Newest ver. of Firefox is incredibly faaaast!
-
- DCEmu Super Poster
- Posts: 1205
- https://www.artistsworkshop.eu/meble-kuchenne-na-wymiar-warszawa-gdzie-zamowic/
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 7:44 pm
- Location: The Land of the Rising Umeboshi
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Newest ver. of Firefox is incredibly faaaast!
Have you checked out the newest nightly releases of Firefox?
Although they have a good share of bugs,the page rendering speed is so fast,it puts even the "legendary" Opera to shame :)
Although they have a good share of bugs,the page rendering speed is so fast,it puts even the "legendary" Opera to shame :)
- Disheveled DrFreeze
- DCEmu Mega Fan
- Posts: 2896
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
im on 1.0 on my laptop right now, but my desktop has 1.0.4 on it, and i dont really notice any difference i must say
and according to getfirefox.com, 1.0.4 is the latest version
still i really like FF, i dont use IE anymore if i dont have too
and according to getfirefox.com, 1.0.4 is the latest version
still i really like FF, i dont use IE anymore if i dont have too
DrFreeze, thinking outside the box since 1985
DrFreeze, licensed road terror since 2006
DrFreeze, Sun Certified Java Programmer since 2007
DrFreeze, licensed road terror since 2006
DrFreeze, Sun Certified Java Programmer since 2007
-
- DC Developer
- Posts: 9951
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 9:02 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Mozilla itself has actually been faster / better than Firefox for some time now. All the modifications (updated rendering engine and so on) have been happening in the development versions and Mozilla, but Firefox hasn't been getting any of them. At least, not in any official release versions.
Xylene - You could always run the Linux version on FreeBSD. You need to install the compatability libraries first (I think), but it should work fine. Might not be quite as good as a real FreeBSD binary would be, but it'd probably be better than nothing.
Xylene - You could always run the Linux version on FreeBSD. You need to install the compatability libraries first (I think), but it should work fine. Might not be quite as good as a real FreeBSD binary would be, but it'd probably be better than nothing.
-
- DC Developer
- Posts: 9951
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 9:02 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
It sure is fast. It even seems a little faster than Konqueror now (I'm using Konqueror partly because it was faster than Firefox, partly because it works better with KDE, and partly because I just don't like the Linux version of Firefox), and I've not had any problems with it yet. Seems to start up quicker as well (although that could be the fact that the entire thing was cached in memory the first time I ran it).
One problem - no mouse gestures! Not really that big of a deal - I can just set KDE up to provide mouse gestures for Firefox. As an added advantage, KDE's mouse gestures work better than the Firefox extension anyway. They're just more difficult to set up.
One problem - no mouse gestures! Not really that big of a deal - I can just set KDE up to provide mouse gestures for Firefox. As an added advantage, KDE's mouse gestures work better than the Firefox extension anyway. They're just more difficult to set up.
- Disheveled DrFreeze
- DCEmu Mega Fan
- Posts: 2896
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
-
- DC Developer
- Posts: 9951
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 9:02 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
There are precompiled versions available...
Basically, the official builds are available here, with most of the unofficial builds available here. There are also unofficial binaries for 64-bit systems are available for Windows XP x64 and Linux. Unofficial builds are probably not quite as up-to-date as the official ones.
Also useful - modified extensions that work with the latest nightly builds.
Edit: The 64-bit versions seem to be even faster...
- Windows (32-bit)
- EXE installer
MSI installer
ZIP
ZIP with SVG support (unofficial build)
- Installer
.tar.gz
.tar.gz with SVG support (unofficial build)
FreeBSD 4.9
FreeBSD 5.3 - EXE installer
Basically, the official builds are available here, with most of the unofficial builds available here. There are also unofficial binaries for 64-bit systems are available for Windows XP x64 and Linux. Unofficial builds are probably not quite as up-to-date as the official ones.
Also useful - modified extensions that work with the latest nightly builds.
Edit: The 64-bit versions seem to be even faster...
Yeah, I know, but I didn't think it would be as fast. Probably as fast as what I use now. Now that I see your other post about the 5.3 binaries, I am going to try them on 5.4.BlackAura wrote:Xylene - You could always run the Linux version on FreeBSD. You need to install the compatability libraries first (I think), but it should work fine. Might not be quite as good as a real FreeBSD binary would be, but it'd probably be better than nothing.
Edit: Ok, I guess I'm not. The FreeBSD archive is nothing but an empty archive.
-
- DC Developer
- Posts: 9951
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 9:02 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
It also doesn't appear to have been updated in a few months. That's irritating.
I suppose you could try the BSD 4.9 binaries. Although I think you have to install compatability libraries for those as well, so it may not be worth it.
As far as I understand FreeBSD's Linux support, it emulates the kernel layer only, and uses a load of native Windows libraries. It should run almost (something like 99%) as fast as it would on Linux. Considering that you were having a lot of trouble with Linux, I think it's safe to say that it'll run faster than it would have on Linux, and almost as fast as it would on BSD.
I still want to know who is actually using the OS/2 builds...
I suppose you could try the BSD 4.9 binaries. Although I think you have to install compatability libraries for those as well, so it may not be worth it.
As far as I understand FreeBSD's Linux support, it emulates the kernel layer only, and uses a load of native Windows libraries. It should run almost (something like 99%) as fast as it would on Linux. Considering that you were having a lot of trouble with Linux, I think it's safe to say that it'll run faster than it would have on Linux, and almost as fast as it would on BSD.
I still want to know who is actually using the OS/2 builds...