Of course Chrome has no particular reason to want to kill Firefox, but hey.. it's money they could use on their own browser and get search users they don't pay for
Only some of those users would go with Google. Many of them would go to MS. Plus, money not going to Mozilla isn't necessarily going to go to Chrome. Google has enough resources that they don't have to take any from Chrome to give to Mozilla. That would be like God running out of 'space' for his 'stuff'. Not gonna happen.
If nothing else, Google should help out Mozilla so they have some decent competition. Things like lazy tab loading, etc. are pushing Chrome just as much as Chrome is pushing Firefox. Firefox has MUCH better memory performance (3-4x better for me on multiple machines) even before lazy tab loading came along in FF8.
FF is still a better environment for development, and with the use of Tab Mix Plus (and the aforementioned lazy tab loading) is WAY better for those of us who run with a lot of tabs open. The extensions for FF are still far more numerous and more polished than those for Chrome.
IE 10? Please. That thing isn't even beta yet. Never underestimate Microsoft's ability to turn a "completely compliant" pre-release browser into "that which must not be named" upon release.
I like the direction they're going so far, but until it's released, there's no telling what it will REALLY be like.
Let Google deliver all your stuff! Once Google has a 'Google Locker' ability to compete with Amazon Locker, all will be right with the world. Just have Google deliver all your mail that once went through USPS.
How about a big collection of free music/ebooks/movies/art, etc? Maybe consider putting together a digital slideshow of photos and movies of family and friends, too.
"Swedish meatballs, an Earth ground meat delicacy that is something of an interstellar mystery. Every spacefaring race is known to have a food identical to Swedish meatballs, be it Narn Breen or Centauri Prime's Roopo balls. Even races as diverse as the Abbai, Drazi and even the Gaim all have an equivalent dish, though the Centauri are the only ones with the audacity to claim they are the ones who invented it."
Since they got the memory use under control in v7, life is good.
This might be a little more meaningful if we hadn't been hearing "the memory problems are fixed now, honest!" for every Firefox release in the last six years or so...
You seem confused by what I said. I said they got memory use under control in v7. v8 is what just came out. I'm not saying it's NOW fixed in v8 - it's been fixed for a while.
Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I hear ya man -- Be thankful we're not all running IE5 or IE6, hehehehehe.
I'd quit my job and learn to be a bricklayer or something. *shudder*
Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I never got to use FF7 long enough to notice. Too little, too late. Not crashing is way more important to me than memory use. Memory use was just an example of memory leaks and such. Anytime I had my browser open (no porn!) for 2 days it would be 1.5G, at any point in my 5 yrs or so of using Firefox. That they fixed it around the time that I finally switched is just a case of too little too late.
Hey, if you're happy with what you have, and you use a browser that supports modern standards and doesn't force web developers like myself to have to use obsolete standards, then more power to you. Use what works. I vaguely recall I had some crashing issues with 7.0 that were fixed quickly by 7.0.1, but YMMV.
Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I pruned most of my extensions when using FF6. I now use:
Adblock Plus Add-on Compatibility Reporter DownloadHelper FireFTP Flashblock Live HTTP headers Memory Fox QuickJava SearchStatus Session Manager Tax Mix Plus Web Developer
And life is good. I see memory use generally around 400-550MB, but I also tend to run with dozens of tabs, so that's not unreasonable. It's using 443MB on my machine this instant with 27 tabs open and Flash currently disabled. Chrome is taking up around three times that with half the number of open tabs (but with Flash enabled).
I also flush out the flash plugin when I don't need it by using QuickJava to globally disable Flash, which, along with Flashblock, is probably why I'm not having any problems. I long for the day I don't have to keep track of what Flash is doing, but that's hardly the fault of Firefox, or of Chrome when it has the same issues with the same crappy plugin.
I think FF9 is when the js memory issues are scheduled to be addressed, assuming it makes it in time (Dec 20). If not, then FF10 should have it.
Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
What version of FF are you using? FF7's memory use is outstanding - WAY better than Chrome. I use the latest version of all the browsers and check these things out with every new release. Chrome uses 2-3x more memory on my work and home machines than FF does (as of FF7). Neither browser crashes for me on either machine I use. My work and home machines use 1920x1200 monitors (work machine has a secondary 1680x1050), and I have no weird problems about displaying large jpegs.
Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Only they rarely ship new features, unlike Firefox, that the user can actually see.
So what? Featureitis is not a good thing. Secondly, mozilla is only adding all those new features in a desperate attempt to look relevant whilst they lose marketshare continually to chrome.
"Featureitis" implies useless features, which is not what Firefox is doing. Lazy tab loading is a brilliant thing, and makes the browser 10x more usable and responsive for me. Chrome, as of v17, doesn't even have the same feature set as a new install of Firefox, sans any plugins.
Completely smooth upgrade, no incompatible plugins, and lazy tab loading is the best feature ever for tab-crazy people like myself. Since they got the memory use under control in v7, life is good. With Chrome taking up 2-3x more memory than FF, I just can't deal with that anymore. Plus lazy tab loading is now my killer browser feature. Gotta have it. I think FF9 (Dec 20) or FF10 is supposed to have even more substantial memory reduction applied.
Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
Yes, switch from Firefox because of the 6 week release schedule, and go to Chrome... who started the 6 week release schedule. Only they rarely ship new features, unlike Firefox, that the user can actually see.
Chrome now uses *substantially* more memory than Firefox, as of FF 7.
I would say you most likely have some bad FF extensions and/or a corrupted profile.
FF8 was the smoothest upgrade for me yet. Lazy tab loading is a godsend.
Nonsense, by 1994 it was already a two horse race and with a bunch of wannabes sitting on the sidelines.
Hardly. I worked at Spry in 1995, and our version of Mosaic was better than anything else out there aside from Navigator. The version we had in beta would've totally killed it if CompuServe hadn't bought the company and scuttled the software side of the company. But Dave Pool got his cut of the $50 million (which for the day was considered a ridiculous amount of money for an Internet technology company), and that was that. *sigh* Full SGML browser, from what I was told. Oh well.
1994 had more browsers than 'Netscape' - far more, and the web was completely open at the time. Yes, things would have been very different if MS had bought Netscape then, but the web != Netscape, even back then.
The reason I ask is - is this regular, breakable glass, or can you put some Gorilla Glass on top of it? And if you did, would it then become reflective again? Can this new extra-transparent glass be made extra-hard like Gorilla Glass?
I think even if it can't, and if you can't put Gorilla Glass on top of it without losing your extra-transparency, I'd still prefer this on my cellphone/tablet. At least that's not a worry on monitors.
Quick and easy tip to increase storage space on a budget: buy the 3.5" model and punch a hole in the top corner. When the first side is full flip over the disk and use the other side. You will need to periodically flip the disk over and make note of what side contains the data you want.
Ha. I'm old enough to remember doing that to 5.25" diskettes for my Apple ][.
The price of the two best ones, the Netgear and the QNAP, on Newegg, for the diskless versions, are about $230 apart - about a quarter of a difference. I think I'd go with the Netgear based on that.
The problem with these things is that Thunderbolt is almost here for everyone else (not just Macs), and with SSDs getting less expensive all the time, I think I'd rather wait for a Thunderbolt-connected version for the sake of future-proofing. Plus a version intended only for 2.5" drives would be sized better for those of us who want one of these for our desktop.
Still, if you want one now, these things have matured quite a bit.
Excellent idea, I wouldn't mind a new house with built in window shades that generate some power, but I have one question I didn't seem to see the answer to...
How do you get convenient access to the power generated by a houseful of these shades?
They say an average person could install it, but I don't see average people wiring these up themselves.
The easiest way would probably for it to have an outlet attached to the film panel, rather than trying to wire it into your house electrical system.
If you want to block 80 percent of visible light, why exactly did you have a window installed there in the first place? Just asking. Wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask...
Yeah, most people live in places where they decided where the windows would be installed.
Yes, silly of them putting the money into finding a cure for a disease that kills people instead of one that makes people's crotch itch.
Your righteous indignation would be more impressive if it had anything to do with what I said. I never said nor did I imply anything of the sort. Outside of your head, that is.
Oh sure, that would be great... except for two things: Websites like Google expect you to update to the latest version, and will often lock you out if you don't.
Websites, like Banks for example, won't run if you use a browser version they haven't tested -- in Firefox's case that's 3 versions ago.
And that's completely ignoring the broken add-ons, and the fact that many people choose not to upgrade Firefox because they don't like the GUI changes on recent versions.
1) No, Google doesn't expect you to use the 'latest' - just something modern, as in, not IE 6. I don't think they lock you out (could be wrong), just won't support it. They may also have stopped supporting IE 7, not sure. That's not the same thing as requiring the latest. You must be this high to ride; you don't have to be the tallest person around.
2) Stupid banks may be doing that, but the last 4 banks I've used over the last decade do not. Stupid developers check for browser versions. Good developers check for features. Hardly the fault of Mozilla.
3) All my add-ons worked perfectly in moving from FF6 to 7. Only a few didn't make it from 5 to 6, and they were updated within about a week. Your browser will still work without add-ons, you know. That's also the fault of the add-on devs.
As far as the recent GUI changes, that's a somewhat valid complaint - but many of those things can be changed back to their old ways, and this has nothing to do with a version numbering scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course Chrome has no particular reason to want to kill Firefox, but hey.. it's money they could use on their own browser and get search users they don't pay for
Only some of those users would go with Google. Many of them would go to MS. Plus, money not going to Mozilla isn't necessarily going to go to Chrome. Google has enough resources that they don't have to take any from Chrome to give to Mozilla. That would be like God running out of 'space' for his 'stuff'. Not gonna happen.
If nothing else, Google should help out Mozilla so they have some decent competition. Things like lazy tab loading, etc. are pushing Chrome just as much as Chrome is pushing Firefox. Firefox has MUCH better memory performance (3-4x better for me on multiple machines) even before lazy tab loading came along in FF8.
FF is still a better environment for development, and with the use of Tab Mix Plus (and the aforementioned lazy tab loading) is WAY better for those of us who run with a lot of tabs open. The extensions for FF are still far more numerous and more polished than those for Chrome.
IE 10 is the most conforment browser to date.
IE 10? Please. That thing isn't even beta yet. Never underestimate Microsoft's ability to turn a "completely compliant" pre-release browser into "that which must not be named" upon release.
I like the direction they're going so far, but until it's released, there's no telling what it will REALLY be like.
Let Google deliver all your stuff! Once Google has a 'Google Locker' ability to compete with Amazon Locker, all will be right with the world. Just have Google deliver all your mail that once went through USPS.
How about a big collection of free music/ebooks/movies/art, etc? Maybe consider putting together a digital slideshow of photos and movies of family and friends, too.
http://babylon5.wikia.com/wiki/Swedish_meatballs
"Swedish meatballs, an Earth ground meat delicacy that is something of an interstellar mystery. Every spacefaring race is known to have a food identical to Swedish meatballs, be it Narn Breen or Centauri Prime's Roopo balls. Even races as diverse as the Abbai, Drazi and even the Gaim all have an equivalent dish, though the Centauri are the only ones with the audacity to claim they are the ones who invented it."
This might be a little more meaningful if we hadn't been hearing "the memory problems are fixed now, honest!" for every Firefox release in the last six years or so...
You seem confused by what I said. I said they got memory use under control in v7. v8 is what just came out. I'm not saying it's NOW fixed in v8 - it's been fixed for a while.
I hear ya man -- Be thankful we're not all running IE5 or IE6, hehehehehe.
I'd quit my job and learn to be a bricklayer or something. *shudder*
I never got to use FF7 long enough to notice. Too little, too late. Not crashing is way more important to me than memory use. Memory use was just an example of memory leaks and such. Anytime I had my browser open (no porn!) for 2 days it would be 1.5G, at any point in my 5 yrs or so of using Firefox. That they fixed it around the time that I finally switched is just a case of too little too late.
Hey, if you're happy with what you have, and you use a browser that supports modern standards and doesn't force web developers like myself to have to use obsolete standards, then more power to you. Use what works. I vaguely recall I had some crashing issues with 7.0 that were fixed quickly by 7.0.1, but YMMV.
I pruned most of my extensions when using FF6. I now use:
Adblock Plus
Add-on Compatibility Reporter
DownloadHelper
FireFTP
Flashblock
Live HTTP headers
Memory Fox
QuickJava
SearchStatus
Session Manager
Tax Mix Plus
Web Developer
And life is good. I see memory use generally around 400-550MB, but I also tend to run with dozens of tabs, so that's not unreasonable. It's using 443MB on my machine this instant with 27 tabs open and Flash currently disabled. Chrome is taking up around three times that with half the number of open tabs (but with Flash enabled).
I also flush out the flash plugin when I don't need it by using QuickJava to globally disable Flash, which, along with Flashblock, is probably why I'm not having any problems. I long for the day I don't have to keep track of what Flash is doing, but that's hardly the fault of Firefox, or of Chrome when it has the same issues with the same crappy plugin.
I think FF9 is when the js memory issues are scheduled to be addressed, assuming it makes it in time (Dec 20). If not, then FF10 should have it.
What version of FF are you using? FF7's memory use is outstanding - WAY better than Chrome. I use the latest version of all the browsers and check these things out with every new release. Chrome uses 2-3x more memory on my work and home machines than FF does (as of FF7). Neither browser crashes for me on either machine I use. My work and home machines use 1920x1200 monitors (work machine has a secondary 1680x1050), and I have no weird problems about displaying large jpegs.
Only they rarely ship new features, unlike Firefox, that the user can actually see.
So what? Featureitis is not a good thing. Secondly, mozilla is only adding all those new features in a desperate attempt to look relevant whilst they lose marketshare continually to chrome.
"Featureitis" implies useless features, which is not what Firefox is doing. Lazy tab loading is a brilliant thing, and makes the browser 10x more usable and responsive for me. Chrome, as of v17, doesn't even have the same feature set as a new install of Firefox, sans any plugins.
Completely smooth upgrade, no incompatible plugins, and lazy tab loading is the best feature ever for tab-crazy people like myself. Since they got the memory use under control in v7, life is good. With Chrome taking up 2-3x more memory than FF, I just can't deal with that anymore. Plus lazy tab loading is now my killer browser feature. Gotta have it. I think FF9 (Dec 20) or FF10 is supposed to have even more substantial memory reduction applied.
Yes, switch from Firefox because of the 6 week release schedule, and go to Chrome ... who started the 6 week release schedule. Only they rarely ship new features, unlike Firefox, that the user can actually see.
Chrome now uses *substantially* more memory than Firefox, as of FF 7.
I would say you most likely have some bad FF extensions and/or a corrupted profile.
FF8 was the smoothest upgrade for me yet. Lazy tab loading is a godsend.
Nonsense, by 1994 it was already a two horse race and with a bunch of wannabes sitting on the sidelines.
Hardly. I worked at Spry in 1995, and our version of Mosaic was better than anything else out there aside from Navigator. The version we had in beta would've totally killed it if CompuServe hadn't bought the company and scuttled the software side of the company. But Dave Pool got his cut of the $50 million (which for the day was considered a ridiculous amount of money for an Internet technology company), and that was that. *sigh* Full SGML browser, from what I was told. Oh well.
1994 had more browsers than 'Netscape' - far more, and the web was completely open at the time. Yes, things would have been very different if MS had bought Netscape then, but the web != Netscape, even back then.
The reason I ask is - is this regular, breakable glass, or can you put some Gorilla Glass on top of it? And if you did, would it then become reflective again? Can this new extra-transparent glass be made extra-hard like Gorilla Glass?
I think even if it can't, and if you can't put Gorilla Glass on top of it without losing your extra-transparency, I'd still prefer this on my cellphone/tablet. At least that's not a worry on monitors.
Quick and easy tip to increase storage space on a budget: buy the 3.5" model and punch a hole in the top corner. When the first side is full flip over the disk and use the other side. You will need to periodically flip the disk over and make note of what side contains the data you want.
Ha. I'm old enough to remember doing that to 5.25" diskettes for my Apple ][.
The price of the two best ones, the Netgear and the QNAP, on Newegg, for the diskless versions, are about $230 apart - about a quarter of a difference. I think I'd go with the Netgear based on that.
The problem with these things is that Thunderbolt is almost here for everyone else (not just Macs), and with SSDs getting less expensive all the time, I think I'd rather wait for a Thunderbolt-connected version for the sake of future-proofing. Plus a version intended only for 2.5" drives would be sized better for those of us who want one of these for our desktop.
Still, if you want one now, these things have matured quite a bit.
The "Big-Boned" Array.
or
The "Husky" Array
or
The "Once You Go Very Large Array, You Never Go Back" Array
or
Array con Pollo (wait, never mind about this one, I'm just hungry.)
or
Uncle Bob
"Where are they?"
Get out now - the signal's coming from your own planet!
Excellent idea, I wouldn't mind a new house with built in window shades that generate some power, but I have one question I didn't seem to see the answer to...
How do you get convenient access to the power generated by a houseful of these shades?
They say an average person could install it, but I don't see average people wiring these up themselves.
The easiest way would probably for it to have an outlet attached to the film panel, rather than trying to wire it into your house electrical system.
If you want to block 80 percent of visible light, why exactly did you have a window installed there in the first place? Just asking. Wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask...
Yeah, most people live in places where they decided where the windows would be installed.
Yes, silly of them putting the money into finding a cure for a disease that kills people instead of one that makes people's crotch itch.
Your righteous indignation would be more impressive if it had anything to do with what I said. I never said nor did I imply anything of the sort. Outside of your head, that is.
Oh yeah, they never did cure Herpes, did they? :(
Oh sure, that would be great... except for two things:
Websites like Google expect you to update to the latest version, and will often lock you out if you don't.
Websites, like Banks for example, won't run if you use a browser version they haven't tested -- in Firefox's case that's 3 versions ago.
And that's completely ignoring the broken add-ons, and the fact that many people choose not to upgrade Firefox because they don't like the GUI changes on recent versions.
1) No, Google doesn't expect you to use the 'latest' - just something modern, as in, not IE 6. I don't think they lock you out (could be wrong), just won't support it. They may also have stopped supporting IE 7, not sure. That's not the same thing as requiring the latest. You must be this high to ride; you don't have to be the tallest person around.
2) Stupid banks may be doing that, but the last 4 banks I've used over the last decade do not. Stupid developers check for browser versions. Good developers check for features. Hardly the fault of Mozilla.
3) All my add-ons worked perfectly in moving from FF6 to 7. Only a few didn't make it from 5 to 6, and they were updated within about a week. Your browser will still work without add-ons, you know. That's also the fault of the add-on devs.
As far as the recent GUI changes, that's a somewhat valid complaint - but many of those things can be changed back to their old ways, and this has nothing to do with a version numbering scheme.