Ninth Anniversary of Firefox 1.0 Release 153
Nine years ago today, Firefox 1.0 was released. Mozilla writes "Mozilla created Firefox to be an amazingly fun, safe, and fast Web browser that embodies the values of our mission to promote openness, innovation and opportunity online. In the nine years since we first launched Firefox, we have moved and shaped the Web into the most valuable public resource of our time."
The first release of the little project to write a lighter alternative to Seamonkey is a bit over a year older.
Re:Chrome Is Better (Score:4, Informative)
I would agree, but all of a sudden I'm having huge issues with Chrome :(
Tabs becoming unresponsive, mysterious downloads in the background stopping me from quitting, tabs taking ages to close etc etc.
No extensions, no java, no flash.
Re:Chrome Is Better (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Lost its way (Score:3, Informative)
If that was true, they wouldn't have rewritten their Javascript engine twice, been obsessing about hardware acceleration, wouldn't have bothered to make it the browser using the least amount of RAM after being the one that used the most two years ago, etc. They haven't even finished implementing HTML5 yet because they're so focused on performance, including threading the browser and efforts to improve their DOM engine's performance that won't pay off for at least another year at this rate.
In the face of those facts, I don't think it's necessary to point out how silly your argument sounds. Firefox has a lot of issues, so you really don't have to go out of your way to lie like that.
Re:It's a self-correcting problem. (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say waaaaaay beyond a slight edge thanks to the memshrink project.
https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/category/memshrink/ [mozilla.org]
Old measurements. Situation keeps improving. Latest 2 or 3 firefox versions use smart loading/unloading of large images on image heavy web pages, for example.
http://www.itworld.com/sites/default/files/figure3_browserfootprint.jpg [itworld.com]
Personally, on my chromebook, Chrome used 615MiB w/ 2 tabs open (crosh and a blank tab) while Firefox in Crouton used 385MiB with 18 tabs open, and that was after I had cycled through all the tabs to make sure they hadn't been unloaded.
Re:Chrome Is Better (Score:4, Informative)
Even YouTube could as well end the long-lasted HTML5 experiment [youtube.com] and just go full HTML5.
Google has some lies and secrets here.
Their defacto behavior, which I'll call a "claim" is that you must have flash to play video xyz even in the HTML5 mode. This happens with MOST popular videos because they are monetized (the secret there is that Google's advertisement modules aren't ready in HTML5 yet)
To debunk this, just load an iPad or iPhone and see if you're *ever* forced to suffer even half of the consecuences... when sir Steve Job decided to ignore Flash on mobile. The takeaway is that faking your UA string with a FF extension yields those nice mp4 files without fuss, and I don't recall seeing video ads in player with that variant. The annoying thing is you have to put up with the mobile navigation, AND as of about 9 months ago, clicking a playlist link to with a preordered list of long series of videos (videogame Let's plays) would link you to a standalone vid. When you have about 100 videos and need to continue from #86, it's a major pain to rely on searches and the unreliable sidebar randomly hinting episode #2 or #98 but not #87. I'm pretty sure there's some express secret reason youtube doesn't like you binging^W playing sequential videos.