Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Firefox 28.0 Delivers VP9 Video Decoding, Opus In WebM

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Firefox is getting better but it still chokes with websites after being up for two hours or more. Use a site like OKCupid for a bit with multiple tabs, leave it open for some time, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssokolow View Post
    I'm on the Aurora channel, so I'm currently running 29.0a2 and my only issue with Firefox has been how it's really a cooperatively multitasked OS in 2014. When you've got as many extensions and tabs as I do, that really causes a lot of janking.

    e10s can't come soon enough.

    (It does also have a tendency to leak its way up to around 6GiB resident before I restart it, but that's some extension's fault and, hopefully, e10s will make it easier for them to implement something along the lines of Chrome's task manager so I don't have to spend days living with a crippled experience while I bisect my extension collection.)
    Have you tried https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...addons-memory/?
    It's not 100% precise and doesn't work with some kind of leaks, but maybe it can help finding the bad extension without the need to bisect.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strcat View Post
    Pass `--single-process` to Chromium for an apples to apples comparison. Chromium's sandboxing comes at a high memory usage cost. It puts each site instance in an empty chroot, process namespace and network namespace. Unlike on Windows, it's able to reduce the kernel attack surface by making use of seccomp so it's not easy to bypass the sandbox.
    It is not an apples to apples comparison.
    * --single-process is not supported under chromium and may leads to errors and crashes, firefox works ok in native single process mode instead.
    Chromium is just NOT usable in that configuration.

    * I'm certainly not going to ask for a chromium option to provide the (better) framework extension firefox provides.

    The apple to apple comparision is with the borwsers as they come out of the box; then you can compare reactivity, memory usage, cpu use and so on.

    And, out of the box, chromium uses an excessive amount of ram, imho.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calinou View Post
    No, that is only for non-Flash plugins like Java or Silverlight. Flash still plays automatically, if installed, by default.
    But now you have the option to set it to global click-to-play in the addons page (unlike a few releases ago).

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andyprough View Post
    Funny thing - one of the few sites that looks like garbage on Firefox on my Android phone is Phoronix. Looks perfect on Chrome, but I can't get font sizing correct for some reason on Firefox. Half the page looks grotesquely enormous, and half the page is so tiny that it's unreadable.
    That's because Michael is incapable of deploying a mobile style for Phoronix. Mobile browsers have to do some voodoo to try to find a good compromise and the result widely varies from device to device. On my Galaxy S3 it's exactly the opposite: FF works better with Phoronix than Chrome. Not only did Firefox choose font settings that make the main text readable just fine, the links in the sidebars are readable as wee but not in Chrome.

    The only real fix is that website providers work on a mobile layout instead of countless useless benchmarks…

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    That's because Michael is incapable of deploying a mobile style for Phoronix.
    [..]
    The only real fix is that website providers work on a mobile layout instead of countless useless benchmarks…
    Work from incapable people is probably useless, and i'm certainly not going to call Michael "incapable"...

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spittie View Post
    Have you tried https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...addons-memory/?
    It's not 100% precise and doesn't work with some kind of leaks, but maybe it can help finding the bad extension without the need to bisect.
    I was not aware of that extension. I'll just restarted Firefox very recently, so I don't know how useful it'll be yet, but I'll give it a try.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •