Firefox 3.5

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Baiting Guru Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 12237

I updated Firefox to 3.5 and find it much faster. There were some extension issues, but they were minor. Any other reviews?

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:42 am

I've just switched over the Google Chrome, It's faster then Firefox, but doesn't have the e-mail handling capability of firefox.. But it comes close..

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:50 am

Google Chrome for Linux is lightening quick and doesn't use half the resources of FF 3.5. I found that FF3.5 would steadily consume more and more CPU and RAM

Baiting Guru Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 12237

weareborg wrote:

I've just switched over the Google Chrome

Chrome and Opera are great, and damn fast browsers. But I can't live without the FF extensions. (Read: AdBlock Plus!) Wink

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:45 am

Downloading now, I was still on 3.0.11 on my main machine and it's always been fast and stable and I can't live without Adblock Plus.

Trophy Videos · Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:51 pm

I just installed it yesterday. It seems to take a bit longer to load for me, but once up, is noticeably faster browsing. No problems to report, as I haven't used it much yet.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

I got it - no difference in browsing speed for me, strangely.

Looks like Virgin Media will be getting a call again Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Google Chrome for Linux is lightening quick and doesn't use half the resources of FF 3.5. I found that FF3.5 would steadily consume more and more CPU and RAM

I'm a multi-tab user (currently got 16 open), and it's using 200 MB of RAM, according to the task manager.

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:09 am

I'm with Musicman on this one. FF 3.5 just used more and more resources on my system.

Baiting Guru Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 12237

I agree, it is a memory hog. If one is just browsing the web, and not using other memory intensive programs (ie: Photoshop) then it is really not a problem.

To give up Adblock for a bit of speed isn't worth it to me. But I really do like Google Chromes' interface, very slick and clean. I have also messed around with Opera and their new Opera Unite service, very interesting stuff.

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:57 am

I've been using FF3.5 for a while now. It's not my primary browser, I use it for stuff that doesn't work (properly) in Konqueror, and also to keep a few things separated.

I think it's quite nice, my only extension, the user-agent-switching-thingy, didn't work at the beginning, but now it was updated and works too.

I've got a installation of Opera, hardly ever see it. Didn't look into Chrome yet. Anyway, my browser is Konqueror.

Trophy Videos · Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:40 am

@Pastor Frank - I have Opera on both windows and linux pcs, and I love the speed as well. Speaking about Opera 10 and Opera Unite, I saw this article on PCWorld the other day. Since Opera Unite allows you to run a Web server from your desktop, criminals will soon be exploiting this feature, to spread malicious software on yor PC and turn your PC into a zombie bot for the botmasters. I think I'll avoid Opera 10 for awhile. http://www.pcworld.com/article/167070/could_unite_be_a_botmasters_best_friend.html

419Eater is my life Joined: 08 Aug 2008 Posts: 475

I'm too a FF lover mostly bcause of the extension, beside of adblock I use flashblock - no annoying flash intros any more, and e.g. ImgLikeOpera. (I am on a relativly slow connection)

Chrome - there exist a version without data collecting, called Iron Browser.

Opera (last beta) has glitches with some pages on my system, so I don't open it often.

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:36 pm

frank.lester wrote:

Chrome - there exist a version without data collecting, called Iron Browser.

Great tip, me likes ! Lean, clean, mean and fast. I 've got it as my new default browser now. FF 3.5 wasn't doing it for me, crashed numerous times, and eating 50% CPU after it crased.

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:37 pm

Musicman is right. FF 3.5 has a memory leak problem.

Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:27 am

^^It always has unfortunately, and there are some rather annoying security implications. Obviously Mozilla aren't sure of the meaning of opt in
http://rixstep.com/2/20090703,00.shtml

Master of Master Baiters Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 571

No memory problem on this end, running on Win7RC or Ubuntu 9.04. Opera uses considerably more memory on both, and Chrome uses just slightly less.

^^ And that location thing still is 'technically' opt-in since you do give each site permission before it sends the location data. Kind of a stupid feature though.

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:34 pm

Just switched to Google Chrome, after many years of Firefoxing. I find GC faster and not eating so much memory. And in FF 3.5 I noticed a lag between my actions and the browser's response. (well, I was having around 25 tabs open and 400 Mb taken by FF); It was annoying, I don't particulary like Opera so I tried Google Chrome. So far, I LIKE IT! No lag (same number of tabs) and less used memory.

Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:56 am

FF 3.5 seems to have some serious issues. The problem I posted above is not just a memory leak, it just crashes every now and then, and afterwards firefox.exe takes 100% CPU on one core. Seems to be a known problem that has not been addressed yet AFAICT.

ETA: Here's an extensive overview of problematic extensions for FF. They also describe the symptoms. In my case it might well have been Copernic desktop search being the culprit.