Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Feb 2013 22:42 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones "Firefox OS could actually be wildly successful, no matter how underwhelming the actual phones may be. And that's because - at least for now - you're not the customer; your carrier is." I'm extremely disappointed by Firefox OS so far. There's nothing wrong with the low-end hardware we've seen during MWC, but there is something wrong with low-end hardware that can't even properly run its operating system. To make matters worse, carriers are the boss here. Terrible first impression.
Thread beginning with comment 553876
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
woegjiub
Member since:
2008-11-25

Why would the producers of THE sluggish, clunky desktop browser suddenly get things right on a new platform?


You haven't used firefox in a while now, have you?
It's far faster than chromium for me, and uses WAY less RAM.
Chromium with a couple of tabs open will quickly shoot up over a gig of RAM used in total; it's ridiculous, and the process separation idea is totally ludicrous.

Reply Parent Score: 4

ikidunot Member since:
2011-06-04

Well, you'd be wrong!

Reply Parent Score: 0

renox Member since:
2005-07-06

You haven't used firefox in a while now, have you?
It's far faster than chromium for me,
On Linux I bet? On Windows Chrome is much faster than Firefox.

and uses WAY less RAM.
That is true, it's Chrome's biggest problem.

and the process separation idea is totally ludicrous.
Yeah so ludicrous that FF devs tried to do the same thing (the Electrolysis project) but backed down because it was a too big change to their codebase..

Reply Parent Score: 2

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

On Linux I bet? On Windows Chrome is much faster than Firefox.

True, this is on GNU/Linux. After all of my addons were installed, it still felt more responsive even when I used to use windows, though (chrome needed much more addons due to lacking functionality).

Yeah so ludicrous that FF devs tried to do the same thing (the Electrolysis project) but backed down because it was a too big change to their codebase..

Well, considering that the RAM problem seems to be related to it, and that with a combination of good session management and load-on-demand after a restart, the issue of pages crashing the browser is alleviated, it seems silly.
Aaron Seigo reposted something on his blog the other day about how it was proving a limitation for web app developers, too.

Edited 2013-02-28 10:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://imgur.com/dH3GO8b

You were saying? (I have 6 chrome Windows Open).

Also process isolation is a good idea, because when one tab locks up/crashes I just have to reload the tab. I am sure there are a host of other reason why it is a good idea.

Edited 2013-02-28 15:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

leos Member since:
2005-09-21

http://imgur.com/dH3GO8b

You were saying? (I have 6 chrome Windows Open).

Also process isolation is a good idea, because when one tab locks up/crashes I just have to reload the tab. I am sure there are a host of other reason why it is a good idea.


You failed to add up all the chrome processes or give any details about how you tested this. That's kind of the point of "process-separation", there are multiple processes.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

http://imgur.com/dH3GO8b

You were saying? (I have 6 chrome Windows Open).

Also process isolation is a good idea, because when one tab locks up/crashes I just have to reload the tab. I am sure there are a host of other reason why it is a good idea.

Post your about:memory

Reply Parent Score: 2