July 9, 2009

Some Questions & Comments About Firefox 3.5

I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately. The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits. I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th. (For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using Firefox 3.5.

At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar. I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 test. Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11. What the fuck? I manually invoked Check for Updates… and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.

Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla. The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version. I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.

In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript? The new SpiderMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else. When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.

Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate. This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory. But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it. Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.

The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing. It's a mess and has been since version 1.0. If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area. Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it? Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.

And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell! Get rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!

I also have to mention memory use. On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MiB with only a simple HTML 5 page open. 400 MiB?! I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats. Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare. (For a contrast, there's Safari, which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.)

Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open. I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future. No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds. Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.

With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on Wikipedia and then on the Mozilla Development Forums. It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs. The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.

For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process. This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years. So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck. You can't even switch tabs to another page! And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release? Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.

Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too. Sometimes Bugzilla reports are dismissed out of hand, only to be reopened when something goes terribly wrong later. I also saw instances of reported security flaws sitting years before being patched. In one case, someone released an exploit to point out the deep holes in Firefox before anyone did anything.

One time, a user with some programming experience suggested a bugfix to the wishlist. One programmer, whom I will not publicly name, suggested the user submit patches "once his balls dropped," if he were even male. If this were a real company and not a bunch of arrogant hacker hippies, user antagonism and sexism would never be acceptable. When I read this particular incident I uninstalled Firefox for good.

If anyone else has complaints about Firefox, post them here. For a browser that's taken nearly a third of the market, it's doing so with an incredibly broken development model and backend. Just imagine if the Firefox team actually treated its users right or prioritized projects properly. Maybe then the web would move beyond the mess of incompatibile standards and site hacks it is today.

Until then, Firefox is just another out-of-control Open Source project that needs a good stiff slap in the face.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow, you are not only stupid, but you actually try to make everyone believe the opposite by way of /rationalizing/ and, boy, do you rationalize!

Anonymous said...

You little coward, you didn't dare post my comment! Too harsh for your harshness?

Anon said...

Just use Chrome

Anonymous said...

Neither Safari 3 nor IE7 run tabs in separate process

Anonymous said...

Get a job, slacker.

Anonymous said...

"Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off." Um, yeah, it can be turned off... "View-->Toolbars-->Bookmarks Toolbar".

If you can't be bothered to verify basic stuff about the UI, how can we trust the rest of this review? Yes, some stuff about Firefox sucks. No, not all of the stuff that you "reviewed" does.

Anonymous said...

Im not quite sure is the seperate process thing is good for all users. It may cause it to eat even more RAM. Its good for keeping a crash from taking out all windows, but i think it should be an optional feature.

Firefox standards support is OK. I would like to see more support for some advanced things like x3d. I would also like to see more IE stuff supported just to stay compatable with that.

Memory usage has improved but is still bad. I think they should add an option to control precisely how much memory it should use for cache.

Speed of the UI seems fast enough to me. I have not noticed a problem here. the XUL is a good idea and allows more customizability.

The developers should be friendly and should not shout at users who are giving feedback.

Rembo said...

I agree with most of the article, except for the C++ comment. C++ can have good memory management if used properly. The problem with Firefox is the same as with other older software--the core is still very much old C. This means that you can't rely on scope and smart pointers to manage your variable lifetime, you still have to remember to free the memory.

If you wrote Firefox (or Chrome for that matter) in a bytecode language like Java or C#, the performance would be horrible.

Great observations about the snobby developer culture and crap that comes with it.

Anonymous said...

This review is awful. You're simply inept in using a browser. I'm surprised you know how to use the internet.

Anonymous said...

Awful review

Anonymous said...

The latest major update from Firefox, did suck and the update process was harsh. Adobe Reader seems to dislike Firefox and this most recent version is a great example, I had to run a manual update of Adobe Reader to get it functioning as well. Then after dropping the extensions that were failing it is good again. I still think it's a good product but there are some key elements that need work and working well with Reader is pretty important just in case you have to pull something important. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you have an error somewhere between your chair and your keyboard.

Noah said...

Lies. Link to the EXACT bugs where this is MENTIONED! The dropping balls comment & the exploit bug.

Otherwise your stories are nothing but trolling. What exact exploit bug was not patched for years? Link! I bet you won't even post them.

Post them!

And you're an idiot, Safari 3 & IE7 DON'T run tabs in a separate process. You really are a troll, glad you name reflects half of what you are.

And there is no "3.0.0.11" mentioned in that link you posted. God, you're full of convenient holes.

Anyway I have gripes with the browser & vent my anger in other forums, but to just talk out of your ass in this manner... is embarrassing.

And you don't even know how to disable add-on compatibility checks???? Even a novice user can google to find out how to do that. I won't tell you how either until you post those bug links.

Anonymous said...

Source code is there, so fix it if you feel there are problems. Or you could just continue to bitch about how a free, open source offering is messing up your web experience enough to cause you to put this much effort into trolling.

Free... Open.. in other words, you didn't lose anything by using it except a wee bit of your time, which you seem to have an over-abundance of anyhow.

Anonymous said...

Using 92 meg on my XP SP3 machine. What are you running it on?

Anonymous said...

Guy, you don't understand how RAM works. Look in Task Manager. If physical memory is less than 100%, your browser is working just fine. The fewer resources that have to be paged, the faster the browser operates. What's the point of having more RAM if you don't use it?

I have seventeen tabs open, including your "FUCK FIREFOX" page. 4gb total, 155mb used by Firefox 3.5. It's quite snappy.

C++ is not an inherently bad/slow language. Check your plugins, they may be slowing FF down. A person such as yourself shouldn't even imply you know anything about computers.

Anonymous said...

@trollaxor: did you have to write those hilarious comments yourself, or are they real?

Which part of 'troll' is so hard to understand, everyone?

Anonymous said...

This was a great article, and had many valid criticisms. Firefox _is_ getting progressively worse with each new release. The comments (even if they were written by Trollaxor) were also insightful. THX.

Runaway1956 said...

Hello, Troll. This is what I posted in response to your post on slashdot:

Not only a troll, but an especially LAME troll.

I loaded the page in firefox, just to be told that FF required 400MB of memory in order to render the page. I checked. FF was using 179 MB of memory, with three windows open, and a total of 11 tabs.

Out of curiosity, I loaded the page in IE8. 176 MB of memory, with only that one page open. Google Chrome? 53 MB. Safari isn't installed on this virtual machine, I'll probably test it later.

I'm not a mathematical genius, but the troll's claims don't seem to add up.

Runaway1956 said...

P.S. If you ever have any balls to drop, maybe you'll stop signing slashdot posts as "anonymous coward".

If you don't like Firefox, just as Mozilla.org for a refund, you moron. They will happily give back all the money you spent on Firefox.

Anonymous said...

Safari uses webkit, which is C++.

The language doesn't make the problems, the programmers do.

Anonymous said...

I had no problems viewing the page in Firefox 3.5. I don't think anyone knows what you are complaining about.

Anonymous said...

Firefox 3.5 / linux, 21mb used, no problems here ;)

tuxhelper said...

I was using firefox 2 (.20) until last month. I never made the upgrade to ff3 for many reasons instead I chose to ditch firefox and go with opera. I've not regretted doing so either.

I think it's neat how so many are fed up with the direction of firefox and are taking action. Hopefully ff will see this and get back to keeping it simple.

Anonymous said...

I've had to drop back down to Firefox 3.0.13. 3.5.2 would start at less than 100 mb memory and in no time would climb above 600 mb. Yeah, it's probably memory leaks from add-ons (ie tab, interclue, adblock plus, no script, etc.). But the leak is a lot slower in 3.0.

Anonymous said...

1) Fx eats RAM like a fat kid eats candy, it's gone before you can blink.
2) Guys, his username is "trollaxor" for a reason...
3) Fx used to be good, but it's been getting bad for a while now. Chrome/Opera 10 are much better choices for now. Hopefully the Mozilla team will get back on top of things, but until then...
4) See #2. Come on, people, seriously.

Anonymous said...

"400 MB?! I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats. Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare. (For a contrast, there's Safari, which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.)"

This is the most telling part of the article, where the author shows his complete ignorance.
Safari was written in Obj-C, yes, but that means it is also manually managed memory (retain/release rather than new/delete), as it was written before Obj-C 2.0, which has the garbage collector.

Anonymous said...

6/10

vancouver.pix said...

Trollaxor is not entirely incorrect. I don't know much about computing, and am happy to use it for many cool things. However, I sometimes have to use FF version 2, which is way better and faster than the latest 3.5.whatever. The latest versions don't redirect properly, and I have to close it down and reopen it in order to continue on some sites (I'll mention that they're all Google/YouTube/Picasaweb/Gmail related, so far.) I don't know if the problem is with the servers and various timeout periods, cache probs, or whatever, but FF has sucked all sizes lately. I wish they'd fix it. I know it's free, but it seems incompetent.

Anonymous said...

My firekitty is using 35mb.

Anonymous said...

Get off that shitty OS you're using.

Anonymous said...

Why do I get the feeling that this a bunch of the people who developed firefox posted to this blog.

Probabl because they love the false praise they get for a overgodamn bloated software.

Anonymous said...

What's really ridiculous is Firefox's definition of compatibility.

In 1997, the HTML 4.0 specifications were published and Internet Explorer 6 was released 4 years later. Over the last 9 years, every single site I've designed has rendered consistently and as expected in Microsoft's browser.

Then Firefox came along, preaching about efficiency and standards/interoperability. Lots of people know how much of a fraud it is in the efficiency department, but think about the following.

Every single version of the browser breaks pages I use. Standards designed almost 15 years ago and Mozilla's implementation keeps changing. Some of their own pages, like the one for their new "personas" feature (AKA themes), won't render right in Firefox 2.

As if that wasn't bad enough, that's what their zealots want to push on all of us who don't use their browser. They whine about Microsoft's upgrade treadmill and then push development techniques that obselete the browser every 6 months! Ever stop to think that the explosion in Flash dependence is related to how much you fucked up layouts advocating broken CSS over the table tag?

Do you remember when the world wide web was supposed to be a platform agnostic exchange of content? How about when we declared those olld "best displayed in Netscape" logos to be stupid? So how the hell does that square with all the broken layouts and arrogant nag screens demanding visitors upgrade to the latest Firefox beta just to view your precious images and text?

Firefox lock-in is even WORSE than IE lock-in.

Post a Comment