Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 8 20% Faster Than Firefox 5

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the pedal-on-the-right dept.

Firefox 441

An anonymous reader writes "Thanks to continued improvements to start-up and first paint performance, tweaks to memory footprint and garbage collection, and the addition of a new 2D graphics backend called Azure, Firefox 8 is some 20% faster than Firefox 5 across all major metrics — and actually about equal with Chrome 14 on JavaScript and 2D rendering performance. Azure (which is new with Firefox 7) replaces Cairo, and instead of dealing with Direct2D and Quartz, it allows Firefox to deal directly with the Direct3D and OpenGL subsystems — resulting in a 20% speed boost under Windows, and probably even more under OS X."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719170)

Your post could've been here if you had a faster web browser.

What about Firefox 6? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719172)

I know it's been said before, but this new release system is fucking retarded.

I'm this close to dumping Firefox on every machine I touch.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719210)

If you think the versioning system is stupid then why are you putting Firefox on every machine you touch? You want everyone to see how bad it is out of vengeful spite or something?

It seem to me that by putting it on every machine you touch that would get more people using it. I don't get it.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719472)

Yep, it's just a number.

eg. I'm sure it went from 4.05 to 4.08 you'd be all "Yippee! A new version!!". The only difference is in your head.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (5, Funny)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719608)

Firefox 8 has a version number that is 100% greater than Firefox 4. Now there's a big improvement for you.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (4, Insightful)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719618)

Tell that to the extentions that constantly break on new major version.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (2)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719506)

If you think the versioning system is stupid then why are you putting Firefox on every machine you touch? You want everyone to see how bad it is out of vengeful spite or something?

It seem to me that by putting it on every machine you touch that would get more people using it. I don't get it.

By 'dumping Firefox on every machine I touch' he means dumping it off, i.e. removing it from every machine he touches.

And he is right about the pain of this release schedule. I want a stable web browser to view webpages. I don't want to update it more than about once a year.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719576)

"Options->Advanced->Update->Ask me what to do..."

History has shown that for most people, manual update doesn't work.

Plus... if you really are putting Firefox on every machine you touch then you should be grateful to them for saving you a lot of work every time an update appears.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719222)

Why? With automatic updates, what's the problem?
I think it's great, personally. HTML5 video had been completed for roughly 6 months, but as they wanted to include it in Firefox 4 (understandably), it wasn't available to Firefox users until very recently.
The way Firefox and Chrome are doing releases is just making releases not something you think about: instead of having Firefox 5 installed, you just have "Firefox" - It's kept up to date by default.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719266)

Why? With automatic updates, what's the problem?

The way Firefox and Chrome are doing releases is just making releases not something you think about: instead of having Firefox 5 installed, you just have "Firefox" - It's kept up to date by default.

You obviously don't support an enterprise network.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719318)

That's true. But what's the difference?
You *are* installing minor updates too, right? They're more important than major updates and come out roughly as often as major updates do now, if not more frequently.
Please don't tell me you're leaving your network insecure out of laziness.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719340)

I definitely don't, and I don't want my personal convenience held back by some absurd corporate paranoia. Screw "enterprise networks".

Re:What about Firefox 6? (0)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719404)

Firefox isn't for enterprise.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (1)

metalgamer84 (1916754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719476)

Correct, and it never will be until it can be administrated via group policy as IE can.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719498)

http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/

Re:What about Firefox 6? (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719518)

Firefox isn't for enterprise.

No?

So what is?

Re:What about Firefox 6? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719592)

...yet those same "enterprises" happily support Flash (which does constant update demands), no?

Re:What about Firefox 6? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719398)

HTML5 video is kind pointless if it's restricted to a CODEC that's about as good as what we had two decades ago.

I guess Firefox users will have to keep watching H.264 videos inside a Flash wrapper, nobody's going to do a special file just for them and Opera users.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719444)

Define "we" and "had".

Re:What about Firefox 6? (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719250)

Wait: "This new release system" has resulted in a 20% speedup; but you are this close to dumping it because its version numbering scheme is inaesthetic?

I agree that the race-to-the-highest-number game is silly; but it is the silly, albeit visible, symptom of the FF team having a fire lit under its collective ass by Chrome. Arguably, while a lot of what gets full numbers really should just be point releases, FF's quality today is relatively better than it has been in some time. Are you really going to let the version numbers get in the way?

Re:What about Firefox 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719292)

I know it's been said before, but this new release system is fucking retarded.

I'm this close to dumping Firefox on every machine I touch.

Why do you care? It's a stupid number. You're angry at your browser for something unrelated to the browser. Just shutup.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (5, Funny)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719368)

Agreed. I thought I was reading The Onion.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (2)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719494)

So you're going for the alternative.... Chrome 12? Internet Explorer 9?
Silly you.

Re:What about Firefox 6? (5, Funny)

brian6string (469449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719528)

Firefox 8: "The Ocho"

Firefox 6 is already old-and-busted (5, Funny)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719176)

Firefox 6 is so out of date, my parents will probably use it when it comes out.

For those confused (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719180)

FF8 is the nightly branch, FF7 is the smaller-than-beta branch ("aurora"), and FF6 is the alpha branch. Mozilla hasn't suddenly started to number their versions geometrically, although that would be hilarious.

Re:For those confused (1)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719200)

I was worried. I'm just downloading FF6 Beta and suddenly I'm 2 version behind. This isn't rapid release, this is TARDIS programming.

Re:For those confused (2)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719316)

this is TARDIS programming

So wait. Does that mean I get a sonic screwdriver with a new download of Firefox?

Re:For those confused (3, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719596)

this is TARDIS programming

So wait. Does that mean I get a sonic screwdriver with a new download of Firefox?

No, it means you get a shower of sparks and your ass dumped in an awkward situation because you hit the wrong button. ;)

Re:For those confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719278)

According to Google, Firefox 8 is a wood burning stove

Re:For those confused (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719466)

I'm going to start calling FF Final Fantasy. The new and improved Final Fantasy browser 8.

Re:For those confused (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719682)

Mozilla hasn't suddenly started to number their versions geometrically, although that would be hilarious.

Try it and chrome will one up them by releasing Chrome .... google...

Should I quit this IT stuff and do stand-up comedy?

Re:For those confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719690)

FF7 is my favourite, it has Sephiroth in it.

How about compared to 3.6? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719188)

20% faster than Firefox 5? That's about about 80% slower than Firefox 3.6, right?

Re:How about compared to 3.6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719478)

20% faster than Firefox 5? That's about about 80% slower than Firefox 3.6, right?

Hate to burst your bubble, but FF4 and 5 are noticeably faster than FF3. Maybe one/some of your addons suck.

have they fixed (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719192)

the random mysterious lockups? there are times about 4 a day that firefox locks up to any responses for a few seconds. Most of the time on Slashdot, but I have seen it on MSDN and other sites.

Some days it's so pervasive I switch back to Chrome.

Re:have they fixed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719242)

Have you reported this bug?

Have the developers confirmed it is a Firefox bug?

Have you taken any steps to confirm this isn't a localised problem on your system?

Seems to me if Firefox locked up this much everywhere then more people would be complaining...

Re:have they fixed (1, Troll)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719328)

Half the Internet has reported that bug.

It's often caused by having a page in one tab doing something slow (loading from a slow server, lots of JS, something like that) and locking up all the other tabs because they aren't properly independent in Firefox.

Someone will be along shortly to bleat about how this will be fixed in Firefox 15 or something, because apparently it's now OK for anything that is mentioned in a footnote on a roadmap to be announced as if it's an existing feature in production builds, even if in reality it remains unproven and several months away from release at best. Don't believe me? Take a look at the subject of this discussion.

Re:have they fixed (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719612)

It's often caused by having a page in one tab doing something slow (loading from a slow server, lots of JS, something like that) and locking up all the other tabs because they aren't properly independent in Firefox.

By the way, is this true for Chrome, too? It's said to be parallel but by my experience (on a dual-core system) some other busy tab can quite efficiently jam the current one I'm browsing.

Re:have they fixed (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719628)

As far as I can tell, neither Chrome nor IE has suffered from this to anything like the same extent for literally years.

Re:have they fixed (0)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719346)

Because reporting bugs is so fucking effective [mozilla.org] .

Pet gripe...note its from 2006, and STILL FUCKING BROKEN. Enterprise ready? My arse.

Re:have they fixed (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719370)

Oh, and i reported it to the Chrome team a couple of months back and it is fixed in Canary already. I haven't posted it to Mozilla because i found the 5 year old open unattended, duplicated bug-report that people are already still waiting on a fix for...

Re:have they fixed (1)

aix tom (902140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719378)

>Have you taken any steps to confirm this isn't a localised problem on your system?
I tried, but whenever I have taken the time to confirm it, I'm two versions behind and they don't accept the bug report.

Re:have they fixed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719268)

You are out of memory on your system and swapping to a fragmented disk. Chrome does it less because it has a smaller footprint and is more aggressive about freeing unused memory (i.e., less leaky). If you open enough shit in Chrome, it'll happen there, too.

Re:have they fixed (2)

bertok (226922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719352)

Feel free to explain to me how that's possible on a system with 12 GB of memory, while Firefox is using 700MB, and I have no other applications running.

And before I forget, I have an SSD, so I often don't even notice it when applications really do start swapping. Nonetheless, on one of the faster desktop PCs money can buy, Firefox freezes regularly.

It's doing it right now, pausing for a about 500ms before responding to keystrokes every 10 seconds or so.

It also does it on my work laptop, which has 8GB of memory, and also has an SSD, but on that it can be worse, freezing for 3-4 seconds at a time.

Re:have they fixed (1)

GigaHurtsMyRobot (1143329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719680)

Then why the hell are you still using it? You are aware that Google makes a browser called Chrome, right? It kicks all kinds of ass.

Re:have they fixed (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719270)

I have the same problem with google.com, CPU usage suddenly hits 100% for a few seconds. But that only happens on my Natty machine, and even only under my user account...which leads me to believe that it is a configuration problem, because it also happens with all plugins/addons disabled.

Wow, talk about version inflation (5, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719206)

You fools are only benchmarking Firefox 8!! Well I benchmarked Firefox 14 and it's plus 10 faster than Firefox 4.

I appreciate the benefits of rapid versioning and release cycles, but really, this is ridiculous.

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (1)

kpainter (901021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719248)

You fools are only benchmarking Firefox 8!! Well I benchmarked Firefox 14

Boy, are you behind. I just downloaded Firefox 17 and it blows Firefox 15 out of the water!

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719348)

Pfff. Firefox Infinity is where fun is at.

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719556)

Pft, you still using that ancient Aleph naught version? The new Firefox Aleph 1 can do multi-multitab browsing. :P

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (1)

jacksonyee (590218) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719570)

I'm giving up my mods on this thread to post this, but I simply couldn't resist jumping in with Buzz Lightyear's

To infinity... and beyond!

Personally, I think we should just start going to build numbers for every project. Having Firefox 76,326,358 would certainly take care of that annoying Chrome rivalry. ;-) Then perhaps geometric sequences, Taylor series, quantum dynamics... software versioning would never be the same again!

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (1)

lpp (115405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719662)

Nah, Google will just start using Googlebids as their versioning scheme. (With one Googlebid being equal to version pi-billion for any other browser). That'll make short work of the browser VERSION wars (to heck with the browser wars).

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (2)

DaftDev (1864598) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719376)

Forget that, I am using Firagafox 51 for a more-potent browsing experience.

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (2)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719554)

I got it ... but, I wasted many hours of my life to be able to instantly recognize it.

Firefox 61 (5, Interesting)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719390)

By my calculations, if Firefox had started this version numbering scheme with its start in 2004, we would now be running Firefox 61.

If they Mozilla had adopted it in 1998, this would be Firefox 113.

Bonkazoids.

Re:Firefox 61 (1)

Njovich (553857) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719440)

I think when they started out they just used a different browser name every version?

Re:Firefox 61 (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719634)

No, it was Firebird for quite some time, untill they got forced to change it in 2004.

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719416)

Hey, Firefox devs saw what wasn't working. IE had near stagnant growth and hated for it (among other things). People seemed alright with Chrome's constant cycle. So they are taking it to the next step. Log Scale version jumps. By this time next year Firefox will be gaining version numbers per second.

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (1)

RandomFactor (22447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719540)

You fools are only benchmarking Firefox 8!! Well I benchmarked Firefox 14 and it's plus 10 faster than Firefox 4.

It needs to go to plus 11

At least it's not roman numerals... (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719604)

FFIX would be really confusing.

Re:Wow, talk about version inflation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719648)

The version of FireFoxPsych bundled with the PlayStation 9 puts all your "point-and-click" oldness to shame.

Version 8?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719216)

It's a shame that Firefox will lose some of it's user base simply because they've gotten much too aggressive with their version numbering. Something so small and simple, yet something that can cause people to jump ship to their competitors.

My $0.02

Re:Version 8?!? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719356)

Their competitors like... Chrome? Who introduced this version numbering system in the first place?

Re:Version 8?!? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719652)

The difference is that Chrome was doing this from day one so people could just accept it as a quirk; FF had an established system and changed it for no great reason, imho.

Oh well (0)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719218)

My poor little SeaMonkey is only up to 2.1. Somebody obviously needs to get their sh*t together!

Re:Oh well (1)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719320)

I'm still on 2.0! Works for me (most of the time). Perhaps the more conservative approach of the Seamonkey project will make it more attractive for corporates?

Re:Oh well (2)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719536)

no. Why? because it's called seamonkey.

random bugs in rendering abound... (1)

johnjones (14274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719224)

simply because they split the rendering... surly it would have been better to test it and leave a "compatibility " view there ?

and what about support for PowerPC ?

regards

John Jones

Upcoming Legal Battle with Microsoft (1)

jmacdonald (2050842) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719226)

I wonder how long it'll take Microsoft to sue them for using the name "Azure".

iOS browser does this from day 1 (1, Informative)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719244)

Apple's browser is built on OpenGL and GPU accelerated, nice to see Mozilla finally recognizing this vastly superior technology.

Re:iOS browser does this from day 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719496)

Apple's browser is built on OpenGL and GPU accelerated, nice to see Mozilla finally recognizing this vastly superior technology.

It's about trade-offs. When you don't have to care about portability it's easier to cherry pick which technologies you'll use. When you run on many, many platforms, you can't assume that you'll have OpenGL available.

Perhaps Mozilla thought that portability was "vastly superior" over raw speed. It's only now, after a few iterations of Moore's Law, that enough hardware out there will have (integrated) OpenGL/GPU available that Mozilla can assume it will be around more often than not.

After all, not everyone can afford a $1200 iMac or to spend $1000 for a MacBook.

Re:iOS browser does this from day 1 (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719638)

Aye, but Firefox has to deal with the challenge of running on a lot more systems. Also, I think all cocoa applications on Macs run on top of OpenGL anyways. :P

Versioning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719246)

Fuck the guy who thought that this versioning scheme is good and perfectly not-confusing.

Firefox 6 & 7? (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719252)

What happened to them, I'm still on 5 :)

Re:Firefox 6 & 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719364)

I'm still using Phoenix you insensitive clods!

Re:Firefox 6 & 7? (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719486)

You can keep your blinking text and ad-serving plugins. I'm sticking with NCSA Mosaic.

Re:Firefox 6 & 7? (4, Informative)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719430)

From what I can tell, Mozilla seems to have four versions of Firefox being developed and/or maintained at any given time:

Current - Whatever is currently released. Only bugfixes usually get ported to this release. Currently FF5.
Beta - Feature-frozen and reasonably stable, but not quite ready for prime time. Will be the next release. Currently FF6.
Aurora - Feature-frozen, but not stable. Early QA happens here, though it gets more fleshed out in Beta. Currently FF7.
Nightly - This is where the new feature development happens. Currently FF8.

When it's time for release, everything gets promoted: when FF6 is released, FF7 will become Beta, FF8 will become Aurora, and new development will start on FF9.

I kind of like the idea of putting new code through two entire cycles of public testing. All the same, I do wish that Mozilla would add a Long-Term Support cycle every few versions, akin to Ubuntu's LTS cycle, that people could count on to be supported for more than just a couple of months.

It is true that sane IT departments upgrade their browsers regularly, but not all IT departments are driven by sanity. This is a sad fact that Mozilla needs to account for, and there's a tested model out there that isn't too dissimilar to Mozilla's own. They should seriously look into adapting the differences.

Re:Firefox 6 & 7? (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719692)

Current - Whatever is currently released. Only bugfixes usually get ported to this release. Currently FF5.
Beta - Feature-frozen and reasonably stable, but not quite ready for prime time. Will be the next release. Currently FF6.
Aurora - Feature-frozen, but not stable. Early QA happens here, though it gets more fleshed out in Beta. Currently FF7.
Nightly - This is where the new feature development happens. Currently FF8.

FF5 - Current version - Keeps complaining that google's javascripts are crashed
FF5 - Current Beta - Almost as eager as FF5 to complain about google's javascripts

So far I have not seen any differences worth mentioning - They both seem to hate Google

Re:Firefox 6 & 7? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719716)

Essentially a copy of Debian development:
Stable
Testing
Unstable
Experimental

Someone should make an ISO standard for naming, or a design pattern for standardized naming, or similar.

And so this means that.... (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719260)

...I will have to wait for Firefox 20 just to have a browser that is 100% faster than Firefox 5 ?!?

Re:And so this means that.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719312)

Yeah, you'll have FF 20 by the end of August I believe...

Forgotten Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719262)

20% speed boost under Windows...

probably even more under OS X...

and the worst sluggish-to-the-death nightmare of every time on Linux :(

Ridiculous (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719326)

Do you have any idea how it complicates Web contracts? We used to be able to say "your website will be compatible with current version-2 of the browsers" but now that would be ridiculous. We'd never be able to deliver since we would be stuck in a infinite testing loop.

We'll have to start writing "your website will be compatible with Firefox 5" and by the time we deliver Firefox 12 will be available. I guess we'll have to add a clause about how Microsoft, Google and Firefox are all teenagers who compare their peni- I mean version numbers to feel good about themselves.

Apple aren't being childish with the whole issue and using sane version numbers. And Opera has been out for quite a long time, though they do seem to be jumping into the version bandwagon as of late.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719562)

Could you state a date before which the browsers are compatible? Something like this:

-"Ahoy, sweet customer! We will make sure the product is compatible with $LIST_OF_BROWSERS released before $MONTH $YEAR

Wow, as fast as Chrome? (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719344)

So the FF team is patting themselves on the back for being as good as the number 3 browser? They might as well start digging their grave holes.

Re:Wow, as fast as Chrome? (1)

PriyanPhoenix (900509) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719422)

No, they're patting themselves on the back for rendering as fast as the fastest rendering browser.

Benchmarking should always be against the best candidate in any given category, irrespective of the competition's relative marketshare overall. Anything else is disingenuous (not that it stops companies from doing it). Complaining that they're NOT comparing themselves to IE is just absurd.

Re:Wow, as fast as Chrome? (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719726)

Chrome (2008) came into the game much later than Safari (2003), Firefox (2004), and Internet Explorer (ca 2000 BCE). Furthermore, their market share is neither indicative of the technology present in the browser nor it's speed.

Great... yet another version of Firefox to support (5, Informative)

leonbev (111395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719408)

We just got our web site rendering correctly under Firefox 5, and now there not one but THREE new versions in beta that we also need to test with.

Just a quick note from the web developers and web site QA testers around the world to the Firefox development team... you're really starting to piss us off.

Re:Great... yet another version of Firefox to supp (2)

CoolCash (528004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719448)

Wait until FF automatically disables your plugins because the next "Major" version isn't supported. I am not sure if this is fixed yet, but it has cause me to set all my browsers in our company not to automatically upgrade due to a needed plugin.

Re:Great... yet another version of Firefox to supp (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719738)

Must write some really convoluted CSS/HTML. I've never really had something render differently in Firefox 3.6 vs. 4 or 5. If it renders in both IE7 and IE8 AND any version of Firefox, it will render in just about anything modern.

Too late. I already switched to Chrome. (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719412)

Chrome is way faster and way smaller. I doubt I'll ever go back to FF at this point.

Re:Too late. I already switched to Chrome. (1)

TheReaperD (937405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719586)

I tried switching to Chrome again but, like the last time, the extensions weren't half as good. Even the ones developed by the same teams as FireFox! From what I understand it is the difference between the two browser extension APIs that is causing the problem. So, I'll stick with FireFox for now.

It better be, IE9 does a better job atm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36719426)

As much as I hate having to give IE credit for anything, it really seems to be capable of delivering the smoothest animations for the websites I design. Basic jQuery animation stuff seem to hitch more in FF and Chrome than it does on IE9. I've also noticed other websites just feeling a bit snappier when browsing with IE9 (which I rarely do being a non-Windows guy). I hope the FF and Chrome can do that too at some point.

Journalists Have No Need For Algebra! (0)

brainsto (1128607) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719500)

So, allegedly FF8 starts in 90% of the time that FF7 does, and FF7 starts in 90% of the time that FF5 does. 20% faster != 19% faster. What the fudge Sebastian? L2 DO ALGEBRA!

Do not make much sense right now (1)

kai_hiwatari (1642285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719504)

Firefox 8 is not even in the alpha. It will change a lot by the time it reached the users. So, i think there is no point in statements such as "Firefox 8 is 20% faster than firefox 5".

doesn't matter; I'm using chrome (1)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719524)

google owns me

When will they add per-tab processes? (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719534)

Chrome and Internet Explorer (as of version 8) support per-tab processes. That is the one major feature I would like Firefox to implement so that if a page's JavaScript or Flash goes bonkers it doesn't take down all my tabs.

Also, Google is changing the way their accounts work in a few weeks that will prevent users from being able to access multiple Google accounts in the same browser. I am not entirely sure on the particulars, but wouldn't per-process tabs work around that to allow us to have multiple Gmail accounts open? I think Google is going to have some sort of optional tool or setting called multiple sign-in, but i'd prefer the browser itself had a means of segmenting sessions.

64-bit support (1)

ad1c (591741) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719578)

I've been on the "Nightly" branch (8.0a1 at this writing) for the last couple of weeks (Win 7 Pro 64-bit). It's the only native 64-bit release, and crashes/hangs far less often than Firefox 4/5 ever did. I'm disappointed that Mozilla *still* won't publicly release native 64-bit binaries for Firefox, so I'll stay on the Nightly update path as long as I can. I only have 1/2 dozen add-ons, and they seem to be working fine.

pfft FireFox 8 (4, Funny)

equex (747231) | more than 3 years ago | (#36719642)

I am already using version 21, its the pre pre pre alpha pre beta pre pre gamma delta pre RC pre build, I'm so bleeding edge I have to buy tampons at the store. My insurance company wont even insure my computer because all my software are practically from the future.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?