I didn't dismiss all of his reasons, only a few, and mainly because those reasons aren't very well explained. A lot of his reasons were good reasons, like the dev tools and tab handling being much better. I agree with those. I just told him that just because it's happening to him personally it doesn't mean that everybody experiences it. I for one don't experience it at all. I just suggested that he submit his memory statistics to Mozilla so they can fix his problem, and I'm accused of having an attitude.
There are a lot of different benchmarks on the internet. I know that Lifehacker had one recently and other websites did some too. Google's your friend in this case.
It's pretty easy to modify packages to not have something else as a dependency. Also, I highly doubt any major Linux distro would actually mark something as a dependency as something else when it has absolutely nothing to do with the package (optional dependency? maybe, but it's still unlikely).
You say Chrome is faster but you don't have any statistic. You say that this bug has been submitted but you don't have any bug links. You say Firefox 7 might have fixed the problem and didn't even bother to check. Really?
I never once said you didn't have this memory problem. I said IF you have the problem it MIGHT be caused by something else and that you can help Mozilla improve their performance by submitting memory data.
I don't really think anecdotal evidence is really valid here. I haven't had memory problems with Firefox at all and it feels pretty snappy on here to me (that's the thing: "to me"). Maybe it's an add-on problem or something with Firefox that might add to your memory problems. You can anonymously submit data to Mozilla about your memory now to help them improve performance if you want. It should be in Options -> Advanced -> General.
That might have something to do with it. Another part of it would probably be how Google's paying companies to include Chrome installs with every other program you try to install on Windows (thankfully this doesn't happen on Linux due to the way package management usually works). I used to be annoyed at applications asking me to install pointless toolbars and whatnot, but Chrome is actually annoying more as of recently because of this.
I'm 17 and I don't get it:/. Normal kids weird me out anyways, always liking things for the most immature reasons.
I'm sure there was a point in time where Chrome was faster than Firefox, but there's really no reason to stick with it anymore. Chrome lets you import Firefox settings, so that might have something to do with it. All we need now in Firefox is a feature to import all of your Chrome settings and people will be switching both ways instead of just one.
I've never understood why people preferred Chrome to Firefox
Both of them have similar UIs, more or less the same features (if I'm not mistaken, Firefox has more), and they're both reasonably fast. Firefox has a more extensive add-on catalog, more configuration options, and as of Firefox 7 is the fastest browser currently released outside of maybe Opera. Chrome is nice, and I don't mind using it, but I can't think of a single major advantage Chrome has over Firefox that would make people want to switch. The only reason I know of for why my friends are using Chrome is because "it's faster", but as of 7 that's null and void.
Can anybody help me out? I'm not trolling here, I seriously want to know what Chrome has over FF.
Java isn't far behind, though, and it's rarely used for anything besides Runescape and the occasional application that was made before Flash was big. The danger here is that people have Java installed as a web plugin when it really, really doesn't need to be in most circumstances.
1) You are not the entirety of Mozilla's userbase. Just because they're disappointing you doesn't mean they're disappointing me or any of their millions of other users.
2) Firefox isn't going the way of Netscape at all. When it includes Thunderbird/Lightning/ChatZilla/etc. in by default (a la Seamonkey) then you'd be right to say that, though.
3) I'm curious to know what you're switching to now. Opera? IE?
Final Fantasy XII is tied with X on Metacritic as the #2 Final Fantasy game of all time. The only bad-scoring FF and DQ title to be released since the merger was FFXIV. A little more evidence on your part would be nice because your claim doesn't exactly fit with reality. Sure you have the right to dislike these games, I'm not contesting that, but when pretty much all of the critics liked the game, maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle.
Final Fantasy XII and Xenoblade are the two most WRPG-like JRPGs out there. They're like a perfect middle ground between story and exploration. Both of them are very critically acclaimed, too. You should give them a try sometime! This generation has been filled with mostly good-ish RPGs but few truly great ones, aside from Xenoblade/The Last Story/Monster Hunter Tri, and ironically those were released on the Wii, the system that "hardcore" gamers shun all the time.
Just get an RSS feed reader and subscribe to Netflix's "New Additions" feeds. I do and it tells me every time they add a new title to either of their services (they add a bit more than you'd think).
1) Almost everybody I know has a Facebook account 2) Spotify is basically the equivalent of Netflix around the world but for music 3) If my friends sign up they don't have to spend a lot of time making a new account (the biggest complain any normal user has about signing up for *anything* is the act of signing up itself). 4) I get to share my favorite music with all of my FB friends.
Sounds like a win/win to me. You can always make a throwaway FB account if you don't want or need one anyways.
Am I really the only person that welcomes this move? Sure, for now we're losing interactivity between DVDs and streaming, but in the long run this will give us better services. Already they're adding game support to Qwikster and it should only get better from then on. Maybe they'll even lower prices down the road for Qwikster due to not having to license anything or introduce more social features for each. They're not even close to killing off DVDs; that would be so stupid that it defies common sense. They're making a profit on it, so killing it off would only harm them. I for one welcome this change with open arms and, even though it might be a little rough at first, it will get better as time goes on. Besides, is there any comparably cheap alternative that supplies just about as much content in just as many places (Wii, 3DS, BluRay players, etc.)?
Somebody didn't read the article... This is basically an easy interface to making "cron job-like" things involving popular websites, like "call me every time somebody favorites one of my Twitter posts" or "when someone tags me in a photo, upload the photo to my Dropbox" and so on. This isn't a "portal" any more than a bash script is.
While losing a million subscribers is generally a bad thing... I would think they will be doing fine with the other 24 million of us.
No kidding. You don't even have to do the math to find out that after the new price change the loss of 1 million subscribers will still result in them earning more money total than before. Also it's expected that they would have to charge more for an increasingly expensive service to host.
Also, the prices for Streaming AND DVDs have gone up. If you do one or the other, you actually save money now.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't dismiss all of his reasons, only a few, and mainly because those reasons aren't very well explained. A lot of his reasons were good reasons, like the dev tools and tab handling being much better. I agree with those. I just told him that just because it's happening to him personally it doesn't mean that everybody experiences it. I for one don't experience it at all. I just suggested that he submit his memory statistics to Mozilla so they can fix his problem, and I'm accused of having an attitude.
There are a lot of different benchmarks on the internet. I know that Lifehacker had one recently and other websites did some too. Google's your friend in this case.
Explain to me how liking something "because it's cool" and not analyzing the competition logically isn't immature.
It's pretty easy to modify packages to not have something else as a dependency. Also, I highly doubt any major Linux distro would actually mark something as a dependency as something else when it has absolutely nothing to do with the package (optional dependency? maybe, but it's still unlikely).
You say Chrome is faster but you don't have any statistic. You say that this bug has been submitted but you don't have any bug links. You say Firefox 7 might have fixed the problem and didn't even bother to check. Really?
I never once said you didn't have this memory problem. I said IF you have the problem it MIGHT be caused by something else and that you can help Mozilla improve their performance by submitting memory data.
Who has the attitude here?
I don't really think anecdotal evidence is really valid here. I haven't had memory problems with Firefox at all and it feels pretty snappy on here to me (that's the thing: "to me"). Maybe it's an add-on problem or something with Firefox that might add to your memory problems. You can anonymously submit data to Mozilla about your memory now to help them improve performance if you want. It should be in Options -> Advanced -> General.
That might have something to do with it. Another part of it would probably be how Google's paying companies to include Chrome installs with every other program you try to install on Windows (thankfully this doesn't happen on Linux due to the way package management usually works). I used to be annoyed at applications asking me to install pointless toolbars and whatnot, but Chrome is actually annoying more as of recently because of this.
I'm 17 and I don't get it :/. Normal kids weird me out anyways, always liking things for the most immature reasons.
I'm sure there was a point in time where Chrome was faster than Firefox, but there's really no reason to stick with it anymore. Chrome lets you import Firefox settings, so that might have something to do with it. All we need now in Firefox is a feature to import all of your Chrome settings and people will be switching both ways instead of just one.
That's true. Thanks for the response :)
I've never understood why people preferred Chrome to Firefox
Both of them have similar UIs, more or less the same features (if I'm not mistaken, Firefox has more), and they're both reasonably fast. Firefox has a more extensive add-on catalog, more configuration options, and as of Firefox 7 is the fastest browser currently released outside of maybe Opera. Chrome is nice, and I don't mind using it, but I can't think of a single major advantage Chrome has over Firefox that would make people want to switch. The only reason I know of for why my friends are using Chrome is because "it's faster", but as of 7 that's null and void.
Can anybody help me out? I'm not trolling here, I seriously want to know what Chrome has over FF.
Java isn't far behind, though, and it's rarely used for anything besides Runescape and the occasional application that was made before Flash was big. The danger here is that people have Java installed as a web plugin when it really, really doesn't need to be in most circumstances.
Jetpack is built-in to Firefox now so you shouldn't have that problem anymore.
1) You are not the entirety of Mozilla's userbase. Just because they're disappointing you doesn't mean they're disappointing me or any of their millions of other users.
2) Firefox isn't going the way of Netscape at all. When it includes Thunderbird/Lightning/ChatZilla/etc. in by default (a la Seamonkey) then you'd be right to say that, though.
3) I'm curious to know what you're switching to now. Opera? IE?
Final Fantasy XII is tied with X on Metacritic as the #2 Final Fantasy game of all time. The only bad-scoring FF and DQ title to be released since the merger was FFXIV. A little more evidence on your part would be nice because your claim doesn't exactly fit with reality. Sure you have the right to dislike these games, I'm not contesting that, but when pretty much all of the critics liked the game, maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle.
Final Fantasy XII and Xenoblade are the two most WRPG-like JRPGs out there. They're like a perfect middle ground between story and exploration. Both of them are very critically acclaimed, too. You should give them a try sometime! This generation has been filled with mostly good-ish RPGs but few truly great ones, aside from Xenoblade/The Last Story/Monster Hunter Tri, and ironically those were released on the Wii, the system that "hardcore" gamers shun all the time.
Just get an RSS feed reader and subscribe to Netflix's "New Additions" feeds. I do and it tells me every time they add a new title to either of their services (they add a bit more than you'd think).
1) Almost everybody I know has a Facebook account
2) Spotify is basically the equivalent of Netflix around the world but for music
3) If my friends sign up they don't have to spend a lot of time making a new account (the biggest complain any normal user has about signing up for *anything* is the act of signing up itself).
4) I get to share my favorite music with all of my FB friends.
Sounds like a win/win to me. You can always make a throwaway FB account if you don't want or need one anyways.
You could say the same thing about Safe Sex too.
Well why would they? It's a competitor after all, more or less. You wouldn't expect them to test every other OS out there, would you?
Am I really the only person that welcomes this move? Sure, for now we're losing interactivity between DVDs and streaming, but in the long run this will give us better services. Already they're adding game support to Qwikster and it should only get better from then on. Maybe they'll even lower prices down the road for Qwikster due to not having to license anything or introduce more social features for each. They're not even close to killing off DVDs; that would be so stupid that it defies common sense. They're making a profit on it, so killing it off would only harm them. I for one welcome this change with open arms and, even though it might be a little rough at first, it will get better as time goes on. Besides, is there any comparably cheap alternative that supplies just about as much content in just as many places (Wii, 3DS, BluRay players, etc.)?
Well show us a website that does it at the same level as this one. That's why this is news.
Somebody didn't read the article... This is basically an easy interface to making "cron job-like" things involving popular websites, like "call me every time somebody favorites one of my Twitter posts" or "when someone tags me in a photo, upload the photo to my Dropbox" and so on. This isn't a "portal" any more than a bash script is.
...But can it run Linux?
While losing a million subscribers is generally a bad thing... I would think they will be doing fine with the other 24 million of us.
No kidding. You don't even have to do the math to find out that after the new price change the loss of 1 million subscribers will still result in them earning more money total than before. Also it's expected that they would have to charge more for an increasingly expensive service to host.
Also, the prices for Streaming AND DVDs have gone up. If you do one or the other, you actually save money now.
Yes, because non-religious people are completely pacifist...