Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Technical Corner' started by flhrci, Nov 14, 2017.
and its fast!
New Firefox browser.
Sigh, broke NoScript and RequestPolicy.
That's not good. Can you revert back to the old browser?
They’ve been having problems with legacy firefox, cpu usage and memory leaks...I’ll wait for a while, I just upgraded to iOS 11.
LastPass updated to accommodate and broke stuff in the process. Their support folks offered no help.
Nice to know. I use LastPass but haven't used it yet today.
Just downloaded quantum. I like what I see!
I found this page that has old versions archived. (If the version you want lists a "Firefox Installer," don't use it; use the "setup" file instead. When I used the "installer" file, it installed the latest version instead of the one I wanted.)
This article has a link to an "addon compatibility reporter" addon. After installing it, when you go to your Firefox addons list, it highlights in yellow any addons that will not be compatible with Firefox Quantum. The only catch is that it's not compatible with Firefox Quantum, so you have to use it before your Firefox gets updated! When I read that, I shut off my Internet connection and made sure that Firefox was not set to automatically update before turning it on again.
I use Firefox - it automatically upgraded on me today. I had been having problems with the previous version slowing to a crawl for no apparent reason. I had to re-cycle it every couple of hours. I never did figure it out (PC, Win7). Will see what happens with the new version.
The new version is definitely faster, which is good, because the previous versions were noticeably on the slow side.
Really screwed up bookmarks, though.
Or at least a fine job of hiding them ...
I upgraded yesterday and had no problems. Everything worked as advertised.
A few little "where did they put..." moments, but it's faster than the previous version and doesn't hang up on my PC like the previous version.
I’m trying to remember the last time I launched Firefox. I’ve been using Chrome nearly exclusively for nearly three years without much of a need to open Firefox. Interesting.
Chrome is a resource pig but it’s rarely slow.
Edge has slowly worked its way to “reasonably useable” and actually has some sandboxing features that the others don’t do nearly as well, much as I hate to say it.
Safari was a lost cause a loooooong time ago. I have to keep it on the Mac for a couple of old devices that require Java in the browser now that’s all the others have banned it as a browser app runner, for security.
I switched to Chrome for a while for my email account on AT&T/Yahoo, because the Web page would sometimes bog down and hang on Firefox. However I noticed that when I let Chrome sit on that Web page all day, a scammer would hijack the browser, asking me to take a fake AT&T survey. That might not happen with Firefox, because I configured it to ask for permission before redirecting to another Web page. (If there's a way to set that up on Chrome, I haven't found it.) I'm trying the new Firefox with my email server again, and while it's too soon to tell whether the problems are fixed, the speed of it is promising.
I installed it as a local copy, will keep old (56) as primary since I use several add ons,which no longer work on 57.
OK, got it configured like the old one now. Works fine, mostly.
I am considering Brave. It's a new browser concept; instead of needing addons to get all your security (like No Script, etc.) it has all that built in. The concept is that it scrubs ALL outside ads plus all trackers, then replaces them with anonymous (not targeted to you) ads that are located in standard places and not as intrusive, plus are secure from malware. Part of the revenue from those ads become available to you to donate through them with automatic micropayments or to keep as cash (!), if I am understanding it correctly? I haven't had time to figure out the details. I thought for sure it would involve a paid subscription if profit sharing is involved but I was unable to find where it says the fee is, I am really busy right now. If anyone else wants to puzzle it out here is the link:
I was very annoyed with the Firefox upgrade because it disabled all but one of my addons. However it has already replaced the one that gave me the new tab start page I wanted with another that works (New Tab Override) and right now I see it's fixed NoScript?? That wasn't there yesterday I don't think.
And as far as I know it does NOT fix the biggest gripe I have with Firefox; the back button "page has expired, do you want to resend?" So I was ready to ditch Firefox anyway.
I've been running it regularly on my laptop. I've found that if I leave it open it ends up taking huge amounts of memory and CPU time. It gets to a point where I can't even close it short of using the task manager. Well written software should not do that.
Problem is, nobody has been paid or incentivized to write well written desktop software for over a decade. Which ironically is mostly caused by browsers and writing for browsers. They significantly lowered the quality level of most things, especially the user interfaces.
Been running Firefox for years and I believe they got it right with Quantum. Sure, a couple of my add-ons weren't compatible but some enterprising soul will soon be along with a version of them that will work. Took me about a half hour to find what changed and get settings back to where I liked them.
Forever faithful !!
Chrome actually locked up for a few seconds just posting that pic
The new Firefox has started acting up on my email provider's Web site, so I went back to using Chrome for that.
I was transcoding a dozen videos last night using Adobe Media Encoder. It seemed a bit sluggish, which is unusual on this computer. I opened the task manager and saw that Firefox, which was minimized with a single tab open, was using more resources than Adobe was transcoding those videos. I closed Firefox, and everything got nice and zippy again.
I'm using Pale Moon more and more these days. Firefox is just a hog. For it to be even worse than Adobe (whose software also isn't known for its efficiency) is absurd.
I can't help but think that Brave is going to wind up in court. Blocking ads is one thing. Replacing them with your own ads in order to monetize someone else's copyrighted content is another.
I don't pretend to know anything about the subject. Scrubbing off people's ads is okay, but replacing the spot with your own is a copyright violation? I'm having trouble understanding that.
"Pale Moon is an Open Source, Goanna-based web browser available for Microsoft Windows and Linux (with other operating systems in development), focusing on efficiency and customization. Make sure to get the most out of your browser!
"Pale Moon offers you a browsing experience in a browser completely built from its own, independently developed source that has been forked off from Firefox/Mozilla code a number of years ago, with carefully selected features and optimizations to improve the browser's stability and user experience, while offering full customization and a growing collection of extensions and themes to make the browser truly your own."
Sounds promising; I'll give it a try.
I loaded it, suffered for a couple of days with its brain-dead tab system and then deleted it and reverted to 52.5 ESR. Tab Mix Plus is a must-have for me. Hopefully the developer will recover from being smashed in the face by FF developers.
52.5 is slower on some things than Quantum, but the total experience is not slower because 52.5 just works better.
And that's even AFTER putting in a Samsung SSD!
wow.. go Firefox
Firefox is this decade’s emacs. LOL.
With certain exceptions, the courts generally have ruled that private end users can decide what content they want to download to their devices. It's illegal to do anything that would violate the DMCA (for example, attempting to defeat an adblock blocker by selective script-blocking); but if a site owner hasn't implemented any such anti-adblock countermeasures, then the user is legally free to block the ads.
What Brave does is different. They're not an end user who is blocking ads as the courts have ruled they can do. They're an upstream provider -- the ads are being served from Brave's upstream servers even though the browser is installed on the user's computer -- and they are stripping the copyright owner's ads and substituting their own. That makes them analogous to a rebroadcaster (for example, a local television or radio station that is retransmitting network content to a local market).
Rebroadcasters are not allowed to replace the content provider's ads except when specifically authorized to do so. This is called "local insertion" in broadcasting jargon and typically is allowed during specific time slots defined either by predetermined "hard break" times, or by predefined events such as the end of an inning of a baseball game. Except during those defined times, the rebroadcaster's license to carry and rebroadcast the content is contingent upon their including the content provider's ads. If they strip the ads and insert their own, they are infringing the copyrighted content.
Brave has such a low market share that I doubt anyone is concerned enough to take them to court. But if they are taken to court, I think they'll lose.
It wasn't disk I/O that was slowing things down. It was FF's runaway CPU and RAM demands. I couldn't even close it in the normal way. I had to kill the process in Task Manager. It's been that way for several years; and so far, nothing about Quantum makes me believe they've solved the resource problems.
I've been using Pale Moon as my default browser for several years. I mainly use FF to check site rendering and to log into secure sites that don't recognize Pale Moon as a secure browser and won't allow it. Those sites are becoming fewer, thankfully. Right now, I think that Pale Moon is the best all-around browser out there. I also suspect that it will also become a resource hog some day. FF was a great browser, too, when it was a new project.
Well, I let Firefox Sync work with my laptop and desktop for 7 days. That was a mistake. My bookmarks are all screwed up and have so many duplications. Going to take a while to fix it. Had to turn it off. Disappointing.
I had that happen too a while ago. Haven't used it since. Google's version is no better. It randomly duplicates or deletes entries for no apparent reason.
You've sold me. I'm going to check it out. FireFox is slower than ever on my machine since the upgrade which was supposed to make it so much faster. What a joke. I used to love FF. No more.
Rich, I'm installing Pale Moon. I did manual and chose the 64 bit (My Windows is 64 bit so I gather that's right) but I am getting a warning message that 64 bit browsers have a few known drawbacks involving 32 bit plug ins. It's asking me if I'm sure I want this version. Does this mean if I go back and choose the 32 bit it will work fine on my machine? Why would anyone want the 64 bit in that case?
What operating system are you running? I' am running Win 7 Professional 64 bit and have absolutely no problem with Firefox 57. It runs fast and smooth, and only one of my add-ons was not compatible but I suspect that will be rectified soon. Although purely anecdotal I believe some Windows updates may affect Firefox's performance.