patrickjdempsey wrote:Image boards don't represent normal web browsing.
What is "normal web browsing"? How is it defined? By rankings from web analytic providers? By some other objective measurement? By arbitary definition?
patrickjdempsey wrote:Image boards don't represent normal web browsing.
iwod wrote:Any fruits, or planned seeds coming yet?
patrickjdempsey wrote:Image boards don't represent normal web browsing. And some sites like that don't actually use *thumbnails* they use *squished* versions of the full-size images, which is a bad bad bad practice.
ferongr wrote:Hera wrote:KWierso wrote:ARGH WHY IS FIREFOX HOLDING ALL THESE IMAGES IN MEMORY IT'S SUCH A MEMORY HOG
Devastating for *chan imageboards and *booru image galleries (easily threads of 200+ ~200x~200 img thumbnails)
Up to half a minute to restore / switch tabs!
Now use a usercript (e.g. 4chan X) that preloads or inline-expands those hundreds of images. You can do the math.
Hera wrote:... or not use Firefox as my primary browser, a simpler solution chosen by normal folk.
Omega X wrote:If he's not using Firefox anymore, then why is he still here?
ferongr wrote:Hera wrote:... or not use Firefox as my primary browser, a simpler solution chosen by normal folk.
Read what I wrote again. Inline-expanding or preloading images results in exhaustion of address space on 32-bit systems, and either extreme paging or OOM.
Hera wrote:ferongr wrote:Hera wrote:... or not use Firefox as my primary browser, a simpler solution chosen by normal folk.
Read what I wrote again. Inline-expanding or preloading images results in exhaustion of address space on 32-bit systems, and either extreme paging or OOM.
Ah, so you are proposing a way to have Firefox destroy itself! I read that initially as a script which introduces loading images on demand to reduce memory usage
ferongr wrote:The browser should not be crashable, no matter what a webpage tries to do.
patrickjdempsey wrote: mmmmkay.... crashing and responsiveness are two different things.
Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539356
--- Comment #34 from Randell Jesup [:jesup] <rjesup@jesup.org> 2011-12-07 20:11:16 PST ---
[snappy] != perf
This is a perf bug. So far as I know, this is not a user-response-time bug.
Hera wrote:discuss?
KWierso wrote:Hera wrote:discuss?
Project Snappy doesn't have clearly defined qualifications?