Shameless Screenshots (very large image files.. NOT for dial-up)

[Calum]

Yeah, probably. I just use Windows on my main comp. My laptop runs Ubuntu.

i only stab people to death after dark, never in daylight, so that makes it ok...


 

[worker201]

Yeah, so I started using Chrome today.  Very nice looking browser, that's for sure.  Ironically, it doesn't work with my Google job interface at all.  I wish Firefox was this quick to open/close.  Something that looks like Chrome, with my favorite extensions from Firefox, which is as well integrated as Safari, would be ideal.  Back when there were just 2 browsers, it was somehow acceptable that all of them sucked.  But now that there is real competition in the browser market, there's no excuse for not having a perfect experience.

Then again, it's my own fault, I guess, for not having the time to kludge together my own browser. :

[Lead Head]

Will be interesting to see how Firefox 3.6 compares to Chrome. Its supposed to be faster then the current 3.5

[Aloone_Jonez]

I hope they sort it, Firefox has similar memory usage to Internet Explorer and over twice as much memory as Opera according to my non-scientific test.

I loaded Firefox, MS IE and Opera, each with stop-microsoft.org and maximised all the windows, Opera seems to cut its memory usage to 7MB when minimised which won't be fair..

Firefox has Adblock and Clippings extensions installed. I'd expect the memory usage to be a bit less without them but I still consider the test to be fair, as far as I'm concerned they're required to give Firefox the functionality I miss from Opera.

EDIT:
I've just tested Chrome, it uses 24,584K; not as light as Opera but not as bloated as Firefox or IE.

[piratePenguin]

STOP TALKING ABOUT MEMORY NUMBERS. FIREFOX MODIFIES ITS SETTINGS THAT CONTROL MEMORY USAGE AND PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO THE POWER OF THE SYSTEM.

[Aloone_Jonez]

STOP TALKING ABOUT MEMORY NUMBERS. FIREFOX MODIFIES ITS SETTINGS THAT CONTROL MEMORY USAGE AND PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO THE POWER OF THE SYSTEM.

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]

STOP TALKING ABOUT MEMORY NUMBERS. FIREFOX MODIFIES ITS SETTINGS THAT CONTROL MEMORY USAGE AND PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO THE POWER OF THE SYSTEM.

There's no need to shout about it.

I didnt shout.

But I used caps to reinforce my point since I made the same point about years ago to you specifically.

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?

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]

I didnt shout.

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.

But I used caps to reinforce my point since I made the same point about years ago to you specifically.

That's what bold typeface is for.

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 did admit that it is not a scientific test. It will vary depending on the hardware.

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).

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. :

[worker201]

That has happened to me on the Mac as well.  Except that usually the line is specific to a certain window, and closing that window causes the line to disappear.  I figure it's just the screen drawing routine having a slight malfunction.  Flushing the infected screen from memory forces it to be redrawn from scratch, and the problem disappears.  The circumstances that can trigger a redraw on the Mac are obviously different in Windows, which is why you get them in screen space instead of window space, and why you have to log out to clear the error.  Even if I get one in the Finder, I can relaunch the finder to clear it.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I would've thought changing the mode would have cleared the graphics buffer but obviously not.

Have you had the problem on other Macs or is it specific to that machine?

This is the first time this has happened to me on Windows or X11.

The only time this kind of thing has happened to me is with old DOS software or when I've in stalled a bad driver, which normally makes a total mess of the display.

[worker201]

Only on this computer.

I've also seen horizontal lines as proof of LCD failure, but those are even visible during boot.

[worker201]

Showing off my Firefox Persona.  It would probably look better with a blue or white background, but whatever.  Look at the browser, look at the browser.

[reactosguy]

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. :

I remember when my Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 AGP had screwed up. I had to get a GeForce FX 6200 AGP licensed by PNY to fix the problem.

It's a shame that 7 year old graphics cards screw up.