81–89 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try disabling all add-ons, it got me to really low RAM usage and I had AdBlock & Firebug only earlier.
Will disabling Flashblock improve performance? (The only other extension I use is Adblock plus.) Should I disable the plug-ins the come with FF?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your definition of bloat - size of download, application startup times, number of features, speed while being used, memory usage? Firefox 5 without addons does not seem to be bloated to me by any of the above definitions. In terms of featuresets just for reference - Netscape communicator used to ship with a mail client, browser, news client, html editor and a calendar.
not so much the size of the download, but all of the rest, yes. I feel that Firefox is nearly at the point Netscape was at the point Phoenix (the original name of Firefox) came into being. 5.0 does seem a little faster. For what it's worth, I still run Firefox (5.0) on a regular basis, including as I post this comment.
That said, I'm starting to come round to the train of thought about a user being able to control what they install. Not all users require the developer tools, in the same way that not all users require the ability to read news feeds and in the very same way that some users want enhanced share options in their browsers.
It seems strange to me that they announce this without even mentioning ChromeOS as if B2G was conceived in a cave.
The point here is not to build an OS. The point is to improve web APIs so that web apps can compete with native ones, and do it in an open fashion so that all web browsers can implement the new APIs. ChromeOS has done some of this, but neither far enough nor openly enough (what ChromeOS extensions are working on becoming cross-browser standards?).
I wish they'd concentrate on making a browser that does not need to be restarted after every hour or 2 of browsing lest it become more and more unresponsive. I wish they'd concentrate on making a browser that can start scrolling before all the Javascript on the page has finished running. (I'm using FF 7 on Snow Leopard with 1 gig of RAM. Would I have to restart FF less often if I had more RAM?)
That's weird, that's what happens to me in Chrome, not Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox has made memory overhead a serious priority in the Fx7 & Fx8 development cycles, with some impressive results: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=666058#c31
FF 7.0a2 (got Jul 24 from the Aurora channel) is less responsive than FF 3.6 was on my machine -- although I cannot be sure that the unresponsiveness is due to memory pressure rather than, e.g., insufficient parallelism of the UI relative to the part that executes Javascript.
Disable: Google Updater Google Toolbar FlashBlock if you have NoScript
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point here is not to build an OS. The point is to improve web APIs so that web apps can compete with native ones, and do it in an open fashion so that all web browsers can implement the new APIs. ChromeOS has done some of this, but neither far enough nor openly enough (what ChromeOS extensions are working on becoming cross-browser standards?).
In that case, wouldn't it be more effective to throw Mozilla's weight behind an open source mobile Operating System that actually has a chance of going mainstream ala MeeGo?
In case it's not clear, Mozilla is not building a kernel or anything here. They're just building capabilities for web apps to be able to do whatever mobile apps can do now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, as a user you have the option of using another browser. Though, admittedly, with 1 gig of RAM I can't think of any decent one that wont give you problems after a few hours of browsing -- maybe chrome? As a web developer, I wish they'd concentrate on making a browser that lets you change the line-height of a button/input element. Such a simple change, yet the problem has been around since 2006, if I recall corre…
It's not a simple change, because sites actually rely on not being able to _decrease_ the line-height. I tried allowing sites to change the line-height and had to back that out because of sites breaking. You can read the whole sordid story at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349259 Note that the change to allow changing line-height specifically on did stick, and will ship in the next Firefox release in 3…
My opinion is that relying on line-height being unable to decrease a height of an element is a really bad idea and the owners of those sites should just be forced to fix it. Of course, I understand how from your perspective making a change that breaks a site like youtube (and probably a decent percentage of sites in general) is probably not an acceptable solution.
Oh well, I personally only needed line-heights on button elements, so the mentioned change will actually solve my UI problems. Thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FF 7.0a2 (got Jul 24 from the Aurora channel) is less responsive than FF 3.6 was on my machine -- although I cannot be sure that the unresponsiveness is due to memory pressure rather than, e.g., insufficient parallelism of the UI relative to the part that executes Javascript.
Possibly disable hardware acceleration. Disable: Google Updater Google Toolbar FlashBlock if you have NoScript
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a simple change, because sites actually rely on not being able to _decrease_ the line-height. I tried allowing sites to change the line-height and had to back that out because of sites breaking. You can read the whole sordid story at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349259 Note that the change to allow changing line-height specifically on did stick, and will ship in the next Firefox release in 3…
Thanks for the reply. My opinion is that relying on line-height being unable to decrease a height of an element is a really bad idea and the owners of those sites should just be forced to fix it. Of course, I understand how from your perspective making a change that breaks a site like youtube (and probably a decent percentage of sites in general) is probably not an acceptable solution. Oh well, I personally only need…
As it is, if no browser allows it, then sites will depend on not being able to do it, and any browser that does allow it will be perceived as buggy (adding to the resistance to fix the problem on the site's end).