Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
how is cpu usage for 3.6 compared to 3.5?
On a 2.4ghz C2D Macbook Alu, 3.6 idles with no tabs open at between 0.1 and 1.2% CPU usage. However, with 10 tabs open, it absolutely dies. It flails wildly all the way from 4% right up to 45% CPU usage (!!!).

Memory usage idles at 155mb which is marginally less than 3.5.

The CPU usage is quite worrying as there was no wild changes on 3.5 for me. This is the only aspect I'm unhappy with in 3.6, but it seems to be a Mac specific problem and should be addressed in a bug update.
 
So far I like Firefox 3.6. It's definitely faster in those key areas where it matters most for web sites. I haven't tried the Personas integration yet.
 
On a 2.4ghz C2D Macbook Alu, 3.6 idles with no tabs open at between 0.1 and 1.2% CPU usage. However, with 10 tabs open, it absolutely dies. It flails wildly all the way from 4% right up to 45% CPU usage (!!!)..

4-45% should not slow down machine in anyway. You only feel the slow down when CPU usage goes up to 99% and stay there.

There is absolutely nothing to worry about and every browsers does that when loading pages, or perform other operations, usually from 2-75%.
 
Random question, but does anyone else think the toolbar looks a bit lighter on OS X with 3.6 than it did with 3.5? Or perhaps it's just my monitor playing tricks on me...

i thought i was crazy at first but i noticed the same thing. i preferred the 3.5 shade but im sure that after a week or two i wont even notice it.
 
Is it possible that the multitouch gestures doesn't work under firefox 3.6? for example "rotate" to switch tabs...?

Rotate to switch tabs shouldn't have worked in 3.5 either as it was turned off for usability reasons.

Here
is an article describing on how to enable this feature.
 
However, with 10 tabs open, it absolutely dies. It flails wildly all the way from 4% right up to 45% CPU usage (!!!).

Firefox saves the state of the tabs and windows every 10 seconds for crash recovery and general session restoration. The more tabs are open the more information Firefox has to process and write to disk so I wouldn't be surprised if this is at least party responsible for the CPU spikes.
 
Rotate to switch tabs shouldn't have worked in 3.5 either as it was turned off for usability reasons.

Here
is an article describing on how to enable this feature.

thx! I used it in 3.5 and now i missed this fast tab switching method...

Now only the divx stuff doesn't work anymore :-( but I'm not sure... maybe it's divx webplayer which completely sucks on mac os x...
any tips on how to deal with divx embedded stuff like *.avi ? Webplayer 2 or should perian do a better job? tried webplayer 1.4/2 but i get lags because at some point of the video CPU usage goes up to 90% and firefox crashed...
:confused:
 
Firefox still does not pass the Acid 3 test. Safari and Chrome have done for quite a while now.

It's a bit disappointing really especially as Firefox is often advocated as a web developers best friend in relation to standards support.
 
Firefox still does not pass the Acid 3 test. Safari and Chrome have done for quite a while now.
And that doesn't mean anything.

It's a bit disappointing really especially as Firefox is often advocated as a web developers best friend in relation to standards support.

The Acid3 test was a failure, everyone just coded their browsers to pass it, not actually uphold the standards and by extension pass said test.


When the Acid4 test comes out no one will know what it tests so that will be a better standards test.
 
The Acid3 test was a failure, everyone just coded their browsers to pass it

Uh huh. Obviously the Firefox developers didn't. Nor did the IE developers.

So, really, when you say everyone coded their browser to pass the test one might be forgiven for saying that you are talking out of the proverbial.

not actually uphold the standards and by extension pass said test

By passing the test they have shown that they support the standards that are being tested have they not?

When the Acid4 test comes out no one will know what it tests so that will be a better standards test.

From experience it is Safari and Chrome which are the easiest browsers to write decent CSS for. Firefox still plays up with some uses (even if you do follow the standard as written in the specification).
 
Uh huh. Obviously the Firefox developers didn't. Nor did the IE developers.

So, really, when you say everyone coded their browser to pass the test one might be forgiven for saying that you are talking out of the proverbial.
http://www.vasanth.in/2008/03/27/the-acid3-test-madness/
Chrome doesn't even pass the acid3 test, when the test is run you can see an error message that reads "LINKTEST FAILED" despite the perfectly rendered image at the end.

I don't know if it's been fixed, but Google Chrome doesn't even pass the acid2 test.

By passing the test they have shown that they support the standards that are being tested have they not?
They have not. Even if there is no cheating the Acid3 test really only represents one group's ideal web standards. Web standards are really up to those who code for the internet.



From experience it is Safari and Chrome which are the easiest browsers to write decent CSS for. Firefox still plays up with some uses (even if you do follow the standard as written in the specification).

I have no issues coding CSS for Firefox. They're just web browsers, bro, they basically all render the same.
 
There are some cool looking personas but they're ugly as hell as soon as you enable them. I thought I was using a windows version of Firefox. Still needs work, imo.
 
http://www.vasanth.in/2008/03/27/the-acid3-test-madness/
Chrome doesn't even pass the acid3 test, when the test is run you can see an error message that reads "LINKTEST FAILED" despite the perfectly rendered image at the end.

Rather than posting links have you actually tried it in Chrome?

They have not. Even if there is no cheating the Acid3 test really only represents one group's ideal web standards. Web standards are really up to those who code for the internet.

Absolutely and totally wrong. A standard should be decided by a central body and then everyone should implement said standard exactly.

I find it very hard to understand why web standards organisations are so incredibly incompetent. Programming languages have been standardised for years and years and barring a few well known bugs things tend to work well if an implementation correctly adheres by the standard.

That attitude is the reason why we are the mess we are currently in with having to hack together CSS so that it works on every browser. If every browser actually implemented the standard as posted by the W3C web development would be a hell of a lot easier. Granted W3C are not entirely blameless in this either but at least they make an effort.

I have no issues coding CSS for Firefox. They're just web browsers, bro, they basically all render the same.

No, they really don´t. Try implementing a three column CSS only layout that works in all major browsers without having to make at least one kludge. Even if you work from the CSS 2.1 standard directly you will find that it won´t work in a consistent manner.
 
Absolutely and totally wrong. A standard should be decided by a central body and then everyone should implement said standard exactly.

A leading Mozilla developer about the Acid 3:
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/03/27/the-missed-opportunity-of-acid-3/

Some examples:
Ian’s Acid 3, unlike its predecessors, is not about establishing a baseline of useful web capabilities. ...

We will fix standards compliance bugs; it’s what we do. But we won’t fix them all with the same priority, and I hope that we won’t prioritize Acid 3 fixes artificially highly, because I think that would be a disservice to web developers and users. Where Acid 3 happens to test something that we believe is important to fix, we will of course pursue it: surrogate pair handling or some of the selector bugs seem like good candidates. ....

Acid 3 could have had a tremendous positive effect on the web, representing the next target for the web platform, and helping developers prioritize work in such a way as to maximize the aggregate capabilities of the web. Instead, it feels like a puzzle game, and I can easily imagine the developers of the web’s proprietary competitors chuckling about the hundreds of developer-hours that have gone into adding another way to iterate over nodes, or twiddling internal APIs to special case a testing font. I don’t think it’s worthless, but I think it could have been a lot more, especially with someone as talented and terrifyingly detail-oriented as Ian at the helm.
 
A leading Mozilla developer about the Acid 3:
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/03/27/the-missed-opportunity-of-acid-3/

Some examples:
Ian’s Acid 3, unlike its predecessors, is not about establishing a baseline of useful web capabilities. ...

We will fix standards compliance bugs; it’s what we do. But we won’t fix them all with the same priority, and I hope that we won’t prioritize Acid 3 fixes artificially highly, because I think that would be a disservice to web developers and users. Where Acid 3 happens to test something that we believe is important to fix, we will of course pursue it: surrogate pair handling or some of the selector bugs seem like good candidates. ....

Acid 3 could have had a tremendous positive effect on the web, representing the next target for the web platform, and helping developers prioritize work in such a way as to maximize the aggregate capabilities of the web. Instead, it feels like a puzzle game, and I can easily imagine the developers of the web’s proprietary competitors chuckling about the hundreds of developer-hours that have gone into adding another way to iterate over nodes, or twiddling internal APIs to special case a testing font. I don’t think it’s worthless, but I think it could have been a lot more, especially with someone as talented and terrifyingly detail-oriented as Ian at the helm.

He makes a good point in that you need to prioritise the work done to implement standards compliance but fails when he states that the Acid 3 test does not have a positive effect.

Standards compliance should be considered mandatory and any test which tests the compliance of a given implementation to said standard should be considered a positive.

The fact that the Acid 3 test challenges the browsers by using fringe cases is great because it is often fringe cases that hold the most bugs and / or security holes because they have the least amount of developer time associated with them. Forcing browser developers to look at and work with little used code is not only going to give them a chance to review the codebase but also to fix and adapt it so that it is more flexible in the future.
 
Oh and thinking about his argument is render completely null and void by the fact that the Mozilla developers waste time implementing browser dependent extensions which no one cares about because no one can use them in a production environment.

Just because Firefox has a large market share it does not mean that web developers have to suddenly stop worrying about other browsers, and if those browsers do not support the extensions then they are useless.

So if he wanted his argument to hold any weight at all he would stop the Firefox developers from implementing any extensions until Firefox is completely standards compliant.
 
The fact that the Acid 3 test challenges the browsers by using fringe cases is great because it is often fringe cases that hold the most bugs and / or security holes because they have the least amount of developer time associated with them. Forcing browser developers to look at and work with little used code is not only going to give them a chance to review the codebase but also to fix and adapt it so that it is more flexible in the future.

Every Acid3 bug has already now a patch and you can find already now Firefox third-party builds (or build it self), which are 100% Acid3 compatible.
But they are not enough tested and reviewed an so on .. security reasons, stability reasons and so on .. everything is not really tested, because these bugs have no priority.

Cheers
 
So when I go to DL 3.6 from the mozilla site, I get a DMG for 3.5.7. Anyone had a similar problem?

EDIT: n/m; had to go link-jumping on Mozilla's site to get to where I needed to be.
 
so I have upgraded to 3.6 and it is faster than before; however, it is crashing for me every minute specially when I want to use the search bar. To be honest, even 3.5 started to crash for me few 1-2 times a day since few days ago. So I thought maybe update will solve the problem but it is even worse. I am used to firefox and have never used safari. Is there a solution for this without having to reinstall everything from scratch?
 
By passing the test they have shown that they support the standards that are being tested have they not?
No because that is not what the acid tests are for and it's not what they are testing. The acid tests are the exact opposite. They test what a browser does when things go wrong and when things are not part of a standard (or guideline because that's what they really are). That is a huge difference which about 99% of the people who talk about the acid tests seem to forget or simply do not understand. Passing the acid tests therefore does not mean a browser complies to a guideline or a set of guidelines. However it can have something to do with a correct implementation of those guidelines. Handling errors correctly in some cases is only possible when you implement a guideline correctly.

All in all, the acid tests say very little which is the main reason why browsers like Firefox don't comply with it and why the Mozilla devs put a very low priority on it. Btw, the way the acid3 test is setup makes it impossible to pass. One of the requirements is a fluent animation which is impossible due to a slow or unstable internetconnection, a computer with a high load and many many other things. It therefore is one of the most stupidest requirements one could think of (it does not test the browser) :X
 
Firefox still does not pass the Acid 3 test. Safari and Chrome have done for quite a while now.

It's a bit disappointing really especially as Firefox is often advocated as a web developers best friend in relation to standards support.
it is, 25% marketshare, why its not best friend for W3C? you think with 4% market, safari gonna help developers to revolutionize the web standard, by just passing ACID3?
Uh huh. Obviously the Firefox developers didn't. Nor did the IE developers.

From experience it is Safari and Chrome which are the easiest browsers to write decent CSS for. Firefox still plays up with some uses (even if you do follow the standard as written in the specification).
thats surprising, are you saying Mozilla refuses to follow published standard by W3C? I would love to see an example.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.