It depends a LOT on your plugins, and what pages you go to. If you are trying to play those Zynga games like Cityville, you can expect more memory usage than if you are browsing while using ad block. I agree that 300 tabs is a bit excessive, but most people will have a modern computer with at least a dual-core processor and 1GB of RAM. Firefox also does not take up much in the way of resources if you have NO plugins these days.
Get and use the Flash remover from Adobe to clean out your old Flash plugin, then install the latest. The Flash plugin CAN get damaged, and once that happens, there is no way to fix it without removing it and then installing fresh. Here is the URL, and notice it is direct from Adobe: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/uninstall-flash-player-windows.html
This is PURELY a problem with the Flash plugin that I had to track down back in the days of Firefox 3.6.x. You MUST uninstall the Flash plugin(flash remover from Adobe is NEEDED), then re-install the plugin to correct that problem.
If this isn't clear enough: 1) download flash remover from: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/uninstall-flash-player-windows.html 2) know where you saved it. 3) close all browser windows, make sure your plugin-container processes have been closed 4) run the Flash remover 5) run firefox and go to www.flash.com to verify that flash is not installed, then get and install the Flash plugin
The Flash plugin can sometimes break, and installing or re-installing over the old broken version DOES NOT WORK, even if you are upgrading it. Cleaning out the old broken plugin is needed at that point.
The Flash crashing problem really only started showing up since the move to plugin-container, PLUS Flash 11.3. You can't fault the Firefox devs for the Flash plugin crashing, and if anything, it reveals an issue that the devs ARE working on, but which also requires more than a trivial patch to fix. The Flash plugin isn't the same for Firefox as it is for other browsers, so that would explain some of the issues.
There have been a number of POSITIVE improvements in the Firefox update process. It used to be that you had to check for updates manually, then they moved it to check for updates every few days or a week, then ask if you wanted to update, but with version 12 or so, it now auto-downloads the updates and will just update you the next time you start the program. The latest changes are to install most of the updates while you are running the older version, and will finalize the update the next time you start. This is closer to what many people WANT, to have updates be invisible and not take any time from THEM(no delay while updates are being installed). You CAN disable auto-update if you don't want it on for some reason.
What you should look at is the positives and negatives of multi-threading. The main program needs to be able to interact with each thread, but if a given thread stalls and the main program waits for it rather than just moving on, you get that sort of problem. It isn't EASY to track down the source of some problems in a multi-threaded design, which is why so many programmers are almost afraid of switching legacy apps to a multi-threaded design.
To be fair, memory usage in Firefox COULD get a bit high, and that has been a major focus in the latest few versions of Firefox. Memory usage has dropped considerably, and 15 beta runs VERY VERY well.
Firefox has changed so much since the days of 3.x that those experiences about how well Firefox runs are VERY out of date. At this point, the only issues that affect performance in Firefox are when the Flash plugin crashes(which will not crash the browser, but WILL cause the browser to stall for a bit). When a plugin crashes on Chrome, is there any performance hit?
Firefox moved plugins to their own sandbox, probably when the affected plugins broke. This is the sort of thing that those worried about security WANT to see put in place. Anything since then wouldn't have the problem.
Think about it the way you would back before major versions changed at EVERY release. You would have 3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2, 3.3, etc. This showed that the overall program has not changed, and there have been some new features added. When something SIGNIFICANT happens, you would see a bump in the overall version number, such as moving from 3 to 4. Now, Google FOLLOWING AOL to the version number inflation also meant that Mozilla had to do the same thing, because clueless masses just don't understand that a move from 4 to 4.1 under the old way of numbering is the same as Chrome moving from version 8 to 9.
So, the change to Firefox when it comes to the plugin-container COULD have been worthy of a bump in the overall program version, and you wouldn't complain too much about plugins breaking for a new version at that point.
Lower memory usage, faster, and less prone to a problematic plugin causing a browser crash? Yea, I suppose those are things you might not notice as "features", but they do make a huge impact on how satisfied users are. Just because new features are not obvious does not mean that there have been no improvements.
I am not sure what version you were running back then, but a big focus for Firefox over the past few versions has been about plugins. Yes, some have not been updated, but for the most part, the plugins MOST use have no problems with new versions of Firefox. Memory usage, and speed have also significantly improved, with more updates in Firefox 15.
Netscape is DEAD. Their final few releases were based on Firefox with a few changes, but it was officially shut down years ago as a program. Now, if you miss Netscape, you SHOULD know that Mozilla was founded BY Netscape back when they decided to try going commercial, with Netscape being the commercial entity, and Mozilla being the non-profit foundation responsible for the free browser. When Netscape died(bought by AOL, never used, then shut down), Mozilla lived on.
Considering the AT&T network still has a fair number of 2G areas, and many places have it where you get better service quality with 2G compared to 3G, I do NOT want to see 2G get shut down for quite a while. When AT&T actually updates their network, then they can shut down 2G.
I think you mistake a distrust of CHINA as a country with racism. The issue isn't that a Chinese person or team may have come up with it, and is more about not having much faith in press releases from certain nations. China(not Chinese people) along with North Korea are known for trying to impress those in other countries with this sort of press release when nothing exciting has happened or been discovered. That is what it all comes down to, and it does remain to be seen if this is REAL, or if it is the sort of thing such as "we have a way to XXXXX" without there being any evidence to support it(has not been verified by others).
Fortune 100 companies would move away from a DEAD platform, and that is what Itanium is at this point, a dead platform that never got enough traction for ANYONE to really want to support it. HP is foolish to continue selling a dead platform, and there was more of a case to continue supporting webOS than Itanium.
And that is where many people fail to understand some real basics when it comes to design. The CORE OS should be UI agnostic, and as such, should allow for multiple UIs to be run on top of it. The UI then is just that, how you use the device, and you should be able to pick and choose which UI best suits the device you are using.
Now, success or failure are as much about marketing as it is about the quality and features of a product, and we can see that happens to many products that are far more innovative than the iPhone. Innovation is about trying NEW things, and Apple is about finding something that works, and sticking with it while others are experimenting with things that really ARE new and in many cases better. When it comes to tablets, the technology just wasn't there before the iPad to make a tablet that people would want to use, and that is something many people fail to understand. We are FINALLY at the point where low power processors don't suck, and that is why this area is drawing so much attention these days.
Windows 95 was a huge jump forward from Windows for Workgroups 3.11, which is why it sold well. Win98 was a nice jump forward from Win95, and Windows XP was another huge jump forward. Vista had some initial quality issues with drivers and tuning, which were all fixed/improved in Windows 7(which also has done very well).
The problem with consoles is that you are dealing with those horrible controllers, which makes some "assistance" from the game required.
When it comes to Windows 8, it SEEMS that those who use a touch screen like Metro. The problem is that power users who use a keyboard/mouse MAY hate it. I will reserve judgement until I can do some serious tinkering with it, and all these preview releases may not tell the whole story about how it will be at release.
The problem isn't DirectX support, it is with having the newer DirectX versions be supported, and get proper driver support to make it all work. People complain about driver quality due to games having issues under Windows, so picture how bad a Linux implementation would end up being.
In some ways, Microsoft is thinking ahead by having the same OS for both ultra-portable and desktop/laptop, since that will allow the same applications to run on both. The primary issue that people have with Windows 8 is all about forcing a UI that is best on a touch screen to the desktop/laptop market while keeping the same overall OS. I suspect that if people were given an option in Windows 8 which UI to use that virtually all the complaints would be gone.
That is a basic issue of what version of DirectX you are looking at. I really wish that Microsoft had required a header in games that use DirectX to say which version they were aimed at, since that would allow for a compatibility layer to handle things properly for older versions. There is no reason why we can't run an older game and tell it(via compatibility tab) to use DirectX 5 or something like that.
Major version number vs. minor. The jump from Windows XP to Vista was fairly large in terms of platform changes, so it does make sense that we will be seeing software that requires Vista or newer in the next few years. OS X on the other hand is still OS X, and the core is still primarily the same. You will also have to watch out for things like what rules are enforced and which are not in newer OS versions. The reason why so many things broke under Vista was that rules that were not enforced under Windows XP were suddenly enforced. If your application cut corners, then it may have broken under Vista(and Windows 7).
This is like the idea of jaywalking. Most people KNOW that they are supposed to walk down to a crosswalk to get across a busy street, but police generally don't enforce that rule. If the police suddenly started ticketing people for jaywalking, people would quickly start to follow the rules, but there would always be people who want to disregard those rules(and keep getting in trouble).
You will probably expect a LOT of things to break if Apple ever releases a MacOS 11 when it comes to compatibility, and at that point, I am sure there will be people complaining about THAT. They already complain when the latest versions of MacOS won't work on their older Mac that came with MacOS 10.4.
I think you missed the point, which is that you need to go with an upgraded version of your OS at some point, and 12 years is far too long without an OS upgrade if you want to be secure. Yes, things may run, but you are counting on the concept of security through obscurity to keep you secure on an old GNU/Linux system, in much the same way Mac users have generally felt they were secure because virtually no malware was being written to target Mac users. If you are talking about hardware being 12 years old, then that is a somewhat different story, but you still need to upgrade the OS regularly for the sake of security.
It isn't just medicine, it is the sending of food to places where people refuse to do ANYTHING to improve their quality of life. How much aid has been sent to Ethiopia to feed the starving children? If after all these decades we have not helped them to the point where they can grow their own food and take care of themselves, perhaps it is time to just cut the cord, and let their population decrease to the point where they CAN take care of themselves. This may sound harsh, but when people are worried about global populations and how we can feed everyone, you have to start being a bit colder about things like that. Food for natural resources is a valid trade for example, and that would work, but this idea of letting nations that have resources take care of those who have NOTHING needs to end.
You are right on the money about families having more children BECAUSE there was a lower chance of survival, and this can be seen in almost every species on the planet. Those with the least chance of survival have more offspring, just to offset the high number of deaths in those offspring. Normally, food would be a limiting factor, except that we have people sending food to places where people should not be living. If you live in a desert where no food grows, you should EXPECT to die from starvation, or figure out how to eat whatever life you can find out there. If you live in a place with plenty of food, then you won't have that problem, the population grows, and then you run into conflicts of needing resources to trade or pay for food. Those who can't figure out how to make money to survive will generally die out.
It is that simple, and really, charity is the big source of the problem with the world having a higher population. There IS a natural balance that comes into play, which is why you see all these wars and violence in places that have a low food generation. If people keep getting fed that would normally have starved, then there will be criminals that will show up to balance things back out. Again, it is cold, but I suspect that if we as a species just let regions just go through periods of pain and sociological growth, they will eventually balance themselves out. Warlords can't enslave, rape, or kidnap dead people who died out due to lack of food, which in turn means those warlords would end up dead due to some other cause. Feeding an ecosystem that keeps trying to kill itself off is NOT the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends a LOT on your plugins, and what pages you go to. If you are trying to play those Zynga games like Cityville, you can expect more memory usage than if you are browsing while using ad block. I agree that 300 tabs is a bit excessive, but most people will have a modern computer with at least a dual-core processor and 1GB of RAM. Firefox also does not take up much in the way of resources if you have NO plugins these days.
Get and use the Flash remover from Adobe to clean out your old Flash plugin, then install the latest. The Flash plugin CAN get damaged, and once that happens, there is no way to fix it without removing it and then installing fresh. Here is the URL, and notice it is direct from Adobe: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/uninstall-flash-player-windows.html
This is PURELY a problem with the Flash plugin that I had to track down back in the days of Firefox 3.6.x. You MUST uninstall the Flash plugin(flash remover from Adobe is NEEDED), then re-install the plugin to correct that problem.
If this isn't clear enough:
1) download flash remover from: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/uninstall-flash-player-windows.html
2) know where you saved it.
3) close all browser windows, make sure your plugin-container processes have been closed
4) run the Flash remover
5) run firefox and go to www.flash.com to verify that flash is not installed, then get and install the Flash plugin
The Flash plugin can sometimes break, and installing or re-installing over the old broken version DOES NOT WORK, even if you are upgrading it. Cleaning out the old broken plugin is needed at that point.
The Flash crashing problem really only started showing up since the move to plugin-container, PLUS Flash 11.3. You can't fault the Firefox devs for the Flash plugin crashing, and if anything, it reveals an issue that the devs ARE working on, but which also requires more than a trivial patch to fix. The Flash plugin isn't the same for Firefox as it is for other browsers, so that would explain some of the issues.
There have been a number of POSITIVE improvements in the Firefox update process. It used to be that you had to check for updates manually, then they moved it to check for updates every few days or a week, then ask if you wanted to update, but with version 12 or so, it now auto-downloads the updates and will just update you the next time you start the program. The latest changes are to install most of the updates while you are running the older version, and will finalize the update the next time you start. This is closer to what many people WANT, to have updates be invisible and not take any time from THEM(no delay while updates are being installed). You CAN disable auto-update if you don't want it on for some reason.
What you should look at is the positives and negatives of multi-threading. The main program needs to be able to interact with each thread, but if a given thread stalls and the main program waits for it rather than just moving on, you get that sort of problem. It isn't EASY to track down the source of some problems in a multi-threaded design, which is why so many programmers are almost afraid of switching legacy apps to a multi-threaded design.
To be fair, memory usage in Firefox COULD get a bit high, and that has been a major focus in the latest few versions of Firefox. Memory usage has dropped considerably, and 15 beta runs VERY VERY well.
Firefox has changed so much since the days of 3.x that those experiences about how well Firefox runs are VERY out of date. At this point, the only issues that affect performance in Firefox are when the Flash plugin crashes(which will not crash the browser, but WILL cause the browser to stall for a bit). When a plugin crashes on Chrome, is there any performance hit?
Firefox moved plugins to their own sandbox, probably when the affected plugins broke. This is the sort of thing that those worried about security WANT to see put in place. Anything since then wouldn't have the problem.
Think about it the way you would back before major versions changed at EVERY release. You would have 3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2, 3.3, etc. This showed that the overall program has not changed, and there have been some new features added. When something SIGNIFICANT happens, you would see a bump in the overall version number, such as moving from 3 to 4. Now, Google FOLLOWING AOL to the version number inflation also meant that Mozilla had to do the same thing, because clueless masses just don't understand that a move from 4 to 4.1 under the old way of numbering is the same as Chrome moving from version 8 to 9.
So, the change to Firefox when it comes to the plugin-container COULD have been worthy of a bump in the overall program version, and you wouldn't complain too much about plugins breaking for a new version at that point.
It isn't difficult to TEST an addon before release to make sure it works, then put out an update that says it works with the new version.
Lower memory usage, faster, and less prone to a problematic plugin causing a browser crash? Yea, I suppose those are things you might not notice as "features", but they do make a huge impact on how satisfied users are. Just because new features are not obvious does not mean that there have been no improvements.
We were happy with Mosaic, until Netscape 0.8 came out with that big throbbing N to show activity was released.
I am not sure what version you were running back then, but a big focus for Firefox over the past few versions has been about plugins. Yes, some have not been updated, but for the most part, the plugins MOST use have no problems with new versions of Firefox. Memory usage, and speed have also significantly improved, with more updates in Firefox 15.
Netscape is DEAD. Their final few releases were based on Firefox with a few changes, but it was officially shut down years ago as a program. Now, if you miss Netscape, you SHOULD know that Mozilla was founded BY Netscape back when they decided to try going commercial, with Netscape being the commercial entity, and Mozilla being the non-profit foundation responsible for the free browser. When Netscape died(bought by AOL, never used, then shut down), Mozilla lived on.
Considering the AT&T network still has a fair number of 2G areas, and many places have it where you get better service quality with 2G compared to 3G, I do NOT want to see 2G get shut down for quite a while. When AT&T actually updates their network, then they can shut down 2G.
I think you mistake a distrust of CHINA as a country with racism. The issue isn't that a Chinese person or team may have come up with it, and is more about not having much faith in press releases from certain nations. China(not Chinese people) along with North Korea are known for trying to impress those in other countries with this sort of press release when nothing exciting has happened or been discovered. That is what it all comes down to, and it does remain to be seen if this is REAL, or if it is the sort of thing such as "we have a way to XXXXX" without there being any evidence to support it(has not been verified by others).
Fortune 100 companies would move away from a DEAD platform, and that is what Itanium is at this point, a dead platform that never got enough traction for ANYONE to really want to support it. HP is foolish to continue selling a dead platform, and there was more of a case to continue supporting webOS than Itanium.
And that is where many people fail to understand some real basics when it comes to design. The CORE OS should be UI agnostic, and as such, should allow for multiple UIs to be run on top of it. The UI then is just that, how you use the device, and you should be able to pick and choose which UI best suits the device you are using.
Now, success or failure are as much about marketing as it is about the quality and features of a product, and we can see that happens to many products that are far more innovative than the iPhone. Innovation is about trying NEW things, and Apple is about finding something that works, and sticking with it while others are experimenting with things that really ARE new and in many cases better. When it comes to tablets, the technology just wasn't there before the iPad to make a tablet that people would want to use, and that is something many people fail to understand. We are FINALLY at the point where low power processors don't suck, and that is why this area is drawing so much attention these days.
Windows 95 was a huge jump forward from Windows for Workgroups 3.11, which is why it sold well. Win98 was a nice jump forward from Win95, and Windows XP was another huge jump forward. Vista had some initial quality issues with drivers and tuning, which were all fixed/improved in Windows 7(which also has done very well).
The problem with consoles is that you are dealing with those horrible controllers, which makes some "assistance" from the game required.
When it comes to Windows 8, it SEEMS that those who use a touch screen like Metro. The problem is that power users who use a keyboard/mouse MAY hate it. I will reserve judgement until I can do some serious tinkering with it, and all these preview releases may not tell the whole story about how it will be at release.
The problem isn't DirectX support, it is with having the newer DirectX versions be supported, and get proper driver support to make it all work. People complain about driver quality due to games having issues under Windows, so picture how bad a Linux implementation would end up being.
In some ways, Microsoft is thinking ahead by having the same OS for both ultra-portable and desktop/laptop, since that will allow the same applications to run on both. The primary issue that people have with Windows 8 is all about forcing a UI that is best on a touch screen to the desktop/laptop market while keeping the same overall OS. I suspect that if people were given an option in Windows 8 which UI to use that virtually all the complaints would be gone.
That is a basic issue of what version of DirectX you are looking at. I really wish that Microsoft had required a header in games that use DirectX to say which version they were aimed at, since that would allow for a compatibility layer to handle things properly for older versions. There is no reason why we can't run an older game and tell it(via compatibility tab) to use DirectX 5 or something like that.
Major version number vs. minor. The jump from Windows XP to Vista was fairly large in terms of platform changes, so it does make sense that we will be seeing software that requires Vista or newer in the next few years. OS X on the other hand is still OS X, and the core is still primarily the same. You will also have to watch out for things like what rules are enforced and which are not in newer OS versions. The reason why so many things broke under Vista was that rules that were not enforced under Windows XP were suddenly enforced. If your application cut corners, then it may have broken under Vista(and Windows 7).
This is like the idea of jaywalking. Most people KNOW that they are supposed to walk down to a crosswalk to get across a busy street, but police generally don't enforce that rule. If the police suddenly started ticketing people for jaywalking, people would quickly start to follow the rules, but there would always be people who want to disregard those rules(and keep getting in trouble).
You will probably expect a LOT of things to break if Apple ever releases a MacOS 11 when it comes to compatibility, and at that point, I am sure there will be people complaining about THAT. They already complain when the latest versions of MacOS won't work on their older Mac that came with MacOS 10.4.
I think you missed the point, which is that you need to go with an upgraded version of your OS at some point, and 12 years is far too long without an OS upgrade if you want to be secure. Yes, things may run, but you are counting on the concept of security through obscurity to keep you secure on an old GNU/Linux system, in much the same way Mac users have generally felt they were secure because virtually no malware was being written to target Mac users. If you are talking about hardware being 12 years old, then that is a somewhat different story, but you still need to upgrade the OS regularly for the sake of security.
It isn't just medicine, it is the sending of food to places where people refuse to do ANYTHING to improve their quality of life. How much aid has been sent to Ethiopia to feed the starving children? If after all these decades we have not helped them to the point where they can grow their own food and take care of themselves, perhaps it is time to just cut the cord, and let their population decrease to the point where they CAN take care of themselves. This may sound harsh, but when people are worried about global populations and how we can feed everyone, you have to start being a bit colder about things like that. Food for natural resources is a valid trade for example, and that would work, but this idea of letting nations that have resources take care of those who have NOTHING needs to end.
You are right on the money about families having more children BECAUSE there was a lower chance of survival, and this can be seen in almost every species on the planet. Those with the least chance of survival have more offspring, just to offset the high number of deaths in those offspring. Normally, food would be a limiting factor, except that we have people sending food to places where people should not be living. If you live in a desert where no food grows, you should EXPECT to die from starvation, or figure out how to eat whatever life you can find out there. If you live in a place with plenty of food, then you won't have that problem, the population grows, and then you run into conflicts of needing resources to trade or pay for food. Those who can't figure out how to make money to survive will generally die out.
It is that simple, and really, charity is the big source of the problem with the world having a higher population. There IS a natural balance that comes into play, which is why you see all these wars and violence in places that have a low food generation. If people keep getting fed that would normally have starved, then there will be criminals that will show up to balance things back out. Again, it is cold, but I suspect that if we as a species just let regions just go through periods of pain and sociological growth, they will eventually balance themselves out. Warlords can't enslave, rape, or kidnap dead people who died out due to lack of food, which in turn means those warlords would end up dead due to some other cause. Feeding an ecosystem that keeps trying to kill itself off is NOT the answer.