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.

29 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? by mark_reh · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? by BLKMGK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I, a Chrome user, will happily answer.

      I have a main set of tabs for news sites - Slashdot is one of them, CNN, BBC, Drudge, whatever I feel like monitoring - stocks for instance. This set includes pages to each of my web email accounts too. A second page full of tabs reaches to internal pages for various software setup for my home and HTPC type stuff - Plex, PlexPy, Webmin, my NAS, SAB, and a bunch of others to handle a few VMs. Sadly Chrome sux for ESX so I have some damned IE windows open for consoles and monitoring.

      Then there's the other pages that vary wildly. I have a wide variety of interests. If I begin researching say wood flooring for my home that's a separate page or two filled with tabs. Do a google search on electrical wiring? Each result of interest is a new tab. Ditto' kitchen cabinets and other things. Then there's my various web forums for car interests, parts searches, research into various electronic projects, Youtube videos and well you get the idea. I tend to use a google search as an anchor and multiple tabs after as I dig in deeply.

      Sessionbuddy allows me to keep these across sessions. My current largest saved session contains 517 tabs across 161 windows. This session is 24 windows and 114 tabs and I'm finding that it's not really too responsive right now 16gig memory and sadly cannot use more due to the OS version I'm running - grr! Oh my sessions are synched across hardware so my browsers all have the same plug-ins and I can pull window history too as needed.

      I can use Sessionbuddy to find things of interest from past sessions if I close them to recover memory, I can hover over a minimized window to get a list of the windows and find a "project" and in general I find this works pretty well for me. IE cannot handle this, menu items disappear as memory runs low, FireFox used to just up and die losing my sessions, and Chrome simply handles it but has become slow and bloated over the past year or three. Hopefully they take note of FireFox's advances! Chrome, being more secure, is where I'll likely stay for a browser hoping that they trim some fat as FireFox has

      So yeah, some of us find this pretty damned handy and use quite a few tabs. 1600 is pushing it but 500 was fine by me for sure :)

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    2. Re: what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know they have this other new feature that lets you group all those pages without needing any memory, CPU, or screen space. They call this cool new feature "bookmarks". You should check it out.

    3. Re:what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Serious question: what is it about bookmarks that don't fulfill this role for you? Everything you describe, I do in Firefox with bookmarks and folders. Obviously, it takes almost zero extra memory. I tend to keep my tab usage under a dozen or two, since after that things start getting cluttered. So... is it a workflow thing, or a UI issue?

      I keep thinking if one of the browser makers could figure out the answer to this question and make a change to their browser to accommodate people who like to collect windows and tabs as "live" bookmarks, they'd add a few percentage points from users like you who work this way.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I think the big problem is that users don't understand what that little star on the right side of the browser bar does anymore.

    5. Re:what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Bookmarks don't work well as a to-do list. Open tabs fill that need much better.

    6. Re: what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? by e432776 · · Score: 2

      I agree with you, entirely. Too many tabs seems..unhygienic.

      However, this discussion also suggests to me that it might be time to overhaul bookmark UIs in web browsers. There may be a way to make them more useful to users currently maintaining hundreds of tabs. A thought, anyway.

    7. Re: what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? by Xolotl · · Score: 2

      Also agree with this, this is exactly how I work. 1079 tabs at the moment across 18 windows.

  2. Unstable by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find that Firefox is unstable when there are many windows and tabs. I've reported that numerous times.

  3. The Tab Groups feature was removed by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The Tab Groups feature was removed by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Informative

      I group tabs by window, then use "tree style tabs" to put them in collapsible sub-groupings.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: The Tab Groups feature was removed by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somebody should invent bookmarks!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  4. Tabs aren't bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're confusing bookmarks and tabs.

    Read one of those Internet for Dummies books, and you'll figure it out.

  5. The good old days by sciengin · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. Firefox tabs are the new desktop shortcuts by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Firefox tabs are the new desktop shortcuts by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      If people used desktop shortcuts in the past, wouldn't they have the sense to use bookmarks?

      I more liken this to someone who has opens every document on their computer just in case they need it throughout the day, and then complains that Office uses too much RAM.

  7. 640 tabs should be enough for anyone... by Illogical+Spock · · Score: 4, Funny

    Said Bill Gates

    --
    --- Illogical Spock
  8. But for years FF fanatics told us FF was "fast"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  9. Why load all of the tabs? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Wall-clock calling captain oblivious by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Wall-clock calling captain oblivious by semper_statisticum · · Score: 2

      Hell yes. I run the beta versions, and bug report when I can and only use FLOSS software like an addict. I admit my ethical preference, and dealing with a Psychology department as often as I do, it's an immense problem that often gets me labelled a zealot. I prefer LaTeX and use point out mathematical flaws and software default errors that result in false logical errors in colleagues' papers like an immense jackass.

      However, even I have to admit that using Chromium, with all its Googley evilness (yes Chromium != Chrome) is much, much faster and responsive than Firefox is. That should worry the mother fucker out of the Mozilla developers, that a hard core FLOSS zealot is willing to admit superiority in another suite of software. Does it however? Apparently not as much as abandoning Thunderbird and focusing on the latest visual makeover for the Mozilla brand.

      Sigh.

      --
      The Spanish Inquisition of Psychometrics; Burning all the heretics.
  11. Re:The Firefox we deserve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why should I waste many hours (if not days or weeks...) of my time tracking down and fixing stupid performance problems in Firefox, when I can take about 45 seconds and install Chrome, or Chromium, or Vivaldi, or Opera instead and get very good performance? Heck, in even less time than that I could just use a pre-installed browser like Safari or Edge and still get better performance than Firefox!

    Don't give me any bullshit about Firefox "respecting our privacy", either. Just look at its privacy policy to see that it's sending a lot of data back to various places. Be sure to click the "Learn More" links so that you can see the full details.

    Firefox doesn't deserve our contributions.

  12. Dear Slashdot by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  13. obligatory xkcd by dillee1 · · Score: 2
  14. Re:But for years FF fanatics told us FF was "fast" by DuckDodgers · · Score: 2

    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.

  15. Diversion of resources... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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.

  16. 1600 tabs is bullshit. by Chas · · Score: 2

    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!!!
  17. The tip of the iceberg of Mozilla development by Moochman · · Score: 2

    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...

  18. How's life in the hypocrite lane?