Snapshot 1.0.334.3 - Fixes for tab title cropping and Windows XP
-
A thought on…
Unresponsive tabs.If I close all my (5 or 6) open tabs 'cos some have become unresponsive, and then I go to bring them back from the Trash, some tabs seem to now be embedded in a sub-folder of Trash called, in this most recent case, "Window with 4 tabs >".
I can bring the dead tab back to life from that sub-folder – which then changes its name to "Window with 3 tabs >"
Why do closed dead tabs go into a special place?
-
So…
**
The 'crashed tab' bug makes this build (and I suspect, the one before it) unusable for me.**The 'crashed tab' bug is present from a completely (and I mean completely) clean install and then visiting a single website.
I uninstalled 334.3 and then wiped all remaining traces of Vivaldi from the Appdata & ProgramFiles and the Registry. I then re-booted.
I installed a fresh copy of 334.3 (downloaded via Opera) and maximised the newly-launched browser. I clicked the + to get a new Speeddial page and clicked Twitter.
Once on Twitter I logged in and went to the Settings section to check details about sending SMS codes to my phone. I clicked a 'more help' link there which opened another tab. I read that tab and clicked on the Twitter tab to go back there again.
Bug: The 'more help' page's content stayed on-screen. It had crashed.
So, the 'crashed tab' bug is nothing to do with old, partially-updated and/or incompatible profiles, caches, user data or anything like that. Nor is it anything to do with long and complex session data; all I had open was the Vivaldi welcome page and Twitter.
This bug exists in a brand new install of this version of Vivladi.
System setup: Vista 32, 2GB RAM, lots of HD space, ATi Radeon X1300PRO video.
HTH.
-
I love how you are fixing XP support the same time Google is announcing dropping official support…. which to me sounds really jacktarded since isn't a win32 application a win32 application? Much less dropping Vista while keeping 7 support? Aren't those the same thing?
So keep plucking away at it -- be great if you folks became a haven for all the folks stuck on XP at work or who simply can't afford a new machine, and for whom FF is a unstable mess.
To be frank, I'm using Vivialdi more and more because I don't have to mod it as much making it unstable. Now if you could just fix the blasted ctrl+mouse wheel zoom... and give an option to DISABLE the mouse-wheel over the tabs thing since in portrait mode that's annoying as HELL.
-
From the Comments section, Vivaldi is doing way, way, better than Edge!
-
Jon's and others' remarks about why not to include email is that the UI and several features need work. It is "not ready." I think with a browser, you can play around with a crashtastic version with no real hit to your daily life. Email would be a different story if, for instance, like me, you use email as your primary business correspondence tool, order receiving route, product delivery system, billing method and filing archive. A data-devouring crash could have dire consequences. A couple of the developers had mentioned that they don't want to take ANY chance of a user experiencing significant email data loss, and I think that's a primary driver in the decision to hold it back until it is more stable and more polished.
I still would love to test and play with the email for non-mission-critical purposes but alas, it's not in the stars.
-
Microsoft has gazillions of software and applications to maintain, as opposed to a single one which is the case of Vivaldi. But to answer your question directly, its not the same.
Supporting an old OS which is not officially developed or supported anymore is messy and expensive in terms of time and resources. This is feasible while you have a base of users but don't honestly expect Vivaldi to support XP for much longer. XP is dying fast. Its not supported and has more holes than a Swiss cheese by now, most which are never going to be fixed anymore.
They will have no alternative once Chromium/Blink drops support.
-
Top Sites is indeed a monster. It needs to be done away with. I just checked mine and it was up to over 200MB again.
-
'Persistent closed tabs' bug fixed?
Was the bug which exists in 1.0.321.3 (whereby closed tabs (in the Trash) persist across relaunches of the browser) fixed in 334.3?
In other words, do some/all closed tabs in 334.3 still carry over from session to session?
-
I guess this might be an intended behaviour… At least I do not mind this behaviour (I even like it I guess)
-
Smaller issue but Vivaldi crashes anytime I scroll past embedded vine videos on social media sites (e.g. Twitter or Tumblr). Oddly enough, if I visit the vine website, I don't get the same result, everything works fine.
-
This is surely a problem. Some people even called Chrome the SSD killer before. So even Chrome is not nice with disks writes.
Vivaldi needs to do a lot of work on this regard. I noticed that Vivaldi taxes both my CPU and drive like crazy (also SSD). Example, when I run any other browser, even for hours, everything is silent.
But while I use Vivaldi I can constantly hear the fans in the laptop going up and down. Vivaldi is really eating 90% CPU for a few seconds every time you reload a webpage or do some other action.
Its really a hardware killer at this point. In the end, regardless of how nice a browser looks and the features it has, if the browser is to unfriendly to hardware nobody is going to use it as their daily browser. I forgive them because it's a beta, but it seems its getting worse and not better. I notice Vivaldi is using more CPU, more RAM and hitting more writes/reads to the disks on each release.
They will seriously need to check performance and I'm extremely afraid if they can't fix this this will be their doom. I'm not sure if going with web technologies was the right choice in terms of performance. While its ready for features, its fine for web apps for a few minutes a day. A browser is running for hours and Vivaldi does not like that. My laptop gets hotter only by running Vivaldi with one tab and website. At 5, I start to hear the fan all the time.
Its great you posted this, because I never see people mentioning how its taxing hardware as opposed to other browsers. I have to say that Firefox was the best one in this regards in my case. Almost no CPU, no RAM, no nothing, with tons of apps open.
-
It is perfect, every click represents exactly one tab for-/backward. Just like any other tabbed application.
Thank you guys.
-
Same here. Single key shortcuts are enabled though.
-
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.