Firefox - More fire and fewer cancer warnings than California

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Firefox - More fire and fewer cancer warnings than California

«‹›5 »

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

# ¿ Jul 23, 2012 17:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 12:54

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

# ¿ Jul 23, 2012 18:39

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

# ¿ Jul 23, 2012 20:11

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.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2012 21:44

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Using 3 gigs is highly problematic for a 32 bit program due to per-application address space limitations.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2012 04:59

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

I've seriously not experienced any issues from the Javascript engine being "slower". I can play this at full speed and that's as demanding as any Javascript application I've seen online: http://gamecenter.grantgalitz.org/

And 64 bit Flash has been WAY less buggy for me than 32 bit too.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2012 16:25

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Colonel Sanders posted:

I would be all for 64bit flash and letting Firefox hog up all my RAM, I have multiple GBs for reason. Really, I have 12GB of RAM for when I play games, but I spend so many hours a day just browsing the web with Firefox using up only 200 or 300MB. . . Also, the latest version of flash is soo loving buggy I am tempted to switch to 64bit just to see if that is a little more stable.

As for Javascript is that really a matter of 64bit makes it slow, or is it more the fact that 32bit is the more popular option browser so right and thus it is optimized better than 64bit?

I ran some "benchmarks" earlier and some stuff is slightly faster and some stuff is slightly slower in Javascript apparently. But the performance difference doesn't seem to matter at all on my machine. Like I said, that Game Boy Color emulator implemented entirely in Javascript runs fine for me even, and that's some pretty hefty workload for JS. And 64 bit Flash is a LOT less buggy in my experience, same with 64 bit Java.

This is the build I use: http://waterfoxproject.org/

# ¿ Aug 4, 2012 20:30

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

xsDaniel posted:

I'm currently using the Pale Moon 32bit build, and I'm wondering two things:

1. Is it okay to move up to 64bit now? Will I have any compatibility issues, and is it worth the effort
2. Is there a general consensus on which variant of Firefox is the best? Of Blazing Fast, Pale moon, and Waterfox?

Thanks!

Waterfox is a better 64 bit build than Pale Moon 64 bit since the Pale Moon guys put little effort into optimizing their 64 bit build. You will not have any compatibility issues unless you're still using arcane outdated plugins like Macromedia Shockwave (not Flash). Also there's no "effort" to it, you simply install the new program and get 64 bit flash/java/silverlight and you're done.

And claims of it being "slower" are pretty much bullshit, if you have a 64 bit system anywhere near recent, like a Core i5 from the generation that was before Sandy Bridge or a Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge Core i3; any "slowness" will only show up on meaningless benchmarks not daily browsing.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2012 15:38

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

WattsvilleBlues posted:

Isn't using an x64 build a bit pointless at the moment? What advantages do they have over x86 builds?

For me it's that 64 bit Flash and Java run a lot better than 32 bit. But also the browser in general feels a lot snappier with hundreds of tabs open (which is how I roll) than the 32 bit version, despite the silly JS benchmarks that don't have much to do with day to day browsing.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2012 17:49

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Alereon posted:

Look, this isn't five years ago. JavaScript performance is extremely important, probably the most important aspect of browser performance, and it's only going to get more important as more workloads move to JS. One example is that Firefox's native PDF reader, pdf.js, is extremely sensitive to JS performance since decoding and rendering PDFs is a very heavy workload.

The balance between 64-bit and 32-bit is pretty simple: Compiling to 64-bit offers no advantages over 32-bit for normal usage, just slower JavaScript performance. You can argue that if you have hundreds of tabs open you might see better memory handling, which might be enough to offset the JavaScript performance loss, but that absolutely does not change the fact that a 64-bit browser will be slower for the people reading this thread asking the question.

Ok, again, PDFs load up and work perfectly fast in my 64 bit browser. Everything javascript works perfectly fine, and as far as I can tell the "extra" speed in 32 bit is as useless as the extra fps in a video game once it already achieves a smooth 60 fps. Like if I have some game on my PC that technically renders 90 fps in one configuration and 80 fps in another, it's invisible on my screen that only handles 60 fps.

And the benefits of ASLR working, and 64 bit Java and Flash being more stable and better performing are also great benefits to using 64 bit. It's not like I have some beefy high end system here either, it's a laptop that cost $1150 a year ago.

And ironically enough, 64 bit Waterfox usually uses less RAM for me than 32 bit Firefox.

Basically people should stop acting like 64 bit is a magic performance killer for Firefox, because it isn't. Hell, the HTML5 Game Boy Color emulator site runs full speed for me, as does the PDF renderer.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2012 22:43

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

dis astranagant posted:

So, where can one get a decent 64 bit build now if Palemoon's is awful and Waterfox bundles garbage?

You can just not select the AVG bar when installing Waterfox? I didn't even notice it was in the main install package, I just use the auto-update service and it doesn't bundle there, so I've not had a chance to see the manual update installer.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2012 18:30

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

I don't see why you'd need to make it an extension thing, when it can just be one of the thousands of deprecated features that are re-enableable by way of about:config?

Remove the option from the default customization menu? Sure. But removing it from about:config is just silly.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2012 17:12

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

kapinga posted:

If you remove the code entirely, you don't have to support anything about it in future releases. Keeping it around in about :config means that you have to make sure it at least kind of works.

I don't see what heavy-duty code you need to put the tab bar under address bar. You could simply have it keep the same styling as the tab on tops even, and rely on someone making a theme to pretty them back up.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2012 17:49

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

wipeout posted:

On FFox 15.0, every so often I'll start up Firefox, and get "Firefox is already running". I've seen this in other versions too.

Try making a new profile/resetting your current one to fix firefox spawning a bunch of dummy processes. It was doing that for me back around version 9 and only doing that fixed it.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2012 04:43

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Use 64 bit Flash, get much better performance. That's my experience at least.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2012 04:18

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

I'm using Waterfox 15 with 64 bit Flash and experiencing no problem with that chart and lag n omatter what I try.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2012 15:15

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Aleksei Vasiliev posted:

You know that tabs on top is objectively better, right? You can think it looks worse or whatever, but it is unquestionably more efficient.

That's false. Just straight up no truth to it.

Like there's no way you can claim fitt's law and infinite height when there's a titlebar in the way! Sorry!

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Sep 9, 2012 06:03

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Alereon posted:

Hey guys, when the browser is maximized, tabs-on-top places the tabs adjacent to the top of the screen, which is why it's the objectively correct behavior per Fitt's law, as was previously mentioned.

Who maximizes a browser these days? Especially with all those fixed width sites where maximizing a browser on a 1920x1080 screen means 2/3 of your screen is whitespace.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2012 14:33

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

You don't really get less updates with Waterfox, they're just slightly later while the dude does his tweaking of the basic codebase.

Although when you have things like when Firefox 16 came out and then immediately was replaced by 16.0.1 then the Waterfox version will be based off the bugfix version. So I guess you have fewer updates sometimes.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2012 04:13

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

I use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/session-manager/ precisely to avoid these situations.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2012 06:43

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Read posted:

There's always Waterfox if you want a 64-bit build, so it's not that bad.

e: Or does that rely on the official builds?

Waterfox guy does his own builds, and never works off of those nightlies.

Im_Special posted:

I'd rather they focus on one instead of splitting there time working on 2, 64bit adds nothing anyway besides more problems and more memory space, but considering Firefox's memory usage we don't “really” need more than 4gb of ram. This whole illusion that 64bit can bring performance improvements over 32bit needs to stop already, it doesn't always hold true for everything 32bit vs 64bit.

Runs faster/better for me, chief. Particularly when using Java or Flash stuff since the 64 bit versions run better.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2012 18:36

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

What is the best extension for forcing a page to allow the browser to save username and password? The library system I use has the whatever thing set so firefox won't remember the password and I want to get past that.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2012 21:16

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

jeeves posted:

FF 18 is out.

Thanks for those who commented that Waterfox and Firefox have no real difference in performance anymore, I have been waiting for Waterfox to update forever, but didn't really realize the performance gain in using it was largely a placebo.

The real draw to it is using 64 bit Java and Flash for me. I simply end up with better performance in those in their 64 bit versions and am often dealing with sites that use Flash or Java heavily so it's a major impact for me.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2013 21:51

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

jeeves posted:

If I have java x86 and x64 installed at the same time, will x64 take precedence?

64 bit browsers will always use 64 bit Java while 32 bit browsers will always use 32 bit Java.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2013 02:12

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

I'm currently testing out Aurora 20.0a2 (2013-01-19) and for some reason I can no longer stop GIF animations by hitting ESC. Is there a way to enable that?

# ¿ Jan 20, 2013 17:11

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

What versions enable that h.264 support, or how can I check if what I'm using now does?

# ¿ Jan 29, 2013 21:41

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

cremnob posted:

So Firefox is going to third party cookies by default.

Er, what are you trying to say there? Seems like there might be a word missing

# ¿ Feb 24, 2013 02:43

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Gerudo Rivera posted:

Shouldn't someone be able to select where new tabs open (right of the current tab, OF COURSE) without having to track down an addon? Or customize common keyboard shortcuts/gestures? Or hide the loving X buttons that appear on every single tab?

All of these should be changeable in about :config actually. Maybe not the shortcut customization thing (I'm not sure what you're actually asking about there) but the rest you didn't need an addon for.

# ¿ May 8, 2013 23:00

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

How can I stop Firefox from putting up this "Sync has not been able to complete" message at the bottom of the browser window without disabling Sync completely? It keeps doing it every 10 minutes or so and I really don't need to be informed about this constantly.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 23:02

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Dice Dice Baby posted:

Seriously? Are you sure you're using it right?

It actually is a bit annoying that you can't just get the basic download window thingy, but I don't care enough to find an extension to revert that.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2013 22:39

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Gerudo Rivera posted:

(hint: see 2 posts above yours)

That's pretty much nothing like the old style download window I have in mind.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2013 01:11

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

In Firefox 23 beta, the browser.tabs.autoHide in about:config doesn't seem to be working - I have it set to true but the tab bar remains open when a window only has one tab in it.

Did they change the value to control this behavior or something? It's really annoying.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2013 03:30

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Seems to work pretty well, at least the intel version.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2013 05:36

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

WattsvilleBlues posted:

Does it offer any tangible benefits over the official release of Firefox?

Well it seems more stable with my habit of having a ton of tabs open. That aside, here's the Sunspider comparison between regular Firefox's latest stable release and the latest release of Cyberfox on my computer

code:

TEST                   COMPARISON               FROM                 TO             DETAILS

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

** TOTAL **:           -                 218.8ms +/- 16.3%   218.7ms +/- 4.6%  

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

  3d:                  *1.23x as slow*    30.9ms +/- 3.7%     37.9ms +/- 8.5%      significant
    cube:              *1.35x as slow*    11.0ms +/- 5.3%     14.8ms +/- 13.6%     significant
    morph:             ??                  6.0ms +/- 7.9%      6.3ms +/- 5.5%      not conclusive: might be *1.050x as slow*
    raytrace:          *1.21x as slow*    13.9ms +/- 5.1%     16.8ms +/- 7.4%      significant

  access:              -                  20.3ms +/- 11.9%    19.0ms +/- 13.2% 
    binary-trees:      ??                  2.8ms +/- 31.4%     3.3ms +/- 33.9%     not conclusive: might be *1.179x as slow*
    fannkuch:          -                   6.9ms +/- 5.9%      6.9ms +/- 5.9%  
    nbody:             ??                  3.1ms +/- 7.3%      3.4ms +/- 10.9%     not conclusive: might be *1.097x as slow*
    nsieve:            -                   7.5ms +/- 27.4%     5.4ms +/- 29.4% 

  bitops:              ??                 14.2ms +/- 5.7%     14.5ms +/- 6.7%      not conclusive: might be *1.021x as slow*
    3bit-bits-in-byte: -                   1.3ms +/- 26.6%     1.3ms +/- 26.6% 
    bits-in-byte:      ??                  4.3ms +/- 11.2%     4.5ms +/- 15.4%     not conclusive: might be *1.047x as slow*
    bitwise-and:       -                   4.0ms +/- 8.4%      4.0ms +/- 0.0%  
    nsieve-bits:       ??                  4.6ms +/- 8.0%      4.7ms +/- 7.3%      not conclusive: might be *1.022x as slow*

  controlflow:         *1.22x as slow*     2.3ms +/- 15.0%     2.8ms +/- 10.8%     significant
    recursive:         *1.22x as slow*     2.3ms +/- 15.0%     2.8ms +/- 10.8%     significant

  crypto:              ??                 17.2ms +/- 10.5%    18.1ms +/- 6.0%      not conclusive: might be *1.052x as slow*
    aes:               ??                  9.4ms +/- 16.5%     9.8ms +/- 10.2%     not conclusive: might be *1.043x as slow*
    md5:               ??                  4.2ms +/- 7.2%      4.3ms +/- 8.0%      not conclusive: might be *1.024x as slow*
    sha1:              ??                  3.6ms +/- 13.9%     4.0ms +/- 8.4%      not conclusive: might be *1.111x as slow*

  date:                *1.196x as slow*   25.5ms +/- 8.2%     30.5ms +/- 7.1%      significant
    format-tofte:      *1.25x as slow*    12.6ms +/- 10.8%    15.7ms +/- 8.3%      significant
    format-xparb:      *1.147x as slow*   12.9ms +/- 6.1%     14.8ms +/- 7.5%      significant

  math:                1.23x as fast      18.5ms +/- 3.8%     15.1ms +/- 3.5%      significant
    cordic:            -                   3.0ms +/- 0.0%      3.0ms +/- 0.0%  
    partial-sums:      1.33x as fast      12.9ms +/- 4.1%      9.7ms +/- 3.6%      significant
    spectral-norm:     -                   2.6ms +/- 14.2%     2.4ms +/- 15.4% 

  regexp:              1.22x as fast      17.0ms +/- 13.1%    13.9ms +/- 7.0%      significant
    dna:               1.22x as fast      17.0ms +/- 13.1%    13.9ms +/- 7.0%      significant

  string:              -                  72.9ms +/- 42.3%    66.9ms +/- 6.5%  
    base64:            -                   5.9ms +/- 13.3%     5.8ms +/- 11.3% 
    fasta:             ??                  7.3ms +/- 9.3%      7.8ms +/- 5.8%      not conclusive: might be *1.068x as slow*
    tagcloud:          ??                 18.4ms +/- 10.2%    20.3ms +/- 5.8%      not conclusive: might be *1.103x as slow*
    unpack-code:       -                  34.3ms +/- 82.6%    26.3ms +/- 7.3%  
    validate-input:    -                   7.0ms +/- 6.8%      6.7ms +/- 7.2%

# ¿ Sep 11, 2013 14:58

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

So my Firefox just got the upgrade to 25.0.1, and now the close tab button is located all the way at the end of the tab bar instead of being visible on the active tab button. Was this supposed to happen? I can't seem to find the about:config option to actually switch it back either.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2013 19:02

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

The Dark One posted:

Make sure browser.tabs.closeButtons is set to 1 in about :config.

Thanks that fixed it.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2013 21:44

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

With Waterfox 27.0.1 I get pages randomly flashing black, and it's not happening on Firefox 27.0.1 - anyone else have that happen?

My laptop has both Intel HD Graphics 3000 and NVidia GeForce GT 540M graphics, and in waterfox it happens whether the NVidia control panel is set to force Waterfox to the integrated or nvidia card, and doesn't happen at all for Firefox. It also happens with extensions all disabled, or all enabled, but again, only on Waterfoc.

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Feb 21, 2014

# ¿ Feb 21, 2014 17:37

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

The Milkman posted:

This is a loss for the handful of people with Surfaces if it ran on RT, which I'm not too sure it did. But yeah it's clear Metro isn't going anywhere besides away.

They never got it running on arm, so yeah no loss.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2014 01:59

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

crestfallen posted:

Is there a way to adjust the width of the scrollbars in Firefox? Is there a userchrome modification or something you can make?

I Google'd, and it seems like most of the references are for much, much older versions of Firefox. Like 3.x old or older.

Is there any particular reason you only want to change the scrollbars in Firefox and not in the rest of your applications? If there isn't, then you can just do:

Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Personalization, then click Window Color, then click Advanced Appearance Settings... and you can change the "scrollbar" item between 8 and 100.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2014 05:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 12:54

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Also he never even like, bothered to give a real apology for that and vow to not do such stupid poo poo again.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 22:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Firefox - More fire and fewer cancer warnings than California

«‹›5 »