The New Firefox and Ridiculous Numbers of Tabs (metafluff.com) 210
An anonymous reader shares a blog post: I've got a Firefox profile with 1691 tabs. As you would expect, Firefox handled this profile quite poorly for a long time. I got used to multi-minute startup time, waiting 15-30 seconds for tabs from external apps to show up, and all manner of non-responsive behavior. And then, quite recently, everything changed. Right now, more effort is being put into making Firefox fast than I've seen since... well, since I've been working on Firefox. And I've been at Mozilla for more than a decade. Part of this effort is a project called Quantum Flow -- a bunch of engineers making changes that directly impact Firefox responsiveness. A lot of the improvement in this particular scenario is from Kevin Jones' work on bringing the overall cost of unloaded tabs as close to zero as possible. While the major work has landed, the work continues in Bug 906076. Test scenario: I took my 1691 tab browser profile, and did a wall-clock measurement of start-up time and memory use for Firefox versions 20, 30, 40, and 50 through 56. In the result, the person found that Firefox startup time has gotten worse over time... until Firefox 51.
what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? (Score:5, Funny)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I typically have at least a few hundred open. 1691 doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Needless to say, Chrome can't handle anything remotely like that... try dropping two zeroes. For me, this alone makes Firefox clearly superior to Chrome.
Re:what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? (Score:4, Interesting)
I, a Chrome user, will happily answer.
I have a main set of tabs for news sites - Slashdot is one of them, CNN, BBC, Drudge, whatever I feel like monitoring - stocks for instance. This set includes pages to each of my web email accounts too. A second page full of tabs reaches to internal pages for various software setup for my home and HTPC type stuff - Plex, PlexPy, Webmin, my NAS, SAB, and a bunch of others to handle a few VMs. Sadly Chrome sux for ESX so I have some damned IE windows open for consoles and monitoring.
Then there's the other pages that vary wildly. I have a wide variety of interests. If I begin researching say wood flooring for my home that's a separate page or two filled with tabs. Do a google search on electrical wiring? Each result of interest is a new tab. Ditto' kitchen cabinets and other things. Then there's my various web forums for car interests, parts searches, research into various electronic projects, Youtube videos and well you get the idea. I tend to use a google search as an anchor and multiple tabs after as I dig in deeply.
Sessionbuddy allows me to keep these across sessions. My current largest saved session contains 517 tabs across 161 windows. This session is 24 windows and 114 tabs and I'm finding that it's not really too responsive right now 16gig memory and sadly cannot use more due to the OS version I'm running - grr! Oh my sessions are synched across hardware so my browsers all have the same plug-ins and I can pull window history too as needed.
I can use Sessionbuddy to find things of interest from past sessions if I close them to recover memory, I can hover over a minimized window to get a list of the windows and find a "project" and in general I find this works pretty well for me. IE cannot handle this, menu items disappear as memory runs low, FireFox used to just up and die losing my sessions, and Chrome simply handles it but has become slow and bloated over the past year or three. Hopefully they take note of FireFox's advances! Chrome, being more secure, is where I'll likely stay for a browser hoping that they trim some fat as FireFox has
So yeah, some of us find this pretty damned handy and use quite a few tabs. 1600 is pushing it but 500 was fine by me for sure :)
Re: what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know they have this other new feature that lets you group all those pages without needing any memory, CPU, or screen space. They call this cool new feature "bookmarks". You should check it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, since nobody has implemented a nag-bookmark, what do I do about the 3 to 20 products I am considering buying at any time? I don't want to bookmark the exhaust for my motorcycle. I buy it or not, and either way, I never need it again, once I make a decision. Having the tab(s) open help me rem
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
However, this discussion also suggests to me that it might be time to overhaul bookmark UIs in web browsers. There may be a way to make them more useful to users currently maintaining hundreds of tabs. A thought, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Bookmarks are a relic from the time when browsers didn't have tabs.
Tabs should never have consumed as many resources as they did (and they didn't in the past, not until all the bloat was added with each new browser release).
Re: (Score:2)
You know they have this other new feature that lets you group all those pages without needing any memory, CPU, or screen space. They call this cool new feature "bookmarks". You should check it out.
Ah, I can see that you've never actually had multiple research projects running at the same time!
The browsers I've worked heavily with, Firefox and Chrome, are actually pretty damn lousy if you want to find a specific bookmark quickly by means other than typing key words from the URL or title into the address bar.
Overall, Firefox's bookmarks work better than Chrome's for the suggested use--I can go through to find the useful pages for my research project and just bookmark the entire window with a name for t
Re:what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? (Score:4, Interesting)
Serious question: what is it about bookmarks that don't fulfill this role for you? Everything you describe, I do in Firefox with bookmarks and folders. Obviously, it takes almost zero extra memory. I tend to keep my tab usage under a dozen or two, since after that things start getting cluttered. So... is it a workflow thing, or a UI issue?
I keep thinking if one of the browser makers could figure out the answer to this question and make a change to their browser to accommodate people who like to collect windows and tabs as "live" bookmarks, they'd add a few percentage points from users like you who work this way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your to-do list has over 1000 items on it?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to decide "this is something I want to bookmark". Just pop another tab and done with.
Clutter. Yeah. But why is that a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
All Tabs extension works nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Bookmarks are too permanent.
When I shop on some website, I can open a dozen tabs with things I want to take a closer look at, but not right now as I'm still browsing the list (so they all open in the background).
Do you expect me to instead bookmark those things, then check them out one by one, deleting the bookmarks of products that I didn't like in the process?
No.
Tabs are great as short-lived bookmarks (but can also be used as permanent ones, especially with tab pinning). One advantage of tabs is that the
Tabs for offline reading (Score:2)
If the browser is running short on memory, then why not just discard a few tabs until they're selected again? There's absolutely nothing stopping the browser from doing that.
Say a user navigates to an HTML document on his laptop, closes the lid, boards a city bus in a city whose buses do not provide Wi-Fi, opens the lid, and switches to the document's tab. If the browser has discarded the document for later reloading, the browser will attempt to reload the document, fail because there is no Internet connection, and show "You are offline" instead of the document. This defeats the purpose of having loaded the document in a tab in the first place. And browsers on tablets have an a
Desktop browsers discard DOMs to the page file (Score:2)
In principle, browsers for desktop operating systems already discard DOMs to the page file. One drawback of this approach is fragmentation: because one 4K page of memory may contain objects associated with more than one tab, it might take longer for a document to get completely paged out. To what extent does Firefox try to keep a document's data together in address space?
Re: (Score:2)
When researching stuff I tend to just make notes. I've been using OneNote in the past because everything else seems to suck more than it does, but bookmark folders and draft emails to myself work well too. Also Google Docs.
I used to have tabs open for a year or more, but then I'd find that the web site had gone or the content had changed. So now I just copy/paste the important stuff into a note and a link back to the source.
Then I close the tabs. They get stale, I move on to other things... And if I didn't
obligatory xkcd (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really faster to search through hundreds of open tabs than it would be to just do the search for the thing you need using one of the search engines? I just can't wrap my mind around flipping through hundreds of web pages when a fresh search is so easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: what would anyone do with 1691 tabs? (Score:2)
It's too bad the news sites you keep open don't "syndicate" their content. Then someone could devise a "really simple" way to aggregate this content. I think this "really simple syndication" would be an excellent way to get a "rich site summary" without needing a million tabs.
Re: (Score:2)
So how would an end user go about convincing a major website to start offering an RSS feed and accept the loss of front-page ad views?
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like that means switching between sessions constantly, if you operate the way I do -- jumping around rather than working on one thing for a while. What do you do if you're in the middle of something and "I just want to check the weather radar?"
hoarding? (Score:2)
You should really consider looking into having similar problems. Why? A human can't pay attention to that much information at any given time. If you are researching a book, you may have a hundred or two references but most of those are one time checks. Not open reading material, and not something you need after you make sure you have the quotes/concepts correct. Once you have to fish for labels in your tabs, the efficiency drops dramatically. You are faster to have a bookmark or re-search for the sour
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy being violated by your non-free software.
For one thing, Chromium is free software and includes everything ut Flash Player and Hollywood movie DRM. For another, what laptops that don't come with non-free software are shown in U.S. showrooms?
But for years FF fanatics told us FF was "fast"! (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the thing that's really pathetic about this whole situation: FF users have been complaining about performance problems for many, many years.
Yet FF's most ardent supporters have always denied or dismissed these complaints, claiming that "FF is fast" or "FF doesn't suffer from performance problems", despite so many users experiencing horrible performance when using FF.
So if these performance problems allegedly didn't exist, then why the fuck did Mozilla need to create this "Quantum Flow" project to fix
Re: (Score:3)
1. This is not the first or only work the Firefox team has been doing to improve performance. You're writing as though this Quantum Flow project is the first performance work they've done ever, or within the past five years. It isn't. The switch to multi-threading has been underway for years.
2. Firefox's problems today are largely a result of its own success ten years ago. The biggest cause of performance slowdowns is add-ons that have inefficien
Re: (Score:2)
3. Conversely, if you want fastest performance try running without add-ons.
I don't see how running without add-ons would help performance, as disabling add-ons causes sites to load excessive tracking devices, real-time bidding scripts, animated advertisements, and video advertisements.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually been my impression that sites run faster with add-ons disabled. I don't have hard data, though, so don't give any weight to what I write. What I suspect - a wild guess, mind you - is that for example older versions of EFF Privacy Badger are single-threaded, so they actually slow you down more by blocking three hundred trackers spread across forty tabs than you would be if you just let all those advertising networks run their code.
Depends on the add-ons you're using...and how trustworthy those advertising networks are. Malware infections tend to slow computers down, and would it particularly hurt sites or ad networks to start making it be standard policy that ads capable of injecting malware just don't get in? (I'm not going to ask that they vet where the links go, that does seem a bit too labor-intensive and easily abused, but it shouldn't be difficult to just refuse to run ads that have the technical capability of loading program
Re: (Score:3)
I think the big problem is that users don't understand what that little star on the right side of the browser bar does anymore.
Unstable (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I find my brain is unstable when confronted with more than about twenty tabs. I'd report that numerous times, but, you know. Unstable. *falls off chair*
Re: (Score:2)
I just updated to firefox dev edition 55... and their claim is indeed accurate. It loaded quickly although I only had 800ish tabs open.
Quite happy that they finally fixed this silly problem. Now chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Which "newer OS" not compromised by ad industry? (Score:2)
Is Apple the only laptop maker whose products 1. run "a newer OS" that isn't designed as one huge tracking device for the advertisement industry and 2. are in U.S. electronics showroom chains? Because for years, I haven't seen any GNU/Linux laptops in showrooms near me; it's just Windows 10 and macOS.
Until then, Windows 7 receives "extended support" (security updates) until 2020.
The Tab Groups feature was removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Tab Groups feature was removed (Score:4, Informative)
I group tabs by window, then use "tree style tabs" to put them in collapsible sub-groupings.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, since nothing organizes tabs in a convienent and visible way, I keep them all open, and ctrl-tab through them as a reminder of what I'm doing in each of those groups/sub-groups.
Re: The Tab Groups feature was removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Opening a bookmark on the bus produces a DNS lookup failure instead of the intended document.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heavens no. I typically run Firefox with 12 or fewer tabs. Mostly I get "use bookmarks instead of tabs" from those who recommend that I work around broken suspend by instead shutting down the computer completely, and I get "discard inactive tabs" from those who recommend that I work around unavailability of small laptops that run GNU/Linux by using Android/Linux instead. But the "use bookmarks instead of tabs" and "discard inactive tabs" arguments are again popping up in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The notion of keeping 1600+ things open and active is fundamentally flawed.
You have an inbox with 1600+ file folders in it.
1600+ post-its on your whiteboard.
1600+ people lined up outside your office.
Instead, you need a multi-part solution.
- Daily to do list
- Daily/weekly/monthly/yearly reminders
- One or more "workspaces" (i.e. your browser session(s))
- File system/archives/offline/nearline
And this needs to be tuned/tweaked regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
If it works, it isn't "fundamentally flawed".
I don't care for these "workspace" solutions, because it means a heavyweight switch between sessions rather than just jumping to a different tab.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That solution isn't likely to be feasible to actually implement, especially with Firefox's plans for limiting what you can do to the UX via extensions. Pale Moon looks like it won't be doing that, but an extension that lets do that smoothly & well (doing the 3rd part with sessions isn't a Good Idea, actually) doesn't yet exist.
Though, some of the situations, 1600+ whatever there is actually precisely what you need. After all, yes, 1600+ people lined up outside my office might be a bit clunky, it can b
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of tab groups you can just use bookmarks. You can bookmark groups of tabs info a folder, and then middle click that folder to open them all again.
Tab groups was a nice idea, I used to use it, but performance was terrible. Firefox was taking 30 seconds to open and become responsive even with only one tab, until I realized that deleting supposedly frozen tabs from tab groups would speed it up. Apparently bookmarks are the only way to really close tabs and free up their resources in Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Several people in this thread suggested bookmarks, including parent, the thing is it hasn't the same workflow, opening a new tab, moving, loading next time, closing, etc is more pratical, and in my mind easier to administer, than bookmarks, which I have a ton but pratically don't use.
I trully hope that the people at mozilla dec
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried bookmark folders? I really can't see much practical difference between then and tab groups, besides the thumbnails.
Tabs aren't bookmarks (Score:2, Informative)
You're confusing bookmarks and tabs.
Read one of those Internet for Dummies books, and you'll figure it out.
Re: Tabs aren't bookmarks (Score:2)
You're doing it wrong (Score:2, Informative)
You're doing it wrong.
The good old days (Score:4, Informative)
So they are going back to how it used to be?
I recall having hundred(s) of tabs open. Back in 2006 on a single-core centrino Laptop with a whoping 2GB of ram and a terrific ATI x700 GPU.
No issues were had.
Then they brought in the UX-torturers, started with their ridiculous high version numbers and it all went downhill from there.
Firefox tabs are the new desktop shortcuts (Score:4, Funny)
I was always amazed at those people whose desktops were completely filled with shortcuts. I guess they're all using Firefox now.
I wonder if their houses are stacked floor to ceiling, wall to wall, with old newspapers.
Re: (Score:3)
If people used desktop shortcuts in the past, wouldn't they have the sense to use bookmarks?
I more liken this to someone who has opens every document on their computer just in case they need it throughout the day, and then complains that Office uses too much RAM.
640 tabs should be enough for anyone... (Score:4, Funny)
Said Bill Gates
Why load all of the tabs? (Score:3)
Why are you loading all of the tabs at startup? Do you really need all of them? If you want to change the behaviour so that only the visible tab is loaded then go into about:config and search for "browser.sessionstore.restore_hidden_tabs" (without the quotes). Change the value to false. The tabs will still be there but will only load when you select the tab.
Maybe Firefox changed the default behaviour and that is why you see the change in performance.
Wall-clock calling captain oblivious (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro-tip: Make my shit fast. Make it super fucking responsive. I don't need the shine, I don't need the glitter. That's where I can rely on a mod/extension community to fill in the short comings. I can't rely on them to put in extensive multicore support. Make the engine that everyone wants to use, and worry about what color to paint the car later.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell yes. I run the beta versions, and bug report when I can and only use FLOSS software like an addict. I admit my ethical preference, and dealing with a Psychology department as often as I do, it's an immense problem that often gets me labelled a zealot. I prefer LaTeX and use point out mathematical flaws and software default errors that result in false logical errors in colleagues' papers like an immense jackass.
However, even I have to admit that using Chromium, with all its Googley evilness (yes Chromiu
they fixed the real problem years ago (Score:2)
It was barely usable for us many-tabs types, until a few years ago when they quit trying to load every single tab when you start it. Now it only tries to open the active tab on each window.
Dear Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
I managed to put 10 pounds of shit into a 5 pound box and it fell apart. What am I doing wrong?
I'm angry with FireFox (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm angry with FireFox. I have been using it for many years, and for a long time, I thought it to be the bee's knees, the cat's meow.
However, their high handed way with security and such has come to the point that I can't trust them. I use Firefox browser in my work. When they block things for security reasons, it stops me from being able to work. I have to manage over 250,000 devices on an internal and secure network. We don't have resources to upgrade those devices - indeed, many of them cannot be upgrade
Re: (Score:2)
because the plugin firebug
Firebug was integrated [getfirebug.com] with the built-in Firefox developer tools. As the Firebug team says [getfirebug.com], "The Firebug extension isn't being developed or maintained any longer". Here's a migration guide [mozilla.org].
One word for this,... (Score:2)
That word would be bullshit.
I've been using it for over a decade, I've made easily over twenty posts on Slashdot about the performance maybe double that.
I used it exclusively including 64 bit nightly editions, up to I think version 54?
I reduced my plugins significantly to about 4 or so.
I'm an extreme browser (although I peek around 400 tabs around once or twice Year, not 1600) and I can assure you at least up until 2/3 months ago, it still ran like crap compared to chrome (and again, I don't even like chrom
Re: (Score:2)
Article: Improvements have been made.
You: In my experience there is plenty of room for improvement, therefore I do not believe this.
I hope you can see the flaw in that logic yourself. They're improving exactly the thing you say you want improved, and you're being all pissy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you know, I've been waiting ten years and it's not improved and yet I used nightly versions UP TO 54,.... the article clearly says that things all changed around 51,....
So yeah, no.
Re: (Score:2)
I tested it just now after I read the story.
I use firefox dev edition and am on the aurora channel. I had version 54, and I checked for updates, 55 was there. I had 800 tabs open. I let it update, and restart, and yeah, it restarted quick enough that I didn't get bored waiting for it like I normally do.
A huge improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
If you hit CTRL TAB, what's your time to switch?
I found a general lag, anything from 200, to even 1500ms in previous builds.
(When exceeding 100/150 tabs)
1691 tabs? (Score:2)
Bookmarks and The Great Suspender (Score:2)
This is what Boomarks are for : keeping a list of frequently visited sites.
And if you are a tabs hoarder, The Great Suspender extension is your best friend on Chrome : https://chrome.google.com/webs... [google.com]
On Firefox, you can use Suspend Tab or UnloadTab extensions I think.
Diversion of resources... (Score:4, Insightful)
...I've got a Firefox profile with 1691 tabs....
I'd really not want to see Firefox wasting their precious development resources to make a ridiculous corner case as this one work properly, instead of applying those same precious resources to more pressing issues. Issues that are experienced by a much wider set of users.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that FF's performance has become more and more sucky, and that fixes which goose it this much for megatab users are probably going to do the normal users a lot of good too.
Problem: FF getting locked down (Score:2)
I'm running FF52 (LTS) because the "consumer" grade Firefoxen don't allow unsigned extensions, with no saving throw (the LTS ones do).
The next LTS version (57 IIRC) is going to lose real extensions, with only the stripped down WebExtensions.
So what is a user to do?
Re: (Score:2)
the "consumer" grade Firefoxen don't allow unsigned extensions
That should not affect you if you apply to have your extensions signed as unlisted extensions. But I imagine there's a good reason why you haven't. What might that be?
Re: (Score:2)
Because:
1) I have a bunch of older extensions, some of which aren't signed.
2) Sometimes I modify extensions (fix bugs, get rid of annoying behaviors).
3) I don't want to have to "apply" to someone else for the right to run something on my own computer.
Re: (Score:2)
1) I have a bunch of older extensions, some of which aren't signed.
Extensions listed on AMO before signing was instituted were automatically signed. For extensions distributed off-AMO, fork them pursuant to their free software licenses and submit your fork as an unlisted extension.
2) Sometimes I modify extensions (fix bugs, get rid of annoying behaviors).
Then you are a developer, not a "consumer" who only views works created by others. Fork the older extensions pursuant to their free software licenses and submit your fork as an unlisted extension, or use Firefox Developer Edition.
3) I don't want to have to "apply" to someone else for the right to run something on my own computer.
Then use Firefox Developer Edition.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that helps me temporarily (but makes a mess of my distro's packaging -- there are a lot of things that depend on firefox). But only until FF56.
1600 tabs is bullshit. (Score:3)
Nobody uses 1600 tabs. Sorry, at best, you use maybe, MAYBE 1-3% of those with any regularity. The rest is just masturbation.
What's REALLY upsetting with the latest versions are the nasty memory leaks and slowdowns in FF since the multi-threading was enabled.
With just three tabs open (for this example Slashdot, Facebook and YouTube, but I can reproduce the behavior with any number of sites), the browser begins exhibiting multiple tens of seconds of input lag after as little as 5 minutes of browsing. So you click on something and wait, and wait, and wait. And it "eventually" does it.
It's getting so bad that I'm going to HAVE to stop using Firefox if it continues.
The tip of the iceberg of Mozilla development (Score:3)
Sigh (Score:2)
"I've got a Firefox profile with 1691 tabs"
It must suck to be you. I guess you also have 2321 apps on your iPhone and 4352 open documents in Winword.
You should read about the x icon in the corner.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should I waste many hours (if not days or weeks...) of my time tracking down and fixing stupid performance problems in Firefox, when I can take about 45 seconds and install Chrome, or Chromium, or Vivaldi, or Opera instead and get very good performance? Heck, in even less time than that I could just use a pre-installed browser like Safari or Edge and still get better performance than Firefox!
Don't give me any bullshit about Firefox "respecting our privacy", either. Just look at its privacy policy [mozilla.org] to see
Re: (Score:2)
but I permit facebook stuff to load
May I ask why? Why in the blazes a reasonable person would ever allow anything Facebook to load (assuming you're not paid for pushing crap there)?
If you have a family member who insists on still using Facebook, most of the blockers can be configured to allow it through on a single site (like facebook.com directly), I don't have any experience there though (thanks Marduk!). Letting it crap on, track you on, and, as you say, lock your setup on, random third-party sites, is preposterous.
Re: (Score:2)
but I permit facebook stuff to load
May I ask why? Why in the blazes a reasonable person would ever allow anything Facebook to load (assuming you're not paid for pushing crap there)?
If you have a family member who insists on still using Facebook, most of the blockers can be configured to allow it through on a single site (like facebook.com directly),
Slowwwww down thar, jack. I'm only allowing facebook crap to load on facebook, and I didn't say otherwise. I perhaps wasn't clear, but making assumptions is half-cocked.
Re: (Score:2)
Slowwwww down thar, jack. I'm only allowing facebook crap to load on facebook, and I didn't say otherwise. I perhaps wasn't clear, but making assumptions is half-cocked.
Sorry for questioning your sanity then :)
Troll mod? (Score:2)
I promise you that Facebook is punching Firefox right in the nuts, and I really do want to know if anyone else is having the same problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's just me, I can't name the 183 (or so) countries of the world, and I often miss one or two US states when listing them
I can't remember which of the several thousand bookmarks I have are still relevant; nor do I remember, or often have time, to sift through them and delete those which are no longer relevant. Tabs, grouped by window, are an easy way to track this.
If I'm still researching the topic, any tabs open in that topic's window are relevant (or have not been reviewed yet); when I'm done researching a topic, I bookmark any content I might find useful later and close that topic's window, along with all of its tabs. Do
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this.
work-flow fungibility porn (Score:2)
I didn't set out to screed at this length. Shit happens. It might at first look appear to be a bramble patch. Appearances are deceiving.
Every word here is as deliberate as accidental off-the-cuff could possibly be. I suppose I could open up every second snarky entry on TV Tropes.org just listing all the rhetorical devices employed within (should my browser permit this).
However, I spent my wad in the composition and don't feeling like going back over it with a grooming rake. Colour me slovenly. Yes, Dr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When a user can crash your product just by opening a ton of tabs, where it isn't obvious that this would cause problems, then it is still your products fault.
If they know it would cause problems, then the number of tabs should have a limit, or a warning or whatever. There is nothing. Instead, Firefox will happily keep opening tabs until it consumes all RAM (or 2 GB for 32-bit version), then becomes an unresponsive blob that users have to kill. Very user friendly.
And why? All the data is available elsewh
Out of Wi-Fi range (Score:2)
And why? All the data is available elsewhere, either in the disk cache
The changes made to a document's DOM by scripts aren't in the disk cache. One example of a document is any Slashdot discussion page. Scripts collapse or expand comments, add a "Reply to This" box, and add newly posted comments when the user activates "Check for New Comments" link at the bottom.
or the remote server itself.
Once a battery-powered computer leaves the range of Wi-Fi hotspots whose WPA2 password you know, "the remote server itself" is no longer accessible. Browsers for tablets aggressively discard inactive tabs under memory
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it just be better to just search for what you want in a web search engine
Not if the document you are viewing requires authentication to view. Such documents do not appear in web search engines.