Multi-process Firefox brings 400-700% improvement in responsiveness

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 06, 2016, 7:47 PM UTC

dTal wrote: post #159

1ris wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardware does not get exponetially better. Maybe it did in 90ties and 00ers. Right now hardwardware gets slimmer, less power consuming and cheaper. But not better. My 12 year old (then mid-end gaming pc) is pretty much exactly as fast as my current, 2(?) year old office machine. (x264 and other mulit-threaed cpu benchbmarks) But it costs a fraction and uses next to no energy. /edit: Yes this is wrong. I made a mistak…

Love the redundancy of "90ties", but what's the etymology of "00ers"?

Post by andrepd » Tue, Sep 06, 2016, 7:48 PM UTC

espadrine wrote: post #171

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even criticizing, but how do you manage 130 tabs? How do you find tabs you're looking for? You must have some kind of system!

A few people use Tree-Style Tabs, which organize them as a tree structure, similar to directories. It encourages using tabs instead of bookmarks, which have a terrible UX (in all browsers, not picking on Firefox here). https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...

Post by xorblurb » Tue, Sep 06, 2016, 7:49 PM UTC

fnj wrote: post #116

chakalakasp wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, workstation and laptop RAM is so cheap. If your browser is eating an appreciable chunk of your 16 or 32GB of RAM, you need to close some tabs.

Forgive me; your statement does not make sense. First you're implying that all you have to do is get more RAM; then you're admitting that you only have a certain amount, so you should stop using so much. In actuality, very few non-server PCs can be populated with any more than 16-32 GB. It's not a matter of bother or expense at all. It's a design limit. Every single time I've driven a non-server PC into hopeless swap…

Post by the8472 » Tue, Sep 06, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

xorblurb wrote: post #172

the8472 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that defense in depth is not all that great if the breach of the first line already gives you access to the loot. So you shouldn't assign too much weight to it.

The point of defense in depth is that you should not rely solely in practice on a single defense element, but you still should strive the hardest when you design it to be sufficient if it was bug free (at least on points where it is possible given the security model, and what the technical item can address). So splitting everything in sandboxed processes can play a big part in the security in a defense in depth appro…

Post by smsm42 » Tue, Sep 06, 2016, 7:59 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #76

azinman2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm misreading things but it looks like it's been constantly getting worse since 2012?

They're getting worse at a linear pace, while hardware improves exponentially. Effectively that's a pretty good improvement each year.