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

Firefox 29

firefox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 517 posts

Re: Firefox 29

#381

Post by chr1 »

lucb1e wrote: post #55

Been using it for a few hours now. I hear a lot of complaints about the address bar having gotten bigger by a whole 10 pixels and the addons bar being gone, but honestly I think it's a great update. On a full hd screen I can't be bothered by the 1.1% increase in height and the addons bar has only annoyed me. Actually, it's a bit ironic to complain about 10px while at the same time complaining about an entire toolbar…

It's not ironic at all. People are complaining about adding 10 useless pixels, and about removing a feature they were using, only to save 15 pixels. Many people liked addon bar, which was hidden by default anyway.

Re: Firefox 29

#382

Post by SilasX »

wyclif wrote: post #179
fournm wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Pentadactyl with it just fine in the Aurora channel and have since it first landed. Part of the problem, though, is that the guys at Pentadactyl messed with userChrome.css as part of the newest pentadactyl builds, which causes a TON of issues with other addons (especially anything that adds a toolbar). Vimperator doesn't do it, but ew Vimperator, so.

There needs to be a solution for people who want a solid Pentadactyl/Firefox instead of the newest version of FF breaking a lot of functionality.

Definitely. I assumed it was an issue of the sites not maintaining good user interfaces, but that excuse doesn't work when every FF update breaks pentadactyl's ability to select search fields on Google...

Re: Firefox 29

#383

Post by wahsd »

billiam wrote: post #128

Um, just wondering how people feel about actually using FF 29, rather than talking about what it isn't? A really great browser is being obscured by a bikeshed. tl;dr It's awesome.

Agree that it is really good. I think Chrome has gotten all the cool kids' attention without them having a respect and understanding for the mission and value of Mozilla and Firefox. That being said, Mozilla and Firefox could probably do a bit of a better job at selling themselves and their features.

I am not sure what you mean by a bike shed, but it's now a pretty nice bike shed, no?

Re: Firefox 29

#384

Post by mech4bg »

walid wrote: post #367
mech4bg wrote: post #359

Looks like Firefox is still incredibly laggy on a 13" MBP Retina, which is a shame. Safari runs perfectly, so I wonder what the issue is.

Most likely it is your extensions. I have the same issues when I load one particular extension which I can't live without. Unfortunately Firefox's major weakness is its major strength.

No extensions installed here unfortunately.

Re: Firefox 29

#385

Post by dubcanada »

conductor wrote: post #110
dilap wrote: post #63

I love Firefox -- for what it's done, what it represents, and what it helps guard against. I have fond memories of those early versions of Firefox (nee Firebird) that busted open the IE monopoly, and where hands-down the best browser going at the time. But it's never felt very good on the Mac to me, and it still doesn't. Here's a few early thoughts on this release, from the perspective of a happy Safari user, w/ a pr…

> Separate address and search bars is old-fashioned. As a user, I don't want to have to make this distinction, and it's hard to imagine most users-on-street wouldn't find this confusing As a user, I want separate edit bars for separate functions. I don't want Google know everything I type (or mistype) in the address bar. When I type foobar in the address bar please give me anything that returned the web server at foo…

Unfortunately you are not the average user, if you want Firefox to succeed it needs to do what is common, both IE, and Chrome the two most popular browsers have a single address/search bar.

In regards to the whole tinfoil hat comments about Google knowing everything you type, well I hate to burst your bubble but they probably already know everything about you, including but not limited too your inability to spell duck right.

Re: Firefox 29

#386

Post by deckiedan »

tiziano88 wrote: post #348

Woah, the download size is 56MB for the OSX version! I'm curious to what accounts for the big size, is it assets or actual executable code?

Look inside the .app and find out.

On my debian machine here, running ff beta the biggest part is libxul, which is 55 meg on its own.

Re: Firefox 29

#387

Post by zobzu »

m_gloeckl wrote: post #339
dale-cooper wrote: post #264

I really want to like firefox, but it is just so much slower/unresponsive than chrome. Is this something specific to my setup? I tried this new version out on a clean profile and compared it to chrome: http://fixme.se/pub/chrome_vs_ff.flv I searched a bit and found this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=924411 Nothing seems to have happened though, and google maps is far from the only example..

Vanilla Google Maps is not a lot slower on Firefox than on Chrome for me, but third party apps that build upon GMaps, like Garmin Connect (Running / Biking tracking tool for Garmin GPS watches) are definitely much slower and less responsive for me on Firefox than on Chrome.

same i noticed that switching the UA to chrome on ff made those fast.. until they switched everything to webgl, now that trick doesnt work no more

Re: Firefox 29

#388

Post by zobzu »

BrownBuffalo wrote: post #94

Just a question, but why is the interation cycle so extreme with Mozilla? Version 29? What is so different from version 3.x.x ... where we had normal interations I could wrap my head around. The whole number upgrades are insane. I know its such a simple thing, but trying to relate with software interation steps on such a fast moving number, just is mind boggling.

actually the changes since version 3.x are mindblowing.

if you had least picked 28 to 29 i don't know.. but theres a million lines of code change between 3 and 29. the js engine is like 50x faster, theres hundreds of new things supported, etc.

Re: Firefox 29

#389

Post by dubcanada »

hbt wrote: post #212

If you want a highly customizable browser, Firefox is it. Chrome is in its infancy when it comes to customization and they often make decisions that prevent power users from taking advantage of their browsing experience. For example, they've disabled custom stylesheets in recent releases despite a clear indication that people were sharing themes, they have very old bugs that don't get resolved (like the stupid white…

I'm sorry but the developer tools in Firefox are a nightmare to use. Sure they have fancy things like 3d view and other awesome functions. But plain old jane stuff, is just easier to do in Chrome.

At least in my experience.

Re: Firefox 29

#390

Post by dubcanada »

Excavator wrote: post #379
angersock wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Added the console API to Web Workers (bug 620935). Now you can log messages to the Web Console from Web Workers." About bloody time. Does anyone know why that wasn't the case from the get-go?

According to comments in that bug it looks like it were held up due to discussion around standardization of the Console API and a rewrite of the same. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=620935#c30

The Console API is getting rewritten to handle proper console.logging with colours, grouping etc.
Post reply on HN