|
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?
|
# ? Jul 21, 2012 14:19 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 07:12 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2012 15:53 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2012 18:34 |
|
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 |
# ? Jul 22, 2012 20:03 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2012 21:51 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 00:16 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 00:49 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 06:35 |
|
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?
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 11:41 |
|
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?
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 16:33 |
|
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?
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 16:53 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 16:59 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:This has never been my experience with Waterfox.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 17:07 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 17:11 |
|
It seems that 14 is automatically adding www in front of some URLs I type in. Any way to disable this?
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 17:52 |
|
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:
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jul 23, 2012 |
# ? Jul 23, 2012 17:54 |
|
Sunspider is too simplistic to make for a good comparison. Try something a little more complex, like V8.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 18:30 |
|
Zhentar posted:Sunspider is too simplistic to make for a good comparison. Try something a little more complex, like V8. Ok I get code:
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 |
|
Install Gentoo 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.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 19:48 |
|
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 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 20:56 |
|
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 * ???
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 21:02 |
|
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?
|
# ? Jul 23, 2012 21:07 |
|
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... 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 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:But I don't see any difference at all in my browsing. Waterfox feels more responsive too. 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.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2012 11:38 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2012 01:59 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2012 02:36 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2012 14:26 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2012 17:54 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 27, 2012 00:37 |
|
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 |
# ? Jul 27, 2012 08:02 |
|
ThermoPhysical posted:On Aurora, the Downloads menu disappeared and has been replaced with the window again. Has this happened for anyone else? Happened to me too. Luckily I can finally remove it from my toolbar and just reenabled download statusbar.
|
# ? Jul 27, 2012 10:24 |
|
Earl of Lavender posted:Oh look here we go again. Flash 11.3.300.268 released. 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.
|
# ? Jul 27, 2012 14:55 |
|
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. media.ogg.enabled media.webm.enabled
|
# ? Jul 27, 2012 19:07 |
|
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: If you manually disable ogg and webm like that does it automatically fall back to h264 or something?
|
# ? Jul 27, 2012 21:54 |
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:If you manually disable ogg and webm like that does it automatically fall back to h264 or something?
|
# ? Jul 28, 2012 02:52 |
|
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?
|
# ? Jul 29, 2012 05:38 |
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:If you just want it to fall back to flash, why don't you just un-enroll from the HTML5 beta?
|
# ? Jul 29, 2012 05:58 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 29, 2012 21:00 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 07:12 |
|
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 how did they let this get into the bugzilla Malloc Voidstar fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jul 30, 2012 |
# ? Jul 30, 2012 03:18 |