Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with OpenID
Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

In this Discussion

LowEndTalk and the quote feature in Firefox 3.6

LowEndTalk and the quote feature in Firefox 3.6

yomeroyomero Member
edited September 2011 in General

Hey

Anyone is still using Firefox 3.6? Because the quote buttons that appears over the selected text, isn't working on it.

Yes, I am using Firefox 3.6 it in my netbook (almost 2 weeks just using exclusively this slow toy). Ok, no, I am using this:

http://www.palemoon.org/

If someone want to take a look, is an optimized build of Firefox for Windows, and the 3.6 fork is the best for using little RAM.

Ok, going back to the issue, according to firebug this is the function with the problem:

window.getSelection().empty()

Any ideas? :P

EDIT: I don't want to upgrade, or use another browser for my netbook. Chrome is fine for me in my Desktop, but now is abandoned...

«1

Comments

  • I've um expressed my annoyance a couple of times now about it. I just manually copy and paste and say it's not worth the trouble.

  • I've um expressed my annoyance a couple of times now about it. I just manually copy and paste and say it's not worth the trouble.

    Yes, but copy pasting doesn't preserve the timestamp and the pretty quoting with your name

  • You can put the name in brackets, with the link to the comment in parenthesis ;)

    > [yomero said](/discussion/comment/5008#Comment_5008): Yes, but copy pasting doesn't preserve the timestamp and the pretty quoting with your name
  • Why not upgrade already? 3.6 is 2 major versions ago, it's like using ie5

    Postgres

  • justinb said: Why not upgrade already? 3.6 is 2 major versions ago, it's like using ie5

    Not ie6 :)

  • Same for me. It doesn't work in my ubuntu :(

    I'm looking for a sponsored KVM VPS, but I'm not in a hurry. Just want to hear what you might offer to me
  • I believe that window.getSelection doesn't work in Firefox 3.6 - it needs to be content.window.getSelection.

    Lead Developer - HostGuard Control Panel

  • luis123456 said: Same for me. It doesn't work in my ubuntu :(

    It works on mine: natty, FF 6.0.2

  • @justinb ¬_¬ Damn, can you read again? this version uses LESS RAM. I hate Firefox, but is the best for low resources.

    Firefox 6 is a RAM eater. Opera is good (and fast, but leaks doesn't return memory used), and Chrome is a monster..

    I don't want to upgrade

    Thanks @NickM, maybe LEA will do that change =P (ok, I don't think so...)

    @Kuro That isn't easy to write, also, is slow...

  • yomero said: Opera is good (and fast, but leaks doesn't return memory used)

    How do you check for memory leaks? I'm curious ^_^ Have you try the Next version?

  • yomeroyomero Member
    edited September 2011

    I mean, open your browser, check your memory usage, then browse some hours... then close all the tabs without closing the browser, check your memory usage, is big!

    My reference is the transaction load (I am not sure about the translation) that taskmgr shows in Windows XP (in Vista 7, that doesn't work very well)

    But yes, Opera is a good tradeoff between resources and performance. This Firefox is a turtle compared to Opera.

    And I didn't tried that version, probably will be worse :P The 11.51 works ok for me, but I guess the memory problems will not get solved n_n (Supposedly that memory is used for caching bla bla)

  • That problem was carried over to Firefox 4 which I had previously. But since I jumped to Firefox 6 every thing is just perfect, it's even way lighter, faster, less load on CPU etc! However, it's taking currently (after over a week not closed, and around 15 tabs open) around 300mb of RAM. But I'm sure it can take a lot less than that if restarted regularly and reasonable number of tabs is opened, you may which to try it in a portable version

    Also one of these browsers may suit your netbook RAM: Flock, Maxthon, Avant Browser..and other free web browsers, if the big names are too heavy ;)

    ☻☻ VPS ☺ as of now:- 384-256-128-512x2 ☺☺

  • yomeroyomero Member
    edited September 2011

    I haven't tried Flock (discontinued according to it's website) or Avant, but Maxthon is heavy and bad looking imho (saturated of useless things for me).

  • kylixkylix Member
    edited September 2011

    Flock has been canceled some months ago. But there are quite fine alternatives. However you could also lower the RAM usage by switching off any cache, favourites, history and use the typical config.trim_on_minimize, browser.cache.memory.enable, browser.cache.memory.capacity. And of course have a look at the add-ons.

    Or maybe this helps: http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/12/firefox-ultimate-optimizer/

  • Go59954Go59954 Member
    edited September 2011

    You can also try Firefox 6 using portable version it was way too light compared to FF4 when I first tried it, not sure how it is compared to FF3 RAM usage, but don't forget to close other Firefox opened, before trying: http://www.softpedia.com/get/PORTABLE-SOFTWARE/Internet/Browsers/Portable-Firefox.shtml

    And Avant is using Internet Explorer engine, with a lighter interface and a lot of features.

    ☻☻ VPS ☺ as of now:- 384-256-128-512x2 ☺☺

  • That's one thing I find annoying about FF. You can't have two versions open at the same time. That is soooo Windows 3.11... Darn.

  • Ok, sharing my results:

    I use 3 random tabs to test and the task manager to verify the increased RAM, one is a custom forum, other one is a blgspot site, and the last one is a site with an article. If I can remember well, my results were aprox like:

    Chrome 300MB Opera 200MB Pale Moon (FF 3.6) 100MB ! Palemoon (FF 6) >200MB Maxthon 250MB Slimbrowser (piece of crap, IE based) 90 MB (or sth like that) Avant browser (tested now, IE based, and sluggish like hell) 180MB

    I know about the portables, thanks @Go59954, and by the way, I use (and recommend) this:

    http://portableapps.com/

    Born to be used in a pendrive, but is my desktop suite in all my Windows systems. I can reinstall my system and have all my software like before in one hour n_n

    @kylix That "mem usage" column is a joke. I am not sure how it counts that numbers, but if you get one of that apps to "recover your RAM", you can get all the processes swapped and that column will be reduced for all the programs. So, my experience says that the real thing, is the transaction load in the bottom right corner (and just for Windows XP).

  • That's one thing I find annoying about FF. You can't have two versions open at the same time. That is soooo Windows 3.11... Darn.

    @kylix Yes, you can http://www.mouserunner.com/FF_Tips_Multiple_Fx.html

  • kylixkylix Member
    edited September 2011

    Yes, you can http://www.mouserunner.com/FF_Tips_Multiple_Fx.html

    Nice workaround. But is there any real reason why FF won't allow to be started multiple times on its own?

    @yomero: Did you set browser.cache.memory.enableto false? For me in combination with the minimize to tray it works quite fine.

    Because for me with 3.6.22 and 4 tabs open (webmail, LET, youtube playing, flickr explore) FF uses 90-100 MB and not more. And I have adblock plus, echofon, etc. as add-ons enabled.

  • Yes, I am looking at that setting, but I need to test in Firefox 6 n_n (or Pale Moon 6!).

    But no time for now, I will get back with results :P

  • MrAndroidMrAndroid Member
    edited September 2011

    Could always use IE?

    Technically your not upgrading, your downgrading. Plus IE isn't a browser, its a block of TNT.

    /EndTroll

    You may just as well upgrade, I mean Firefox 4 has a lower memory footprint then FireFox 3.6, and Standard Support hey.

    Daniel.

  • For low ressources, Google Chrome is far better than Bloatfox.

  • HerrMaulwurf said: For low ressources, Google Chrome is far better than Bloatfox.

    Proof? That isn't true, because Chrome adds overhead in every process for every tab. If you are a hardcore user (lol), let's say 50 tabs... you will see.

  • yomero said: Proof? That isn't true, because Chrome adds overhead in every process for every tab. If you are a hardcore user (lol), let's say 50 tabs... you will see.

    Chrome will use more memory overall, but its what it does with that memory that counts,

    One of the reasons WebKit is sooo super speedy, is because it already has the memory allocates for pretty much the entire webpage.

    And lets not get started on its Caching.

    Daniel.

  • InfinityInfinity Retired Staff

    I hate to say this and I know I should commit suicide after this but it doesn't work on IE8. At school we only have IE8. After I brought in the portable applications trend into my school (made myself with VMware ThinApp :P), the school's IT admin (who never talks to students) Mr W a n, decided to block all external executables, so we can't launch any applications but the pre-installed ones. :@

    I tend to go on LEB when we have lessons in the IT room to cheer things up, come on, you know how boring IGCSE ICT is!

    我是一个巨魔 (;

  • Infinity said: I hate to say this and I know I should commit suicide after this but it doesn't work on IE8. At school we only have IE8. After I brought in the portable applications trend into my school (made myself with VMware ThinApp :P), the school's IT admin (who never talks to students) Mr W a n, decided to block all external executables, so we can't launch any applications but the pre-installed ones. :@

    PM me I'll give you a bypass for it

    Postgres

  • InfinityInfinity Retired Staff

    justinb said: PM me I'll give you a bypass for it

    Doubt there is one, I've tried literally all there is to try. But hey, I'm not all that good at computers I guess..

    我是一个巨魔 (;

  • Why not booting with a Linux live CD? :P

  • InfinityInfinity Retired Staff

    The computers are locked up in a cupboard, I need to take a picture. All we can see is the screen and keyboard.

    我是一个巨魔 (;

  • The computers are locked up in a cupboard, I need to take a picture. All we can see is the screen and keyboard.

    I had to deal with that type of setup at UNCC when I used their library as well. One of the main reasons why I started using a laptop for my work.

  • Infinity said: I hate to say this and I know I should commit suicide after this but it doesn't work on IE8. At school we only have IE8. After I brought in the portable applications trend into my school (made myself with VMware ThinApp :P), the school's IT admin (who never talks to students) Mr W a n, decided to block all external executables, so we can't launch any applications but the pre-installed ones. :@

    I tend to go on LEB when we have lessons in the IT room to cheer things up, come on, you know how boring IGCSE ICT is!

    Test quote of FF 6.0.

    I'm looking for a sponsored KVM VPS, but I'm not in a hurry. Just want to hear what you might offer to me
  • Go59954Go59954 Member
    edited September 2011

    yomero said: Chrome 300MB Opera 200MB Pale Moon (FF 3.6) 100MB ! Palemoon (FF 6) >200MB Maxthon 250MB Slimbrowser (piece of crap, IE based) 90 MB (or sth like that) Avant browser (tested now, IE based, and sluggish like hell) 180MB I know about the portables, thanks @Go59954, and by the way, I use (and recommend) this: http://portableapps.com/ Born to be used in a pendrive, but is my desktop suite in all my Windows systems. I can reinstall my system and have all my software like before in one hour n_n

    I like using them too, but unfortunately, my portables doesn't share the same source, but like salad, some from forums, some from Softpedia, and some from pendrive resources, also some just Google search results for "App. name"+"Portable" :D

    Anyhow, so if FF6 is working for you maybe it's time for trying to reduce it's RAM usage, chances are Google has some tutorials/tips for that ;) Since luckily FF has a lot of tweaks, maybe also disabling unneeded add-ons (tools->add-ons) will reduce RAM (not sure!).

    By the way, there was a nice browsers list that was put together on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers

    ☻☻ VPS ☺ as of now:- 384-256-128-512x2 ☺☺

  • fyi ff7 is out

    Postgres

  • Still stuck with ff 3.6.something though. :)

  • FF seems to be on a rather agressive release schedule this year.

  • FF seems to be on a rather agressive release schedule this year.

    Indeed. It somehow releases a quite unprofessional feeling.

  • It's interesting though that they're still supporting the 3 line. Got an upgrade this morning and another one a few days ago.

    It's going bite them in the butt though. trying to support and security patch all those versions. I know many of the cms'es and other software that I work with, they may say that they're going to support older major releases but that usually gets dropped after a few months with a "You need to upgrade" response.

  • Boltersdriveer said: FF seems to be on a rather agressive release schedule this year.

    Its trying to catch up with Chrome, the only difference with Chrome is that you don't know when its updated, it does it in secret.

    Daniel.

  • kylixkylix Member
    edited September 2011

    Its trying to catch up with Chrome, the only difference with Chrome is that you don't know when its updated, it does it in secret.

    https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar

    Version 9?

    Every six week a new version will be released now.

  • That sucks, is a marketing issue ¬¬

    Firefox is a slow dog xD

  • yomero said: Firefox is a slow dog xD


    Hahahaha, indeed.

  • Ok, I have been working a little bit with PaleMoon 6. Yes, is faster than 3.6, but still is eating RAM slowly and isn't flushing it. In about:memory are new buttons for garbage collecting, with no success....

    And about the settings that @kylix suggested me, I didn't noticed better memory usage =(

    So, I am wondering, if the browsers are really well coded, or the programmers doesn't care because everybody has 4-8Gb RAM at least? And this apply to all the modern software...

  • So, I am wondering, if the browsers are really well coded, or the programmers doesn't care because everybody has 4-8Gb RAM at least? And this apply to all the modern software...

    I guess its probably because everybody has enough memory so nobody takes care of coding its software to use a minimum memory possible. Best example is iTunes. Bloatware #1.

  • Nah, iTunes is... light. Let's talk about Adobe Reader n_n

  • thekreekthekreek Member
    edited September 2011

    @kylix the problem not only relies on the browsers it also depends on what pages you are browsing, when I log on to FaceBook on a fresh start of FireFox memory usage jumps to about 150MB, if I browse the planet from debian, the memory usage is about 40M.

    In the end, it also depends on how much javascript a page has and how well it was coded.

  • Let's talk about Adobe Reader

    But there you have an alternative called Foxit Reader.

    In the end, it also depends on how much javascript a page has and how well it was coded.

    True, true. But then again, there is a huge difference between the memory consumption between different browsers and releases. And FF is not known for being very conservative in memory allocation and freeing memory.

  • Go59954Go59954 Member
    edited September 2011

    Just thought, Apple Safari might be what you are looking for, since it starts for me at around 55 mb, but goes somehow fast to 200mb+ with opening of some heavy pages. If not, then Opera is probably the best way to go IMO, since it has been known for exceptionally lower memory consumption. Even though my version is outdated, but Opera IMO has been always the best coded one, I realize that long ago from how smooth it works, it worked really fast on my PIII desktop.

    ☻☻ VPS ☺ as of now:- 384-256-128-512x2 ☺☺

  • Go59954 said: Just thought, Apple Safari might be what you are looking for, since it starts for me at around 55 mb, but goes somehow fast to 200mb+ with opening of some heavy pages. If not, then Opera is probably the BEST way to go IMO, since it has been known for exceptionally lower memory consumption.

    Safari's memory usage is similar to that as Chrome, although Safari uses WebKit 2, which has a slightly different process model.

    yomero said: Nah, iTunes is... light. Let's talk about Adobe Reader n_n

    iTunes is such a hog on Windows because it loads all the libraries etc in the exe, in the OS X version its much smaller since the libraries etc are all ready loaded by the OS, and readily loaded.

    Daniel.

  • thekreek said: @kylix the problem not only relies on the browsers it also depends on what pages you are browsing, when I log on to FaceBook on a fresh start of FireFox memory usage jumps to about 150MB, if I browse the planet from debian, the memory usage is about 40M.

    Facebook has some of the worst code on earth. Possibly caused by their "deploy then see if anything dies" state of mind

    Postgres

Sign In or Register to comment.