Testing a Pre-Release, Parallel Firefox

Good thing by Darkness404 · 2010-01-04 16:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is a good thing. Firefox desperately needs to modernize. About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization. Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.

Re:Good thing by Qubit · 2010-01-04 17:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.
Many mainstream browsers are speedy, or at least speedy enough, but Firefox does offer a unique mix of features:
Ogg Theora/Vorbis: Currently supported by Firefox, Chrome, Opera
FOSS: Firefox, Chrome (just Chromium?)
Cross-Platform on Win, Mac, GNU/Linux: Firefox, Chrome (maybe just beta?), Opera
For me, both Firefox and Chrom{e|ium} look like good contenders. I've had good experiences with Mozilla products for quite some time, so I'll probably continue with Firefox.

--

coding is life /* the rest is */
Re:Good thing by Darkness404 · 2010-01-04 17:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

And really, Chrome is -the- browser to beat right now. If it had a more stable Linux version and had all the addons/themes along with the ability to customize absolutely everything, chances are most Linux distros would ship with it over Firefox.

Yeah, Firefox and Chrome may be the only two competitors with some features, but compared to others, Firefox just can't compete. Things like supporting multi-threading, tab isolation, plugin isolation, JavaScript execution speed, and general UI responsiveness are all things that Firefox really lacks. Right now, the ability to customize and the fact that its available in Ubuntu without needing extra repos, are about the only things that are keeping me from using Chrome full time.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:Good thing by OverlordQ · 2010-01-04 17:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.
They're lacking the 'Eat your Memory' feature.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Re:Good thing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 18:15 · Score: 3, Funny

Right! I mean, apart from cross platform stability and the add-ons and the themes and the ability to customize everything and the adblock, what have the Firefoxes ever done for us, eh? Splitters!
Re:Good thing by SanityInAnarchy · 2010-01-04 18:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

If it had a more stable Linux version
What? The beta is pretty rock solid for me. There's one annoying, persistent bug in HTML5, which I haven't bothered to get annoyed about since I don't really see enough HTML5 video to care.
But until fairly recently, Flash was crashing a lot for me. That meant I ran Konqueror a lot, because crashing an entire window full of tabs is still better than crashing all windows full of tabs.
I ran the Chrome nightly builds until there was a stable beta. There were occasional and annoying bugs, but I would often go for weeks without problems. Worst case, a tab crashes, you hit refresh -- but days and weeks pass between those. Honestly, the released version of Firefox was less stable overall, at the time.

had all the addons/themes
I'm not sure how good it's going to be, or how likely it is to work at all, but I did hear people proposing ways for Chrome to run Firefox extensions. However, it does have plenty of its own.

along with the ability to customize absolutely everything
I'll definitely give you that. There are things I've seen Firefox extensions do that Chrome extensions can't touch, yet. But that's actually a nice tradeoff -- Chrome extensions are somewhat limited, but it means that if you try to install, say, the YouTube downloader, it'll only touch your data on Youtube.com, it'll say so, and Chrome will enforce it.
Still, I think it's possible to have our cake and eat it, too.

the fact that its available in Ubuntu without needing extra repos
Why is this a blocker?
I guess, from a privacy/security standpoint, I could see an argument, but from sheer usability, you can actually point and click on a deb to both download Chrome and automagically enable the extra repos.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Good thing by macshit · 2010-01-04 18:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've found chrome to be a decent brower, and the tab-process thing is very cool, but it doesn't quite live up to the hype I think. It isn't significantly faster than FF on my system (mostly FF falls down in specific, but fairly rare, situations), the UI isn't notably better, and in many ways it's a lot less polished than FF. E.g., if you enable emacs-style editor commands in GTK (which applies to text-entry boxes), they "kinda" work in chrome, but it also steals some keystrokes it shouldn't, which can be infuriating (hit C-n 5 times to move down 5 lines, and .. oh shit it created 5 new browser windows instead!); this works much better in FF.
Still, they clearly have some nice ideas, and I'd like to at least try out chrome more (I guess the bugs will get fixed eventually), but currently chrome also has some nasty interactions with X that periodically result in my window manager crashing...

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:Good thing by smash · 2010-01-04 19:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Safari works pretty well on Windows too since 4.x. Its my browser choice because its mostly the same on both platforms, and coverflow history is just awesome.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:Good thing by Trepidity · 2010-01-04 20:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is admittedly not an issue for a ton of people, but Chrome/Chromium is less architecture-portable as well, since instead of being all C/C++ or some other portable language like most browsers, its JavaScript engine directly emits native code.
It can currently do x86 and ARM, which covers almost everyone, but does mean that it can't run it on, for example, PPC macs, so I can't use it on my PowerBook, which is actually the machine that I'd most appreciate a faster browser on.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Good thing by hairyfeet · 2010-01-04 20:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm sorry, but that is nothing at all like Noscript, that is just...well a really bad hack. If I have a site where there are multiple scripts (which is pretty much every site now) can I run only ONE script, while blocking the rest? in FF yes, In Opera? Not a chance in hell. It is all or nothing, which frankly makes it pretty worthless. if you are gonna trust everything on one site to run, you might as well trust all, because even a trusted site can get hacked. With FF and Noscript ONLY the code I approve of runs, period. I don't care if I have been to that site one times or 100, I decide what goes and what doesn't.
So I'm sorry, but while Presto is a nice browser engine FF wins on control. I would rather a page take a second or two longer to load and have complete control over what is allowed to run than use Opera's risky "all or nothing" approach. I'm afraid like adblocking in Opera it is a kludge, whereas with Firefox and their excellent extensions support I can customize my browser my way and have complete control. I have to agree with the other posters the Ff extensions system is what keeps me on Firefox. It is powerful enough that you can find an extension to do just about anything, while still being easy enough even my dad can use them. FF FTW.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Good thing by msclrhd · 2010-01-04 21:21 · Score: 4, Informative

There is nothing that mandates that you must have tons of addons installed. Yes, they are available and some are useful, but they are not required.
Firefox startup time being slow (and yes, the more addons you have, the slower it will be) falls into the following areas:
* disk I/O (which is not dependent on CPU speed);
* element reflow analysis being called a large number of times (this is a fancy way of saying where everything is positioned on the page - which, yes, does include the UI);
* element reflow analysis takes a long time each time it is performed;
* javascript performance.
The Firefox team are working on, investigating and making improvements to these areas.
Re:Good thing by Trepidity · 2010-01-04 21:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's true, but Firefox will at least still run on platforms it doesn't have a native JS compiler for, presumably by falling back to the interpreter. Chrome just doesn't exist for non-x86/arm platforms.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Good thing by Eunuchswear · 2010-01-04 23:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

FOSS is not a feature.
I recently bought a ~600USD device because most of the software it runs is FOSS.
FOSS is an enormously important feature outside the "PC" world, and pretty important in the PC world. Look up why RMS started GNU and the FSF. What are you going to do when your software supplier stops making new releases for the hardware you've got? Thrown it away?
(Details - I had a Nokia E90, a lovely machine, but, since Symbian S60 is closed source I have no way of replacing the increasingly outdated built in apps. Now I have a Nokia N900, and almost all of Maemo is FOSS and I can keep using it even when Nokia release the N999 and lose all interest in it.)

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Good thing by ATMD · 2010-01-04 23:12 · Score: 2, Informative

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb
AdThwart. AdBlock for Chrome, essentially. Works fine for me.

--
Nobody else has this sig.
Re:Good thing by Walter+White · 2010-01-05 01:17 · Score: 2, Informative

They sort of work for me. They don't block ads but hide them after the fact. This causes noticeably slower browsing on some sites where the ad servers are slow or ad content bloated.

Thread != Process by kiltyj · 2010-01-04 17:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Firefox, in its official version, still lacks support for multi-threading

Firefox certainly supports multi-threading. A thread is not the same thing as a process.

Re:Thread != Process by BadAnalogyGuy · 2010-01-04 17:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

There is no reason FF couldn't use separate threads to handle the threading of separate tabs. As it is, if any tab locks up, then the whole set of tabs gets stuck. Whether you use a process to separate each tab or you simulate it with threads, the difference is merely architectural.
The shared memory and object resources is the bottleneck with threads, but there is no reason why a single process couldn't render separate tabs completely separately.
Re:Thread != Process by Magic5Ball · 2010-01-04 17:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Read bug 40848 for the list of technical issues. Amongst other things, document windows may display and communicate with each other, or refer to each other, which leads to race conditions, etc.
(The process documented in 40848 also explains why this idea has taken 9.5 years and some skunkworks outside/despite the open development process to get this feature to this point.)

--
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Re:Thread != Process by fm6 · 2010-01-04 17:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

The writer's mistake is more basic than just conflating threads and processes. You left out the parenthesis:

still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)
Which not only conflates cores and processors, but also suggests that multithreading isn't useful if you don't have multiple cores/processors.
When I was writing the concurrency chapter in the Java Tutorial, the experts would give me a very hard time if I allowed even a vague suggestion that this was true. The fact is, threads are extremely useful even if you only have one core to work with. For example, any well-written GUI program will not handle user interaction in the same thread with other functions; if it did, the GUI would freeze every time the program were waiting on something.
Multithreading is a big topic these days because everybody wants to maximize their utilization of all these n-core processors. But it's not a new topic.
This mistake seems to be very common. Which leaves me confused as to what's new here. It's not parallel downloading of files — Mozilla/Firefox has always done that. A more robust parallelism mechanism? Or maybe they're copying Chrome and giving each tab its own process (not thread!).
Re:Thread != Process by Anpheus · 2010-01-04 17:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Because it's hard to write renderers that catch all edge cases and harder still to sandbox a single thread of execution within a process. Just as the OS, to a degree, "owns" the process and can thus manipulate its environment, the process is the "owner" of its threads and is largely responsible for making sure they don't do anything improper.
Since on every OS platform a lot of work has gone into security in the past ten years, why reinvent the wheel? (Although, apparently, Google has already done this with Google Native Client, go figure.)
Re:Thread != Process by fm6 · 2010-01-04 18:44 · Score: 2, Informative

I might have this wrong, but I believe event-driven programs are, by their nature, multithreaded. This might not be obvious if you write a program by plugging event handlers into an event framework, such as MFC. But multithreading is still going on in the framework.
Re:Thread != Process by EvanED · 2010-01-04 19:25 · Score: 4, Informative
I might have this wrong, but I believe event-driven programs are, by their nature, multithreaded. This might not be obvious if you write a program by plugging event handlers into an event framework, such as MFC. But multithreading is still going on in the framework.
You're wrong. Let's look at the MFC example in more detail. I'll talk about what Windows does quite a bit, but the gist of how it works I think is common to virtually all GUI systems (including Java Swing and X, though don't count me as an authority).
Here's a sequence of steps to follow to illustrate:
- Start Visual Studio (I used 2008 Professional)
- Create a new "MFC Application" project with default settings (multiple documents, doc/view architecture, MFC standard, MFC in shared DLL, no compound doc support, no DB support)
- Compile and run (I started with ctrl-F5 rather than debug)
- Open Task Manager, ensure that the Threads column is active
- Find your test program and note it has 1 thread
MFC is a relatively thin wrapper around the Windows API. The way that you program using the raw Windows API is as follows. The startup procedure (WinMain I believe) creates a new window and displays it to the user. As part of the creation of this window you pass a function pointer that is the address of the callback function that should respond to "messages" that Windows sends your program.
I don't recall the exact signature of the callback function, but it takes four parameters. The first is a pointer to the window that receives the message (so you can use the same procedure for multiple windows). The second is an enum that's the type of the message -- e.g. a button press, mouse click, resize, etc. -- and the third and fourth are message-specific information (e.g. what button was pressed or what the new size is).
Finally, what WinMain does is start the message loop. This is essentially an infinite loop which retrieves then dispatches the next message. (This is often hidden in a "run" function on similar by frameworks such as MFC or Qt.)
So let's consider the path of an event that occurs. Say the user presses 'e'. Windows determines which window is supposed to be notified of the key press, in this case whatever has focus. (There are parenting relationships too, but I won't get into that.) It translates that event into a message it will pass the program -- WM_KEYDOWN. (There's also a WM_KEYUP message.) Windows adds the WM_KEYDOWN message to the application's message queue.
At some point the message loop in WinMain will run (hopefully -- if not, I believe this is exactly what Windows means when it says a program isn't responding). It will retrieve the WM_KEYDOWN message then dispatch it. Retrieving it consists of removing it from the message queue, and dispatching it consists of calling the callback function. (Both of these are hidden from view behind API calls GetMessage and DispatchMessage.)
Windows figures out what callback function needs to be called, then calls it with that window handle, the WM_KEYDOWN message, and information about what key was pressed. The callback function does its thing, then returns. Returning transfers control back to Windows (inside DispatchMessage) which then transfers control back to the application in the message loop, and the program then retrieves and dispatches the next message, if available. (If not, it blocks until one is available.)
The point to notice in this process is that at no point is another thread created. When Windows originally notices an event, it simply places a message into the application's message queue. When the application retrieves and dispatches a message, that is done with simple control transfers within that thread.
While it's true that this sort of programming doesn't quite look like what you get from MFC, .Net, Java Swing, Qt, etc., you'll find a lot of people out there who will say that it's still event-driven programming. And more to the point, if you a
Re:Thread != Process by Tim+C · 2010-01-04 21:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

A good few years ago now I was working on an e-commerce website. The checkout/registration process included an address look-up feature; you entered your post code and hit a button, it popped up a window with a list of matching addresses. Click on an address, and the details were written into the form in the parent window, and the pop-up window was closed.
The private administration site did the same thing with product look-ups, etc.
Sure, you could do the same thing with iframes, divs, etc, and opening new windows is arguably bad practice, but that's certainly one possibility. (Another that springs to mind would be selecting from an address book in a webmail client)

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Tabbed processes would be better by BadAnalogyGuy · 2010-01-04 17:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Multithreading still relies on a single point of failure - the shared memory space.

By doing what Chrome did, and breaking each tab instance into its own process, any single tab can crash/hang without affecting any other page.

I know when I load an MPG video that it sometimes hangs the browser, and I can't do anything (close/minimize/switch away) while the media player is being loaded. This sometimes causes me stress.

Re:Tabbed processes would be better by Gothmolly · 2010-01-04 17:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Stop surfing porn at work then.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Re:Tabbed processes would be better by BZ · 2010-01-04 17:44 · Score: 4, Informative

In fact, Electrolysis aims to have tabs in a separate process from the browser UI as a first cut, then work on separate tabs in separate processes. That's not enabled by default, though, so the guy who wrote this blog post wasn't testing it...

Summary is wrong! by A12m0v · 2010-01-04 17:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Firefox does support multithreading, what it doesn't support is multiprocessing. Firefox runs as a single process, whereas Chrome has a separate process for every site, plugin and extension.

--
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.

Re:Summary is wrong! by vipw · 2010-01-04 19:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

It doesn't relate at all. Javascript is single threaded. If the same thread that runs the js is supposed to process user input, it would never notice the attempt to kill the tab.
The real issue is that threads can't be safely terminated, but processes can be. This is why people want each tab to be a process.

FireFox is great, but... by NormAtHome · 2010-01-04 17:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't get me wrong, I love FireFox and it's my preferred browser but I do feel like it's falling behind in a lack of ability to take advantage of certain hardware and software advances.

First as noted, FireFox does not really take advantage of multiple Cpu core's and there's no official 64 bit version. I've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin, flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother. But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that's half the battle and I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin.

Re:FireFox is great, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 17:34 · Score: 3, Informative

Fennec is Firefox's version of a mobile browser, with finger/pointer panning.
Re:FireFox is great, but... by Darkness404 · 2010-01-04 17:41 · Score: 2, Informative

and there's no official 64 bit version. I've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin, flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother. But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that's half the battle

Flash is used on just about every site out there. Java isn't. About the -only- issue I've had with Java not being installed was that I had to use the simple uploader to upload pictures on Facebook. I haven't had a Java plugin installed in 2-3 years and haven't experienced any loss due to it. However, the lack of Flash would make most sites unusable that the average person goes to A) YouTube B) Flash game sites C) Flash cartoon sites like Homestar Runner D) A -lot- of sites have Flash for navigation.

I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin.

Who would use it? I still use a 32 bit OS because I see no need in switching to a 64 bit OS. I'm currently running Ubuntu 32 bit on a 64 bit CPU, I really don't see the need in changing. Really, I don't expect to upgrade my RAM past 2 GB anytime soon and there isn't any software that is 64 bit only, but a lot of software is 32 bit only.

For Windows its even worse, why would someone pay extra for an OS? If its pre-installed people may use it, but most of the time even Windows 7 is shipping in 32 bit versions. Unless you want a huge amount of RAM, theres little need to get a 64 bit OS.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:FireFox is great, but... by Strange+Ranger · 2010-01-04 17:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

64-bit is great for everyone who owns cameras of any modern make and makes use of said cameras, especially consumer video and modern digital SLRs. Editing that stuff and manipulating it in batches takes a ton of RAM.
You don't need to be a pro you just need to own a camera(s) and have a couple kids. Heck there's a jillion contributors to YouTube who would benefit from 64-bit and more ram. Most of them probably don't even know it.
The right question to me is "Why are we still using 32-bit?"

--

Operator, give me the number for 911!
Re:FireFox is great, but... by Hurricane78 · 2010-01-04 18:27 · Score: 4, Informative

Uuum, sorry? I use 64 bit Flash on Linux right now. Yes, from Adobe.
They still call it alpha, but apart from it sometimes hanging the browser for a minute at start, but then working... and a bit of memory leaking... it is no different from the r32 bin Windows release version.
Also, video playback is much faster with it.
Also, no 64 plug-in is a lousy excuse. As we use Flash on 64 bit systems trough multilib/“emulation” since forever.
Oh, and since my Firefox is self-compiled, I’m pretty sure it also is 64 bit. :)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:FireFox is great, but... by Barny · 2010-01-04 19:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Yup, I managed to convince my manager that with the rollout of windows 7 to all our new PCs (we sell PCs) that 64bit should be the norm.
So we can now boast "computers with 4GB of ram" and point out to the customer that our machines (and none of our competitors nearby) can use all of it AND the nice big 1GB vid card they just plonked into it :)
Of course there's a few problems, one person just asked me why his program he has been using since windows 3.1 doesn't work...

--
...
/me sighs

The first sentence is wrong by parallel_prankster · 2010-01-04 17:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

On so many levels !! first of all - The title of the Electrolysis page clearly mentions using multiple processes - where the heck did anyone mention multi-threading? Secondly - multi-threading is not the same as running on different processors. You can potentially split a program into user level threads just to simplify code. Third - firefox already supports multi-threading. The only problem is that threads are still connected to the same PID and killing that in windows/linux/mac will kill all threads along with it. The original article states they are starting from a chromium base. That may be the reason for speedup in Java scripts test ?

ummm... by buddyglass · 2010-01-04 17:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Process-per-tab shouldn't speed up Javascript unless you're doing something else in a second tab that's hogging CPU. Most likely the Javascript performance gains came simply from the fact that he was using a 3.7 branch of the code. Which is kind of sad, considering bleeding-edge Firefox still lags behind Chrome by a considerable margin.

Re:ummm... by BZ · 2010-01-04 17:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Lags behind Chrome on a particular benchmark (Sunspider). Ignoring for the moment the Sunspider tests that are purposefully slower in SpiderMonkey than in other JS engines (by using extension features that only SpiderMonkey implements and that slow the test down if implemented), that leaves the question of how relevant Sunspider is.
In my testing, Chrome is anywhere from 4x faster to 4x slower than Firefox on various JavaScript/DOM/canvas tasks. It really depends on the task, as expected: if nothing else different jit heuristics will lead to better or worse performance on the same code even if all else is identical.
Re:ummm... by BZ · 2010-01-04 17:49 · Score: 2, Informative

But yes, you're right that the multi-process parts of electrolysis (which this guy didn't enable and hence wasn't testing) have nothing to do with JS performance.

Re:Multi-threading != running on different process by Corson · 2010-01-04 18:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think multithreading means launching multiple execution threads and it's up to the scheduler to assign each thread to a logical CPU, based on load. If you write and run a program that spawns two threads on a dual-core machine, with no other CPU-intensive software running, then you will notice that each thread is executed on a distinct CPU (core).

Re:Processors do not matter... by Pausanias · 2010-01-04 18:22 · Score: 5, Informative

You do realize that your Prescott Pentium IV is more power hungry than Intel's current faster offerings, right? Perhaps you should buy an AMD if you despise intel and would like to be greener.

Re:Processors do not matter... by Z80xxc! · 2010-01-04 18:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Do realize that your P4 consumes a lot more power than a previous-generation (65nm) Core 2 Duo, and in some tests even more than a Core 2 Extreme. Modern 45nm chips use even less power. So really, you're dumping money down the power/heat drain by not using a newer processor. Even if you don't need the speed, it makes a difference in terms of the electric bills. Your point about electricity is completely and entirely invalid.

Re:A true breakthrough for faggots by Asclepius99 · 2010-01-04 18:40 · Score: 2, Funny

The Silver Surfer's not white, he's sliver. Just sayin.

Re:Entertainment by TaoPhoenix · 2010-01-04 18:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

You have a fairly complicated comment there. Let's dig a little.

This has so many red herrings I will skip it entirely. The second part gets more interesting.

"...productively engage in a constructive discussion with me with respect to the most efficient way to use the resources at our disposal and how to get to the point where that is the focus of our society rather than consume, consume, consume..."

"Being productive" is more than creating text & spreadsheets. "Make the recreation more efficient". *TV* is one of the most inefficient recreations out there! Not the show - the timing schedule. A lot of "risky" shows are arriving with 16 episode contracts instead of 24, spread out over longer periods to eke out some more "remember me" mindshare. However, it was the internet entertainment multiverse that thrashed the TV mentality to smithereens. Instead of having to wrench our lives to see "our show" for seven months of the year, batch it on Hulu and churn through it on four Saturday Graveyard blocks from 2AM to 7AM. Remember the misery of "nothing good being on"? And even when you're watching it, you can do low level work during the boring scenes. I gained two virtual years of life back while still being satisfied with four show's worth of entertainment.

But if you're now looking askance at processing power, "the cool work" these days eats processor power like a hog. Multimedia editing audio commercials, online collaboration, enterprise accounting, onscreen CAD, information modeling rendering, etc. I bought a quad core machine precisely because the "document machines" couldn't cut it.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Sorry, bud... Processors still matter! by mcrbids · 2010-01-04 19:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

The bottom line is that you have to run up against the fact that a decade ago CPU's could satisfy any reasonable need for processing power. Now all one is buying CPUs for is "fluff" -- watching TV on ones computer, playing games, etc. I.e. it produces nothing, it contributes nothing, it is simply a consumer computing mentality -- my computer exists to entertain me.

I have an Athlon XP 3200+. It's a nice chip, and all, a 32bit one. And for many tasks, it is more than adequate. But when watching flash video full screen on my 32" HiDef TV, it's very jerky. Yes, it's because of Flash being poorly optimized. But it's also what I want to do with my computer, because I DO watch TV. And rather than spend too much money to get Cable TV or Dish, I've switched to all 100% online TV. It saves me $75/month and is a better user experience! I no longer have to pre-plan my viewing, I just watch whatever's available when I want, on demand, right from the beginning of the show.

But while it works well on the Mac mini in my bedroom, and my Dell laptop, it doesn't work so well on the old Athlon. So, I go to Pricewatch.com and buy a new Athlon X/2 motherboard/video card combo upgrade board with 2.1 Ghz of RAM for $150, and now I have a 64-bit, dual-core MB, good RAM, fast processor. Flash plays nicely, and all for less than the cost of a decent DVD player.

Are you still telling me that the CPU doesn't matter? Maybe you are happy with the ancient processor from 10 years ago, and for many tasks, it's probably good enough, but not for everything...

Sorry about your camera, dude. I use a $59 generic digital camera I got in the shrink-wrap isle at the local Best Buy. It's 10 Mpixel with optical zoom, records decent quality video, and came with a free 2 GB memory card. It doesn't have every bell and whistle, but does a good job taking pictures and video. Armed with rechargeable batteries and a cheap external USB drive, my pictures cost almost nothing at all and I don't give a hoot about compatibility since it uses standard flash cards and image format. (JPG/WMV)

What else do YOU want?

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.

TLDR version by EvanED · 2010-01-04 19:43 · Score: 2

Sorry, didn't realize I wrote so much. Here's the tl;dr version:

I'm pretty sure that all or almost all major GUI programming frameworks proceed by handling one event at a time. An event isn't handled until the previous one is done being handled. This is all done in a single thread.

Re:When has threads ever simplified anything? by ChienAndalu · 2010-01-05 00:36 · Score: 2, Informative

They are easier in other programming languages (Java, Python)

Slashdot Mirror

Testing a Pre-Release, Parallel Firefox

46 of 278 comments (clear)