Firefox 3.6, Namoroka, is noticeably faster
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Firefox 3.6, Namoroka, is noticeably faster
You always hear about how one browser is faster than the others, but 3.6 is quick. I hope they update the extensions fast.
I got the link at Fudzilla.
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15951/1/
I got the link at Fudzilla.
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15951/1/
-
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
- Location: TN, USA
Use Iron. It uses the chrome source code but excludes all the built in tracking by google. Plus it has an ad blocker - you need to find the .ini on their webise though.ascl wrote:I use chrome, and ad-block is the one thing I *really* miss (and no, javascript hacks to avoid ad's are not really the same thing).
-
- Posts: 1839
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:10 pm
- Location: Northern New Jersey
- Contact:
I'm also using the 3.7a1pre Minefield, Adblocker extention + a ton of others for what I like to do...I run it x86 in Mac OS X 10.4.11, but i also run x64 in Ubuntu 9.04 (haven't updated yet).
Compared to the original Firefox 3.5, Minefield is a monster. I see no compatibility issues with what I use, which is great, but I'm sure some people find some.
I also tweaked my about:config with so many different tutorials, i forget most of the mods, but they also change the way Minefield performs. at first i do notice lag, but that's because Minefield parks itself in the RAM, which at first bogs down my 1gb Powerbook, but once it's settled, it runs great.
Compared to the original Firefox 3.5, Minefield is a monster. I see no compatibility issues with what I use, which is great, but I'm sure some people find some.
I also tweaked my about:config with so many different tutorials, i forget most of the mods, but they also change the way Minefield performs. at first i do notice lag, but that's because Minefield parks itself in the RAM, which at first bogs down my 1gb Powerbook, but once it's settled, it runs great.
I've been back and forth between browsers and have settled on Firefox because of Adblock, which is the best implementation of this feature than any other browser. The one thing that I find completely stupid about FF (and every other browser apart from Opera) is that when I hit the back button, it reloads the page. It makes navigating around pages laborious and I don't understand why they do this, and why more people aren't annoyed by it. The amount of combined worldwide bandwidth wasted on this alone must be enormous. I've raised the point in a forum somewhere and was told that it's something to do with the object model and maintaining standards. Well, I couldn't care less. If I hit the back button on anything I want to see exactly what I was looking at, and I want to see it instantly, and I shouldn't be forced to pull more data off the net. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to at least make this a configuration option so that we've got a choice? If Opera can do it... </rant>
When I hit the back button in Firefox it behave just as it does in Internet Explorer. It might have to do with the OS you are using, try to change the value of the preference browser.backspace_action.
alley cat is saying that when he hits back, the browser navigates to the previous page and reloads it, which, depending on the complexity of the page and bandwidth used etc, can take some time. He (and I) would prefer it if it remembered the exact page and just re-displayed that.
I suspect it would add possibly a lot to memory usage... but memory is cheap! However, the bigger sticking point is probably section 14.9.2 of RFC 2616, in relation to 'no-store'
"If sent in a response, a cache MUST NOT store any part of either this
response or the request that elicited it. This directive applies to both
non-shared and shared caches."
Lastly, it seems some web developers depend on certain caching behaviours. Its a much discussed issue... and I doubt its going to change in FF.
I suspect it would add possibly a lot to memory usage... but memory is cheap! However, the bigger sticking point is probably section 14.9.2 of RFC 2616, in relation to 'no-store'
"If sent in a response, a cache MUST NOT store any part of either this
response or the request that elicited it. This directive applies to both
non-shared and shared caches."
Lastly, it seems some web developers depend on certain caching behaviours. Its a much discussed issue... and I doubt its going to change in FF.