| 4:14 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It'll never stop as long as browsers exist and keep advancing if we're lucky.
| 4:31 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|It'll never stop as long as browsers exist and keep advancing if we're lucky. |
Oh sorry, I meant to add to existing comments about speedy version increment.
I don't mind the enhancements at all. Especially if they could fix the memory leak.
| 5:59 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Especially if they could fix the memory leak |
Yup. It's gotten really bad too.
Amateur hour programming and an obvious reason why more people don't adopt Firefox as their main browser when it chews up 1GB of system memory without really trying.
If I were them I'd be ashamed to put my name on anything with such a basic malfunction as a memory leak of that magnitude, that's so '90s programming, especially after not being able to fix it for so many years.
| 9:56 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I think they're ironically channeling their memory leak right into their version numbers. Expect that 12 to creep up inexorably to 37, thence to 128 and it'll be 392 before you know it.
| 10:08 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Very happy with FF 3.5.9 on PPC Mac thank you.
That was the zenith, all downhill since then, not even supporting PPC Macs, I think.
I still much prefer it to Safari and Opera.
| 11:35 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|If I were them I'd be ashamed to put my name on anything with such a basic malfunction as a memory leak of that magnitude, that's so '90s programming, especially after not being able to fix it for so many years. |
Other way around. In the '90's you had to plug all memory leaks because you only had so much to work with. And you could only crank up an application's memory allotment so far, because the OS needed a cushion of its own.
Now all applications have access to all memory in the whole computer and if something ends up using four times as much RAM as it did at opening, well, there's always more to go around.
My father used to say, in a slightly different context: disk space is cheaper than good programming.
:: quick detour to calculator ::
At $49/MB (the earliest price I remember for SIMMs), my current computer has about $200,000 worth of memory.
Let it pour.
Besides, Firefox 11 gave me an awful scare because when I looked up the list of blocked add-ons I thought they were saying that these were all things they had blocked from my computer. Oops.
Camino had a popup blocker override when Safari had only just introduced the blocker and That Other Browser didn't have one at all and Firefox was just a gleam in the Mozilla project's eye. Hard to change habits. Don't trust Chrome, Opera is loathsome, Safari has its uses butbutbut...
| 1:56 pm on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
More and more, I had to drop *all* add-ons and add each back, one by one, to find memory hogs. I learned to keep the set to a bare minimum. When it got to that tedious point, I quit using FF as my browser-of-habit. It remains for testing only, on my Windows and MacOSX boxes. Too bad they're turning it into what I consider a Chrome wannabe.
| 2:08 pm on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I use FF all the time and haven't noticed this memory leak. Several tabs open and I'm at 112mb...not 1gb.
| 6:33 pm on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It's dependent on the default options. I disabled and removed the Google search feature for the biggest performance improvement. That thing calls home to Google far too often and you might be mid-sentence in typing something only to have the screen freeze for a few moments at a time. PIA!
| 7:44 pm on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
204 tabs open ( just counted them )..and it's still fast..
| 10:24 pm on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
:: tweet tweet, chirp chirp ::
Sorry. Opera just annoys me. Nothing is where you expect it to be, and it's got that blasted retro sidebar instead of a proper History menu, and, and, and...
But no, I'm still not sure I've disabled all that google stuff in Firefix. Switch on Live Headers and there's a steady stream of Why the ### is it going to google? I didn't ask it to go to google. There aren't any google links on the page I'm loading.
And yes, I do get the sense FF is racing to keep up with Chrome in version numbering. But once you're up into the teens, it really isn't as impressive.
| 7:56 am on Apr 26, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Everyone started moaning after upgrading from FF v3.6, so I stopped there, and still have no complaints it.
Fixing bugs should always come before adding features, and in v12 it does seem that most of 1,854 changes were bug fixes. yay
| 3:03 pm on Apr 26, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|in v12 it does seem that most of 1,854 changes were bug fixes |
And after all, did anyone try v12?
| 4:52 pm on Apr 26, 2012 (gmt 0)|
For everyone looking for the sane release of Firefox you want "Extended Support Release [mozilla.org]" which Mozilla considers crazy zombie mutants from outer-space with an "deathly long" life span of 54 weeks instead of 42 days. I've been using it after I upgraded from Firefox 8 after Firefox 10 was released.
I know code, I have a reasonable understanding of whats going on int he browser world...not extremist amount though enough to make most people here nervous to go on Jeopardy with me and talk tech and frankly the work getting in to each version of Firefox has been a total joke. Some of these releases are so bad that the only added "feature" was a bigger version number.
Oh and as someone who files bugs for Gecko/Firefox there is a LOT of resistance to user-oriented decisions, Mozilla has officially become a corporate entity that is completely out of touch with what normal people want. Heck, they can't even do things right with me and I'm highly technical (a lot of us are here of course).
I plan on eventually putting together a version of Firefox which will attempt to undo all the damage done to Firefox.
| 5:16 pm on Apr 26, 2012 (gmt 0)|
"Amateur hour programming"... gossip has it that Google developers were responsible for version 4. I would still be using 3.6 if I didn't have to keep testing these new versions for compatibility with web sites, new software releases and API conformity (which is like quicksand).
| 10:35 pm on Apr 26, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|I would still be using 3.6 if... |
3.anything puts you on the wrong side of some sites' Antiquated UA blocks. Mine cuts off at 2-- and I'm even leery about that, because I personally know one person who uses FF 2.something for Linux. Different version numbering.
Camino has Stable Releases and Nightly Upgrades. For a given definition of Stable, at least.
| 4:13 am on Apr 27, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Firefox releases are going very fast after the Chrome came into existence; previously they were slow.
|Just saw an automated update pop-up showing version 12.0 |
When will this stop?
Folks can use all Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, IE (IE for special conditions/websites) and in that same order, may be.
| 6:46 pm on Apr 28, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I haven't tried 12 .. When 11 came along I did the upgrade .. it chased me back to 10.02 in less than 2 days.
Still on the fence here. Should I trust the latest build? or stick with what some of my addons can still write to .. hmmmm .. decisions .. decisions
| 6:33 pm on Apr 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Yes, of course.
|Should I trust the latest build? |
Some of my plugins are not compatible with 10x or 12x so sometimes I need to use 3x but 12.0 is nice.