peter wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 09:43 +0200, Chris Rowson wrote:
>
>> Although it would seem that some people are finding the opposite to be
>> true to be fair!
>>
>> On 4/29/08, Jai Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see what the problem is. Firefox 3 Beta 5 is more ef
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 13:36 +0100, Dianne Reuby wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 08:36 +0100, Jai Harrison wrote:
> > I don't see what the problem is. Firefox 3 Beta 5 is more efficient
> > and more stable than Firefox 2.
> >
>
> The main problem for us is that (as someone else has reported) we ca
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 08:36 +0100, Jai Harrison wrote:
> I don't see what the problem is. Firefox 3 Beta 5 is more efficient
> and more stable than Firefox 2.
>
The main problem for us is that (as someone else has reported) we can't
access online banking - this doesn't look good when trying to p
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 08:40:20PM +0100, Chris Rowson wrote:
> | IMO it was a bad move to put a beta browser into an LTS release. But
> | that's just my opinion ;-)
>
> I was surprised by this during the betas. I think that the only
> explanation I found that made sense was th
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 18:07 +0100, peter wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 09:43 +0200, Chris Rowson wrote:
> > Although it would seem that some people are finding the opposite to be
> > true to be fair!
> >
> > On 4/29/08, Jai Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't see what the problem is
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 09:43 +0200, Chris Rowson wrote:
> Although it would seem that some people are finding the opposite to be
> true to be fair!
>
> On 4/29/08, Jai Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see what the problem is. Firefox 3 Beta 5 is more efficient
> > and more stable tha
Although it would seem that some people are finding the opposite to be
true to be fair!
On 4/29/08, Jai Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see what the problem is. Firefox 3 Beta 5 is more efficient
> and more stable than Firefox 2.
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ub
I don't see what the problem is. Firefox 3 Beta 5 is more efficient
and more stable than Firefox 2.
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
>
> | IMO it was a bad move to put a beta browser into an LTS release. But
> | that's just my opinion ;-)
>
> I was surprised by this during the betas. I think that the only
> explanation I found that made sense was that FF2 wouldn't be supported
> by Mozilla for the lifetime of 8.04, thus it w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Rowson wrote:
| IMO it was a bad move to put a beta browser into an LTS release. But
| that's just my opinion ;-)
I was surprised by this during the betas. I think that the only
explanation I found that made sense was that FF2 wouldn't be su
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Rowson wrote:
| I'm seeing mucho bad performance in the Firefox 3 Beta in both Ubuntu
| Hardy and Windows XP. In Linux it seems to use a ridiculous amount of
| CPU time when idle
My firefox is using much less CPU and the desktop is usable again
> As I type this it is using 101% of the CPU (dual cores so top doesn't
> > pick it up correctly) but it almost unusable. Performance was way better
> > in the earlier releases. Now it brings everything to a halt.
>
>
> Similar story here... it fluctuates but at the moment it's pretty much
> maxin
George McLachlan wrote:
> As I type this it is using 101% of the CPU (dual cores so top doesn't
> pick it up correctly) but it almost unusable. Performance was way better
> in the earlier releases. Now it brings everything to a halt.
Similar story here... it fluctuates but at the moment it's pr
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 07:00:24PM +0100, Philip Newborough wrote:
> I have been experiencing similar symptoms for the last week or so,
> Firefox freezes for a few seconds before responding, seems to happen
> more when a new page is rendered. Again, noticed on several systems,
> all running various
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Thomas Ibbotson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George McLachlan wrote:
> > I have had hardy running in some shape or form since, well I can't
> > remember, but one of the early alpha's. Now it has been released all
> > should be fine and good, but the performance o
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 18:47 +0100, Thomas Ibbotson wrote:
> George McLachlan wrote:
> > I have had hardy running in some shape or form since, well I can't
> > remember, but one of the early alpha's. Now it has been released all
> > should be fine and good, but the performance of firefox has dropp
George McLachlan wrote:
> I have had hardy running in some shape or form since, well I can't
> remember, but one of the early alpha's. Now it has been released all
> should be fine and good, but the performance of firefox has dropped like
> a stone.
>
> As I type this it is using 101% of the CPU
I have had hardy running in some shape or form since, well I can't
remember, but one of the early alpha's. Now it has been released all
should be fine and good, but the performance of firefox has dropped like
a stone.
As I type this it is using 101% of the CPU (dual cores so top doesn't
pick i
18 matches
Mail list logo
