Gearing up for Firefox 3

This is a discussion on Gearing up for Firefox 3 within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; I have 512MB of RAM and Firefox seems to have plenty of RAM....

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    I have 512MB of RAM and Firefox seems to have plenty of RAM.

  2. #32
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,762
    >> I'll give you something: Athlon 64 X2 3800+. That's the CPU.
    >> Proof? Here you go.

    Very nice. Unfortunately, I dug for the hardware specs and only found out that it was on Vista Ultimate 32-bit, which requires 1GB of memory, and while it isn't explicitly stated, probably tested on a dual core CPU like the one you have. This hardly reflects 2004. It's clear I need to run my own benchmark.

    >> FF2 does not compare to the newest versions and has no place in today's browser market.

    Mmm, I don't know about that. Firefox2 would have been a decent browser - what screwed from earlier, "lighter" counterparts was that Mozilla's development thinking changed from creating the bare-bones, extensible browser to a more feature rich (and unfortunately memory hungry) application that new-age Web hippies demanded. I wouldn't dismiss Firefox as "old" because it still rendered pages acceptably, but it's rather poorly designed. IE4 is old. The Mozilla suite is old.

    Fortunately, statements from the company show that they have learned their lesson and would only integrate things that 90% of the clientele used. If Firefox3 is well done and passes my benchmark acceptably, I will use it. I will be keeping my eye on "known issues" as well.

  3. #33
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,014
    Quote Originally Posted by citizen View Post
    Very nice. Unfortunately, I dug for the hardware specs and only found out that it was on Vista Ultimate 32-bit, which requires 1GB of memory, and while it isn't explicitly stated, probably tested on a dual core CPU like the one you have. This hardly reflects 2004. It's clear I need to run my own benchmark.
    To my knowledge, FF is still single-threaded, so it doesn't really matter if it's dual core or not because I've never really seen cpu use rise above 50%.

    Mmm, I don't know about that. Firefox2 would have been a decent browser - what screwed from earlier, "lighter" counterparts was that Mozilla's development thinking changed from creating the bare-bones, extensible browser to a more feature rich (and unfortunately memory hungry) application that new-age Web hippies demanded. I wouldn't dismiss Firefox as "old" because it still rendered pages acceptably, but it's rather poorly designed. IE4 is old. The Mozilla suite is old.
    Oh sure, but now that FF3 is out (or will be soon), it's time to stop comparing FF2, because it's well... slow, compared to FF3. Comparing FF2 to newer IE, Opera or Safari won't do. It's too unfair.

    Fortunately, statements from the company show that they have learned their lesson and would only integrate things that 90% of the clientele used. If Firefox3 is well done and passes my benchmark acceptably, I will use it. I will be keeping my eye on "known issues" as well.
    I would love to see them integrate popular extensions into the browser itself since extensions don't play nice with each other and are typically memory hungry.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  4. #34
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    Elysia, citizen and I are on a different world. As of today FF2 becomes old simply by virtue of the fact we understand FF2 users upgrade regularly. But yesterday FF2 was still the browser, not FF3. This has nothing to do with the fact FF3 beta was out back then. It's simply to do the fact we develop websites and we need to test according to browser typical usage. That and also the fact we both until recently shared similar specs. Specs you don't have.

    Meanwhile contrary to FF, IE users don't upgrade regularly. Not because they are dumb, but because IE users include the bulk of companies who may not, don't know how, or cannot afford an upgrade. For a reason IE6 is still a widely spread browser. So, as many others that develop webpages, we feel that whereas FF and Opera is indeed tested against the latest versions, IE and Safari have to be tested against old versions too. But I repeat, until today we didn't give a damn about FF3 other than for testing purposes.

    As for what you read and where, honestly I don't give a damn. What matters is what happens on my computer. So stop posting what you read. If you have a PIII or PIV 512Mb machine go ahead keep posting on this thread. Otherwise do shutup. Too much noise and you don't know what you are talking about.

    Robwhit? Can you please elaborate a little more? I also had "plenty" of memory left when I was using FF2 on may late laptop. However, it still remained that FF2 consumed more memory 2 hours after being fired up than it did when it just started. Memory leaks were common yes. But the browser perfomance also degraded as you used it for a few days even with minimal installation. In fact, alongside Safari, FF was always the slowest browser to load.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #35
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    As for what you read and where, honestly I don't give a damn. What matters is what happens on my computer. So stop posting what you read. If you have a PIII or PIV 512Mb machine go ahead keep posting on this thread. Otherwise do shutup. Too much noise and you don't know what you are talking about.
    No, that is your flawed opinion. I have stated facts and evidence that FF3 is faster than FF2, Opera and Safari. It also uses less memory than IE7.
    These are facts. Don't deny them.

    FF3 will run better than FF2 on most machines. I will not comment on web developing, because it's not an area I'm in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #36
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    You just can't avoid it, can you, you annoying little woman.

    Did you read? We are talking of FF2, not FF3. Gawd! For pete's sake. Another thread I'm about to dump over you.

    Until today FF2, not FF3 was our main concern. Simply because that's the browser most FF users had on their machines.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #37
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,014
    Yeah yeah, and the topic is about FF3. Why not keep it to the original discussion about embracing FF3?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #38
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Why does the Mozilla page still show Firefox 2? Even the west coast is nearly 4 hours into launch day.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  9. #39
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    Quote Originally Posted by CornedBee View Post
    Why does the Mozilla page still show Firefox 2? Even the west coast is nearly 4 hours into launch day.
    I was just thinking the same... But perhaps it's starting the 24H at "morning in the US" to achieve the best possible chance of hitting the record number of downloads?

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  10. #40
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    Only plan to download in a few days anyways. Otherwise I will feel part of the crowd. Not my thing.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #41
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    I'm going to switch to the portable versions from now on, I just like having everything tied to the directory structure rather than my user folder and stuff. I am liking FF3's additions like the all seeing address bar and such. Makes it easier to organize and search my bookmarks. I'm pondering if I should forget about keeping a directory tree structure in my bookmarks folder or just tagging everything.

  12. #42
    the hat of redundancy hat nvoigt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    3,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    >> Tabs are nice sugar coating but you could as well just open new windows instead of tabs.
    No, you couldn't. Web browsing was made wonderful with the invention of tabs.
    What do you mean ? I could browse the web with IE6 just as well as with IE7 or FF. Tabs are just another form of window grouping, it's not functionally different to group windows in one frame or in one taskbar. Sure, grouping them in one frame is nice, but not more. Just nice. Not a "function" in itself.
    hth
    -nv

    She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."

    When in doubt, read the FAQ.
    Then ask a smart question.

  13. #43
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    Multiple-windows is silly. Download tab mix plus and you'll see why.

  14. #44
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    It is silly now because we got used to tabs. It was silly before when we got to know tabs.

    It wasn't silly before tabs because... well, we didn't feel we needed them. As a result, tabs are nice. But it's not that they came to save us from an unbrowsable web. I think nvoigt means just this.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  15. #45
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Apparently release date is 10:00 AM PST. Means 19:00 CET.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21