Snapshot 1.0.334.3 - Fixes for tab title cropping and Windows XP
-
Sheesh! You sound like Microsoft, Sajadi! :shock:
Some time in the next year I'll build a new system to replace my geriatric machine from back in 2005 but there is no way on God's Green Earth that I will ever change/upgrade the OS or buy new hardware to run a web browser. :roll:
On my 32-bit XP installation, Vivaldi's graphics run without hardware acceleration unless I 'force' it – never a good idea -- but otherwise it's alright.
It's a little slow and 'swappy' sometimes on the Windows 7 64-bit installation on the same machine but Vivaldi works just fine with a Pentium single-core, 3GB of RAM and a Radeon 6450 with 1GB of RAM. When that isn't enough I just use another browser that is not an Alpha or a Beta release.
Windows 7 Pro x64 | Vivaldi x64
-
Yeah, I've stayed at .321 for that reason.
-
Confirmed.
Windows 8.1 x64. Vivaldi 32-bit.
-
But it makes no sense and let me tell you why.
I have tested browser over the years in different machines, daily use, keeping them on screens 24/7 reloading some ajax monitoring pages, etc. This includes weak machines running both older XP or Linux systems.
In all my tests, Chrome is the one that worked just great even on older computers which where slow. All other browsers had lagging problems. This is the reason why Chrome took such a big chunk of markets in poor continents, example Latin America where Chrome usage is like 90%. Because it just works fine on weaker hardware. And this is why Firefox is constantly removing features to make the browser more light, and they are actually achieving it.
Power user does not mean resource hog either. Opera was a browser for power users and yet, it was more light than Chrome back on its day. It was extremely smooth on older hardware. With power users resources are even more important, because as opposed to your normal user browsing one or two websites, power users will have 30 open.
Vivaldi is using Chromium, and Chrome does not use resources so aggressively. The conclusion is that the code Vivaldi put on top is what is causing this, as the engine (Blink) is not the issue.
And while people may have 8 GB RAM today you are completely forgetting tablets here. You can buy Windows/Linux tablets now for 100$. Tablets have 1 GB, 2 GB or the best tablets have 3 GB ram. That is not a lot of RAM and they also run CPU's designed for battery savings (mobile). So if Vivaldi ever wants to run on a tablet, they will need to start rethinking seriously about this.
I think they still have a big way to go regarding this regard. Opera was able to achieve a balance where adding features where not making the browser slower. This will be by far the biggest task and goal Vivaldi has to solve. It will not be easy but I'm sure they where planning for this from day one.
-
I don't disagree. Chrome launches a full instance on each tab, so if you run tons of tabs, it will eat a lot of RAM, more than Firefox. But assuming you only use one, Firefox had real memory leaks for years which Chrome never had. I have to say that Firefox fixed this, but this was something that affected me for years, leaving Firefox a few hours open it would eat all memory.
I have to say that Firefox is absolutely amazing today in terms of resources. It uses almost no CPU and no RAM but here comes the catch…
Firefox is also implementing tab isolation. Something Chrome had from day one. So the days of Firefox using almost none ram vs Chrome if you have 40 tabs open are over starting from next year. The reason Firefox could save so much is because it was just 1 browser process running. This is not true in the latest snapshots. Firefox is launching a different process for each tab, so it will have exactly the same problem Chrome has. Launch 50 tabs, you will see 50 process.
This is something we have to live with, if you want tab isolation for stability and security. Strangely with Vivaldi you don't get that benefit. If one tab in Vivaldi freezes, the whole browser and all tabs crash or you have to kill all the Vivaldi process. So with Vivaldi right now you get the heavy RAM usage but none of the benefits of process isolation.
I can live with Vivaldi using RAM. This is acceptable. All browser do. And I can live with it using a bit more than Chrome, its also acceptable because it has to run its GUI. But using CPU and drives is not acceptable. I would prefer even more RAM if it can save from eating CPU and disk. The reason is simple. Computers today have a lot of ram but CPU is limited. You can upgrade ram, you can't upgrade CPU in most systems. Using more RAM as long as you have free ram, will not have a performance impact. Using more CPU will, your computer will get hot, other things will slow down. And as for drives, SSD lives are limited, writing and reading aggressively to a drive is the worse you can do in terms of performance. It will slow down everything, regardless of how fast your CPU and how much ram you have. Not to mention people are not going to be happy when they have to start replacing their drives every one year.
For mobile devices or tablets, they could limit max tabs open or freeze (you can suspend now process in Windows 10) which are inactive for a long time) so they work better.
-
I wonder how far back it goes and how much of a memory and speed penalty it imposes when the browser is started?
-
All the problems with Chrome development makes on wonder why all went to it…I never did. I've heard security and all wasn't there any other way to do it or has all just changed THAT much. I remember a friend that ran middle sized bank with 64K no program bloat and 1M lines of code.
Are all it's problems even solvable? Seems to me the same old same old instead of Unix, Linux, marketing got all to go to MSDOS.
-
The answer is speed. Chrome refined this for everyone. Opera was the fastest browsers back in the days. I even remember the marketing was the fastest browsers in the planet and indeed it was. I even purchased Opera. Then Chrome came.
Chrome was fast in everything, boot up, page rendering and GUI responsiveness. It still is. I don't think people even know Chrome is secure. Its about speed. You install Chrome in any old machine and it just works. It never crashes and page rendering is extremely fast, and web apps respond fast as well. Vivaldi made a logic decision here. They selected Chrome because its engine is by far the best today in terms of performance. Nobody can deny this because you notice that right away while browsing the same pages.
There is a reason why pages display fast in Vivaldi and it's the Blink engine with v8. What Vivaldi needs to work on in my opinion, optimizing the GUI for speeds (it does not feel snappy for me). And performance. If they can remove unnecessary things from Chromium or replace it with their own, they should. Example, Opera also uses Chromium now, but as opposed to Vivaldi, their GUI is snappy and fast. It lacks features, and the ones it has are gimmick, but its fast.
The only thing I'm concerned in this regard is security. If affects both Opera and Vivaldi. They will always be slower in updating the engine on their side, which means more danger and time exposed to security issues. In the future they will need to implement some way to block or patch on their own for security issues, at least until they can then update the Chrome engine which is going to take more time. This way they don't leave users exposed for the weeks it takes them to update the browser.
-
I hate fast cycles and you are right. Google introduced them. The security issues is because today browsers do allot more than just rendering static pages. Attackers also moved to the web now. Browsers are like mini operating systems today.
The biggest security threat really where plugins like Flash or Java. Google does the fast cycle because Flash is build in. Now that Flash and all the third party plugins are dying, security will improve drastically but still there will be some java script and other attacks on browsers. I'm not afraid of them either, but lets not forget that Chrome does patch some serious security holes from time to time, like the one that allowed websites to download stuff to your computer without warning or notifications. So Vivaldi does need to keep up with them for the serious holes.
The minute Google launches a patch, they should be working on it as well. Maybe have some automated system. Its alot of work, but Vivaldi main and only focus is the browser as opposed to other companies. This is why Opera was great. I trust them to do a proper job in that regard as well. Opera was almost perfect back in the good old days, it was fast, it was powerful and it was secure. The only issue was its rendering issues with some websites. The same people are behind Vivaldi and now we are not going to have the rendering issues as its using Chrome.
-
Nope, I even tried putting a specific rule to allow Vivaldi and also disabled the firewall altogether. Didn't help.
-
Nope, I even tried putting a specific rule to allow Vivaldi and also disabled the firewall altogether. Didn't help.
Bummer. So much for that idea then.
I've had to switch to manually downloading the Snapshots. It's probably because I'm not using the default installation but there's been some 'oddness' in the update process since the first Beta, like the update popup telling me there is an update available while it is actually in the middle of downloading the update. :roll:
Good times.
-
[BUG] The AdBlock+ drop-down breaks and becomes a stub like this periodically: http://screenpresso.com/=tjHdc A Vivaldi restart fixes it.
-
Agreed, but until that day, the workaround I documented here works for me. (For advanced users only; requires editing of binaries and symlink/junction creation).
-
You shouldn't connect a computer with XP to the Internet. So it makes perfect sense that Google is dropping support.
This is not even a question of money, even a lightweight Linux distribution is better than still using XP while connected to the Internet.
-
A couple of issues:
-
Vivaldi doesn't ask me if i want to save the passwords anymore… Anyone know how to re-enable this?
-
On https://www.bfxdata.com/orderbooks/btcusd the "main" (top) graph doesn't work.
Opera 12 and Edge load it fine. Can anyone confirm similar behaviour for Vivaldi? -
When hovering the mouse over a form field it shows a "tool-tip"
overall type: UNKOWN_TYPE
server type: NO_SERVER_DATA
heuristic type: UNKNOWN_TYPE
field signature: seemingly random id number
form signature: longer seemingly random id number
experiment id: ""Thank you
-
-
Thanks
-
Thanks very good explanation…I always used Opera til the end so had NO desire to go to Chrome at all.
-
In my case graph works fine.
W10 x64 Vivaldi x32 -
The page works for me too, even the movable crosshair on the top graph.
Windows 7 x64 | Vivaldi x64 Beta1 and .334.3
-
It's starting to look like Vivaldi should only be used by Registered or Pre-approved Users on Genuine Vivaldintosh hardware with a MacInaldi OS and a generous support contract. Can it be hacked and jailbroken to work with a mundane consumer 4-core Hyperthreaded processor or will it require a dedicated pair of 18-core Xeons and a few terabytes of RAM to read webmail and watch videos?
I'm mainly wondering why building stuff into the browser is supposed to be better than Extensions and Plug-ins.
HTML5 and its freaky friends can't be shut off. Just like the good-old-bad-days of pop-ups they're built into the browser. So instead of, say, pulling the pin on a trailer hitch and hooking up a better trailer/Plug-in or unloading the roof rack/Extension you have to update and replace a monolithic monstrosity.