Firefox 8 Release Candidate Published for Download

Status
Not open for further replies.

charithrac

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2007
10
0
18,510
0
this is a joke, is this a race to get the highest version number or something? can they not stick to one version and improve it?
 

makaveli316

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2010
250
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]ashane[/nom]Firefox really is turning into a slow old age campaigner! Chrome is now SO much faster!ashanehttp://minikillersite.blogspot.com/[/citation]

I bet you can't even notice the speed difference in a real world performance, but you saw some benchmark with milliseconds of a difference and now you're saying that Chrome is "SO" much faster.
Please, make the internet a favor and smash your router for good.
 

nikorr

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]makaveli316[/nom]I bet you can't even notice the speed difference in a real world performance, but you saw some benchmark with milliseconds of a difference and now you're saying that Chrome is "SO" much faster.Please, make the internet a favor and smash your router for good.[/citation]
Exactly.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
Load time for Chrome is still a bit better...
I pretty much live off Firefox right now, coming off of Chrome... Chrome was too buggy with gmail and google docs. I think Google revamping their gmail page may help with that, so I may be going back to Chrome... (So ironic that Google Chrome caused such a problem with Google Mail and Google Docs... Its like Google never even bothered to test their own pages with their own browser...).

And at work: I use all browsers... From IE to Safari to Opera to FF to Chrome and sometimes beyond... Certain pages only work with certain browsers, period...
 

PhoneyVirus

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2008
90
0
18,630
0
That silent feature has caused grief to a few people I know. Maybe Firefox should stay away from it.

You are so right that's why Chrome got removed I'm NOT having services running on the system for noting plus Task Scheduler loaded ether for a stupid update I let you know when I ready to update. Keep this up and I'll just use IE as you can see is still the most used browser. http://www.netmarketshare.com/
 

JOSHSKORN

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
2,389
19
19,795
1
Firefox should go 64-bit and end its 32-bit browser. Most computers out there now might actually be 64-bit. I haven't looked, but are they still selling computers in stores with 32-bit OS's?
 

makaveli316

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2010
250
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Firefox should go 64-bit and end its 32-bit browser. Most computers out there now might actually be 64-bit. I haven't looked, but are they still selling computers in stores with 32-bit OS's?[/citation]

32bit is a dying breed.
 

vittau

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2010
221
0
18,690
1
I can tolerate the silent updates, as long as it doesn't install unwanted crap on my computer (like Google's GoogleUpdate.exe and such).
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Firefox should go 64-bit and end its 32-bit browser. Most computers out there now might actually be 64-bit. I haven't looked, but are they still selling computers in stores with 32-bit OS's?[/citation]

Absolutely true, except what would the benefit be? It wouldn't be any faster, and probably a little slower. Probably take a little more memory. Probably wouldn't benefit at all from seeing more than 3.5 gbs.

Tell me again what benefit there is for it go to 64-bit? I missed it the first time.
 
G

Guest

Guest
i can feel it. is 1/millions second faster than firefox 7. love it
 

livebriand

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
1,004
0
19,290
1
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Firefox should go 64-bit and end its 32-bit browser. Most computers out there now might actually be 64-bit. I haven't looked, but are they still selling computers in stores with 32-bit OS's?[/citation]
Sure, every machine you'll see in stores is 64-bit now, and anything made within the past 5 years can run a 64-bit OS, but many older machines (like in the Vista days) shipped with a 32-bit one. The main issue with a 64-bit browser is that Adobe Flash was, the last time I checked, 32-bit only (there was a 64-bit beta available though). It's only a matter of time though. And remember, with a web browser, you probably don't need more than 2GB of RAM just for that. But given that many browsers (ie, chrome, but not ff) put tabs in different processes, I think it helps to get around that 2GB limit.
 

Camikazi

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2008
1,405
1
19,315
5
[citation][nom]charithrac[/nom]this is a joke, is this a race to get the highest version number or something? can they not stick to one version and improve it?[/citation]
They were doing that and some people were saying they were being left behind (even though they weren't), so they decided to follow the guide that Google set with Chrome and give each tiny little update it's own version number, so now people say they are going too fast. They just can't win.
 

daneren2005

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2011
25
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]They were doing that and some people were saying they were being left behind (even though they weren't), so they decided to follow the guide that Google set with Chrome and give each tiny little update it's own version number, so now people say they are going too fast. They just can't win.[/citation]
People were complaining that they were being left behind in development, not in version numbers. You can do .1 increments for each of these new versions no problem. You would have same product just without reaching version 100 by the end of next year...
 

Vladislaus

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
1,290
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Firefox should go 64-bit and end its 32-bit browser. Most computers out there now might actually be 64-bit. I haven't looked, but are they still selling computers in stores with 32-bit OS's?[/citation]
Most netbooks ship with a 32 bit os.
 

danwat1234

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
1,392
0
19,310
9
Does Firefox 8 support using more than 1 core of a CPU? Doubt it. Pass...
Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for you but you have to support SMP..
Why should 3 of my 4 cores be idle while I'm waiting for 20 tabs to open up?
 

jackt

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2011
114
0
18,680
0
This fast releasing piss me off. Me that I used to always have the latest version, now its impossible or stressing...
 
64 bit is the only way for ff!
and where are the ff 7.0.1 upgrades?
make(force if necessary) the addon builders optimize their codes better. ff by itself is pretty fast and good but the addons bring down its speed really fast and start using more and more ram for only a few tabs.
imo ff is still barely 4.4.1 which they call ff 7.0.1. bring the old numbering back!

still using firefox.
 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860
31
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Most netbooks ship with a 32 bit os.[/citation]

[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]Does Firefox 8 support using more than 1 core of a CPU?[/citation]

Does Chrome? Does IE? Does Opera? Doubt it. That's what Intel Turbo Boost is for - if some program is only using one core, boost that one.

I think all the people who have issues with FF stability need to check their addons... I never had FF crash on me, Flash or not. Hang up - sure, lots of times... everything is possible on a 900 MHz netbook; Chrome is even worse there.

As for 64-bit... WTF? What is THAT gonna change?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS