There was a bug (https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=409126), but it seems to be fixed. However last comment there hints on another related bug: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=407889
Maybe you have bookmarks with foreign characters on bookmark bar too?
Chrome is losing focus on what was making it great : ultralight and fast.
I'd ditch Chrome if Firefox had full html5 video support on OS X.
> We no longer take meeting minutes nor make progress reports, but the meetings still happen. Brief MemShrink updates are given in the minutes of the weekly Platform meeting (wiki, blog). And nnethercote still blogs about major MemShrink occurrences.
And in the post marked "The Final Progress Report" I said this:
> I was due to write a MemShrink progress report today, but I’ve decided that after almost 2.5 years, my reserves of enthusiasm for these regular reports has been exhausted. Sorry! I do still plan to write posts when significant fixes relating to memory consumption are made. (For example, when generational GC lands, you’ll hear about it here.) I will also continue to periodically update the MemShrink “big ticket items” list. And MemShrink meetings will continue, so MemShrink-tagged bugs will still be triaged. And for those of you who read the weekly Platform meeting notes, I will continue to write MemShrink updates there. So don’t despair — good things will continue to happen, but they’ll just be marginally less visible.
Time I don't spend writing MemShrink reports is time I can spend on improving Firefox's code.
Nicholas's last memshrink posts were this summer, after the FF32 release...
In the past I had same experience as you, however this has changed in the past few versions in both browsers. It probably varies from user to user depending on the individual usage.
Break Down is
Chrome 59.6%
FireFox 24.0%
Internet Explorer 9.9%
Safari 3.6%
Opera 1.6%
Source, Chrome, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Other
StatCounter 48.7% 23.0% 19.6% 4.9% 1.4% 2.3%
W3Counter 38.0% 19.0% 16.8% 16.0% 3.2% 6.0%
Wikimedia 45.9% 11.7% 16.9% 7.1% 1.6% 16.8%
NetApplications 19.3% 58.3% 15.5% 5.2% 1.0% 0.4%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
.
Line charts over time of W3Counter data (although I am not sure if this excludes mobile or not): http://www.w3counter.com/trends
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggk...
There's an add-on for simple vertical tabs, but I think this is even better.
1. They will provide different UI across different desktop browsers/OS's, etc. The theory was that the browser can decide what the datepicker should look like. The practice is that half of them are ugly or lack the UI you want and you can't do much to fix that.
2. What the UI looks like is still in flux and will likely remain in flux. This means that not only do you have to test/support all the currently provided UI, but you also have to be ready for unexpected changes in the future.
3. Specifically because you cannot change what the (fairly complex) UI looks like, you cannot make it match your theme. This can be a huge pain.
4. There are better JS-based datepickers out there for the desktop.
The only reason to use <input type="date"> IMO would be for a mobile-only site. iOS/Safari uses a stable native date implementation which is awesome. However, on the desktop, there is no standard datepicker widget to use the same way, so it just ends up looking weird.
What I would actually love is an <input> type that lets me just type in a date (think a date of birth field) where the input is perfectly validated. That's right, in 2014 with out state of the art browsers, this is still nearly impossible. Sure you can use a regex, but have you tried putting together a regex that validates 2/29/2012 vs 2/29/2014 vs 2/29/1900? On top of that, the patter= attribute doesn't prevent you from typing/pasting, it only provides a place to put validation that's optional. A callback mechanism for as-you-type validation would be so much better.
In theory they'd be more consistent across the platform, just like text and select boxes; I'm not seeing the problem. You're site doesn't need to have it's style imposed on every single control.
> 2. What the UI looks like is still in flux and will likely remain in flux. This means that not only do you have to test/support all the currently provided UI, but you also have to be ready for unexpected changes in the future.
Why do you care what the UI looks like? As long as the API is stable.
> 3. Specifically because you cannot change what the (fairly complex) UI looks like, you cannot make it match your theme. This can be a huge pain.
I count this as a plus, honestly.
> 4. There are better JS-based datepickers out there for the desktop.
Ugh. The less we rely on javascript for basic functionality the better.
You're js, highly themed date picker probably isn't very accessible and probably doesn't function like the rest of the system does either.
The more we can leverage the User Agent, the more we should. It's easier on developers. It's more accessible. It's more consistent across the user's platform.
You recommend using a JS-based datepicker, what would the difference be?
This would be faster and easier since you don't have to keep the JS-based one up to date.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Because date is one of the valid types for HTML5 inputs.
Activity Monitor reports that Firefox 32.0.3 is using 21 GB on my Mac. That makes for sluggish performance, even with 32 GB of RAM. Looking forward to trying Firefox 33.
If you ever see someone complaining about Firefox's memory usage, looking at about:memory is always the first step you should tell them to take. The amount of information can be overwhelming but in extreme cases like this it's often fairly obvious what the problem is -- look for the biggest measurement! And if it's still not obvious after that, communicating with Firefox developers (e.g. by filing a bug) usually results in progress happening.
There has to be a leak of some kind, but I don't know how to diagnose it. Activity Monitor has me at 756 MB right now, but it will creep back up over the next few days.
Nope. It's more like 4 MiB per iframe.
ABP is a well-written extension, and I am 99.9% certain that it is not the cause of a Firefox instance taking up 21 GB of memory. Please don't spread misinformation.
It was implemented by the wonderful Jan de Mooij who just last week landed another nice JS memory improvement that should be released in Firefox 35: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1073700#c7
Wow, that is just insane. Checking right now, it uses ~950MB for me on GNU/Linux. That's with 14 tabs (among which 2 that use flash player) and 20 active add-ons (gestures, self-destructing cookies, header modifier, adblock plus, etc.).
CPython did something similar (though more expansive, it switches between 4 different internal encodings depending on string content: ASCII, latin1, UCS2 and UCS4) in 3.3 with the PEP 393 "Flexible String Representation". I wonder if this Moz change was independently reinvented or inspired by the FSR.
I'm not sure if there are any performance issues since I switched to FF about a year ago when bought new laptop with SSD and 16 gigs of ram it's as fast as Chrome. As for webdev tools, they are not worse, you are just too used to webkit ones. I might even say that FF has better dev tools because you can modify request and re-send it.
I switched because Google is trying to integrate Google too much into Chrome. That's definitely not something I look in a browser since I would like it to be independent and not spy on what I type/do.
Anyway, if anyone who is contributing to FF reading this I just want to thank you for best browser ever.
Every six weeks, as it's been for like three years now...
Thank you. The web is full of criticism, so it's nice to get compliments sometimes.
I also use Firefox on a MacBook Pro(2014), I don't know if this existed before or not but, under battery > Apps using significant enery, Firefox is one of em', opening the same exact tabs on Safari doesn't show safari on the list
is this because apps that come with Apple are not included in the list or is Safari better at Energy consumption?
Chrome is the only app I have on my Macbook Air that pushes it into overheating, turning it into a lap-frying iron skillet.
But we're working on improving that, too :)
(yeah, Firefox dev here)
Which brings me to another point: cross browser testing is important.
Really happy to see this one. Previously single-word searches were so slow that I'd usually have time to remember that they are slow, press C-e, and enter the same search term in the search bar, all before the browser realises there is no matching host and does a web search instead.
1: http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/faster-and-snappier-...
Open up: about:config?filter=keyword.enabled
Set it to false.
Now things like "bjafbsaofbdnaspolnas" will just end up at "http://www.bjafbsaofbdnaspolnas.com/".
forgot to do that for a search this morning and found this has been fixed!
Google's Safe Browsing API (malware and phishing protection) requires a cookie. But Firefox puts that cookie in a separate bucket than the one used for regular requests. If you have cookies enabled, you'll actually end up with two separate google.com "PREF" cookies - one for regular HTTP requests, and one just for for updating the Safe Browsing lists. Disabling Safe Browsing will prevent that cookie from every being sent, and should allow you to delete it (EDIT: modulo the cookie manager bug below).
UPDATE: It looks like http://bugzil.la/1026538 is why the cookie keeps reappearing.
Oh, and Google should _really_ provide their Safebrowsing API without a cookie, too. Youtube-nocookie.com works fine too....
these types of cookies may seem benign and helpful to users (and maybe they are), but i also wouldn't doubt that Google uses this information for persistent tracking.
it's already been disclosed that NSA uses Google PREF cookies to track users: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/10...
hence my other dispirited comment about the cookie UI... edit: reworded/clarified
http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/15/mozilla-ceo-we-refuse-to-b...
Chances are that it might still not be as fast as Safari, but Firefox should bite the bullet and just do it because:
a. Firefox cannot afford to not be on all platforms. With computing devices converging and relying on handshakes (data syncing?), missing out on a major mobile platform is foolish.
b. In a related point, syncing bookmarks/tabs via Firefox sync is severely handicapped by it's absence on iOS.
c. There is a fantastic niche where FF can fit in on iOS. It'd be as privacy centric as Safari and with an iOS launch would be cross-platform like Chrome (without Google peddling their products front and centre). They could also get some inspiration from mobile Opera on iOS that has fantastic data saving features in-built.
> What's the point in them wasting their time just skinning something that is guaranteed to be slower than Safari
I'd say, consistency of user experience and sync'ing my bookmarks etc. Skipping iOS means you are losing a reasonable chunk of users who fall in the category of wanting the same browser on all their devices.
When you use a browser on the web, you are literally voting for who gets the most control of those discussions.
Regardless, I imagine that Firefox will end up with some sort of support for pushing streams when the MatchStick is released, but whether it supports Chromecast is a question yet unanswered.
"Like Hubert said, Chromecast isn't open source. Getting it to work on desktop would require some reverse engineering and may or may not be impossible (I've heard that the Desktop extension for Chrome is all JS though, so that code may be useable)."
You might also be interested in the "casting support" bugs:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=92192...
half-screen, non-rounded thumbnails? That new UI makes me sad...
Firefox guys in this thread, how do we get the old sizes back? 9 thumbnails > 6.
UPDATE: This is Firefox bug 1005596. The prefs only work when you zoom out.
Yay, another decade before we get YouTube on OS X
In any case, the bug to watch for OS X is actually different: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1062654 That uses Apple's system implementation so it has great performance and it currently appears to be slated for Firefox 35; use the Nightly builds if you want it now and like to live dangerously.
https://github.com/hfiguiere/no-flash https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-all-h...
Settings show it only supports up to level "31" whatever that is.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Page_Inspecto...
http://flailingmonkey.com/view-jquery-and-jquery-live-events...
One of the things I really hate in web development is tracking down who is messing up the events.
http://www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_M...
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/MPEG_patent_lists#MPEG-1_Au...
Most of the remaining patents expire in 2015. There are a few for 2017, but they're for features nobody really needs in a computer decoder.
It used to be that Chrome marketing was pushing for this as being so much faster on Chrome than others so that's a pretty nice feat.
e10s should make Firefox competitive. And its still quite a while before it lands.
i dont think chrome having faster js back in the days did change much user-wise. gmail was as fast in firefox as it was in chrome... ;)
- Builtin support for Keychain (without relying on an extension).
- swipe-animation when going forward/backwards in history.
- "over-scroll" (you know, when you can sort sort scroll past the top and bottom of the page).
I know it sounds a bit vain, but I simply can't make a switch unless the look and feel is native to OS X.
Luckily, FF is pretty good about giving power users this kind of flexibility. I haven't found a way to disable it on Safari for instance, though it's not my primary browser so it's not too big a deal.
Another small OS X thing that FF is missing is three-finger tap to view dictionary definitions.
think one cookie is better than two? maybe, but the context matters here. it took mozilla seven years to stop sending other google cookies along with safebrowsing update requests, including about half a year after the washington post reported that NSA was using this behavior/functionality for targeting: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368255
Mozilla never seems to have anything to say about Google PREF cookies being trivially correlated to google logins from the same IP within a certain timeframe.
more to the point, Firefox still can't be trusted to even tell you which cookies have been dropped in its default configuration through the UI, let alone have a default configuration that limits persistent forms of tracking from its primary sponsor. i find this galling given their marketing push around mozilla's "commitment to your privacy".
For reference, Chromium doesn't have this issue.
>For reference, Chromium doesn't have this issue.
I don't think this problem exists. I have 450 tabs open in Firefox on a 6 y/o computer with 4G of RAM. Last time I tried something like that on Chromium (a long time ago, I admit), blood started leaking from one of the USB ports.
Does this remove the horrible Australis UI?
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/GFX/OffMainThreadCompositi...
(which is the destination of the not very obviously named link in the "Windows: OMTC enabled by default" change, I had followed it earlier to see what OMTC meant)
My usage is not as high as im reading. But a lot of my usage comes from Adblock. I have 5 browser windows open, with about 5-10 tabs each, im currently @ 760mb on Win 10.
A nice bug I get is from Firebug. When I am debugging a site, and I try to hover over my Taskbar icons to grab a new window, it flashes for about 2 seconds on whatever im hovering, and I have to try again, the second try usually leaves my taskbar windows open. If I close Firebug, this problem stops.
I also notice when I run flash (I stream mixtapes from datpiff.com), my usage goes sky high. I have been trying some debug options in about:config, and I think I have knocked the usage down by modifying a few lines.
Also another bug I experience on Win10 with Firefox is my top bar will completely disappear, I have to alt+F4 to close out Firefox and re-open. Maybe Firefox 33 will fix some of these issues.
I've seriously come to dread browser updates lately.
I ended up having to download it from the website, which was not an obvious experience.
was hoping for native h264 to be working by now but apparently not
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/34.0...
watching youtube or soundcloud sends cpu crazy active.
i remember I switched to chrome from firefox 5 years ago because of those reasons. now I find myself using firefox for the same reason, chrome is sluggish. I also don't feel creeped out.
Don't most of HN users just use the Nightly's or the Canary build for Chrome?
People complaining about the memory usage all the time seem a bit strange. Just buy a nice machine and help test betas so Google and Mozilla can move faster.