101–110 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A URL should contain all of the state needed. If it doesn't then it's a poorly designed website.
Firefox has to work with the internet as it is, not the internet as we wish it were.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last I tried Firefox, pretty recently, it still needed to address some serious issues, when compared to Chrome: * Unresponsiveness due to one tab thrashing * Bad use of screen-space (bookmarks always visible, cannot disappear titlebar like in Chrome [there's only a Windows extension for that], menu-bar takes up another bar of space by default) * Launching firefox has stop-the-world behavior to check/update extensions…
I too wish it had split processes (although I haven't had a freeze in months), but other than that it beats Chrome in every single way. I am not affected by your UI problems, and I install extensions every other week so I'm not bothered. So, yeah, I guess you didn't really try. Perhaps you're just attached to Chrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a huge advance for those of us who usually have 50-60 tabs open for weeks at a time, where hitting a really heavy image page would tip Firefox over the top and crash it. I switched from Chrome to Firefox a couple of months ago for its ability to handle more tabs without slowing/crashing, and for its better performance with image-heavy pages. So, for me, it's not just "who cares?" it's a killer feature.
Tabs are not bookmarks. Use bookmarks.
Who said he doesn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If image decoding is asynchronous (don't know - guessing it is already?) and you decode them when they get near to the viewport and not just when they become visible, then it should always be decoded by the time you scroll to it and yet never jank the page. Scrolling a long way really fast probably means there's a small delay while it decodes images, but surely that's worth it to save gigabytes of memory?
> but surely that's worth it to save gigabytes of memory I'm not sure _save_ is the right word here...using available memory has no particular cost to me over not using it. Of course, the _available_ modifier is relevant, so I take your point.
4GB seems to be the threshhold right now. Windows consumes maybe 0.5-1GB, budget 0.5-1GB for a handful of other programs, bloat Firefox up to 1-1.5GB, and suddenly you're swapping. (Naturally the OS does not wait right up until you have 4GB of RAM consumed to start swapping, it seems to start around 3GB)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the problem is that the bookmark UI design is broken.
My bookmark UI isn't broken: putting tree-style tabs in a sidebar is perfect.
The main usability problem with bookmarks over tabs AFAIC is that the bookmark UI does not encourage pruning bookmarks, so most become stale over time.
Another idea I've been kicking around for a while is "tab decay". Have tabs start to decay and close themselves after not being viewed for a configurable amount of time. 1 month would probably do it for me, it would save me a lot of cleanup time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends how you use it: e.g. I normally have many many tabs open, and Firefox handles that much better on my system than Chromium.
really? I have about 20 tabs open on Chrome now with no lag, with one tab open in Firefox my whole system grinds to a halt.
Firefox currently uses about 3GB memory, which means I have plenty of memory left on my computer. So I do not think memory usage in the general case is so bad for Firefox and neither is scalability or performance. The problem Firefox historically has had and still to a degree has is lack of responsiveness.
Is it time to switch back to Firefox from Chrome? I remember when I originally switched around Firefox 3.5.x Chrome was much leaner and faster. Has the pendulum finally swung back the other way?
Like many of the other Firefox memory changes, this one leaves me feeling a little ambiguous. On the one hand, obviously keeping memory usage down is good. On the other hand, waiting to decompress/decode images until they are visible to the user means that there are obviously going to be performance trade-offs (and also, obviously, design/engineering trade-offs). Speaking just from my personal usage: I don't think th…
We've been using stuff like Infinity.js ( http://airbnb.github.io/infinity/ ) for quite a while now, and it's basic functionality is to improve long scrolling panes by dynamically adding and removing elements (including images) in real time as you scroll to keep the number of elements low and the page responsive. Sites that use this technique usually feel just as responsive as if the site really did have a page with…
Is it time to switch back to Firefox from Chrome? I remember when I originally switched around Firefox 3.5.x Chrome was much leaner and faster. Has the pendulum finally swung back the other way?
Firefox will never ask you to sign-in for the best browsing experience like chrome does. That's when I switched back. You can tell google is an ad company and users are secondary by their default choice of 3rd party cookies. I'd rather not have an ad company developing my browser. The incentives are all wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the problem is that the bookmark UI design is broken.
My bookmark UI isn't broken: putting tree-style tabs in a sidebar is perfect.