Release Notes: http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5b4/releasenotes/
None.
Well, just downloaded the latest Firefox beta, and it looks like they're starting to go in the direction Chrome did, it definitely renders pages faster than the previous version, I think Firefox is going to at least catch up with Chrome in speed with this new version.
Release Notes: http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5b4/releasenotes/
Release Notes: http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5b4/releasenotes/
how is the browser handling with copious amount of extensions(25-35)?
None.
I'm running 31 addons right now, which isn't all of mine, due to compatibility issues, and it's running very smoothly, the older version would skip on youtube videos, and that isn't happening with this one. With those add-ons, with a SEN page open(this one), it's taking 239 MB of RAM, about 10 MB less than its predecessor, although it has less add-ons, so my guess is that they're about the same.
None.
Quote from 
Falkoner
FalkonerWell, just downloaded the latest Firefox beta, and it looks like they're starting to go in the direction Chrome did, it definitely renders pages faster than the previous version, I think Firefox is going to at least catch up with Chrome in speed with this new version.
Release Notes: http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5b4/releasenotes/
Release Notes: http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5b4/releasenotes/
Doing what chrome did is exactly it.
This version (which was originally called 3.1) has, like Chrome, a virtual machine in which javascript is compiled. Apparently the trace monkey VM that this Fx uses is even faster than V8 in Chrome, but it remains to be seen if the Gecko engine in this Fx will let it get past webkit in Chrome.
None.
If it doesn't crash all the time like firefox 3 does I might have to check it out. I miss Firefox 2... it ran so damn well and then I upgraded to 3 and firefox has been shit since.
None.
Options
Pages: 1
Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[06:28 am]
NudeRaider -- EUD actions, specifically. The conditions remained. Today we can even have actions again, but they're all virtualized/whitelisted (not sure on the actual technical implementation) so you can only use them for specific intended purposed, not arbitrary code injections.[06:26 am]
NudeRaider -- I mean yes, maps - through EUDs - were theoretically able to do that as well, but that was patched quickly.[06:25 am]
NudeRaider -- SymmetrySymmetry shouted: Ohhh imagine a SC map that could delete itself
not the map, the editor[02:28 am]
Symmetry -- I vaguely remember Voy doing some ACE back in the day, but I had no idea EUDs could do that kind of shit. I am very much catching up on the technology[08:51 pm]
NudeRaider -- SymmetrySymmetry shouted: NudeRaider Is EUD editor capable of writing shit onto the player's harddrive? That seems like it would be dangerous
yeah an editor that isn't allowed to write files sounds rather pointless, so I'd assume it can. Like most other programs too btw. and yes, obviously that's dangerous, but also kinda necessary. MS introduced that virtualization for exactly that reason.[2026-7-15. : 4:10 am]
Ultraviolet -- I don't think so. I think they shut that shit down after 1.16, maybe even earlier[2026-7-15. : 2:19 am]
Symmetry -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: Symmetry I can't tell if it's relevant. You provided literally no context so I was providing an equally generic answer.
Is EUD editor capable of writing shit onto the player's harddrive? That seems like it would be dangerous
Members Online: Roy
Roy