Firefox aims for 10 percent of Web surfers

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Firefox aims for 10 percent of Web surfers
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

Posted by Crazy Serb on Nov-10-2004 05:18:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt
I don't think anyone can argue with more wanking?

you think?

Posted by The Highroller on Nov-10-2004 05:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt

Tribes * > Halo

WORD!

Posted by j_spot on Nov-10-2004 05:20:

ok, so I have 0.9.3, but there is no icon where it told me to go from 0.9 to 0.9.3. So i clicked that blank area and it tells me there are no updates, however in my help>about tab it says im still on 0.9.3.

if thats so, how come Im not getting an update?

Posted by Slag on Nov-10-2004 12:13:

ooh 1.0
I have to get me that sometime today.

Posted by Fir3start3r on Nov-10-2004 14:50:

quote:
Originally posted by dEsidEL

hey every little bit helps ..

For what?
Are you sending your computer to MARS where every little bit counts?

I'm with RJ on this one; splitting atoms because of a few Ks in a world of Gs is pointless...

Posted by Slag on Nov-10-2004 15:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Espresso
sorry malek but that's a silly comment.
opened 5 IE windows (all pointing to yahoo.com) total memory consumption:115,304 K
have 8 tabs opened in firefox pointing to 8 different sites with more pics, total memory :41,996 K
never thought about that, eh?

For those who think "just buy more ram"...
Those numbers aren't small. 115 megs vs 42 megs. Huge difference.
I try to keep my mem usage as low as possible (~80 megs) for a fresh bootup. I do this even though I have a gig of ram.
Also, why should I have to buy 'more' when I can use what I have more efficiently?

Posted by Fir3start3r on Nov-10-2004 16:33:

No one seems to be answering my question...

I understand there might be some technical satisfaction and bragging rights for having achieved low boot times and Mem usage but that thinking is so 10 years ago...

In this day and age, things are cheap, cheap, cheap.
Processors are way faster than any applications (minus gaming because gaming always pushes the boundries of the hardware spectrum) that are out there.
RAM is so much cheaper than it used to be and to complaining the cost of that? Just over $100 for 512Meg DDR is nothing to complain about...

Posted by Slag on Nov-10-2004 16:36:

Posted by loconet on Nov-10-2004 16:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
No one seems to be answering my question...

I understand there might be some technical satisfaction and bragging rights for having achieved low boot times and Mem usage but that thinking is so 10 years ago...

In this day and age, things are cheap, cheap, cheap.
Processors are way faster than any applications (minus gaming because gaming always pushes the boundries of the hardware spectrum) that are out there.
RAM is so much cheaper than it used to be and to complaining the cost of that? Just over $100 for 512Meg DDR is nothing to complain about...

Yah, it's arguable I guess. The normal users now a days, with a fast enough computer wouldn't notice the difference, so im not sure about the memory saving value for your average joe blow. But, do you think having 10+ windows of your brower, opened and minimized on your taskbar or even grouped by xp for that matter is more convenient than having them tabbed and organized for you in one window? Call me crazy but I personally prefer the latter.

Posted by Fir3start3r on Nov-10-2004 16:43:

quote:
Originally posted by loconet
Yah, it's arguable I guess. The normal users now a days, with a fast enough computer wouldn't notice the difference, so im not sure about the memory saving value for your average joe blow. But, do you think having 10+ windows of your brower, opened and minimized on your taskbar or even grouped by xp for that matter is more convenient than having them tabbed and organized for you in one window? Call me crazy but I personally prefer the latter.

Oh I totally agree with the tabbed browing...that option rawks!
That's why I use the MAXTHON browser.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the next ver. of IE implement this...

Posted by loconet on Nov-10-2004 16:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Oh I totally agree with the tabbed browing...that option rawks!
That's why I use the MAXTHON browser.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the next ver. of IE implement this...

yah, tabbed browsing is a good feature. I hear it is up there on the priority list for features on the next version of IE. so that should be good..

Posted by Durafei on Nov-10-2004 17:23:

quote:
Processors are way faster than any applications (minus gaming because gaming always pushes the boundries of the hardware spectrum) that are out there.

That kind of reasoning is the reason we need to upgrade our computers every couple of years. If only software developers were smarter, and tried to write software for current computers, rather than optimize for future versions - well, then we wouldn't be forced to upgrade(spend money) every few years.

Posted by Fir3start3r on Nov-10-2004 17:31:

Posted by Orko on Nov-10-2004 20:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
No one seems to be answering my question...

I understand there might be some technical satisfaction and bragging rights for having achieved low boot times and Mem usage but that thinking is so 10 years ago...

In this day and age, things are cheap, cheap, cheap.
Processors are way faster than any applications (minus gaming because gaming always pushes the boundries of the hardware spectrum) that are out there.
RAM is so much cheaper than it used to be and to complaining the cost of that? Just over $100 for 512Meg DDR is nothing to complain about...

sorry but not everybody can afford that extra $100? and then were does it stop? i have 512mb of ddr, and its great, iw ould like more, and ram is cheap, but i have no money, same with a lot of other people. school tuition is a little more important than 1gig of ram, compared to 512.

and plus what happens when you are running a game, and a few windows inthe background (which contain cheats, or guides) and you keep them all open? id rather use the browser which frees up more space.

efficency is key, dont become a whore to computer advertising..."its so cheap, youd be stupid not to"

tis a slippery slope you are treading

Posted by Orko on Nov-10-2004 20:14:

Posted by malek on Nov-10-2004 21:53:

Posted by malek on Nov-10-2004 21:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Orko
yeah this kind of reasoning really burns me. people forget that faster computers also means more power, which means a greater strain on our electrical systems, which means more polution....and it just goes on and on.

these so called improvments come at a cost, always at a cost.

and if people under estimate this point...take a look at power supplies for PCs, P4s now "require" 400W!!! thast an insane amount of power, leave one of those on all day, everday and you will notice a rise in your hydro bill...if you pay it

so with your reasoning, everyone by now should have an echo or smaller as a car...

matter of fact buddy, its not happening. And won't happen anytime soon.

Posted by Fir3start3r on Nov-10-2004 22:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Orko
sorry but not everybody can afford that extra $100? and then were does it stop? i have 512mb of ddr, and its great, iw ould like more, and ram is cheap, but i have no money, same with a lot of other people. school tuition is a little more important than 1gig of ram, compared to 512.

and plus what happens when you are running a game, and a few windows inthe background (which contain cheats, or guides) and you keep them all open? id rather use the browser which frees up more space.

efficency is key, dont become a whore to computer advertising..."its so cheap, youd be stupid not to"

tis a slippery slope you are treading

I agree with Malek.
I also have a 3-4 yr old computer at home that's running IE, Outlook and everything just fine (with WindowsXP) without even having to tweak.
Tweaking a new computer (< 2 yrs old) is really redundant unless (like Malek says) you're an overclocker or a gamer or something.

Having been a student I also understand that students go out to bars and/or drink, go out to eat and if they can afford that then my friend, it's not a cost problem, it's a budgeting priority problem...

Posted by St_Andrew on Nov-10-2004 22:37:

quote:
Originally posted by malek
The only ones who NEED the cpu power are the gfx designers, gamers and geeks (you gotta compile that kernel faster)!

well, a real geek would see that as a challange, "hmm, what cflags to use for compiling that kernel as fast as possible at this old computer" etc..

Posted by malek on Nov-10-2004 22:38:

in my 4 years of running W2K/XP, I haven't had a memory problem except when opening a 100 hi res picture for editing in Photoshop (thats pretty dumb i know).

Opening 10 windows of IE never caused any trouble, never had any memory leakage (theorically impossible under the Windows 5.x kernel).

Memory usage isn't an issue unless you have 256 megs and less

Posted by Durafei on Nov-10-2004 23:12:

quote:
Originally posted by malek
in my 4 years of running W2K/XP, I haven't had a memory problem except when opening a 100 hi res picture for editing in Photoshop (thats pretty dumb i know).

Opening 10 windows of IE never caused any trouble, never had any memory leakage (theorically impossible under the Windows 5.x kernel).

Memory usage isn't an issue unless you have 256 megs and less

Well, I just bought(1.5 months ago) a laptop with 256megs of ram, celeron.. and it's FUCKIN SLOW ! I hate it (the only reason I bought it cause it was cheap). But ever since I started using Firefox on it, it became noticeably faster.

quote:
Opening 10 windows of IE never caused any trouble, never had any memory leakage (theorically impossible under the Windows 5.x kernel).

Malek, are you sure you understand what Memory Leakage means? It means that software doesn't deallocate memory, which it allocated earlier. Pretty much all software suffers from that problems(some more than others).

Posted by dEsidEL on Nov-11-2004 00:48:

seems like Firefox 1.0 isn't compatible with the lastest version of BBCode .. gonna hav to wait for a new release on the extension ..

Posted by dEsidEL on Nov-11-2004 00:57:

hrmmmz...

quote:

New browser to challenge Microsoft

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 Posted: 11:29 AM EST (1629 GMT)

(CNN) -- Microsoft's dominance of the Web browser market faces a fresh challenge on Tuesday with the release of the final version of Mozilla's Firefox browser.

The Mozilla Foundation, a California-based non-profit organization dedicated to developing open source software, hopes Firefox 1.0 will attract millions of users away from Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

Last month more than eight million people downloaded the preview edition of the browser, contributing to its final development.

Like other open source software, such as the operating system Linux, Firefox's code is freely available for any programmer to examine and improve.

"We are delighted to be announcing this major milestone for the Mozilla Foundation and for the Firefox browser, which has been made possible thanks to the tireless effort of hundreds of community volunteers and developers around the world," said Mozilla president Mitchell Baker.

"Now millions more will be able to enjoy a better web experience."

Although development editions of Firefox have existed for several years, 1.0 is the first version intended for a full release.

Its developers claim it is more stable than previous editions and more secure than Explorer, which has become a popular target for hackers because of its near-ubiquitous presence on PCs.

Firefox features a pop-up ad blocker, online fraud protection and the ability to display several web pages in a single window, using "tabbed browsing."

"Open source projects have a much higher standard," Mozilla director of engineering Chris Hofmann told Reuters. "It's the engineers that actually build the software that label when it's done."

Mozilla has already made inroads into Explorer's share of the browser market. According to the Web usage tracker WebSideStory, Microsoft's share has slipped to 92.9 percent from 95.5 percent since June. In the same period Mozilla's share increased from 3.5 percent to six percent.

Explorer, which is packaged with Microsoft's Windows operating system, hasn't been seriously challenged since usurping Netscape, the browser instrumental in the development of the Internet, in the late 1990s.

Mozilla was set-up to complete a project set-up by Netscape, which stopped development last year, to make the code of its browser publicly available.

Explorer's critics argue that Microsoft stopped making developments once it had achieved market dominance. Microsoft says a new version with enhanced security features will be ready for the next edition of Windows, currently scheduled for release in 2006.

source:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/09/...efox/index.html

Posted by St_Andrew on Nov-11-2004 01:01:

Me loves the publicity firefox gets everywhere

Posted by DigiNut on Nov-11-2004 01:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Durafei
That kind of reasoning is the reason we need to upgrade our computers every couple of years. If only software developers were smarter, and tried to write software for current computers, rather than optimize for future versions - well, then we wouldn't be forced to upgrade(spend money) every few years.

Thank you!

From the perspective of an internal developer, I absolutely DESPISE sloppy, bloated code. The point is not whether or not your computer can "handle" it - the point is that it's totally unnecessary! Honestly, a web browser is not that complicated an application; In Delphi I think there's actually a drop-in component that you can stick in any app, free of royalties, which has almost all the functionality of Internet Explorer minus the useless crap like ActiveX and BHOs.

Memory DOES MATTER, and so does CPU time. If you worked in an IT department running a *nix network, you'd be laughed out of the office if you made comments like "who cares about memory". Honestly, these comments are almost always made by lazy Windows users who have next to no clue how their system actually functions beneath the pretty little GUI. Even if your computer has 10 gigabytes of memory, it's not just about the numbers! There are tons of other issues you have to worry about - to name just a few:
- Swapping (Windows especially likes to page *everything* into virtual memory even when there's plenty of free physical memory)
- Other system resources (IE likes to open 15 threads and 410 handles when it's IDLE - why? God only knows... then there's video memory, GDI resources, etc...)
- Fragmentation - the bigger the memory footprint, the more fragmented that memory is likely to get, which causes the program to run slowly and may cause OTHER programs to run slowly even after being shut down.

Again, from a developer's perspective, I am very much against needless optimizations that save memory or disk space at the cost of maintainability or major functionality. It's annoying to see programmers who crash the whole program trying to rewrite 2 instructions as 1 instruction. But there is NO reason for a program to take up 120 MB unless it's a high-end program like Photoshop or Reason. I have a program that opens several databases and up to 50 threads and never pushes past the 25 MB mark - even with all the debug information left in and several debug processes running! And I don't consider this brilliant programming or amazing optimization techniques - that's about what a modern program SHOULD take up. When I see a program like IE taking up 25% of my system's memory, I seriously have to wonder what the hell their programmers were thinking.

Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »