|
Wiseblood posted:Is anyone having trouble getting embedded Youtube videos to play? Videos embedded here with the video tag work fine, so the problem seems to be videos embedded with the iframe code. For example: Works for me (on 8.0). Try updating Flash?
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Are there any particularly important plugins which won't work with Pale Moon 8.0 64-bit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 07:53
|
|
|
Bootstrap Beefstud posted:Are there any particularly important plugins which won't work with Pale Moon 8.0 64-bit? Not that I know of. Flash and Java both have 64bit plugins now. Dunno if there's a 64bit Silverlight plugin because nobody uses Silverlight. Maybe some obscure poo poo like Shockwave or RealPlayer or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Lum posted:Not that I know of. Flash and Java both have 64bit plugins now. There's 64 bit release of silverlight available: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=227576
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Bootstrap Beefstud posted:Are there any particularly important plugins which won't work with Pale Moon 8.0 64-bit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Keep in mind that Pale Moon 64-bit is compiled without important optimizations (because his main computer is the only 64-bit machine he has and optimized compiles take too long...) so it can be slower than the official 32-bit Firefox builds (and is definitely slower than Pale Moon 32-bit). Waterfox is 64-bit only and has all the important optimizations, if people are looking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
I wish Pale Moon wouldn't do that poo poo with having it's own profile folder. Makes it much more annoying to switch between the two. Just switched over to waterfox anyway, not really noticing much difference so far, apart from the nicer icon and lack of the pale moon status bar add-in, which is easilly fixed. Now I just need a 64 bit version of Thunderbird 8.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Wiseblood posted:Is anyone having trouble getting embedded Youtube videos to play? Videos embedded here with the video tag work fine, so the problem seems to be videos embedded with the iframe code. For example: maybe related to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=705037 ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
Mozilla has run into an interesting problem: The Firefox codebase is now large enough that it can't be built on 32-bit machines because linking needs more than 3GB of RAM. They discovered this when a large patch suddenly broke compilation, and they've had to do a panicked backout of several features (including SPDY  ) to get things building again. The solution is to switch all their build machines to 64-bit operating systems, but this is going to take awhile. In the meantime people are frantically scouring for old code that can be removed to buy time while they get 64-bit boxes up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 13:01
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Mozilla has run into an interesting problem: The Firefox codebase is now large enough that it can't be built on 32-bit machines because linking needs more than 3GB of RAM. They discovered this when a large patch suddenly broke compilation, and they've had to do a panicked backout of several features (including SPDY Wow, that's nuts. I've never worked on a project that big. Anyone know how many lines of code it has? I could check it out via hg and wc -l myself, but I'm feeling lazy after my final this morning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:Wow, that's nuts. I've never worked on a project that big. Anyone know how many lines of code it has? I could check it out via hg and wc -l myself, but I'm feeling lazy after my final this morning. According to my count of files that have the extensions .cpp, .c, .h, .idl, and .ipdl (of which there are around 13000), mozilla-central has (does math since xargs had to run wc -l in 3 batches of files) 4912974 lines of code. Yes, that's basically 5 million, kids. Keep in mind a few things on this: that includes tests and other things that aren't part of libxul (which is the library that until about 10 minutes ago was causing VS2005's linker to crap out on PGO builds). That does NOT include C++ code generated from the .idl and .ipdl files during the build, much (all? not sure) of which DOES become part of libxul. If you want an ACTUAL LOC count, you have to include other file types, but none of those (unless I'm forgetting something) matter for the current issue, since they don't get linked into libxul. Thank god I work on a module (netwerk/) that only has about 160KLOC...
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
Whatever FINALLY gets them to make loving x64 builds a priority is fine by me. That poo poo is like perpetually 3-4 versions in the future, even when they started rolling out their retarded quicker version numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Note that this is just about making their build machines 64-bit, they're still using a 32-bit compiler and producing 32-bit builds. The issue with making a release version of Firefox that's 64-bit is the compatibility problems. Flash, Java, and now Silverlight might be ready, but there's still people out there using Shockwave, Real, Quicktime, etc. Even if both builds are available, you'll still have people downloading the wrong one and flooding SUMO to ask why Bonzi Buddy doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
todesschaf posted:According to my count of files that have the extensions .cpp, .c, .h, .idl, and .ipdl (of which there are around 13000), mozilla-central has (does math since xargs had to run wc -l in 3 batches of files) 4912974 lines of code. Yes, that's basically 5 million, kids. Christ, that's a lot of code. I saw a security guy from MS give a talk at a conference a few years back, and I think I remember him saying Vista had 50-60 million lines of code. Pretty nuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Note that this is just about making their build machines 64-bit, they're still using a 32-bit compiler and producing 32-bit builds. The issue with making a release version of Firefox that's 64-bit is the compatibility problems. Flash, Java, and now Silverlight might be ready, but there's still people out there using Shockwave, Real, Quicktime, etc. Even if both builds are available, you'll still have people downloading the wrong one and flooding SUMO to ask why Bonzi Buddy doesn't work. There's no reason they couldn't have a separate download page for the x64 version with a huge red warning label noting that some addons will not be compatible. Having a wider install-base of x64 browsers will encourage plugin makers to update or die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
Is Firefox now just a big lumbering dog? I mean... per-tab processes, UI responsiveness, memory handling, all not great. As has been said, Electrolysis has been going on for years - I know it's a massive undertaking, but how about some results? Every Firefox release since version 1 apparently has a more responsive UI, which isn't really borne out in my experience. Memory handling is better in the latest releases after v7, but to be honest what I want more than anything is the UI responsiveness of Chrome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Note that this is just about making their build machines 64-bit, they're still using a 32-bit compiler and producing 32-bit builds. The issue with making a release version of Firefox that's 64-bit is the compatibility problems. Flash, Java, and now Silverlight might be ready, but there's still people out there using Shockwave, Real, Quicktime, etc. Even if both builds are available, you'll still have people downloading the wrong one and flooding SUMO to ask why Bonzi Buddy doesn't work. If only they had some sort of mechanism to host plugins outside of the main process...
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Is Firefox now just a big lumbering dog? I mean... per-tab processes, UI responsiveness, memory handling, all not great. pseudorandom name posted:If only they had some sort of mechanism to host plugins outside of the main process... Alereon fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Dec 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Whatever FINALLY gets them to make loving x64 builds a priority is fine by me. That poo poo is like perpetually 3-4 versions in the future, even when they started rolling out their retarded quicker version numbers. No, this has nothing to do with the final build. It'll be 32-bit. This is just about the codebase becoming so bloated they need more RAM to build it. I love Firefox but it really needs a clean-slate rebuild. The only reason I keep using it is because of the addons, and that's the simple truth. Alereon posted:That's how plug-ins work now (plugin-container.exe), not sure why you think this would help. I don't know about you, but pseudorandom name's comment sounded like sarcasm to me HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The UI Is pretty responsive for me, you have Windows 7 in Aero mode and a DX10 videocard with current drivers, right? Chrome has lower memory usage with a small number of tabs, which makes it decent for light usage, but Firefox scales far better when you have a few tabs open. You might want to try a brand new profile without any add-ons if you haven't done that in awhile. Yeah running Windows 7 with SP1 with Aero on and Hardware Acceleration enabled and current GPU drivers, and I frequently hose my profile and just import bookmarks and then install extensions I always use, 10 of them. I'm on an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz with 4GB RAM. Is this considered to be a complete heap of poo poo these days?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Current GPU drivers are all well and good, but GPU drivers for what. You never mentioned what graphics card. That CPU & 4GB RAM is perfectly decent for web use by any standard. However, all this hosing of profiles is insane. I never have any problems like that regarding performance. gently caress, I used Firefox 2 until about the time Firefox 4 launched (yeah, don't even comment). I had web page rendering issues because of hosed profiles (going from Firefox 2), but never performance issues as such. Firefox often seems to render webpages slower than IE9 though. The scrolling is a lot choppier on the same machine. It's a shame Firefox has ended up this way.. I remember when it started it was essentially supposed to be an open, lean core, with anything extra being down to third party developers. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Dec 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Yeah running Windows 7 with SP1 with Aero on and Hardware Acceleration enabled and current GPU drivers, and I frequently hose my profile and just import bookmarks and then install extensions I always use, 10 of them. I'm on an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz with 4GB RAM. Is this considered to be a complete heap of poo poo these days? In general, anything that causes poor performance with near-random disk I/O will also seriously affect Firefox. This can mean a failing harddrive (run Crystal Disk Info), heavy fragmentation (run MyDefrag), or lovely antivirus software (use Microsoft Security Essentials and not lovely third-party tools). Alereon fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Dec 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
My original graphics card, an nVidia GTX 8800 768MB card blew up a year ago, and all I could afford to replace it with was my current nVidia GeForce 250 GTS, which is pretty poo poo. The idea of Firefox is great (lean core, fancy stuff done by third parties), but the problem is that often third party extensions are clunky and fat. Also, I have 10 live bookmarks that I use regularly throughout the day. One reason I can't move to Chrome is that there's no live bookmarks substitute that works. Plus, I have a fair bit of emotional loyalty to Firefox, which pains me to say because it cements the fact I am a raging nerd who has feelings for software. How I've got a girlfriend I'll never know (I hope she never sobers up  )
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
Yeah, the extensibility of Firefox is its biggest downfall. The big problem is that there's no way for a user to know if an add-on they're installing is going to poo poo up the browser, they tried to do a performance rating thing awhile back that was moderately successful, but add-on authors sperged out like they were being convicted of a crime and forced them to pull it. Live bookmarks use a shitton of memory, but if they're useful enough to you to make that worth it, it's all good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Yeah, the extensibility of Firefox is its biggest downfall. The big problem is that there's no way for a user to know if an add-on they're installing is going to poo poo up the browser, they tried to do a performance rating thing awhile back that was moderately successful, but add-on authors sperged out like they were being convicted of a crime and forced them to pull it. Live bookmarks use a shitton of memory, but if they're useful enough to you to make that worth it, it's all good. Had been having a months-long problem with Flash stuttering/pausing in Firefox. I always suspected it was caused by Adblock Plus - latest update to 2.0.1 seems to have fixed it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:I have a fair bit of emotional loyalty to Firefox, which pains me to say because it cements the fact I am a raging nerd who has feelings for software. You're just stealing my thoughts now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:You're just stealing my thoughts now.  Another piece of evidence upon the mountain already gathered: I love it when other goons agree with me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Whatever FINALLY gets them to make loving x64 builds a priority is fine by me. That poo poo is like perpetually 3-4 versions in the future, even when they started rolling out their retarded quicker version numbers. The nightly update channel has had x64 support since version 9.x or so. I haven't had any particular issues with it, but the main extensions/plugins that I use are Java, Flash and Adblock Plus. If you use other plugins, then 64-bit support might not be there. I don't think that even Aurora has any 64-bit builds, though, so 64-bit release builds are still very much an "in the future" thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:This is just about the codebase becoming so bloated they need more RAM to build it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Standish posted:No, it's because they merged loads of DLLs into one mega-dll (xul.dll) to improve startup time. Then they started building with link-time optimisations, which scale exponentially with memory usage with the size of the object file. Alright, but did Firefox really start up slowly for others? I have other performance issues, like one rogue tab making the whole browser unresponsive, but not startup..
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 10:43
|
|
|
drat it, my change tab mouse (wheel) gesture (right click + wheel) doesn't work in Waterfox... Other than Pale Moon, what are other x64 builds?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 17:12
|
|
|
Dice Dice Baby posted:drat it, my change tab mouse (wheel) gesture (right click + wheel) doesn't work in Waterfox... http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/news/23/15/Waterfox-8-0-1-Available/
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Alright, but did Firefox really start up slowly for others? I have other performance issues, like one rogue tab making the whole browser unresponsive, but not startup.. A cold start up on a machine with a slow disk can be pretty bad. For many users, Firefox is the first thing they run, so it ends up paying a heavy price to initialize not only itself but a lot of system libraries. That said, the XUL.dll merge happened sometime around Firefox 1.5, so current startup performance has little relevance to the justification of libxul.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Sergeant Rock posted:IE6 was good enough for me, for I fear change. As a web developer, you are the bane of my existance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 02:48
|
|
|
duck monster posted:As a web developer, you are the bane of my existance. Rejoice. Or gnash your teeth because someone from higher up blocks the update.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
I'm running the latest firefox release on Mac OS 10.7.2 and for some reason now every time I try to drag some text/ an item it crashes instantly. Is there a fix for this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 09:10
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I'm running the latest firefox release on Mac OS 10.7.2 and for some reason now every time I try to drag some text/ an item it crashes instantly. Is there a fix for this? Do the usual - disable all extensions, see if it still crashes, and if not, re-enable your extensions one by one until you determine the culprit. If it crashes with all extensions disabled, create a new profile. Also, make sure you're running the latest version of FF with the latest version of Flash. [edit] Added a quick blurb in the OP to hopefully help people with wonky FF issues. Fangs404 fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Dec 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 10:58
|
|
|
Is there a known issue with Firefox crashes on Eyefinity/multi-monitor setups? I upgraded to a 3-monitor Eyefinity view about two weeks ago, and Firefox has been crashing about 5 times a day since. Hard freeze, and requires a ctrl+alt+delete to fix. It will usually restore the tabs after.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Dominoes posted:Is there a known issue with Firefox crashes on Eyefinity/multi-monitor setups? I upgraded to a 3-monitor Eyefinity view about two weeks ago, and Firefox has been crashing about 5 times a day since. Hard freeze, and requires a ctrl+alt+delete to fix. It will usually restore the tabs after. I have a dual monitor setup and haven't experienced anything like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
v9 is out today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 01:32
|
|