If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Listvine.com)   Nine reasons not to upgrade to Firefox 2.0   (listvine.com) divider line 139
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

44343 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2006 at 11:55 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-10-29 02:16:09 PM
Ohhh yeah, I forgot possibly my favorite feature of Firefox 2.0: History->Recently Closed Tabs. Who hasn't closed something accidentally and then spent 10 minutes trying to find it again? Those days are now over.
 
2006-10-29 02:18:06 PM
I'm with the wait-and-see crowd. Let the dust settle. If this proves to be a stable and worthwhile upgrade, then I'll go for it.
 
2006-10-29 02:20:59 PM
img.photobucket.com
That's 1.5. Now I get the occasional brain fart where it won't accept text input or navigate back. Most of what I had to remove extensions-wise is stuff they put in 2.0. Not perfecto, but overall it works. and hasn't crashed si+++NO CARRIER
 
2006-10-29 02:25:31 PM
...never use an x.0 release. always wait for x.1 or x.2.

x.0 is latin for beta.
 
2006-10-29 02:27:21 PM
I use Thunderbird for my email; I don't have to leave FF open when I'm not using it. Computer stays on 24/7.
 
2006-10-29 02:46:26 PM
Did they ever fix the Z-order bug on XP? That one drives me nuts, basically if you click away from a FF window they all randomly re-arrange their z-order. But not when you switch between two FF windows. Its intermittant, but makes it a pain to switch between two apps and copy and paste date. You never know what order the windows will end up in.
 
2006-10-29 02:49:03 PM
Not being terrinly techy, I could not figure out why having two firefoxes open at the same time, alt-tabbing between information sites and a CMS for work, was killing me, when the only other thing I had open were an Excel sheet. Seems I discoved "memory leak" because closing it and retstarting it fixes the problem for a few hours.

So there's no way to fix that?
 
2006-10-29 02:49:59 PM
rhiannon
Well to be fair, Opera 9 does have an adblocker, except they call it "content blocker". They can't very well put out a browser with an "adblocker" as a feature.

Last I checked, content blocker doesn't support regular expressions. Probably the #1 thing keeping me on Firefox.
 
2006-10-29 02:50:10 PM
SanDiego The memory leak issue has to do with having quite a few tabs open (> 5) and leaving it running for several days. If I have 10 tabs open at work, eventually FF consumes over 850MB of RAM. I close all tabs (leaving just the main window) and the memory usage is unaffected. Only after restarting FF is it fixed.

Ideally it wouldn't cache (leak?) so much history and find an optimal balance that doesn't include hogging 90% system memory. Decent would be having a working setting for configuring the max size of the allocated memory. At the very least it would reclaim it by closing the originating tab.
 
2006-10-29 02:54:52 PM
Actually, I just tried opening a 30-40 of tabs and browsing around in each and closing them and don't see any memory leak issues with 2.0. This author of this article is a farking idiot.

Glad it's finally fixed (for me).
 
2006-10-29 03:20:15 PM
I hated 2.0 but I am confarked by the headline above it. I can't read 2 whole articles. DNRFTA, I expressed my dislike to Mozilla about Firefox 2.0. Farkie is buggy as shiat on it.
 
2006-10-29 03:27:11 PM
Mr Rusty Shackleford: Actually, I just tried opening a 30-40 of tabs and browsing around in each and closing them and don't see any memory leak issues with 2.0. This author of this article is a farking idiot.

In my experience, the (real) memory leak issues only arise when you have FF open for more than a couple of hours and do actual work. When you open and close tabs all day and then close all open tabs, and FF still consumes ~400+ MB of RAM, there's definitely something amiss.

A lot of the confusion about FF's memory usage comes from the fact, that few people understand XP's paging mechanism. Well, that, and FF's fast-forward cache. There are some real memory leaks though (which is something you'd expect given the codebase's size but it's still annoying).
 
2006-10-29 03:33:52 PM
"Windows isn't done untill foxfire won't run"
 
2006-10-29 03:48:16 PM
Meh.

Nothing meaningful in the list. Still I'll keep using seamonkey on my windows machine for surfing, IE for updating IE and konqueror/dillo on the other computers.
 
2006-10-29 03:53:07 PM
Problem with this list (and this was also discussed on slashdot) is that about 90% of the reasons NOT to switch are either extremely superficial or have been brought over from 1.5* according to the listmaker.

Your extensions and themes not working? Good god, why would anyone want to switch without those!? Oh wait, Mozilla isn't the one to blame here, it's the extension authors who didn't put a better, higher maxver value into their extension. And that can easily be fixed either by another plugin that overrides the maxver problem or changing the version yourself. And the 'bulky default theme' thing completely is taken out of the picture as there are theme authors who were bringing their theme up to date only hours after 2.0 was released (I've got my Noia 2.0 eXtreme again, had it within like 1 to 2 days of launch).

The crashes as well seem to be from only specific users with certain types of machines. I for one haven't had any problems with 2.0 ever since switching, no freezes, no crashes, no memory leaks, nothing.


Basically you're left with like one or two reasons that aren't even remotely near a dealbreaker that are against switching. Normal users won't give a rat's *** about RSS feeds, as well as CSS problems.
 
2006-10-29 04:01:45 PM
www.opera.com

Opera welcomes you with open arms.

Best browser of this gen for sure.
 
2006-10-29 04:07:03 PM
I miss Magpie, and my porn collection will not grow until I get a replacement.
Ctr-Shift-S to save all images on all tabs to a directory timestamped? Yay!
 
2006-10-29 04:09:39 PM
Mr Rusty Shackleford

Ideally it wouldn't cache (leak?) so much history and find an optimal balance that doesn't include hogging 90% system memory. Decent would be having a working setting for configuring the max size of the allocated memory.

I think more software should be adjustable like this. I develop and maintain a long-running numerical program that basically runs faster the more stuff it can cache. If it allocates enough cache to use all of physical memory, though, the computer becomes unusable if you start any other demanding applications. We let our users set the cache size on startup depending on whether they'll be using the computer in the meantime or want to run more than one instance at the same time.

That would be extremely useful for Firefox. IIRC many people who complained of "memory leaks" in Firefox 1.x could fix their problem by turning off a supposed performance optimization. It helped me a little bit, but didn't solve my main issue of Firefox becoming unusable if I open and close a large number of *cough* media-intensive pages containing many *ahem* thumbnail links.

It would be nice if Firefox had a button that broke down its memory usage into categories. Then you would know what "features" to turn off, AND you could tell the difference between a true leak and a misbehaving feature.
 
2006-10-29 05:03:05 PM
Either version of Firefox totally pwns Internet Explorer, though. I use Firefox on both my PC and Mac.
 
2006-10-29 05:35:09 PM
And _that's_the_way_the_cookie_crumbles:
People who never reboot their computers and instead use 'suspend to disc/RAM' features tend to leave their browsers open as well.

Besides, why not? Most of my computers have uptimes measured in months, not days or hours.


It just seems like a waste of electricity to keep several computers on, simultaneously, for months at a time.

For every 1 person whose computer is doing something in the middle of the night (backing up the HD, file sharing, rendering, seti@home, etc) there are 10 people who keep their computers on 24/7 just so they don't have to wait for it to boot up in the morning or when they come home from work.

I mean, if it makes sense for someone to have his computer(s) on 24/7, go nuts. But otherwise, it just seems kind of silly to piss away all that electricity...
 
2006-10-29 05:45:32 PM
Quail64
Best browser of this gen for sure.

Yeah Opera's nice...if you like paying good money for a closed source web browser when there are comparable free and open alternatives.
 
2006-10-29 05:57:13 PM
Opera 9 is free unless you want to pony up for "premium" support. Like how to import your bookmarks.
If you can't figure stuff like that out yourself, there are forums to help you.
 
2006-10-29 06:10:46 PM
5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox


oh can i repeat that some more?

5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox

wow, sounds alot like something the elitiest snobs were biatching at IE about. farking chumps.

/IE 4 life
//if you know how to secure it, its WAY faster than shiatfox.
 
2006-10-29 06:12:10 PM
Confoundit:

Linux users are horible with the old/multiple computers. That old 486 needs to show it's value by doing everything a $30.00 router can do while wasting more power than it's worth. Like operating systems? Fine. It's 2006 and we have these things called virtual machines and hypervisers. Try One.
 
2006-10-29 06:13:11 PM
rhiannon
Opera 9 is free unless you want to pony up for "premium" support. Like how to import your bookmarks.

They stopped charging for a non-crippleware version? Huh, did not know that. I may have to check it out.

i love pez
if you know how to secure it

Yeah, do tell, how do you secure IE against unpatched vulnerabilities without the source code? Inquiring minds want to know!
 
2006-10-29 06:24:16 PM
files.myopera.com

Free since 20 September 2005.
 
2006-10-29 06:25:30 PM
Andyc1444
Linux users are horible with the old/multiple computers. That old 486 needs to show it's value by doing everything a $30.00 router can do while wasting more power than it's worth.

Show me a $30 "router" that can do everything a linux firewall box can do.

An older PC (pentium class) with no monitor is going to cost about as much to leave on as a 100 watt light bulb. That cheapo Linksys cable modem/firewall will use about 1/6th the power, but offers far fewer features and arguably is less secure. For a difference of a couple of dollars a month, and much less in the way of upfront costs, not exactly a huge deal.
 
2006-10-29 06:51:08 PM
How about a reason not to upgrade to IE7?

It won't install!

After clicking SETUP.EXE, it made me download and run the Malicious Software Removal Tool, then asked to download some patches (WTF?), then proceeded to sit there for over 20 min doing who-knows-what (the window said "Installing IE7 core"). I finally just killed the process and happily upgraded Firefox to 2.0 (which installed in about 10 seconds as usual).

IE7 can kiss my buttocks.
 
2006-10-29 08:56:27 PM
I've been having a very good experience with Firefox 2, but I do have one major and one minor complaint:

1. Because of the memory leak and just because of how Windows generally pages data, I was using the SessionSaver extension with Firefox 1.5 to simply be able to close Firefox when I'm not using it, then open it again when I do need it; restoring all of the tabs and pages I had open when I last closed it.

Now, because of the session restore feature built in to Firefox 2, the SessionSaver extension is no longer supported, and the session restore function built in only restores your session after Firefox crashes, not just when it is closed. I really wish they included the option to ALWAYS restore your previous session, not just when you have a crash. Now I have to use a third program to kill the firefox process intentionally just to get the functionality I had with FIrefox 1.5. Annoying as hell.

2. I don't like the individual buttons to close each tab. I preferred having the single close tab button always in the same place so I didn't have to go on a cursor hunt each time. This, of course, is my minor complaint, because I have no doubt there's a solution to it that I just haven't found yet.

All that being said, I find the performance of FF2 to be noticeably superior to FF 1.5 on all of my machines, and that was a pleasant surprise. Me likey, but me wants some refinements.

Oh, and not fixing that "memory leak" problem (there is some debate as to whether it is a true "leak" or not) - BAD Mozilla. Very, very BAD Mozilla. Fix it, dammit!

But all biatching aside, it's still by far my favorite browser.
 
2006-10-29 09:32:34 PM
Memory leak? I don't recall ever seeing that on Mac OS X, Linux, or FreeBSD. Is this a windows thing?
 
2006-10-29 10:33:42 PM
COMALite J:

Still not ACID2-compliant. For Windows, only Opera 9 is.


ACID2 is not a standards com pliancy test. For regular users it doesn't mean jack squat.
 
2006-10-29 11:27:47 PM
mrexcess: And of course there's MS's penchant for security flaws that don't get fixed in reasonable time frames.

Secunia, the most highly regarded security organization on the Internet, reports that Firefox has serious or worse vulnerabilities that were reported as far back as 2004 that remain unpatched to this very day. Yes, IE is worse, but don't feel like you're safe with FF. It only takes one unpatched vulnerability for your computer to get pwn3d.

Opera is the safest media-rich browser (the absolute safest is Lynx, but it can't even display pictures [except for ASCII art] - it runs strictly in ANSI/VT-100 text console mode [like a DOS prompt]) available for any major OS.


Skyfrog, ACID2 means plenty to regular users. Not directly, but behind the scenes, just as the regular TV watcher may not know nor care what NTSC is, but its existence and the absolute compliance of every TV set sold for the USA market with the NTSC standards sure makes a difference for the end user, in being able to watch any TV show from any broadcast or cable or satellite network (except for HDTV, but that's a new standard in the same sense as NTSC).

What if TV networks had to have different feeds for each major brand and even model of TV, because they each interpreted NTSC standards differently? A picture that would look fine on a Magnavox might show up in a vertical hold-like roll (that Vertical Hold could not remove) on, say, a Sony, if they differed in the line count, or in the Hz time of a field or the kHz time of a scan line, etc. The colors would look off if they differed on the 3.588MHz sine wave color burst cycle. And so on, and so on, and so on.

That's basically what we have with CSS right now. CSS2 websites can be very cool and easy to maintain, since the presentation is separate from the content. You can have a total computer idiot type in content using a word processor-like editor, with no ability to alter the styles. The editor could boldface and italicize and denote headings and such, but not alter fonts or colors or what the headings look like or the spacing or alignment of them, etc. - all of that would be in the CSS.

The problem is, thanks mainly to Microsoft and IE, we cannot rely on CSS. Gecko 1.8 (FF 1.x and 2.0, among others) has imperfect CSS2 support, but it's way better than what IE6 and even IE7 have.

IE7 has actually made matters far worse. IE7 now supports many CSS selectors that IE6 ignored, but clever CSS designers had used those to create whole separate sections of CSS that IE would ignore but that Gecko, Presto (Opera), and other web renderers would render. Now, IE7 will try to render the more advanced CSS stuff that CSS designers had hidden from IE6, and IE7 often messes up badly because, other than the selectors, IE7 has only slightly improved its CSS handling over IE6. Result: broken web pages galore.

Right now, the cost of professional web design is far more expensive than it needs to be, simply because web designers (CSS artists) need to be geeks as well, and rarely do you find geekhood and artistry in the same human being. The supply of that particular mutant sub-species is very small and the demand is very high, so they command a high price. It's often cheaper to handle a team consisting of a CSS artist and a CSS geek, with the geek knowing all about what CSS stuff will and won't work in which versions of which browsers, and how exactly they will mess up, and how to work around them. Often, the geek must know JavaScript as well to do client-side coding, even going so far as to switch between entire CSS files based on browser or renderer make and version. And, of course, these have to be updated whenever a new version of any major browser comes out, adding to maintenance costs.

If every major and popular browser were ACID2 compliant, we would have a guaranteed minimum level of compliance with the CSS2 spec. We would have a considerable amount of the CSS2 spec available to us that would render absolutely the same no matter what the user was using (with the exception of fonts that the website specifies that the user's system lacks). Any competent CSS artist could then do the job of CSS design alone, without needing the help of a geek who knows all the quirks and bugs and just plain missing CSS support in the various browsers, and how to handle them.

I personally try to put various CSS eye candy into sites that I design, so that users of either Trident (IE) or Gecko (and I've recently started supporting WebKit [Safari] in this way, and hope to learn enough to support Presto and KHTML [Konquerer, older Safari] as well) will see things that take advantage of the specific capabilities of their browsers, without messing up the site design or layout. For instance, I do my tabbed menus solely with CSS, without needing any JavaScript, bitmapped images, etc. In Gecko, WebKit, and any browser that supports the proper CSS3 features, but not in Trident nor Presto (at present), the tabs have rounded corners. Trident and Presto users see square corners, but the tabs still work the same in other respects, including highlighting when the mouse hovers over them. Trident has some really cool proprietary features [notably the CSS filter: command], and when I can use them in a way that doesn't mess up the design or layout but simply provides some cool eye candy for IE users, I do that as well.
 
2006-10-29 11:51:29 PM
COMALite J

The problem, to me, is that ACID2 is still a relatively arbitrary compliance test. Why? Because, hehehe, there's no standard for the standards!

Take you example of NTSC - this is a standard mandated by the FCC; it isn't optional. That makes it a standard. In the WWW world (heh), there's no centralization of authority in this way.

I happen to think that the Web Standards Project has come up with the most reasonable standards test out there with ACID2, but it's not perfect, by any means. And just because they decide that a certain way of doing something should be the standard way of doing something doesn't mean that the folks out there who think there are better ways to do things aren't occasionally correct.

As I'm sure you know: web development is very, very messy, and that's due, in large part, because there's no central authority to create and enforce standards. And this is why I think the ACID2 test is less relevant than a lot of people contend or wish it were. It's not the standard simply because it SAYS it's the standard; it has to have weight behind it.

I just wish it had that weight.
 
2006-10-30 05:49:56 AM
COMALite J
Secunia, the most highly regarded security organization on the Internet, reports that Firefox has serious or worse vulnerabilities that were reported as far back as 2004 that remain unpatched to this very day.

Uhm, no. Secunia lists 3 open vulnerabilities out of a total of 36 for the Firefox 1.x tree, none of which are malicious code execution vulnerabilities that would allow someone to "pwn" your computer. The two of them listed as "critical" vulnerabilities are spoofing/phishing attacks, for crying out loud. The other is an extremely hard to exploit vuln requiring JavaScript be enabled on the offending website that would potentially allow a malicious page to cause you to upload a file to them from your HD, provided you typed out the characters of the filename.

Meanwhile, IE7, which hasn't even been out for two months (not counting the betas), shares exactly the same number of unpatched vulnerabilities, except all three are critical (though again none are remote code execution vulns). IE 6, which would be a more fair comparison to Firefox 1.x, lists 18 unpatched vulnerabilities out of a total of 106, two of which can be used to remotely execute malicious code.

There's just no comparison.
 
2006-10-30 10:12:47 AM
I think you just made a comparison.
 
2006-10-30 11:12:02 AM
NutsISay: Rats, foiled again. :(
 
2006-10-30 04:05:09 PM
I hate the ongoing firefox-greenlight-lovefest-flamebait as much as the next guy, but this is the lamest, vaguest article I've seen yet.

I won't bother refuting everything that's horribly wrong with this list.

you're welcome to have any opinion you want and use whatever browser you want, but this article just plain distorts facts.

Also, biatching about the new default theme is silly.
 
2006-10-30 09:17:40 PM
skinink
To start the "Find" function, hit the Slash key on the keyboard "/" then start typing away. Once a word is highlighted hit "F3" to find the next word, or Shift + F3 to find the previous word. A lot quicker it seems to me.

Seems to me that pressing two keys within milliseconds of each other (ctrl-F) takes the same amount of time as pressing one key (slash). Not only that, but I have to look at the keyboard to find exactly where the slash key is, while my fingers know where ctrl-F is by themselves.

Other than that, I like it. (Because I didn't already know it).
 
2006-11-03 04:32:43 PM
mrexcess: Uhm, no. Secunia lists 3 open vulnerabilities out of a total of 36 for the Firefox 1.x tree, none of which are malicious code execution vulnerabilities that would allow someone to "pwn" your computer. The two of them listed as "critical" vulnerabilities are spoofing/phishing attacks, for crying out loud. The other is an extremely hard to exploit vuln requiring JavaScript be enabled on the offending website that would potentially allow a malicious page to cause you to upload a file to them from your HD, provided you typed out the characters of the filename.

Count again. There is a difference between "vulnerabilities" and "advisories." Whenever Secunia issues a report of new vulnerabilities, that report itself is one - count them: one advisory, no matter how many vulnerabilities it talks about.
 
Displayed 39 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report