Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Is Adblock still being developed though? I though Adblock Plus had forked off because Adblock just wasn't being updated.
firefox 3
- Thread starter Sxotty
- Start date
Is Adblock still being developed though? I though Adblock Plus had forked off because Adblock just wasn't being updated.
hoom
Veteran
So anyway, I'm liking FF3 
Have been using beta in Ubuntu a bit, but wasn't sure how much the differences were due to the Linux port & how much was the new version.
I was a bit apprehensive that I might lose my current tabs during the upgrade but went ahead anyway: Install took like 5 secs of actual processing
After addon updates I got all my tabs back
Also about a GB of RAM freed up
Not so keen on the new Back/Forward buttons though
Have been using beta in Ubuntu a bit, but wasn't sure how much the differences were due to the Linux port & how much was the new version.
I was a bit apprehensive that I might lose my current tabs during the upgrade but went ahead anyway: Install took like 5 secs of actual processing
After addon updates I got all my tabs back
Also about a GB of RAM freed up
Not so keen on the new Back/Forward buttons though
Why don't you use AdblockPlus and just disable it for sites you do like and want to support, just like this one *cough *cough... Much easier than single handedly blocking every ad you don't like with adblock...
I mean I adblocked the server that provided the ad content in the popunder. *.mediaplex.* for example... I will try Abp now.
BTW FF3 now scales with windows font, and its own font setting. Somehow that made mine huge. The font was ok, but images were gigantic. I flashed my bios on MOBO and somehow my graphics cards was uninstalled-->reinstalled which reset font size in windows and then firefox looked lovely again. Before pictures were all blurry and distended.
Spaceman-Spiff
Regular
I've been using FF3 since the beta, and I'm loving it. A lot of improvements over FF2: much faster loading/rendering time and uses less memory. The new "awesome" bar is also good, just takes some time to get used to over the old one. Bookmarking is also much easier than before.
I ran the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark on my work PC. Running an AMD Athlon 3200+ with 2GB RAM on Win XP SP2. The following are the results (less is better):
I ran the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark on my work PC. Running an AMD Athlon 3200+ with 2GB RAM on Win XP SP2. The following are the results (less is better):
- Firefox 2.0.0.14
Total execution time: 32,393.8ms +/-6.4% - Full Result
- Firefox 3.0
Total execution time: 5,442.2ms +/-2.4% - Full Result
- Internet Explorer 7
Total execution time: 57,794.6ms +/-8.1% - Full Result
- Safari v3.1.1
Total execution time: 7,393.0ms +/-6.3% - Full Result
Actually it's a window manager problem too, no? At least Firefox seems restore all windows now.
for comparison :
opera 9.5
Total: 4080.0ms +/- 1.3%
full result
http://webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0....string-validate-input":[109,109,109,109,109]}
opera 9.5
Total: 4080.0ms +/- 1.3%
full result
http://webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0....string-validate-input":[109,109,109,109,109]}
NocturnDragon
Regular
Final Firefox 3.0 download day results:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeresig/2590008041/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeresig/2590008041/
NocturnDragon
Regular
Nice comparison!
I understand that you are an Opera guy and want to make it look the "faster". But you could at least compare them on the same computer!
on mine:
MacBook Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo
2.2 GHz
Firefox 3.0:
3336.4ms +/- 0.9%
Opera 9.5:
6552.6ms +/- 1.1%
edit: vbulletin gives me trouble posting the comparison urls
edit2: for comparison Safari 4.0 DP (which is pretty much as fast as the webkit nightly) gives me:
Total: 2445.0ms +/- 1.5%
I guess it's about time Opera stops calling it's own the fastest browser.
I understand that you are an Opera guy and want to make it look the "faster". But you could at least compare them on the same computer!
on mine:
MacBook Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo
2.2 GHz
Firefox 3.0:
3336.4ms +/- 0.9%
Opera 9.5:
6552.6ms +/- 1.1%
edit: vbulletin gives me trouble posting the comparison urls
edit2: for comparison Safari 4.0 DP (which is pretty much as fast as the webkit nightly) gives me:
Total: 2445.0ms +/- 1.5%
I guess it's about time Opera stops calling it's own the fastest browser.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
I guess it's about time Opera stops calling it's own the fastest browser.
To be fair, rendering a web page quickly is more than just how fast your javascript engine is.
I guess it's about time Opera stops calling it's own the fastest browser.
Has any serious research gone into finding out what factors most influence the perception of speed, responsiveness and adherence to the Principle of Least Surprise in web browsers? Based purely on what comes out of the box from the four major players I have to say I haven't seen much evidence.
I'm seeing the same issues I had with XMosaic in 1995, broadly speaking. Updated, polished, with big brass bells and shiny things that dazzle, but the same fundamental problems.
NocturnDragon
Regular
True.
But JavaScript speed is getting more important as time goes by, and by the opposite, pure html rendering speed is getting less end less important.
Notice that I'm talking about PC browsers here, not handheld ones.
SunSpider JavaScript Thingy (Intel C2D @3.6 GHz, Vista64):
Safari 3.1.1:
2377.6ms +/- 1.3%
Opera 9.5:
2739.4ms +/- 0.5%
Firefox 2:
10798.6ms +/- 0.8%
Internets Explorer 7:
17822.4ms +/- 9.2%
Safari and Opera very close, IE and FF2 - lol. Safari is pretty much unusable for me, though, because the fonts look extremely blurry.
Safari 3.1.1:
2377.6ms +/- 1.3%
Opera 9.5:
2739.4ms +/- 0.5%
Firefox 2:
10798.6ms +/- 0.8%
Internets Explorer 7:
17822.4ms +/- 9.2%
Safari and Opera very close, IE and FF2 - lol. Safari is pretty much unusable for me, though, because the fonts look extremely blurry.
NocturnDragon
Regular
