Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those people unfamiliar with this joke, watch the TV show Seinfeld.
For those people unfamiliar with 'TV shows', they are similar to HBO series, but with less interepisodic narrative.
lmao
Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
421–430 of 443 posts
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you really want websites to make this determination anyway. There are a million reasons why a user might want a website to use fewer resources than their machine could support. It should just be a setting the user can select. No probing of the machine necessary.
What should be a setting? This specific youtube ambience thing? That is, but it shows the issue - you need to pick a default, and most people won't know they can change it. Having some idea of the capabilities of the device you're running on could allow you to choose sensible defaults. But if you mean there should be a setting in the browser that websites could check, I agree that could be better.
Sensible defaults go a long way, yes! Although in the case of this YouTube thing, I think the sensible default is to have it disabled regardless of the capabilities of the machine.
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#423It’s hard to say that anti-virus isn’t worse than the virus.
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
People care about open Firefox bugs much older than that. Basically any long-lived program will have ancient bugs that never made it onto someone’s todo list.
For example, it only took 20 years (!!) to stop Ctrl+Q from quitting Firefox on Linux. :) IIRC, a couple of patches did get submitted, but never accepted for unknown reasons.
Thank you, I was wondering why it stopped working, but never took the time to investigate... :D
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I like terminal, rss, or other technologies where it’s hard to add this kind of fireworks to the UI. When done right, sure, they improves the user experience by some percentage. But when done badly, the UX goes down by orders of magnitude.
If you turn off your computer power usage goes to 0% too.
Not for long! [1] It's an unconfirmed rumor for now; but perhaps we're heading there.
> The iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max will use a new ultra-low energy microprocessor allowing certain features like the new capacitive solid-state buttons to remain functional even when the handset is powered off
[1]: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/20/iphone-15-volume-mute-b...
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so is using Edge on Windows. The new Edge based on Chromium performs better than Chrome with regards to power consumptions. The old Edge was even better in terms of power consumption. Like a few extra hours of battery life.
To continue to overextend the analogy though, that's asking people to use Edge over Chrome or Firefox is like trying to market the Smart Car. Few people want to be seen driving it, fuel efficiency be damned.
And no browser is more efficient that simply turning off your computer and reading by daylight.
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could do it on a few clients then ship the data back to the server. If they’re resourceful those clients don’t even need to be watching the video! (they could send it and compute the output in the background of another stream)
But that's a distributed problem now and those use up valuable developer time, which we know is the most important resource in the world...
Yeah, but if google solve distributed processing just imagine the cost savings elsewhere (imagine involuntarily crowdsourcing video encoding, it would save them millions)
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did the idea of avoiding premature optimization get misapplied to client-side apps where the entity writing the software is not the one paying for electricity, cooling, and people's time when the software takes much longer to run than it could? When did a lot of software devs stop caring? Pardon me, I think there are some electron devs at my door asking for a word. They might have baseball bats.
I use a 7 year old low-power laptop. Cooling, electricity usage, and performance of Electron apps are never an issue. Crashes, bugs, lost data, and bad usability still are. I’d rather have devs spend time on that stuff. If Electron frees up organizational resources to do what’s actually important, I applaud devs for using it.
Not an issue for you, that you know of, because you have no equivalent software that's written in a more performant language (or at least critical portions of the codebase written in a more performant language). That's part of the problem; in most cases, software users don't know what life would be like with better software. They assume the performance they see is close to optimal, or at least that the devs made an effort to optimize. Users are willing to get used to whatever the software's performance is, in order to have access to the software's features. You can get used to almost anything, as suboptimal performance turns into background noise, but that doesn't mean you should. You get used to waiting 5 seconds for a piece of software to do something that you do on average once every hour or two, not realizing that those 5 seconds, 10 times a day, 365 days a year, cost you 5 hours every year.
Optimizing performance and fixing crashes/bugs/dataloss aren't mutually exclusive, either. Developers who care less about code quality than checking boxes for features requested by management or customers, will write code that's both suboptimal and buggy.
Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#429Re: Microsoft fixes 5-year-old Defender bug, reducing Firefox-related CPU use by 75%
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that because of the quality of Chrome or because Safari is a "blessed" application and probably gets to do things other applications do not? Entirely serious question. Apple is known to severely privilege their own applications over competitors.
It's because of the quality of Chrome. Google's focus is on features and security, with efficiency secondary. Safari's primary focus is efficiency. Google's only incentive to make Chrome more efficient is when they start receiving heat (no pun intended) about bad performance.
Googles focus is to collect as much data about the user as possible, nothing else.