Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Firefox 3.5 RC2 out now!
- Thread starter MacAndy74
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if there is no problem with RC2, it will be the final release. so final release date is not certain, depends on how RC goes, still, I suspect it will be out before July.
and yes, Firefox always release win/OSX/Lin version altogether, firefox is cross-platform.
yes, and that happened a year ago, actually at the end of apple's 600 day promo. Funny, huh
No? But when I deleted my FF yesterday I couldn't find that profile in Library anymore, so I thought it also erased it...?
Btw, here's a pretty good review of Safari 4, which shows how it is faster than FF in pretty much every aspect... (Interestingly though, they said it was a bit slower on the first launch.): http://www.macworld.co.uk/macsoftware/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=3363&pn=1
A good review .. really? I don`t think so:
You must change only the benchmark or you use slightly different situations and you have different results.
Compare it for example with this test:
http://lifehacker.com/5286869/lifehacker-speed-tests-safari-4-chrome-2-and-more
and you can reproduce very test, but you can reproduce nearly nothing from the Macworld test. You can believe it or not, what they say.
For example:
The test is very very likely this one:
http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/test.html
and Firefox 3.5 has there as a sore of 578 and not 576.
Hopefully has not every test on Macworld this kind of quality ;-)
For example:
The Acid3 test is a very small test and you can`t say, because of the Acid3 test, this browser supports more standards than the other. It is only ridiculous ;-)
Try for example these demos of new Firefox 3.5 features with Safari 4: http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/
or this http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/tristan-washing-machine/
or ...
A different set of tests .. many different results ;-)
And is the Macword review impartial?
I don`t think so ;-)
But this was tested in WINDOWS, so it doesn't count....
Hmm, yeah I just tried both FF & Safari and they both scored 578... I wonder what tests they performed to get 576 on FF though...
Then compare it self ;-)
For example the JS-Benchmark:
http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html
A Mac-Chrome version for example: http://blog.chromium.org/2009/06/danger-mac-and-linux-builds-available.html
or http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/
No idea, even much older 3.5 Beta versions a 578 score
I just tried this benchmark test, and as expected Safari beat Firefox by light ages almost... it scored 690ms, compared to Firefox' 1186.4ms, which is almost twice as much. As much as I'm trying hard to look for reasons to switch back to Firefox, I stay unconvinced. :/
The FF add-ons still beat Safari by ages, yet Safari offers that extra .5 inch viewing space, seems to have a more effective AdBlock, and most importantly, is noticeably FASTER than FF.
if 0.0005ms is light ages ahead, I don't know what to say. You seems looking at numbers out of context.
And who cares? JavaScript speed is only one part.
Can you see on heavy JS-Sites like Gmail a real difference. Very unlikely ;-)
Chrome, Safari and Firefox have all improved the JavaScript performance three or four times compared with the last generation. Who cares when Safari is now a few percent faster. Switch to Chrome, when when you want now the fastest JavaScript-Engine and a few weeks later then back to Webkit-Nightlies .. then again Firefox-Nightlies. Opera will release sooner or later as well a new much faster JavaScript-Engine .. and you will although not see a real difference on nearly every site (apart from Benchmark sites).
I sat in front of my MBP when it performed those tests, and it did seem to make quite of a difference in how fast Safari loaded certain things compared to FF..
Btw, how about the Profile thing we talked about earlier...why wouldn't it also delete it if I removed the entire FF (I mentioned earlier that I did a clean install of FF just yesterday - deleted it with AppZapper and installed it anew)?
I sat in front of my MBP when it performed those tests, and it did seem to make quite of a difference in how fast Safari loaded certain things compared to FF..
Btw, how about the Profile thing we talked about earlier...why wouldn't it also delete it if I removed the entire FF (I mentioned earlier that I did a clean install of FF just yesterday - deleted it with AppZapper and installed it anew)?
If safari is good for you, no p, go ahead, I'm sure there just as many ppl, probably more, find firefox is better for them, speed, or else. The tests don't cover all aspect of surfing, some are also flawed. However you look at the tests, eventually, each individual should just make choice based on their own experiences.
About profile, it might well be, you didn't mention about appzipper, did you? And I have no experience with appzipper.
AppZapper is just an app that will remove apps from your computer completely. So I'd assume it must've removed the Profile too?
Can someone explain to me why do Chinese characters in the FF Bookmark BAR look so thick (ugly)?
Previous version of FF at first displayed them slightly thinner, yet still somewhat thick. However, after having surfed for a while, it would start displaying the characters properly again - thin, rather than thick.
Here's how it looks at present:
Compare the characters on the very LEFT (it's the way ALL of them should be) to the ones to the right.....
Previous version of FF at first displayed them slightly thinner, yet still somewhat thick. However, after having surfed for a while, it would start displaying the characters properly again - thin, rather than thick.
Here's how it looks at present:
Compare the characters on the very LEFT (it's the way ALL of them should be) to the ones to the right.....
Just tried Firefox 3.5 RC2. Really nice, but since 1 of my addons doesn't work with it I'm going to have to wait until the finished release before updating. Good job Mozilla!
I don't want to start war on FF vs. Safari or anything, but I need to add that the 0.0005 ms is more like 2-5 secs difference (or sometimes even more, as I'll explain in a moment). Here we go. I took some time today and switched back to FF. Just now I was browsing through Macworld.com and checked on one of the links (+More in the Mac Hardware Guide) and it took ages to open. While it was still opening the page (blank page with the loading bar below), I took the time and in the meantime tried to load the same link in Safari. And BAM, 2-3 seconds and it loaded it, while FF STILL kept loading the page and it wasn't till a couple of secs later that it finally opened the page. Care to explain that? I call it sluggish performance.
So it took FF like 30 secs altogether to open that page.. And there are lots of other sites where the lag is not as apparent, but it will still open them, say, 1-5 secs slower than Safari. (And on some there won't be any difference.) So much about the "0.0005 ms". The bottom line is that the difference in loading time is more than apparent, but I guess you'll be perfectly content with FF if you never actually tried Safari.
You can read very day something like this in a forum around the world:
Safari 4 is so much slower than Safari 3 .. i want my Safari 3 back.
Firefox 3.0.11 is is so much slower than Firefox 3.0.10 .. Firefox 3.0.11 is crap .. Opera ... Camino ... xy blablub .. blaa blaaaaa blub blub...
and your comment is equal.
When you see such a difference is for sure something broken .. fix it ;-)
If 1186.4ms - 690ms = 0.0005ms, I don't know what to say. You seem to be using mathematics out of context.
Hint: the correct difference is 496.4ms, or .4964s.
why don't you go read the description about sunspider and figure out that they run each function 1,000,000 times to produce measurable results?If 1186.4ms - 690ms = 0.0005ms, I don't know what to say. You seem to be using mathematics out of context.
Hint: the correct difference is 496.4ms, or .4964s.
you need to realize the thing you observed is largely the problem about network and computer, DNS, issues, and it varies from each individual to another, even for same individual, it varies from one machine to another, even on same machine, it varies from time to time.
what you have seen, is not a universal firefox problem, in fact, many ppl just complain the problem with safari, because the DNS issue, safari takes ages, or not be able to load at all.
Its not a speed issue, and since you probably has a brand new firefox, I suspect its something in your OS. Its sure unreasonable to ask you to diagnose the OS, so safari might indeed a good choice for you. But your experience definitely not a valid point against firefox's speed.
and to accuse other of not "tried safari" is just blatant slender, you can make your point, but better stop guessing what you dont know.
Your bottom line means NOTHING when you couldn't even figure out what are the facts behind it. Which is quite evident that you made a claim about speed by citing a js test then turn around make a case with your own webpage loading, don't you know your page probably contain less than 1% of js? don't you know what are the factors affecting a "real world speed"? don't you know firefox's urlbar can at least save most people 1-10 second when they try to reach a website?
Hey Arronax.
Just wanted to tell you that the 2.0.1 GrApple themes for 3.5 are great. I wrote something similar on the Mozilla forums, but since those themes are Mac oriented, I thought maybe the people posting on this thread might be interested.
Best tabs on top implementation on FF yet.
Just wanted to tell you that the 2.0.1 GrApple themes for 3.5 are great. I wrote something similar on the Mozilla forums, but since those themes are Mac oriented, I thought maybe the people posting on this thread might be interested.
Best tabs on top implementation on FF yet.