On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:58:18 +0200
David <d@dav1d.de> wrote:
> 
> Wth? Fx 2? Opera :/
> 
> Fx is really outdated

If you're wondering, this is my explanation for the FF2:

<https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/the-perfect-browser-is-easy!-yet-it-still-doesn-t-exist...>

As long as I have my plug-ins for it, I still find it the #1 most usable browser on the planet. Modern standard compliance and such would be nice, but I'll take rendering glitches over a shitty Chrome-inspired UI any day.

> and opera, meh, it's opera.

I completely agree, but at least it isn't IE or *shudder* Chrome. I had been using Arora instead of Opera for awhile, it showed a lot of promise, but it's kinda half-finished and a little crashy, and dev on it seemed to have mostly stopped last I checked.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:42:45PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:58:18 +0200
> David <d@dav1d.de> wrote:
[...]
> > and opera, meh, it's opera.
> 
> I completely agree, but at least it isn't IE or *shudder* Chrome. I had been using Arora instead of Opera for awhile, it showed a lot of promise, but it's kinda half-finished and a little crashy, and dev on it seemed to have mostly stopped last I checked.

Sigh... I long for the good ole days of Opera 2, which *used* to be the cleanest, fastest, least crash-prone, least resource-hogging browser back in the day. I still use Opera as my main browser 'cos it still has the best UI for me (I've tweaked it to my heart's content -- it lets you do that -- and the built-in per-domain-suffix JS/cookie/popup settings are a lifesaver for me), but gone are the days of being cleanest, fastest, least crash-prone, and least resource-hogging. :-(  Its memory usage is particularly annoying these days, and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing anything.

I wish the devs would focus more on solidifying the core browser and tune it up like the good ole days, instead of wasting time on peripheral things that I don't even care about, like mobile syncing, email, chatroom, cloud, etc. (why it is that browsers these days are obsessed with feeping creaturism until they become a poorly-reimplemented standalone *OS*, I will never understand).


T

-- 
If you compete with slaves, you become a slave. -- Norbert Wiener

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:03:23 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> Sigh... I long for the good ole days of Opera 2, which *used* to be the cleanest, fastest, least crash-prone, least resource-hogging browser back in the day. I still use Opera as my main browser 'cos it still has the best UI for me (I've tweaked it to my heart's content -- it lets you do that -- and the built-in per-domain-suffix JS/cookie/popup settings are a lifesaver for me),

I get that per-domain-disabling feature with FF's NoScript plugin, which I find to be by far the easiest, most convenient, and most sensible way to do it. It's always just right there in the corner letting me do temporary or permanent enabling of stuff for whatever domain or domains are involved in a page. I'd never want to give up NoScript.

> but gone are the
> days of being cleanest, fastest, least crash-prone, and least
> resource-hogging. :-(  Its memory usage is particularly annoying
> these days, and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not
> doing anything.
> 
> I wish the devs would focus more on solidifying the core browser and tune it up like the good ole days, instead of wasting time on peripheral things that I don't even care about, like mobile syncing, email, chatroom, cloud, etc. (why it is that browsers these days are obsessed with feeping creaturism until they become a poorly-reimplemented standalone *OS*, I will never understand).
> 

All those creeping features and they still won't add the *one* I really want: An option for a good, classic, native UI. :(

Because apparently we're not allowed to find the browser UI changes to be anything less than objectively stellar improvements. (Think I'm exaggerating? Just try raising any objections to any browser UI changes to them or even suggesting that they be optional, and just see how people react.)

> Because apparently we're not allowed to find the browser UI changes to
> be anything less than objectively stellar improvements. (Think I'm
> exaggerating? Just try raising any objections to any browser UI changes
> to them or even suggesting that they be optional, and just see how
> people react.)
>

Because that's just how people are.  Take a look at the Thread that spawned from the std.process vote.

One person tried to start a conversation about allocations in Phobos, and maybe it would be good to avoid them whenever possible.

And bless his heart he eventually succeeded.  Eventually.  After cursing a few times because people were obviously not reading (or thinking!) about his responses.

Another example?  Gnome 3.  Nothing more needs to be said about that.

On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing anything.

I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option accounts for a lot of the disk usage.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:11:09 +0200
"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir@thecybershadow.net> wrote:

> On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing anything.
> 
> I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option accounts for a lot of the disk usage.

Isn't that just normal browser cache? Or there something different about it?

On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 19:19:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:11:09 +0200
> "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir@thecybershadow.net> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> > and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing anything.
>> 
>> I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option accounts for a lot of the disk usage.
>
> Isn't that just normal browser cache? Or there something different
> about it?

It's the feature that controls indexing the cache, which allows you to search through it in the address bar. The cache settings are a bit lower on the same page.

It's an interesting feature, one I haven't seen in other browsers, too bad it's too resource-intensive. I remember that by the time Opera added this, Firefox was only flaunting its new "awesomebar", which Opera's been doing for a while.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:50:26 -0500
1100110 <0b1100110@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Because apparently we're not allowed to find the browser UI changes to be anything less than objectively stellar improvements. (Think I'm exaggerating? Just try raising any objections to any browser UI changes to them or even suggesting that they be optional, and just see how people react.)
> >
> 
> Because that's just how people are.

True. Still annoying though :/

> Take a look at the Thread that spawned from the std.process vote.
> 
> One person tried to start a conversation about allocations in Phobos, and maybe it would be good to avoid them whenever possible.
> 
> And bless his heart he eventually succeeded.  Eventually.  After cursing a few times because people were obviously not reading (or thinking!) about his responses.

Yea, I did find it a little odd how much the "Dudes, std.process was just one initial *example*!" kept getting ignored. (I don't mean that as an attack on anyone at all, of course.)

> 
> Another example?  Gnome 3.  Nothing more needs to be said about that.

Heh heh. Kinda strange though how Gnome basically decided to do what
*already* handn't worked out great for KDE: "Let's throw half
of everything away and replace it with what basically nobody is
asking for". Win8 did the same, too. Seems to be infectious ;)

On 4/14/2013 3:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> It's not working in IE9 either, just FWIW.

I'm using IE10, and it works.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:26:04 +0200
"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir@thecybershadow.net> wrote:
> On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 19:19:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:11:09 +0200
> > "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir@thecybershadow.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >> > and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing anything.
> >> 
> >> I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option accounts for a lot of the disk usage.
> >
> > Isn't that just normal browser cache? Or there something
> > different
> > about it?
> 
> It's the feature that controls indexing the cache, which allows you to search through it in the address bar. The cache settings are a bit lower on the same page.

Ah, I see.

> 
> It's an interesting feature, one I haven't seen in other browsers, too bad it's too resource-intensive. I remember that by the time Opera added this, Firefox was only flaunting its new "awesomebar", which Opera's been doing for a while.

Actually, the "awfulbar" was one of the big things that turned me off of FF3. It's so...crayola. I know there's add-ins now to turn it off, but I got tired of having to bog it down with more and add-ins just to revert Mozilla's awesome new ideas.