What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
109 Comments
- DigitalisAkujin, on 07/09/2009, -1/+153I hope they figure out a way to get Flash as a seperate process as well.
- Jektal, on 07/09/2009, -1/+90I hope HTML5 and Ogg take off and Flash dies a quick, painful death
- kwilms, on 07/09/2009, -4/+88I am looking forward to this feature in Firefox.
- dotwhynot, on 07/09/2009, -2/+63I'm not sure it is Google Chrome finally pushing Firefox development here. That IE8 already has this must hurt a lot more.
- Chewie67, on 07/09/2009, -1/+46Don't be dissapointed -- this is how innovation works.
Microsoft stepped in and crushed Netscape, who wasn't innovating fast enough.
Then Microsoft got lazy and sat on IE6, so Mozilla stepped up and swatted them with Firefox. That pushes Microsoft to release IE7.
Firefox has been pretty stagnant for about 18 months, so along come Safari and Chrome to leapfrog Firefox. Microsoft piles on with IE8 -- which, let's face it, is about equal to Firefox 2. Now it's time for Mozilla to respond or fade away.
This is a GOOD THING for consumers. We're finally getting some innovation in the browser again. As long as Apple, Google, Microsoft and Mozilla stick to standards, we all win.
Yes, I did ignore Opera. So do consumers. - linas199, on 07/09/2009, -2/+47I'm quite surprised they're this late. Anyways, Go FFox!
- ivand67, on 07/09/2009, -0/+36Please... This could still be 2 years away. Might not even make it to Firefox 3.6 or whatever version number or name they decide to give it. Most likely it will come in the version after that, Firefox 4. I'm surprised Mozilla took this long. It's kinda disappointing to see Google come through with this feature while Firefox users have to wait. Chrome is nice, but I need more features.
- WhiskeyLemur, on 07/09/2009, -1/+26Just goes to show you: competition is a good, good thing.
- abbathdoom, on 07/09/2009, -3/+20If Firefox is a RAM hog then its probably because of the junky extensions you have installed.
- LenzM, on 07/09/2009, -1/+17It can make things faster if you, like me, open more than one tab at once. Each tab will load in a separate process.
- Jektal, on 07/09/2009, -0/+15Ogg Theora is not an "ancient" codec. The issue is just that handheld devices (read: iPhones) don't have hardware acceleration for it. At this point Apple is the only company strongly opposing Ogg in favor of H.264, because they've already paid the licensing fees for H.264 and have hardware acceleration for it on their devices. Google is supporting both formats but suggesting H.264 to the rest, while Mozilla and Opera firmly support Ogg.
Ogg is the future, unless someone manages to dredge up a copyright claim on it.
In which case, I think we should lynch the greedy bastard for destroying the promise of Ogg and sending us back to the hell hole of Flash video. - BedPost, on 07/09/2009, -1/+16Guys - HTML5 dropped Ogg. As of right now, its up in the air.
- Trax91, on 07/09/2009, -3/+18That and Windows 7 tabs intergration. Safari is already doing it, why can't Firefox be the same? I was disappointed when 3.5 didn't bring this.
- esc27, on 07/09/2009, -3/+17Firefox playing catchup to IE... What sort of bizarro world is this?
- Giever, on 07/09/2009, -0/+13Only 400GB, huh?
- TEMM, on 07/09/2009, -2/+15I think beating IE to tabbed browsing by 5 years gives them a little latitude... just a little though.
- LenzM, on 07/09/2009, -0/+12I can't believe I'm the first to say this, but I hope it works in Linux. I wouldn't worry except that they said it wouldn't work in OS X.
- gasoline, on 07/09/2009, -1/+13It's already pretty conservative compared to other browsers:
http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory - RyanJones, on 07/09/2009, -0/+11Windows 7 was made public to late in the development cycle for it to be added. It will be in 3.6.
- Chewie67, on 07/09/2009, -1/+11I'd almost say that Firefox should just give in and use WebKit at this point. Microsoft too.
Why re-invent the wheel? With all four companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft and Mozilla) contributing to the improvements of WebKit, imagine where we could be? Full CSS 1, 2 and 3 support?
Win, win, win.
Let's face it, no one makes money on their browser. Why invest so much money competing?
Let the UI, bookmark manager and password manager be the difference between the four. Keep the rendering engine consistent. - thealsir, on 07/09/2009, -2/+12Yeah, this is one feature I've been waiting for in FF. IE8 and Chrome already have it.
- inactive, on 07/09/2009, -0/+9Except the mobile ones.
- manacit2, on 07/09/2009, -0/+8@sonofabiscuit: No.
Why bother with FLAC, on any iPod/Zune/Creative I guarantee the DAC isn't good enough to allow you to distinguish between V0 and FLAC, it would be completely pointless to put FLAC on there. Not to mention, sure I could put FLAC on my Zune (assuming it could play it), or I could put 5x more music in the form of V0 on, and it would sound exactly the same and use less battery per song (less to read from the hard drive).
Not to mention that the FLAC discussion doesn't even belong on here. - Chewie67, on 07/09/2009, -6/+14HTML 5 and the "open" architecture for video SHOULD take care of that.
Unfortunately, it's not off to a good start. The Ogg format proposed is ancient, and none of the modern media giants want to use it. Just this week the W3C said they were dropping their recommendation.
So, we need to find another license-free format to champion the "open" movement. - MrSpontaneous, on 07/09/2009, -0/+8What they have right now doesn't work on OS X, but they understand that in order to make it into Firefox they have to support the big 3 OS's...
- cloudberries, on 07/09/2009, -1/+9I would have thought multi-process browsing would be exactly what's needed to diminish any memory leak effect, since any leak would be occurring for only a single tab, which will be resolved when that tab is closed.
And don't say "lulz" please, it sounds idiotic. - inactive, on 07/09/2009, -0/+7IE already has that ? maybe in IE8! IE 8 seems to be smoother and faster ...
- roxgod666, on 07/09/2009, -1/+7Opera is like the Linux of browsers. It comes up with all the new features, and the 2 powerhouse browsers take them and the praise that follows.
- dn11, on 07/09/2009, -2/+8there's also the question of whether Gecko continues to look obsolete in comparison to Webkit - Firefox has a lot of challenges to stay competitive at this point. Hopefully they can maintain or regain and edge by not having too much pride, and by not getting bogged down in making decisions based on politics
- dragossh, on 07/09/2009, -0/+6They were still behind Opera by several years with tabbed browsing.
- JigoroKano, on 07/09/2009, -0/+6Might be a plugin or corrupted profile. I'm finding it very stable. Not one crash yet.
- Jektal, on 07/09/2009, -2/+8Chrome had it first, and is Open-Source. So even if IE8 was more of an inspirational force, Chrome's development is actively assisting the Firefox developers.
Which is why Open-Source is such a friggin good idea. - novalux, on 07/09/2009, -1/+7@Dalrek, I'm pretty sure it took Google longer than 6 months to develop Chrome.
- Baryn, on 07/09/2009, -4/+9in 2018
- WhiskeyLemur, on 07/09/2009, -0/+5I have no idea what the frak you and the OP are trying to do with your browsers, but I haven't had a "crash" since I started using FF, period, It slows down if you leave too many tabs open for too long, but that's not the same thing as a crash.
- TEMM, on 07/09/2009, -1/+6Technically if you want to pick at Firefox like that you should not be acting like IE has been doing the same thing as Firefox is moving to now since IE 4. IE4 did NOT have tabbed browsing, and REQUIRED you to launch a new instance of the application if you wanted to have more than one site open at a given time. In addition to that, I recall MANY a time (actually every time that I can remember) that IE would crash with multiple windows open and EVERY instance of the application would die due to its tight integration with windows explorer, hell I even remember times that it would take WINDOWS down with it when it crashed.
Now if we're going to talk about tabs, that's another story, and since Firefox (Mozilla to start) has been doing tabbed browsing for the past 8 years and IE for only the past 3 you could say the same thing about IE falling apart quickly. 5 years late to the party that EVERY other major web browser was invited to is pretty sad.
I would suggest doing some research before you try to blindly make accusations about things you don't really understand. - qaelith2112, on 07/09/2009, -1/+6Firefox hasn't had serious memory issues since 3.0 was released. The 2.0 leakfest seems to still be haunting these discussions. At the moment Firefox is actually the most frugal browser with respect to memory usage over time.
- shivng, on 07/09/2009, -1/+6Typo. I meant 400MB. Goddammit.
- qaelith2112, on 07/09/2009, -0/+4dn11: Extensions per se are not "the problem". Many tend to work as expected and introduce no performance, stability, or resource usage issues. The relevant point is that some extensions do introduce performance, stability. or resource usage issues, and unfortunately, these are the ones that lead to the discussion threads where 3 people say "FF works fine for me, no problems" and one guy says "it eats a lot of RAM, is slow, and crashes all the time", All of them may be using extensions, and while the other three are thrilled with what functionality they gain from theirs, the one guy is unfortunately using one of the problematic ones.
You can't make everyone happy. Build the features into the browser and someone is going to bitch about feature bloat and ask for a minimalistic browser. Make a minimalistic browser and someone is going to bitch about lack of features. Make it minimalistic and extensible and someone is going to bitch about having to use extensions to get what they want, while others will bitch about how "extensions can be buggy and kill the browser's performance". The latter is just a fact of life. For extensions to have any potential to do anything useful they inherently will be able to be written so as to eat RAM and CPU and be unstable.
Yes, people "defend" firefox because for the people who fall into the category of not wanting all of this stuff built into the browser but want it available to pick and choose as needed, and are willing to take a risk of some crappy extensions (maybe removing it when we find that one is crappy), this browser is exactly what we need. If you're looking for minimalism or a swiss army knife, go get another browser. That's why there are several, because no browser can possibly make everyone happy. - Junkyarddawg, on 07/09/2009, -0/+4I don't know what you guys are on. 3.0 was crash city for me, 3.5 has been stable so far, even when it was in beta. Plus it's faster, and I can configure the awfulbar.
- Mark1981, on 07/09/2009, -0/+4You could check against
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Problematic_extensions
It may be helpful in finding extensions which cause memory leaks, already uninstalled ietab (I'm a web designer), if a website doesn't support web standards then that should tell me all I need to know about the people behind it.
- too bad addons can't be enabled and disabled without a browser restart. - johnnysaucepn, on 07/09/2009, -6/+9Splitting tasks into process doesn't make things run faster. It only gives you a benefit when things are broken. When things are running fine, it just wastes memory and resources. It's a tradeoff.
- provosteng, on 07/09/2009, -0/+3Maybe the point it that it doesn't matter who had it first because they were developed in tandem.
- serif69, on 07/09/2009, -0/+3I have yet to come across a site with valid code that renders differently in IE8 than it does in either Firefox or WebKit. The only people I've heard complaints from are people who write terrible code designed to work with IE6.
- Kral, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3@JonLatane, H.264 is massively patented and cannot be used by Free Software projects without risking being sued into oblivion. That's why we push the Ogg family of codecs - they were designed to be patent-free and implementable by everyone.
If we want audio and video that everyone can view similar to the state of jpeg for images, we can't base that on a format not everyone can legally use. That's why the browser vendors are bundling support for the Ogg formats - they want the web to be for everyone. - radiodemon, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2I had firefox 3.5 causing me a lot of problems (the most annoying one being close button not working) until I disabled all the add-ins and enabled the ones I used one by one, I still have about 3 others disabled that may or may not be the source of the problem.
- renegadeafk, on 07/09/2009, -1/+3How has firefox been stagnant? 3.5 just came out with many improvements and a new js engine thats nearly as fast as chrome's.
- dragossh, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2@Dalrek
Google Chrome has been in development since 2006. - natemup, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2as soon as they add this feature, I'm uninstalling Chrome for good...
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Why does it matter whether HTML5 has dropped it? Firefox already includes OGG support for video tags in HTML5, and the Pirate Bay is already building a video channel to take advantage of that fact. And YouTube already has an HTML5 video tag demo up. There's still time for a Blu-ray vs. HDDVD-esque showdown between the codecs before HTML5 is released. This battle is far from dead.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is