What is Digg?143 Comments
- OblivionMage, on 05/06/2009, -2/+95Progression! Ya gotta love it.
- topstorynz, on 05/06/2009, -5/+93Firefox + Chrome = win for all.
- mickstephenson, on 05/07/2009, -5/+63Call me a sceptic but I think it's clear the reason why they are reluctant to add addon funtionality is that they know the first add on to be created will be adblock which is at odds with the revenue model.
- 3242130193, on 05/06/2009, -2/+53About bloody time. Sounds like a great focus for a 4.0 release, but hope it doesn't cause any performance regressions after all the work they put into 3.0
- Allstarn08, on 05/07/2009, -9/+52I love Firefox, but once Chrome gets the ability to have add-ons, I'm going to jump ship
- Nephersir7, on 05/06/2009, -4/+39Takes more ram, but ram is dirt cheap these days
- hawksfan03, on 05/06/2009, -0/+33this is awesome. it hasn't happened much recently but if my session crashes and i need to restore it, trying to close the offending tab before it tried to load was difficult.
- DrCyclops, on 05/07/2009, -2/+32I wish I could get Firefox and Chrome drunk, then get them to have sex in the back of Firefox's Honda Civic. 9 months later the GREATEST BROWSER OF ALL TIME would be born.
- leamanc, on 05/07/2009, -1/+29This is great and all, but I'm still wowed with the performance improvements in 3.5 (currently running Beta 4). I understand that they changed the version number for this release from 3.1 to 3.5, since this is more than just a small incremental update, but I think they could have gotten away with calling it version 4. It's that good.
To everyone saying "but I love Chrome," yeah, I do too. Just because it lit a fire under Mozilla's rear end and made them start rolling out improvements to Firefox at a fast pace again. With this much goodness in 3.5, I can't wait to see what 4 offers. - dagamer34, on 05/07/2009, -0/+26People that are willing to install Adblock weren't clicking on ads in the first place. And it's a small minority anyway.
- m0llusk, on 05/07/2009, -2/+20Memory use has been a big problem with Firefox since the start. It takes a huge block of memory and sits on it and may even grow it after a while. Having a process for each page of content could have a really big performance impact on smaller systems. In some cases running a browser on a small system is the whole point of Linux with Firefox. Ideally this will result in memory usage being reduced.
- lenny4422, on 05/07/2009, -2/+20http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/11/ie8-an ...
IE 8 Beta 1, released Mar 11, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(software)
Google Beta, released Sept 2, 2008 - ilgaz, on 05/07/2009, -2/+19People having 2-4 GB of RAM and bitching about "How much RAM the browser uses?" without looking if it is a leak or simply caching/processing have really started to hurt browser progress.
- recruz, on 05/07/2009, -0/+16I don't use Adblock, but I don't click on ads. Somehow, they don't bother me. I don't mind looking at the Snorg Tees girls sometimes.
- Farmer77, on 05/07/2009, -2/+18Firefox offers far more functionality with its plugins and addons than Chrome. I'll take that over an incremental speed difference.
- trogdoor, on 05/07/2009, -0/+14FIrefox 3.5 let's you choose which tabs to restore after a crash for precisely that reason.
- SquareWheel, on 05/07/2009, -0/+14Google has confirmed they will be building addons with popular mods like Adblock in mind.
- dickeytk, on 05/07/2009, -2/+15because we're hitting a wall as far as processer speed goes, and we can see huge performance gains by running multiple processes at once with multiple cores
- DeathRay2K, on 05/07/2009, -1/+13The benefit isn't that it shows up as a ton of processes, that's an unfortunate side effect. The benefit is that (theoretically) a crash in one tab won't bring down the whole browser.
- LoudMusic, on 05/07/2009, -6/+17You mean a company is going to do what their competitor does in order to stay relevant?
- Zarokima, on 05/07/2009, -0/+11The only thing that ever crashes for me is Flash. Firefox as a whole has never given me any problems.
- BigT383, on 05/07/2009, -0/+10As long as it cleans it up, using memory is fine. The problem is with leaks. Firefox is supposed to be a full-featured, modern browser for use on modern OSes. If you're looking for a lightweight low-memory browser you should look at some other alternatives. Not that I'm saying they should use memory for the heck of it, but if they want to use more memory for performance or stability (as is the case here) then I'm all for it.
I really think that the Chrome threading model is the correct one for applications with minimal inter-process communication like a web browser; in fact I'd like to see more APIs created and provided by Microsoft (and Linux) developers to better support models like that. - mikeazorin, on 05/07/2009, -1/+11AW YEAH! Now the 4GB of RAM in my system will finally get some use once I open a few tabs.
- inactive, on 05/07/2009, -1/+11If only all ads were like Snorg Tees Girls...
- BrownieMix, on 05/07/2009, -4/+13That's fine and dandy, but they really need to fix out the bugs in the Ubuntu port. The Java errors, the inferior speed, and such. I'm fed up with FireFox crashing ALL THE TIME in Ubuntu.
- twiztidsinz, on 05/07/2009, -3/+11Firefox is popular with anyone who is tech-savvy... regardless of their liking for Microsoft or not. I keep trying Chrome... but to me, Chrome is like Linux: Cool to try out, and I really want to like it.. but it's not something I could use all the time.
- ConfusedCartman, on 05/07/2009, -1/+9I tried Chrome once, appreciated it's slick tab behavior and nice UI, then went right back to XMarks and Adblock Plus. This is just one more reason to continue to use Firefox.
- kiwimonk, on 05/07/2009, -1/+9takes more cpu too, but i do believe thats the point ;)
- ternto333, on 05/07/2009, -2/+9I'm gonna jump ship the moment Chrome becomes available on MacOSX or Linux. Or at least test the waters...
- jeremymccurdy, on 05/07/2009, -0/+7That may be as soon as the 27th:
http://lifehacker.com/5147014/chrome-extensions-se ... - p3ngwin, on 05/07/2009, -1/+8also they want to gain the benefit that the rendering of the browser (the bars, the window you're RSS feeds bar,bookmarks ,status bar,etc) is separate from the actual *web page content* rendering within the window.
that way the current situation of the two being tied to the same process can be avoided. currently because the to are linked, any lag in the rendering can cause lag in the browser control that is outside the web page.
think of it as separating 2 things that are currently dependent. - jivatmanx, on 05/07/2009, -5/+12Since they're both open source, they can work off of and with each other toward mutual benefit, as they permanently add to mankind's stored public knowledge. Not possible with monopolists like M$
- pathy, on 05/07/2009, -0/+7Chrome was open very shortly after release - it's called Chromium.
- Morac, on 05/07/2009, -2/+8I actually uninstalled Chrome because it ran in multiple processes and disabled the multi-process feature in IE 8.. Sure it makes the browser more stable (unless the main process crashes which happened frequently with Chrome), but it makes the program extremely bloated. Right now Firefox 3.5b4 hovers between 100 and 200 MB during normal use. This is down from the 500+ MB that Firefox 3 frequently. I don't think returning to that is a good idea.
In any case this isn't something that's going to happen for a while. Phase II lists it's ETA as November, Phase III has no ETA listed and Phase IV (the multiple processes) lists as needing phase III to be finished first. In other words, you might see this by late 2010 at the earliest. - zmigliozzi, on 05/07/2009, -0/+6I sure hope you are running a 64bit OS.
- Mutton, on 05/06/2009, -2/+8YAY!!!
- inactive, on 05/07/2009, -1/+7Chromium was in development for quite some time before release! Its safe to say that the concept had been drawn up by neither MS or Google and was implemented by both independently. MS did however win the race and released first
- inactive, on 05/07/2009, -0/+6IE8 came out shortly after IE7 did, just not to the public (I.E., Alpha testing for subscribers, etc). I've had it on Vista for quite a while.
- ConfusedCartman, on 05/07/2009, -0/+5Truth. Chrome was fast and slick, but seriously lacking in functionality. The only reason it's so popular is because it did everything Firefox didn't - private browsing, split tab processes...and nothing else, really.
- IllBeBack, on 05/07/2009, -0/+5So, as long as you know about it, then no one else can ever be informed, is that it?
If all of the news agencies had used this strategy for the H1N1 flu, not many people would know about it, now would they? - FutureGuy, on 05/07/2009, -0/+5Chrome is from Google, so it would be fair to say Chrome is the first brower and Google invented the internet.
- dtfinch, on 05/07/2009, -0/+5What memory leaks?
Or do you mean one of these features, which by default use more memory on systems that have more, but can be configured to use less?
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.m ...
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.cap ... - the8thbit, on 05/07/2009, -2/+7Chrome is open now? When did that happen? I mean, I knew it was supposed to, but I didn't realized the source had been released yet.
- Hortnon, on 05/07/2009, -1/+6It's for every tab. IE8 has had this feature from the beginning, and everyone copied. This is a fact, and would take 10 seconds of actually using it to figure out.
Am I surprised some that argue against IE8 haven't used it to find this out? Not at all. - Philbert, on 05/07/2009, -1/+6I've got 6GB and a quad core CPU, I don't mind.
- inactive, on 05/07/2009, -0/+5source has been released and there is even a ppa for ubuntu linux that allows you to run a very very unofficial alpha version of chrome.
- DiscoUnderpants, on 05/07/2009, -0/+5When you load the same executable image multiple times there will be just a small memory overhead... most things other than having separate data segments will be exactly the same and loaded only once.
- inactive, on 05/07/2009, -0/+4perhaps they had to do it because many of the websites were designed for IE and this was the only way FF could work with those websites.
- catxors, on 05/07/2009, -0/+4Threads suck for this kind of application. The main reason is that sharing the complete state of the program between all threads gives hugely more opportunities to create all kinds of bugs, and the developers will kill themselves trying to get it right. There are other serious problems, like the fact that if a thread gets pwned, it's sharing all the memory so it can pwn the whole app, and that if a thread crashes, it kills the whole app, and if a thread locks up, it can't be reliably stopped without killing the whole app. (If a thread is holding locks and you kill it, you'll probably lock up other threads sooner or later.)
- tenbosch, on 05/07/2009, -6/+10Fine, great. Just make it stop crashing in Ubuntu! Am I the only one?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 148 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is