Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla's 'Firefox Quantum' Browser Challenges Chrome In Speed (cnet.com)
The next version of Firefox, aptly named Firefox Quantum, is getting a big speed boost. "The idea, of course, is that the upcoming version 57 is a quantum leap over predecessors -- or, in the words of Mozilla CEO Chris Beard, a 'big bang,'" reports CNET. While Mozilla stopped short of declaring victory over Chrome, Nick Nguyen, vice president of Firefox product, said Firefox Quantum's page-load speed "is often perceivably faster" while using 30 percent less memory. From the report: The new Firefox revamp includes lots of under-the-covers improvements, like Quantum Flow, which stamps out dozens of performance bugs, and Quantum CSS, aka Stylo, which speeds up website formatting. More obvious from the outside is a new interface called Photon that wipes out Firefox's rounded tabs and adds a "page action" menu into the address bar. It also builds in the Pocket bookmarking service Mozilla acquired and uses it to recommend sites you might be interested in. A screenshot tool generates a website link so you can easily share what you see by email or Twitter. Mozilla even simplified the Firefox logo, a fox wrapping itself around the globe. More improvements are in the pipeline for later Firefox versions, too, including Quantum Render, which should speed up Firefox's ability to paint web pages onto your screen.
... but until observed it both wins and loses.
...THAT'S why Mozilla decided to ditch XUL (and a lot of legacy add-ons that relied on it). And it is a very important goal -- a faster and more stable Firefox was needed for a long time.
But I also hope that we soon get back most of the extensions that Firefox lost in this change. Without its previous top-notch configurability, I'm afraid it can't really compete with Google developers working on Chrome.
I know this is just going to be a Firefox hate fest, but give the browser a try.
The important extensions will come along. Ublock origin is here and Noscript will be at the part shortly.
..it comes with quantum memory too since the current firefox gobbles memory like a bloated app from Microsoft...
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
Come on, guys... give us the goods on why the upper crust of the tech world was out of service for so long. I'm sure it'll be a hoot.
about:config
extensions.pocket.enabled = false
Here's what I think when I hear "Firefox Quantum":
(To be clear, I do like the interface better than Chrome's, although I'll reserve judgement until I see how it handles large numbers of tabs -- my key criterion: don't shrink them to slits. I hear that there's an ad blocker around, but I hope that something like RequestPolicy will also exist in the new addon system.)
is something very small. God damn you.
If so, I can't afford to care about modestly faster page rendering.
And yet the only supported audio backend on Linux continues to be PulseAudio. Hard pass.
If one were to run Netscape 3 on today's laptop, it would load in a fraction of a second - and it did essentially the same thing. I would gladly give back whatever extra functionality we are getting for a sub-second application load - and that applies to every application, not just a browser.
I have no real opinion on your ideas and thus don't really care whether or not I receive your newsletter.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
You totally miss the point. We don't want Pocket merely disabled using an about:config option. We want the Pocket code totally removed from our Firefox installations. We want Pocket totally, 100% gone.
Toggling the about:config option does not remove the Pocket code completely! That is the problem with your failed "solution".
Pocket should be an extension, plain and simple. It's not there at all, unless we go out of our way to install it because we want to use it.
Merely disabling Pocket using an about:config option is not sufficient. The code is still there, infecting and bloating Firefox.
It's like when you get a new Windows laptop, and all sorts of shitware is installed by the vendor by default. Disabling such shitware from starting up isn't sufficient, as it's still wasting disk space, and there's always the risk of it starting up unexpectedly. That's why you have to get rid of it completely, but uninstalling it or by doing a fresh installation of Windows. It's even worse in the Pocket case, though, because this shitware can't be uninstalled, and reinstalling Firefox doesn't get rid of it!
Pocket is literally more insidious and malicious than the shitware pre-installed on a new Windows laptop.
Sadly, most web browser sophistication is not for the user. It's for the advertiser. And it's consuming network, CPU, and screen space resources better devoted to the web site's actual message and the consumer's interest.
Slashdot itself is a good example of how to _avoid_ this unnecessary, undesirablem, and destabilizing complexity.
Yes, being highly extensible can come with some risk, but it's also the only thing that made Firefox still worth using. It could be made to do things that other browsers, including Chrome and Safari, couldn't be made to do, giving it a leg up over those browsers.
But now Firefox has gotten rid of the only reason to use it, by castrating its extension system.
In many respects Firefox had already mostly been a cheap, shitty imitation of Chrome for a while now. These extension changes now get rid of the "mostly".
Let's recap the situation:
- Firefox's UI imitates that of Chrome (or with Photon, now other Chromium-derived browsers like Vivaldi and Brave).
- Firefox's extension system imitates that of Chrome.
- Firefox's alleged "privacy" is anything but, with Firefox sending user information all over the place, including to Google in some cases!
- Firefox's performance is worse than that of Chrome's. (Yes, I'm using the Firefox 57 beta right now and can confirm this is still the case!)
- Firefox's memory usage is worse than that of Chrome's. (Again, I'm using the Firefox 57 beta right now to confirm this.)
- Firefox is harder for developers to work with, because parts of it are written in the horrid Rust programming language that Moz://a came up with.
- Firefox's market share is in the low single digits already, and will probably be even less after Firefox 57 breaks extensions for normal users, who will just move to some other browser instead of trying to fix up their extensions. Many web developers don't even bother to test with it any longer, so more and more sites don't work well with Firefox.
So from what I can see, there are no benefits to using Firefox, and actually quite a few drawbacks. You're better off using Chrome or some other Chromium-derived browser. There's really no reason at all to use Firefox these days. Its extension system used to be the main reason to use it, but now that reason has been eliminated.
I think I'm still using Firefox only because I found the optimal cocktail of extensions to make it work right. Just now I looked at my extension manager and guess what: apart from uBlock Origin, every single one has a "LEGACY" warning next to it, which means that it won't work after the regime change. I've used Firefox as my primary browser since version 0.3, and I've put up with some nasty stuff over the years, but I've always had a strong enough computer to make it all bearable. But you know, Chrome is actually OK as a browser. Crucially, its extension catalogue will be much more mature that that of the rebooted Firefox. Hell, the way it looks now, come November, Microsoft Edge might have better extensions than Firefox. I have a feeling that I'll just refuse to upgrade and give my extensions a chance to adjust to the new regime. But if they don't, or if Firefox forces my upgrade before I'm ready, I'll just export my passwords and bookmarks and uninstall.
In Soviet Russia official narrative swallows you!
I find your ideas both intriguing and boring and would like to both subscribe and unsubscribe from your quantum newsletter.
Crucially, its extension catalogue will be much more mature
But less capable. Firefox's implementation of WebExtensions is a superset of Chrome's, and over time Mozilla will add more APIs to enable more add-ons. Moving to Chrome is a retrograde step.
I vaguely remember ditching Firefox a decade or more ago as it had become an unwieldy, slow, decrepit, etc... pile of bloatware garbage. I never expected I would be using it again. Over the last few years, for my own reasons, I have sought to de-google my life here and there within practical limits. On my Windows 10 machine, I have been using Edge for about a year and have found it to be surprisingly nice. I think it may have been over another Firefox related story here on Slashdot last week that prompted me to install the current Firefox on a whim. I have not looked back. I am not going to hammer out a review in this comment, but I haven't been so happy with the performance, functionality, and UI of a web browser since the last time Firefox was good. I was quite surprised. I am glad to hear they are continuing to make improvements. Here's to a Firefox renaissance.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Still waiting for you to show us your courage by posting your name. Stop using a pseudo-anonymous handle, coward.
So what specifically is the supposedly mind-blowing superset of features? And why would any end user care?
It's called consolidation. Strengthen browser vendors, weaken individuals. With Rust, this can be done imperceptibly over time.
. . . so if it really is "imperceptible" . . . maybe it's already been done, and we just haven't noticed it yet . . . ?
If you can see it, and it's there . . . it's real.
If you can see it, and it's not there . . . it's virtual.
If you can't see it, and not there . . . it's gone.
. . . now when the film star and assassin James Earl Ray Jones shot John F. Kennedy, which led to our "Operation Paperclip" German scientists at Area 51 combining his DNA with the DNA of Martin Luther King to create Barack Obama (which explains why he has no birth certificate; he was grown in a very large test tube), Stanley Kubrick, who was filming the fake Apollo Moon landings in Area 51 filmed the process, which was used as the birth of the "Star Child" scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (Obama is not list in the credits), Jones further went on to star in the film with Australian body builder Lou Ferrigno, "Conan, The Librarian"), which led to Ferrigno's failed transgendered Vice-Presidential campaign as "Geraldine Ferrigno" . . .
. . . and then the conspiracy got super suspicious when . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Does it stop the popups Chrome seems incomoetent to stamp out? *
* I assume it is a loophole in a Java spec or similar that cannot be ended without violating the spec. Here's a hint: VIOLATE IT!!!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Thank you. Your email was removed from our mailing list and added to the mailing lists of 500 of our clients.
#DeleteFacebook
You're not comparing apples to apples.
What was the federal gov't providing in 1945 compared to 2015? Much less.
No medicare. No lots of things. Not to mention that at that time the Federal Government had not taken over so many state functions - example interstate roads.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
superset of features?
The WebRequest API, for example, is superior in Firefox. Chrome has no support for sidebarAction or theme.
why would any end user care?
Because the add-ons will work better, silly rabbit.
Sinclair QL computer? As fat I could remember there was a TCP/IP stack using the serial prort for SLIP or PPP and a couple of email/newsgroup clients.
A logo isn't supposed to look like a coat of arms. Branding has to be easily recognizable in all forms, such as a tiny 16x16 favicon.
#DeleteFacebook
I hear that there's an ad blocker around,
uBlock Origin has a release candidate that has been made available for webextensions API.
but I hope that something like RequestPolicy will also exist in the new addon system.
NoScript is Currently in the process of being ported to webextensions. Or, more precisely, Mozilla is in the process of adapting WebExtensions so that things that formely required XUL like NoScript could be ported.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I use a scriptblocking extension which has to be able to interact with every "tab" to be able to actually work.
And script blocking is probably the number 1 feature of Firefox-based browsers (this is technically impossible to achieve on Chrome according to professionnal developers).
That's why NoScript is currently in the process of being ported to webextensions.
Or, more precisely, Mozilla is in the process of adapting WebExtensions so that things that formely required XUL like NoScript could be ported.
So, unlike Google Chrome, it's very likely that either your favorite script blocking extension will eventually work on Mozilla, or you'll find a nice alternative to your taste.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
This is /.
What do you expect ?
Of course, there's is going to be an article about the outage. It will come one week after it has been talked about on reddit.
And then, there are going to be 15 more dupes about it.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Not liking that at all. Suggesting sites can be used as agenda based advertising. I don't want to see any of it. Ever.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
A quantum leap is exceedingly small, but that's not what the phrase originally referred to. What was meant, once upon a time, before the unwashed masses got to mangle the meaning, was that a quantum leap goes from one state to another without any intermediary steps. It referred to a subset of what in newer jargon is called disruptive inventions, and only those that were radical changes, and not just improvements, no matter how big.
A quantum leap for Firefox would be replacing it overnight with something that isn't a visual web browser. That's not going to happen.
It fucking breaks EVERYTHING!!!
I'm not talking about the plugins and extensions breaking, although that is also a potential deal breaker for me, but my Autohotkey scripts will not fire when the latest Firefox Developer Edition has the focus (v.57).
They won't fucking work, no matter what's ran. Trackpad gestures, nothing. Overlays and hotkeys, nada.
Even opening WindowSpy shows noting when FF has the focus. What the fuck??? My scripts are not app-specific, and work in every browser, including older versions of FF and the alpha and beta versions.
Now... It's the developer edition, and perhaps there's some esoteric setting that's user configurable which will allow me to correct this, although I seriously doubt it.
The problem is that these kind of unique-to-Firefox problems, coupled with them breaking most of their extensions makes Firefox a huge time sink on top of everything else.
Not only do we need to reconfigure the FF configuration we've spent years tailoring to our unique work styles and needs, but now we have to spend hours troubleshooting random weirdness such as this AHK problem. How much is a user supposed to endure, considering the quality of FF's competitors?
I find FF's live bookmarks indispensable and use them daily. I hate to lose this feature... For now, I am sticking with Waterfox, but I find myself more drawn to Chrome based solely on the performance of its mobile browser. FF on any mobile device I've used is SLOW and displays things oddly. Try loading the dailymail on your phone in FF mobile to see what I mean.
Damn you Mozilla! You've completely fucked up my computer experience and are requiring me to make some very big choices for my Internet browsing needs... And for what? A Chrome clone which lacks it's best features?
In 1945 corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes.
In 1945 we had a world war to finance. The squeeze was on corporations to do their part. Families contributed by sending their young men, and having less income to tax.
The new set of browser extension APIs that make up WebExtensions, which are available in Firefox today, are inherently more secure than traditional add-ons
From the point of view of an end user, the transition just takes one problem (security) and replaces it with another (data loss). Ctrl+Q in Firefox 57 for Linux quits the whole browser without asking for confirmation, causing loss of data in unsubmitted forms. XUL extensions used to be able to prevent this, but WebExtensions cannot because bug 1325692 was marked as "wontfix" for Firefox 57.
The problem is that once all major browsers support EME, website operators will feel more justified in requiring EME on grounds that users can choose to just switch on DRM as part of the economic bargain associated with visiting the site. The one thing that had been keeping website operators honest is the existence of at least one widely used browser that doesn't support EME at all.
UI: Much improved. Or, put another way, they removed a ton of the Australis crap that people have been griping about for years. That says quite a bit about their UX team.
- Caveat: They still manage to make a few small stupid errors, like removing the color from bookmark folders (change applied in FF58), and a 'default' theme that mixes light and dark in a way that's annoying no matter which you'd prefer. Just change to either light or dark and be done with it.
Performance: *Vastly* improved, across the board. This is both in chrome and on web pages. These are all the speed improvements that should have been done 5 years ago, but they were too busy pretending desktop didn't matter (Firefox OS is the future!) or pretending user complaints weren't valid, and not putting in any effort to really measure the problem.
- Caveat: That said, this basically just brings them up to on par with Chrome. We'll see if WebRender actually pushes them ahead.
Security: Presumably better. Rust still only covers limited modules, though, so it's not a suddenly perfect system. They have a huge amount of replacement work still to do.
Memory: Each individual process has improved a great deal, but all the processes together still add up to quite a bit. Right now (on my system as I write this), the largest content process is only 170MB. However all processes together add up to over 1.1GB. On the other hand, a few years ago 1.1GB total memory used would have meant the program was starting to melt down. Now, it's completely unnoticeable, and doesn't build up problems over time.
Extensions: On life support. 75% of my extensions are unusable, mostly because the APIs necessary either have not been or will never be built. The ones that *do* run are examples of unpolished, alpha-quality software. Yeah, there's a replacement, but even ignoring what's been crippled, what it does do, it doesn't do as well as the old mature extension did.
- Caveat: This changeover did need to be done. None of the above changes could have been done without ripping out the old ecosystem entirely. Extensions had become the kudzu that kept healthy growth from happening.
Summary: This is the sort of work that Mozilla should have done ~5-7 years ago, back when Chrome was just starting to take off. Chrome ate Firefox's lunch because Firefox couldn't be arsed to look at the problems that people were complaining about. But Mozilla will still claim that Chrome's rise to prominence was solely due to Google leveraging it's ubiquitous presence on the web, and not because Mozilla got sloppy and lazy.
I think those who like security updates but hate change use Firefox ESR.
Tell us how Chrome managed to replace the functionality that you found essential.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You're many, many, years out of date.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Not the AC, but I already disabled automatic updates on my Firefox. I'll update to 56 when it comes out, but I have too many extensions, and 100% of them say "legacy" which means they'll all stop working with Firefox 57. There is nothing but pain to move forward to FF57, and I've visited the home pages and blogs of various extensions that I use, and it seems like they've all come to the conclusion that they simply CAN'T migrate to WebExtensions. The functionality just doesn't exist, so the extension will never make it to FF57. I might as well switch to Chrome if I'm going to switch to a less functional browser, so let's hope FF56 gets many years of patches.
Morphing Software
Well, you have demanded the name of someone else but you still aren't providing yours.
There seems to be confusion regarding user names versus Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot. You've been using Slashdot long enough to know better, but I have no such hopes for Lunix Nutcase. He is, unfortunately, as advertised.
Just for fun, I downloaded the beta and installed it on my Mac OS desktop (core i7-4770k, 32GB).
Two initial impressions:
1) SHIT it's fast.
2) The UI is neither ugly as sin nor weirdly laggy any longer.
Okay, I have been using Chrome for many years now, but this is tempting. I've always kept Firefox installed but rarely use it. But I have just added it to the dock. I can see myself starting it instead of Chrome just because it's so damned fast.
I don't track Firefox development at all, so I have/had no idea this was in the works. I'd never have believed it, I thought FF was effectively doomed. Call me at least initially convinced. Using it now to post this.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
That brings us back to performance we had in the early Firefox days? I bet everyone could have saved a lot of time by just not adding bloat and focusing on FF's initial motivation (to split from Mozilla and be fast again) while adding value in other ways.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
APK
Hmm. I suppose a benefit of the technical problems Slashdot has had in the last little is the happy side effect of blocking APK posts.
But it seems Slashdot really is back up and running now.
It also builds in the Pocket bookmarking service ... A screenshot tool ...
Okay, as long as I can still disable them and any predictive DNS queries and page pre-loading/fetching and any other crap -- I mean *features* -- I'll never use or don't want leaking my browsing habits.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No, a quantum is literally the smallest possible amount or change of a quantity e.g the quantum of electric charge is a third the charge on an electron since quarks have electrical charges that are this small.
So when the summary says that "the upcoming version 57 is a quantum leap over predecessors" what it is literally saying is that it is the smallest possible increment over predecessors. So perhaps a little truth in advertizing managed to slip through the hype-laden buzz of scientific words they clearly don't know the meaning of offering, perhaps, a quantum of solace.
Too bad that mozilla already heavily alienated it's userbase, and this update cannot capture back market share, because many people don't start firefox anymore and won't notice this improvement.
Firefox has implemented WebExtensions which is the same API as Chrome, so many Chrome extensions should work on firefox. I'd give those a chance too.
Chances are though there'll be a knock to firefox 57 for a bit (stay on LTS for a while) and it'll then pick up to be similar to Chrome. Firefox are already extending the WebExtensions API beyond what chrome offer in order to keep some of the major plugins working. I suspect they're taking the sensible attitude of "make it run at all" (while the LTS one still exists) then "make it run well".
That's not a bad way to make such a major change.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You're many, many, years out of date.
I wish you were correct, but you're not.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
After many years sticking with Firefox, I figured since they seem hell bent on emulating Chrome, I might as well just use Chrome. And let's face it. For better or worse, Chrome is a much better Chrome then Firefox.. So it is going to take a lot to switch me back again at this stage.
Interesting deflection. Gonna stop being a coward yet?
No, there’s no confusion. You’re not courageous by using a pesudo-anonymous handle.
I really like Chrome's "make a web page act like a desktop application". No other browser can do that yet.
Be or ben't
Of a comparison between quantum and Chrome. Not really all that much speed difference. A few seconds here and there but nothing Earth shattering.
but it would appear that the new rendering is optimized for multi-core, so it's possible that the YouTube video was run on a two-core machine (I'm on four) or that it had a slower clock speed per core (multiplication factor of clock speed increase with multiple cores when code can take advantage of them efficiently).
In any case, I can say that on the sites that I regularly visit, it's clearly faster to render the whole page in most cases I've tried so far. I work in SaaS these days, so I spend a lot of time in a browser (and will still have to spend a lot of time in Chrome regardless). But with the number of hours that I'm working in a browser every day right now, I have a pretty good complacency going on, and this beta definitely knocked me out of my complacency, especially compared to my usual experience of Firefox (average on render speed, with slow, choppy UI elements).
I'm on 1Gb fiber and most major brand pages give me a pretty complete render in less than a second on an i7-4770k and achieve interactivity within 2-3 seconds tops and the UI elements feel native. Not checking for when all resources have completed load on a page, as that's often irrelevant to UX. But the experience of using for actual browsing it is that it's blazingly fast, at least in my reckoning. I used it for another couple of hours last night and I'm using it again right now and I'm impressed.
Now we'll see about stability...
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The last five years? I stop by once every couple of months, just because.
So no, I haven't visited in a few weeks, and when I do visit now and then, I just page through maybe the first 10-15 items in the scroll and then move on. It's usually a matter of boredom that brings me in.
I almost scrolled right past this story, because in my mind, Firefox has been effectively dead for years.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Missed a lot on this, so fill me in.
I wasn't a fan of the old UI code (I'm grokking that it's been replaced?) because it made the UI elements slow and choppy to render and react to clicks. It felt like using Linux+X in 1999, even on modern hardware.
This UI feels fast and native, and it's also much cleaner and doesn't do half-assed things like stretch images and icons in the UI out of aspect ratio or scale them without anti-aliasing, which always made me snicker about the old default UI.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Chrome is the gold standard.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Are browser speeds a real problem today?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
I tried the beta, and I have to say... it's not as terrible as I feared.
Personally, I honestly couldn't care less about the performance increases (I'm sure they're there, but I didn't notice them). I was concerned about two things:
1) That there wouldn't be NoScript. There currently isn't -- and that's why I'm not yet going to use the Beta as anything but a curiosity -- but apparently there will be. Assuming that no features will be lost in the port, that will be a showstopper removed.
2) That the UI was going to be unfixably horrible. I absolutely detest the current UI of Firefox (and Chrome), but I could fix the problem with Firefox by using Classic Theme Restorer -- an extension that can't be ported to the new plugin scheme.
My fear was that Firefox would keep a similar UI as it had been using, but without any way of fixing it. That would be a showstopper. But, as it turns out, the Beta UI is much improved, and I can fix the things that I still find irritating using the built-in options. So I'm happy.
I may be able to stay with Firefox after all! And that makes me even happier.
Uh, that's because at least in the case of theme, it doesn't need that cruft functionality as an extension because it already has a theme engine as part of the browser. I'm running a dark Chrome theme with custom tab sizes and icons as we speak. As for sidebars, I don't think those even exist in Chrome the way Firefox has them and never has (and ultimately they aren't useful for this browser anyhow). That leaves WebRequest API and that's so minor the majority of users won't notice nor care.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
I've never seen it noted that on linux Chrome is a dog: a slow, greedy, system-sapping vampire. Moreover on linux Firefox runs the Google docs pages better than Chrome. I use Chrome as little as possible.
`Perche non reggi tu, o sacra fame de l'oro,l'appetito de' mortali?'
That leaves WebRequest API and that's so minor the majority of users won't notice nor care.
It's fundamental functionality for ad and script blocking add-ons which are among the most popular add-ons. Blockers work better in Firefox precisely because of its extensions to WebRequest. Read the articles I linked to.
Please, present some evidence to that effect. You'll be pleasantly surprised by what you learn in your search.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Please, present some evidence to that effect. You'll be pleasantly surprised by what you learn in your search.
I've no need to do your homework for you, I experience the FF memory leaks on a daily basis. Right now with 5 tabs open for 24 hours it's gone from ~750Kb of memory to ~2.35Gb...in a little while it'll start to drop images, show me black/blank screens, slow way down, and finally either become totally unresponsive or just suddenly crash.
FFS, I've been seeing this kind of behavior (or similar) for the last 25 versions. But IE didn't do that, and Opera doesn't do that, and Pale Moon doesn't do that.
Oh, but I forgot- if you're not experiencing it personally, then it's all just fluff and anecdotal evidence and must not really be happening.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Oh, but I forgot- if you're not experiencing it personally, then it's all just fluff and anecdotal evidence and must not really be happening.
Why so irrational and emotional? If it's really a problem then all you have to do is provide your configuration and steps to reproduce the problem. Should be easy.
Why so irrational and emotional? If it's really a problem then all you have to do is provide your configuration and steps to reproduce the problem. Should be easy.
Here you go:
1) Open 2 or 3 instances of FF, then open 4 to 5 tabs in each instance. For example, a few email providers, a few forums, some news sites, etc.
2) Sit back and watch as the memory climbs and climbs. Using the actual instances and tabs is optional. It may take a day, but it will climb steadily.
3) If you don't personally see it occur, state that it must not really be a problem because it's not happening to you.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Here you go
You have failed to specify the version number for Firefox, the OS, the list of add-ons installed, and the URLs to test against. You're clearly not serious.
This is lame.
It would have been easier to just say: "Sorry, I can't. I was just repeating something I heard 10 years ago."
That's a very good thing! As you said earlier:
I wish you were correct
Well, wish granted.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You're not making sense.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...