods him down after being the first to make a criticism of the *new* Firefox. Note I use the term new. He cried because someone modded him down.


On the other hand, you seem to swing from retard to cynical, and back. You completely misunderstand/misuse the modding system, and you openly admit so.

As I said, no amount of bullet talking points on a release notes document change the fact that FF is still a huge resource hog.

(btw, current user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.7; current memory usage: Working Set: 402,312K; Private Working Set: 374,288K; Commit Size: 1,032,508K; and that's with nine tabs open: 1 gmail, 5 OSNews, 2 Best Buy, 1 NIN Hotline)

That is why the original comment is off-topic


No matter how you cut it, it can't be off-topic if you're talking about the subject on topic. Your M.O. of evangelising Firefox is doing a massive disservice to the alternative, standards-compliant browsers community.

The reality is though is I strongly *believe* that an application should make *best* use of resources available to it,


When an application starts to swap like mad, it has crossed the "resources available to it" by a long margin.

clearly it is *not* doing so with Firefox 2, but you can see that they are striving to do just that with 3. Anything else is stupid.


This is not fact, this is just your opinion. Which, AFAICT, bears no authority whatsoever.

(OTOH, I hold a degree in Computer Science, so I sometimes actually know WTF I'm talking about.)

I will address you final point which I am more than happy for you to disagree with, is that I would rather participially due to Firefox's large release cycles is building Firefox to be *scalable* as you describe, although I have seen references to work being done for a mobile(sic) Firefox. Personally I would rather the emphasis was on heavier requirements rather than less simply because


I've once complained that some of your sentences are really hard to make sense of, but... Here's my best shot: I'm not demanding that FF scales from wristwatches to Crays, but I do demand that my web browser uses less than 200MB of RAM at any given time, PERIOD.

a) the desktop is where its always happened


People wiser than me describe this sort of attitude as "famous last words before obsolescence".

b)the move will always be towards bigger and faster. Look at Linux built for the server, or how gOS is going down with enlightenment both originally memory hogs, both come on a $200 computer...that runs Firefox of all things


Yeah, as if there's really any real alternatives when you run Linux. (No, Konqueror isn't a valid alternative, not when not even Gmail loads itself with the AJAX interface unless you tamper with the user-agent string; but that I blame on Google more than on the K guys.)

And where did you get that wild idea that Enlightenment used to be a memory hog?!

c) Microsoft is in the process of *buying* the internet, and rebuilding it on OOXML, and other patented/proprietary standards of all things...but they are moving in the *right* direction, the fact that Firefox is built on standards and *finally* passes the acid test is just a pleasant bonus.


You're mixing a lot of stuff up here. I'd recommend you to wash your face with cold water, but it would seem like I'm attacking you personally. OTOH, you called me retarded, so I wonder why I'm holding my punches... Elegance and common courtesy, maybe.

d) Any benefit gained from having an browser work on a machine of limited specs for the vast majority and we are talking 200million users so far is *lost* because the bottlenecks with the internet are elsewhere...and don't make me quote the rest of the release notes on performance. If anything that should be left to the eLinks/Dillo's of this world.


You really have no idea what you're talking about. There are NGOs whose sole mission is to provide public schools in 3rd world countries with broadband internet access. In Brazil those NGOs promote what's called "digital inclusion". I know that much, I used to work at a place that fostered digital inclusion and served as a hub to interconnect 200+ public schools spread over 5 states.

...but basically your making a point thats not here. I suspect the reasons for you making such a point is to promote an alternative browser.


Just because I cited Opera as a browser that doesn't burn my patience out? Dude, were that the case, I'd simply stick with IE. I don't use Opera, as I profoundly dislike its interface, but despite my reservations towards it, I can recognise it's a decent product, specially the mobile version; it's the only thing out there that manages to somewhat compete with MobileSafari. I've made a comment on this very topic not too long ago.

Please, take your head out of the sand (I'm being very courteous here) and get a grip: there's a reason why most "regular" people reject Firefox despite plenty of evangelism, sponsorship and bundling with Google's software. There's a reason why Google went with Webkit and not with Firefox on Android.

The FF team needs a *good dose* of criticism towake up and get their act together. I've been using Firefox since back when it was a Gecko demo that fitted a floppy, and it really hurts to see where we stand today.

Firefox is giving me a lot of déjà vu regarding the GCC 2.8 situation, except that I see no EGCS coming to the rescue.


Edit: stray (q) tag

Edited 2007-11-21 02:18

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Native widgets?
by djst on Wed 21st Nov 2007 10:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

I've once complained that some of your sentences are really hard to make sense of, but... Here's my best shot: I'm not demanding that FF scales from wristwatches to Crays, but I do demand that my web browser uses less than 200MB of RAM at any given time, PERIOD.

Regardless of web page complexity? I just fired up Safari on Mac OS X 10.4 and opened six tabs (cnn.com, bbc.co.uk, aftonbladet.se, expressen.se, facebook.com, gmail.com). I clicked around a few links in each tab and *boom*, there it went passed 200 MB. Is that a bad thing? It might be, depending on how Safari handles caching and the DOM, but I'd guess it's pretty normal considering it has six heavy websites loaded at the same time.

Not that I care much about web browser memory usage comparisons, but I did the exact same test with Firefox 3 Beta 1, and I never exceeded 200 MB. Right now, Firefox 3 has 11 tabs opened (same sites as in Safari, plus Zimbra, my blog, another blog, and two OSnews.com tabs) and uses 121 MB. And now Safari just dropped its memory usage to 166 MB without me doing anything.

My point here? It's hard to establish in formal tests that Firefox has worse memory problems than any other modern browser. Today's websites are complex beasts, memory management is tricky, and both Safari and Firefox uses a lot of memory. In any isolated test case, your mileage will always vary.

Please, take your head out of the sand (I'm being very courteous here) and get a grip: there's a reason why most "regular" people reject Firefox despite plenty of evangelism, sponsorship and bundling with Google's software. There's a reason why Google went with Webkit and not with Firefox on Android.

Pardon me, but this is just nonsense. What on earth do you mean by "most regular people" rejecting Firefox? Maybe you mean they keep using IE?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Wed 21st Nov 2007 19:33 in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

lol, I straight out call you a retail. I point out where the comment was off-topic and move on. I'm glad your not interested in my bullet points, and will get back to the point.

"Memory usage: Over 300 individual memory leaks have been plugged, and a new XPCOM cycle collector completely eliminates many more. Developers are continuing to work on optimizing memory use (by releasing cached objects more quickly) and reducing fragmentation."


Having looked at your note, I cannot help but giggle that you are using Vista...perhaps you should start with using an OS with space for applications.

Oddly my *whole* machine uses less than that...and I'm doing more with it, and firefox has been open all day.

I feel embarrassed for you that you cannot read the statement above, and draw an alternative conclusion to mine...I suspect because their isn't one. Perhaps you should have taken a course that would help you build some skills.

I actually listed *3 alternative* linux browsers in my posts try to spot, Hint: you actually quote them; One use regularly, and consider part of my essential toolbox.

If you do not understand my point about enlightenment...just trust me, computers *used* to contain an awful lot less memory than they do now, and enlightenment+linux was more than my cutting edge computer could cope with. You should re-read my point its quite clear.

I loved this don't you have like a degree or something... I'd love you to look a tiny little more in depth at where the slowdown between you getting you pages is, and then talk about bottlenecks. start looking into things like latency, but I actually mention alternatives to Firefox...and you don't even recognize them.

Yes your comments are only about promoting alternative browsers, and your comments says it all.

Firefox's own release notes which I have quoted four times, but basically in direct contradiction they have focused on memory leaks; now moving to memory footprint...perhaps you should have paid more attention in class ;) For this I will now call you lying scum, simply because of what they have completed, and what they are working on.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[8]: Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 05:49 in reply to "RE[7]: Native widgets?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I point out where the comment was off-topic and move on

You're not supposed to pick parts of other's posts and mod them down just because that single part is off-topic. Talking about FireFox, current release or older ones, is very much on-topic. The following quote is very much off-topic but should I nitpick about that and mod you down because of that?

Having looked at your note, I cannot help but giggle that you are using Vista...perhaps you should start with using an OS with space for applications.

Besides, no matter what OS one uses doesn't make a difference as to how much FireFox uses memory. If you use Linux then fine, have fun, but that doesn't give you any right to belittle others' opinions nor does it mean you're always right. Oh, and picking on someone just for using Vista is quite childish IMHO. It's a personal choice after all, and there might be f.ex. some apps which he needs and which don't work under Linux..And Linux still sucks for gaming :/

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Native widgets?
by MamiyaOtaru on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 03:54 in reply to "RE[7]: Native widgets?"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Yes your comments are only about promoting alternative browsers, and your comments says it all.

So? There are some things that other browsers do better than Firefox. Firefox does some things better than others. To make a balanced choice people need to know about both.

I'm not sure why you think your promotion of an alternative browser (Firefox) is somehow better than his, if that's even his motive in the first place (you seem to be reading a lot into his motivations).

Reply Parent Score: 1