1612
I hope others consider doing the same
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
1612 points (96.6% liked)
Firefox
4015 readers
132 users here now
A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Dude… you are the problem in this situation. Get “tab sessions manager” for firefox or one of the many alternatives.
Nobody but your “workflow” uses over 300 tabs ACTIVELY. And that coming from someone who routinely gets told that I have too many tabs open. Break your tabs into groups and save those instances.
Also take the criticism like a champ instead of whining about how you’re being ganged up on by a community when you misuse the software.
Ah yes, blame the user when they can literally point to a product that is not just adequately but completely supporting their use case and tell them they're the problem here.
That always works.
Lmao, sure even though a browser should be able to just work, let me go install more extensions and make changes to my usage patterns to fit a browser.
This is an optimization problem that needs to be fixed and I sought to bring attention to it, not to bandaid it with this and that extension and go through the pains to change a well established years old workflow that works well for me.
I'm a busy person (as evidenced by my unique tab count apparently), I don't have the time or energy to spend to change myself to fit FF, that's a whole new project to heap onto an already embarrassingly long backlog of other things I have to do.
Thanks but no thanks, I'll revisit FF in a year or 2 of updates and retest.
Runs 5 video games on a computer at the same time and complains about performance issues.
It does work, when you use it correctly.
Being busy isn’t an excuse for your lack of organization skills. Backlogs shouldn’t be open when you are actively working on something else bruh.
Please point me to the FF docs that recommend staying under a certain number of tabs, point me to anywhere in the docs that FF is only intended for less than a certain number of tabs.
At this point I don't even get to that 300 mark, it's getting unstable and crashing around 100.
I see it constantly "FF is rock solid!!" "FF can handle what you throw at it!" "FF can beat chrome hands down!!" But it didn't hold true in my testing.
What you're saying now is "FF is rock solid (Most of the time)" "FF can handle what you throw at it! (Unless you throw 200 tabs at it then you're using it wrong)" "FF can beat chrome hands down!! (Except in raw tab count)".
I tried it for months dealing with it's crashes, it wasn't even just a day thing and I gave up after its first crash or something.
This is an optimization problem, I can and have replicated it multiple times on all manner of hardware and OS configurations.
Ok right here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-uses-too-much-memory-or-cpu-resources
“Close tabs that use too many system resources Some websites use scripts that use a lot of memory and/or CPU to keep them up to date, such as online mail client pages. If these scripts are not optimized, they can lead to the use of too many system resources. You can see which tabs are using the most system resources by opening the Firefox Task Manager (about:processes page). If you do not need these tabs open all the time, you can close them to reduce system resources usage.”
FF is rock solid and they do tell you to limit your tabs.
You are complaining about what is at best an edge case scenario causing an issue while being fine with sucking up the multitude of problems that chrome has because you are too stubborn to organize your browser.
That's a "if you're having problems" not a "This is the intended limit"
Hell it doesn't even say how many tabs they intended to support. This could very well fall into an optimization issue. Which you know, could improve things for everyone including potential users who may want to jump to firefox.
Yes because computers and their capabilities vary immensely. How could they know what your pc is capable of versus someone else’s?
This exactly explains that there are limits to the amount of tabs a system can handle. 300+ is not a normal amount for any system and definitely falls outside of normal use case testing.
The optimization issue is you and op not using your brains.
limits that they're not exhibiting in other browser software.
I'm kindof shocked you still can't see the issue there. That they're not pulling this case out of thin air but rather it's how they used their browser previously.
I mean maybe we just want to say Chromium has better tab management under the hood. Or we can see if something can be improved. Especially because as hardware improves and more users are enabled to being able to open more tabs this should become more glaring, not less.
I routinely run 5+ instances of a video game simultaneously. Am I forbidden from complaining about performance issues now? It's a f'ken computer, not an xbox, it should run as much stuff as you need, maybe slowly, but it should run. But the guy said it crashes - then it's definitely a problem. Especially if it's on a 64 gig system and he said it works fine on chrome.
And there are legit workflows that involve 3-digit tab numbers. 60 tabs is really nothing
It’s a fucking computer, doesn’t mean it’s a common practice by developers to test out their games running many times simultaneously. That’s fucking ridiculous to expect. Some things are just common practice that it would be ridiculous to test for such edge cases.
If you overload your system with enough it will crash regardless. Running merely slow is definitely not a sign of optimization. Have you tried rendering out 3d models that are too big for your gpu/cpu? Definitely can crash not just the program but the whole system.
I routinely have 60+ tabs open. 300+ being actively worked on as op claims is nonsense.
In what world do you live where crashing the whole system is an expected and accepted behavior?
Yes. RIP my SSD that was swap'd to death.
Umm did you read what you just posted?
Says crashes aren’t expected then states that you’ve experienced one and lost a drive. 🤦♂️
Those things happen all the time. You might think it’s normal use but then bam you’ve overloaded the system. Who would expect a system to run 100% of the time under max load without the potential for crashes. Come on.
What? You must've responded to a wrong comment, because I certainly didn't say that.