Bug 1304389 Comment 61 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

(In reply to Forest from comment #60)

> (In reply to Robert Ab from comment #59)
> 
> > Bad idea.
> 
> For what it's worth, I strongly disagree. Firefox is constantly wasting battery power (via wakeups) and SSD longevity (by frequent and sizeable filesystem writes). This behavior is completely unnecessary, not at all typical for a program that is primarily a document reader, and hidden from the vast majority of users with no obvious way to disable it even if they do eventually discover it. *This*, the current behavior, is an ill-conceived, bloody awful idea.
> 
> Please don't be so dismissive of legitimate suggestions for fixing the problem. Let's instead try to make Firefox better.

But maybe it should be an option in about:config allowing to change time between savings, and to turn off this savings between restarts. *So everybody can decide what it is better for him/her.*
(In reply to Forest from comment #60)

> (In reply to Robert Ab from comment #59)
> 
> > Bad idea.
> 
> For what it's worth, I strongly disagree. Firefox is constantly wasting battery power (via wakeups) and SSD longevity (by frequent and sizeable filesystem writes). This behavior is completely unnecessary, not at all typical for a program that is primarily a document reader, and hidden from the vast majority of users with no obvious way to disable it even if they do eventually discover it. *This*, the current behavior, is an ill-conceived, bloody awful idea.
> 
> Please don't be so dismissive of legitimate suggestions for fixing the problem. Let's instead try to make Firefox better.

But maybe it should be an option in about:config allowing to change time between savings, and to turn off this savings between Firefox restarts. *So everybody can decide what it is better for him/her.*
(In reply to Forest from comment #60)

> (In reply to Robert Ab from comment #59)
> 
> > Bad idea.
> 
> For what it's worth, I strongly disagree. Firefox is constantly wasting battery power (via wakeups) and SSD longevity (by frequent and sizeable filesystem writes). This behavior is completely unnecessary, not at all typical for a program that is primarily a document reader, and hidden from the vast majority of users with no obvious way to disable it even if they do eventually discover it. *This*, the current behavior, is an ill-conceived, bloody awful idea.
> 
> Please don't be so dismissive of legitimate suggestions for fixing the problem. Let's instead try to make Firefox better.

But maybe it should be an option in about:config allowing to change time between savings, and to turn off this savings between Firefox restarts. *So everybody can decide what it is better for him/her.*

Another possible solution. Session managers (like Tab Session Manager) can be installed. TSM is using IndexedDB now as extension storage, which make much easier on HDD/SSD.
(In reply to Forest from comment #60)

> (In reply to Robert Ab from comment #59)
> 
> > Bad idea.
> 
> For what it's worth, I strongly disagree. Firefox is constantly wasting battery power (via wakeups) and SSD longevity (by frequent and sizeable filesystem writes). This behavior is completely unnecessary, not at all typical for a program that is primarily a document reader, and hidden from the vast majority of users with no obvious way to disable it even if they do eventually discover it. *This*, the current behavior, is an ill-conceived, bloody awful idea.
> 
> Please don't be so dismissive of legitimate suggestions for fixing the problem. Let's instead try to make Firefox better.

But maybe it should be an option in about:config allowing to change time between savings, and to turn off this savings between Firefox restarts. *So everybody can decide what it is better for him/her.*

Another possible solution. Session managers (like Tab Session Manager) can be installed in Firefox. TSM is using IndexedDB now as extension storage, which make much easier on HDD/SSD.

Back to Bug 1304389 Comment 61