FF7

[Dog Pants]

Since the last update Firefox has been a right bitch, freezing up for ages while it considers its options. Anyone else found this? It doesn't seem to be my intercocks because Google pings fine and a restart of the browser gets things right back to normal. So I've upgraded to FF7. Seems pretty much identical to the version I was using (4.something), but I'll put any thoughts here. Anyone else using it?

[buzzmong]

I've noticed it spazzing out occasionally. It was throwing a right barney last week when I was clearing out my history.

There was an update in the last couple of days, so I'm now on 7.0.1.

[HereComesPete]

I found mine regularly going non-responsive. And then firefox started doing the same too. Fnar fnar!

[Dog Pants]

I'm wondering if it auto-updated to 7.0.1 and I've just reinstalled the same version, because it's still doing it. Nice work with the rapid release schedule, Mozilla. I might switch to IE10 for a bit while they fix it.

[Roman Totale]

I'm on 7.0.1 - not had any problems with it so far.

[Dog Pants]

Well I upgraded (hopefully) to the 8.0 beta, see what effect that has.

[FatherJack]

I find clearing out the downloads list sometimes helps, as well as gettig rid of any plugins I don't absolutely need.

[deject]

I've been running FF7 beta (and now release) since FF6 came out, and I have not had any trouble at all with it.

[Wiggy]

Damn, and I thought this was a Final Fantasy VII thread.

[fabyak]

Damn, and I thought this was a Final Fantasy VII thread.

[spoodie]

I'm still confused why they're changed their version numbering. I don't see how v7 is different enough from v5 to warrant these whole number versions.

[deject]

I'm still confused why they're changed their version numbering. I don't see how v7 is different enough from v5 to warrant these whole number versions.

They wanted to be more like Chrome. That's basically it. Chrome gets a new version number every time they get a new download.

[Stoat]

They wanted to be more like Chrome. That's basically it. Chrome gets a new version number every time they get a nw download.

Specifically, they wanted Chrome's development model, because it's awesome. Features get pushed out when they're ready, rather than waiting a year for the next major release. Fewer features per release mean more stability, because you're changing less and fixing bugs constantly. FF 6 and 7 both had a shit-ton of new features and tweaks - mostly under-the-hood (CSS, JS, memory, webdev tools).

[deject]

They wanted to be more like Chrome. That's basically it. Chrome gets a new version number every time they get a nw download.

Specifically, they wanted Chrome's development model, because it's awesome. Features get pushed out when they're ready, rather than waiting a year for the next major release. Fewer features per release mean more stability, because you're changing less and fixing bugs constantly. FF 6 and 7 both had a shit-ton of new features and tweaks - mostly under-the-hood (CSS, JS, memory, webdev tools).

7 at least has a feature worthy of a Major Version update like 6 -> 7. The memory usage in FF7 is vastly improved over the previous versions. If you look at what was in FF5 and FF6, they really should have just been 4.1 and 4.2, not full version updates.

While I totally agree, waiting for long term release cycles to push new features is dumb, there isn't any need to follow Chrome's stupid versioning system. Chrome is already on version 16 in development. From initial release to version 16 in 3 years? Come on now...

Actually, from what I hear, the bad thing about Chrome is that there are 4 versions (Stable, Beta, Dev, Canary) that all are in use among those who use Chrome, and each one does things a bit differently. This makes coding designs (especially AJAX-y stuff) more difficult, unless you're willing to say screw you to people using the non-Stable versions.

[Stoat]

While I totally agree, waiting for long term release cycles to push new features is dumb, there isn't any need to follow Chrome's stupid versioning system. Chrome is already on version 16 in development. From initial release to version 16 in 3 years? Come on now...

Chrome's gone though 16 iterations in 3 years.
Granted, that makes no sense for a lot of software, where a major version basically means a whole rewrite of the code, but I don't think it makes any practical difference whether you're using Chrome 16 or Chrome 1.16.93.2834. It's just Chrome- it's either up-to-date or it isn't.

[Dev channels] make coding designs (especially AJAX-y stuff) more difficult, unless you're willing to say screw you to people using the non-Stable versions.

Javascript, CSS etc are all standards. If and update breaks something that should work, it's a bug. New features shouldn't break old ones, without a suitable depreciation period. And people on pre-release channels expect stuff to break. They've gone out of their way to get a version of a browser that is certain to ruin their day. Blessed are the beta testers.

[Dog Pants]

I think I might have found a fix this:

Deleting the Windows XP or Fista prefetch files for Firefox (C:\Windows\Prefetch\FIREFOX*) can prevent problems with the jpeg_fdct_islow thread consuming lots of CPU.

I've not had it happen for a few days now.

EDIT: And it does it again mere minutes after I say I've fixed it after not seeing it for days. cupcake.

[Stoat]

Did you try the Places fix? Or did I in fact not mention it because I thought you''d sorted it?
http://blog.bonardo.net/2011/09/30/is-y ... -intervals

[Dog Pants]

Cheers Stoat, I've tried it now. We'll see what happens.

[Dog Pants]

Yup, still doing it.

[Stoat]

See if it still does it in Safe Mode (Help, Restart with Add-ons Disabled).
If that works fine, it can either be an add-on or hardware acceleration. If it's still playing up then it's probably a borked profile.