Firefox 10 Released

iviv

iviv

iviv

Soldato
Joined
2 Jun 2007
Posts
6,839
Location
Mornington Crescent
dXdFB.jpg


Nothing too huge in the release notes, howeever looking at the buglist...

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/10.0/releasenotes/buglist.html

Lots of squashed bugs, so that's always good. Just updating now!

www.getfirefox.com
 
Last edited:
I find waterfox to be a bit quicker in loading and rendering pages, however, not much smoother in terms of the UI overall (on mechanical hard drive), notice the biggest difference when loading image intensive pages or having loads of tabs open.

All my addons work perfectly fine except battlelog (only supports 32 bit, for now.....).

Memory usage is pretty much the same as firefox, except waterfox uses a fair bit more when you are on an image intensive page e.g. high res screenshot thread and lots of tabs open.


Looking forward to waterfox 10! :D
 
I don't see anything to be put off by at all there tbh. All the drives are so fast regardless of the figures shown that it's just unbelievable. The transfer rates don't mean that much in the real world anyway, it's the access times of SSD in general that make for the massive performance difference in loading stuff the moment the mouse button lifts off the microswitch.

Web browsing hasn't sped up by any noticable amount. I'm on cable BB which is never slow and my Firefox/Waterfox has never been slow either so I do not notice any differences loading webpages.

I do all my photo editing off the SSD as Lightroom/CS5 are installed on that.

What is different is how fast the browser loads from cold and how fast all apps/games load as well.

I do not believe that any SSD can be called a "gaming" or "multitasking" drive. They're all damn fast and in real world usage all feel virtually the same so just get whatever is in your budget tbh.

Reminds me of the 3DMark days where the numbers seemingly meant life or death :p
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
I don't see anything to be put off by at all there tbh. All the drives are so fast regardless of the figures shown that it's just unbelievable. The transfer rates don't mean that much in the real world anyway, it's the access times of SSD in general that make for the massive performance difference in loading stuff the moment the mouse button lifts off the microswitch.
Click to expand...

True!

mrk said:
Web browsing hasn't sped up by any noticable amount. I'm on cable BB which is never slow and my Firefox/Waterfox has never been slow either so I do not notice any differences loading webpages.
Click to expand...

Yeah, our internet speed/quality is fast enough (when we aren't capped that is :p), was just curious as a few people and reviews (toms hardware etc.) say that there is some difference for browsing in the rendering etc. Wanted to hear your view on it :)


mrk said:
I do not believe that any SSD can be called a "gaming" or "multitasking" drive. They're all damn fast and in real world usage all feel virtually the same so just get whatever is in your budget tbh.
Click to expand...

Think I will just go for what is in my budget, most likely the corsair force 120GB (when it is on sale for around £90-100, however, my GPU needs to be upgraded first and that won't be till when the 7870 is out :()as it seems pretty popular and reliable so far and pretty cheap as well compared to the others :D

mrk said:
Reminds me of the 3DMark days where the numbers seemingly meant life or death :p
Click to expand...

Haha, I am not as bad as that lot now! :p


I know what you mean though, but I always thought that hard drive benchmarks had some truth to them regarding real world performance :o
 
Maybe they do in certain scenarios with certain apps I don't know but certainly the apps I use run fast anyway and are configured as such as they were for hdd,

I cloned my hdd to ssd so any difference would be instantly noticeable. Which it is in all the best ways of course but web page rendering isn't really one of them in general on my setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom