Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
END CHEMTRAILS NOW
Apr 16, 2005

Pillbug

Sri.Theo posted:

OK I've tested this and it clearly isn't working. The boxes showing "your friends activity" still show up, which means that Facebook is still tracking me as well, can anyone kindly offer a solution?
Have you tried ShareMeNot? It blocks trackers for facebook, twitter, and other social media sites.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Sri.Theo
Apr 16, 2008

NotInventedHere posted:

Have you tried ShareMeNot? It blocks trackers for facebook, twitter, and other social media sites.

That seems to be exactly what I wanted, I should have known there was an extension for it. Thanks so much.

theshim
May 1, 2012

You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!
Well, setting browser.urlbar.autofill to false stops my address bar from autocompleteing websites for me, which is good. Still annoyed that history no longer shows or deletes redirect pages; need to find out how to get rid of those.

Scalding Coffee
Jun 26, 2006

You're already dead
Is there a bind script to more quickly alt+shift+D bookmarks to replace existing ones? Replace Bookmarks isn't really accurate.

Scalding Coffee fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jul 22, 2012

Dodoman
Feb 26, 2009



A moment of laxity
A lifetime of regret
Lipstick Apathy
Anyone else on Aurora 16? I can't seem to get the new theme to work (if it has been implemented). I do, however, have the new download icon next to the search bar which is very sexy. May finally let me stop using download statusbar.

Ryokurin
Jul 14, 2001

Wanna Die?
As far as I know the new UI is still a separate build. I haven't heard much about it in a long time however.

Bieeanshee
Aug 21, 2000

Not keen on keening.


Grimey Drawer

Dodoman posted:

Anyone else on Aurora 16? I can't seem to get the new theme to work (if it has been implemented). I do, however, have the new download icon next to the search bar which is very sexy. May finally let me stop using download statusbar.

I'm on 16, and I've been trying to get rid of the thing. I've found a config variable that keeps it from populating its download list, but the empty bubble still pops open when a download completes.

It'd be nice if they put it in as a traditional UI element that I could just drag and drop off into the customization window, but it doesn't show up in layout editing mode. Oh well. It's a minor annoyance at worst.

hobb
Sep 20, 2001
is there a setting I can set in about:config or anywhere else to have the bookmarks sidebar auto close when I click on a bookmark? I've tried all in one sidebar but I really don't need all the extra stuff it does, and it leaves a strip on the side that irks me.

WattsvilleBlues
Jan 25, 2005

Every demon wants his pound of flesh

Dodoman posted:

Anyone else on Aurora 16? I can't seem to get the new theme to work (if it has been implemented). I do, however, have the new download icon next to the search bar which is very sexy. May finally let me stop using download statusbar.

The new theme (curved tabs in Windows 7 etc.) is only present on certain Nightly builds at the moment. Other theme changes are landing in small increments though, like the removal of the glass frame around the ID block info bubble (when you click the icon to the left of URLs).

Does anyone else get the green download arrow clipped when a download completes?

jeeves
May 27, 2001

Deranged Psychopathic
Butler Extraordinaire
So uh, when is x64 coming out now? I remember in like FF6 people saying "oh the aurora build of FF11 or something has it" but now we're on 14?

Alereon
Feb 6, 2004

Dehumanize yourself and face to Trumpshed
College Slice

jeeves posted:

So uh, when is x64 coming out now? I remember in like FF6 people saying "oh the aurora build of FF11 or something has it" but now we're on 14?
I don't think there's any firm plans to make 64-bit builds release ready in the very near future. It would take significant work on the JavaScript engine to generate optimized x64 code, this lack of optimization is why third-party 64-bit builds are so much slower than the official 32-bit builds. Since there's no pressing need for Firefox to use more than 3GB of RAM, it doesn't make much sense to do this rather than other more important projects (like working on improving garbage collection).

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Alereon posted:

this lack of optimization is why third-party 64-bit builds are so much slower than the official 32-bit builds.

This has never been my experience with Waterfox.

Alereon
Feb 6, 2004

Dehumanize yourself and face to Trumpshed
College Slice

Install Gentoo posted:

This has never been my experience with Waterfox.
Have you compared JavaScript performance? It's a pretty significant difference.

Malloc Voidstar
May 7, 2007

Fuck the cowboys. Unf. Fuck em hard.
x64 builds also double the size of pointers, which means many objects are now larger, which means worse memory usage and more memory fragmentation issues.

indulgenthipster
Mar 16, 2004
Make that a pour over
It seems that 14 is automatically adding www in front of some URLs I type in. Any way to disable this?

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Alereon posted:

Have you compared JavaScript performance? It's a pretty significant difference.

Compared how exactly? It runs perfectly fine for everything I do.

Aleksei Vasiliev posted:

x64 builds also double the size of pointers, which means many objects are now larger, which means worse memory usage and more memory fragmentation issues.

I've got 16 GB of RAM in this machine, it can use all the RAM it wants as far as I care. It's still snappy and responsive.

Edit: I ran Sunspider 0.9.1 on both and got this result, the "to" column is Waterfox 13 and the "from" column is Firefox 14:

code:


TEST                   COMPARISON            FROM                 TO             DETAILS

=============================================================================

** TOTAL **:           *1.077x as slow*  204.2ms +/- 2.8%   220.0ms +/- 1.7%     significant

=============================================================================

  3d:                  *1.24x as slow*    30.9ms +/- 1.7%    38.2ms +/- 4.6%     significant
    cube:              *1.75x as slow*     8.9ms +/- 2.5%    15.6ms +/- 5.8%     significant
    morph:             1.24x as fast      10.2ms +/- 3.0%     8.2ms +/- 12.9%     significant
    raytrace:          *1.22x as slow*    11.8ms +/- 3.8%    14.4ms +/- 2.6%     significant

  access:              *1.149x as slow*   17.5ms +/- 4.0%    20.1ms +/- 3.1%     significant
    binary-trees:      *2.00x as slow*     1.5ms +/- 25.1%     3.0ms +/- 0.0%     significant
    fannkuch:          ??                  8.3ms +/- 4.2%     8.7ms +/- 4.0%     not conclusive: might be *1.048x as slow*
    nbody:             1.25x as fast       5.0ms +/- 6.7%     4.0ms +/- 0.0%     significant
    nsieve:            *1.63x as slow*     2.7ms +/- 12.8%     4.4ms +/- 11.4%     significant

  bitops:              1.105x as fast     15.8ms +/- 3.6%    14.3ms +/- 5.3%     significant
    3bit-bits-in-byte: -                   1.5ms +/- 25.1%     1.2ms +/- 25.1% 
    bits-in-byte:      1.087x as fast      5.0ms +/- 0.0%     4.6ms +/- 10.9%     significant
    bitwise-and:       *1.27x as slow*     3.3ms +/- 10.5%     4.2ms +/- 7.2%     significant
    nsieve-bits:       1.40x as fast       6.0ms +/- 0.0%     4.3ms +/- 8.0%     significant

  controlflow:         *1.190x as slow*    2.1ms +/- 10.8%     2.5ms +/- 15.1%     significant
    recursive:         *1.190x as slow*    2.1ms +/- 10.8%     2.5ms +/- 15.1%     significant

  crypto:              *1.22x as slow*    17.8ms +/- 3.2%    21.7ms +/- 5.6%     significant
    aes:               *1.60x as slow*     6.8ms +/- 4.4%    10.9ms +/- 7.8%     significant
    md5:               *1.28x as slow*     5.3ms +/- 6.5%     6.8ms +/- 8.3%     significant
    sha1:              1.43x as fast       5.7ms +/- 6.1%     4.0ms +/- 0.0%     significant

  date:                *1.73x as slow*    20.0ms +/- 25.5%    34.6ms +/- 6.1%     significant
    format-tofte:      *1.60x as slow*    11.1ms +/- 25.1%    17.8ms +/- 4.9%     significant
    format-xparb:      *1.89x as slow*     8.9ms +/- 26.1%    16.8ms +/- 10.0%     significant

  math:                ??                 15.3ms +/- 4.4%    16.0ms +/- 5.6%     not conclusive: might be *1.046x as slow*
    cordic:            *1.59x as slow*     2.7ms +/- 12.8%     4.3ms +/- 15.8%     significant
    partial-sums:      1.107x as fast      9.3ms +/- 5.2%     8.4ms +/- 4.4%     significant
    spectral-norm:     -                   3.3ms +/- 10.5%     3.3ms +/- 10.5% 

  regexp:              *1.49x as slow*     8.5ms +/- 4.4%    12.7ms +/- 3.8%     significant
    dna:               *1.49x as slow*     8.5ms +/- 4.4%    12.7ms +/- 3.8%     significant

  string:              1.27x as fast      76.3ms +/- 1.8%    59.9ms +/- 2.0%     significant
    base64:            ??                  4.7ms +/- 7.3%     5.1ms +/- 4.4%     not conclusive: might be *1.085x as slow*
    fasta:             1.165x as fast      9.2ms +/- 3.3%     7.9ms +/- 2.9%     significant
    tagcloud:          1.27x as fast      21.3ms +/- 4.8%    16.8ms +/- 3.4%     significant
    unpack-code:       1.34x as fast      30.4ms +/- 1.6%    22.7ms +/- 2.1%     significant
    validate-input:    1.45x as fast      10.7ms +/- 4.5%     7.4ms +/- 5.0%     significant
I'm not seeing very much difference. Many operations are slower, many are faster.

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jul 23, 2012

Zhentar
Sep 28, 2003

Brilliant Master Genius
Sunspider is too simplistic to make for a good comparison. Try something a little more complex, like V8.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Zhentar posted:

Sunspider is too simplistic to make for a good comparison. Try something a little more complex, like V8.

Ok I get
code:
Waterfox 13

Score: 5867
Richards: 7449
DeltaBlue: 6184
Crypto: 9422
RayTrace: 3129
EarleyBoyer: 7012
RegExp: 1327
Splay: 10309
NavierStokes: 10779


Score: 6873
Richards: 9486
DeltaBlue: 8800
Crypto: 13214
RayTrace: 3243
EarleyBoyer: 8355
RegExp: 1354
Splay: 8760
NavierStokes: 14056
Which again doesn't seem to be much difference, and again there's a test where 64 bit outperforms.

FWIW my CPU is Intel Core i7 2630QM @ 2.00GHz

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 23, 2012

xamphear
Apr 9, 2002

SILK FOR CALDÉ!

Install Gentoo posted:

code:
Score: 5867
Score: 6873
Which again doesn't seem to be much difference

Going from 6873 to 5867 is a delta of 14.637%. If the Mozilla devs came out tomorrow and said that the next nightly build was going to be 15% faster than the previous, people would be making GBS threads their pants in the street. 15% is a pretty significant difference.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

xamphear posted:

Going from 6873 to 5867 is a delta of 14.637%. If the Mozilla devs came out tomorrow and said that the next nightly build was going to be 15% faster than the previous, people would be making GBS threads their pants in the street. 15% is a pretty significant difference.

But I don't see any difference at all in my browsing. Waterfox feels more responsive too.

What, exactly, is meant to be faster here other than some artificial benchmarks?

I might as well compare it to the other browsers I have on this machine. In my use, from fastest/most responsive to slowest/least responsive; it's Waterfox > Firefox > IE9 > Opera > Chrome. Here' s what that v8 benchmark shows though:

IE 9
Score: 518
Richards: 252
DeltaBlue: 274
Crypto: 458
RayTrace: 485
EarleyBoyer: 882
RegExp: 1417
Splay: 896
NavierStokes: 301

Opera 12
Score: 4592
Richards: 4183
DeltaBlue: 3352
Crypto: 4590
RayTrace: 5568
EarleyBoyer: 6231
RegExp: 1951
Splay: 9803
NavierStokes: 4624

Chrome 20
Score: 11584
Richards: 12133
DeltaBlue: 15987
Crypto: 14976
RayTrace: 18333
EarleyBoyer: 25478
RegExp: 3234
Splay: 4473
NavierStokes: 16522

NihilCredo
Jun 6, 2011

iram omni possibili modo preme:
plus una illa te diffamabit, quam multæ virtutes commendabunt

Install Gentoo posted:

I might as well compare it to the other browsers I have on this machine. In my use, from fastest/most responsive to slowest/least responsive; it's Waterfox > Firefox > IE9 > Opera > Chrome.
I am pretty incredulous that Chrome would feel less responsive to you than every other browser, including multiple *foxes. That benchmark seems to agree with me on that, too.

Zhentar
Sep 28, 2003

Brilliant Master Genius
The point is...

64-bit build disadvantages:
* Javascript performance 15% slower in some cases
* Increased memory usage
* Plugin incompatability
* Memory leaks can bloat to even more ridiculous numbers

64-bit build advantages:
* Doesn't crash if you actually need > 3GB of virtual address space
* ???

Zhentar
Sep 28, 2003

Brilliant Master Genius

NihilCredo posted:

I am pretty incredulous that Chrome would feel less responsive to you than every other browser, including multiple *foxes. That benchmark seems to agree with me on that, too.

There's a pretty big difference between javascript performance and responsiveness. Failure to understand this for a long time is a good part of why Firefox fell so far behind Chrome in responsiveness for most users.



On a different topic, the FF15 update has screwed up my text rendering. My searching hasn't turned up any evidence that they changed anything, though. Does anyone know what's different?

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

NihilCredo posted:

I am pretty incredulous that Chrome would feel less responsive to you than every other browser, including multiple *foxes. That benchmark seems to agree with me on that, too.

Because Chrome is loving sluggish. And again the benchmark is entirely meaningless

Zhentar posted:

The point is...

64-bit build disadvantages:
* Javascript performance 15% slower in some cases
* Increased memory usage
* Plugin incompatability
* Memory leaks can bloat to even more ridiculous numbers

64-bit build advantages:
* Doesn't crash if you actually need > 3GB of virtual address space
* ???

To which
* What is it actually slower at? Doesn't show up actually using the browser
* I have 16 GB of RAM. Using memory doesn't negatively impact anything.
* What plugins are incompatible that even get used? Hasn't impacted me.
* Again it makes 0 performance impact just having memory used. I can tell you right now though that I have 180 tabs open in 8 windows and the current memory usage is 1,230,120k

64 bit advantage: it's more responsive ad has no speed drawbacks I experience. 64 bit Flash has also never given me problems while 32 bit Flash occasionally does the tearing stuff.

Ryokurin
Jul 14, 2001

Wanna Die?

Install Gentoo posted:

But I don't see any difference at all in my browsing. Waterfox feels more responsive too.

What, exactly, is meant to be faster here other than some artificial benchmarks?

I might as well compare it to the other browsers I have on this machine. In my use, from fastest/most responsive to slowest/least responsive; it's Waterfox > Firefox > IE9 > Opera > Chrome. Here' s what that v8 benchmark shows though:

We've been past the point of javascript speed increases being noticeable for around a year now. It was great when Google shamed Mozilla and Microsoft to step up but it's not really a talking point anymore as everyone is miliseconds within each other. The problem however is that the rest of the world hasn't realized this, kind of like it took a few years before people stopped worrying about Mhz or Megapixels.

crestfallen
Aug 2, 2009

Hi.
I'd have to disagree on that point. Having tons of javascript is only becoming more common, and most sites don't care about optimizing it too much. Not to mention the more "webapp" type sites out there.

It's not too hard to notice a difference when Chrome pauses for a second, downloads + executes, and finishes the page completely. Firefox seems to stall more often and for longer on those same sites.

I mean it's kind of splitting hairs, they are both great. But IMO the difference can still be seen.

xamphear
Apr 9, 2002

SILK FOR CALDÉ!
I started browsing the web on a 2400 baud modem. That's sort of my base reference point. I don't mind if a page takes a whole second to load.

But what really knots up my asshairs is when I open up a link in a background tab and I can't even continue working in the currently open tabs because ALL of Firefox locks up and shits itself.

Ryokurin
Jul 14, 2001

Wanna Die?

crestfallen posted:

I'd have to disagree on that point. Having tons of javascript is only becoming more common, and most sites don't care about optimizing it too much. Not to mention the more "webapp" type sites out there.

It's not too hard to notice a difference when Chrome pauses for a second, downloads + executes, and finishes the page completely. Firefox seems to stall more often and for longer on those same sites.

I mean it's kind of splitting hairs, they are both great. But IMO the difference can still be seen.

But those problems are not always because of javascript. Some is just plain problems with XUL and Gecko, which is a big reason why a year or two ago there were rumors that Mozilla had thought about dropping at least gecko in favor of Webkit but dropped the idea due to compatibility issues. If all the speed issues were due to javascript then there should be more buzz about Opera since it seems to be consistently as fast or faster than Chrome in some situations.

ThermoPhysical
Dec 26, 2007



On Aurora, the Downloads menu disappeared and has been replaced with the window again. Has this happened for anyone else?

I just updated to 16.0a2 but this happened before I updated.

crestfallen
Aug 2, 2009

Hi.

Ryokurin posted:

But those problems are not always because of javascript. Some is just plain problems with XUL and Gecko, which is a big reason why a year or two ago there were rumors that Mozilla had thought about dropping at least gecko in favor of Webkit but dropped the idea due to compatibility issues. If all the speed issues were due to javascript then there should be more buzz about Opera since it seems to be consistently as fast or faster than Chrome in some situations.
Of course. I didn't mean to imply that the ONLY reason was the js, merely that it seems to me to be a large contributing factor on certain types of sites.

Earl of Lavender
Jul 29, 2007

This is not my beautiful house!!

This is not my beautiful wife!!!
Pillbug
Oh look here we go again. Flash 11.3.300.268 released.


Edit: Wrong changelog redacted, thank you EoRaptor

EoRaptor posted:

11.4 is wildly different than 11.3.

Here's hoping this version is better or something, but don't get too enthusiastic.

Earl of Lavender fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jul 28, 2012

AllanGordon
Jan 26, 2010

by Shine

ThermoPhysical posted:

On Aurora, the Downloads menu disappeared and has been replaced with the window again. Has this happened for anyone else?

I just updated to 16.0a2 but this happened before I updated.

Happened to me too. Luckily I can finally remove it from my toolbar and just reenabled download statusbar.

EoRaptor
Sep 13, 2003



Earl of Lavender posted:

Oh look here we go again. Flash 11.3.300.268 released.


I did a quick bit of searching for a changelog, and I found one for a 'Flash Player 11.4.400.2321 Beta', which may or may not actually be 11.3.300.268. Here:


Here's hoping this version is better or something, but don't get too enthusiastic.

11.4 is wildly different than 11.3. The 11.3.200.268 is to fix, most likely, the Firefox integration bugs, and has no other changes.

11.4 can be grabbed from http://labs.adobe.com/ but I'd recommend it only for developers.

Alereon
Feb 6, 2004

Dehumanize yourself and face to Trumpshed
College Slice
Two video related things. First, after updating to Flash 11.3.200.268 on Aurora 16, things have been fine in Flash, so I re-enabled Protected Mode by following these directions from earlier in the thread, but changing "ProtectedMode=0" line to 1:

sauer kraut posted:

Thanks for the "disable protected mode" bit, that fixed all my problems with Flash 11.3.
It also reduced CPU usage when watching HD streams by ~1/3 for some reason.

For those too lazy to google it, go to %windir%/system??/Macromed/Flash/ and add a "ProtectedMode=0" line to mms.cfg
Of course consider the reduced security when doing it.
Also, I got sick of the lovely quality of HTML5 videos on Youtube, so I took the slightly excessive step of disabling webm and ogg in Firefox by toggling the following boolean values to "false" in about :config:
media.ogg.enabled
media.webm.enabled

The MUMPSorceress
Jan 6, 2012


^SHTPSTS

Gary’s Answer

Alereon posted:

Two video related things. First, after updating to Flash 11.3.200.268 on Aurora 16, things have been fine in Flash, so I re-enabled Protected Mode by following these directions from earlier in the thread, but changing "ProtectedMode=0" line to 1:
Also, I got sick of the lovely quality of HTML5 videos on Youtube, so I took the slightly excessive step of disabling webm and ogg in Firefox by toggling the following boolean values to "false" in about :config:
media.ogg.enabled
media.webm.enabled

If you manually disable ogg and webm like that does it automatically fall back to h264 or something?

Alereon
Feb 6, 2004

Dehumanize yourself and face to Trumpshed
College Slice

LeftistMuslimObama posted:

If you manually disable ogg and webm like that does it automatically fall back to h264 or something?
Yes, through the Flash player. When hardware acceleration is enabled that's a lot better than WebM.

The MUMPSorceress
Jan 6, 2012


^SHTPSTS

Gary’s Answer

Alereon posted:

Yes, through the Flash player. When hardware acceleration is enabled that's a lot better than WebM.

If you just want it to fall back to flash, why don't you just un-enroll from the HTML5 beta?

Alereon
Feb 6, 2004

Dehumanize yourself and face to Trumpshed
College Slice

LeftistMuslimObama posted:

If you just want it to fall back to flash, why don't you just un-enroll from the HTML5 beta?
That setting doesn't seem to do anything anymore, I was still being served HTML5 video, and Google results seemed to indicate that was common/normal.

Ariza
Feb 8, 2006
I looked through settings and the last few pages and didn't see an answer (I am easily confused though), but how do I stop Firefox from reloading a tab when I click on it? It drives me completely insane and is not what I want it to do.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Malloc Voidstar
May 7, 2007

Fuck the cowboys. Unf. Fuck em hard.
I wish there was an easy way to file enhancement requests instead of needing to use their terrible and confusing bugzilla. I just want an image resizing algorithm that doesn't look like poo poo :(

edit: oh hey there's a bug on this from 2009 lemme check it o
https://bug486918.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=603167 :nws:
:stare:
how did they let this get into the bugzilla

Malloc Voidstar fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jul 30, 2012

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply