The Shrine

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:59 pm**

I'm in Beta 6. There are a few cool new things like App tabs, tab grouping (Panoramic), and a few other things I've only read about.

Anyone else using or know of any cool features?

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:02 pm**

I kinda gave up on Firefox after it became bloated and Chrome got more dependable. I'm still willing to check it out though.

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:07 pm**

I love chrome. So featureless, just fast ass tabbed browsing. Its all i need.

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:29 pm**

Yeah, I dropped Firefox about 6 months ago on my laptop and then a few weeks ago when I rebuilt my PC. I like it, but I like Chrome better.

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:23 pm**

That's why I still use Firefox. Plus, it has better plugins, more support, more widely used, more customization, etc. Oh, and according to the study, it's the LEAST bloated browser.

Based on my experience with web programming, Opera is always the one that has some sort of thing wrong with the display of HTML pages or JavaScript. For example, it works in IE, works in Firefox, but doesn't work in Opera. IE is a non-standard piece of shit, Firefox follows standards to the letter, so if it works in both, it's fucking Opera's fault. Seen that many times, enough to make me think twice about using it. (On a PC, anyway. I still like using it on my phone. Rather use that than some damn Blackberry-only browser.)

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:20 pm**

Both my laptop and desktop are very new, so I don't care if the browser uses more memory as long as I can't tell that it's using more memory (i.e slowing down itself or slowing down other applications). I just like the simplicity, style, and UI of Chrome. I found that I hardly used 95% of the add-ons for Firefox anyway.

PostPosted:**Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:27 am**

Well, I'm also still a bit miffed that Google decided to split up the open source community by making Chrome. Choices are good, though to a limited degree with open source. They could have just spent that time fixing up Firefox, but instead, it's causing a bitter split with audiences about Firefox vs. Chrome.

Sure, Chrome is backed by a company, and thus, not a lot of people are going to be developing for it. But, any hopes for Linux for the desktop died with the GNOME/KDE wars. (Oddly enough, Google is somewhat fixing that with Android.)

PostPosted:**Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:39 am**

I haven't switched fully to chrome because i like some of the plugins for Firefox. FF has a older broader community for plugins...to my knowledge, the last time I used Chrome, Google didn't have that many plugins....

I'll retry Chrome today.

PostPosted:**Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:21 pm**

Ugh, i used it about 4 hours this morning (not sequential, just casual browsing)...chrome was slow. i had the most updated version.

PostPosted:**Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:25 pm**

its lightning for me, pages just load instantly.

PostPosted:**Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:13 pm**

Yeah, it's super quick for me, too. But, like I said, my laptop and desktop are both very new (my desktop is less than a month old) so they are "current gen".

PostPosted:**Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:41 pm**

SineSwiper wrote:

Virtual memory that has been allocated, or actual physical memory currently consumed? It makes a big difference.

PostPosted:**Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:51 pm**

One of my favorite parts of a new year of college beginning is watching the freshmen with their brand new Apple laptops and seeing them opening up Internet Explorer. Why buy an Apple if you're still using it like a PC? And not even using it as a PC WELL. Trend whores.

PostPosted:**Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:40 pm**

And sometimes Firefox dev team pisses me off...

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61098

Got a Bugzilla note in email from something I completely forgotten about, but at first glance at the title, it sounded like a good issue to fix. I forgot about it because I posted a comment about it five years ago, and the bug was first reported TEN FUCKING YEARS AGO! It has a staggering 250+ comments, filled with suggestions, arguments, pleading, and some pissed off people who can't believe the age of the bug.

So, yesterday, they finally put in a partial fix. Ten fucking years.

PostPosted:**Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:11 pm**

I just installed FF4 beta based on this thread, it is quite sexy. More minimalistic, not sure if I like where they moved the bookmarks though

PostPosted:**Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:32 pm**

To follow up on my unanswered question: I have memory so that it can be used. Unused memory is wasted memory. When tuning something for performance, there is often a time/space tradeoff: making something faster often consumes more memory. I don't know if that's the cause of Chrome's higher memory usage, but if it is, I'm fine with it - it's quite speedy for me.

PostPosted:**Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:11 pm**

Kupek wrote:To follow up on my unanswered question: I have memory so that it can be used. Unused memory is wasted memory. When tuning something for performance, there is often a time/space tradeoff: making something faster often consumes more memory. I don't know if that's the cause of Chrome's higher memory usage, but if it is, I'm fine with it - it's quite speedy for me.

I'm fine with Firefox's speed. I never understood why people thought it was slow, unless they are using a crappy PC, in which case Chrome would be slow, too.

PostPosted:**Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:18 am**

This from the guy who refused to upgrade his graphics card to run new PC games.

PostPosted:**Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:36 am**

Heh, that was 2-3 years ago. I just wanted to get the most out of my AGP card, considering PC games want you to upgrade yearly just to keep up.

PostPosted:**Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:06 pm**

Yeah I remember something like a few years ago when I didn't have a mobo capable of PCI-E and going AGP again would have been foolish so I was actually hitting the minimal requirements video card-wise with a couple games by the time I upgraded. I have found if you're willing to spend $150-$200 on a video card you can typically get 2-3 years out of it instead of just the one year you'll get out of $50-$100, though.

PostPosted:**Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:35 pm**

Kupek wrote:To follow up on my unanswered question: I have memory so that it can be used. Unused memory is wasted memory. When tuning something for performance, there is often a time/space tradeoff: making something faster often consumes more memory. I don't know if that's the cause of Chrome's higher memory usage, but if it is, I'm fine with it - it's quite speedy for me.

What if you're doing something else like, say, video conversion. Would you not want a browser that has the exact same speed and capabilities but takes up a helluva lot less resources? Just because they're there to waste doesn't mean resources should be wasted

PostPosted:**Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:52 pm**

Zeus wrote:What if you're doing something else like, say, video conversion. Would you not want a browser that has the exact same speed and capabilities but takes up a helluva lot less resources? Just because they're there to waste doesn't mean resources should be wasted

The point of a time/space tradeoff is that it's not wasted.

Also, we still haven't established: if that graph represents virtual memory or physical memory; what version of Chrome that was; how the tests were carried out.

PostPosted:**Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:06 pm**

Kupek wrote:Also, we still haven't established: if that graph represents virtual memory or physical memory; what version of Chrome that was; how the tests were carried out.

What? You act like I personally tested it. Fuck if I know. Go look it up.

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:21 am**

Heres another test that says Safari, Opera, and Chrome are the 3 fastest. I hate that it is a year and half old, but its better than a stupid ass graph with no link, support, or background information.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/929/1/

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:11 am**

Now that Chrome has add-ons I've been using it exclusively. Its very minimal and runs great. Firefox has been pissing me off lately, so I switched!

I think if you actually tried Chrome for a week, you'd switch too.

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:20 am**

Shellie wrote:Now that Chrome has add-ons I've been using it exclusively. Its very minimal and runs great. Firefox has been pissing me off lately, so I switched!

I think if you actually tried Chrome for a week, you'd switch too.

Four hours or so was enough for me (at work). I'm not exclusively switching to Chrome (at work). Chrome runs fine at home.

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:31 pm**

Oh, I'm sorry, did I get in the way of you selecting data to support a conclusion you already arrived at? If you can't answer those questions, then you have no business pointing to it to support your conclusions.

Anyway. While Chrome does start faster than Firefox (significantly faster, at least on OSX), speed is not why I switched. I can't notice a speed difference after startup - and I start my browser rarely. I switched because I prefer Chrome's UI and the fact that they use separate processes for separate tabs. When one page acts up, I like that it doesn't bring down my entire browser.

For those using Chrome who want to use an internal pdf view, go to chrome://plugins and enable "Chrome PDF Viewer." The rendering is only okay, so I use it as a way to determine if it's worth downloading the pdf and opening with my native viewer.

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:44 pm**

Kupek wrote:Oh, I'm sorry, did I get in the way of you selecting data to support a conclusion you already arrived at? If you can't answer those questions, then you have no business pointing to it to support your conclusions.

Just making life impossible for all those around you, ain't ya? Just because you look like Leonodis don't mean you can get all high and mighty and demanding on your "perceived" subjects like a king :-)

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:19 pm**

Posting a graph that supports your point without knowing certain information about it could be construed as irresponsible arguing... The guy has a point :P

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:07 pm**

Shrinweck wrote:Posting a graph that supports your point without knowing certain information about it could be construed as irresponsible arguing... The guy has a point

And not being able to read a fucking URL in the graph itself to find out said information is pretty damn irresponsible. Just in case you didn't know where the information is from, I'll give you the link for babies that don't know how to read: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory

Also, from Flip's link:

What the fuck is that? Because if that is what they did their internet browser testing with, I don't care what they say. That ain't a PC.

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:13 pm**

This is like, one of the lamest arguments you guys have ever had.

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:16 pm**

Yeah, it is. It's somewhere on the level of Coke vs. Pepsi. Whatever happen to the topic of trying out Firefox 4?

PostPosted:**Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 pm**

If you can't answer it, that tells me you didn't know it. Which tells me you just grabbed the first graph that supported your arguments.

Aaaaaand the description makes no distinction between virtual memory and physical memory. It also does not compare actual performance. I expect Chrome will use more memory since each tab is in a separate process. Separate processes will consume more memory, but it buys you page isolation and, on multicore processors, potentially higher performance because of simultaneous execution.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:43 am**

SineSwiper wrote:Yeah, it is. It's somewhere on the level of Coke vs. Pepsi. Whatever happen to the topic of trying out Firefox 4?

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:38 am**

Eric wrote:This is like, one of the lamest arguments you guys have ever had.

They can't help it, they're white =P

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:47 am**

You're one to talk, cracker ass.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:32 am**

Pastromi eating peckerwood honky.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:38 am**

Also! Just realized another problem with the experiments.

Suppose I have a process that consumes, say 100 MB of virtual memory. Now assume I fork a new process off that one. I now have two processes, both of whom will report that they consume 100 MB of virtual memory. If I add up their memory usage, as was the methodology in those experiments, I would conclude that they both consumed 200 MB of virtual memory - which, technically, is true, because of what virtual memory means. If I was smart, and knew the distinction between virtual memory and physical memory, I might only ask for stats on physical memory. But let's say I again see 100 MB for both processes, and conclude that in total, they consume 200 MB of physical memory.

But modern operating systems are not stupid. Much of the memory needed by a process is read only - things such as system libraries fall into this category. It would be wasteful to physically duplicate such memory for each process. So they don't. Such data is shared among processes through the wonder of virtual memory. Further, even for data that can change, operating systems may use copy-on-write. That is, they don't duplicate the data until one process actually tries to change it.

So. Our two processes, one freshly forked, may both report 100 MB of physical memory. But when we take shared memory into account, their combined footprint may be something like 105 MB.

Two points:

Modern computer systems are complicated. If you're not familiar with their design, it's easy to misunderstand experiments and design poor ones.
This is what peer review buys us. No one has enough knowledge to tear apart an experiment's methodology in every field. But, if the results of an experiment have been published after peer review, you can be confident that their methodology stood up to someone who did have enough knowledge to shoot down poor methodology.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:42 pm**

Holy shit, Kup, this is the most involved you've been in any thread in the last 6 years. Your PhD work slow down for the week or something?

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:23 pm**

We happened to touch on something I am an expert in; things that I both know well and have practice explaining. I also can avoid hand-waving arguments.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:13 pm**

Kupek wrote:We happened to touch on something I am an expert in; things that I both know well and have practice explaining. I also can avoid hand-waving arguments.

It's also one of the few things that you've had any interest in over the last about 3 years. You've become a master of avoiding nearly every kind of argument, not just the hand-waving ones

The Shrine

Anyone using Firefox 4?

Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?

Re: Anyone using Firefox 4?