Tell you what you ditch ff9 or whatever it is you have and try 6.0. It can't render This forum properly for a start and takes about 3 times as long to load what it can. Once you've tried FF6 Then you can comment on how stupid we all are.
Tell you what you ditch ff9 or whatever it is you have and try 6.0. It can't render This forum properly for a start and takes about 3 times as long to load what it can. Once you've tried FF6 Then you can comment on how stupid we all are.
A1200 Power Tower
OS 3.9 / CGX4 / OS4.0
Blizzard 210Mhz (overclocked to 266Mhz) 603e PPC with 25Mhz 040 (Overclocked to 33Mhz) 256Mb RAM
ZIV
CV64/3D
3.2Gb HDD + 20GB HDD
But I did try number 6. Multiple versions, before even 5 reached beta.
Ever since FF4 was announced I tried EVERY alpha of that, used betas months before the release of stable 4, then used the final release and moved on. Same thing for 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9. As soon as some new feature gets announced I'm, checking it.
The stable version, no matter if it's 4, 5 or 6 don't cause any problems for me. Now I'm using alpha #9 because it's the newest x64 version of FF out there, but I have FF6 x86 installed and don't have any problems with rendering or long loading times. The problem might be with some of your addons or something with offline cache, or you have hardware acceleration turned off for some reason, dunno.
I never said anything about anyone being stupid BTW
From what I saw here and there people are outraged because of the new numbering system, this is what I'm calling silly, like it's a matter of life and death if an update that corrected a few hundred bugs is called 4.1 and 4.2 instead of 5 and 6
No speed or rendering issues for me with FF6 at all. Seems exactly the same as FF5 in terms of everything to me.
If you haven't played a classic game in years, it's never too late to start!
Too many versions . I'd barely got used to version 2. Not that it makes much difference since I use Opera. I seem to have Iceweasel 3.5 here on my Debian system for the rare occaision when a site doesn't work with Opera.
Opera is guilty of even more updates than FF from what I've experienced. I also hate the way Opera just automatically takes over the updating unless you go out of your way to stop it. It is so annoying if you just want to quickly look something up online, fire up Opera and get greeted with a message saying a new version of Opera is available and it needs to install before you can use it. Not good.
If you haven't played a classic game in years, it's never too late to start!
I've noticed that on Windows, it keeps downloading and installing updates when you least want it to.
But then, if memory serves, I'm pretty sure Firefox does that as well.
Here on Linux, when Opera checks for an update, it may notify you, but it just recommends updating via the system's update mechanism. Probably because it doesn't know if it was installed through its own installer, or from the package manager .
Yeah, I think FF auto updates too no matter if you have the stable release or the nightly build - in which case it updates almost every day.
FireFox 7 has been released for a few days now and I've been giving a chance but it is still just as crap and slow on my PC. Absolutely nothing new in it except poorer performance (certainly for me). I think it's back to 5 again.
A1200 Power Tower
OS 3.9 / CGX4 / OS4.0
Blizzard 210Mhz (overclocked to 266Mhz) 603e PPC with 25Mhz 040 (Overclocked to 33Mhz) 256Mb RAM
ZIV
CV64/3D
3.2Gb HDD + 20GB HDD
Wait for Firefox 8 then, it will not take long I guess.
[b]To Be A True Adventurer, You Ought To Play Real Text Adventures[/b]
You can always tweak its performance with the gui:config addon.