Firefox 3.5...
Jul 2, 2009 at 10:03 PM Post #32 of 90
Ironically, the only plug-ins that don't work with FF 3.5 that I use were Google ones. Seems to be faster here, but then I had FF open for 9 days, so it was probably due to be restarted.
 
Jul 2, 2009 at 11:45 PM Post #33 of 90
Loads faster for me. The imbedded video is nice. Agree the google plugins need updated. Now that google has Chrome, wonder how much the financial considerations will flow to Firefox.
 
Jul 3, 2009 at 1:00 AM Post #35 of 90
I never used Firefox 3.0 on my Macbook because its implementation of multi-touch scrolling felt choppy and archaic compared to that of Safari. Yesterday I was pleased to find that Firefox 3.5 almost perfectly emulated the two-finger scrolling action of Apple's own browser; needless to say, I switched almost immediately. In addition to its support of the three finger back and forward motion, I also appreciate that Firefox allows you to move three fingers up and down in lieu of page up and page down buttons.

EDIT: It used 130.4mb of ram with 25 tabs open.
 
Jul 3, 2009 at 2:34 AM Post #37 of 90
Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Still FF 3 here. I hate when my add ons break from an upgrade!


Yah, I've downloaded, but not installed yet. I may give it a try in a little bit, see how it goes.
 
Jul 3, 2009 at 2:49 AM Post #39 of 90
Google Chrome all the way for me. Even Firefox feels slow once you get used to Chrome. Google's programmers are really ridiculous.
 
Jul 3, 2009 at 7:02 AM Post #40 of 90
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.


BS toolbars? There's navigation toolbar which have back, fwd etc. buttons, address field and google search field. Then there's bookmarks bar which has all my most used bookmarks. Then there's tab bar. It'd be difficult for me to browse with any of them missing. Of course you can disable all of them if you want to. Again, customizability of FF is the key.

I admit that Chrome is faster when browsing new pages but like 95% of webpages I visit, I have visited before. They open pretty much as quickly as in Chrome. Speed definitely isn't all in all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunny /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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.


For me, ABP works as fine as it always has. I have 3.5 and XP.
 
Jul 3, 2009 at 7:45 AM Post #41 of 90
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_McBob /img/forum/go_quote.gif
3.5 deleted all my bookmarks when I installed it. I had to restore from a backup. Anyone else have this problem?


Nope, mine upgraded fine. Didn't lose anything.
 
Jul 3, 2009 at 8:12 AM Post #42 of 90
Thread hijack: Anyone use Omniweb?
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jul 3, 2009 at 8:17 AM Post #43 of 90
My firefox has not been working for a while. I get an error saying that I have to end the process or restart... I've tried mostly everything except deleting the parent.lock which I can't find. So I use Chrome and I am also very happy with it. The only thing I miss is download helper.
 
Jul 3, 2009 at 5:24 PM Post #44 of 90
Quote:

Originally Posted by tenzip /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Are you sure it's actually working on Vista?


My mistake, sorry. I didn't realize I had adblock+ on Vista and just adblock on XP. Adblock+ is compatible with 3.5 but not the old adblock. Installed + version on XP so all is ok now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top