Capable, but it doesn't matter since your blood sugar level will spike higher and for longer with a single large meal even in a non-diabetic individual.
If this release makes it actually usable on MacOS I would be so happy. Everyone says to use FireFox here, but they don't realize that it runs horribly on machines that a lot of people use to develop on.
Reading the release notes:
Improved performance for Mac and Linux users, by enabling link time optimization (Clang LTO). (Clang LTO was enabled for Windows users in Firefox 63.)
Doesn't seem like this fixes the high CPU issue on MacOS.
Maybe in another few dozen releases they'll fix it. Doesn't Mozilla realize how many people develop on MacOS? Everyone I know develops on a Mac.
When I interned at Mozilla, most of the FF devs developed on a Mac. They are not ignoring the platform. I suspect the issue is as other said, low incidence, high impact.
To be clear, this doesn't affect all macOS users. My battery reliably lasts a whole day with Firefox running throughout. That said, the subset of users who are affected, like you, suffer a lot - low prevalence, high impact.
In my case, CPU usage goes to the roof if I use a scaled resolution instead of the default one. If that is the case with all macOS users with non-default resolution, I wouldn't call it low prevalence.
Not an issue for me. I have a imac 5K and a retina mac book pro. Both with image scaling on by default. I think most recent macs have retina now.
I use Firefox exclusively and have done so for the last 2 years or so. This sounds like it could be a driver issue for specific macs. Both my macs have AMD Radeon chipsets & quad core i7s.
Anyway, I'm sure this issue is real. Bugzilla ticket numbers probably exist for it and might be more helpful than vague complaints about things being slow.
Of course some web sites are a bit unreasonably javascript heavy these days. The downside of a large screen is that pushing a lot of pixels around is not free. Usually closing any offending tabs immediately restores any cpu usage I see. I'd suggest using the new task manager thingy (page menu->more->task manager)
Anecdotal, but I've found it happens when image scaling by a factor other than 2. Affects my setup of a 4K display at 2650x1440 effective resolution, or 1.5x scaling.
Exactly this. I run at 1920x1080 effective resolution on my 15" rMBP, and 1680x945 on my 13". I see the issue on both.
When I switch to the "default" scaling (1440x900 and 1280x800, respectively), it stops. Only the 15" has a discrete GPU, eliminating that as potentially causal.
I use only Macs by default. It runs great and has for years. There's probably a real issue somewhere but it's far from as universal as your post implies.
Likewise. Not aware of any weird issues with performance in relation to Firefox. I use it exclusively. I'm on the beta channel. I can't remember the last time I had a browser crash. I generally restart it to apply new updates every few days or so.
If you have performance issues; you might want to check whether you need to blame the browser or some of your extensions.
Seconding your last point — almost every time I've had someone complain about generic Firefox or Chrome performance the problem went away as soon as they restarted it without extensions. There are certainly exceptions but misattribution is common enough that I'm not surprised to see browser vendors adding the UI to make it easier to discover.
This is a known issue, and has been around since at least v57. There are multiple Bugzilla issues on it. The cause is known. It isn't extensions. The fix is just invasive, and apparently ongoing.
That’s true but not what this thread was about. The person I responded to above was making a very broad claim, which is wrong, and jillesvangurp agreed with the observation and added a general point which is correct. There is a specific issue affecting a subset of people with less common configurations but that doesn’t make the sweeping claim true or the recognition that browser performance issues are notoriously poorly attributed untrue.
The thread-parent absolutely cast a wider net than warranted, but everyone in this discussion who has experienced this problem knows exactly which one we're talking about, and the rest are all, "I've never seen a problem!" or "It's probably just extensions." Meanwhile, there's reliably a sub-thread somewhere in the discussion on nearly every article about Firefox, about this problem.
I find it profoundly ironic that you comment down-thread that "humans are very prone to confusing things which affect them personally with the general case" about a thing which you haven't personally experienced. You talk as if those of us for whom this is a 100% reproducible problem are an edge case, based AFAICT solely on your own not suffering it, coupled with your (not incorrect) beliefs about people poorly attributing performance problems in general.
I was aware of the issue already but that’s also why I knew that the biggest impact comes from a non-default setting. I never said that it wasn’t a real problem, or that it doesn’t warrant attention — only that it wasn’t as broad as claimed and that is a very common problem with browser issues because everyone uses them but people who don’t have problems generally don’t go around posting that everything is fine whereas the percentage of users who are affected will complain regularly.
Do you require a scientific study for any fact? If you bothered to do any googling, or whatever Mozilla equivalent of google is - this is in the top 3 results. https://9to5mac.com/2016/12/02/15-inch-macbook-pro-screen-re... Scaled resolution is defaulted on a huge amount of Macs.
I asked for data because humans are very prone to confusing things which affect them personally with the general case. Since Mozilla uses telemetry heavily I tend to trust their prioritization more than random self-selected commenters.
I live in apartment complex. I’d like to buy my own washer and dryer and be able to rent out a place with water/dryer hookups and pay a monthly and usage fees as to not use the gross common laundry machines. To my knowledge no such service exists.
I know they are trying to do vibrating dryers which don't become as gross, but washing machines are the main problem in terms of cleanliness, but I'm not sure if there are any new advances on that front.
When I lived in an apartment without laundry services, I found it was cheaper to just pay a laundry service for pickup and drop-off at my front door. I paid about $50 a month, when an in unit washer dryer would cost a lot more.
I also looked into a washer dryer unit that I could plug into my sink. They are really common in Europe but not in the United States. The problem is that American voltage is too low to run a dryer without a dedicated outlet.
With the way that batteries are going, you could probably make a dryer that has a battery in it so it doesn't need a dedicated high voltage and high amperage plug. Because all dryers need counterweights, the battery really won't add weight to the dryer.
Without technology changes, you can still get an apartment washer dryer unit. Most appliance store should be able to special order one for you. The problem is that they will take all night to dry your clothing, because you are stuck with the limited voltage and amperage that comes out of the standard American wall outlet.
It's not just the voltage / amperage. Even if you buy a really expensive over-under that plugs into a 220 the lack of an output vent slows down drying dramatically.
I'd like a similar service or product. My issue with a shared solution like a common area W/D besides grossness is that I need to remove my clothes from the machines within a few minutes of cycle completeness or I risk ticking off my neighbors. I push off laundry unless I'm sure I have a 1.5 hour block to be able to tend to each load. When I had an in unit W/D that wouldn't be necessary and laundry would be a chore I managed throughout the day.
A business devoted to maintaining clean, high-quality clothes-washing facilities. The degree to which they succeed varies.
If your criteria are specifically a single-household-only washer and dryer setup, and not just avoiding poorly-maintained central facilities, then my suggestion will not suffice.
In my experience, laundromats do not have a ton of competition outside of a dense urban center. In a region where hundreds of thousands live, and in a town 40000, there are 2 laundromats, both very unkept and with old and gross laundry machines. Business is there to make money and squeeze as much out of every machine. Talking to these people, they rarely replace a machine if its dirty or doesn't do a good job, only if its broken/unfixable. I think your view comes from a very rosy world which rarely is replicated in practice.
