Mozilla launches Firefox 4

So far I like FF4 and IE9 both so much, I really can't decide on one.

The only thing I've noticed, FF4 seems to prefer using the Cpu for most work, while IE9 shoots for the Gpu whenever possible, this is especially true for video, be it flash, html5 or whatever. I've been bored, and monitoring with AMD System Monitor, which shows how much workload is x86, and how much is GPGPU.

In the end, it really doesn't matter :) Just me being bored and wanting to know how they behave. I guess maybe IE9 is accellerating more content than FF4, however, performance is always identical, except for one thing: When watching video, regardless of what type, so long as it's being rendered by the browser, IE9 certainly handles it better and doesn't get bogged down. For example, when watching a youtube video with FF4, Gpu load is very minimal (All of this done on both of my PC's btw) but when scrolling up and down, it gets choppy and Cpu usage flies up, with IE9, it's perfectly smooth regardless and Gpu usage simply rises, and Cpu usage rises just slightly.

It seems IE9 is very liberal with the hardware accelleration, and FF4 only partial, however there is a good reason I think. FF4 uses far less resources, both Cpu and Memory (Gpu load IMO doesn't matter since it would otherwise be idling doing nothing anyway, because both browsers bring each of my Gpu's out of their idle state, both only a slight bump in voltage and clock speed, core clock that is), while IE9 uses a bit more, and naturally when the going gets tough, IE9 copes better.

In the end, it doesn't matter, I can't see any difference as far as in-page performance between the two, other than some choppyness with FF4, but only in situations that really don't matter; such as, how often must I scroll up and down a page which has video playing lol.

I will say, as far as pure browsing and loading of content, FF4 and IE9 x86 are so close I can't tell, however IE9 x64 is a complete dog, as all benchmarks have shown. Hopefully one day IE9 x64 will get the newer engine and tweaks that IE9 x86 has, until then I don't use it as often. I 'do' use it when trying to access websites I'm not very comfortable with, but only because I assume it's slightly more secure.

Forgive the length, just trying to summarize the last few weeks of usage.

Before Windows Vista came along, I felt the same way, it was beyond awful, just seeing the little blue E struck fear in me...lol.

However, since Vista and IE8, and protected mode along with many other enhancements, mostly OS related, I've done a complete 180*.

But I can certainly understand why you might feel that way, and wouldn't bother trying to talk you out of it.

pparks1 said:

yowanvista said:

jorpe said:

Just installed. Awesome. Now the waiting game for extensions to get updated...

Even old extensions will work if you disable compatibility check

Can you tell me what you do to disable this? I've found through all of my web searching that disabling compatibility checks, doesn't allow my add-ons to function in FF4 RC.

I was forced to purchase Roboform 7 because version 6 doesn't work with it.

Maguscreed said:

Using commonsense will be required with noscript, if you want the level of protection it provides you are going to have to offer input, all you need to do is allow the item it is a tad annoying at first while you allow all your regular sites. It saves the settings you chose though so it's only on a first time basis.

I hold to it because I've been using it for 3 years now, in that time I haven't gotten the slightest bug despite having visited many questionable sites during that time. I don't even run a active antivirus I just scan once a week out of habit, have not found anything in a long time though.

No quibble that a person should use what they are comfortable with, but I will add that I have used Opera a lot longer than 3 years, and never got anything like we are discussing. I won't say that is entirely due to the browser's security, but it helped. It was due primarily due to my use in "common sense" regarding where I browsed on the web.

I'm certain that many people need a cyber prophylactic to protect their computer's purity, but I haven't had much use for one. Despite this, I continually run a battery of security programs anyway, so I kind of feel that noscript is somewhat redundant. Still, I will keep it for a while, until I can make a more insightful decision about it than I can now.

Yes, I have disabled UAC, and it is going to remain that way. Despite your belief that the fault is due to something that I did other than that, it simply is not the case. One way or another, that search toolbar was installed by FF.

seekermeister said:

No quibble that a person should use what they are comfortable with, but I will add that I have used Opera a lot longer than 3 years, and never got anything like we are discussing. I won't say that is entirely due to the browser's security, but it helped. It was due primarily due to my use in "common sense" regarding where I browsed on the web.

You have no evidence at all that you got anything because of Firefox. You are heaping undeserved FUD on Firefox here. FF4 has been installed 25+ million times already now. If it contained Malware it would be a top story on every tech site in the world by now.

It isn't necessary to use noscript. I used Firefox for 7 years on insecure WindowsXP, without no script, and never picked up any viruses or Mal-ware. Not because FF is insecure.

It is extremely unlikey that you even picked up anything visiting a suspect site with FF4 because the malware writers likely don't even have an exploit yet.

Given how secure Windows7 is these days, you have to work hard to pick up malware. You likely installed something with a extra toolbar and forgot to uncheck it. This shouldn't have happened if you get your software from trusted sources.

Did you perhaps grab extensions from other than Mozilla?