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

461–470 of 517 posts

Re: Firefox 29

#461

Post by fhd2 »

NotOscarWilde wrote: post #371
ExpiredLink wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't "stop breaking everything" because they feel the irresistible urge to constantly "improve" and "reinvent" the UI until it becomes unusable (a.k.a. the Linux desktop syndrome). BTW, the refresh button is in the 'menu config', you can drag it to the old place. The stop button and other 'classic' buttons are gone. Meaningless 'browser.tabs.onTop' prepares you for your transition to Chrome. FF is so frustratin…

> "improve" and "reinvent" I don't remember any change in the UI in the last two years that was not copying what Chrome does. So "improve" may be right, but hardly "reinvent".

I very much feel the same.

But to be fair, with Australis, the whole "widgets" thing is new, and I really like how Firefox and add-ons can both use it in the same way.

Re: Firefox 29

#462

Post by SkyMarshal »

Fwiw I've been using Aurora (Firefox 30) Beta full time on OS X for the past few weeks, and it's more stable than Chrome under my tab & memory-abusing ways (20 browser windows open, god knows how many tabs, 4 Haswell cores and 8GB memory available). Great work Mozilla.

Re: Firefox 29

#464

Post by malnourish »

wahsd wrote: post #315
conductor wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't understand the issue. alt+d for address bar ctrl+k for search bar. What's so complicated?

ctrl+l is also address bar.

Re: Firefox 29

#465

Post by frik »

debaserab2 wrote: post #456
jamespo wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think firefox has already succeeded

Succeeded - but is it still succeeding today? I can't remember the last time I used Firefox intentionally. Chrome replaced it long ago. As a web dev, I find myself more annoyed at the anomalies of Gecko everyday. I fix more Gecko related bugs than IE11 bugs, and that just feels wrong. I don't expect this to be a popular opinion, but I have to say based on recent experience that if it wasn't for Chrome, I'd be using I…

Really? From my experience Chrome has a lot of anomalies/regressions since version 32. And Android 2.3 browser (WebView also in 4x) reminds me of the IE 6.

Gecko and Trident are very good in comparison. Google needs a better QA process, especially after forking Webkit.

The only thing that bothers me with Firefox beside some UI is the single process model.

Re: Firefox 29

#466

Post by bzbarsky »

debaserab2 wrote: post #456
jamespo wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think firefox has already succeeded

Succeeded - but is it still succeeding today? I can't remember the last time I used Firefox intentionally. Chrome replaced it long ago. As a web dev, I find myself more annoyed at the anomalies of Gecko everyday. I fix more Gecko related bugs than IE11 bugs, and that just feels wrong. I don't expect this to be a popular opinion, but I have to say based on recent experience that if it wasn't for Chrome, I'd be using I…

Can you please point me to some of the Gecko bugs you've been running into?

Re: Firefox 29

#467

Post by bzbarsky »

angersock wrote: post #374
asutherland wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originally, exposure of APIs to JS was done using the XPConnect JS/XPCOM bridge in Firefox. Simplifying a little, XPConnect is not thread-safe, so exposing APIs to workers required manually writing code using the SpiderMonkey JS API. This was done in an ad-hoc fashion for a while. Additionally, XPConnect allowed JS code to be written to expose functionality to content on the main thread, but was basically a non-start…

Thank you very much for your explanation! We ended up writing a goofy little console.log() replacement that sent messages back to the main UI thread for processing and logging, but that kind of thunking is a might-bit janky.

The console.log exposed to workers just sends the messages to the UI thread for logging...

Re: Firefox 29

#468

Post by habosa »

rmccue wrote: post #453
habosa wrote: post #452

Not super relevant to the design, but does anyone know which browser (Chrome or Firefox) uses less memory on a Mac these days? Not talking about base footprint, but let's say I have 25 tabs open. Chrome uses ~100MB per tab, more for long-running tabs with a lot going on like GMail. Seems totally insane to me, a website that's not a complicated web app should have a tiny memory footprint. If Firefox could significantl…

I currently have 62 tabs open (in this tab group; more in the background, but they're not loaded), and Firefox is using 1.41 GB, which is ~23 MB/tab. That also includes a bunch of videos, pictures and Flash.

That's definitely lower than Chrome.

Re: Firefox 29

#469

Post by angersock »

bzbarsky wrote: post #467
angersock wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you very much for your explanation! We ended up writing a goofy little console.log() replacement that sent messages back to the main UI thread for processing and logging, but that kind of thunking is a might-bit janky.

The console.log exposed to workers just sends the messages to the UI thread for logging...

I forget whether the workaround was done for Firefox or Chrome...I remember hitting it in one or the other, and putting in the workaround for both.

On a related note, transferable objects are handled a bit differently between IE, FF, and Chrome. Some are a bit stricter than others.

Re: Firefox 29

#470

Post by kevingadd »

eikenberry wrote: post #351
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…

Flash support. And no, supporting the old deprecated Adobe plugin doesn't count as many sites now require newer versions. This is to support flash games. My kids love the simple flash games on Kongregate and similar sites, so I have to use Chromium on their systems.

Chromium ppapi flash is known inferior to npapi flash (sites like Crunchyroll tell you not to use it; ppapi has higher CPU usage) and npapi flash works fine in Firefox.
Post reply on HN