Slashdot Mirror
Is Firefox 1.0 Less Stable than Firefox PR1.0?
An anonymous reader wonders: "I had Firefox 1.0PR running smoothly on three different machines and it hardly ever crashed. After upgrading to 1.0, I seem to have at least one annoying crash a day. On one of the machines, using the 'self update' feature caused Firefox to crash in middle of the upgrade and left it in a completely unusable state. Eventually, I had to uninstall it and resort to using IE to download the full installer, again. Is it just me, or are other heavy Firefox users noticing this sort of behavior?"
I had the opposite occur. With 1.0PR I was having rather regular crashes when I opened the browser, and an annoying one that occured everytime I attempted to open any sort of streaming media. (I resorted to IE to watch the SpaceShip One launch).
However, with the full 1.0 I haven't had a single crash yet, and I've been using it a lot since the first day it was available.
This is not a sig.
I've had random crashes browsing MapQuest. It seems around one out of every ten times I refresh a map, Firefox goes boom. I actually suspect it may be some Javascript/Java/DHTML/etc. in an advertisement that's in their rotation.
-Z
While I'm not going to disagree with you, I fail to see how this absolves the developer's responsibility to build the application such that it doesn't try to absorb all the system's resources in the first place.
I'm currently using FireFox PR1.0, it's been open for about 5 days straight, running on Win2KPro. It's using 104MB of RAM. Why I don't know... I only have 4 tabs open at the moment and no flash or java running, and no third party plugins... but it's using 104MB or memory right now. It probably would have locked up if I didn't have a gig of RAM in this machine...
Went up to 108MB when I hit preview, and it's not going down...
=Smidge=
1) Why is your faith in open source so great that you are unwilling to humor the idea that there is a bug in the application? I am a professional software developer, and most of us LAUGH at the idea of "bug free" applications. It is considered, in some circles, so laughable, that one is considered a bit of a neonate to tout that their software is bug-free [that, or not connected to reality (at least, with respect to the technology)]. The first time I ran Linux (late 90's) I had plenty of core dumps.
/. not Coast to Coast AM.
2) Are you proposing that Microsoft has a "black ops" department, whose sole purpose is to cause Windows to behave incorrectly when 3rd party software is run? Additionally, this department is exceptionally good at keeping a secret. So good, in fact, that the only way to detect their work is by running open source (patently bug-free) software on their OS, to uncover these flaws? Given that open source software is bug-free, wouldn't such a department fear discovery when performing such an act?
I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to dislike Microsoft, but goodness, this is
I'll tell you the single source of all of your Microsoft woes... the market. If the market will pump billions of dollars into a company, they have little right to complain about that company's software. There is competition. There was a lot more of it before all of you gave them all of your money. If you dislike Microsoft's product line, then download a Linux or BSD ISO, and install it. If you vote with your pocketbook, the company will listen. Hit companies that break the law with the law, and if you dislike the lack of competition, then purchase a competing product, or compete with them.