Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #13286
| From | VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.software.firefox |
| Subject | Re: Firefox bad design decisions? |
| Date | 2025-05-03 13:05 -0500 |
| Organization | Usenet Elder |
| Message-ID | <vm2rhf57mot0$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <1rx72rbkqwovu$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> <vv1s2i$11m8i$1@news.samoylyk.net> <146882bxfa031$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> <ofodtxfokqa2$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> <vv4kmf$161v6$1@news.samoylyk.net> |
Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
<Did not bother to restore the deleted attribution lines.>
>
>>>> When you run a search for "ACME widgets", how many hits do you get?
>>>
>>> One at a time. ...
>>
>> I *open* one hit at a time, because *I* can only view one at a time.
>
> I'm having trouble comprehending how inefficient your process must be
> compared to what everyone else likely uses when running searches.
You click on hundreds of links in a search. How many at a time can
*YOU* view? Yep, just 1. All those other tabs you open sit there idle
until you get around to viewing them, but when viewing them then you
aren't simultaneously viewing other tabs. You have the program open
more docs than you can view. You end up opening tabs that end up not
pertinent or duplicate other docs you opened.
> Let's assume we both run a google search & let's assume we both found 20
> hits which seem like they'll be useful (the actual number doesn't matter).
>
> So I controlclick on 20 links (so that's 20 clicks) & then I focus, one at
> a time, on each tab (so that's another 20 clicks) each of which was
> preloaded (so I don't have to wait) & then I decide I only need one tab so
> now, with the extension, I right click on the one tab I want to keep to
> select "Close Other Tabs."
So, your objective is to have the docs preloaded eliminating the time to
load those docs when you choose to select a tab. That assumes a lot,
like none of the docs intercede with a prompt before they let you see
their web doc, that a doc takes a shorter time for response from the
server than how long for when you visit the tab, that you have gobs of
memory for gobs of tabs to consume with tabs that even you admit turn
out to be unwanted, that you do NOT allow the web browser to "sleep" the
idle tabs since it's going to take you time to read through all the
other tabs, and so on.
Plus, you just said that after preloading those tabs that you eventually
visit them to decide you don't want or need their content, but you leave
them open until you find a tab with the content you want. Well, you
were already on the tab you decided you didn't want, so why not close
that tab when you were there? Why wait until later to do cleanup? Just
middle-click on the tab close it when you found it didn't have what you
want.
Your scenario dictates that only 1 tab is wanted, and you've wasted time
opening tabs you end up deciding later are unwanted.
> That's 42 clicks for me.
Your way:
1. 20 clicks on 20 search hits to open 20 tabs. (*)
- You consume memory for 19 tabs you discover later you don't want.
- For dynamic web pages, you waste CPU cycles on 19 unwanted tabs.
2. 1 click to change focus to one of the new tabs to review its content.
3. Go to step 5 when you find the tab with wanted content.
4. Go to step 2.
5. 1 right-click to get into the wanted tab's context menu.
6. 1 click on Close other tabs.
(*) Presumably you configured Firefox to open new tabs in the
background; else, on each search hit click, a new tab gets focus,
and you have to click back on the tab with search results. You'd
end up with 40 clicks just for step 1.
Click count: 20 for step 1, 1 to 20 for step 2, 1 for step 5, and 1 for
step 6.
Total: 23 to 42 clicks.
My way:
1. 1 click on a search hit.
- New tab opens, and gets focus (**). No click to get to new tab.
- 1 new tab consumes less memory than 20 new tabs.
- For dynamic web pages, 1 tab consumes less CPU cycles than 20.
2. Stop when the new tab has the wanted content.
3. 1 middle-click to close a tab with unwanted content.
4. Go to step 1 to repeat up to 20 times.
(**) I configure Firefox to focus on a newly opened tab.
Click count: (1 click on search hit, 1 middle-click to close tab with
unwanted content) times 1 to 20 times to find wanted content.
Total: 2 to 40 clicks.
My scheme has the potential of far fewer mouse clicks than yours. My
way is more efficient, consumes less memory, and uses less CPU cycles,
especially for dynamic (scripted) web pages.
If you want to keep doing it your way, investigate how to keep tabs from
going inactive; else, you could incur the wait (to reload) a tab that
you wanted to avoid when pre-loading lots of tabs. Go into about:config
to set:
browser.tabs.unloadOnLowMemory = false
See:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/unload-inactive-tabs-save-system-memory-firefox
Back to alt.comp.software.firefox | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-04-30 00:54 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-30 01:00 -0500
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-04-30 02:24 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-04-30 07:53 +0100
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-04-30 08:18 -0700
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 02:24 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-05-01 09:25 +0200
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 04:39 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-01 12:35 +0100
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 11:47 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-01 16:31 +0000
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 14:48 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-02 17:26 +0000
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-03 04:38 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:02 +0000
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-04 02:28 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-01 14:13 -0500
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-02 03:26 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-02 08:30 +0100
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-02 05:16 -0500
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-02 05:18 -0500
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-03 04:38 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-03 13:05 -0500
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-04 03:46 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-03 04:38 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-30 04:45 -0500
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-04-30 21:11 +1000
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-29 23:48 -0700
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-04-30 16:15 +0000
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2025-04-30 10:18 -0700
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-30 20:00 +0000
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-04-30 21:26 +0000
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 02:36 -0400
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-01 16:12 +0000
Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-01 13:49 -0500
Re: Firefox “bad” design decisions? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 00:04 +0000
Re: Firefox “bad” design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 02:39 -0400
Re: Firefox “bad” design decisions? Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2025-05-01 09:52 +0200
csiph-web