maemo.org - Talk

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)
-   Applications (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Firefox 1.1 is out (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=57566)

birdy 2010-07-01 15:28

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
Love ff but this doesnt seem faster than earlier iteration and i guess i will have to stick with microB.

xuggs 2010-07-01 15:37

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
FFS whoever said it was as fast as MicroB needs to really be able to tell a difference. It's still slow and sluggish. I dont hate it and I know what it means when a software is in beta. I hope that eventually when it comes out of beta it would be faster. And yes I dont think it's new it's been out for sometime. MicroB kicks ***!

MOC 2010-07-01 15:43

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
I agree, MicroB is still way faster.

FF is barely useable as it is, and I'm seriously doubting that it will ever change.

I have been using Fennec since the alpha days on the N810 and speed has always been the Achilles heel. I thought it would change when 1.0 came, but it's still the same, also with 1.1 as of today.

It has been a huge disappointment, and I'm having a hard time finding out why. Couldn't they learn from MicroB's rendering or is there a deeper tech-issue, that is beyond my understanding?

rm42 2010-07-01 15:53

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
I am downloading the update right now. So, I haven't tried it yet. But, I just want to point out that when comparing the speed of MircoB and Firefox you have to take into consideration that MicroB is always going to start faster since it is built in. Therefore, what we need to determine is whether Firefox is fast enough once loaded.

Crashdamage 2010-07-01 15:55

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
First, this not a beta release. It's Firefox 1.1 final, unless you have installed the wrong file.

Second, I've been using Firefox as the default browser since the 1.0 release. I don't know where some people get the idea it's slower than MicroB or runs flash any differently. I'll admit I've tweaked FF a bit - increased cache memory, etc. but by seat-of-the-pants it's always run as well as MicroB for me. I haven't done any formal testing to speak of though.

MicroB seems to load quicker because it pre-loads into memory at boot, but after both get going I can't tell a significant speed difference. If anything, FF should be faster due to being based on the FF 3.6 engine while MicroB is based on the FF 3.5 engine.

I just prefer the FF UI and it handles some business websites I use better than MicroB.

MOC 2010-07-01 16:00

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Crashdamage (Post 737306)
I'll admit I've tweaked FF a bit - increased cache memory, etc. but by seat-of-the-pants it's always run as well as MicroB for me.

Can you give a quick rundown of your tweaking? Cause by the seat of my pants, there's no doubt, MicroB is waaay faster.

xuggs 2010-07-01 16:04

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
Verification is needed for this one but I think MicroB is installed on the 256MB NAND flash while FF is installed on eMMC so naturally MicroB is going to be faster.

By slow I refer to scrolling down a webpage where it would pause for half a second and then continue to render. This IMHO is horrible. It spoils the experience and I have never faced this with MicroB. I frankly dont care how long it takes to startup a browser but the browsing itself should be reasonable.

Like I said I will give it the benefit of doubt being in beta but sorry it's not as fast as MicroB.

Edit: and yes I have tweaked FF myself since 1.0 days.

abarrow 2010-07-01 16:12

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
I'm using it on my N800. Has anyone noticed a problem with clicking on links in online apps like Gmail?

Cobra 2010-07-01 16:13

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Crashdamage (Post 737306)
First, this not a beta release. It's Firefox 1.1 final, unless you have installed the wrong file.

Second, I've been using Firefox as the default browser since the 1.0 release. I don't know where some people get the idea it's slower than MicroB or runs flash any differently. I'll admit I've tweaked FF a bit - increased cache memory, etc. but by seat-of-the-pants it's always run as well as MicroB for me. I haven't done any formal testing to speak of though.

MicroB seems to load quicker because it pre-loads into memory at boot, but after both get going I can't tell a significant speed difference. If anything, FF should be faster due to being based on the FF 3.6 engine while MicroB is based on the FF 3.5 engine.

I just prefer the FF UI and it handles some business websites I use better than MicroB.

How did you get flash working?

maemomatic 2010-07-01 16:18

Re: Firefox 1.1 is out
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MOC (Post 737313)
Can you give a quick rundown of your tweaking? Cause by the seat of my pants, there's no doubt, MicroB is waaay faster.

Same here - I love the UI and it's definitely faster than FF 1.01, but still seriously behind MicroB in usability, especially for scrolling web pages. Also, it's often unresponsive when tapping on the url bar. I need t tap 2/3 times before being able to input a new url. Too bad, because it has a great interface. MicroB speed + Firefox UI would be the best...


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13.

vBulletin® Version 3.8.8