[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tstarn06 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am with you on Adblock plus. I could not browse without it.

Yep, that's my biggest complaint with Chrome.

 

[dan1son]

FF 3.5 is primarily faster than 3.0 in regards to javascript performance. You're not going to notice that on normal sites... but gmail, google maps, etc. you will.

The company I work for develops a very complex javascript app and it's significantly faster in 3.5 than 3.0. Chrome is fine, but it only runs on Windows currently (I'm a Linux and Mac user for the most part).

For the record... I've seen firefox 3.0 take up 5 gigs of ram on occasion. It'll just start eating it for no known reason at times. 400 megs isn't much if you're loading heavy javascript and flash sites.

 

[mark2410]

am i the only one that is more fussed about multithreading and processor useage? like wasnt it suppsed to start each tab in a new process????


ram it can eat all it likes i dont give a crap, ram is stupidly dirt cheap so unless its eating a few gig then i dont care.

 

[dan1son]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark2410 /img/forum/go_quote.gif am i the only one that is more fussed about multithreading and processor useage? like wasnt it suppsed to start each tab in a new process????.

That's what Chrome does. I never thought Mozilla said 3.5 would do that.

 

[3DCadman]

FF 3.5 keeps crashing on me. Like 5x an hour. FF3.0 almost never did this.

 

[insyte]

Still using firefox 3. Will wait till it goes onto the ubuntu repositories

 

[MCC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark2410 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ram it can eat all it likes i dont give a crap, ram is stupidly dirt cheap so unless its eating a few gig then i dont care.

My thoughts exactly. Even my laptop has 4 gigs and that only set me back about $50 (for low latency DDR3 no less).

 

[Patu]

If your biggest concern with 3.5 is memory consumption then please try it out. It doesn't use any more memory than 3.0 did.

For those of you who miss the best plugin for FF3.0, Tab Mix Plus, try out Tab Mix Lite CE. It works with 3.5. I hope Tab Mix Plus updates quickly because it offers more options than Tab Mix Lite CE.

 

[Al4x]

fraseyboy

i have 11 tabs open atm, and 25 addons [about 20 of them id really miss] and mines using 150mb

i have no problems with it but i cant see any obvious advantages

 

[ka-boom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bojamijams /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you ever make a post where you don't act like a know-it-all and insult people who have needs other then yours?

Get over yourself.

Who have I insulted? If you have a problem with me by all means bring it to me in a PM. God knows I can't say anything even semi-grumpy in this forum without getting banned. If it ain't sugar-coated, happy go lucky "lulz" than the ban hammer swings my way.

Last time I got banned it was over a comment about Woodstock. Yeah, woodstock.

I'll gladly explain this to anyone who is interested.
[/thread derail]

 

[ljokerl]

Getting back on topic,

Tried FF 3.5 last night. Not much difference in speed or resource consumption from 3.0x on my netbook.

Opera 10 beta is my main browser though. I have a lot of computers and got tired of re-installing all my vital add-ons on FF every time I do a fresh OS install (I know FF has an addon that memorizes your installed add-ons, but thats an extra file to keep around). Switched to opera a long time ago because it has some features out-of-the-box that ff needs addons for and others lack completely - bookmark sync, advanced tabbed browsing, a popup blocker, etc.

 

[Arlekiin]

I have given up and gone with Google Chrome lightweight and very good compared to Firefox.

 

[logwed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patu /img/forum/go_quote.gif The amount of add-ons you can use with Firefox destroys Chrome IMO. Customizability is the biggest lack of Chrome. For example, I can't customize tabs the way I'd like in Chrome. Also undo close tab didn't work as smoothly as with Firefox. Otherwise it's very fast and nice. I installed 3.5 on tuesday and it works very well. It's clearly faster than 3.0 and works faster otherwise also. I don't really care about memory consumption when I have 4gb of DDRAM. IIRC Chrome uses pretty much the same amount of memory.

See, but people like Chrome because it doesn't use BS toolbars that waste space and power, and ultimately, are relatively unusable.

 

[tenzip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by logwed /img/forum/go_quote.gif See, but people like Chrome because it doesn't use BS toolbars that waste space and power, and ultimately, are relatively unusable.

They're easy to customize. I have one tool/address bar and the tabs. That's it.

I used Chrome for a while, but it was just set up so strangely (strange to me, that is), that I gave up. The flexibility of FF FTW.

 

[gunny]

I updated to 3.5 on Vista64 and XP. What I don't get is why is adblock compatible with 3.5 on Vista but not on XP? When I updated to 3.5 on XP it said it had to disable adblock because it wasn't compatible but no such error message on Vista.