Minichan

Topic: Why do I have to hit the back button twice

Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #10,919

to go back a page? No other site I go to has this problem

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #194,859

wat

try ctrl+b

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #194,860

It's to do a barrel roll.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #194,866

@194,859 (B)
Weird, that works just fine.

But if I use the back key on my keyboard or alt + left arrow, I have to do it twice. Does it do that for you?

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #194,867

and it doesn't do this on GHOUL or tinychan

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 57 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #194,873

I'm not having this problem. What browser are you on, OP?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #194,874

@previous (D)
firefox

Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #194,875

@194,866 (A)
> But if I use the back key on my keyboard or alt + left arrow, I have to do it twice. Does it do that for you?
Nope.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #194,877

I had this problem yesterday.

protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #194,938

It’s because your browser considers the anchor tags to be a part of the history.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,058

@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
It happens even when I click links that don't have anchors

LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,085

@194,874 (A)
Can you specify what version? On Fx6, this isn't happening. If you aren't on 6 yet, try upgrading.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,090

@previous (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
Firefox 3.6. The best version

cat !COOOOOLbus joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,098

@previous (A)

> Firefox 3.6. The best version

qft

LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,129

@195,090 (A)
Then, yes, the internet will keep getting more and more broken. Upgrade when you get tired of shit breaking. You're 2.4 versions behind, now.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,143

@previous (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
That's rich coming from an ex-wiseguy

LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,145

@previous (A)
I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with browsers.

Fox !FXYGNx1XR. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,155

@195,129 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
4.4 versions*

FF8 in the Aurora channel is pretty damn awesome

LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,165

@previous (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)
I'm referring to stable releases. Unrelated, but I hate Firefox's new version numbering system, too...

Fox !FXYGNx1XR. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,169

@previous (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
This is stable. I've never encountered a problem on Aurora. Nightlys, however...

LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,174

@previous (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)
Releases, past alpha, beta and RC, are called "stable" releases. I wasn't calling it buggy.

Fox !FXYGNx1XR. replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,176

@previous (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
I know that.

LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,178

@previous (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)
Any major UI changes?

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,179

@195,176 (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)
Then you shouldn't have said it was stable.

Fox !FXYGNx1XR. replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,183

@previous (J)
Well, I did, referring to a different sort of stable.

@195,178 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
Not since 4.

Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,184

google chrome master race

LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,187

@195,183 (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)
What makes 8 substantially better than 6? Nothing since 4 has been anything but equitable to the old .1 releases, as dictated by someone who doesn't know how version numbers work.

LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE double-posted this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,188

@195,184 (K)
Firefox 6's JavaScript rendering is actually infinitely superior to older versions; with that and the new UI changes, isn't Firefox now pretty much just Chrome with better add-ons?

Fox !FXYGNx1XR. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,190

@195,187 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
I'm pretty sure they're implementing the memory leak fixes in 7 and 8 now iirc.
It's supposed to use a good 30% less or something around that.

Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,191

@195,188 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
no it isn't. please stop trolling immediately.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,192

@195,190 (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)
We've been hearing that since 2.0 and it's only gotten worse

Fox !FXYGNx1XR. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,193

@previous (A)
Yeah because browsers from years ago can be equated to such now.

Also, here you go: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391386,00.asp

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,198

@previous (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)
http://toykeeper.net/soapbox/firefox-memory-leak-fixed

cat !COOOOOLbus replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,200

@195,193 (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)

the whole thing didnt linkify fyi

Fox !FXYGNx1XR. replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,201

@previous (cat !COOOOOLbus)
I know. Copy it all.

LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #195,202

@195,198 (A)
@195,193 (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)
One of these sources is not like the other.
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.