Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla Firefox 22 Is Now Available

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Firefox (21) doesn’t crash often at all here, but it does crash on some game/physics JS engines demos.

    I have to agree that the most annoying “feature” of FF is its mono-threaded design causing an unresponsive UI during page loading.

    Comment


    • #17
      Firefox is working just fine here on an i5 Sandy Bridge, dualcore + HT, 4GB of RAM. No crashes, no hangs, no choppiness, nothing -- and thats with a lot of addons installed.

      Those of you having problems... bug in FOSS drivers (if youre using them)? Corrupted profile? Something else hogging CPU/GPU? Bad combination of addons?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by stqn View Post
        Firefox (21) doesn’t crash often at all here, but it does crash on some game/physics JS engines demos.

        I have to agree that the most annoying “feature” of FF is its mono-threaded design causing an unresponsive UI during page loading.
        It's most definitely not "mono-threaded", take a look at all the threads it uses (tip: threads don't appear as processes).

        Comment


        • #19
          Hooray! Firefox with proper Flexbox support...at long last
          Free Software Developer .:. Mesa and Xorg
          Opinions expressed in these forum posts are my own.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by strcat View Post
            It's most definitely not "mono-threaded", take a look at all the threads it uses (tip: threads don't appear as processes).
            The biggest problem afiak is that the chrome/compositing runs on the main thread. The firefox devs are working on off the main thread compositing though afiak which should help.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by wargames View Post
              Every time they release a new version, I see "performance improvements". The truth is that firefox performance sucks, it feels slow*, runs slow and crashes often.

              *On a Dual Core 3Ghz processor with 4GB of RAM.
              Speak for yourself, rock solid here on a single core Athlon64 3500+(Clawhammer) and only 2Gb of DDR 266Mhz, on a 32 bit Linux Mint no less. I can have a few HUNDRED tabs open without slowdowns, though I have no Flash installed and have all ads blocked.

              Comment


              • #22
                Same here, I often have 200+ tabs open and I never notice any slowdowns. Memory usage is another issue though, it soars to the heavens once in a while, but that's fixed by closing and restarting firefox.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by wargames View Post
                  Every time they release a new version, I see "performance improvements". The truth is that firefox performance sucks, it feels slow*, runs slow and crashes often.

                  *On a Dual Core 3Ghz processor with 4GB of RAM.
                  The running slower are not necessarily performance problems but responsiveness problems. The performance and responsiveness problems are also in the plugins which mozilla can't always fix coupled with the age, legacy of the Firefox codebase.
                  Firefox definitely need to do more with threaded stuff and solve more stability problems.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
                    Firefox can't even scroll for me, it's so choppy.
                    Eh? Smooth Scrolling enabled in preferences, coupled with Autoscrolling is smooth like a 'baby's bottom' here.

                    As for Autoscrolling, someone know if there is some option to enable that in Chrome/Chromium? I've looked but couldn't find any.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                      Both Firefox and Chrome work great on my dual core.
                      Same here, I can't say I notice any real performance difference (though that doesn't mean there isn't any), Chrome does use more RAM for me though, but not by any huge amount.

                      From a user standpoint I can't really recommend one over the other, I find myself using Firefox as my primary browser more out of habit than anything else.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                        Both Firefox and Chrome work great on my dual core.
                        I'm going to assume that you mean an x86 dual core.... or in other words, a moderate desktop with enough power to smooth out the gross inefficiencies beyond your capability to detect. Now how about you go ahead and try the same two browsers out on something that is actually *WEAK*, like a single core atom z530, or anything-ARM. At this point, you will be able to actually see the massive difference between the two, and believe me, it is SHOCKING. Firefox OBLITERATES chrome.

                        Here's the thing with performance observations;
                        In a web browser, in theory, you spend most of your time sitting there LOOKING at it, the second most time actually downloading. Looking at it just sitting there doesn't require anything besides the ability to show a static image. Downloading is network-bound, and can't be changed by the browser itself. What that leaves, is really rendering performance, and javascript performance, for the most part.

                        Now lets say your dual core CPU can do all of the rendering for a page in Firefox in 0.2 seconds. Maybe chrome takes 0.6 seconds, or even ONE WHOLE second. That would make Firefox FIVE TIMES FASTER. But you wouldn't notice it, because (1) its a difference of only 0.8 seconds, and (2) it is WELL within the variation in network performance, so even if you could notice a difference of 0.8 seconds, you are used to assuming that its network difference.

                        Now when you switch to a much slower CPU, things start to look a little different. In Firefox, that 0.2 second rendering time stretches out to 2 seconds. Not bad. Not a lot to worry about. Its still five times faster than chrome though, which now takes TEN seconds. Now we are looking at a difference of EIGHT SECONDS, and THAT is something you can actually observe.
                        Last edited by droidhacker; 06-26-2013, 08:46 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                          I'm going to assume that you mean an x86 dual core.... or in other words, a moderate desktop with enough power to smooth out the gross inefficiencies beyond your capability to detect. Now how about you go ahead and try the same two browsers out on something that is actually *WEAK*, like a single core atom z530, or anything-ARM. At this point, you will be able to actually see the massive difference between the two, and believe me, it is SHOCKING. Firefox OBLITERATES chrome.
                          I have only 2 devices: desktop PC and low end phone. Neither Firefox nor Chrome will run on my phone.
                          Now lets say your dual core CPU can do all of the rendering for a page in Firefox in 0.2 seconds. Maybe chrome takes 0.6 seconds, or even ONE WHOLE second. That would make Firefox FIVE TIMES FASTER. But you wouldn't notice it, because (1) its a difference of only 0.8 seconds, and (2) it is WELL within the variation in network performance, so even if you could notice a difference of 0.8 seconds, you are used to assuming that its network difference.

                          Now when you switch to a much slower CPU, things start to look a little different. In Firefox, that 0.2 second rendering time stretches out to 2 seconds. Not bad. Not a lot to worry about. Its still five times faster than chrome though, which now takes TEN seconds. Now we are looking at a difference of EIGHT SECONDS, and THAT is something you can actually observe.
                          Where did you get those numbers? According to various benchmarks Chrome is mostly faster or has same speed as Firefox.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                            Now lets say your dual core CPU can do all of the rendering for a page in Firefox in 0.2 seconds. Maybe chrome takes 0.6 seconds, or even ONE WHOLE second. That would make Firefox FIVE TIMES FASTER. But you wouldn't notice it, because (1) its a difference of only 0.8 seconds, and (2) it is WELL within the variation in network performance, so even if you could notice a difference of 0.8 seconds, you are used to assuming that its network difference.
                            Now let's say chrome takes 0.2 seconds to render the page and firefox takes 0.6, 0.8 or even 1.0, then - Uhuh - it's the other way around and chrome OBLITERATES Firefox. BAMM!

                            What I want to say: You do not proof anything by throwing random numbers at your audience.

                            Having said that: firefox-22.0 is the first release after quite some time where the promise of "better performance" actually did not mean the opposite, but really made my experience nicer. I was able to enable Smooth Scrolling after - I don't know - how many releases. maps.google.com was unusable with at least 19.x to 21.x - Scrolling with the mouse wheel did take seconds until it actually zoomed, making it quite hard to get the right "distance". 22.0 still is not as smooth as crome in this regard, but the lag now can be tolerated (fractions of a second). Also the whole UI responds way better, I start enjoying firefox again The vimperator popup comes up instantly, same with the site icons (I could watch them gettings painted one by one in the vimperator popup...)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                              Speak for yourself, rock solid here on a single core Athlon64 3500+(Clawhammer) and only 2Gb of DDR 266Mhz, on a 32 bit Linux Mint no less. I can have a few HUNDRED tabs open without slowdowns, though I have no Flash installed and have all ads blocked.
                              Originally posted by dee. View Post
                              Same here, I often have 200+ tabs open and I never notice any slowdowns. Memory usage is another issue though, it soars to the heavens once in a while, but that's fixed by closing and restarting firefox.
                              I often find myself having over 50 tabs and experience UI slowdown and more importantly the inefficiency that traditional tab managing causes. The only 2 permanent remedies that sorta improve tab management is a 2line tab bar (via TMP) and occasionally the tab group button (which is still far from perfectly smooth). How do you people manage hundreds of tabs?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Kostas View Post
                                I often find myself having over 50 tabs and experience UI slowdown and more importantly the inefficiency that traditional tab managing causes. The only 2 permanent remedies that sorta improve tab management is a 2line tab bar (via TMP) and occasionally the tab group button (which is still far from perfectly smooth). How do you people manage hundreds of tabs?
                                Vimperator makes using tab groups a breeze, if only it came with nicer bindings/shortcuts for them out-of-the-box (it only has long command names by default).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X