The latest FF builds have been rock solid for me (Win7 x64 with 4 or 5 big name extensions and that's it). I've currently got about 130 tabs open, FF is using ~ 1.1GB of RAM and has been sitting open & running in this state for 3 or 4 weeks with no problems or slow downs whatsoever. The plugin container also finally works reliably so shitty sites with buggy flash code don't take the browser down when flash decides to…
A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
41–50 of 90 posts
Re: A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually there will be three Google, Microsoft and Apple. Whilst it is better to have some competition there really does need to be an open alternative.
Doesn't Apple use Webkit, same as Google? Isn't that functionally the same, except for Google's optimizations?
Re: A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually there will be three Google, Microsoft and Apple. Whilst it is better to have some competition there really does need to be an open alternative.
Doesn't Apple use Webkit, same as Google? Isn't that functionally the same, except for Google's optimizations?
I'm not sure how close to each other these rendering engines are. I imagine they're still very very similar, but now that the fork has occurred, time will tell how divergent (or not) they become.
Re: A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
#44Apart from the ridiculous slowness (in real world usage, not specialized javascript benchmarks), I think the biggest issue is the single-thread design. Every serious problem with the browser (well, apart from the UI) stems from that. The fix has been in the pipeline for what, half a decade at this point? Probably more, even. Firefox apologists say the silliest things about it ("I don't like process-per-tab because it…
Re: A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually there will be three Google, Microsoft and Apple. Whilst it is better to have some competition there really does need to be an open alternative.
Doesn't Apple use Webkit, same as Google? Isn't that functionally the same, except for Google's optimizations?
Re: A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
#46The list is getting too long for me to even remember, but I'll try: they moved tabs to the top (can't even toggle it via about:config anymore), they killed regular download dialogs, they killed the regular status bar, they removed the ability to keep browser history but not keep download history, they radically changed their address bar search function (Awesomebar) and appearance and provided no option to use the old method people were used to, they made accepting a self-signed certificate more difficult than filing your taxes, they fought Debian over petty license branding issues (that other software had no issue with) giving many of us "iceweasel", they radically altered their interface to be a poor Chrome clone and killed all customization (can't put refresh button on the left, can't unmerge back/next buttons, etc), they started putting adware onto their new tab page, they made it so that extensions must be signed by Mozilla to be installed with no ability to override, they turned HTTP/2 into an agenda by making TLS mandatory in spite of the IETF's decision on that. They continue to blow off per-tab process support, and 64-bit Windows builds are still not mainstream. And that's off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more. Eich doesn't even have to factor into this, no matter which side of that you're on.
You can like or hate any one of those, and yes if you want 20 extensions you can mostly make it look and act like it used to. (Plus, they talk about removing all that stuff to simplify and unbloat the UI, and then they add useless crap like Firefox Hello in its place.) But each time they changed things and completely ignored their user's feedback, they lost a few more users to Chrome. I don't really like Chrome all that much either, but at least it's not a constantly changing target, where you never know what feature you're going to lose because of an auto-update.
Firefox's decline wasn't any one great catastrophe: it's been death by a thousand papercuts.
It's really simple: if you offer a feature at one point, and you want to keep your users happy, then you don't completely remove that feature from them in the future. You can default to something else, fine, but you make an effort for people who liked the old way. Microsoft understood this up until Windows 8. And it looks like they're relearning that lesson again a bit with Windows 10's changes.
Re: A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
#47You have to seek out Firefox, so it has to be worth seeking out. Chrome comes with Android, Safari comes with Mac and iOS, and IE comes with Microsoft. So, as mobile increases, Firefox is not a default player. Here's a question: "Why would a System Administrator take the time to install Firefox on all the company machines?"
Re: A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
#48My mum always told me not to extrapolate so I'm not very worried about Computer World's alarmist forecasts of Firefox going the way of the typewriter and Smallpox. That said, while I'm a fan of Firefox - I have used it since it was called Phoenix and I had unzip it off a CD I got with a magazine - I can't help but think this is partially their own fault. Sure, Google has a massive advertising budget for Chrome, and t…
Re: A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually there will be three Google, Microsoft and Apple. Whilst it is better to have some competition there really does need to be an open alternative.
Doesn't Apple use Webkit, same as Google? Isn't that functionally the same, except for Google's optimizations?
Re: A shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually there will be three Google, Microsoft and Apple. Whilst it is better to have some competition there really does need to be an open alternative.
Doesn't Apple use Webkit, same as Google? Isn't that functionally the same, except for Google's optimizations?