Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Was Firefox 47.0.1 the end of the line for you as well?
CWuestefeld:
So far I have however not found any compelling reason to upgrade from version 47.
-Curt (August 30, 2016, 03:00 AM)
--- End quote ---
Since 48.0.1, I've found that it's much better behaved with memory usage. Earlier, I had to restart the browser at least once a day, but no more. (My experience is with 64-bit, and of course a specific mix of plugins; YMMV).
Stoic Joker:
@Curt: You're a bit late, but welcome to the party. Go to http://www.slimjet.com/
-IainB (August 18, 2016, 03:55 AM)
--- End quote ---
Holy shit, that thing is fast!!
IainB:
@Curt: You're a bit late, but welcome to the party. Go to http://www.slimjet.com/
-IainB (August 18, 2016, 03:55 AM)
--- End quote ---
Holy shit, that thing is fast!!
_________________________
-Stoic Joker (August 31, 2016, 07:02 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, and by now - even after adding in the bloat of a stack of favourite Chrome extensions in the meantime - it still seems just as fast.
Also, by now, I have expunged Google Chrome Canary - and Chromium - from my system, thereby freeing up gigabytes of space on my hard drive.
I have almost stopped using Firefox. Keeping it as it is the only browser that I can get:
* to play Unity-based games (important to my 6 y/o son).
* to manage my FF Scrapbook extension archives (quite important to me).
* to provide a syncable repository of FF extensions, bookmarks etc. for my daughter (who also sometime uses FF).
I am currently trying to figure out how to migrate the Scrapbook archives to another browser/database.
MilesAhead:
@Curt: You're a bit late, but welcome to the party. Go to http://www.slimjet.com/
-IainB (August 18, 2016, 03:55 AM)
--- End quote ---
Holy shit, that thing is fast!!
-Stoic Joker (August 31, 2016, 07:02 AM)
--- End quote ---
In case anyone is curious I have been using the 32 bit portable since some point in the 9x builds. For grins I tried the x64 portable about a week ago. I did not notice any difference until I did something that used extensions. Then the 32 bit seemed way faster. In this case it was a YouTube download extension. The 32 bit SlimJet downloaded the same file 3 or 4 times faster. Just my anecdotal experience. But who ya' gonna' believe? Me or your own eyes? :D
IainB:
^^ I hadn't realised that they had a 64-bit version of Slimjet and had assumed mine was 32-bit anyway. How does one tell which type (32 or 64-bit) one has? It's not mentioned in the "About" section.
My trial of Google Chrome Canary (64-bit) seemed none too hopeful. so I shall wait awhile before going to a 64-bit browser again.
By the way, at http://www.slimjet.com/en/webhelp/ it says (my emphasis):
Introduction to Slimjet
Slimjet is a fast, smart and powerful web browser built on top of the Chromium open-source project (on which Google chrome is based as well). It adds more options to Chromium to make it more flexible and customizable. It also integrates more features to Chromium so that users can get more done in less time without relying on external plugins.
Almost all of the features in Chromium have been kept in Slimjet to ensure compatibility. Most plugins and extensions designed for Chrome should work just fine in Slimjet. You can install any extension and theme from Chrome web store directly onto Slimjet. ...
_____________________________
--- End quote ---
That rather looks like a polite indictment of plugins/extensions.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version