First Look At Firefox 3.0 Beta 2
DaMan writes "ZDNet takes Firefox 3.0 beta 2 for a spin and draws some conclusions that should be sweet music to Mozilla's ears.
"Beta 2 feels snappier and far more responsive than beta 1 (or Firefox 2.0 for that matter) and I can feel the difference on all the systems that I've tried it on — from a lowly Sempron system to my quad-core monsters. No matter what you want doing — opening a new tab, moving tabs, opening up Find, zooming in and out of the page, bookmarking — it all happens swiftly and smoothly. What surprises me about the Firefox 3.0 beta is how many memory leaks that Mozilla have fixed. Complaints of memory leaks with Firefox 2.0 were met with an attitude of "Leaks? What leaks?" Considering that there have been more than 300 leaks plugged, it's obvious that past versions leaked like sieves.""
Maybe it's late and I'm looking to nitpick, but "it's obvious that past versions leaked like sieves" is a bold declaration that is rife with interesting implications that I don't think are strictly true.
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
Perhaps you should just talk to your mom about controlling her websurfing habit.
We need a rewrite that strips out all the bloat to make a lean, fast, bloat free browser out of a basically solid codebase. It'll be like it's risen from the ashes, so we need a name that reflects that. A name like "phoenix". I wonder if that's taken...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
A MS internal beta version of IE8 reportedly passes Acid2. That's a bit different from "IE is suddenly compliant."
Those of you watching from home from an IE browser, please don't attempt the Acid2 test, or you might do further damage to the test.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
There! See! You are doing it again! Stop being hostile, and fix my bug(s)!!!
-- A good compromise leaves everyone mad. --Calvin and Hobbes
I suppose it depends... eg.
"I can reproduce it. First logon to 'www.bigjugs.com', then I click the link to 'charlene' and I see a page of 500 thumbnail images. I click on each one in turn until about after image 220..... uerrmmm.. nevermind, I think I'm not sure I can reproduce it, there's just a memory leak that I saw once, umm maybe it has something to do with the back button code?"