Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 3 Release On Tuesday

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the let's-get-ready-to-downlooooooad dept.

Mozilla 554

unkgoon writes "The Mozilla Developer News blog is reporting Firefox 3 will be released on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, and you're invited to the party! From the website: 'After more than 34 months of active development, and with the contributions of thousands, we're proud to announce that we're ready. It is our expectation to ship Firefox 3 this upcoming Tuesday, June 17th. Put on your party hats and get ready to download Firefox 3 — the best web browser, period.'" Update: 06/12 17:44 GMT by T : Dan100 was among several readers to write with news that, rather than just being announced, "Opera 9.5 has been released today after nearly two years of development. New features include increased speed (particularly in the Javascript engine), Opera Link (browser synchronisation), and a 'sharp' new theme." Dan100 also links to a full changelog from 9.27.

cancel ×

554 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

opera is faster (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765127)

it was released today

Re:opera is faster (5, Insightful)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765349)

I don't know why this was modded troll, Opera is faster and it was released today. "Faster" is a value judgment I suppose, but can I mod the article troll because it called Firefox "the best browser, period"?

Re:opera is faster (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765617)

Opera is faster, but my computer is so fast that you really can't tell the difference much, especially when you take into account internet connection speed. Firefox has extensions. Which is where the real advantage is.

Re:opera is faster (0, Troll)

Mark Gillespie (866733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765669)

Opera does not need extensions, as they are all included, and guess what, they don't open security holes like Firefox's extensions can do... Anyone serious about security would not be using the swiss cheese security that Mozilla browser brings...

Re:opera is faster (1)

tristian_was_here (865394) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765765)

Simple... Don't install extensions.

Re:opera is faster (4, Funny)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765725)

Opera is faster, but my computer is so fast that you really can't tell the difference much...

Yeah? Well my computer is so fast that it loads pages before I request them.

Oh, who am I kidding? [sobs]

Re:opera is faster (2)

somegeekynick (1011759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765743)

Firefox has extensions. Which is where the real advantage is.
Actually, some of the things you can do with extensions in Firefox are built-in functionalities in Opera. And I've found them to be much faster than a fully loaded Firefox. And having said that, I'm still a hard-core Firefox user, add-ons and all, although I'm sad to say, that I'm not as excited about the release of Fx 3 as I was prior to the release of Fx2, and that's basically because Ubuntu (and even some other major distros) decide to push out the betas in their more recent versions. Having got used to it, I can't really expect any surprises.

Zoom (4, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765153)

I've been using the RC, and must say the memory issues that the Mozilla developers have tried to claim never existed, are almost nonexistent now. The only tiny thing I don't like is the Text Size function which is now called "zoom", and is sucky.

Re:Zoom (5, Informative)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765215)

View->Zoom
Check off "text zoom only"

Re:Zoom (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765781)

Check off: We are looking for Nuclear wessels...

Re:Zoom (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765231)

That's because now it really acts as zoom: it doesn't resize only the text, but the images too (though this can be configured), as opposed in FF2 where only the text would change size, and thus the "Text size" terminology made more sense.

Re:Zoom (3, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765371)

I just wish there was a way to revert the 'Awesome Bar' to the standard address bar that FF2 had (with no automatic searching, just url matching), because I hate the new functionality.

Re:Zoom (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765459)

I just wish there was a way to revert the 'Awesome Bar' to the standard address bar that FF2 had (with no automatic searching, just url matching), because I hate the new functionality.
Of course there's a way. There's an extension. :) [mozilla.org]

Re:Zoom (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765489)

I just wish there was a way to revert the 'Awesome Bar' to the standard address bar that FF2 had (with no automatic searching, just url matching), because I hate the new functionality.
Of course there's a way. There's an extension. :) [mozilla.org]
From that page:

Note that the underlying autocomplete algorithm is the Firefox 3 algorithm, not the Firefox 2 algorithm. oldbar only affects the presentation of the results.
Its the algorithm that I want to disable completely.

Re:Zoom (4, Funny)

pubjames (468013) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765841)

Yes. Apparently it's especially annoying when you are demonstrating something to a client and they get to see all the websites you were exploring the night before...

Re:Zoom (4, Informative)

deroby (568773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765911)

ctrl-shift-del is your friend ?

Re:Zoom (2, Insightful)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765373)

I, on the other hand love the new zoom feature. I use a very high resolution screen and need to zoom webpages to read the text. Earlier zooming would only increase the text and plenty of websites would look atrocious. Now everything scales proportionally and webpages look uniform after zooming.

Re:Zoom (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765769)

And that is exactly why CSS styles need to be more flexible.
Otherwise, you could just set the minimum text size to one that you can comfortably read on a high-resolution screen.
You can still do that, but, yeah. Breaks stupid sites.

Also, your window manager or OS probably has a quick zoom?
In compiz, for example, can hold super down while using mouse wheel for a quick look at part of the screen.
Handy for those horrible flash videos.

Re:Zoom (1)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23766075)

Also, your window manager or OS probably has a quick zoom? In compiz, for example, can hold super down while using mouse wheel for a quick look at part of the screen. Handy for those horrible flash videos.

Why haven't I tried this before!?? I knew about compiz's alt-scroll (transparency) but hadn't tried using Super.

Very cool. Thanks!

Nothing about breaking records? (2)

Wicko (977078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765157)

Last I checked, there were just over a million pledges, far off from the 5 million they were shooting for..

Re:Nothing about breaking records? (2, Insightful)

illeism (953119) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765271)

I'm sure the downloads will be there.

It's like fast food, you don't make a reservation to go get it, you just do, you know you want it, you know you can't live without it... /startscript - analogy/backlash/thickskin.py

Re:Nothing about breaking records? (1)

internewt (640704) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765713)

Is there somewhere I can go to pledge that I won't be downloading FF3?

I feel Firefox has drifted too far from the philosophy that existed around its creation: a small and fast web browser with support for extensions, so the user can add the features they want.

The awful bar in FF3 a perfect example of a feature that should be an extension, but isn't and is forced on everyone. I don't want my hand holding when it comes to using core features of a browser, and so I'm going to say no to FF3. I feel that FF has been moving the wrong way for a while, but 3 is just too much. Hell, my laptop's Windows partition still has 1.5.highest installed because I didn't see any point in updating to FF2.

Re:Nothing about breaking records? (1)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765961)

I feel Firefox has drifted too far from the philosophy that existed around its creation: a small and fast web browser with support for extensions, so the user can add the features they want.
That's the way it has been for a long time.

That's why I install SeaMonkey instead and tick the "Browser Only" box during installation.

I have firefox 3.0 beta (-1, Flamebait)

tylervincent (1253926) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765161)

Firefox is the best browser out there and it is the only one I will ever allow in my house and I even have the thumb drive version.

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765293)

So what do you want? A cookie?

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (5, Funny)

springbox (853816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765635)

So what do you want? A cookie?
Free cookie, visit Google [google.com]

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (5, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765305)

Firefox is the best browser out there and it is the only one I will ever allow in my house

I don't, it sheds hair all over the couch and chases my pet firehen.

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (1)

chunk08 (1229574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765491)

I wonder how they came up with the name Firefox? To me it brings to mind the story of Samson in Judges [biblegateway.com]

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (1)

Cerberus7 (66071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765545)

It always made me think of the novel [wikipedia.org] and Clint Eastwood movie [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (4, Funny)

Dmala (752610) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765823)

It was originally called Firebird, a reference to the Phoenix [wikipedia.org] and the idea that the app was born from the ashes of Netscape. They changed it after receiving complaints from the Firebird database [firebirdsql.org] people, keeping the "fire" and swapping out the animal. I assume the fox was chosen for the alliteration and for the image of the fox as being scrappy and independent. Fireslug just doesn't have the same ring...

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765915)

Well, originally, the browser was called "Phoenix", for the obvious reason. However, I believe Phoenix was trademarked, so the Mozilla folk couldn't use it.

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (4, Informative)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765833)

> I wonder how they came up with the name Firefox?

It used to be called Phoenix, which was to evoke the whole "rising from the ashes" imagery WRT the (at the time) moribund Mozilla project. The BIOS people didn't like that and asked them to change it, so they renamed it Firebird, which the database people weren't keen on. So finally they came up with Firefox, and it stuck. Better name anyway.

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (5, Funny)

yuriyg (926419) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765977)

Me: Oh the great, all-knowing wikipedia, please enlighten me on the reason Mozilla Firefox chose such a glorious name!
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] : It was first named "Phoenix", because it arose from the ashes of Netscape. Then (due to international copyright laws and conflict with Phoenix Technologies) they chose to rename the great product as "Firebird," and all rejoiced! Alas, the great joy did not last long, as the wicked Firebird Database Server users started to complain. The great creators then finally settled on the name that is heard throughout the land: FIREFOX!

I did have to sacrifice a goat though...

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (4, Insightful)

Rurik (113882) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765463)

If you thought it was so good, wouldn't you have upgraded to the release candidate weeks ago instead of continuing to use the beta? :)

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (4, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765549)

Firefox is the best browser out there and it is the only one I will ever allow in my house and I even have the thumb drive version.
This is when a 'fanboi' mod would come in handy.

Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta (0, Offtopic)

Mark Gillespie (866733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765703)

Bully for you. Did you want a Blue Peter badge? I have Opera 9.5 and it is the only one I will ever allow in my house and I even have the thumb drive version. http://www.opera-usb.com/operausben.htm [opera-usb.com]

Bjarne said it right (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765163)

I am with Bjarne on this one.
Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of the C++ programming language, claims that C++ is experiencing a revival and
that there is a backlash against newer programming languages such as Java and C#. "C++ is bigger than ever.
There are more than three million C++ programmers. Everywhere I look there has been an uprising
- more and more projects are using C++. A lot of teaching was going to Java, but more are teaching C++ again.
There has been a backlash.", said Stroustrup.

He continues.. ..What would the world be like without Google?... Only C++ can allow you to create applications as powerful as MapReduce which allows them to create fast searches.

I totally agree. If Java ( or Pyhton etc. for that matter ) were fast enough why did Google choose C++ to build their insanely fast search engine. MapReduce rocks.. No Java solution can even come close.
I rest my case.

Re:Bjarne said it right (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765921)

Apache made a MapReduce implementation in Java that is quite extensively used.

I had the Beta (1)

Paranatural (661514) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765183)

And I was unimpressed. I'm hoping the full release will be better.

Re:I had the Beta (0, Redundant)

tylervincent (1253926) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765251)

I love the beta it gives you an idea about what it will look like and I cant wait till the full version comes out and sure some of my add-ons don't work but they will soon.

Re:I had the Beta (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765387)

I love the beta it gives you an idea about what it should look like and I cant wait till the full version comes out and sure some of my add-ons don't work but they should soon.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:I had the Beta (2, Funny)

tylervincent (1253926) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765485)

I love the beta it gives you an idea about what it will look like and I cant wait till the full version comes out and sure some of my add-ons don't work but they will soon. Sorry but my way is a lot better

Opera 9.5 released today (4, Informative)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765203)

In other news, Opera 9.5 [opera.com] , the other best browser, released today.

Re:Opera 9.5 released today (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765341)

I fail to see how this is offtopic.

Opera has been around a lot longer than FF, has a tiny memory footprint, and has a kick ass simple interface. That is to say, you don't need a fucking 3rd party skin to make it look good (because I doubt good UI design is one of FFs primary goals).

Nevertheless, kudos to Firefox. Unfortunately for me, it's Safari on OS X, and Opera for everything else.

Re:Opera 9.5 released today (0, Redundant)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765511)

I fail to see how this is offtopic.

Because this is an article about Firefox? And, at least AFAICT, Opera != Firefox. I mean, perhaps I'm wrong, but...

Re:Opera 9.5 released today (4, Insightful)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765561)

Opera 9.5 was just released today, however on slashdot we have an article about how Firefox will release on Tuesday... nice...

Re:Opera 9.5 released today (1, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765877)

Umm... I don't care? It doesn't change the fact that the original post was off-topic. Meanwhile, go submit an article about Opera being released... then we can go post about Firefox there. ;)

Re:Opera 9.5 released today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765593)

The topic claimed Firefox was the best browser "period".

So, this is relevant. The poster is saying it's not the "best", that Opera may be.

Re:Opera 9.5 released today (2, Interesting)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765569)

Opera support more platforms directly too; while Firefox supports OS X, Windows and Linux i686, Opera support all those, plus Linux x86-64/sparc/ppc, FreeBSD i386/amd64, and Solaris sparc and x86.

Of course you can't compile Opera for anything else, so I guess it's just as well.

Re:Opera 9.5 released today (1)

.orvp (208389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765585)

It is offtopic to the current story, but it is quite news worthy. If you think it should be a story on the main page or elsewhere, there are several submissions in the Firehose [slashdot.org] , filter for "Opera", and vote up the story you like (must be logged in). Sure, it may do squat as far as getting the story on the front page, but would be more on topic than in a thread about the future of Firefox.

Re:Opera 9.5 released today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765343)

Man, Opera is the best browser around, i signed for the famous firefox record but i see my new opera 9.5 and i said "nah, opera eats them all!!!"

Re:Opera 9.5 released today (0, Troll)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765699)

Thought Safari was the other best browser? BROWSER WARS!!

speaking of releases (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765209)

I just released a brown trout in the 3rd floor men's room. The toilet seems to be broken (or "beta" as us googlers call it), so you might want to avoid the middle stall.

Re:speaking of releases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765377)

The toilet seems to be broken
Are you using TiSP? Contact Google for tech support.

I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... (4, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765225)

I mean...it was, like, RELEASED, today; not only announced to be released.

But I guess that clears any doubts as to "/. pet-browser" that Firefox has... :/

Re:I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... (5, Interesting)

Mark Gillespie (866733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765643)

Funny thing is, only opera has the /. easter egg in it... Yep, type /. in the address bar to come here. Talk about cool easter eggs...

Re:I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... (3, Funny)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765723)

Guess no one submitted a story on it.

Re:I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... (2, Insightful)

Doctor Crumb (737936) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765755)

Or perhaps the fact taht opera has 1% market share while firefox has 18% might have something to do with it.

Re:I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765763)

I already submitted a story today. We'll see how that goes.

Re:I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765805)

It's possibly got more to do with the fact that Firefox has about 20% of the total browser market share than that it's Slashdot's "pet browser", as well as it being one of the most successful open source projects overall. With its market share of "maybe" 1%, it could just be that only a small minority of people would be interested in Opera related news.

Why do I need a party hat? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765263)

Put on your party hats and get ready to download Firefox 3

I use Firefox, because I have no use for Party Hats!

Re:Why do I need a party hat? (1)

Slimee (1246598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765383)

Wait, is this serious? Did I really see MozzilaParty? People are actually going to throw parties for the release of the third iteration of some browser?

WHOA-HO, bust out the hats and Natty Ice baby, we're gonna get drunk for Firefox's latest release!! Who's with me??!

Re:Why do I need a party hat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765441)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Party+Hat&defid=3059541 [urbandictionary.com]

And of course, a party hat is slang for condom. Sounds like the party is going to be a blast!

Re:Why do I need a party hat? (1)

Slimee (1246598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765587)

Oh yeah baby, It's gonna be a night of drunken fun, beer pong, and one night stands. Oh and maybe we'll check out the new Firefox too.

Re:Why do I need a party hat? (1)

Blimey85 (609949) | more than 6 years ago | (#23766039)

Your place or mine? Wait... you are FEMALE right? RIGHT?!?!?!

What about the fsync problem? (4, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765279)

Will it be fixed in 3.0, or will I have to wait for 3.1? See, I use Linux and my partitions are ext3. The fsync issue affects me.

smaller memory footprint (3, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765309)

From what I can tell from using the beta, it seems a lot of the reduced memory footpring from Firefox 3 appears to be the result of it using the OS's native GUI widgets, as opposed to widgets supplied by Firefox itself. FF3 is coming along nicely, but still has a few annoyances that need addressing. Hopefully the release version will address those minor annoyances.

Re:smaller memory footprint (5, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765487)

It doesnt use the native widgets. It uses its own widgets and then it paints them so that they look like they were native (other browsers also do this)

Re:smaller memory footprint (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765501)

Ah..nevermind then.

Re:smaller memory footprint (3, Informative)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765987)

No, it's not. Haven't you read the news? They completely revamped memory management [pavlov.net] . Among the improvements, are:

  • Reduced Memory fragmentation
  • Fixed cycles with the Cycle collector
  • Tuned the caches
  • Adjusted how image data is stored (hint: compressed)
  • Hunted down leaks. "Overall, we've been able to close over 400 leak bugs so far, most of which are very uncommon, but can still occur."


Aptitude? (1)

nermaljcat (895576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765313)

Any news on an aptitude build? This would make it more attractive to upgrade.

Firefox 4 release (0, Flamebait)

phoneteller (1261402) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765339)

When will Firefox 4 be release? I can't wait for its release. Is it true that its name will be changed to InternetFox?

What about Tabmix Plus? (1)

Alpha Whisky (1264174) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765353)

It's all very well releasing Firefox 3, but when is a compatible version of Tabmix Plus going to be available for it?

Re:What about Tabmix Plus? (1)

tylervincent (1253926) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765367)

That's hard to say since a lot of the add-ons I use don't work with FF3 right now

Re:What about Tabmix Plus? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765705)

Check the developer's web page (http://tmp.garyr.net/), there is a beta that works fine.

8.04 Hardy Heron users got it today (3, Informative)

MollyB (162595) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765375)

It was part of the Update Manager offerings...
(no conflicts with beta add-ons)

Re:8.04 Hardy Heron users got it today (2, Informative)

WolverineOfLove (1305907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765435)

Are you sure it wasn't RC1? http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/hardy-updates/firefox-3.0 [ubuntu.com]

Re:8.04 Hardy Heron users got it today (1)

MollyB (162595) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765809)

Pretty sure... If I go to Help/About, it says Firefox 3.0 (I had been running the beta)

Re:8.04 Hardy Heron users got it today (4, Informative)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765945)

None of the release candidates identify themselves as release candidates in help/about. You're running RC1.

Re:8.04 Hardy Heron users got it today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765767)

I got it last night, Wednesday 8:30 PM as a Ubuntu upgrade.

I'm waiting. (4, Insightful)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765379)

I'm waiting until flash is ready and all of my addons work with Firefox 3, it's only half a browser without them

Re:I'm waiting. (5, Informative)

Rurik (113882) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765611)

Don't wait, contact the developers! Each add-on developer works independently from the rest of the system. I assumed my extension worked fine in 3.0 and was going to wait until FF3 became finalized, but I received enough comments and issues from beta users that I went and updated mine and continued to update the versions so that it would work with all of the betas and RCs. If there's an extension you need, email the authors and hound them to update it asap.

Damn. (4, Funny)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765381)

I dont have a party hat.

All I have is a cloak and a wizard hat.

No Big Deal (1)

Aaron M. Renn (539) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765465)

I've been using one of the release candidates that got installed by default when I updated ubuntu. It isn't doing much for me, frankly. The only thing they've fixed that I consider a big win is the memory leak issue from FF2. What's so exciting about this new release?

Re:No Big Deal (1)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765711)

Which memory leak bug? The main one that accumulates memory with open tabs? I have heard that it was still not addressed in FF3, but that was a bit ago and I hope this is it! It would be nice to be able to not have to close FF with Force Quit.. Every... Single... Time...

Re:No Big Deal (2, Insightful)

tuffy (10202) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765907)

The main one that accumulates memory with open tabs? I have heard that it was still not addressed in FF3, but that was a bit ago and I hope this is it!

It has been addressed. While FF2 would hog all my available RAM over the course of a day, FF3 releases memory regularly as tabs are closed.

What about Opera 9.5 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765507)

It released TODAY, and is far superior to any Mozilla offering. Isn't that more newsworthy that something that might be happening next week?

Addons (3, Insightful)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765595)

So, will it support NoScript, AdBlock (with filterset.g) and FlashBlock? If not then I'll be waiting. Those are about the only things that make FF better than Opera or IE, IMO. In fact, I think they should be built right into FF.

Addons have to be updated by the developer... (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765671)

...Mozilla cannot write every extension. A LOT of addons weren't updated for the Firefox 2 betas or RCs, but were updated within a few days for Firefox 2.0 final.

In the meantime, why don't you email the developer of your extension and ask?

Re:Addons (5, Informative)

tuffy (10202) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765715)

NoScript, Adblock Plus (w. Filterset.G) and FlashBlock are supported in the current 3.0pre Firefox, so they'll work in the final build. Checking Mozilla's addons [mozilla.org] website isn't that hard, really.

Google toolbar? Firebug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765615)

Will 3.0-compatible versions be ready?

I'm not migrating without them.

Who gives a fuck? (0)

.Bruce Perens (150539) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765649)

None of my fucking add-ons will work. I'll install this after those lazy amateur programmers quit wasting time jacking off to gay porn and update their shit.

Meanwhile, I'll be jacking off to gay porn with Firefox 2.0000000014 or whatever the fuck it is. Meanwhile, my keyboard and monitor are all crusty with jizz, perhaps it's time to drag my boil-encrusted ass down to Circuit City and see what's on the scratch & dent table.

 

Excessive CPU usage in OS X 10.4? (1)

chinmay7 (776189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765727)

I've been using the betas and RCs for a while now, and I've noticed that for some reason, Firefox is using an unusual amount of CPU cycles. When a Firefox window is open, FF uses 15-20% CPU (on my SantaRosa 2GHz MacBook Pro) continuously. When the window is closed (but FF is still running) the usage drops down to 1-2% I don't think this happened with FF2. Any idea why this might be so, and if there are any workarounds?

Re:Excessive CPU usage in OS X 10.4? (1)

despe666 (802244) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765787)

Don't know if this is related or not, but they did release a new RC yesterday aimed directly at fixing an old outstanding Mac bug. Don't know if this was the bug they fixed though.

It was on the Ubuntui update last nite.... (1, Redundant)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765829)

.... or was this release canadate 3? I looked in the "about" box and unlike the previous version showing the release canidate number, this was simply version 3.0

I'm confused?

Tuesday... (1)

Landshark17 (807664) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765839)

is also my 21st birthday, we'll see how well Guinness and Firefox mix.

But will it work? (1)

el_chupanegre (1052384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765885)

It's a real shame that they are releasing it with so many serious bugs remaining [mozilla.com] .

I, and many others, have been experiencing multiple crashes on a daily basis in all betas and release candidates. I have filed a bug report (and I submit the problem every time it crashes) and yet they never really acknowledge it exists.

The problem is Mac OSX specific and is something to do with the native theme and Objective-C in the DrawCellWithScaling section. I'd try and fix it myself, but I don't know and don't want to know Objective-C.

Re:But will it work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23765965)

You can't make it work 100% reliably on 100% of the machines. I personally have been using the OS X version since beta4 and it's been rock solid - never had a crash.

At some point you just have to draw the line.

Can it [properly] handle mailto:? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23766009)

My current beef with firefox concerns mailto: links. I wonder whether it can satisfactorily handle these links.

Once clicked in the current version of Firefox on windows without a default mail client defined, (I will not touch outlook!), the system fires up 48 instances of Internet Explorer, which in turn says it does not know how to handle the URL!

My hope and expectation is for Firefox to give me an option of defining a mail client or fire-up my GMail. Can anyone whose tested it inform a slashdoter? Thank you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>