> On 12-10-11 2:40 AM, viralprowrestl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:18:28 AM UTC+1, Mart Rootamm
>> wrote:
> <snip>
>> The user interface isn't FF's problem, please stop trying to
>> fix what wasn't broken with your Chrome-ified changes.
> I get the feeling that you think Mart is a Firefox developer or
> Mozilla employee. As far as I know, he's not. Neither is Ann.
Ann is definitely just a long-time non-techie user of Firefox.
>>> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
>>> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
>>> need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
>>> (Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
>>> is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
>>> browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?
>>> It might cause some extra overhead to maintain tabs-on-bottom, but so
>>> be it! It's worth it for the great extra functionality.
>>> I propose that this bug be closed with WONTFIX. I use tabs-on-bottom
>>> because I *prefer it that way*. I like the tabs to be there, right next
>>> to the document being displayed. For me, it's much nicer for usability.
>>> Firefox is the only major browser that offers this? GOOD! It makes
>>> Firefox better.
>>> I (and I suspect quite a few others) would have to seriously consider
>>> switching to a combination of Seamonkey and Chrome if this bug were
>>> implemented. I urge you now to close this bug and not implement the
>>> suggestion. You need to decide whether Firefox development is going to
>>> be the latest whims of the UX team, or actually giving a damn about the
>>> users (yes OK we're in a minority, but we are still a significant
>>> minority and we should count!)
>> I am posting here because one of your Firefox themes was automatically
>> disabled when I updated from FF15 to FF16 today:
>> Firefox 3 Theme for Firefox 4+
>> http://ffaddons.game-point.net/ff3ff4/ >> I am not familiar with the technical problems involved but I have used
>> that theme for a long time and was very disappointed. In your
>> explanation you mention that it has something to do with this tabs on
>> top/bottom development/design issue, which I don't claim to comprehend.
>> All I care about is being able to continue using that theme. To that end
>> I posted elsewhere and got enough hints how to fix it to work with FF16,
>> which I did, and have uploaded it for others if they're interested:
>> http://www.mediafire.com/file/3xgfl0zhvfpe832/ffe_ff3...@game-point.net_HarveyG.xpi
>> To install, download and open manually with FF.
>> My only modification is in the install.rdf file where I set it to expire
>> with Firefox 99.0, which won't be around for awhile yet. :) Further info
>> posted at moz.gen and moz.sup.ff.
>> The Firefox 3 design & theme is far superior to the bland, colorless,
>> pale shades of gray, illegible, user-unfriendly, awkward Firefox 4+
>> theme(s) and layout(s), and I hope to keep it forever.
>> Thanks for your good efforts, really appreciated.
So it seems popular despite the limited advertising - solely by a few mentions on these mozilla newsgroups a couple of days ago. Word of mouth travels fast.
One caveat...
When I installed the next version of Firefox (16.0.1), it phoned home then said this add-on (theme) was incompatible and disabled it. To fix, remove it, then reinstall manually by opening the .xpi file from Firefox.
If you haven't downloaded it yet, it's still available at:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/3xgfl0zhvfpe832/ffe_ff3...@game-point.net_HarveyG.xpi
--------------------------------
WORKS FINE WITH FIREFOX 16.0.1
--------------------------------
;) :)
I'm one of those mouse-only users. For me, having the tab next to the content area is the only sensible arrangement.
If there is an extension that does that, then I'll use the extension. If there is no alternative to tabs on top, then Firefox loses yet another advantage over other browsers. With the loss of the "Send Link..." context menu item (thanks, devs; sure makes my life . . . different), the loss of flexible Bookmarks window (remember that?) we end up with more and more usability issues dropped from Firefox and replaced with extensions.
But extension developers are mortal, and some extensions are not maintained. At some point Firefox lacks so many usability features it just becomes another IE (not not not Chrome: Firefox is nowhere near as fast as Chrome; we use Firefox because heretofore it was more usable). Tabs only on top? Hmm. Let's see what Opera looks like. It been a few years since I peeked . . .
I note that it is ten years ago this month that I began using Phoenix.
I've been using FF since the version 1.0, and this is the first time i'm going to complain about the developers' decision publicly.
Seeing what's going on with the browser development, i can only come up with a single reason why the devs are doing what they are doing. They just don't know any other way to make FF the number one non-Microsoft browser out there.
You see, FF has been here for a while, and it had its own moments of glory. Until a few years ago, it was the best open source browser, and for me it was the best browser overall.
But the time was going, and FF was getting more and more bloated. Eating more than 1Gb of RAM became a (not so) good tradition, as did failing to scroll some websites smoothly. But once you're used to the perks FF is offering, it's hard to lure you back into the IE's embrace, so the people were staying.
And then Chrome appeared. Sleek, minimalistic, inherently fast and shamelessly advertised. You started seeing offers to install Chrome on the Google's search page. It was really hard to avoid or miss. So the people started migrating on it. Including those who were pissed by the slobby form that FF has turned into.
I guess that's when the Mozilla guys started to panic. It became obvious that Chrome was taking their share of the market as well.
Unfortunately, the people who make decisions at Mozilla found no better way than to start blatantly copying everything that Chrome introduced. Even the version increment policy: i remember the talks like "How are we gonna explain the users that our Firefox 4.9 is as modern and potent as Chrome 12".
But the interface changes were the biggest mistake. First it was that ugly gray default theme of FF4 that only colorblind people could call appealing, killing the status bar and the tabs on top which never made much sense to me. So i had to stick to the 3.6 branch until the awesome guys like Jeremy Morton and the developers of nice add-ons like Status-4-Evar made it possible to actually enjoy using the newer versions.
And now you're trying to take from me the one of the basic, i'd even say fundamental things that Firefox has, forcing me to use the tabs-on-top paradigm i always disliked (in Chrome too). And because of that, i'm losing the rest of the visual appeal that Firefox had to me, since the FF3 Aero theme is no longer working.
If you (the people behind that idea i mean) really think that the tabs on bottom are really your main obstacle on the way back to the world domination, please think again, because you're missing something. I'm typing this message in the answer form of the Google Groups webpage opened with FF 15.0.1, and i can clearly see the text being entered with lags sometimes. Not to mention the lags i experienced when pressing the "Answer" button on this page to open the answer form. And this is happening on a Core 2 Duo powered laptop which isn't busy with any significant jobs right now.
You see, the non-Chrome UI isn't what makes the people run from FF to Chrome. It's the slowness of your product. FF is nowhere near Chrome when it comes to the JS processing speed, memory management and security. It's their turf now, and i doubt that you guys have enough manpower to challenge Google on that.
But for some reason i still didn't give up on FF. Moreover, i made it my default browser again, after more than a year of Chrome serving that purpose. You know why? Because i got tired of not having a convenient session management functionality, not being able to see the page titles somewhere other than the tab tooltip, not being able to repoen the closed tabs by middle-clcking the tab bar, the "reopen closed tabs" function putting them in the end of the tab bar instead of the place they were at before closing (oh wait, maybe it was because i also installed the extension to put the newly opened tabs in the end of the tab bar, oh well), the recent PepperFlash lags i experience in the flash games. Et cetera, et cetera...
You see, it's these little things that seem unimportant when considered alone, but together they create what one can call a user experience. Something that just makes using the product convenient. And something which can be worth switching to another product over.
Until now, Firefox was my #1 choice when the comfort of usage was considered. At some point i managed to configure everything just the way i liked it to be, and, for the years ensuing, i was only making minor tweaks to make everything perfect to me again if something was changing.
But now the only undeniable advantage of Firefox over ANY other browser - an almost infinite customizability - is in danger. Those who pull the strings seem to have decided to make a total Chrome clone out of Firefox, killing the main thing that keeps people using it. Because if there's no visual difference between these two, then why taking the slow and heavy one when you can have the faster and more lightweight thing with the same face.
You may think it's a good idea, and that people will most likely give in and accept anything you feed them. And for some time, you might be right, because it takes time to finally realize that there's nothing in Firefox that i would tolerate its disadvantages for. But once you cross this line and it becomes clear that it's easier to configure Chrome to fit my needs (more or less) than to keep Firefox be what it once were out of the box, i'll switch to the former and forget FF like a dream which started out nice but turned into a pale nightmare.
Please don't make this mistake. Don't fix what's not broken. Leave the FF face as it always was, don't change stuff just for the sake of the change. And please, don't treat any difference between FF and Chrome as FF's defect. It might just be otherwise.
PS: To those who think that some people here express their opinion too aggressively. You know, the civilized way was always to listen to one another and try to understand what everybody wants and needs. When you leave people with no choice but to either accept any changes to push on them or quit FF for good, it's you who puts us to stress. And when cornered, people start taking things personal. You never asked us if we wanted this change, so why acting all so surprised when you see how we dislike your idea?
PPS: To those whose position is "whatever makes development easier is THE right thing to do". Each time i download Firefox, its website tells me that i'm getting something "different by design", a "browser that's got your back". Ever wondered what this means? For me, it means that Firefox is being made with respect to its users, and with taking their opinion into consideration.
You call us the vocal minority whose voice can be ignored because we're just a drop in the bucket of the Firefox user community and the rest doesn't seem to give a damn. But you see, right now the people who you're trying to ignore are mostly the most devoted FF users, with years of FF experience behind their backs. They were with you from the beginning, they were a part of that Firefox miracle that once showed the world that there can be an alternative to Internet Explorer. Well, maybe we really are a drop in the bucket, but does it seem that the rest is gonna be so passionate and determined in defending your decision? Or maybe they just don't give a damn as well and use whatever there is to use.
Tomorrow Google pulls another trick off its sleeve, or launches yet even more powerful advertizing campaign, and will you be so sure that those people are gonna stay loyal to FF? I doubt so. But there will surely be much less hardcore Firefox fans who would be spending countless hours on the various forums trying to convince the hesitant ones that Firefox is still worth using.
Firefox main power was always the passion of the people who enjoy using it and contributing to it, not the ones who would quit on it in no time. Please don't make people think that there is no more stuff to love about Firefox.
PPPS: Sorry for this being such a long message. But for once in a long time it feels like there's something important to lose, and i think it's worth fighting for.
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:33:04 PM UTC-4, Dmitry Semionin wrote:
> I've been using FF since the version 1.0, and this is the first time i'm going to complain about the developers' decision publicly.
> Seeing what's going on with the browser development, i can only come up with a single reason why the devs are doing what they are doing. They just don't know any other way to make FF the number one non-Microsoft browser out there.
> You see, FF has been here for a while, and it had its own moments of glory. Until a few years ago, it was the best open source browser, and for me it was the best browser overall.
I really feel like many people that come to this conclusion don't completely understand the reasons for changes such as these. I haven't seen any change or reasoning on Bugzilla that is "because other browsers do the same".
> But the time was going, and FF was getting more and more bloated. Eating more than 1Gb of RAM became a (not so) good tradition, as did failing to scroll some websites smoothly. But once you're used to the perks FF is offering, it's hard to lure you back into the IE's embrace, so the people were staying.
> And then Chrome appeared. Sleek, minimalistic, inherently fast and shamelessly advertised. You started seeing offers to install Chrome on the Google's search page. It was really hard to avoid or miss. So the people started migrating on it. Including those who were pissed by the slobby form that FF has turned into.
> I guess that's when the Mozilla guys started to panic. It became obvious that Chrome was taking their share of the market as well.
Actually, no. There were many people that did not switch to Chrome because of the fact that its interface was new and alien. It did not really gain market share until this advertising started.
> Unfortunately, the people who make decisions at Mozilla found no better way than to start blatantly copying everything that Chrome introduced. Even the version increment policy: i remember the talks like "How are we gonna explain the users that our Firefox 4.9 is as modern and potent as Chrome 12".
> But the interface changes were the biggest mistake. First it was that ugly gray default theme of FF4 that only colorblind people could call appealing, killing the status bar and the tabs on top which never made much sense to me. So i had to stick to the 3.6 branch until the awesome guys like Jeremy Morton and the developers of nice add-ons like Status-4-Evar made it possible to actually enjoy using the newer versions.
I'll admit the end result didn't come out perfectly like mockups, but it was indeed an improvement in my opinion. I remember being largely against Tabs on Top until using it on the Firefox 4 betas for a week.
> And now you're trying to take from me the one of the basic, i'd even say fundamental things that Firefox has, forcing me to use the tabs-on-top paradigm i always disliked (in Chrome too). And because of that, i'm losing the rest of the visual appeal that Firefox had to me, since the FF3 Aero theme is no longer working.
Again, Mozilla hasn't forced you to use Tabs on Top. If you believe so, how have they done that? You're still entitled to change the browser as you wish.
> If you (the people behind that idea i mean) really think that the tabs on bottom are really your main obstacle on the way back to the world domination, please think again, because you're missing something. I'm typing this message in the answer form of the Google Groups webpage opened with FF 15.0.1, and i can clearly see the text being entered with lags sometimes. Not to mention the lags i experienced when pressing the "Answer" button on this page to open the answer form. And this is happening on a Core 2 Duo powered laptop which isn't busy with any significant jobs right now.
I'm typing this on a 7 year old machine with 2.0 GHz and 2GB of RAM. Firefox is running smooth as it always has for me. I'm going to go ahead and say that something is causing your install to not run as great as it can.
> You see, the non-Chrome UI isn't what makes the people run from FF to Chrome. It's the slowness of your product. FF is nowhere near Chrome when it comes to the JS processing speed, memory management and security. It's their turf now, and i doubt that you guys have enough manpower to challenge Google on that.
Actually, it is. Since Firefox 7, it has been the most memory efficient browser, topping Chrome. Most users that claim Chrome has better memory are only counting one of its tabs, due to Chrome having a process for each tab (resulting in multiple chrome.exe)
If you don't believe me, please look at the following benchmarks. They were found from a simple search with "Firefox vs Chrome memory". They're a couple months outdated, so consider that Firefox 14 has been released since then addressing another memory issue.
> But for some reason i still didn't give up on FF. Moreover, i made it my default browser again, after more than a year of Chrome serving that purpose. You know why? Because i got tired of not having a convenient session management functionality, not being able to see the page titles somewhere other than the tab tooltip, not being able to repoen the closed tabs by middle-clcking the tab bar, the "reopen closed tabs" function putting them in the end of the tab bar instead of the place they were at before closing (oh wait, maybe it was because i also installed the extension to put the newly opened tabs in the end of the tab bar, oh well), the recent PepperFlash lags i experience in the flash games. Et cetera, et cetera...
> You see, it's these little things that seem unimportant when considered alone, but together they create what one can call a user experience. Something that just makes using the product convenient. And something which can be worth switching to another product over.
> Until now, Firefox was my #1 choice when the comfort of usage was considered. At some point i managed to configure everything just the way i liked it to be, and, for the years ensuing, i was only making minor tweaks to make everything perfect to me again if something was changing.
> But now the only undeniable advantage of Firefox over ANY other browser - an almost infinite customizability - is in danger. Those who pull the strings seem to have decided to make a total Chrome clone out of Firefox, killing the main thing that keeps people using it. Because if there's no visual difference between these two, then why taking the slow and heavy one when you can have the faster and more lightweight thing with the same face.
Maybe it's just me, but I still see a huge visual difference between Firefox and Chrome. And like you said before, functionality also matters, not just appearance and speed.
> You may think it's a good idea, and that people will most likely give in and accept anything you feed them. And for some time, you might be right, because it takes time to finally realize that there's nothing in Firefox that i would tolerate its disadvantages for. But once you cross this line and it becomes clear that it's easier to configure Chrome to fit my needs (more or less) than to keep Firefox be what it once were out of the box, i'll switch to the former and forget FF like a dream which started out nice but turned into a pale nightmare.
> Please don't make this mistake. Don't fix what's not broken. Leave the FF face as it always was, don't change stuff just for the sake of the change. And please, don't treat any difference between FF and Chrome as FF's defect. It might just be otherwise.
Wait. Every change has had user studies (collected from betas) and/or large evidence to back them up. The "don't fix what ain't broken" logic doesn't apply here when there's stuff to improve.
> PS: To those who think that some people here express their opinion too aggressively. You know, the civilized way was always to listen to one another and try to understand what everybody wants and needs. When you leave people with no choice but to either accept any changes to push on them or quit FF for good, it's you who puts us to stress. And when cornered, people start taking things personal. You never asked us if we wanted this change, so why acting all so surprised when you see how we dislike your idea?
That's a great point, but you're missing the part where these people (I included) are mostly not involved with Mozilla and thus, their decision. Mozilla hasn't forced Tabs on Top on anyone. The option to switch this is still there, so the "developers decide keep deciding what's good for users" and "Mozilla is preventing user choice" claims are invalid.
> PPS: To those whose position is "whatever makes development easier is THE right thing to do". Each time i download Firefox, its website tells me that i'm getting something "different by design", a "browser that's got your back". Ever wondered what this means? For me, it means that Firefox is being made with respect to its users, and with taking their opinion into consideration.
> You call us the vocal minority whose voice can be ignored because we're just a drop in the bucket of the Firefox user community and the rest doesn't seem to give a damn. But you see, right now the people who you're trying to ignore are mostly the most devoted FF users, with years of FF experience behind their backs. They were with you
Replying to the user above this post makes me wonder myself if this thread is really doing something. So far, this has mainly been a place for users to express their opinions. Let's get the actual (rational) debate started. What are the real "development" costs? We've already seen the large outbursts a simple context menu item removal has caused. I have to agree with Dao that it is entirely worth supporting tabs on bottom a little while longer.
> Replying to the user above this post makes me wonder myself if this thread is really doing something. So far, this has mainly been a place for users to express their opinions. Let's get the actual (rational) debate started. What are the real "development" costs? We've already seen the large outbursts a simple context menu item removal has caused. I have to agree with Dao that it is entirely worth supporting tabs on bottom a little while longer.
Why "a little while longer"? There's no point in that. It's either a long-term commitment or you might as well do away with it.
воскресенье, 14 октября 2012 г., 7:40:31 UTC+4 пользователь Brandon Cheng написал:
> I really feel like many people that come to this conclusion don't completely understand the reasons for changes such as these. I haven't seen any change or reasoning on Bugzilla that is "because other browsers do the same".
What would be your opinion on the reasons behind this particular change? Seriously, besides a clear wish to drop the functionality that some developers already consider obsolete, is there anything that makes removing tabs on bottom reasonable?
> > And then Chrome appeared. Sleek, minimalistic, inherently fast and shamelessly advertised. You started seeing offers to install Chrome on the Google's search page. It was really hard to avoid or miss. So the people started migrating on it. Including those who were pissed by the slobby form that FF has turned into.
> > I guess that's when the Mozilla guys started to panic. It became obvious that Chrome was taking their share of the market as well.
> Actually, no. There were many people that did not switch to Chrome because of the fact that its interface was new and alien. It did not really gain market share until this advertising started.
Well, you see, it's always a game of choosing the lesser evil. FF is what you're used to, but it makes you unhappy with its performance (well, for example. some other people might be unhappy with something else just as well). Chrome is all so new and alien, but it seems to be doing some technical things better. And its JS engine was better than FF's when Chrome was released.
It doesn't matter when exactly the Chrome rise to power began. What matters is that Chrome was taking the Firefox's share too. Even if it was after the advertizing campaign. Google is good at that, i can give them that.
> > But the interface changes were the biggest mistake. First it was that ugly gray default theme of FF4 that only colorblind people could call appealing, killing the status bar and the tabs on top which never made much sense to me. So i had to stick to the 3.6 branch until the awesome guys like Jeremy Morton and the developers of nice add-ons like Status-4-Evar made it possible to actually enjoy using the newer versions.
> I'll admit the end result didn't come out perfectly like mockups, but it was indeed an improvement in my opinion. I remember being largely against Tabs on Top until using it on the Firefox 4 betas for a week.
Well, that mockup you showed us isn't that bad. But this picture just doesn't represent the way i use my browser. No Aero glass for me, the window about three times this size, bookmark toolbar and no fancy wallpaper on a background. This way, even with this mockup having been implemented as a FF real face, it wouldn't be perfect for me.
You see, this is not a "the new design must burn in hell, it sucks" debate. I can totally understand people who actually like it. But it's a debate about being able to keep having what you're used to having.
People can be divided into two groups. The first one is the "progressive guys". They embrace ANY changes and think that no change equals to stagnation and stagnation is bad. Such people would definitely consider the UX change that FF4 has brought a good thing.
The second group can be called the "conservative guys", and i'm gonna advocate for them now =). We just have too much unwanted change around us already, and we would prefer to at least keep the things we value the most the way we are used to see them. For such people, no change is required until you either have something extra super terrific which is absolutely a must have but demands some changes so it can be developed and integrated, or some absolutely obvious flaw is found in the current implementation which nobody, and i mean nobody, is gonna argue about and there is an obviously good way to fix this flaw, the way that, again, nobody would be going to argue about as well.
The way i see it, FF4 neither included something amazingly and terrifically useful that required its interface changes nor fixed some insanely obvious flaws that, for the reasons nobody could fathom, were presented in Firefox before. It was just a change.
Well, maybe the guys who invented that change thought that they were adapting Firefox for use in the environments other than the classic desktop/notebook ones. Maybe they thought that the new style is better suited for the netbooks with their smaller screens (it's funny that a few years have passed and netbooks are already a dying breed, Asus deciding to stop producing their EeePc line in favor of the new trend - the tablet devices).
Anyway, there was not so much to fear back then, because i could still revert to the classic look, and nobody was telling me that it would one day be treated as something old and not worth supporting. Otherwise, i'd start protesting right away, and the situation we're now in might never happen in the first place.
But anyway, at that point it seemed that Firefox just gave its users another option to choose from. And more options is always better than less options, so i was happy, with help of Jez and other guys who let me have my options back in full.
> Again, Mozilla hasn't forced you to use Tabs on Top. If you believe so, how have they done that? You're still entitled to change the browser as you wish.
It hasn't YET. You see, we're being said that it's only a matter of time before the move to the tabs on top style is done completely, and then i will be literally forced into it.
I believe that the reason why a lot of other people and i have gathered here is to make sure this time never comes. Not rather later than sooner, but in fact never. We are trying to influence the situation until not all is lost. And obviously it will be so in some close time in the future if we just sit still and do nothing being happy that we're still not deprived of this functionality YET.
> > If you (the people behind that idea i mean) really think that the tabs on bottom are really your main obstacle on the way back to the world domination, please think again, because you're missing something. I'm typing this message in the answer form of the Google Groups webpage opened with FF 15.0.1, and i can clearly see the text being entered with lags sometimes. Not to mention the lags i experienced when pressing the "Answer" button on this page to open the answer form. And this is happening on a Core 2 Duo powered laptop which isn't busy with any significant jobs right now.
> I'm typing this on a 7 year old machine with 2.0 GHz and 2GB of RAM. Firefox is running smooth as it always has for me. I'm going to go ahead and say that something is causing your install to not run as great as it can.
Well, then you're a lucky guy. Or maybe you're not constrained with the add-ons that i have 17 of. Or maybe it's the non-default theme that is doing it for me.
Anyway, i'm not the one to blame. The current FF profile was built from scratch just a year ago, along with a clean OS install. I only imported the bookmarks from my older profile, but it should not affect the way the text is being typed. Nor should my add-ons, which affect the different aspects of the browser usage.
I've always followed the installation instructions, i don't have my machine swarming with viruses or spyware, so if there's anything wrong with my FF performance, i think it has to do with the browser itself.
Or maybe you're using FF on Linux or MacOS, and my Windows Vista installation is inherently flawed. But then again, it's not a non-Chrome UI issue.
> > You see, the non-Chrome UI isn't what makes the people run from FF to Chrome. It's the slowness of your product. FF is nowhere near Chrome when it comes to the JS processing speed, memory management and security. It's their turf now, and i doubt that you guys have enough manpower to challenge Google on that.
> Actually, it is. Since Firefox 7, it has been the most memory efficient browser, topping Chrome. Most users that claim Chrome has better memory are only counting one of its tabs, due to Chrome having a process for each tab (resulting in multiple chrome.exe)
Memory management isn't only about allocating memory. It's also about freeing it in time. I am too used to have a single-window single-tab Firefox instance eat more than 1Gb of memory because i already closed the windows/tabs with the heavy stuff but FF just doesn't wanna clean up after itself.
With Chrome, the cleaning up is done by the OS. And while i agree that Chrome eats maybe even more memory cumulatively compared to FF (if we compare the same sets of windows/tabs), at least i could close the tabs or windows i don't want anymore and see the result right away.
It's even more crucial if you're using more memory than you physically have. When the swap usage overhead starts to bug me with Chrome, i close the unwanted tabs or quickly read through them and then close - so i'm back to the physical memory only. With FF, only an application restart might help.
> If you don't believe me, please look at the following benchmarks. They were found from a simple search with "Firefox vs Chrome memory". They're a couple months outdated, so consider that Firefox 14 has been released since then addressing another memory issue.
> Or maybe you're using FF on Linux or MacOS, and my Windows Vista installation is inherently flawed. But then again, it's not a
> non-Chrome UI issue.
It's Windows Vista. I usually have indexing turned off. Make sure you
have at least 2 Gb of RAM, but 4 would be much better.
> Or maybe you're not constrained with the add-ons that i have 17 of.
Would you be kind enough to list all the addons? I know there are some
toolbars that can be resource intensive. A complete list of all of the
plugins you have in Firefox would be nice, too.
> It's especially noticeable if i use the "Save energy" mode on my laptop: FF becomes insanely slow, while Chrome makes due
> more or less.
I assume the "Save energy mode" on your notebook reduces the CPU clock
speed, which directly affects performance.
Please do not remove tabs on bottom. I really really hate it when companies change the UI on me when I do not want it to change.
I only recently upgraded from Firefox 3.6.28 because certain websites stopped loading correctly, and if you break this addon then I will stop using Firefox entirely.
Mart, thanks for your concern, but i kinda doubt that the reasons behind the lags i experience would be anything obvious. Otherwise i'd fix them already.
> It's Windows Vista. I usually have indexing turned off. Make sure you
> have at least 2 Gb of RAM, but 4 would be much better.
4 Gb it is. Indexing service turned off.
When i experience the scrolling lags (like, trying to scroll this very page), the CPU usage jumps up to the single core peak, so i guess it's where the bottleneck is.
> > Or maybe you're not constrained with the add-ons that i have 17 of.
> Would you be kind enough to list all the addons? I know there are some
> toolbars that can be resource intensive. A complete list of all of the
> plugins you have in Firefox would be nice, too.
> > It's especially noticeable if i use the "Save energy" mode on my laptop:
> > FF becomes insanely slow, while Chrome makes due more or less.
> I assume the "Save energy mode" on your notebook reduces the CPU clock
> speed, which directly affects performance.
Well, of course it affects performance directly. My point was, FF's performance was affected in a much more severe way than Chrome's.
> Do you use Flashblock and NoScript?
I have Flashblock installed, you can see the information on it and the other add-ons i use on that Pastebin page which the first link i posted leads to.
Just in case, Chrome has Flashblock installed as well.
I saw a post in the bugfix on this saying that they didn't think this change would be enough for someone to switch browsers because of it. I would have to disagree. If people have to change their workflow due to a change they are in a position to now evaluate making a larger change since they are forced into change to begin with. Firefox is currently "holding" on to market share. If this change would bring some sort of huge growth of new users to replace the ones that leave, I could see the reasoning. I don't really see that happening. I do predict a noticeable number of existing users switching to another browser because this change is enough of a change to make them think about that larger change. Why not switch to the competitor now if my current browser is going to remove the reasons I still use it to look like the others? Why wait around to work like the others when I can just go ahead and switch to one of the others? Taking away choices usually makes things easier, cheaper or both. It usually a pretty poor way to retain a customer base though.
> When i experience the scrolling lags (like, trying to scroll this very page), the CPU usage jumps up to the single core peak, so i
> guess it's where the bottleneck is.
I usually have smooth scrolling and other animations turned off,
especially if there are performance issues.
> I have Flashblock installed, you can see the information on it and the other add-ons i use on that Pastebin page which the first
> link i posted leads to.
I recommend you get yourself NoScript, too. By default, its whitelist
contains domains for most primary services that people use, but
outside these NoScript will need to be 'trained'. NoScript is by
extension a bit more 'intelligent' than Flashblock, and is great at
disabling many of the pesky scripts that can cause trouble.
> http://pastebin.com/hGrFvAHQ - here is the Firefox's Troubleshooting Information with the list of add-ons and other stuff you might
> require.
Extensions:
If you're really not using Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant for
anything, then I recommend you disable it.
Graphics:
Your nVidia GeForce driver version is 8.17.12.8562, driver date is
10-15-2011. Apparently, nVidia have released a newer driver:
http://www.nvidia.ru/object/notebook-win8-win7-winvista-64bit-306.97-... Do keep in mind that your computer manufacturer might have provided an
updated driver of their own for your computer and its graphics
adapter.
(I searched at the below page by selecting GeForce, then "GeForce 9M
series (for notebooks)", then "Windows Vista 64-bit" and then the
language. The advanced search yielded the same result.
http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us )
Before updating the driver, I recommend you create a restore point in Windows.
I have the Google Update plugin disabled in Firefox.
Neither to _I_, personally, find much use for the Unity Player.
Firefox has had lots of issues with Flash Player this year, especially
on Windows Vista and Windows 7, because Flash uses hardware
acceleration more than ever before. I recommend updating the graphics
driver.
> Mart, thanks for your concern, but i kinda doubt that the reasons behind the lags i experience would be anything obvious. Otherwise i'd fix them already.
>> It's Windows Vista. I usually have indexing turned off. Make sure you
>> have at least 2 Gb of RAM, but 4 would be much better.
> 4 Gb it is. Indexing service turned off.
> When i experience the scrolling lags (like, trying to scroll this very page), the CPU usage jumps up to the single core peak, so i guess it's where the bottleneck is.
>> > Or maybe you're not constrained with the add-ons that i have 17 of.
>> Would you be kind enough to list all the addons? I know there are some
>> toolbars that can be resource intensive. A complete list of all of the
>> plugins you have in Firefox would be nice, too.
> You're welcome.
> http://pastebin.com/hGrFvAHQ - here is the Firefox's Troubleshooting Information with the list of add-ons and other stuff you might require.
> http://pastebin.com/4cEPAg9p - here's a copy-paste from the about:plugins page.
>> > It's especially noticeable if i use the "Save energy" mode on my laptop:
>> > FF becomes insanely slow, while Chrome makes due more or less.
>> I assume the "Save energy mode" on your notebook reduces the CPU clock
>> speed, which directly affects performance.
> Well, of course it affects performance directly. My point was, FF's performance was affected in a much more severe way than Chrome's.
>> Do you use Flashblock and NoScript?
> I have Flashblock installed, you can see the information on it and the other add-ons i use on that Pastebin page which the first link i posted leads to.
> Just in case, Chrome has Flashblock installed as well.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps-fire...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
вторник, 16 октября 2012 г., 2:06:42 UTC+4 пользователь Mart Rootamm написал:
> I usually have smooth scrolling and other animations turned off,
> especially if there are performance issues.
Turned the smooth scrolling off, lags are still there.
You see, i believe that such little thing as scrolling can be done painlessly on my laptop's hardware. I don't wanna strip down all the nice little things i'm used to - just to avoid the general problems resulting from some product's internal flaws.
If all my software was bugging me like this, i might assume that it's time to upgrade my computer. But you see, the same Chrome can scroll both smooth and fast. It has no problem with the last year's GPU drivers or whatnot, it just does its job on my OS and my hardware. So it's a living proof of what can be done with those resources if they are to be used properly.
> I recommend you get yourself NoScript, too. By default, its whitelist
> contains domains for most primary services that people use, but
> outside these NoScript will need to be 'trained'. NoScript is by
> extension a bit more 'intelligent' than Flashblock, and is great at
> disabling many of the pesky scripts that can cause trouble.
I tried using NoScript before, wasn't happy with the way it was behaving.
> If you're really not using Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant for
> anything, then I recommend you disable it.
You may notice that this extension is already disabled. I just don't know how to remove it completely.
Thanks for that, i'll try the newer driver.
I just had some issues with upgrading the nVidia drivers in the past, the newer versions giving me less functionality to set up the color settings, so i kinda try not to fix what's not broken for sure. Also, for some reason, the Restore Points don't quite restore everything that i expect. Sometimes when a faulty installation takes place and i use the Restore Point to revert it, some of the changes remain. I assume it happens when the changes are being stored in the user home folders, which are not affected by the Restore Points.
> I have the Google Update plugin disabled in Firefox.
I was quite surprised that one can disable plugins now. When i looked there the last time, it seemed like those couldn't be disabled at all.
> Neither to _I_, personally, find much use for the Unity Player.
Well, i do =). Some good browser games are based on this technology.
> Firefox has had lots of issues with Flash Player this year, especially
> on Windows Vista and Windows 7, because Flash uses hardware
> acceleration more than ever before. I recommend updating the graphics
> driver.
While it might be relevant in some cases, i'm quite sure that the scrolling lags on this or Gmail's pages have nothing in common with Flash. Also, i don't experience problems with Flash per se when i use it explicitly (i.e. playing Flash games or watching the Flash videos), so it's highly unlikely that right now i'm having issues with it.
Finally, Flash plugin in Firefox is launched as a separate process, and if it is what consumes my CPU, i'd see that. Instead, i see the firefox.exe process doing that.
Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful for your help, i am. And maybe all my issues are specific to my platform. For example, i have Firefox on another, much older PC with a single core CPU and just 2Gb of RAM running Windows XP. Scrolling Gmail inbox there consumes 100% of the CPU, but gives no lags.
But my initial point about the Firefox performance issues wasn't to gain attention to my personal problems. It was to show that Firefox has them more than Chrome does. And that trying to win over the audience by removing the tabs on bottom isn't very smart because there are the things that are much more important to the people when they decide what browser to use.
> Turned the smooth scrolling off, lags are still there.
Hm, how many e-mails a time do you see in your inbox? I have this set to 25
in GMail.
The hardware I'm using is about five or six years old; a Celeron M 410 @
1.46 GHz, 1Gb of RAM, and Mobile Intel 945GM Express for graphics.
How I use Firefox sometimes puts the computer to its limits, because I have
hundreds of tabs ready to be loaded at Firefox startup.
OTOH, this kind of hardware is not good anymore for running the latest
Angry Birds via Google Chrome.
> I tried using NoScript before, wasn't happy with the way it was behaving.
NoScript does have a learning curve, but it can spare you a lot of trouble
going forward; using it requires that you allow necessary domains for
scripting. Granted, I've had trouble with some more obscure sites that use
multimedia or heavy AJAX (Washington Post comes to mind), but then it
turned out that their scripting was bad in the first place and wouldn't
work in Firefox even if NoScript allowed everything.
> While it might be relevant in some cases, i'm quite sure that the
scrolling lags on this
> or Gmail's pages have nothing in common with Flash.
I might agree with you here. Yet GMail does invoke the Flash Player, but I
also have it allowed via Flashblock
> And maybe all my issues are specific to my platform. For example, i have
Firefox on another,
> much older PC with a single core CPU and just 2Gb of RAM running Windows
XP.
> Scrolling Gmail inbox there consumes 100% of the CPU, but gives no lags.
Scrolling my GMail inbox of 25 items per page for a few seconds has the
Firefox process hovering at around 50-60% CPU-wise (I have Windows XP).
I'm thinking if this discussion about lags with GMail scrolling in Firefox
might need its own thread.
I have a very strong preference for tabs-on-bottom, it is more logical and easier to use. The tab is intimately associated with the web page it refers to rather than lost above everything else and is quicker and easier to access. One of the main reasons for originally choosing to use Firefox, when it first appeared, was the layout. If tabs-on-top only is enforced ihave two options, to stop Firefox updates and keep the last tabs-on-bottom compatible version or move to another browser.
> > To install, download and open manually with FF.
> > My only modification is in the install.rdf file where I set it to expire
> > with Firefox 99.0, which won't be around for awhile yet. :) Further info
> > posted at moz.gen and moz.sup.ff.
> > The Firefox 3 design & theme is far superior to the bland, colorless,
> > pale shades of gray, illegible, user-unfriendly, awkward Firefox 4+
> > theme(s) and layout(s), and I hope to keep it forever.
> > Thanks for your good efforts, really appreciated.
> Seems fairly popular, 77 downloads so far...
> --
> HarveyG
I just did, thank you sir.
Having tried Google Chrome, I uninstalled it after a week because tabs on top doesn't work for me at all. David Smith has already summed up most of my own complaints about the tabs on top option, but there's one even more egregious reason:
I use Stardock ObjectDock and have it attached to the top of my screen, auto-hiding when not used. It's basically a more customizable Windows clone of OSX's Application Switcher for those who aren't familiar with it. Since ObjectDoc is auto hidden at the top, trying to open a tab at the top of the screen almost always led to the ObjectDoc bar popping out, preventing me from actually clicking the tab.
I could of course place ObjectDock somewhere else on the screen (as would probably be suggested to me), but I'm using my computer for more than browsing. Over the years I've perfected my work flow so I need tabs and boxes from other programs to be arranged in very specific places around the desktop. This actually allows me to be fast and efficient across all of the programs I use, not just some. So appeasing Firefox by moving ObjectDock isn't an option (I realize this is just the need of one out of 400 million users, but if it's not voiced no one will know who might take it into account.)
Back when tabs on top became the default in Firefox, I read a few arguments by the UI design team about faster and more intuitive usage as the reason why it was introduced. Well, I have to take a large variety of programs into account for my entire workflow, and Firefox is only one cog in the machine.
Tabs on bottom is actually faster for my own workflow not just because ObjectDock messes with the tabs on top option. Over the years other programs have introduced tabs (on bottom! - e.g. Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign) or have had them all along (e.g. Notepad++). If the option to keep tabs on the bottom in Firefox is taken away, that'll seriously impact my work experience in general.
As an aside, it's ironic that Adobe of all companies has managed over the years to increase users' options to customize their interfaces, and the plucky Mozilla (Firefox) that I started using when it was called Netscape Navigator 3 is looking to take customization away from its users.
If there were a viable alternative to Firefox with tabs on bottom support, I would be tempted to switch if this option were to be taken away from Firefox users. So far that hasn't happened, and I'm really hoping you guys will reconsider. I'd rather not have to resort to disabling security updates for whatever last FF version supports tabs on bottom, but it would become a necessity if there was no alternative. My own workflow must take precedence to the needs of a single program or its programmers and designers.
> > > To install, download and open manually with FF.
> > > My only modification is in the install.rdf file where I set it to expire
> > > with Firefox 99.0, which won't be around for awhile yet. :) Further info
> > > posted at moz.gen and moz.sup.ff.
> > > The Firefox 3 design & theme is far superior to the bland, colorless,
> > > pale shades of gray, illegible, user-unfriendly, awkward Firefox 4+
> > > theme(s) and layout(s), and I hope to keep it forever.
> > > Thanks for your good efforts, really appreciated.
> > Seems fairly popular, 77 downloads so far...
> > --
> > HarveyG
> I just did, thank you sir.
> Having tried Google Chrome, I uninstalled it after a week because tabs on top doesn't work for me at all. David Smith has already summed up most of my own complaints about the tabs on top option, but there's one even more egregious reason:
> I use Stardock ObjectDock and have it attached to the top of my screen, auto-hiding when not used. It's basically a more customizable Windows clone of OSX's Application Switcher for those who aren't familiar with it. Since ObjectDoc is auto hidden at the top, trying to open a tab at the top of the screen almost always led to the ObjectDoc bar popping out, preventing me from actually clicking the tab.
> I could of course place ObjectDock somewhere else on the screen (as would probably be suggested to me), but I'm using my computer for more than browsing. Over the years I've perfected my work flow so I need tabs and boxes from other programs to be arranged in very specific places around the desktop. This actually allows me to be fast and efficient across all of the programs I use, not just some. So appeasing Firefox by moving ObjectDock isn't an option (I realize this is just the need of one out of 400 million users, but if it's not voiced no one will know who might take it into account.)
> Back when tabs on top became the default in Firefox, I read a few arguments by the UI design team about faster and more intuitive usage as the reason why it was introduced. Well, I have to take a large variety of programs into account for my entire workflow, and Firefox is only one cog in the machine.
> Tabs on bottom is actually faster for my own workflow not just because ObjectDock messes with the tabs on top option. Over the years other programs have introduced tabs (on bottom! - e.g. Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign) or have had them all along (e.g. Notepad++). If the option to keep tabs on the bottom in Firefox is taken away, that'll seriously impact my work experience in general.
> As an aside, it's ironic that Adobe of all companies has managed over the years to increase users' options to customize their interfaces, and the plucky Mozilla (Firefox) that I started using when it was called Netscape Navigator 3 is looking to take customization away from its users.
> If there were a viable alternative to Firefox with tabs on bottom support, I would be tempted to switch if this option were to be taken away from Firefox users. So far that hasn't happened, and I'm really hoping you guys will reconsider. I'd rather not have to resort to disabling security updates for whatever last FF version supports tabs on bottom, but it would become a necessity if there was no alternative. My own workflow must take precedence to the needs of a single program or its programmers and designers.
I have already disabled updates, because the developer of Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4 has stopped updating his theme until this issue is resolved. That's how much I care even for the Firefox 4 look and feel, let alone the tabs on top!!!
> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
> need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
> (Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
> is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
> browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?
> It might cause some extra overhead to maintain tabs-on-bottom, but so
> be it! It's worth it for the great extra functionality.
> I propose that this bug be closed with WONTFIX. I use tabs-on-bottom
> because I *prefer it that way*. I like the tabs to be there, right next
> to the document being displayed. For me, it's much nicer for usability.
> Firefox is the only major browser that offers this? GOOD! It makes
> Firefox better.
> I (and I suspect quite a few others) would have to seriously consider
> switching to a combination of Seamonkey and Chrome if this bug were
> implemented. I urge you now to close this bug and not implement the
> suggestion. You need to decide whether Firefox development is going to
> be the latest whims of the UX team, or actually giving a damn about the
> users (yes OK we're in a minority, but we are still a significant
> minority and we should count!)
> --
> Best regards,
> Jeremy Morton (Jez)
I would never update Firefox if I couldn't retain the FF 4.0 look. :/ Large and colorful icons are MUCH MORE easier to use and tab on bottom are easier to switch, MUCH MORE easier.
Making icons monochromatic and tiny, hinders with my ability to intuitively browse. The new, tabs-on-top and smaller & mono-colored may look minimalistic, which some people may like, but it isn't any good for heavy, multi-tab browsing.
Firefox provided THE best browsing experience, and it would be great if it continues this way. I really hope that you seriously consider to keep the browsing experience as user friendly forever. :)
> I would never update Firefox if I couldn't retain the FF 4.0 look. :/
> Large and colorful icons are MUCH MORE easier to use and tab on bottom
> are easier to switch, MUCH MORE easier.
So far there is still the "Use small icons" checkbox in the toolbar
customization dialog.
> Making icons monochromatic and tiny, hinders with my ability to intuitively
> browse.
There are themes (not personas, but actual themes) at
addons.mozilla.org to improve on that.
On Sunday, 21 October 2012 04:18:56 UTC+5:30, Mart Rootamm wrote:
> 2012/10/20 <gun...@email.com>:
> > I would never update Firefox if I couldn't retain the FF 4.0 look. :/
> > Large and colorful icons are MUCH MORE easier to use and tab on bottom
> > are easier to switch, MUCH MORE easier.
> So far there is still the "Use small icons" checkbox in the toolbar
> customization dialog.
> > Making icons monochromatic and tiny, hinders with my ability to intuitively
> > browse.
> There are themes (not personas, but actual themes) at
> addons.mozilla.org to improve on that.
> -Mart
I know that. :) I found a theme in the comments section of the FF 4.0 look theme which extended the theme usage till FF ver 50.0. I also use large icons and tabs on bot. I just wanted Firefox devs to know that they should keep it this way. :)
