Is Firefox Doomed?

wolfman3k5 said:
Nightly builds != STABLE RELEASE!!!

I know about 64bit FireFox, and it seems fast because now it can allocate more than 2GB Ram for its own process, which is a 32bit limitation. The other problems remain do, like a single tab being able to crash all the other ones, or if someone is deviant enough, they can create a PHP script that when loaded can snoop on the other threads.

Let me dumb it down one more time: a process is a bundle of threads which share the same memory pool (same buffer). Each tab is run o a thread. Threads don't have their own memory, and a single process is ran on a single core (because of the memory sharing for the threads). So FireFox can take advantage of HyperThreading, but not of multiple cores.

Mozilla will fix this performance limitation and security, the question is how long we'll have to wait. In the meantime, for the rest of us who aren't so ignorant there are at least a couple of alternatives like Opera or Chrome.
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious.......
 
KayossZero said:
For those of you who don't like FF's performance in one way or another I suggest you try these custom builds.

http://www.palemoon.org/

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/

I use Palemoon's x64 edition my self and absolutely love it compared to stock FF.
Click to expand...

Thanks allot, I'll give them a try:) Though I'm puzzled why Mozilla won't release 64 bit build themselves. I understand that the rest of the add-on world needs to catch up, but that would give developers an added incentive.
 
GotNoRice said:
The thing that is significant about firefox is that the people who use it aren't generally just using whatever browser that came on their computer (IE) or some browser they got tricked into installing (Chrome) but a browser that they actually decided to seek out because they wanted a better alternative.
Click to expand...

Both ASUS laptops in the house both came with chrome installed, same with a samsung. The reason they didn't come with firefox is a) they weren't paid to and b) recent versions aren't known for stability, and it's pretty ugly.

Users can be told to update to the newest version of whatever browser and it will be fine, tell them to update to the latest firefox and they'd first have to work out which one, then pick between the turds. With the problem of memory leaks, no laptop maker is going to install firefox on a system, which suddenly seems all slow and sluggish after a few days. Telling the users to upgrade every few days is just going to be annoying and make your product seem broken.
 
When the search contract runs out, they will jsut get money from MS for a Bing partnership
 
Unless you're in the corporate/enterprise world, do you really care if they call it Firefox 4.3343 or Firefox 14?

As long as you're on the latest (which everyone should be anyway). The one thing I could see improve is the automatic update on startup, like chrome does it, versus having to restart, but it's a minor point.

In terms of add-on compatibility, mozilla now uses regression test suites to validate all the add-ons against new version's apis, so that should improve the situation. Or, if you're like me, just install addon compatability reporter to disable the checks as 99% of the time the addon will work on the new version.

In the end, just use whatever browser makes your life easier, and be happy that there are so many good choices now, because your anecdotal evidence about crashes and whatnot is not enough to make me switch, just like mine is not enough to make you to switch.
 
Aaron11 said:
When the search contract runs out, they will jsut get money from MS for a Bing partnership
Click to expand...

Firefox is a revenue stream for google - probably making them a good deal of money. Why would they not renew it?

Mozilla does not compete against their core search/ad business, whereas MS/Bing does.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
Actually FIreFox does run like shit on anything. It's because FireFox runs everything on a simple process. I know a thing or two about processes and threads because I also manage a couple of web servers. Could you imagine the mess if I would serve every apache request in the same process? I mean it would crash with a couple of people requesting a page from the server. Same goes for FireFox: it crashes or runs slow because it's a single process application, so all the JavaScript, Flash and everything else shares the same memory pool. Add to that the fact that FireFox comes only in 32bit flavor, and in year 2011 you got a piece of shit web browser that's about as good as IE 9. Sorry, but both Opera and Chrome are better browser.

Mozilla Foundation either brings the Gekko Engine up to date and makes it multi-process (and I keep hoping for a 64bit build), or they had a great run for the past 10 years and now they can call it a day, because in the shape that FireFox is today it won't make it another 2 years.
Click to expand...
Lol tell that to the developers of nginx and lighttpd that can handle more requests per second then Apache ever will.

Managing multiple processes is also a pita, and there isn't a speed boost with it in chrome it is more of a security sandbox.

Though I do use Chrome but please don't talk about processes and threads when you probably don't even know the difference between.
 
Banko said:
Lol tell that to the developers of nginx and lighttpd that can handle more requests per second then Apache ever will.

Managing multiple processes is also a pita, and there isn't a speed boost with it in chrome it is more of a security sandbox.

Though I do use Chrome but please don't talk about processes and threads when you probably don't even know the difference between.
Click to expand...

You could explain the difference between the two here so that everyone (including me) can understand, instead of ridiculing me. Please proceed, I'm all ears (or eyes).
 
Banko said:
Lol tell that to the developers of nginx and lighttpd that can handle more requests per second then Apache ever will.

Managing multiple processes is also a pita, and there isn't a speed boost with it in chrome it is more of a security sandbox.

Though I do use Chrome but please don't talk about processes and threads when you probably don't even know the difference between.
Click to expand...

Also, while Nginx is really nice, it's performance advantage is kind of negated when used in conjunction with PHP-FPM, because PHP-FPM will eat up allot of memory as it makes a copy of itself in the server's RAM every time there is a request. I guess that most seasoned veterans will stick with Apache MPM Worker (and soon many will adopt MPM Event) and mod_fcgid for PHP. Plus, it's easier to work with multiple versions of PHP when used with mod_fcgid. If you have any other questions, please let me know.
 
FF's performance/stability issues, I've experienced them. They can be traced to addons/extensions/plugins, disable the right ones, and it runs perfect. The blame is not on FF.

Whenever I've reported a bug in FF, I've gotten a response by a real live human being. It might take weeks, or even over a month. But the same can't be said of IE or chrome.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
I would love to read your explanation about how single process and multi-threading works within FireFox. Please explain, I'm all ears (or eyes).
Click to expand...

Try google.. tons of explanations on how threading works. FF doesn't make use of multiple cores (at least very well) not because it uses threads, but because of how it divides up work between threads.
 
cwj717 said:
Try google.. tons of explanations on how threading works. FF doesn't make use of multiple cores (at least very well) not because it uses threads, but because of how it divides up work between threads.
Click to expand...

So you don't have a fucking clue, but you come here and mock me just because you want the attention. I didn't ask you to send me to google, I've asked you to explain. From the explanation that you provided it seems that you don't have a fucking clue indeed.
 
Using Opera since version 3.0. Stopped at v. 10.something. Never will switch to 11+. Same with FF. Using it only for 1 or 2 websites where O isn't good enough. But will never move past 3.6.

Problem with modern browsers is that all of them are too cumbersome in many respects or require to change you work behavior. And everybody try to copy Chrome FFS. If something looks like Chrome it is D.E.A.D. to me. Personally my fav. browser ever was Opera 6.05. Used it for many, many years until it was seriously outdated. I was also big fan of HotJava Browser from Sun but development never moved past version 3.0.

Every player in the browser market is at fault. People should scream to them: "if it ain't broken don't fix it!"

Why they think that people need more anti-social networking integration, nice skins, wigets, more bling-bling and whatever else you can think of. Some of us are old school users. We want full control over stuff we have on hard drives. We are perfectly happy with simple interface without tons of useless garbage buried somewhere in the code. Somehow I really wonder: was word 'ergonomics' removed from dictionaries all around the world? I wonder if Devs know what it means. One thing is certain, every new browser is worse than previous for quite some time (including my beloved Opera). Sad state of affairs, very sad. Mass production of new versions with more and more useless stuff and less and less usefulness. They see only $$$ now.
 
I replaced FF with Pale Moon and Chrome (never actually used official Chrome) with SRWare Iron (they removed all the privacy grabs (doesn't even auto update) and has an ad blocker) awhile ago. A few cons, but overall much better in my experience.
 
wolfman3k5 said:
So you don't have a fucking clue, but you come here and mock me just because you want the attention. I didn't ask you to send me to google, I've asked you to explain.
Click to expand...

Give me a break, you posted that a process can only use a single core, even if it is uses more than one thread. That just isn't true... a simple google search could have told you that. For example, if you google thread. One of the first links that comes up is from wikipedia, in the wikipedia article it says:

"Multithreading as a widespread programming and execution model allows multiple threads to exist within the context of a single process. These threads share the process' resources but are able to execute independently. The threaded programming model provides developers with a useful abstraction of concurrent execution. However, perhaps the most interesting application of the technology is when it is applied to a single process to enable parallel execution on a multiprocessor system.

This advantage of a multithreaded program allows it to operate faster on computer systems that have multiple CPUs, CPUs with multiple cores, or across a cluster of machines"

wolfman3k5 said:
From the explanation that you provided it seems that you don't have a fucking clue indeed.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with my explanation?
 
I have bunch of bookmarks. I make constant use of the pinable Bookmarks sidebar I can keep open on Firefox (or IE for that matter). I will never switch to Chrome, until such time Chrome offers exactly that. If FF dies I'll switch over to IE.

I have tried the drop down Bookmarks on Chrome, and I hate it.
 
i really like firefox 9.0 beta its as fast as chrome and you can use all their nice ext
 
Sticking with Firefox. I've become addicted to certain add-ons so I won't be moving over to anything else unless equivalents exist.

I WILL agree that Firefox has become bloated though. The thing I absolutely hate about it is how much memory the damn thing uses (though, really, Chrome isn't much better). So far the only browser I've seen thats actually miserly in its memory use is Opera.
 
Zenon said:
Pretty much the same thoughts I have. Chrome will never support the things needed for complete ad blocking, because Google lives off advertising.

So, it's FF for me.
Click to expand...

^This^ Plus every once in awhile google still tries to get my cell phone number to verify my gmail account. Me thinks, why is that:D,
 
wolfman3k5 said:
Let me dumb it down one more time: a process is a bundle of threads which share the same memory pool (same buffer). Each tab is run o a thread. Threads don't have their own memory, and a single process is ran on a single core (because of the memory sharing for the threads). So FireFox can take advantage of HyperThreading, but not of multiple cores.
Click to expand...

wolfman3k5 said:
So you don't have a fucking clue, but you come here and mock me just because you want the attention. I didn't ask you to send me to google, I've asked you to explain. From the explanation that you provided it seems that you don't have a fucking clue indeed.
Click to expand...

Ugh. You don't have a single clue how operating systems work. Can you please stfu before you make an even bigger fool of yourself? Read up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_(computing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-process_communication

A process is confined to its own virtual memory space, and has to go through operating system APIs to talk to other processes. Processes have many threads within them, and they absolutely can run on multiple cores at once. Threads certainly do have their own memory stack, which is allocated from that process' available memory pool.

The "each tab in a process" deal is a pros/cons thing that has to be weighed. Putting each tab in its own process, if the IPC is architected properly, can make for a smoother user experience by unloading processes that stop responding so it doesn't crash the whole browser. It can also make for a worse experience on systems with a low amount of memory; if the resource a user wants is in another process that has been paged to the disk, it then has to be loaded back into memory before it is accessible.
 
Chrome itself is fine but it still doesn't have the addons I need. If it did I would've switched to chrome a long time ago.
 
I always wondered how the companies behind these free browsers make their money (well at least the ones that aren't completely community programmed).

Now we know. Deals for the default search engine :p
 
total0 said:
Chrome itself is fine but it still doesn't have the addons I need. If it did I would've switched to chrome a long time ago.
Click to expand...

What addons are you missing?

I found when I first tried it, this was true, but lately I have been surprised by all the plugins that are available for Chrome, and for the last year or so it has been my browser of choice.

One thing that a few friends of mine are still missing (what they claim is the only thing keeping them from switching) is Chrome's inability to do multiple rows of tabs.
 
I like FF. Been using it for a while, no real plans to change. I am sticking with 3.6 though. I have not "upgraded" and have no plans on doing so.
 
Jarod888 said:
I like FF. Been using it for a while, no real plans to change. I am sticking with 3.6 though. I have not "upgraded" and have no plans on doing so.
Click to expand...

What do you plan on doing after April 24th when patch support ends?
 
Jarod888 said:
I like FF. Been using it for a while, no real plans to change. I am sticking with 3.6 though. I have not "upgraded" and have no plans on doing so.
Click to expand...
I suggest you try out Palemoon before FF forces you to upgrade. If you don't like the new interface, then just DL a different theme.
 
MacLeod said:
I wouldnt think so. It does look like Chrome is going to last as the 2nd most used browser but I doubt seriously if Firefox will fold. I mean, Opera is still hanging around and theyve got a minuscule share of the market. Plus, Firefox has a boat load of loyal users that wont be changing simply because of a search engine change. I say theyll be alright.
Click to expand...
I l love Opera !
 
Sticking with FF & all the addons (abp ftw). Will change I if I have to, but so far neither chrome nor Opera give me anything up want our need. Don't consider IE as an option I like to use, just one I need to from time to time.

Though I do use Opera on my phone.
 
I used to love firefox.. but it's getting ridiculous. They release a new version every month (wtf?) and it still crashes all the time. Going to dump it pretty soon
 
Have to say I don't understand people's complaints of FF. Back when I had only 256mb memory, maybe I as worried about it, but the point is moot now with crap systems coming out of the box with 2-3 gigs of memory to start. I also have never had FF crash or even act weird.
 
**** Chrome and **** Google and **** everything they stand for. While I'm at it, **** Sony, nVidia and Thermaltake too.

And **** Christmas.

Happy Festivus!
 
Zarathustra[H];1038103109 said:
What addons are you missing?
Click to expand...
I set Chrome as my default browser for a week last month, and the equivalent add-ons or built-in features for blocking ads or scripts are nowhere as fully fledged and usable as Addblocker Plus and NoScript for Firefox. I had to revert back to Firefox because web browsing became more like watching ads on TV on some sites, even with these add-ons. OK, I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get the drill.

wolfman3k5 said:
Actually FIreFox does run like shit on anything. It's because FireFox runs everything on a simple process. I know a thing or two about processes and threads because I also manage a couple of web servers. ... Same goes for FireFox: it crashes or runs slow because it's a single process application, so all the JavaScript, Flash and everything else shares the same memory pool. Add to that the fact that FireFox comes only in 32bit flavor, and in year 2011 you got a piece of shit web browser that's about as good as IE 9. Sorry, but both Opera and Chrome are better browser.
Click to expand...
Firefox runs perfectly fine on my computers, fast with no crash, and I even disabled the sandboxing plugin-container.exe. It actually has a lower memory footprint than Chrome, a much lower one in version 8, maybe precisely because of the shared memory. Although I'm pretty sure sharing memory is not an attribute of monoprocess apps: If you ever counted, there are more Chrome threads than tabs, so some of these threads must be dedicated to shared browsing features, like the HTML engine and so forth.
Yesterday I actually changed my default browser to Firefox 64-bit (Chrome has no working 64-bit browser), it's a version 11 beta and pretty stable from all I could throw at it (Flash, simultaneous downloads, normal browsing). It even got all my add-ons, so it looks like they're already available in 64-bit or Mozilla implemented some sort of 32-64-bit interface because they're working fine. I wish I could say the same for Windows Media Player, for which even Microsoft add-ons such as Live Messenger are not available in 64-bit flavor.

Now I'm sure Firefox also has its weak points, but for my usage, it's really the best browsing experience I have encountered so far. And I have also tried Safari and Opera, still use them from time to time to debug some web pages.

wolfman3k5 said:
Nightly builds != STABLE RELEASE!!!
I know about 64bit FireFox, and it seems fast
Click to expand...
It was proven faster, by at least 10% according to some article from a few months ago.

wolfman3k5 said:
a single process is ran on a single core (because of the memory sharing for the threads). So FireFox can take advantage of HyperThreading, but not of multiple cores.
Click to expand...
That couldn't be farther from the truth, Intel Hyperthreading was introduced around the same time as the Core Duo processors, precisely so that monoprocess apps could easily be optimized on multiple cores. It didn't lead to a flurry of apps switching to multiprocess architecture. You can see Firefox spike on several cores in Windows Task Manager. It would have been called Dualthreading if it was based on the number of possible threads per core. I hope we'll get more than 2 threads per core on desktop CPUs eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top