Slashdot Mirror
The New Firefox and Ridiculous Numbers of Tabs (metafluff.com)
An anonymous reader shares a blog post: I've got a Firefox profile with 1691 tabs. As you would expect, Firefox handled this profile quite poorly for a long time. I got used to multi-minute startup time, waiting 15-30 seconds for tabs from external apps to show up, and all manner of non-responsive behavior. And then, quite recently, everything changed. Right now, more effort is being put into making Firefox fast than I've seen since... well, since I've been working on Firefox. And I've been at Mozilla for more than a decade. Part of this effort is a project called Quantum Flow -- a bunch of engineers making changes that directly impact Firefox responsiveness. A lot of the improvement in this particular scenario is from Kevin Jones' work on bringing the overall cost of unloaded tabs as close to zero as possible. While the major work has landed, the work continues in Bug 906076. Test scenario: I took my 1691 tab browser profile, and did a wall-clock measurement of start-up time and memory use for Firefox versions 20, 30, 40, and 50 through 56. In the result, the person found that Firefox startup time has gotten worse over time... until Firefox 51.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Seriously, what is the point of having more than a couple dozen tabs open, how the hell do you find anything that way?
I understand fixing the issue and all, but...go fuck yourself with 1691 tabs.
Loading the entire internet inside a single browser session isn't exactly a great idea...
I find that Firefox is unstable when there are many windows and tabs. I've reported that numerous times.
I often end up with an unwieldy number of tabs and I've recently been looking at ways of managing them. The situation does not look good though. Tab Groups was removed from Firefox and the impending Webextensions crippling of Firefox is apparently going to make it almost impossible to port over existing addons that allow for tab management.
Fuck Chrome.
You're confusing bookmarks and tabs.
Read one of those Internet for Dummies books, and you'll figure it out.
You're doing it wrong.
I should have said Firefox in Windows, Windows 7 and formerly Windows XP.
So they are going back to how it used to be?
I recall having hundred(s) of tabs open. Back in 2006 on a single-core centrino Laptop with a whoping 2GB of ram and a terrific ATI x700 GPU.
No issues were had.
Then they brought in the UX-torturers, started with their ridiculous high version numbers and it all went downhill from there.
8)
I was always amazed at those people whose desktops were completely filled with shortcuts. I guess they're all using Firefox now.
I wonder if their houses are stacked floor to ceiling, wall to wall, with old newspapers.
#DeleteChrome
Said Bill Gates
--- Illogical Spock
Here's the thing that's really pathetic about this whole situation: FF users have been complaining about performance problems for many, many years.
Yet FF's most ardent supporters have always denied or dismissed these complaints, claiming that "FF is fast" or "FF doesn't suffer from performance problems", despite so many users experiencing horrible performance when using FF.
So if these performance problems allegedly didn't exist, then why the fuck did Mozilla need to create this "Quantum Flow" project to fix FF's responsiveness?!
And if there allegedly weren't performance problems, then why have these recent changes resulted in significant performance boosts?!
It's no wonder we've seen FF's market share drop down to only about 5%.
FF's worst enemy isn't Chrome. FF's worst enemy is its own advocates, who treat FF's regular users like absolute shit.
When regular FF users reported very real performance problems with FF, these FF fanatics denied these problems, driving away most of these other FF users.
Yet here we are, with it being shown that earlier versions of FF did in fact suffer from very poor performance. The FF users who were driven away have been vindicated. The FF fanatics have been proven wrong.
It's really pathetic that it took this long for these problems to be taken seriously, and even longer for some initial fixes to be made. Maybe FF would still be up around 30% of the browser market, if not higher, had the complaints about FF's performance been taken seriously years ago, and the users who reported these performance problems not been ridiculed and dismissed.
Other open source projects should learn from the mistakes that FF has made: when a large number of users repeatedly report performance problems, take these reports seriously! There probably is a performance problem that should be fixed! Don't dismiss these users. Don't ridicule and insult these users. Take them seriously! Look into the problems that they're reporting.
I'm a programmer...
When learning about a topic that I'm trying to implement I often open a new window whose tabs will all be results of a certain context.
I'm sure most are familiar with ending up at cat videos when initially you were on YouTube for a completely different topic. When I'm doing research and find that a certain search pattern is diverging in a different direction that's when I'll break off into a seperate window.
This allows me to view context specific history and sites. I don't necessarily want to save a windows tabs as a bookmark collection thus the behavior I'm describing.
When I look at how I use tabs it's very much like how I organize my virtual desktops in Linux. It would be nice if web browsers had something similar outside of a whole new window.
So while a shit load of tabs is bad I can see multiple reasons for why it happens.
Why are you loading all of the tabs at startup? Do you really need all of them? If you want to change the behaviour so that only the visible tab is loaded then go into about:config and search for "browser.sessionstore.restore_hidden_tabs" (without the quotes). Change the value to false. The tabs will still be there but will only load when you select the tab.
Maybe Firefox changed the default behaviour and that is why you see the change in performance.
So I see this post and decide hmmm, I remember those days let me give it a go. So I installed firefox on 10.9.2 OSX running on a 2.5 core i7 w/ 16gb 1333 and 1tb samsung 840....I used it for a bit to look at my web pages and how they render. Nice and quick. Then at OS shutdown, it hung the system and crashed. Zero tabs were open at the time.
So one volunteer, in his spare time, spearheaded this effort to lazy-load tabs more efficiently. If only the rest of us snarkers in the peanut gallery were so bold, we'd probably have the Firefox we want, rather than the Firefox we deserve.
But no, easier to sit back and bitch and moan about things, distancing ourselves from the hard work, until someone else does it for us for free. And then we snark about how long it took, and how right we were for leaving instead of helping out (even with a casual donation from time to time, because "they're not doing what we want", even when they are). Yay, us.
That you had to do a wall-clock measurement to determine that Firefox startup time has ballooned is evidence of a greater problem. The focus has been on the rapid release schedule with little to no thought towards user experience.
Pro-tip: Make my shit fast. Make it super fucking responsive. I don't need the shine, I don't need the glitter. That's where I can rely on a mod/extension community to fill in the short comings. I can't rely on them to put in extensive multicore support. Make the engine that everyone wants to use, and worry about what color to paint the car later.
...at least in my experience. It might have had a memory leak since the RAM usage just kept increasing over time. It was so bad I switched primarily to Chrome.
I know it's quite hip to tell everyone how much you despise Facebook, but we've all heard it already. Anyway, Facebook kicks Firefox's ass multiple times a day, and I'm not even running Social Fixer or Fb Purity or whatever the weekly fix facebook extension might be. I am however running noscript and ublock origin, but I permit facebook stuff to load and mostly I'm just blocking google syndication on their site. Mostly the site works fine, and then I scroll down and mouse over a comment field or something and Firefox just locks up hard. Sometimes if I am quick I can ^W the tab and it will go away and the rest of the browser will come back.
I haven't tried Fb in Chrome, which I try not to use unless a site absolutely doesn't work in Firefox, but it sure is kicking Firefox's ass.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It was barely usable for us many-tabs types, until a few years ago when they quit trying to load every single tab when you start it. Now it only tries to open the active tab on each window.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I managed to put 10 pounds of shit into a 5 pound box and it fell apart. What am I doing wrong?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I have been a firegox user since i started browsing the internet. Until a couple of months ago. A news in this site (or the other red site, SN) warned me that they just reseted my about:config settings without notice. I checked and holy sheet, they actually did. WTF. I was leaking webrtc requests and i didnt know about it. It just wrong. That's it. So I switched to chrome, thanks mozilla. Yes, now i brows with all scripts enabled but control everything with ublock origin, even cross sites requests.
I have to check seamonkey though.
You are pathetic.
I don't believe anyone can use "several hundred" open tabs. Perhaps it's just me, I can't name the 183 (or so) countries of the world, and I often miss one or two US states when listing them. If someone can sit down and list the "several hundred" (or the 1600!!) tabs they supposedly have open, (if they know what they are, it shouldn't take more than 4-5 minutes - and no peeking!) then I'd have to admit that their executive functioning is far superior to mine, but as it is, I simply don't believe they can. (I'd like to see what their dwell time is on each of those several hundred tabs. I suspect the vast majority aren't used every session.)
So, reiterating someone else's question: why would anyone have "several hundred" tabs open?
I'm angry with FireFox. I have been using it for many years, and for a long time, I thought it to be the bee's knees, the cat's meow.
However, their high handed way with security and such has come to the point that I can't trust them. I use Firefox browser in my work. When they block things for security reasons, it stops me from being able to work. I have to manage over 250,000 devices on an internal and secure network. We don't have resources to upgrade those devices - indeed, many of them cannot be upgraded.
Hey - Firefox folks - not every one is a security idiot, and not everyone has the dosh to replace still functioning equipment.
No matter. I've been reduced to using other browsers anyway because FireFox has become too resource intensive and intrusive. Yes, I know I'm a "special snowflake" but it is disheartening to have to discontinue using a tool I used to love so much.
I do still use it for my personal needs for the most part, but no longer for my banking or retirement sites. For work I no longer use it at all.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Perhaps. But he is also right.
Firefox was/is fast and now its faster with loads of tabs.
You say so many words, as if the volume of your words changes the reality of the world.
Long story short: without users, your software is nothing.
Firefox is the biggest consumer of RAM on my laptop and the only one that stops responding or forgets how to render itself on a regular basis. This with ~40 tabs. It most definitely has problems on Windows 10 anyway.
I'm genuinely surprised.
WebKit browsers are so much better. I'm either using Safari or Chrome.
That word would be bullshit.
I've been using it for over a decade, I've made easily over twenty posts on Slashdot about the performance maybe double that.
I used it exclusively including 64 bit nightly editions, up to I think version 54?
I reduced my plugins significantly to about 4 or so.
I'm an extreme browser (although I peek around 400 tabs around once or twice Year, not 1600) and I can assure you at least up until 2/3 months ago, it still ran like crap compared to chrome (and again, I don't even like chrome)
I simply do not believe this, period. It's bloated crap and needs a MASSIVE fundamental rewrite to fix the disaster it's become. Very unlikely they finally got this all magically fixed after many many years of me being patient.
Not coming back Mozilla, nope
(Check my post history, I'm convinced I was one of the last die hards for it )
but I permit facebook stuff to load
May I ask why? Why in the blazes a reasonable person would ever allow anything Facebook to load (assuming you're not paid for pushing crap there)?
If you have a family member who insists on still using Facebook, most of the blockers can be configured to allow it through on a single site (like facebook.com directly), I don't have any experience there though (thanks Marduk!). Letting it crap on, track you on, and, as you say, lock your setup on, random third-party sites, is preposterous.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
If people need to shoot themselves in the feet to be happy just let them. And ignore them.
Dietrich Ayala is a developer relationist working for internet freedom at Mozilla, the non-profit makers of Firefox.
https://xkcd.com/1172/
That's so turn of the millennium. 1692 tabs is where it's at now. All the cool kidz are doing it.
We'll make great pets
Having hundreds of tabs open is a user stupidity problem, not a coding problem.
In all seriousness, I don't care. Too little, too late. I already switched browsers long ago and I'm not going back just to have Mozilla ignore their user base.
Think of the Titanic, imagine if they saw the iceberg 5 miles away and all the passengers yelled at the crew and captain, "hey there is a iceberg straight ahead"
The captain replies, don't worry about the iceberg, I'll have the crew paint the hull orange.
Some time passes and now the iceberg is 3 miles away, again the passengers yell to the crew and captain "hey there is a iceberg straight ahead"
The captain replies, don't worry about the iceberg, I'll have the crew install some flashing lights so the iceberg knows we're coming.
Some time passes and now the iceberg is 1 miles away, again the passengers yell, more frantically this time "HEY! THERE IS A F'ING ICEBERG AHEAD!"
The captain replies, don't worry about the iceberg, I'll have the crew install some loud horns so the iceberg knows we're coming.
They creep closer and closer to the iceberg and there is nothing the passengers can do, they scream at the captain and crew but they continue doing as they please.
Just before the ship is about the hit the iceberg, the captain turns to the crew and says "you know, I don't think that iceberg is going to move out of the way", he quickly tries to turn the ship, but by this time it is too late and they hit the iceberg.
Mozilla, Firefox, this story is dedicated to you.
Good points, but I would counter with a few things:
1. This is not the first or only work the Firefox team has been doing to improve performance. You're writing as though this Quantum Flow project is the first performance work they've done ever, or within the past five years. It isn't. The switch to multi-threading has been underway for years.
2. Firefox's problems today are largely a result of its own success ten years ago. The biggest cause of performance slowdowns is add-ons that have inefficient code, or add-ons that use inefficient code in Firefox. The Firefox team is trying to address this - and every change they make that breaks add-on compatibility brings howls of protest from the community. I don't blame the people who are upset by the changes, either. But the result is that the very things that made Firefox a big success then is slowing it down now.
3. Conversely, if you want fastest performance try running without add-ons. That's how Firefox has been doing well in benchmarks, like the Tom's Hardware Browser Shoutouts it won.
4. I don't think the Firefox developers have been the ones telling the regular users that Firefox is fine. I think it's other Firefox fans. I've been defending Firefox for years - but I'm not a Firefox developer or contributor. And I haven't been claiming it's as fast as Chrome, just that it's fast enough.
but I permit facebook stuff to load
May I ask why? Why in the blazes a reasonable person would ever allow anything Facebook to load (assuming you're not paid for pushing crap there)?
If you have a family member who insists on still using Facebook, most of the blockers can be configured to allow it through on a single site (like facebook.com directly),
Slowwwww down thar, jack. I'm only allowing facebook crap to load on facebook, and I didn't say otherwise. I perhaps wasn't clear, but making assumptions is half-cocked.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is what Boomarks are for : keeping a list of frequently visited sites.
And if you are a tabs hoarder, The Great Suspender extension is your best friend on Chrome : https://chrome.google.com/webs...
On Firefox, you can use Suspend Tab or UnloadTab extensions I think.
Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
This: engineers deciding what gets built for other engineers like them makes sense. Engineers deciding what gets built for the other 99% of the population, you end up worrying about 100 or 1000 tabs, that only someone on the spectrum could possibly keep track of.
But, 'because agile' and ci/cd, just keep at it...
After I blow my load I end up closing about 51 tabs
...I've got a Firefox profile with 1691 tabs....
I'd really not want to see Firefox wasting their precious development resources to make a ridiculous corner case as this one work properly, instead of applying those same precious resources to more pressing issues. Issues that are experienced by a much wider set of users.
I'm running FF52 (LTS) because the "consumer" grade Firefoxen don't allow unsigned extensions, with no saving throw (the LTS ones do).
The next LTS version (57 IIRC) is going to lose real extensions, with only the stripped down WebExtensions.
So what is a user to do?
Nobody uses 1600 tabs. Sorry, at best, you use maybe, MAYBE 1-3% of those with any regularity. The rest is just masturbation.
What's REALLY upsetting with the latest versions are the nasty memory leaks and slowdowns in FF since the multi-threading was enabled.
With just three tabs open (for this example Slashdot, Facebook and YouTube, but I can reproduce the behavior with any number of sites), the browser begins exhibiting multiple tens of seconds of input lag after as little as 5 minutes of browsing. So you click on something and wait, and wait, and wait. And it "eventually" does it.
It's getting so bad that I'm going to HAVE to stop using Firefox if it continues.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
>I've been defending Firefox for years - but I'm not a Firefox developer or contributor. And I haven't been claiming it's as fast as Chrome, just that it's fast enough.
People have grown incapable of understanding that the few vocal and ugly commenters out there aren't the norm. That's why they can't measure Firefox's fanbase by anything other than the few weirdos who make them angry. Forget the monumental efforts of people like Kevin Jones. These days a couple of vocal idiots are all that matters, as they exist to validate twisted personal hypotheses, not thwart them.
I promise you that Facebook is punching Firefox right in the nuts, and I really do want to know if anyone else is having the same problem.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm kind of astounded that everyone here is so cynical while at the same time being so ill-informed about the stuff Mozilla is/has been doing the past few years. In addition to "Quantum Flow", they wrote a C++ replacement (Rust) that's concurrency-minded and memory-safe for better performance and fewer bugs, as well as a completely new HTML/CSS rendering engine (Servo) written in said programming language, that's faster than any other rendering engine in existence at this point. All this is coming to Firefox soon. (Although IMHO they might as well just rebrand/rewrite a whole new browser at this point, seeing as Firefox extensions are disappearing and the Firefox's market share has already dwindled). Relevant links: https://www.rust-lang.org/ https://servo.org/ https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quant...
I am viewing this article on a cheap ass Android phone with about 256MB of RAM using Firefox Focus. Must say, FF sucked on this phone but this Firefox Focus is slicker than snake snot on it.
"I've got a Firefox profile with 1691 tabs"
It must suck to be you. I guess you also have 2321 apps on your iPhone and 4352 open documents in Winword.
You should read about the x icon in the corner.
It's bitztream - the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tab-hating Slashdot troll!
But does it look like Firefox again, or does it still look pretty much identical to Chrome? That's really the only reason I'm using Pale Moon instead of the newer Firefox: I liked Firefox's customization prior to its GUI change to be "more like Chrome" (which rendered far more difficult my ability to customize its appearance to how I wanted it), and I don't want to have to install a dozen Extensions and Themes just to get it to look and act like it used to -- or like how Pale Moon does pretty much right out of the box.
If the browser is running short on memory, then why not just discard a few tabs until they're selected again? There's absolutely nothing stopping the browser from doing that.
Say a user navigates to an HTML document on his laptop, closes the lid, boards a city bus in a city whose buses do not provide Wi-Fi, opens the lid, and switches to the document's tab. If the browser has discarded the document for later reloading, the browser will attempt to reload the document, fail because there is no Internet connection, and show "You are offline" instead of the document. This defeats the purpose of having loaded the document in a tab in the first place. And browsers on tablets have an annoying habit of doing this often.
Does Firefox have any way to push all current tabs and windows into bookmark folders?
A lot of the time I would rather have bookmarks but by the time I think I need a bookmark set I already have 100+ tabs open and it's just too much work so I leave them as tabs.
I really miss the tab groups that Firefox used to have. Man that made everything easy. I have no idea why they removed such a useful feature.
3. Conversely, if you want fastest performance try running without add-ons.
I don't see how running without add-ons would help performance, as disabling add-ons causes sites to load excessive tracking devices, real-time bidding scripts, animated advertisements, and video advertisements.
Is Apple the only laptop maker whose products 1. run "a newer OS" that isn't designed as one huge tracking device for the advertisement industry and 2. are in U.S. electronics showroom chains? Because for years, I haven't seen any GNU/Linux laptops in showrooms near me; it's just Windows 10 and macOS.
Until then, Windows 7 receives "extended support" (security updates) until 2020.
It's actually been my impression that sites run faster with add-ons disabled. I don't have hard data, though, so don't give any weight to what I write. What I suspect - a wild guess, mind you - is that for example older versions of EFF Privacy Badger are single-threaded, so they actually slow you down more by blocking three hundred trackers spread across forty tabs than you would be if you just let all those advertising networks run their code.
You should really consider looking into having similar problems. Why? A human can't pay attention to that much information at any given time. If you are researching a book, you may have a hundred or two references but most of those are one time checks. Not open reading material, and not something you need after you make sure you have the quotes/concepts correct. Once you have to fish for labels in your tabs, the efficiency drops dramatically. You are faster to have a bookmark or re-search for the source than wait for a mouse-over popup to tell you the title.
Now I am quite sure that we all have different limitations. I'm sure we could find the limit on efficiency though, and I'd be willing to bet a box of donuts that it's well below 100.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And why? All the data is available elsewhere, either in the disk cache
The changes made to a document's DOM by scripts aren't in the disk cache. One example of a document is any Slashdot discussion page. Scripts collapse or expand comments, add a "Reply to This" box, and add newly posted comments when the user activates "Check for New Comments" link at the bottom.
or the remote server itself.
Once a battery-powered computer leaves the range of Wi-Fi hotspots whose WPA2 password you know, "the remote server itself" is no longer accessible. Browsers for tablets aggressively discard inactive tabs under memory pressure, and it frustrates me because by the time I get around to reading a document, it's been discarded, and I can't retrieve it again because I've already boarded the bus. Browsers for laptops don't have quite as much of a problem because operating systems for laptops instead use a page file when under memory pressure.
It's actually been my impression that sites run faster with add-ons disabled. I don't have hard data, though, so don't give any weight to what I write. What I suspect - a wild guess, mind you - is that for example older versions of EFF Privacy Badger are single-threaded, so they actually slow you down more by blocking three hundred trackers spread across forty tabs than you would be if you just let all those advertising networks run their code.
Depends on the add-ons you're using...and how trustworthy those advertising networks are. Malware infections tend to slow computers down, and would it particularly hurt sites or ad networks to start making it be standard policy that ads capable of injecting malware just don't get in? (I'm not going to ask that they vet where the links go, that does seem a bit too labor-intensive and easily abused, but it shouldn't be difficult to just refuse to run ads that have the technical capability of loading programs on somebody's computer without their permission/knowledge.)
NoScript deserves particular mention here, as it definitely makes sites with javascript written by an alleged programmer run faster...by letting you keep those buggy scripts from running at all.
I didn't set out to screed at this length. Shit happens. It might at first look appear to be a bramble patch. Appearances are deceiving.
Every word here is as deliberate as accidental off-the-cuff could possibly be. I suppose I could open up every second snarky entry on TV Tropes.org just listing all the rhetorical devices employed within (should my browser permit this).
However, I spent my wad in the composition and don't feeling like going back over it with a grooming rake. Colour me slovenly. Yes, Dragon Killers Wear Black, but not while actually killing dragons.
___
I have three displays, so I have three FF tab bars on my working desktop. The vast majority of my windows are full screen. I use middle mouse on the title bar (push to back) to rotate through multiple windows on one screen. I rarely have more than three windows per screen.
In addition, I have a bunch of desktops. Stray tabs from half-completed research topics get grouped together into a new window, which is titled with FireTitle. Then the window itself gets fired off to an alternate desktop. I find that my tab bars become annoying with more than 10 tabs, unproductive at 20 tabs, and almost unusable at 30 tabs (unless my work process is extremely stack oriented, and they all tear down again in LIFO order).
Sometimes a work process starts out LIFO, but then you realize that you're cross-referencing tabs on the same FF window that are far apart. Crossing the phase boundary from a stack-based workflow to a heap-based workflow with more than a dozen tabs open is usually what triggers forking a new window and a mark-and-sweep GC into a named tabs-for-later window, immediately "niced" onto a different desktop).
Now we need to get into why bookmarks suck.
You see, there used to be this technology called a "book", subtype: comprehensive reference work, subsubtype: warts and everything.
People talk about code smells. I'm more likely to talk about documentation smells. A super common documentation smell these days is "let's not even mention the possibility of not-yet-implemented, but super obvious feature that completes the conceptual paradigm". You know, the kind of software which discusses the fabulous cosine feature on their home page, mentions the related feature sin as a footnote in some appendix, and the tan feature not at all, anywhere, ever (maybe the bowels of an associated bug tracker as a feature request, largely snowed under by discussion of "do we REALLY need this" scrum-brainrot feature triage).
A scrummer might think, well, sin is sufficient, anything more would be feature creep. And there is some logic in that, as viewed by anyone who hoped that all Java floating point primitives would be bit-identical across all machine architectures, forever.
But it turns out that floating point is nasty, in the same way that managing memory is nasty, so nasty that we often abstract memory management right out of the software specification (some specifications are just too hard).
sin(x) equals cos(pi/2 - x) only for extremely high quality values of pi.
tan(x)=sin(x)/cos(x) only for a Taylor series expansion of sin(x) with enough precision to complicate memory management .
I'm just using this as a hyperbolic example of skin-deep identities.
Another example: if you've got copy and delete, do you really need move? (If you've previously abstracted memory management right out of the specification, you might struggle to answer "yes".)
What reference book technology used to do is have a little paragraph near the front of a relevant chapter which declared that for the purpose of this application, you do have a complete set of sin/cos/tan, but you don't have a complete set of copy/delete/move (some composition required).
There's a systemic reason why the official online documentation goes to code-smell "obnoxious silence". Because S
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. Sounds like tabs are being used instead of bookmarks. Or I don't understand something. Firefox still hangs frequently when I have only a few tabs going, if they're to the ridiculously complicated pages that are so common these days. HuffPo and its friends are some of the biggest miscreants. Ditch the nonoptional videos, guys.
Slowwwww down thar, jack. I'm only allowing facebook crap to load on facebook, and I didn't say otherwise. I perhaps wasn't clear, but making assumptions is half-cocked.
Sorry for questioning your sanity then :)
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
In principle, browsers for desktop operating systems already discard DOMs to the page file. One drawback of this approach is fragmentation: because one 4K page of memory may contain objects associated with more than one tab, it might take longer for a document to get completely paged out. To what extent does Firefox try to keep a document's data together in address space?
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
Man... Thats a lot of porn for one session...
I wonder how many of these speed tests are run with JS and video loading disabled vs having it on and using real world browsing scenarios. I know running with no JS breaks things on the modern web, but even crusty old IE runs like speedracing champ when the mostly useless crap found in JS scripts isn't allowed to load, ditto with videos.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Nope, OSX calls home and uses telemetry before Microsoft started doing it.
Could you describe further? When has Apple violated its privacy policy? Or which practices does this policy allow that are still unacceptably intrusive?
And which brand of laptop should I try in a showroom instead?