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 3.1 Beta 3 Released

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the i-love-daft-punk dept.

Mozilla 273

ink writes "Mozilla has released the third beta for Firefox 3.1 (which may become Firefox 3.5). This beta includes the new location bar, Mozilla's new JavaScript engine Tracemonkey, new HTML5 features and many other enhancements. It looks the same on the surface, but there are many changes under the hood."

cancel ×

273 comments

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

Great (3, Informative)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167901)

They changed the location bar again.
Now I can watch people flip out about it on the interwebs for 6 months as well as being personally annoyed with re-getting used to how it functions.

Re:Great (5, Informative)

Tx (96709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168043)

As usual with Firefox features, if you don't like it, you can probably fix it. Try the oldbar [mozilla.org] extension. There is probably a way to disable it without an extension, ISTR there is a setting in about:config for 3.0 at least, but you can google that yourself. Personally I love the awesome bar, although I don't think I will flip out about the new version for a whole 6 months, but each to their own.

Re:Great (0, Troll)

jgalun (8930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168351)

This gets brought up every stinking time we discuss Firefox. But once again - oldbar does not get you totally back to the old location bar. There are still important differences. Yes, lots of people do not like Awesome Bar. Yes, many people are actually refusing to upgrade because of it.

Re:Great (1)

youngdev (1238812) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168453)

what is the awesome bar?

Re:Great (5, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168465)

"Yes, many people are actually refusing to upgrade because of it."

Do you mean many as a lot of people or many as in a very vocal minority?

Re:Great (5, Funny)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169171)

He means people who still wear onions on their belt because that was the style then, and they'll be damned if they look for something new.

Re:Great (0, Troll)

97cobra (89974) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169373)

I too refuse to upgrade because of the unawesome bar BS.

Re:Great (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168445)

Cue up the replay of the "oldbar is not a fix" flameware. Hell, it's open source, if you don't like teh awesomebar, rewrite it and recompile it. We're on slashdot, after all.

Re:Great (5, Funny)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168937)

Flameware sounds like a great name for some forum software.

Re:Great (0, Flamebait)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169349)

Nah, I just switched to Safari, thankyou very much.

Re:Great (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169243)

Just Mozilla playing catchup on Operas features. Let me know when they actually copy Opera's memory usage, speed and security...

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169273)

As usual with Firefox features, if you don't like it, you can probably fix it.

Speaking of which, is there a way to permadisable the "scrolling" tab bar?

I read a lot of message boards. Many of these boards force readers into multipage views in order to ease loads on their backend databases and drive up page counts/ad impressions.

That means I'll sometimes have 20-50 tabs open at any one moment. I middle-mouse-click over each "page" in a thread, and pop the whole thread open into a series of tabs. After 5-10 threads, that adds up. That's fine -- they were all opened in chronological order, and I can read each one, closing it off, and proceed to the next thread on the right.

Problem is, sometimes I come across a thread I want to read right now. Under Firefox 1, I could Alt-T (open new tab far off the screen), then immediately close it to get back to the "right now" thread, but the array of tabs on top of the window remained unchanged, making it easy to go back to the original tab.

Under FF3, Alt-T opens a new tab off the far end of the screen... and immediately slides all tabs over, making it impossible to go back to the original tab, unless I manually slide everything back to the original position.

Yes, I've already tweaked browser.tabs.selectOwnerOnClose (false, dammit!), browser.tabs.tabMinWidth to 0 (to minimize the problem), browser.tabs.closeButtons (one "X" to close the current tab that stays in the same place on the screen, not one floating "X" per tab, all of which move around as tabs resize!), and so on.

But I can't figure out why toolkit.scrollbox.scrollIncrement:0 and toolkit.scrollbox.clickToScroll.scrollDelay: 0 don't work. That makes it not scroll when opening new tabs, but a ^T to open-new-tab still forcibly scrolls the tab bar to the end of the line. Argh!

(And last but not least, WTF's up with the fugly smoothing on resized pixel art? An 8x8 .gif scaled up to 64x64 should be rendered with blocks, not with smudges!)

Can't get it (3, Funny)

amclay (1356377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167927)

I was going to download this using Mozilla Firefox, but Microsoft told me it would be faster downloading, and it's returning a exception. Too bad I wanted to use it.

Firefox 3.1 Beta 3 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27167939)

Can choke on my wang.

Re:Firefox 3.1 Beta 3 (2, Informative)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168175)

Choking would require said wang to be long enough to pass the teeth, I think firefox is safe from your wrath.

Re:Firefox 3.1 Beta 3 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168443)

he meant "choke" as in "choke the chicken". He's into cock & ball torture, leather, and furries.

Is it officially out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27167955)

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see a release announcement (not even on a Planet Mozilla blog entry). It's also not available on auto-update yet.

Did Slashdot just interrupt their release process, again?

Re:Is it officially out? (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168001)

It's a beta. You don't get auto-updated to beta versions.

This one is only news worthy because it has some cool new features

Re:Is it officially out? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168093)

Uh, yeah, you do if you're running 3.1b2. They have a beta update channel.

Re:Is it officially out? (2, Informative)

jorgevillalobos (1044924) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169885)

It's a beta. You don't get auto-updated to beta versions.

Yes, you do. But the auto-update is not activated until later on, usually a couple of days after having the new version available through direct download.

Not officially out yet! (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168331)

It looks like they did. Firefox 3.1 beta 3 is still not available on the All Betas [mozilla.com] page, and when you click on the Download Now link on the Release Notes [mozilla.com] page, you get Firefox 3.1 beta 2.

The release linked to in the summary may not be the final, completed version, as Firefox 3.1 beta 3 has not been officially released yet. Download it at your own risk. You should wait until it's available through the links I give in this post.

Re:Not officially out yet! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168717)

This is Slashdot really listening to its visitors. People complained that Slashdot was too slow in its reporting, that Reddit and Digg were always ahead.

Well no more, now Slashdot is so fast at reporting the news that it reports before the news happens. Suck on that Reddit!

Re:Not officially out yet! (2)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169747)

Well, I've downloaded it. The Mac version.
It may be that my 3.0.7 profile is a bit buggy, but 3.1b3 simply crashes again and again. And that after disabling (nearly?) all of my extensions, too.

Back to 3.0.7, at least for now.

Microsoft (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27167969)

IE is clearly the superior browser IMO. The one thing I regret about Linux is that there's no good way to run IE.

Re:Microsoft (0, Flamebait)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168475)

Stop WINE'ing about Linux!!!

It always amazed me (4, Interesting)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167987)

How pretty much everything we do uses JSON and until now there has been no love from the browser.

My question is, will all these new JavaScript goodies (both in Firefox and in IE8) get rolled into jQuery? That way if jQuery sees the browser can do JSON serialization, or timeouts on XHttpRequests, it will use the native stuff instead of emulating the behavior?

I'm gonna have to play with the VIDEO thing. The big problem such a new feature will have is codec support. Nobody is gonna transcode their streaming content to use this thing when they can just use flash player. That and I really dont want "normal people" trying to find codecs on google--most of the hits for "$AWESOME_CODEC" are usually just spyware installers.

Re:It always amazed me (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169173)

I imagine it will, as the developers tend to emphasize speed (and native code is often faster than javascript). They have to balance against it making it more difficult to support older browsers, and needlessly changing apis.

Re:It always amazed me (3, Insightful)

sveinungkv (793083) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169547)

That and I really dont want "normal people" trying to find codecs on google--most of the hits for "$AWESOME_CODEC" are usually just spyware installers.

Firefox 3.5 won't have support for other codecs than those that are built in (various Xiph [xiph.org] codecs (Vorbis, Theora) and Wav). Since it won't be possible to install extra codecs for use in Firefox Firefox won't contribute to "normal people" installing random codecs from the net. If/when support for [mozilla.org] system [mozilla.org] codecs [mozilla.org] land (probably after 3.5) you may get the problem you describe.

Too bad about the performance, though (-1, Flamebait)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167999)

IE8 and Chrome seem to beat it handily.

Like most of you losers.

Re:Too bad about the performance, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168541)

That totally depends on the site - for someone such as yourself who is usually only using the web for viewing Microsoft's site, Firefox is the fastest, according to Microsoft themselves. Other people's mileage may vary, but hey, speed only matters if you don't care about things like viruses, worms, general crashes due to poor code, and overall crap. (Which is why I won't be using this beta until it's finished, any more than I'll be using IE.)

Re:Too bad about the performance, though (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169295)

The Minefield beta is really fast.

Here's the question: - (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168069)

...It looks the same on the surface, but there are many changes under the hood."...

Will Joe Public be in position to notice them? The new engine might be indeed faster but I wonder whether an ordinary user will see a difference.

Re:Here's the question: - (2, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169113)

I'd say Safari on iPhone vs. Fennec on Nokia is going to be the primary arena in which people see any comparison.

On the modern desktop, speed is much harder to notice.

Re:Here's the question: - (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169245)

Will Joe Public be in position to notice them? The new engine might be indeed faster but I wonder whether an ordinary user will see a difference.

Who cares about Joe Public? This is just a simple update that happens to have a ton of changes, and they're only shifting the version to 3.5 for the sake of nerdy symbolism. Joe Public doesn't care. We don't need flashy new features to attract uninformed people to an automatic update... because... well... it's automatic.

Re:Here's the question: - (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169901)

Probably with respect to Javascript performance. A lot of people notice slow performance in javascript heavy websites like Facebook, Yahoo! Mail's beta AJAX interface, etc. If they see a dramatic speedup, they will notice even if they do not know why.

New location bar? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168123)

What's the new location bar? Is it something like the old location bar, aka the UnAwesomeBar? I'm pretty much sick to death of the awesomeness of the present location bar, what with Slashdot being listed as "Server 500: Internal Error" in the dropdown because about 4 months ago I got a 500 error message?

More importantly, have the Firefox devs realised that downloads can fail yet? Or does it still report downloads as successful if they are interrupted before they reach Content-Length bytes, or how about reporting as successful because they successfully downloaded a 404 error page? Supporting incomplete standards and reimplementing an already existing feature is all well and good, but reaching version "3.5" of a web browser without having the most rudimentary capability of detecting a failed download is nothing short of obscene.

Re:New location bar? (3, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168365)

I'm pretty much sick to death of the awesomeness of the present location bar, what with Slashdot being listed as "Server 500: Internal Error" in the dropdown because about 4 months ago I got a 500 error message?

F*** yes.

And having "sl" pull up "slashdot.org", followed by half a dozen unrelated sites that happen to have "sl" in their name, followed by the site that I was looking for that actually starts with "sl" but is "below the fold" because it's not awesome enough... really ticks me off. If I want to "search", I'll enter the name in the "search box". If I want to go to a website, I'll enter the site name in the location bar. I don't mind you searching titles as well, but list them below the URLs, OK?

Re:New location bar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169819)

What are you talking about? If you want to just type the address, the awesome bar won't get in your way. The suggestions below don't steal focus, so just keep doing your thing. If, in fact, you want to go to slashdot, and you think it would be faster to hit the down arrow and enter than type the rest, do it.

I've heard complaints about the awesome bar regarding privacy, and I can understand that, but I don't understand your complaint.

Re:New location bar? (4, Insightful)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169855)

AwesomeBar is not search. AwesomeBar is made so you can make shortcuts that don't require you to enter the URL. It gets smarter over time. Just use it some.

I can't understand why people are so pissed over it, I love it. It really did change the way I use the browser.

Re:New location bar? (4, Informative)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169313)

What's the new location bar? Is it something like the old location bar, aka the UnAwesomeBar? I'm pretty much sick to death of the awesomeness of the present location bar, what with Slashdot being listed as "Server 500: Internal Error" in the dropdown because about 4 months ago I got a 500 error message?

Highlight in bar. Press delete.

Re:New location bar? (2, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169381)

Weirdly enough, that didn't work for me, on any of the installs I had.

No Preemptive Javascript In Firefox? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168179)

I thought Firefox was going to be implementing the same type of preemptive threading and memory protection that Chrome and, I think, IE 8 have?

So far the latest FF beta all seem horribly slow with multiple pages. The more tabs the worse the overall performance.

Also, the latest FF betas still have the awful performance rot where overall performance degrades over time as you continue to open and close tabs.

After using Chrome for a while it is hard to keep using FF when I've been able to keep Chrome open for a couple weeks and it still feels as lightning quick as it was when first started up.

Re:No Preemptive Javascript In Firefox? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168373)

FF isn't EVER going to have a pre-emptive threading and protected memory for tabs. Anyone who has taken a look at the stinking pile of shit that is the FF codebase can see that. It would require effectively rewriting the entire FF codebase from scratch. And if you were going to do that you might as well just go with Chrome that already has all of that fundamental work done and working incredibly well.

It is absolutely pathetic that Microsoft now has a browser that is the constant source of ridicule from open source users and developers that leaves their main browser technologically in the dust.

Chrome - pre-emptive threading and memory protection for tabs
IE 8 - pre-emptive threading and memory protection for tabs
Firefox - monolithic address space and all tabs are part of the same thread

Absolutely embarrassing.

What that means is Firefox will forever be riddled with memory and resource leaks over time as each tab gets opened and close leaving crap behind. And as more and more websites become more application like the lack of pre-emptive Javascript for Firefox is just going to become more and more painful. With Chrome and IE 8 you can have massive numbers of tabs with huge amounts of Javascript in each one and every single tab and the overall browser UI will remain lightning quick.

Re:No Preemptive Javascript In Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169109)

You could say essentially the same thing about Linux. It's an ancient monolothic design, implementing a still-more-ancient system. Its I/O scheduling is still completely fucked up, making it just painful to use as a desktop. But like Windows, it's popular because it's popular. It lacks all the cool security features and other possibilities available to microkernels, and yet its performance still sucks. Because -- surprise! -- losing a few CPU cycles to IPC doesn't matter so much these days (and see L4 for super-fast IPC), not nearly as much as properly sharing resources. Which Linux totally sucks at.

Re:No Preemptive Javascript In Firefox? (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170077)

You could say essentially the same thing about Linux. It's an ancient monolothic design, implementing a still-more-ancient system. Its I/O scheduling is still completely fucked up, making it just painful to use as a desktop. But like Windows, it's popular because it's popular.

I don't think your comparison is all that apt, but if we go by it, there's still a crucial difference between it and the situation with browsers, and it is that there are mainstream browsers other than Firefox now that offer, or are soon going to offer, multi-process tabbed browsing. Also, the true benefit isn't performance, it's stability. Let Flash or Adobe Reader slow down or even crash or hang, it will only bring down that single tab it runs in...

Should be obvious why FF devs use to flame people (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168575)

Everyone remembers FF devs flaming people in those FF memory leak stories from a few years ago. The anger comes from the fact they know they have a huge problem with the way FF is architected. Lashing out is a very common reaction from developers who are aware of some fundamental problem with their code that they know would require massive amounts of work they are unable or unwilling to fix.

The FF devs got away with it because they were compared to the horrible mess that IE was back then. Now IE has really gotten its shit together now with it great leaps forward with javascript performance, threading, and memory protection.

With Chrome and its incredibly clean and modern code base and extensions soon to arrive and the Linux version rapidly maturing, the only reason to keep using FF will be misplaced lingering fanboyism from the "IE sucks! I use FF so I'm cool" days.

Re:Should be obvious why FF devs use to flame peop (1, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169517)

Only when Google decides to shoot its revenue foot and release adblock, I might consider Chrome.

Firefox by itself - I'd be grateful if they scaled back. Do you remember the origin? There was this bloated hog called Mozilla Suite, and there was this little-known neglected wild branch called Phoenix, which was meant to be the Mozilla engine with a minimalistic, customizable frontend - cut on all the bloat.

And suddenly people switched en masse to the small, lean "just a browser" thingy while the monstrosity died.

Now Firefox becomes the new monstrosity full of bloat. It really needs another "phoenix branch" - something that will take all the lean mean backend stuff and do away with "awesome bars", "intelligent bookmarks" and all this cruft people don't give a shit about, and move it ALL to extensions, from which you'd take what you like while not being encumbered by all the rest.

Re:Should be obvious why FF devs use to flame peop (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170025)

The initial goal of the Firefox project was to create a user oriented browser. Making it small was a side goal, but it was never a primary goal for the people involved.

Re:Should be obvious why FF devs use to flame peop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169767)

the only reason to keep using FF will be misplaced lingering fanboyism from the "IE sucks! I use FF so I'm cool" days.

that, or the wealth of useful add-ons that makes FF more useful than the others you listed, esp Chrome.

Firefox memory problems were fixed (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169773)

The Firefox devs got away with it by fixing their memory problems. They made Firefox use less memory than other browsers [arstechnica.com] . What was it they were unable or unwilling to fix again?

Version Numbers (2, Interesting)

blincoln (592401) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168209)

I know there is a tendency among some people to think of version numbers as decimal, since they use decimal points. I know I did when I was younger.

It's kind of annoying when major projects make this mistake though. It leads to all sorts of confusion when people see results like version 3.1.150 being after 3.1.50 and don't know why that's the case (".5 is more than .15!", which in the case of the Firefox release mentioned in TFS would be accurate, but in the case of properly-numbered software wouldn't), or other people truncate 3.1.50 to 3.1.5.

I wish major projects at least would use the traditional "increment by one" method. If it can be done for the X-Men 2.1 DVD (after nerds no doubt complained about the "X-Men 1.5" DVD), it can be done for Firefox et al too :).

Re:Version Numbers (2, Interesting)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168379)

Well, I understand your position but no system is perfect.

Example:

You release the game "Dungeon Plunderers" and you give it the version number 1.0 at release and increment(to 1.01 or 1.1, whatever is the liking) when releasing updates.

Now you release the sequel "Dungeon Plunderers 2", what should its version number be? 1.0? 2.0? Both things could be argued for. 1.0 because of the fact that it has no direct software connection with "Dungeon Plunderers 1" and may use things like a new graphics engine or even a total overhaul of the playstyle. 2.0 can also be argued for since you are talking about "Dungeon Plunders 2" and not the first game and naming it 1.0 can create a lot of confusion.

Every numbering system has its pros and cons and as long as the system is consistent and there is some sort of clear indication what version you are talking about (like the difference between 1.0 and 1.00) I personally think it shouldn't be that much of problem.

Re:Version Numbers (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168519)

This is why I like Ubuntu's method of using sequential letters. I can never remember the version number, but if anyone asks me what version I use, I just say Intrepid Ibex.

Re:Version Numbers (1)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169959)

I think I'm missing something. I see 3.1b3 in my about box. Not 3.1.150. When 3.5 comes out, that's a higher number than any of the 3.1x versions. No confusion.

what the hell (-1, Offtopic)

mewshi_nya (1394329) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168241)

a) it's been out for a while now.
b) it is DEFINITELY going to become 3.5. I submitted a story about the decision on Tuesday; apparently, they really are *that* damn far behind...

Anyway. Carry on, gentlemen

Re:what the hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168859)

Right you are. The decision to change version numbers was made in a meeting last Friday, and it was already pretty much a sealed deal going in.

HTML 5 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168243)

<BLINK> is back!

Re:HTML 5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168709)

<BLINK> is back!
NNN . . . NOO . . . OOO . . . Ooo . . . ooo . . . ooo . . . ooo . . . oo! . . . !!!

Re:HTML 5 (3, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169209)

I think you meant <blink>NNN . . . NOO . . . OOO . . . Ooo . . . ooo . . . ooo . . . ooo . . . oo! . . . !!!</blink>!

Javascript performance improvements for *nix (3, Insightful)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168347)

I'm looking forward to them resolving the bit where the *nix Firefox builds performed slower than the win32 builds, supposedly due to Profile Guided Optimizations in javascript:

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-firefox-javascript-linux-and-windows-and-its-not-pretty [tuxradar.com]

definitely feels faster, but ... (1)

Frag-A-Muffin (5490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168391)

I just downloaded and am using it now .. it definitely feels faster, however, will it crash less on a Mac? :(

I love firefox, and I use it everywhere, but man, is it awful on a Mac.

Please don't flame, just an honest opinion from a long time firefox user/supporter/evangelist.

Re:definitely feels faster, but ... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168653)

I love firefox, and I use it everywhere, but man, is it awful on a Mac.

Really? What sort of bad? I use it on all four Macs of various ages and abilities at home. The only problem I've noted was that stupid Flash 9 would lock the system after a couple of hours. Flash 10 works fine (well, as well as Flash ever works...)

The "Awesome Bar" should be renamed the "Awful Bar", but that's apparently a feature, not a bug.

Re:definitely feels faster, but ... (1)

Frag-A-Muffin (5490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168877)

Really? What sort of bad? I use it on all four Macs of various ages and abilities at home. The only problem I've noted was that stupid Flash 9 would lock the system after a couple of hours. Flash 10 works fine (well, as well as Flash ever works...)

Like after a day or so of usage, it just decides to not render pages properly (not just little minor things, but complete failure to fetch/load CSS files etc). I have to quit and reload it, and even then, I have to sometimes force quit it because it won't respond to the apple-q. I know it's not just me, because a friend of mine sees the exact same behaviour. He's moved to Safari. I prefer to have the same browser on all my platforms (mac/linux) with the same 2 add-ons (flashblock, web developer) for consistency when developing.

On my linux laptop, (or even linux in vmware on my mac) I can leave it running for days and days and it never seems to behave badly at all.

Re:definitely feels faster, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169043)

Like after a day or so of usage, it just decides to not render pages properly (not just little minor things, but complete failure to fetch/load CSS files etc).

Glad I'm not on crack. I've seen this ever since "upgrading" from FF1 to FF3. Page loads, 99% of the images load, and the remaining two or three just sit there, HTTP connections open, forever. Hitting F5 to reload doesn't fix it - you have to break the HTTP connection and forcibly restart it to attempt to reload the image. Even that doesn't always work. WTF?

(And yeah, chalk up another brickbat for the Awfulbar. Spent the better part of the first day disabling it to restore most of the old bar's functionality. I remember URLs, not "title" elements. Please, for the love of Dobbs, if you're not going to back out this monstrosity, at least give users the option to ignore the title element while "searching" the URL history. The web is not AOL, and some of us do not navigate by keywords.

Re:definitely feels faster, but ... (2, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169351)

(And yeah, chalk up another brickbat for the Awfulbar. Spent the better part of the first day disabling it to restore most of the old bar's functionality. I remember URLs, not "title" elements. Please, for the love of Dobbs, if you're not going to back out this monstrosity, at least give users the option to ignore the title element while "searching" the URL history. The web is not AOL, and some of us do not navigate by keywords.

You're probably in the minority on this one. Firefox is targeting normal people, not nerds, and normal folks don't remember URLs particularly well.

Re:definitely feels faster, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169249)

Same behavior here. Thanks for reminding me to look it up in Bugzilla.

Re:definitely feels faster, but ... (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169445)

Man, and here I was thinking the awesome bar was pretty awesome, letting me find old links and such without having to remember exactly the google incantations I used. Thanks for setting me straight on that!

Re:definitely feels faster, but ... (2)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168887)

Firefox 3.X being awful on a Mac is an understatement ... when running OSX 10.3.9

Official release will be around 2pm PDT today (5, Informative)

feelafel (228034) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168397)

Hey everyone - glad you're excited about the new beta, we're pretty excited to release it. We actually haven't finished the QA on the download page, the update snippets, etc, yet. What you're seeing here is that last night we started sending out the final bits to our mirror network. So yes, you could go get it directly off the FTP servers, but that can overload mirrors and make it hard for other people to download it.

We'd prefer if you waited a few hours until about 2pm PDT when we'll be ready to update:

http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/all-beta.html [mozilla.com]

which uses our mirror-rotation script to ease the load of downloads.

Mike Beltzner
Director of Firefox Development

Re:Official release will be around 2pm PDT today (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168461)

Mod up! I can wait a few hours for the awesomeness.

Re:Official release will be around 2pm PDT today (2, Funny)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168497)

PDT - is that Pre-Download Tension?

I'm sure it's building up here. Some geeks might have to take the afternoon off work because of it.

Re:Official release will be around 2pm PDT today (2, Informative)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168669)

Pacific Daylight time. This is 5 pm Eastern Daylight time for those of us on the wrong coast.

Re:Official release will be around 2pm PDT today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168941)

Whoosh!

Hey Mark, How's It Feel To Be Humiliated By MS? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168747)

Not feeling so smug anymore are you Firefox devs?

You had years to get your shit together and fix the stinking pile of shit that is the Firefox code base. Instead you clowns sat around in forums running your mouths off and flaming anyone who dared complain about the absurd resource leak and performance rot problems with Firefox.

So while you sat on your asses, Microsoft has gotten their shit together and Google has come out with a technological masterpiece with Chrome.

So now both Chrome and IE 8 have modern preemptively threaded and memory protected tab architectures and Firefox is the same stinking pile of monolithic shit it was years ago. One tab crashes, everything goes down. One tab sucking up performance, the entire UI degrades in performance, one tab leaves behind leftover memory and other resources and it never goes away until you quit the entire app.

Congrats retards!

Why don't you dimwits go grab the Chrome source and see how a modern browser is written. Dump the piece of shit Gecko layout engine that no one but you wants. And learn how a modern app implements threading and memory protection.

Don't worry, the Google guys working on Chrome are very friendly and will help you out with the hard to understand bits you Firefox devs obviously are too incompetent to handle.

Re:Hey Mark, How's It Feel To Be Humiliated By MS? (1)

Evanisincontrol (830057) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168803)

Sounds like someone got a little upset when they had their patch rejected by the Firefox dev team. :-(

Good Boy Evan! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168915)

Aww, look at teh liddle Firefox fanboy! Jumping in to defend his precious turd of a browser!

Good boy Evan! Good boy!

Re:Hey Mark, How's It Feel To Be Humiliated By MS? (1)

RebelWebmaster (628941) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169281)

Particularly funny since there's a pretty nice-size contingent of ex-Firefox developers on the Chrome team.

Bzzzt! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169711)

Bzzzt! Wrong.

Re:Bzzzt! (3, Informative)

RebelWebmaster (628941) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169997)

uh...looking at the Google Chrome team page [niallkennedy.com] , I can immediately pick out the following people as being ex-Mozilla employees or contributors: Ben Goodger, Darin Fisher, Brett Wilson, Peter Kasting, Mike Pinkerton, Jonathan Haas, Pam Greene, Jungshik Shin I'm sure there are more that I'm not aware of, but those are all certain.

Re:Hey Mark, How's It Feel To Be Humiliated By MS? (1)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169707)

HAHAHAHA ok the fact that you had to hide who you are means this rant is useless, and you have nothing better to do with your time then wine from behind a computer screen, or you just like to say crap and start a fight. I want to see some of your work send us some your own code for anything you have written. Im not defending anyone MS, FireFox, chrome. I just want to see if you have talent to write code or just run your mouth..

Re:Official release will be around 2pm PDT today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169125)

This is something I wish there was more of.. official acknowledgement from the developer on sites like Slashdot of a story.. so often you see "posting anon as I'm involved in the project" Really shows the dif between Mozilla and Commercial entities like some of your competitors.

Anyways, Kudo's, looking forward to the final build.

AC

Re:Official release will be around 2pm PDT today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169127)

Mike Beltzner
Director of Firefox Development

Hi Mike, any idea when Firefox will implement the multiple process stuff found in Chrome?

Google are going to destroy Firefox unless this happens pretty sharpish.

Also, 'PDT' means nothing to people outside the US. Use GMT/UTC in future. Thanks.

Mmm, bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168479)

So after shoving a freaking DATABASE into Firefox 2, they're now adding a freaking VIDEO playback feature?!

Sorry, but first off, Firefox has supported video - well, since it existed. It's called a PLUGIN. That means that if I don't want it, I can not install it and save myself the bloat. No more.

Secondly, video?! From a web browser?!! I want something that can browse the web, I don't want Firefox to pretend it's freaking iTunes. If I want video playback, I'll install Flash. At least that will actually work with video on the web, rather than the bloated and useless Theora crap they're dumping into the browser.

On the upside, it's nice to see Firefox is finally supporting JSON. I was unaware that eval() didn't work in Firefox. Right, I know, "security." Except that you're already limited to loading JSON from the original domain, and if the original domain is serving up malicious script as JSON, you're already hosed.

Re:Mmm, bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168739)

the video tag is part of html5, it will have to be supported by all browsers with video capability someday.

Anyone can step up to the plate (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168987)

You do have a good point. There has been talk about supporting additional image formats (JPEG 2000, TIFF, MNG) using imagelib extensions [mozilla.org] . They could do the same for different video codecs, as well.

I notice that Firefox is an open source project, so all it takes is someone to come forward to do the work. I also notice that the Google Summer of Code [google.com] will be starting over the next several months. Are there any students out the that want to make some extra $$$, get great software development experience, and add a significant new capability to one of the most popular browsers?

Re:Mmm, bloat (5, Informative)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169257)

>So after shoving a freaking DATABASE into Firefox 2,

yes, a db that is under a quarter of a MB. It is vastly superior (with regards to interoperability, speed, flexibility, and scaling) to the poorly documented, brain-damaged Mork history format they where using, and it much more powerful and useful than flat html file that was used for bookmarks.

>they're now adding a freaking VIDEO playback feature?!

Yes. The web is a different place than it was even 5 years ago. Video is the norm, and once the video tag takes off, this will be very valuable to most users. Those that may not need or want video are probably smart enough to find a different browser that is more suitable to their needs.

>On the upside, it's nice to see Firefox is finally supporting JSON.

JSON has been supported in FF since 3.0. FF 3.1 drops JSON.jsm for native JSON. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JSON [mozilla.org]

Re:Mmm, bloat (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169585)

the poorly documented, brain-damaged Mork history format

Let me clarify something: it's not brain-damaged; it's braindead. Even the original author claims as much (specifically, it's the "zany" serialization it used to use)!

Re:Mmm, bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169427)

And when will they move the image decoding stuff out of the browser? JPEGs and PNGs should be handled by a plugin too. And CSS.

More seriously: anywhere you draw the line, is arbitrary. Counterpoint: If video is part of HTML, then a program that claims to display HTML should be able to play video.

Wait (1)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168547)

Why is it that every time a new version of Firefox comes out, we need to have a news story about it? Same with any other browser, but at this point it seems like the nightly builds are being posted about. It's getting ridiculous.

Ogg Video Codec Builtin Support (4, Interesting)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168663)

Finally..finally!

Now I think I an transcode my snapshot video footage into a format that I don't have to worry about for ...at next 5-10 years.

Seriously do we need mroe features? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168885)

Will they keep adding crap in that has remote relevance in order to make their product appear fresh until the whole thing (which already is a pretty good resource hog) balloons and becomes as slow as old IE?

Do I need a location bar? WTF is it anyway?

The feature I want... (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169097)

Here's the feature I want: bug fixes! Everytime I turn around there's a new Firefox packed full of new features I don't need. I wondering how rock solid it could be if they spent half that energy on fixing bugs. No new features until the bug queue is empty!

PPL still use FF? (0, Flamebait)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169525)

1. Speed: Slowest browser on the planet.
2. Reliability: 1 tab crashes, they all crash -- and they will crash, guaranteed.
3. Coolness: FF is like a fat girl or a moped ... fun to ride until your friends see you on one.

I do like the massive plugin support, themes and such, but eye candy doesn't make up for the reasons I don't use FF anymore. I'm using Chrome right now, and on my work PC I am stuck with Windows, but I was able to get IE8, which seems (very subjectively) more robust to me.

Its a web browser, not the holy grail of computing. Its no more important, in the big picture, than an IM client.

Yep, I fully expect to be modded down for stating my sure to be very unpopular opinion here.

Re:PPL still use FF? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169687)

Yep, I fully expect to be modded down for stating my sure to be very unpopular opinion here.

I believe you mean your very unpopular, entirely off-topic opinion here. Yes, it's true! Trolling about Chrome on a story about Firefox's latest beta is, in fact, off-topic.

Re:PPL still use FF? (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169793)

Hmm. My experience seems to be a bit different than yours. I find firefox to be fast and solid. Maybe Chrome has improved since it was first released, but a dozen people here installed it on release date, and dumped it within two days because it was unusable. Besides, it's apparently Windows only? That's what Google tells me at least.

A big reason to use firefox for me is that it runs on Windows, Linux, and Solaris, without issue.

"Its a web browser, not the holy grail of computing. Its no more important, in the big picture, than an IM client."

Yes and no. It's definitely not the holy grail of computing. However, the web has become SO central to the internet (and in fact, computing in general) that it is actually more important than an IM client (or an FTP client, or...).

To be fair, I've not looked at ff3.1(5) yet, nor IE8. Sometime after they've hit final release, I'll be interested. Advertising betas just seems silly, even for /..

64bit binaries? (1)

Nicopa (87617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169595)

Couldn't they provide 64bit binaries? That would be very useful, at least to me...

Something wrong with Firefox/Linux (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169603)

I use Firefox on Linux as my primary browser. I'm having a huge problem with random slowdowns, however. It seems to be fairly random, exacerbated when multiple tabs are open, and possibly related to Flash. When the slowdowns start occuring Firefox will start eating 99% of CPU and become unresponsive. A strace will show dozens of gettimeofday() calls every second.

A google search for "firefox getttimeofday" will show many people with similar problems.

This is on CentOS 5.2 with the latest packaged firefox...

Anyone seeing similar problems?

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>