Discussion Forums > Technology
Firefox 3.6 has been released.
xShadow:
--- Quote from: relic2279 on January 22, 2010, 05:05:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: xShadow on January 22, 2010, 04:26:39 PM ---It's not particularly that 3.5 is slower in general, it's just slower at what I need it to do. I don't know if it's just me, but try opening 100+ unique tabs. Then, tell it to bookmark them all. Now watch it sit there for about a minute or more.
--- End quote ---
Do you know of a browser that doesn't lag when you try to bookmark 100+ tabs? Because I don't.
--- End quote ---
I don't understand why it would. All a bookmark is... is a link. If you save an HTML file full of 100 links in Microsoft Word, would you get one minute worth of lag? No. That's retarded. I've actually looked at what the bookmarks file in your profile looks like (I've been transferring this profile I'm using across some number of computers now), and all it is is an HTML file. If Firefox has that much trouble appending some 100 categorized links to it, on a good processor, then I think they need a restructuring of that piece of code, because it must be horribly inefficient. I mean, all it does is add a new bookmark folder and shove them all in there. There's something wrong here.
As for your question, I don't know of another browser that has the capability to bookmark all tabs, so I can't test it out.. though I imagine if I could do it with Google Chrome, the results would be better.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Well, you can't do that in 3.5. Apparently, there's this funny little thing they implemented where there's an invisible divider that determines whether the link you just dropped down on the toolbar will go to the VERY BOTTOM of the dropdown list instead of the very top. This is annoying as fuck. Imagine having like 300+ links in your toolbar and for some reason the links you're trying to put at the top of the list just magically end up at the bottom.
--- End quote ---
Open your bookmarks, press the home key to navigate to the beginning of the list, and the end key to go to the bottom. TIL.
--- End quote ---
That's a workaround. There's no excuse for something this counterintuitive to be in the program to begin with. Also, if I just take a random distribution of links and scatter them across the top and bottom of a list, how much less efficient do you think it's going to be, each time, to have to go to the top and bottom of the list to try to find what I'm looking for? A hell of a lot, eventually (though, it's not "eventually" in my case, it's more like I'm already there). Moreover, some of these links aren't necessarily things I'm "looking for". Often times I just go to the bookmarks list to look for mangas that I'm interested in checking for updates. I'm not going to know any specific names, or what I'm searching for, so if one of them just randomly got put on the bottom of my list, it's may, for all practical reasons, go unread forever.
I'll concede that my specific problem is probably not very common, but the fact that the thing functions like that in the first place is something that has absolutely no good excuse.
I may try filing a bug report and seeing if they pick up on it.
Edit: And by one minute worth of lag, I mean the program stops responding ENTIRELY. It's not just lag, it's like it locked up.
mgz:
i think what he is referring to is the PPC chips ran the old adobe software, and a few other industry specific titles MUCH faster then the intel/amd counterparts did. Which is why its popularity among graphic designers and the likes.
Currently it is equal or worse then a good windows pc since the highest end of a windows pc is much nicer then the nicest mac pc
Xiong Chiamiov:
--- Quote from: xShadow on January 22, 2010, 04:26:39 PM ---I don't know if it's just me, but try opening 100+ unique tabs. Then, tell it to bookmark them all. Now watch it sit there for about a minute or more.
--- End quote ---
I have never had any desire to do anything like that, so whether or not a browser can matters not at all to me.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: psyren on January 22, 2010, 02:18:17 AM ---
--- Quote from: Nikaido on January 21, 2010, 09:59:59 PM ---So, does anyone know of a 64-bit version of firefox?
[Edit] NVM, Found this on their wiki http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download#Firefox_3.6
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately, there's no full version there. Only RC2 is available.
--- End quote ---
Why a 64 bit version? The 32 bit one works just fine on 64 bit systems (at least it works fine on my W7 install...).
--- End quote ---
Then you lose the advantages of using 64-bit software.
--- Quote from: kyanwan on January 22, 2010, 03:45:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: Nikaido on January 22, 2010, 06:48:49 AM ---Thing is macs just haven't been the same since they switched from Motorola chipsets to Intel. I mean back in the day, macs were the only computers that could handle large scale video production. These days almost any video production you can do in a mac you can do in a PC, especially with Adobe Premiere. Although I do have to admit that Final Cut Pro will 9 times out of 10 be the superior video editing software of it's kind.
--- End quote ---
If you're playing with a toy computer sure.
I guarantee if you're on a well designed PC - it'll crush mac.
--- End quote ---
If you're talking about doing rendering or somesuch, all the serious folks use Linux (or possibly one of its close cousins - I don't know enough about them to say). So that means it's better for desktop usage, amirite?
--- Quote from: fohfoh on January 22, 2010, 08:59:35 AM ---It frolicks with about 80MB to about 120MB with little usage.
Chrome is about 13MB to about 54MB.
It's the difference between a full browser vs a webkit.
* fohfoh shrugs
--- End quote ---
Uhm, you do understand that Chrome is a browser, right? Sure, it uses webkit, but saying that it is "a webkit" is like saying Firefox is "a gecko".
If you want to epreen about your minimalistic browser, start using uzbl.
xShadow:
--- Quote from: Xiong Chiamiov on January 23, 2010, 05:40:43 AM ---
--- Quote from: xShadow on January 22, 2010, 04:26:39 PM ---I don't know if it's just me, but try opening 100+ unique tabs. Then, tell it to bookmark them all. Now watch it sit there for about a minute or more.
--- End quote ---
I have never had any desire to do anything like that, so whether or not a browser can matters not at all to me.
--- End quote ---
Well no crap. It's not like I said everyone'll be out doing that, I just pointed out that bookmarking multiple tabs was one thing that 3.5 did horribly inefficiently.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: psyren on January 22, 2010, 02:18:17 AM ---
--- Quote from: Nikaido on January 21, 2010, 09:59:59 PM ---So, does anyone know of a 64-bit version of firefox?
[Edit] NVM, Found this on their wiki http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download#Firefox_3.6
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately, there's no full version there. Only RC2 is available.
--- End quote ---
Why a 64 bit version? The 32 bit one works just fine on 64 bit systems (at least it works fine on my W7 install...).
--- End quote ---
Then you lose the advantages of using 64-bit software.
--- End quote ---
... and may I ask what kind of massive awesomeness is going to ensue when you take a web browser and make it 64 bit? >_>;
No, seriously, I want to know, I'm kind of interested in what makes a 64-bit designed browser so much better than its 32-bit counterpart.
Drew:
They finally fixed the tab behavior.
I can die and go to heaven now.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version