Firefox 9 Released, JavaScript Performance Greatly Improved 330
MrSeb writes "Firefox 9 is now available — but unlike its previous rapid release forebears where not a lot changed, a huge feature has landed with the new version: the JavaScript engine now has type inference enabled. This simple switch has resulted in a 20-30% JS execution speed increase (PDF), putting JaegerMonkey back in line with Chrome's V8 engine, and even pulling ahead in some cases. If you switched away from Firefox to IE or Chrome for improved JS performance, now is probably the time to give Firefox another shot."
Just because of speed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed.
Actually, I still use an older version of Firefox. The "MeTo ChromeAlike" interface of the newer versions annoys the hell out of me. It's still faster than any version of IE I can use with current rules by my employer. Never cared for the Opera or Chrome interfaces, and I don't trust Chrome for security...
So, maybe it isn't that I stopped using Firefox, so much as that I haven't bothered upgrading. Firefox 4+ versions have been kindof like Windows ME or Vista, IMO.
Re:Just because of speed? (Score:5, Interesting)
So you don't trust the security of a browser that's actively having its bugs fixed, but you're not upgrading the browser you have - a browser for which there must be known exploits?
Re:Just because of speed? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually 3.6 currently still gets security updates, but don't count on that remaining true for long.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually 3.6 currently still gets security updates, but don't count on that remaining true for long.
Possibly until April, then they're talking about a new LTS-style 'extended support release' supported in parallel with the crazy dev cycle of the main product as a sop to 'enterprise' users:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal [mozilla.org]
'Extended' seems to mean a year at best, though, and they won't exactly be encouraging widespread use ('The ESR will not be marketed through mozilla.com properties other than the Enterprise wiki page, staging servers, and/or blogs.').
Re: (Score:3)
People getting all bent over UIs is always funny to me. I could care less where the address bar or tabs are. Nearly all of my time is spent reading whatever is in the browser window, so why should I care about tab/address locations?
I find the same hilarity in people bitching and moaning about Unity. Again, nearly ALL of my time is spent in an application. I only interface with Unity to start the damn thing...
I realize that there are many other use cases and specific UI elements can cause issues for people e
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly all of my time is spent reading whatever is in the browser window, so why should I care about tab/address locations?
Because Chrome wastes way less space with all that shit. It has a really similar layout to how I used to always rearrange Firefox to try to make more space, except it has the bonus of getting rid of the menu too.
The only way they could improve on it would be to have an option to auto-hide the menu at the top. I just Googled and it looks like that is an "experimental" option in the about:flags page, but it's only in Chromium and the Windows version of Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see two extra lines of text on the Slashdot homepage when comparing Firefox to Chrome. Assuming FF3.x gives you the same "benefit" at the risk of eventually losing security updates and features, I just don't see it.
I'm not trying to get anyone to switch to anything... use what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I derive vast amusement from those all too common cases where people whinge and whine about other people expressing their opinions in a public forum.
Sometimes they even try and disguise their bitching and moaning as amusement. I find that even more hillarious!
Re:Just because of speed? (Score:5, Insightful)
This probably isn't worth a post, but I want to give Firefox props for the option of turning that interface off. I did so, and got back the clean and simple interface from Firefox 3.x.
I actually I tend to exclusively use programs that allow this, as Interfaces differing from the visual standard set by all your other programs is distracting.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know you could do that. I'll have to consider upgrading.
Re: (Score:2)
HOW? Please, for the love of all that is good and right, tell me. When did this option appear and where the hell are they hiding it?
Re: (Score:3)
Try installing Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4+ [mozilla.org] to solve all the nasty transparency effect issues of the default theme and returning the look (largely) to that of Firefox 3.
Re: (Score:3)
It has survived all updates.
I couldn't even tell you what the "MeTo ChromeAlike" interface looks like, as I've never seen it.
Peeps, if you don't like how FF looks, change it. It was one of the thing that drew us all to FF in the first place - the ability to change stuff we didn't like.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm staying with FireFox (3.6) solely for the extensions.
I have accepted the compromise that flexible configurable browser would be always losing in the performance department. And I'm fine with it.
All this rabid JS/etc performance is only needed on the handful of websites I actually do not use. Neither I see the live feed scrolling or sweeping or slide-out or fade-in thingies, a modern replacement of marquee [wikipedia.org] and blink [wikipedia.org] tags, as something I'm sorely missing.
Re: (Score:3)
It also helps to improve the performance of the interface.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I keep getting mocked for using 3.6.
Fact is, they keep patching the security - it's at 3.6.24 - it was like 3.6.11 when they first released 4.0
It's slow, no question - but ALL my addons work AND it's not ugly, it works precisely how I want from a user interface perspective.
I will change, no doubt - but it's unlikely I'll go to another version of FF.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm staying with FireFox (3.6) solely for the extensions.
I'm hearing that a lot, but the fact is that all the extensions I use (firebug, abp, it's all text, and some others) just run fine with the latest firefox too. What addon is it that does not work?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm staying with FireFox (3.6) solely for the extensions.
I'm hearing that a lot, but the fact is that all the extensions I use (firebug, abp, it's all text, and some others) just run fine with the latest firefox too. What addon is it that does not work?
Poor choice of words on my part. It is not that I stay with 3.6 for extensions - it is that I'm staying with FireFox (the browser) for extensions. Last time I was checking, most my extensions should work on the new versions. The last one missing was the "rein, das Monochrome" theme and even it was updated few months ago.
Re 3.6. I have some subtle customizations applied in the about:config which one can never be sure that new versions still provide. Neither I can't recall now all the customizations appli
Re: (Score:2)
and it becoming a memory pig and beach ball queen (Score:2)
368m for three tabs, really Firefox what gives. Let alone on both my Mac and W7 machines it has started to freeze on occasion to the point I actually have force quit it instead of waiting for it to wake up.
They are pulling a Netscape 4.xx lately and that isn't a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In contrast even though Google Chrome might actually leak more, you can usually just close the offending tab, and the memory is freed up. You can even reopen the tab without having to log in again. So if a page gradually leaks memory, you can close it once it gets to big and reopen it again. All without losin
Re: (Score:3)
Rapid release isn't the actual problem for extensions - most of them are OK whenever you manually edit them and expand their version-support range. Basically, it is just another example of "why version number checks are totally wrong". I hope they can improve it soon with feature-presence checking or something similar.
Re:Just because of speed? (Score:5, Insightful)
They do it already, and automatically bump the version numbers (sure, it could be done better). I've never had issues with incompatible extensions and the rapid releases, with 30+ extensions. I guess the complaints are coming from people who don't actually use Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even the rapid releases, but rather the insistance on incrementing the otherwise completely meaningless and arbitrary major version every release.
It seems more and more marketing people are getting involved with FOSS nowadays. I appreciate they want to help, but I wish they wouldn't, or atleast not get involved with the actual product.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Mozilla necessarily the best browser now? Considering the number of people switching, I guess not. But there are reasons I prefer Mozilla despite the issues others have raised. I like that Mozilla is independent of the pure profit motive. I don't trust Chrome for privacy as much as I do Mozilla. I also like to use Google for GMail, Search, Documents and maps. By using Mozilla, I hope that I can give Google good incentive to play fair to keep me as a user.
I like Sync. By supporting the third browser, I h
Re:Just because of speed? (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you switched away from Firefox to IE..." (Score:5, Funny)
With this new release versioning system... (Score:3, Insightful)
.... you don't even have a rough idea of how big the changes are , whether there will be compatability issues and so forth. I'm sure the coders have done a good job but whatever marketdroid imbecile thought that every new release must have a major version number markup should frankly be shot. And then forced to use IE 6 for the rest of his days.
Making version numbers more relevant (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's as bad as you make out. I get the impression that version numbers were to be depreceated and replaced with the terms Beta; Aurora and Nightly. Features would be mentioned as landing on Nightly/Aurora, appearing in users' browsers in so many weeks time. Releases themselves (every 6 weeks) aren't news in themselves. If Firefox developers communicate this clearly to reporters, then perhaps perceptions will change.
If users would still benefit from version numbers (e.g. for tech support), then I have a suggestion to make:
Next year, Firefox will be releasing version 12. On that version, there's the option of transitioning to a date-based system, with major versions following the year, and minor versions being incremented every 6 weeks. After version 11, the 1st release with this format would be 12.1; the 2nd release, 12.2; and so on. Here's how it looks like in practice:
* 10.0 January 31, 2012
* 11.0 March 13, 2012
* 12.1 April 24, 2012
* 12.2 June 5, 2012
* 12.3 July 17, 2012
* 12.4 August 28, 2012
* 12.5 October 9, 2012
* 12.6 November 20, 2012
* 13.1 January 1, 2013
Switching to a date-based system has the advantage that users will know what the current version is without having to report it, as the year corresponds to the version. Firefox in 2012 would be referred to as version 12. Reporters would focus on new and upcoming features in Firefox primarily, so that stories have a talking point and posters' comments are pertinent, primarily focused on features and improvements.
An example of an open source group who uses a similar format is Ubuntu (who base the version on the year, and the minor version on a 6 month schedule). Versions matter with this format; but there's still a sense of progression. We know what the version will be in 3 years time - even if we don't know what the features will be. Now try to imagine what Firefox's version would be with the new system, compared with the old one.
Consider that this is an issue that would involve a minor change; would benefit users and reporters (reducing confusion); and improve the quality of comments (on Firefox itself), then I think that Firefox developers will be pleasantly surprised with the results.
If they do want to focus more on development than on numbers, they would benefit by switching to a date system. I hope that some of the Firefox developers read this, as the value of changing merits the effort involved.
Re: (Score:3)
two digits for the year. What could ever go wrong with that scheme?
Can't we all just get along? (Score:2)
At home I use FireFox for most websites and Chrome with no desktop or start menu icon for other websites. Sure we can share a login and desktop and you can see the web history dear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome (and IE and, I think, Firefox) have "private browsing" modes. Quite handy for those "other websites", unless you need to persist data between sessions.
Re: (Score:2)
It really isn't this bad. It's just a habit I got into.
Re: (Score:2)
Beta? (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like its actually just a Beta for Firefox 9?
Re: (Score:2)
so it is being prepared for release, but it is not showing up on the Firefox site, nor when we check for update.
The original source actually says "Firefox 9 unofficially released, "
Re: (Score:2)
*nor when we check for update*
Apparently it wont be offered for update until after new year, to avoid having to pull some server admins from behind the Christmas dinner table.
Oh joy! (Score:2, Funny)
Almost time to play "plug-in roulette". Which ones will work, which ones not? Where the compatibility is, no one knows!
Still this is just a Beta, maybe I'm being overly pessimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
This plugin has been really useful to fix this problem: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/is-it-compatible/ [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't make it, though something like 99% of the stuff on AMO is compatible. The problem will still be third party plugins (better called "malware" IMHO)
Re: (Score:2)
You can turn off the compatibility check in any version of Firefox. I did it at FF7, and it's saved me ever since. I forget where in the advanced config it is, but a google search for "turn off firefox compatibility check" will get you where you need to be.
"firefox 9 released" No it isn't (Score:5, Informative)
Firefox > help > about> "firefox 8.0 checking for updates... firefox is up to date"
www.getfirefox.com
good news your firefox is up to date
tfa
Firefox Beta Release Notes
Re:"firefox 9 released" No it isn't (Score:5, Informative)
Parent is almost exactly right.
When you have the headline "Firefox 9 Released" it is implied that the release is official and current. You expect that if you try to update your software through the normal update process, it will work. So they are right to expect the update to work.
The fact is that Firefox is getting released today and yesterday was an unofficial release, and as of me trying at 8:25AM Eastern Time is not available through normal update channels (i.e. help > about). The linked Extremetech article [extremetech.com] was in fact titled Firefox 9 unofficially released and states:
The fact that the summary writer neglected the word "unofficial" or this very important detail that it is rolling out isn't the fault of anyone reading the article and speaks to the grand tradition of poor summary writing that Slashdot readers have grown to love/hate.
Disabling plugins (Score:3)
ECMA not a dynamically typed language or something (Score:2)
I thought inference was mandatory in a dynamically typed language.
Re: (Score:3)
No: in fact, very few runtime-typed languages support type inference. What happens instead is that the value gets tagged with a type. E.g., in Python, when I type "x = 3", the variable x has no type attached to it, but the value 3 has the type 'int' attached to it. When the system needs to know type information, it queries the value.
Type inference is a little bit of a hard thing to do in runtime-typed languages. Not impossible, but ... interestingly wacky. Basically, the runtime environment has to be a
chrome and FF (Score:2)
Once I found NotScripts, I recently switched to Chrome and found perceived speed decrease in loading. It might be due to a different order of loading visual elements (different from what I used to), so I pay attention to this.
Firefox (Score:2)
I've always ran Firefox and still do, but I have to say. My plugins stop working almost every time they update these days. It makes me use Firefox less and less.
The best thing about Firefox was that it viewed sites that other browsers didn't (not talking about IE here) and it's plugins. Firefox could do every thing. Now, each release it breaks everything. :/
So... (Score:3)
...can I just expect all the sites already bloated with slow, broken JavaScript to just increase said cruft by 20-30% to take advantage of this?
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox - Too little, too late?
Too little: Doesn't sound like it, given the writeup of this release.
Too late: An install of pretty much any software is one click away. No software is too late - a later version can fix the problems of earlier versions. Most users don't have any problems with memory usage, don't care about how the footprint compares with this or that version of chrome etc.
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Too late: An install of pretty much any software is one click away. No software is too late - a later version can fix the problems of earlier versions
That's only true if some other software didn't already fix their problems first. A significant number of users have already switched from Firefox, only being as good as Chrome isn't enough to get anyone to switch back.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Chrome has at least one deal-killer bug for me: under certain circumstances it works very poorly on google websites.
Knowing what I do about their technology, my guess is the problem happens when overzealous corporate firewalls block SPDY requests, but it could be something else --- I don't know the cause, but the effect is that anything that hits a google page, or anything that loads google ads or google analytics (i.e., most of the internet) hangs indefinitely in Chrome.
That has kept me from making Chrome
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:4, Informative)
Most people which install Chrome just install it because Google is a known brandname to them. And Google pretty much is the Internet to them, so they might as well install the Google sanctioned browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All the people I know installed Chrome for one entirely different reason: Speed.
Chrome is so much faster than Firefox and doesn't use nearly as many resources.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I meant normal every day endusers, no geeks.
Geeks only have geeks as friends ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
So did I.
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that Chrome is more responsive that Firefox. (Note that I didn't say "faster"...) But to say that it uses less resources is bollocks. Chrome consumes vastly more memory than Firefox and I have less than 10 tabs open. Go ahead, browse for a day and measure it; the total memory usage of Chrome tops Firefox by quite a bit. The UI responsiveness is the only reason why I use Chrome over Firefox.
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, then leave it open overnight. Firefox leaks like a sieve.
I never close firefox on my living room computer. It's been up for two weeks since I last did a reboot, and it's currently using up 256.6 mb of RAM. Doesn't seem like it's leaking.
I am seeing that it spawned 26 threads, which looks excessive. I assume it's a thread pool for when they actually need it, and that they're not really active right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you happen to use any plug-ins with it? The problem may be with a third party software and not Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome might feel snappier, but for some time Firefox uses less memory.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, know me: I have switched to Chrome because FF still hasn't implemented a minimal tabs-on-title interface on Linux. That wasn't relevant back when I had a 4:3 monitor, but with a little 16:9, every tiny row makes a difference. Plus I switch tabs a lot and everything sitting on the edge of the screen is simply easier to activate, especially since I like my mice fast. It's not a huge issue, but then again FF and Chromium aren't that different right now - they're both fast enough and use similar resources
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I love Tree Style Tabs. You get the tab bar on the left (or wherever else you like it), tabs structured hierarchically, collapsible trees and all that fancy stuff, including vertical screen estate.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually resisted moving to Chrome from FireFox and Maxthon (= IE), but it's my primary browser nowadays (I still use FF occasionally and sometimes even IE9). Good performance, few problems, minimal interface. FireFox actually has more branding on the UI than Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people *who*. Sorry; copy editor.
I disagree. I think where you're going with this is that most people just sort of install what's easiest or whatever has the ad campaign that speaks loudest to them, but in my admittedly anecdotal, personal experience I have found that even "casual" users are pretty savvy when it comes to web browsers. In my experience, people tend to gravitate towards browsers that emphasize aspects of web use that are most relevant to them, and not always functional aspects.
I know sev
Re: (Score:3)
Firefox - Too little, too late?
Too little: Doesn't sound like it, given the writeup of this release.
Too late: An install of pretty much any software is one click away. No software is too late - a later version can fix the problems of earlier versions. Most users don't have any problems with memory usage, don't care about how the footprint compares with this or that version of chrome etc.
But it breaks Firefox's major original selling point: extensions. After Firefox 5 the extensions were supposed to be auto-updating in theory.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't really get all these extension complaints. Not once since FF4 have I had an extension fail on update, that I'm aware.
More importantly, some of the extensions I use have absolutely no acceptable substitute in chrome (never mind other browsers), leaving me completely baffled as to why people change just because FF changes their version number at a different pace (though I agree that it is a silly and pointless move).
Re: (Score:3)
because FF changes their version number at a different pace (though I agree that it is a silly and pointless move).
The version number changes quicker because the releases happen quicker. That's not hard to understand.
Re: (Score:3)
Type Inference in 9.0 wasn't a security fix. Reducing memory usage by 30-50% in 7.0 wasn't either. (I'm sure the other releases had improvements other than security fixes, just nothing that interested me personally).
Re: (Score:2)
I just ran something I'm working on in Nightly. The first thing it does is to determine what it can about the client.
var comp; ... }
for( comp in window.navigator ) {
The code above should give values of comp for the keys in window.navigator, but comp remains undefined and the code raises an exception when window.navigator[comp] is examined in the loop. This would be the loop that should fail to execute if there are no values for comp.
I can't say anything about the release, I don't use windows so
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:4, Informative)
I don't use windows so it probably isn't available to me
I don't get what you mean here. Firefox is most certainly not a "Windows-only" product.
but Nightly is broken
It breaks often. That's why there's an Aurora and Beta in between before you even get to a release.
Re: (Score:3)
New releases usually are though.
Bollocks are they, check the FTP server ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/ [mozilla.org]. I've just downloaded the 64 bit version of Firefox 9.0 for Linux from there.
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Funny)
RockMelt [techcrunch.com] now. Especially RockMelt is an interesting browser - it completely abandons geeky stuff like NoScript or Adblock but instead caters to casual, normal people and how they use the internet. RockMelt has online Facebook friends directly on the site, along with recent news and updates from all social networks. It lets you easily add social bookmarks to sites like Reddit and Digg, along with sharing to Facebook and Twitter. Most people have been saying how wonderful it is compared to Firefox. It's an browser that actual people want.
I thought that sponsored "Ask Slashdot" was a bit much but now we have sponsored first posts?
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Funny)
And RockMeIt has much better astroturfing !
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
it completely abandons geeky stuff like NoScript or Adblock
Oh boy, now I can enjoy adverts featuring rotten teeth and modal popups that insist I "like" them on Facebook again!
Seriously, if I wanted to put up with this crap I'd go back to using IE.
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:4, Informative)
Yep. IE9 with the tracking protection / privacy filter lists from AdBlockPlus, and it works nearly as well as on Firefox (a little harder to configure, though still easy to turn on or off for a given site).
The fact that people are willing to put up with severely ad-laden sites always amazes me.
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are these "most people"? I heard about RockMelt a year or two ago. I think it was Windows only which wasn't a good start, especially given that I think it was based on Firefox. It's "interesting", but I thought it was long dead. Most sites where you'd want to share something already have share buttons for social networking sites.
Adblock isn't geeky. Nobody likes ads. Apart from you perhaps, since you work in marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, he responded to me a few times the other day. I'm still unsure whether this is actually his job, or he's just an idiot. The fact that he said he works in advertising probably does mean that at least some of it is part of his job.
Re:Firefox - Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
If he is in marketing don't discount the "just an idiot" angle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
RockMelt
I thought the sponsored posters would be marked as such on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Memory leaks? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the last 3 releases all had some improvements in the memory department (I think 8 had the most improvements) and it looks to me like, there is more to come.
Re:Memory leaks? (Score:5, Informative)
That's because of the memshrink project [mozilla.org] (earlier report on /. [slashdot.org]). You can read a weekly status report on Nicholas Nethercote's [mozilla.com] blog.
Another project that's recently started is called 'Snappy [mozilla.org]', which aims to increase the responsiveness of users' interactions with Firefox. There's a thread on Mozillazine tracking updates on Snappy [mozillazine.org].
Re:Memory leaks? (Score:4, Informative)
This particular behaviour at least is configurable: set image.mem.discardable to false. (Or, if you decide you prefer a trade-off, lengthen image.mem.min_discard_timeout_ms.)
Re: (Score:2)
It has a much smaller footprint now than before and does release back memory just not as fast as Chrome does.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you tried disabling 'smooth scrolling' (Options/Preferences -> Advanced -> General-tab -> Browsing: use smooth scrolling), I personally don't like it.
It is on by default, someone thinks it is a feature.
Re:Every time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is JS really that bad?
No JS is not that bad, it's just that sites are making more and more demands from it. Where once upon a time a site might have some simple functions and a few onclick handlers, now it's executing humoungous blocks of JS often tied to DOM calls. Look at apps like Emscripten for example or GWT which spew out a mass of JS code. The JS engine suddenly finds that the time it takes to parse, compile, garbage collect, execute and interact with the DOM suddenly makes a big deal of difference in performance when previously it might not have mattered so much.
The situation is bound to get even worse when tools appear which convert flash into HTML and HTML based animations with bloated JS runtimes of their own become increasingly common features on websites.
Re: (Score:2)
Client side presentation / GUI is the future. The trend is to build out data services and transaction handlers on the server but put the rest on the client. JavaScript templating merges the data with DOM markup. This should actually speed things up. Behaviors can be bound inline with the DOM rather than waiting for the browser to build the DOM tree from on page markup. I'm not talking Ajax, it can all be served up static, cached, synchronous with a REST URL that can be bookmarked.
The direction is because ma
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that JS is being used for purposes for which it was never intended. For robust, maintainable applications, you need a strongly-typed language. It seems to me that Java Applets would have eventually filled this space perfectly (a strongly-typed language capable of interacting with the DOM). U
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out that Javascript is expected to run faster than compiled assembly language and many people find the slowness to be an unbearable burden. So now Javascript is executed before it is downloaded to improve speed even more.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the Javascript performance that makes people switch to another browser, it's the sluggish user interface.
The user interface is written in JavaScript.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn programs wanting to use CPU time! Unforgivable!!
Re: (Score:2)
even the right click on a link to show the drop down menu takes several seconds
If that is anything but instantaneous, it's time to do a virus scan, wipe all noncritical add-ons and extensions, maybe even the profile, and start over.
Re: (Score:2)
I get similar performance after letting FF8 run too long, but my usage pattern is a poster child for the problems with memory and CPU bloat. I open lots of tabs, including Facebook and Gmail, and some heavy Javascript sites required by my job. I leave them open sometimes for days. My only plug-ins are noScript and the JRE. Under my usage pattern, FF often reaches a 400MB footprint.
Now add to that the fact that my home computer is a little MSI Wind U100. 1GB RAM, 1.6GHz Atom processor (2-stage pipeline)
Re: (Score:3)
It's about time, the performance of Firefox has suffered greatly the last few version. even the right click on a link to show the drop down menu takes several seconds on a 2 GB mac mini (2009 model). At the moment Chrome is the best choice performance wise, but I prefer Firefox.
dude, there is somehing seriously wrong with your pc.