• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

know what? my browser now - FIREFOX 5.0

Sideswipe said:
I will wait to upgrade.
Internet Download Manager must be compatible with Firefox for me. that's all.
Click to expand...

The existing plug-in from the Internet Download Manager 6.05 is not compatible with Firefox 5.0.

The new plug-in (IDM CC 7.3.1) from Internet Download Manager 6.06 Beta (which I am using) is working fine.
 
i have no idea why people would want to install those pluggin. make the browsing experiences damn slow after sometime. and guess what? 95 percent of the time i believe we do not need it when we surf the net.

that is the exact reason why i always use chrome, i have no idea about in linux, but in windows it is surely faster than firefox. i used both as well, ever since i switch to chrome i dun looked back. so far except nus website that purposely disable usage of chrome to download journals, i had not have a single problem with chrome (even though i did not have any plugging except for what that had already installed)
 
vamjok said:
i have no idea why people would want to install those pluggin. make the browsing experiences damn slow after sometime. and guess what? 95 percent of the time i believe we do not need it when we surf the net.

that is the exact reason why i always use chrome, i have no idea about in linux, but in windows it is surely faster than firefox. i used both as well, ever since i switch to chrome i dun looked back. so far except nus website that purposely disable usage of chrome to download journals, i had not have a single problem with chrome (even though i did not have any plugging except for what that had already installed)
Click to expand...


I am right now testing MS windows using a virtual machine (64bit XP pro) I used firefox 3.6 to download the 13MB firefox5 setup full, took only 8secs to download 15sec to complete install and run firefox 5.0

Then I use firefox 5.0 to download google Chrome, a tiny 575kb program came in less than 2secs. But when I ran it it downloads the rest of actual Chrome to install, SPENT 7mins!:(

Now Chrome MS version is up running.

It seems that Chrome opens and grab web pages as fast as firefox, but renders the display slower and more inefficiently than firefox. It displays drastically off-beat lay outs when pages are not fully received, and drastically changed the layout as more data arrived. This caused confusion and hard to follow when reading partially received pages. Firefox present a page of more comprehensive layout even when the data of the page isn't fully received yet. You can already start to read and understand some of the info before they fully arrived.

Actually with firefox I am able to click the desired links to go to the next page before I fully received the rest of unwanted info. Many times websites make users go through several pages to access something, and firefox can get me there faster. I tested both in 64 bit Linux & MS to get the same result.

To download something like a 685MB linux live CD. Firefox 5 will do the same file within 21min and chrome will do it in 41min. I have tested just now.

However Chrome starts fast, without asking questions, it began downloading and saving already. Firefox asked where to save (user can set preference on these)

To type in URLs to go somewhere Chrome will try to guess your URL as you type. Something like in Google search page. Sometime that will get you to the URL faster by little bit. But sometime they guess the wrong places and misled you there. Firefox does not guess that in the main browser URL line.

;)
 
uncleyap said:
Then I use firefox 5.0 to download google Chrome, a tiny 575kb program came in less than 2secs. But when I ran it it downloads the rest of actual Chrome to install, SPENT 7mins! :(

;)
Click to expand...

Ah ber den? It's the same when you download Sun Java. Small kb file. The full download and installation will take longer. 575kb was the tip of the iceberg. :p
 
uncleyap said:
To type in URLs to go somewhere Chrome will try to guess your URL as you type. Something like in Google search page. Sometime that will get you to the URL faster by little bit. But sometime they guess the wrong places and misled you there. Firefox does not guess that in the main browser URL line.

;)
Click to expand...

This can be tweaked in your autofill / suggestions settings.
 
There are many different aspects of browsers' speed:


  • Acquiring contents that makes up web pages
  • Rendering the display of pages (including when you scroll through huge pages)
  • Running the scripts on pages
  • downloading large objects
  • uploading large objects
  • Handling plugins
each of the above is one independent measurement of performance.
 
youallhumsup said:
Ah ber den? It's the same when you download Sun Java. Small kb file. The full download and installation will take longer. 575kb was the tip of the iceberg. :p
Click to expand...


Firefox 5.0 gave me the full setup file in one single go 13MB. That is what I prefer. Because I can save it in USB thumb drive, and use it elsewhere - which I might have no web access.

In the works of system engineering, you would encounter many situations where you need to get things setup while blinded from Internet. e.g. you setup a new system with an OS that have no NIC driver for the type of new NIC, you have to proceed to setup instead of awaiting. If you had a setup file in the thumbdrive your precious time is saved.

The tiny setup file trick is bad, they want to prevent you from keeping a useful setup file, and force you to download their LATEST VERSION. They want you NOT to keep their old versions. That in some cases will give you nasty surprises. Because they changed overnight and give you a different thing the next time, which may not be what you expected.

;)
 
uncleyap said:
Firefox 5.0 gave me the full setup file in one single go 13MB. That is what I prefer. Because I can save it in USB thumb drive, and use it elsewhere - which I might have no web access.
;)
Click to expand...

Yes i agree with that too but it's from the main sauce. If you prefer to download the full package then you have to search for it. If there are other sources of download, fine but you may have to risk getting malwares.

Below is the Google Pack for Windows 7

http://pack.google.com/intl/en/pack_installer.html
 
youallhumsup said:
Yes i agree with that too but it's from the main sauce. If you prefer to download the full package then you have to search for it. If there are other sources of download, fine but you may have to risk getting malwares.

Below is the Google Pack for Windows 7

http://pack.google.com/intl/en/pack_installer.html
Click to expand...


Exactly, I can not trust those so called DRIVER BASES, VERSION ARCHIVES, etc.

Hackers and inject Trojan and upload them there. Holly Cow! How to trust them?

Not from authenticated trusted sites.... very risky. Test in disposable virtual machines only may be aright lah. If you really use them... Nah! NG!

:rolleyes:
 
uncleyap said:
Exactly, I can not trust those so called DRIVER BASES, VERSION ARCHIVES, etc.

Hackers and inject Trojan and upload them there. Holly Cow! How to trust them?

Not from authenticated trusted sites.... very risky. Test in disposable virtual machines only may be aright lah. If you really use them... Nah! NG!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well if you want use your PC or spare PC for testing eg. installation of softwares, games, malwares, virus, whatever stuffs you can think of, use Deep Freeze. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Freeze_(software)
 
vamjok said:
i dun even use theme which i find totally pointless
Click to expand...

Yes pointless if you like it the way it came - default and dull. Use themes only when you want your browser to change "clothes". :D
 
Last edited:
They skip version 4 very fast. Think they superstitious with the number "4" ?
 
last time i ''upgraded'' to Fireforx 4.0 and it was a freaking disaster.................


i went back to 3.6.18...........................now.......................



so how ? is 5.0 reliable or another pain in the butt ?
 
GOD IS MY DOG said:
last time i ''upgraded'' to Fireforx 4.0 and it was a freaking disaster.................
i went back to 3.6.18...........................now.......................
so how ? is 5.0 reliable or another pain in the butt ?
Click to expand...

Well install it experiment and beta test it for them. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Bring them on Tariff Man - Make Amerika Great Again
2
Replies
25
Views
620
Leongsam
Leongsam
Hightech88
Now you know why PAP does not wish to publish the employment numbers. Hazel Poa explains the figures LMW been asking for
2
Replies
21
Views
930
Hightech88
Hightech88
disconsolate
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra Features: What We Know So Far
Replies
5
Views
583
shock888
S
W
Do only 20days of Cow Farmer illegally without Work Permit in Iceland can become Media Coverage Idol?
Replies
0
Views
156
WangChuk
W
disconsolate
Woman's Vape Explodes, Leaving Her 'Looking Like A Zombie': Now She's Warning Others To Quit
Replies
1
Views
516
jymifalcon
jymifalcon
Back
Top