What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing.
Save Cash This Holiday Season. view!
bing.com - Affordable gifts that look expensive--Bing(tm) helps you find gifts under $50.
199 Comments
- SummerofGeorge, on 05/10/2009, -6/+266it's about goddamned time
- ixicoolaixi, on 05/10/2009, -5/+14464 bit support? Oh... not yet? Cool. I'll just put my cone-shaped minority hat back on and wait over =======> here.
- IamNomad, on 05/10/2009, -1/+113does this mean that firefox will eat more or less of my resources ?
- headortails, on 05/10/2009, -26/+119IE8 is slow.
- borez, on 05/10/2009, -5/+89Thank gawd for that, nothing like having FF hang on an unresponsive script, which FTR happens a lot when I'm on this site?
- bratterscain, on 05/10/2009, -1/+71Likely a little more but more stable as a whole.
- deadbaby, on 05/10/2009, -18/+72Your browser needs 64 bit data structures? Why?
- smotpoker, on 05/10/2009, -4/+57To not add 32bit emulation overhead?
- tratten, on 05/10/2009, -1/+44More. There will be some overhead to have each tab in a separate process.
But it will utilize a multi-core system's resources more efficient.
Like said before, it's about time. - elmundio87, on 05/10/2009, -3/+41it's kind of pointless though, without flash support
- kenism, on 05/10/2009, -3/+38"Damn. Its about time." - Starcraft Marine
- vagarach, on 05/10/2009, -0/+35That's ALL Adobe's fault, the lazy bastards.
- greevar, on 05/10/2009, -2/+36And I'm Ron Burgundy?
- DewOfTheMountn, on 05/10/2009, -1/+35Ive always wanted firefox to use more memory than videogames and now my dream has come true!
- skshow289, on 05/10/2009, -1/+31700mb of Ram on one tab? I don't get anywhere near that much. Do you visit MySpace a lot or something? The most I've seen is 300mb of RAM and that was with several tabs open.
- artofwar420, on 05/10/2009, -4/+34You mean lagging?
- i4mt3hwin, on 05/10/2009, -2/+31Actually, on my system - Q9550, I've found that IE8 renders pages significantly faster then firefox. I still stay with firefox for addons, but yeah - ie8 is pretty fast.
- GoatMonkey2112, on 05/10/2009, -2/+31IE8 is slow, but it's at least an improvement over IE7 for when you have to use it. It's required for most of the intranet applications in my office unfortunately.
- DivisibleByZero, on 05/10/2009, -3/+31Great. Now it can peg all 4 of my CPUs up to 100% doing nothing but attempting to play a flash-based ad.
- fuhrysteve, on 05/10/2009, -1/+28"As for why the speculation regarding multiprocessor support arose, that is because of a recent project that the Mozilla has initiated."
"That being the first phase, there will be three other phases post this, which will deal with the interactions between process types."
These sentences sound like they were constructed by George Bush. - paulieslim, on 05/10/2009, -7/+34a browser to function without issues?? Tell that to my daily Flash Player updates/
- bipolarruledout, on 05/10/2009, -4/+27In fairness there is a 64bit version of IE. It's best to plan for the future rather than the past.
- Fixhotep, on 05/10/2009, -1/+24This isn't multiprocessor support. This will run your tabs as separate processes, making it more efficient.
- Aleman360, on 05/10/2009, -4/+27Despite it's multi-process design, Chrome still sometimes crashes completely for me when one tab fails.
- AshTR, on 05/10/2009, -6/+26http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download
Now shuddup! - Fixhotep, on 05/10/2009, -2/+22GOOD COMMENTER. WOULD READ COMMENT AGAIN. A++++++11+!+!
- mr5150, on 05/10/2009, -0/+19i use firefox for everything as i have become dependent on all those add ons but just the other day i downloaded Google Chrome and boy was i shocked at how much faster it is than FF3.
I hope FF can achieve the sort of browsing/rendering speed i experienced with Google Chrome once multiprocessor support is enabled.
Fingers Crossed - inactive, on 05/10/2009, -3/+20potsmoker, put down the bong for a few minutes and buy some damned RAM already. It's cheap.
- DarkShroud, on 05/10/2009, -0/+16No, it's an Adobe issue with Flash only being x86. MS has released a x64 version of IE as well.
- KaiUno, on 05/10/2009, -1/+16Has that ever happened to you? I don't recall Firefox EVER "hosing" the rest of my computer. That said, it has only ever crashed on me two or three times.
- inactive, on 05/10/2009, -1/+16they just post this ***** to appeal to the community. IE8 is a very fast and stable browser
- rnawky, on 05/10/2009, -1/+14Can I sit with you too?
- bipolarruledout, on 05/10/2009, -0/+13This has nothing to do with process seperation. You can't even execute a separate instance by default.
- shrudheuie, on 05/10/2009, -4/+16Nice. I hope they fix the memory footprint. I don't want a dozen 100MB instances of firefox. I only have 4 gigs of RAM!
- ukblacknight, on 05/10/2009, -0/+12The whole point in having larger RAM is that you can have more applications running efficiently at once. If the web browser is using 70% of the RAM and the OS using say 10%, that only leaves 20% for other things like your music player, chat client, other work related programs you may have open.
Applications should use RAM effectively, not eating the entire RAM just because it's free. - smotpoker, on 05/10/2009, -1/+12@tmcal & KMartSheriff
"32-bit emulation? Er, uh, what? 32-bit apps are run native on 64-bit x86 processors."
Not if the rest of your OS is 64bit, in which case you must have extra 32bit libs that only get loaded with your 32bit apps. This means you often end up loading extra libs with 32bit apps that do the same thing as their native 64bit counterparts and differ only in word-size.
x86-64 processors support 32bit hardware emulation (dunno if that is the proper term) but that requires a 32bit OS which means no 64 bit binaries will work on it so the only advantage the 64bit cpu provides is a bit more throughput. Otherwise you can run a 64bit OS which can fully utilize the processor but requires additional 32bit libs (ie extra overhead) to run 32bit apps.
Considering he couldn't use a 64bit app on a 32bit OS the last I checked, the more likely conclusion is he is concerned about the potential of running a 64bit app on a 64bit OS to avoid the additional 32bit overhead.
Admittedly my hardware knowledge is a bit lacking and a bit dated so I encourage anyone with accurate knowledge of the topic to correct me/explain if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that's how it works (at least on older amd64 if nothing else) - inactive, on 05/10/2009, -0/+9THIS IS BILLY MAYS HERE, SCREAMING ABOUT SCREAMING! YOU NEED MORE SCREAMING!
- inactive, on 05/10/2009, -2/+1132-bit emulation? Er, uh, what? 32-bit apps are run native on 64-bit x86 processors. You must be confused.
- Lassan, on 05/10/2009, -0/+9"IE8 did not pioneer this model. Chrome had it first."
Incorrect. IE8 beta was released before Chrome and it used process seperation. - inactive, on 05/10/2009, -6/+15IE8 is VERY fast. Do you have ***** computers or something? It renders pages must faster than firefox and is more stable. Firefox crashes all the time when enough windows are open. i can have 100 IE windows open and it won't matter. not only that, firefox has the worst memory management of probably any program i have ever seen. 300-400 megs for one open browser sometimes. what the ***** is that
- EntangledPhysx, on 05/10/2009, -0/+9I was thinking about this a day ago. Firefox freezes all the freakin time for me because one website freezes. GRRRRRR!!!!!!
- dagamer34, on 05/10/2009, -3/+11@okcomputer01
People who still complain about RAM usage in this day and age simply don't have enough. When 4GB is like $50, I think you can spring the dough if Firefox's memory usage is affecting you that much. - bratterscain, on 05/10/2009, -0/+8I hope you're not a developer. With your sentence structure, I'm sure you're not. Try folding and having 100% cpu being used on a quad or 8800gt full time and check your electricity bill. Apps using more resources than they really need to is what's wasteful. Although with memory, no more electricity is used the more it's used afaik, so I don't mind that. But I'd hope to get it back when the program exits.
- FutureGuy, on 05/10/2009, -2/+10IE8 seems much better on Win7 it very stable and seems to render a lot faster. Don't so much on XP, not sure why, may be cause I am running Win7 64 bit.
- inactive, on 05/10/2009, -0/+8Good, maybe this will prevent the inevitable "dragging ass" that it suffers after a time.
- XBSHX, on 05/10/2009, -0/+7It's actually "Hell. It's about time."
- Paulish, on 05/10/2009, -0/+7In my experience most of Firefox's instability comes from glitchy addons and not the browser itself. Firefox crashes for me every now and then, but when I disable addons, it NEVER crashes.
- BedPost, on 05/10/2009, -0/+7That's not really a statement at how fast IE8 is but rather how slow and bloated FF is - use Chrome, you'll poop yourself. Once Chrome gets extensions, goodbye FF, hello new best friend!
- esc27, on 05/10/2009, -0/+6For me, Firefox 3 (even beta 3.1/5) is extremely stable. I'm not sure the increased resource usage from multiple processes would have any significant benefit.
- DarkShroud, on 05/10/2009, -0/+6You really have no idea what you're talking about. IE released threaded tabs before Chrome and IE stopped auto running ActiveX controls in IE7. IE6 could be set to run that way as well. And if you want to get really technical on XP IE6 could be set to run each open windows as a separate process.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 204 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is