4 ms·

I don't run Android anymore, but when I did (about two years ago) I uninstalled Firefox because, as far as I could tell, it didn't properly background tabs when

I don't run Android anymore, but when I did (about two years ago) I uninstalled Firefox because, as far as I could tell, it didn't properly background tabs when the app was closed. I didn't realize this initially, so I was unsure why my battery life was terrible and my phone as always hot. Being able to install extensions was neat, but not worth it for killing my battery. Suffice to say, I do not agree that it's the "best mobile browser" on Android.

rf15 1y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand what "the app was closed" means. A lot of people think that all processing goes to the visible foreground app, but that hasn't been true since the late DOS era. Please learn what's what in the system you're using. Clearly it was running in the background because you onlly had another app or the home acreen open.
- tombert 1y ago
  I'm saying that when I would go back to the home screen, I still think it was using the same amount of power as if it were in the foreground. I think it was using the full amount of processing for each tab the entire time. This is not the behavior that anyone wants for any mobile app ever. I think the app is poorly made, or at least it was in 2023 when I last used it. I know that kernels are preemptive and have multiple processes running. Feel free to look at my post history if you don't believe me. Sorry I said the word "closed" when I meant "backgrounded" if that upsets you, but it was pretty obvious what I meant and I am pretty sure you knew that, so I think you're being needlessly pedantic.
  - seba_dos1 1y ago
    > This is not the behavior that anyone wants for any mobile app ever. [citation needed] > but it was pretty obvious what I meant It wasn't. It was possible to work the intended meaning out, but not without initial confusion, which is far from "pretty obvious".
    - tombert 1y ago
      > [citation needed] Come on man, do you genuinely think that anyone has ever wanted, on a phone, to have all their tabs running at full power in their pocket? I really don't think this "needs citation". > It wasn't. It was possible to work the intended meaning out, but not without initial confusion, which is far from "pretty obvious". It actually was pretty obvious, especially since I said it didn't "properly background tabs", implying that I think things should, you know, be backgrounded, almost as if I know that things run in the background. Saying "closed" was a linguistic shorthand and while I am not going to conduct a broad survey I think most people on this particular forum actually knew what I meant immediately.
      - seba_dos1 1y ago
        It's not up to you to decide whether your communication happened to be obvious or not, and you are being told that you're wrong on this, which is enough of a proof that it wasn't. > do you genuinely think Yes, as guided by experiences with fighting various Android mechanisms to respect the will of the user and keep something running in the background, and using an OS that doesn't suspend background applications at all.
        tombert 1y ago
        I think the person is being actively dishonest, as I think you might be too, because I think that anyone who frequents this forum knew what I meant. Also who says I can’t determine if something is obvious? Hyperbolic example: If I say “my favorite color is green” and you say “well color doesn’t mean anything and is seriously just a spectrum of light and how it reflects off surfaces and really you should learn how light works before making such sweeping statements”, then I think it’s reasonable to say “I obviously meant that I liked how this particular spectrum of light looked on my optic nerve and deciphered by my brain when it reflected on things”, and I could say it’s obvious to everyone, even people who made the comment, because everyone knew what I meant. I said something about tabs not being “backgrounded”, implying backgrounding, implying things running in the background. Any reasonable person would conclude that I meant about things running in the background. And if I don’t get to decide if things are “obvious” then you don’t get to decide if you’re being reasonable. > Yes, as guided by experiences with fighting various Android mechanisms to respect the will of the user and keep something running in the background, and using an OS that doesn't suspend background applications at all. Even if I believed this, I do not think it should be the default behavior for something that will spend most of its life in someone’s pocket (by design).
BlackLotus89 1y ago
Yeah and your experience is 2 years out of date. Especially in recent months the firefox for android experience got better exponentially. I am a tab hoarder (a few thousand open tabs) and 2 years ago firefox needed 15 seconds on a fresh start to load. It's instantanious now. Firefox for android tried to force "inactive" tabs down my throat (I'm sure it helps, but no I don't want it. You can easily disable it in the tabs settings btw). Tabs that didn't get used for 2 weeks get put in an "inactive" state. A few months ago switching to an open tab took a few seconds up to a minute. For a month or two it's now instantanious. There are way more optimizations done and I can often tell right away when something got better or worse. Suffice to say your "experience" is so much out of date it is not even funny. Comparing firefox 2 years ago today is a joke and firefox feels completely different (user interface and speed) and your comment only spreads FUD. Anybody reading this that hasn't tried firefox for android - give it a try!
- tombert 1y ago
  It's not "just spreading FUD", I disclosed the timeline of when I used it and why I don't think it was a good app. Whether or not it's better now doesn't change the fact that two years ago they had an objectively terrible app that I had a terrible experience with that they still put their name on, and as such I am going to associate it with the experiences I've had. That's not weird; I can only really assess things based on the experiences I've had with them. I'm glad it has improved but I feel like you claiming this is implying dishonesty on my end, and I do not think that's fair.
  - BlackLotus89 1y ago
    I was not claiming dishonesty and I'm sorry if it felt that way. My main problem is that a review of software that is getting updates as often as firefox that is based on 2 year old experience feels so wrong. I myself am no stranger to critizing firefox. They have done some thigns that made me nearly switch multiple times. But especially in recent times I feel that they are finally getting their act together (vertical tabs in firefox, performance optimizations, actually asking for feedback, ...) and I know that for me user reviews on hn are more valuable than random bloggers I find through $searchengine. Your comment is actually way more transparent than those blogs that have no date mapped to them or are just AI spam or whatever so again sorry for not giving credit where credit is due, I just find it unfair to write under a recent article experiences that are far from the present reality. (sorry for rambling and being kinda incoherent)
jddj 1y ago
My mobile Firefox consistently has an infinity icon instead of a true count of the tabs (presumably because there are so many. Likely hundreds) and I notice no slowdown or battery issues whatsoever
- tombert 1y ago
  A sibling comment says it has improved in the last couple years, which is entirely possible. I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about it not properly backgrounding tabs in 2023.
Yizahi 1y ago
I'm using Firefox mobile since it's release and haven't observed this issue. For years now I have so many not-closed tabs that FF just shows infinity sight instead of a number, so it's not that I'm limiting my browser use in any way. And I never force close any of my apps ever. I did encounter memory leaks on my desktop Firefox and every single time it was a particular shitty site (for example the latest one is our corporate Jenkins). I suggest you check your sites, find and close the offender. Do you maybe use some fat portals like mail or chats in the browser? They may request OS to stay in memory to provide user a service of constant up to date communication.

rf15 1y ago

I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand what "the app was closed" means. A lot of people think that all processing goes to the visible foreground app, but that hasn't been true since the late DOS era. Please learn what's what in the system you're using. Clearly it was running in the background because you onlly had another app or the home acreen open.

tombert 1y ago
I'm saying that when I would go back to the home screen, I still think it was using the same amount of power as if it were in the foreground. I think it was using the full amount of processing for each tab the entire time. This is not the behavior that anyone wants for any mobile app ever. I think the app is poorly made, or at least it was in 2023 when I last used it. I know that kernels are preemptive and have multiple processes running. Feel free to look at my post history if you don't believe me. Sorry I said the word "closed" when I meant "backgrounded" if that upsets you, but it was pretty obvious what I meant and I am pretty sure you knew that, so I think you're being needlessly pedantic.
- seba_dos1 1y ago
  > This is not the behavior that anyone wants for any mobile app ever. [citation needed] > but it was pretty obvious what I meant It wasn't. It was possible to work the intended meaning out, but not without initial confusion, which is far from "pretty obvious".
  - tombert 1y ago
    > [citation needed] Come on man, do you genuinely think that anyone has ever wanted, on a phone, to have all their tabs running at full power in their pocket? I really don't think this "needs citation". > It wasn't. It was possible to work the intended meaning out, but not without initial confusion, which is far from "pretty obvious". It actually was pretty obvious, especially since I said it didn't "properly background tabs", implying that I think things should, you know, be backgrounded, almost as if I know that things run in the background. Saying "closed" was a linguistic shorthand and while I am not going to conduct a broad survey I think most people on this particular forum actually knew what I meant immediately.
    - seba_dos1 1y ago
      It's not up to you to decide whether your communication happened to be obvious or not, and you are being told that you're wrong on this, which is enough of a proof that it wasn't. > do you genuinely think Yes, as guided by experiences with fighting various Android mechanisms to respect the will of the user and keep something running in the background, and using an OS that doesn't suspend background applications at all.
      - tombert 1y ago
        I think the person is being actively dishonest, as I think you might be too, because I think that anyone who frequents this forum knew what I meant. Also who says I can’t determine if something is obvious? Hyperbolic example: If I say “my favorite color is green” and you say “well color doesn’t mean anything and is seriously just a spectrum of light and how it reflects off surfaces and really you should learn how light works before making such sweeping statements”, then I think it’s reasonable to say “I obviously meant that I liked how this particular spectrum of light looked on my optic nerve and deciphered by my brain when it reflected on things”, and I could say it’s obvious to everyone, even people who made the comment, because everyone knew what I meant. I said something about tabs not being “backgrounded”, implying backgrounding, implying things running in the background. Any reasonable person would conclude that I meant about things running in the background. And if I don’t get to decide if things are “obvious” then you don’t get to decide if you’re being reasonable. > Yes, as guided by experiences with fighting various Android mechanisms to respect the will of the user and keep something running in the background, and using an OS that doesn't suspend background applications at all. Even if I believed this, I do not think it should be the default behavior for something that will spend most of its life in someone’s pocket (by design).

BlackLotus89 1y ago

Yeah and your experience is 2 years out of date. Especially in recent months the firefox for android experience got better exponentially. I am a tab hoarder (a few thousand open tabs) and 2 years ago firefox needed 15 seconds on a fresh start to load. It's instantanious now. Firefox for android tried to force "inactive" tabs down my throat (I'm sure it helps, but no I don't want it. You can easily disable it in the tabs settings btw). Tabs that didn't get used for 2 weeks get put in an "inactive" state. A few months ago switching to an open tab took a few seconds up to a minute. For a month or two it's now instantanious. There are way more optimizations done and I can often tell right away when something got better or worse. Suffice to say your "experience" is so much out of date it is not even funny. Comparing firefox 2 years ago today is a joke and firefox feels completely different (user interface and speed) and your comment only spreads FUD. Anybody reading this that hasn't tried firefox for android - give it a try!

tombert 1y ago
It's not "just spreading FUD", I disclosed the timeline of when I used it and why I don't think it was a good app. Whether or not it's better now doesn't change the fact that two years ago they had an objectively terrible app that I had a terrible experience with that they still put their name on, and as such I am going to associate it with the experiences I've had. That's not weird; I can only really assess things based on the experiences I've had with them. I'm glad it has improved but I feel like you claiming this is implying dishonesty on my end, and I do not think that's fair.
- BlackLotus89 1y ago
  I was not claiming dishonesty and I'm sorry if it felt that way. My main problem is that a review of software that is getting updates as often as firefox that is based on 2 year old experience feels so wrong. I myself am no stranger to critizing firefox. They have done some thigns that made me nearly switch multiple times. But especially in recent times I feel that they are finally getting their act together (vertical tabs in firefox, performance optimizations, actually asking for feedback, ...) and I know that for me user reviews on hn are more valuable than random bloggers I find through $searchengine. Your comment is actually way more transparent than those blogs that have no date mapped to them or are just AI spam or whatever so again sorry for not giving credit where credit is due, I just find it unfair to write under a recent article experiences that are far from the present reality. (sorry for rambling and being kinda incoherent)

jddj 1y ago

My mobile Firefox consistently has an infinity icon instead of a true count of the tabs (presumably because there are so many. Likely hundreds) and I notice no slowdown or battery issues whatsoever

tombert 1y ago
A sibling comment says it has improved in the last couple years, which is entirely possible. I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about it not properly backgrounding tabs in 2023.

Yizahi 1y ago

I'm using Firefox mobile since it's release and haven't observed this issue. For years now I have so many not-closed tabs that FF just shows infinity sight instead of a number, so it's not that I'm limiting my browser use in any way. And I never force close any of my apps ever. I did encounter memory leaks on my desktop Firefox and every single time it was a particular shitty site (for example the latest one is our corporate Jenkins). I suggest you check your sites, find and close the offender. Do you maybe use some fat portals like mail or chats in the browser? They may request OS to stay in memory to provide user a service of constant up to date communication.