Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 4 is here

mozilla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 355 posts

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#271

Post by gnaritas »

th wrote: post #266
gnaritas wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just the flash element (e.g. the youtube video box becomes gray) In every tab, all flash elements become gray. I'd rather just one tab crash that parts of many tabs crashing.

The same thing happens in Chrome as in Firefox. Whenever the Flash plugin crashes for me in Chrome all Flash elements in every tag crash. Note: Firefox used to crash the entire browser when Flash crashed so the method that Chrome and Firefox now use is an improvement.

Ah, so it's just Flash that sucks then. I'm a firefox user myself, just can't stand how Chrome looks or losing all the plugins I'm accustomed to in firefox. I just really like the idea of one process per tab for managing memory and safety.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#272

Post by zmmmmm »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #115
hasenj wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Real ad blocking (more generally: real extensions). Other points (not so major for most): * Audio api (allows you to synthesize audio) * Better language support (Chrome on Linux has tons of issues with non-latin languages)

I find that Chrome's extensions are quite real, feature rich, and stable. The last time I used FF, massive memory leaks were blamed on "your extensions." Not to mention I'm not even sure which IETab extension is real anymore. One is dead, the new one is nagware, etc. Oh, and I like that flash is sandboxed and autoupdated. I like a built-in PDF reader. I can't imagine going back to the stone age of browsers with FF or…

    Oh, and I like that flash is sandboxed and autoupdated.
I was a huge critic of it initially but the auto-update is now what seems to be locking me into recommending Chrome to all my non-technical friends and relatives. When I think "which browser shall I give to my mother that will give her a good experience and keep her safe at the same time?" - knowing that she's getting auto updated and that the updates are coming frequently is just hugely reassuring. With Flash auto updated, PDFs out of the picture due to native rendering, Google's proactive stance (offering bounties and an extra $20k in pwn2own which even still nobody took) - Chrome just seems unbeatable.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#273

Post by gnuvince »

bad_user wrote: post #229

I have been using Chrome for 6 months now. What I liked about Chrome: optimized usage of vertical space and speed. But what I really disliked about it -- Chrome add-ons are useless. Chrome would never allow something like Firebug without being built-in. And I couldn't find a plugin with proper Delicious integration either. Also, searching the history in the address bar works a lot better in Firefox -- probably has so…

> Also, searching the history in the address bar works a lot better in Firefox -- probably has something to do with the way Chrome encourages you to use Google. And speaking of History -- Chrome still doesn't let you search and delete items in the search results page. What's up with that?

This is my biggest complaint about Chrome and am very happy to see Firefox 4 being released and still kicking ass in that department. The Firefox address bar almost makes bookmarks obsolete.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#274

Post by azakai »

bilban wrote: post #211
dstein wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone actually done any research into exactly what data is sent to Google when you use Chrome? Not that it really matters anymore, FF4 is faster than Chrome in my experiments so don't think I'll be using Chrome at all anymore.

You want to talk to the SRWare Iron team.

Why would you trust the "SRWare Iron team", whoever they are, at all?

And why would you trust them more than you would trust Google?

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#275

Post by bad_user »

bretthoerner wrote: post #264
bad_user wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Firefox has: 1) the Awesomebar, which I love, although some people hate, plus more advanced functionality -- like in Chrome you can't search your history and delete items in the search results, which I think is retarded as your only option is to purge your entire history It also seems pretty clear that Chrome is built to use the Google Search Engine whenever possible. For example if you search for something in t…

> like in Chrome you can't search your history and delete items in the search results, which I think is retarded as your only option is to purge your entire history Sure you can. Control-H or Menu->History. > Firefox plugins can do pretty much anything -- Chrome plugins are basically useless. It's worth noting that Firefox is working on adding Chrome-like 'useless' extensions to their browser. https://jetpack.mozilla…

    Sure you can. Control-H or Menu->History
No you CANNOT.

     Mozilla is basically funded by Google affiliate 
     payments
That doesn't say much or anything at all. Mozilla wasn't founded by Google and could always find other sources of revenue.

Also, Mozilla isn't a public company with shareholders, it's also not a company masked as a non-profit to evade taxes, which means Mozilla's interest isn't profit, just survival. It's a totally different ball game.

EDIT: also about Jetpack, Chrome-like plugins have been available for Firefox for quite some time, you just need to install a plugin -- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#277

Post by DotNetPete1 »

gnaritas wrote: post #271
th wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing happens in Chrome as in Firefox. Whenever the Flash plugin crashes for me in Chrome all Flash elements in every tag crash. Note: Firefox used to crash the entire browser when Flash crashed so the method that Chrome and Firefox now use is an improvement.

Ah, so it's just Flash that sucks then. I'm a firefox user myself, just can't stand how Chrome looks or losing all the plugins I'm accustomed to in firefox. I just really like the idea of one process per tab for managing memory and safety.

I was a FF user until I found out Chrome was much faster with the webkit, but I'll always give Firefox a shot again if they manage to beat Chrome's speed.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#278

Post by henrikschroder »

mbrubeck wrote: post #257
mbrubeck wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With hardware acceleration, Windows DirectWrite is handling the text rendering. Unfortunately, there are bugs in many graphics drivers that interfere with this.

Update after talking to Mozilla graphics hacker Joe Drew: What I wrote above used to be true, but in current versions of Windows/Firefox these bugs have been fixed, and what you're seeing is probably the intended rendering. The reason it looks blurry is that Microsoft's accelerated DirectWrite API uses different font rendering than the old GDI API. The DirectWrite rendering is less agressively hinted, and looks more…

> The reason it looks blurry is that Microsoft's accelerated DirectWrite API uses different font rendering than the old GDI API.

Oh. Well, that sucks, because it means that I have to choose between hardware acceleration and readable fonts.

> If you don't like the look of the text rendering on our system [...]

That makes no sense. First, it's for Vista and not Windows 7, and second, I've already tuned Cleartype on my system. Even if it's possible to change my settings so it looks good in Firefox with hardware acceleration, changing it means it will look bad everywhere else.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#279

Post by arturnt »

Firefox market share is going to continue to shrink as Chrome takes over. They've just been way too slow to respond. It is a shame since feature wise Firefox is a superior browser.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#280

Post by strmpnk »

henrikschroder wrote: post #110
stianan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why getting anti-aliasing right is so hard. Just render text a few times bigger, use some kind of low-pass filter (box filter will do) and down-sample it. It's what every graphics program does. That would put an end to using Photoshop or Flash for headlines just to make them look decent.

Cleartype uses subpixel rendering as well, I'm not so sure you can achieve that by simply down-sampling a larger render.

Actually, while it will do that it also tries to shift edges to lie on pixel boundaries when possible. This distortion can make edges look clearer though it also looks brutal with certain type faces. Most people like whatever they are used to.
Post reply on HN