Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Shameless Screenshots (very large image files.. NOT for dial-up)
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 7 January 2010, 07:17 ---STOP TALKING ABOUT MEMORY NUMBERS. FIREFOX MODIFIES ITS SETTINGS THAT CONTROL MEMORY USAGE AND PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO THE POWER OF THE SYSTEM.
--- End quote ---
There's no need to shout about it.
Calm the fuck down, it's a browser for fuck sake, there's no need to get emotional, it's not like I've insulted you or a member of your family.
Would you have said that if I were comparing Microsoft Internet Explorer to Firefox?
Probably not, you probably would have entered into some rant about Firfox pawning IE.
So when IE uses more memory than Firefox it's because IE is bloatware, but when Firefox is compared with another browser, which uses memory more efficiently, it's "adjusting the memory usage and performance according to the system"? Sounds like double standards to me. ::)
Yes, Opera Chrome do that too, they just seem to adjust memory and performance more efficiently than Firefox. There's no other explanation for being able to outperform Firefox on a system with the same hardware.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on 7 January 2010, 12:12 ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 7 January 2010, 07:17 ---STOP TALKING ABOUT MEMORY NUMBERS. FIREFOX MODIFIES ITS SETTINGS THAT CONTROL MEMORY USAGE AND PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO THE POWER OF THE SYSTEM.
--- End quote ---
There's no need to shout about it.
--- End quote ---
I didnt shout.
But I used caps to reinforce my point since I made the same point about years ago to you specifically.
--- Quote ---Calm the fuck down, it's a browser for fuck sake, there's no need to get emotional, it's not like I've insulted you or a member of your family.
Would you have said that if I were comparing Microsoft Internet Explorer to Firefox?
--- End quote ---
I pointed out a simple fact that I understand about Firefox that makes your comparisons involving numbers pretty much useless. In fact, those comparisons are almost always useless. If you have 1.5 gig of ram do you really care if your web browser is using 200mb?
I've 1 gig ram and I use an eee pc with Firefox on ubuntu 9.10 and I cant fault firefoxes performance (19 tabs open atm, rarely stop firefox except when I shut down/battery is low).
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 7 January 2010, 17:13 ---I didnt shout.
--- End quote ---
Yes you did. You should've been using the Internet for long enough to know that using block capitals on the Internet is considered to be shouting.
--- Quote ---But I used caps to reinforce my point since I made the same point about years ago to you specifically.
--- End quote ---
That's what bold typeface is for.
--- Quote ---I pointed out a simple fact that I understand about Firefox that makes your comparisons involving numbers pretty much useless. In fact, those comparisons are almost always useless. If you have 1.5 gig of ram do you really care if your web browser is using 200mb?
--- End quote ---
I did admit that it is not a scientific test. It will vary depending on the hardware.
--- Quote ---I've 1 gig ram and I use an eee pc with Firefox on ubuntu 9.10 and I cant fault firefoxes performance (19 tabs open atm, rarely stop firefox except when I shut down/battery is low).
--- End quote ---
Perhaps your battery will last a bit longer if you used a lighter weight browser. ;D
I have a fairly old machine with 512MB which doesn't all get used half of the time but Firefox does seem to get slower, the longer it's loaded.
I've just tried Safari out, it seems quite good.
I don't know how it compares to the other browsers yet. So far, I like the way both the height and width of the text box on forums can be changed so it's more like typing in a word processor. It doesn't have Adblock but Googleing has reveled a few options.
EDIT:
I've just had a play with Epiphany, it's certainly lightweight, fast and has an Adblock extension. On the downside it's not so user friendly, opening a new tab takes a couple of clicks, and it only zooms text, not images. It reminds me of Firefox pre-3 and certainly has quite a way to go before it's good enough for me.
I suppose I'll just have to keep looking for a better browser for Linux unless Firefox 3.6 is really good.
adiment:
Here's my arch linux set up to act similar to OSX, with docky hidden on the bottom:
Aloone_Jonez:
I was browsing the Internet with Opera in Windows XP when a huge black line appeared on the screen. I first I thought my monitor was fucked, but then I realised the mouse cursor was above the black line. I then thought it was a rendering error in Opera so I minimised it but the line was stayed there, overlying the desktop.
I took as screenshot and the line appeared in it which implies it's the graphics card. I tried changed the screen mode to 4-bit 16 colour 640x480 and back again and the line just moved to the left hand side of the screen.
What's weird is I opened up a command line, switched to full screen, loaded MS-DOS editor and the line vanished!
I took the attached screenshot before I played around with changing the mode. The screen mode was 32-bit but I reduced the PNG is 8-bit to make it small enough to attach. I know I could've used JPG but I think it would've looked worse.
Note I'm not asking for Windows help here.
I'll try rebooting, if that doesn't work, I'll reinstall the graphics driver.
EDIT:
The problem was fixed by logging off and logging back on again. The joys of Windows ay. ::)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version