Slashdot Mirror
Tom's Hardware Pits Newest Firefox, Opera and Chrome Against Each Other
An anonymous reader writes "Firefox 7 was released a couple days ago, and now the latest Web browser performance numbers are in. This article is the same series that ran benchmarks on Mac OS X Lion last month. This time around the new Mozilla release is going against Chrome 14 and Opera 11.51 in 40+ different tests on Windows 7. Testing comes from every category of Web browsing performance I can think of: startup time, page load time, JS, CSS, DOM, HTML5, Flash, hardware acceleration, WebGL, Java, Silverlight, reliable page loads, memory usage/management, and standards conformance. The article also has a little feature on the Futuremark Peacekeeper browser benchmark. An open beta of the next revision has just been made public. This new version adds HTML5, video codecs, and WebGL tests to the benchmark. It's also designed to run on any browser/OS/device combination — e.g. Windows desktop, iPad, Droid 2, MacBook, Linux flavors, etc. Another great read, a must for Web browser fanatics!"
I've not worried about browser performance for a long while, lets face it, they're all fast enough. What matters to me is how they behave, their interface and site compatibility.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
"Another great read, a must for Web browser fanatics!"
Seriously? Could you sound any more astroturfy if you tried?
I mean, really.
Signed,
Someone with a life
No point - by the time you finish reading it, FF8 will be out and the benchmarks will be obsolete.
Why doesn't the summary have the fact that they say Firefox 7 as the winner? Seems like a big glaring omission from this summary...
Here are the results which TFS failed to mention: 1) Firefox 7 2) Chrome 14 3) IE 9 4) Opera 5) Safari
You have Opera, Chrome and Firefox for most current desktop platforms, could be interesting to see how much of this keeps being valid in most of them. Also to see how this holds under Mac OS X in the Safari front.
Strangely? A confident authorial tone accompanied by a chicken-shit aversion to spraining any trusted cliches. Who ordered that?
A confident archer might very well substitute a different target discipline in advance of perfecting his new bow, knowing that he'll soon knock it out of the park. Indeed, starting out with the right target discipline might very well accelerate future results, adding effective use of time to his profile of dominance.
Chrome is not the freckled kid in this story desperate to gain his or her first friend. Isn't there another player in this story that was once desperate to gain its first friend, and then after amassing 100 million friends on its tithing roster, still continued to behave like the unloved child?
If we were reviewing zit creams instead of browsers, I would concur with the author's careless sentiment.
Summary Tip: I don't really care about the categories you can think of. That doesn't need to be in the summary. Better to say the testing covers XXX number of categories.
What about usability? Which browsers are more user friendly in terms of actually doing things with them? That's really the only metric I care about and faster Javascript processing does not mean improved usability.
The constant barrage of updates for Firefox is frustrating to say the least. Having to go through the installer every month and have your extensions checked for compatibility and consistently get disabled... it's just not worth it. I switched to Chrome and have progressed through 8 whole versions without ever noticing and without ever having my extensions break. It's divine, and how all software upgrades should be done (in a perfect world).
Seems like just about every article that comes out about Firefox there's a dozen or so folks that keep complaining about how slow Firefox is and how much memory it leaks. Perhaps this will point out to them that it's really not that bad, it's actually quite good over all in that respect.
Or, they'll just keep posting it over and over again like a meme because it hasn't been about actual performance in a long time.
Browser wars? It's competition, baby, not war. We're not waiting for a war to end so we can announce a winner and all switch to that browser. We're enjoying every glorious moment of a many-browser ecosystem. The "browser wars" were a time of nasty piling on of proprietary features in an attempt to gain an advantage. This is a glorious golden age of competition and (mostly) an emphasis on standards compliance.
So many different results all over the place with zero comprehension of the results, such a shame.
There's so many "wrong" that I don't want to start listing. This is a purely sensationalistic thing with nearly no value.
Oh and they'll make sure NOT to report errors they found while loading sites so that they can use their test again and again. Fixing bugs? Nah!
Chrome won 5 categories.
Firefox 7 won 3 categories.. 1 of which was actually a Chrome win (memory management). Thus, it should actually be 6: 2.
Firefox 7 is declared winner. This is Firefox first 'win'.
All modern browsers IE9, Safari 5.1, Firefox 7, Chrome 14, Opera 11 and up are good browsers. People still using IE 6,7 and 8 plus Firefox 3.6 and below are holding back the web. You have no excuse now for not installing a proper browser at work because you can bring along a smartphone or tablet or even non-admin chrome frame.
Abusive companies that force old browser usage need to be boycotted.
"The constant barrage of updates for Firefox"....
"I switched to Chrome and have progressed through 8 whole versions"
Really? Is the release cycle really the problem for you or something vague about extensions? I find the release cycle of Firefox rather awkward but I'd never switch to Chrome if that was really my problem.
Further, it doesn't really need to measure user experience as that is going to vary based on the audience. You can take this benchmark and then compare that with your own user experience to decide if the wins for Firefox are worth the user experience.
If it's not the Adblock that will never work 100%, nor the fact that addons in Chrome will never be as good due to the lack of extensibility, it will be the fact that Google will do something stupid that will bring you back.
And yes they did address your issues already about add-ons breaking. Automatic version bumping on addons.mozilla.org and the compatibility reporter for starters. I'm sorry that add-ons that people made in their spare time break, but that's what happens sometimes.
As someone who just switched from Firefox to Chrome, I can only guess that since Firefox was declared the winner, there were no points deducted for websites that just don't work right with that browser.
,,, locks up the whole damn browser when negotiating certain downloads.
Why can't that be fixed??
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
It's not that difficult. I'd rather have more updates...including security updates...than fewer and far between. People who complain about updates are like people who complain about having to have bumpers on their car or safety belts on a plane. Besides, the updates install themselves now automatically. Good for you, switching to Chrome for that reason...it only does the exact same thing Firefox does now.
All joking aside, the sad reality is that Firefox 10 builds actually are available from the Firefox Nightly channel at this very moment.
I'm curious to see what benchmarks like this will look like in a year from now. Based on how so many users seem to be getting upset with Firefox recently, and moving to other browsers, maybe it's market share will be so minimal that it won't even be worth considering.
Performance only matters on old or slow hardware (eg P4's and Cell Phones). On any PC made in the last 4 years there should be no noticeable difference between IE/Firefox/Chrome or Safari, eg 671 milliseconds vs 800 milliseconds page load times in the benchmarks will not be noticeable by a human.
Lets look at compatibility, when browsing the web you will quickly discover that some websites do want to even load on the less popular browsers. MLS for realtors is a famous example of a page that wants to be IE only, where a lot of others are IE/Firefox/Safari only. Using something rare like Opera or sometimes even Chrome you will run into the "your browser is not compatible or tested" messages on quite a few sites.
Also Firefox has many great addons like greasemonkey and custom addon scripts for popular sites like Reddit/4chan and many other forums, while Chrome now supports many of these addons, the list is not nearly as large as Firefox. While both contain Adblock addons, Chrome actually takes the time to load the advertisements and then AFTER it has loaded the page it hides them. Firefox's addon functionality allows it to not even load them in the first place, saving load time, bandwidth and possibly avoiding malware/spyware too as some famous malware viruses have been hidden in ads in the past. IE 9 now has adblock addon functionality as well that appears to work rather well.
Quite a few options are missing from the Chrome browser, such as the ability to start searching as soon as you type, for someone who does Google searches a lot this comes in very handy, there are many other advanced options you will find missing from Chrome as well, as the benchmarks show Chrome is also the slowest browser to open up.
and "phones it home"
Betcha that would be Chrome with IE not far behind
no idea what you're talking about there isn't a barrage of updates and noone's extentions should break I use screenshot plugin, adblock, noscript, downloadhelper, firftp and greasemonkey and from firefox 3 to firefox 7 none have ever broke or not worked. They have all worked and kept updated and I have never had one not work on me even right after an update
I was a little put off by this too. The advances in web browsers were exciting when IE 4, 5 were pushing out major changes like Active Desktop and file manager integration, and then later when they sandboxed them off from the rest of the operating system. Online bookmark syncing is a pretty neat feature, but for the most part browsers are pretty homogenized and well... boring. Unless you work in online advertising, I think most geeks' interest in browser tech has waned quite a bit now that the playing field is relatively level "against"* Microsoft these days.
*I cringe a little saying that; bet way I could word it.
moox. for a new generation.
Yeah that bugs me too. As a developer I have been using a lot of tools that are now starting to break with the upgrades. Firefox has started to have some pain with it, and Chrome has become a pretty good browser. Just out of convenience I end up using Chrome more than Firefox now. I do not hate Firefox, but I am starting to like Chrome more.
I'd love to see a multi-platform (where possible) stability benchmark across the major browsers:
Opening the same site in 10 tabs. in 100. At what point does the browser crash? What is the memory usage?
Now open the same youtube video in 10 tabs. In 100. Repeat the above.
Do the same with trailers.apple.com.
Next, open a youtube video in 10 tabs for each browser, and log how long that pid remains active. Is it still there after a day? After a week? Or does it crash with no user interaction?
I wonder where Firefox would stand in the ranks after tests like the above.
Really? Is the release cycle really the problem for you or something vague about extensions?
People have a problem with the rapid release cycle because of extensions, the point has been made many times now with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer. If you can't wrap your head around that concept, you must be a Firefox developer.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm sorry but you're telling me that you were forced to update and break the tools and you moved to chrome because you found more suitable tools there?
What addons do you use for developing?
Also, don't you test on all major browsers? How is it that you end up using one more out of convenience when in the end, you have to try them all when working and can use whichever you want for personal use?
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
Or they're someone managing releases for something larger than themselves. Distribution packages and those working in medium to large businesses are all having a little bit of hell with the fast release schedules... Either you give your users admin rights so the software can update itself (BAD IDEA), or you use something else, unless there's a 'long term support' version. Which neither Chrome nor Firefox have.
I agree with bl4nk. This new release schedule sucks. As an example, Firefox doesn't have a global setting for zoom. You have to zoom each page individually. I hunted down an addon to fix this called NoSquint. Works like a champ. It always worked right up until they started this ridiculous release schedule. Now it's disabled and my browser is back to everything being tiny again. That's not the only one... that's just the one that broke the camel's back.
I switched to Chrome this weekend. It has a global zoom setting. It seems to work wonderfully and I'm not going back until Firefox stops releasing a major version number every three weeks. There is nothing wonderful about the user experience in Firefox as far as I can see.
A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding...
I've been hopping back and forth still depending what I want to do. At the end of the day, addons have more to do with my choice than the browsers themselves. Both can be configured roughly for what I need to do, with only minor annoyances.
Firefox 7 seems to be more stable for me than the previous version. The instability before was part of why I was messing with Chrome to begin with.
The main thing about Chrome that was annoying, honestly, had nothing to do with Chrome itself. I didn't like how AdBlock (and Plus) don't work as well in Chrome as it does in Firefox, especially when it comes to blocking video ads. This doesn't surprise me really, but for now Chrome doesn't give the same access in the APIs as Firefox does.
My primary internet access is through mobile broadband which is charged according to how much data I use. For that reason I need to be able to decide when I download updates. One of the things I hate about Chrome and Google products in general is that they do not even give you the option to defer updates or turn off automatic updating, and just assume you are happy for the updater to run in the background and download updates whenever it sees fit. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for staying updated, I just want some control over when it happens. And until that changes I'm not prepared to touch Chrome.
Since when is the activity of web browsing a competition of speed? The hundred milliseconds will ALMOST NEVER be noticed because most humans do not immediately scroll down the bottom of the page to see if all elements are completely loaded. No, for most, browsing a webpage begins much earlier. Probably when the text loads up. (Ofcource unless its flash, in which case you're at the mercy of the internet speed and the flash plugin)
Now that's what is a testing suite! ;-)
-- no sig today
looking at the page loading times, you can learn about the psyche of these browsers
- everyone REALLY loves hanging out at Google more than anywhere else. they probably have a van with "FREE CANDY" painted on the side.
- Opera has a YouTube addiction
- Internet Explorer does it's "book learnin" at Wikipedia and buys all kinds of stuff on eBay
- Opera is still terrified of the craigslist killer and quickly hides in Amazon's library instead
- Chrome is the only one that thinks the Huffington Post is worth reading
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
i need in lot of information.
http://www.dcstraining.net/
http://www.technocratautomation.in/
For the love of science, why doesn't the summary contain some information about the results and the interesting findings? I get that the "anonymous reader" who submitted the text is from Tom's Hardware and (s)he deliberately left out these things, but why is timothy just copy-pasting such text and not adding even a little bit of information about the actual findings? How is this even a summary? This really is the last straw, I'm going to look for another technology-related news website. I won't be back, I'm sick of this website.
Yeah, it's great that they disable your extensions (which are the only reason to use firefox in this day and age) every week.
I am trolling
A netburst P4 is a horrible CPU to use today. They were always slow and power-hungry compared to contemporary offerings, and compared to a modern $50 CPU they're GOD DAMNED AWFUL. Running one today is like running a car from the 70s.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Besides, the updates install themselves now automatically. Good for you, switching to Chrome for that reason...it only does the exact same thing Firefox does now.
No they don't, not even remotely. When Chrome updates I normally hear about it on a Slashdot post. It does so without any user interaction at all, and without breaking any updates. It does so when the browser is not being used via the Google Update service so there's never even a blip in the user experience.
Firefox downloads updates while running. On next restart it pops up a window and as it updates it blocks you from using the browser until it's done, and requires user interaction. When it finishes it frequently disables plugins due to compatibility issues. Then after you hit ok it pops up YET ANOTHER BLOODY WINDOW in a browser tab this time to let you know YET AGAIN that it has updated something, just in case the last 5 minutes of your life weren't any indication. Not a problem if you're just starting the browser but if you open the browser by clicking on a link the least it could do after wasting 5 minutes of my life is actually show the bloody link I clicked on.
There is nothing automatic about Firefox's update process that is even remotely comparable to that of Google Chrome's. Actually it is only marginally better than any other application which has an update process, and even then only because it downloads first and asks questions later not giving the user the ability to ignore critical updates.
i like live stuff, like cams :P, at times i have about 30-40 tabs open (flash players), firefox has NEVER crashed nor it kept running in memory, instant response in every click, i have a pretty decent desktop thought!
oh, both in windows and linux
> I switched to Chrome and have progressed through 8 whole versions without ever noticing
OK, so does your Chrome updater run with sudo permissions? How does it update binaries without you noticing?
Doesn't it scare you?
Chrome doesn't require admin rights to update though. Or to install the user version.
With Firefox, the problem with the constant hike in version numbers is that it disables add-ons. I'm n the verge of ditching firefox 6 for 3.6.whatever, as everything north of that disabled some of the add-ons I use. Periodic updates = fine, deliberately breaking add-ons for reasons of marketing = a dick move.
The constant barrage of updates for Firefox is frustrating to say the least. Having to go through the installer every month and have your extensions checked for compatibility and consistently get disabled... it's just not worth it.It's not that difficult. I'd rather have more updates...including security updates...than fewer and far between.
http://www.horizontech.biz
tl;dr
That's because it doesn't install into %PROGRAMFILES% as it's supposed to. I bet some admins don't like that.
(+1, Disagree)
In the closest conclusion this series has ever seen, Mozilla is finally able to take the crown, earning its first Web Browser Grand Prix championship with Firefox 7. Although Firefox has two fewer wins than Chrome 14, Mozilla's browser manages to earn three more strong finishes than Chrome, which we consider sealing the deal, if by only a hair.
Chrome 14 obviously places second; no surprise there. The big surprise is our third-place finisher. It's not Internet Explorer 9! Rather, Opera finally breaks out of fourth place and grabs the bronze medal. IE9 simply lost too many times, allowing Opera and its "minor" .01 update to swoop in for the kill.
Alas, Safari places last yet again. Safari for Windows, that is. If Web Browser Grand Prix VI: Firefox 6, Chrome 13, Mac OS X Lion taught us anything, it's that the rules of physics, common sense, and everything else you hold dear don't apply on Apple's own OS X platform. Over there, Safari is still king.
-Styopa
I use Firefox for the Ad-Block plugin. Any speed bench mark needs to factor in that I'm not loading the ads.
I don't care if one browser is 2.4 milliseconds faster at loading a standard test page than another. I honestly don't even care if it takes my browser 13 milliseconds longer to load Slashdot or Newegg.
What I do care about is whether I can forget to close the browser on my work PC on Friday, and come in Monday and not find a smoldering pile of ashes on my desk from it leaking all of the system memory, consuming 100% of the CPU from various crap crashing in it, and generally being a piece of crap.
Web Browser Grand Prix 2: Running The Linux Circuit:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opera-chrome-firefox,2689.html
* And, there you go...
APK
P.S.=> Tom's Hardware already's "got ya covered" on that front too...
... apk
As the information "services" team at work continues to use Microsoft tools that put out non-conforming javascript, I need to see that category. Oh wait! IE wins hands down! >;->
On Windows, Firefox 7 beats Chrome 14 by a negligible margin. Opera takes 3rd place, IE 9 takes 4th, and Safari comes last.
On OS X Lion, Safari is still king. And that is pretty much all the author states.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
In addition to what every other reply has said, security fixes don't require updating the major version number. There is absolutely no reason Mozilla needed to go this route. I'm fine with Chrome doing it because it happens behind the scenes and doesn't break things everytime. Firefox, not so much. It's extraordinarily annoying.
Naturally, they don't include Lynx, the text-only browser that blows the others away and is immune to most viruses.
You can disable add-on compatibility checking in the about:config settings or by installing the "add-on compatibility reporter" extension ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/ ). More than half of my extensions (7 of them) are listed as "incompatible" FF8beta but are working perfectly fine.
Not all of us get to choose what hardware we get to use at work. You and I know that you can build a great box for $400 these days, but many companies would rather burn many times that amount on employees waiting on their boxes rather than just putting money for hardware on the budget.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I love when I am late for an online meeting and go to click the link and Firefox spends the next 5 minutes updating... you could at least ASK me if I want to update now. Windows, bloody MS Windows, asks if now is a good time to install updates.
And it periodically goes out to lunch for entire seconds at a time and I absolutly love the "Firefox is running but not responding so I won't open your web browser please try again in a minute or two after everything has cleaned up." If Chrome hadn't pissed me off by installing itself as part of some buddle unasked, I would have switched to it by now.
When Chrome updates I normally hear about it on a Slashdot post. It does so without any user interaction at all, and without breaking any updates. It does so when the browser is not being used via the Google Update service so there's never even a blip in the user experience.
What does Chrome do for people that hardly ever shut down their browser? Does it update it anyway at an idle time?
I don't actually like that method. I update my Chrome manually (I have the PortableApp version) and I update my Firefox manually (PortableApp version). I don't really mind the updates except when it ACTUALLY breaks my extensions. The only thing I've had a problem with this entire rapid release cycle is with Greasemonkey and my Reddit Enhancement Suite. Of course, when Firefox 6 came out, they actually had a fix up on their little subreddit so that seems to have taken care of the annoyance and I'm happy again. Other than that, to my great surprise, I haven't actually had any issues. I do hear people complain constantly about broken extensions or whatever on Slashdot, but I'd be curious to see if they're whining about potentially broken extensions or actual broken extensions because I've seen no evidence of the latter thus far and I use a decent number of extensions.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
The obvious solution to this is to turn off all automatic updating in Firefox (don't forget to turn off extension updates too). Then, when all of your extensions are updated for FF X.X you update everything at once.
A really nice feature of Firefox would be to have a preference not to update until all extensions are compatible.
I have been hearing the "this year we will fix the memory issues" since version two. We are already at version 7, and they are still saying it !!!!
Around version four it pissed me so much that i switched to CHROMIUM (and not Chrome) and never looked back. For all the Google haters out there, try Chromium. And please, stop spreading lies like there is no adblock, there is no NoScript... etc because its a lie. Chrome has had extensions since version 2... and we are around version 16 or so right now...
. When it finishes it frequently disables plugins due to compatibility issues.
Even better - if there are no compatibility issues, it sits there waiting for you to click 'OK' instead of going about its job of reloading your tabs.
Yes, even if an upgrade is totally successful, you're forced to babysit the upgrade. I guess we should be grateful we don't have to dismiss a "Congratulations!" dialog...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The devs didn't dismiss these memory leak problems. They couldn't reproduce them. I have never been able to do it either.
Yeah, right. Tell you what - let's find out who the correct developer is to look at this, then we'll post a Slashdot story talking about what town he's in, and we'll have 40 people bring over machines that exhibit this problem for him to work with.
If that's too oldschool, we'll upload VM images.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I leave Chrome going for as long I can leave Windows going without grounding to a halt (typically about a month).
You get a nice little update icon on the 'spanner' symbol telling you that updates are available and will be applied the next time that you restart Chrome - otherwise it leaves you alone.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I've openly questioned whether Mozilla will last more than another year or two at this rate, never mind another decade. I think the jump to a rapid release schedule and the PR damage caused by Asa Dotzler shortly afterwards were the beginning of the end for them, and they're probably about one rung above HP and RIM in the credibility of their management team right now.
The only thing I wouldn't bet on yet is whether:
One thing we can be fairly sure of is that an organisation that makes almost all of its money via a deal with a natural competitor is not in a strong position in any of those cases...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Precisely why I switched to Chrome a few days ago too.
I understand, unlike some of the sister comments, that it's not the frequency of the updates themselves that is the problem (updates = security and progress. Security and progress = good) but the way it applies them. When I open an application, generally I want to do something with it. When I'm blocked from doing something with it while it updates itself, checks the addons, tells me about the addons and finally opens a window telling me about the changes I don't care about right now - it gets annoying. Especially with this new system of bringing out a new Firefox release every other week.
It may not seem much - a few seconds to update, a dialog here, a dialog there - but barriers (whether only delays, or things to click on) stopping users doing what they want to do really really irritate them - myself included, and I actually understand what it's saying (now think how annoying it is for the average Joe who doesn't know WTF it's on about and just wants to get to his Hotmail).
So many developers don't seem to grasp the "user just wants to use it and hates things getting in the way" concept.
Actually it is only marginally better than any other application which has an update process, and even then only because it downloads first and asks questions later not giving the user the ability to ignore critical updates.
Unless you've disabled automatic updating because it gets so annoying to have it constantly pushing updates out.
Works great, blows the security aspect completely.
NoSquint works in FF8 (Mac). Use the Compatibility add-on which allows you to enable it.
Note I'm not defending the practice of disabling extensions merely because their hardcoded version number is too low. That's a whole other mess which is confusing to most end-users.
...Except the updates dont randomly fail and stick you with version 4.0 till your local tech geek notices and fixes it, nor does it demand admin credentials every few weeks, nor does it utterly break when deployed with the (third party) MSI installers.
Chrome autoupdate actually works 99% of the time, and has for the last 1-2 years (ever since the MSI / google pack installers came out).
Why does this post have the Chrome icon instead of the Firefox icon?
Then, don't upgrade to the newest major versions. Only upgrade when support is dropped. I still use firefox v3.6.xx (whatever the latest number is) and will still keep using it until Mozilla stops supporting it (still have yet to figure out what to do from that point on). I am also still using Mozilla's SeaMonkey v2.0.14 which is unsupported, but I am hearing bad things about changes (no more bookmarks.html, *.mab, etc.), addons/extensions not working in later versions, etc. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
And if the updates, be they full version updates or point releases, break the add ins with the consistency that Mozilla updates do then there is a problem.
You seems to be saying that I can:
A) Be secure but risk my useful add ins breaking, or...
B) Keep the add ins but be insecure
holy shit, a useful apk post? IMPOSTER!!!!!!
I find his posts useful.
I'm here to introduce this great site that pays instantly to your paypal or alertpay.. Neobux is a great paid to click site! One of the best in the business and in my own opinion i would say its the best ..
I am NOT a big fan of PTC programs, especially ones that use AlertPay and especially the ones that take months to payout. But I have to admit that I am extremely impressed with NeoBux.
I love NeoBux, because you get paid just by browsing our sponsor's ads.
What you get as a member:
Earn up to $0.02 (2 cents) per click.
Earn up to $0.02 (2 cents) for every ad your referrals click.
Earn up to 10% of every purchase made here by your direct referrals.
Access detailed statistics of your clicks, earnings and even of your referral's clicks and activities.
This site is free to join and its 100% GUARANTEED TO WORK and that's why i have decided to attach proof of my payments after being paid nine time already.. This site has really changed my life.. you can do it too so why not sign up with my link below 100 percent free to join;
http://www.neobux.com/?r=machinee1000
You want silent updates and to nix the notifications? Fine. You got it: http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2011/10/03/rapid-release-follow-up/
I guess we should be grateful we don't have to dismiss a "Congratulations!" dialog...
You mean like this one?
Right on! Since when is it a good idea to not test products, but rather have the user test? I can see that some money can be saved, but is that the idea behind FOSS? Saving money? I am. for the first time since Mozilla announced FF, looking to switch! Damn! I have, btw switched from, Ubuntu, and will switch from any product who pulls this crap. "It's not ready yet!" - "I don't care it's due!" Unless someone can show otherwise this is a stupid and backwards way to do software.
As long as the updates actually work. As of now they don't!