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 Beta Scores 93 On Acid3 Test

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the scored-worse-on-meth2-test dept.

Mozilla 282

CodeShark writes "Mozilla released their latest Firefox 3.X beta today (3.5b4), and increased their score on the Acid 3 test to 93 [on my XP laptop], with tests 70, 71, and tests 75-79 being the final challenges. Curiously though, the current release of the top Acid3 performer — Safari — still not only rates higher (I got scores of 99 once and 100 most of the time) but is usually faster by a little (1.1 sec avg. vs. 1.4 over ten runs apiece) but only because the new Firefox beta was all over the map — frequently better by 25% (.85sec) or tanking badly with rendering times in the 2.5 — 3 second range, and both suffer performance hits on one test (#69)."

cancel ×

282 comments

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

Firefucks is the Best (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27771711)

I love firefucks, even though they sometimes leave a mess on my carpet.

Fucking on the ground like an animal - it does a body good.

Umm... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27771725)

Frankly, that's not good enough.

Re:Umm... (1, Flamebait)

mftb (1522365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772277)

Make something better then.

yeeeeh!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27771741)

The world will never be the same again

Improvment at a cost. (0)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771743)

That is good but in the latest b4 they have disabled closing the windows by middleclicking the last tab, it now defaults to noop.

Now if we can just get IE to follow the real standards then website building will no longer be a task for the damned.

middle clicking to close last tab (1)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772133)

"That is good but in the latest b4 they have disabled closing the windows by middleclicking the last tab, it now defaults to noop"

FF 3.5b4 seem to work here for middle clicking to close last tab. Does anyone else have the same problem?

Re:middle clicking to close last tab (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772141)

Middle clicking to close tabs works fine here as well... which is a good thing, because i've disabled the close button :D

Re:middle clicking to close last tab (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772405)

Just open a new browser so you only have 1 tab. Now middle click on that tab. Pre b4 that would close that instance of FF. Now it does nothing (assuming you have "browser.tabs.closeWindowWithLastTab" set to true)

Re:middle clicking to close last tab (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772461)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=486393 [mozilla.org] (one of the bug reports. there are several (open and closed) if you search for closeWindowWithLastTab in bugzilla.

Wow - I never new you could do that (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772167)

I just tried it!

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone

Meh. (3, Interesting)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771747)

This should be news when FF3.5 gets to RC or final release status.

Re:Meh. (2, Informative)

orsty3001 (1377575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771891)

Didn't Google Chrome 2.0.176.0 get a 100/100, and Opera 10.0? Why do we care if something got a lower score?

Acid tests are not a race (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772079)

Because the Acid tests are not a race. It will be big news when IE reaches a score in the 80s, even if all other browsers score 100/100. This is because it will be much easier for web developers to develop interactive applications that work in all browsers when web developers don't need to bend over backwards to get their sites to work in IE. With the Acid tests, it's the browser in last place that's important, not which one is in first place.

Re:Acid tests are not a race (5, Funny)

orsty3001 (1377575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772465)

So it's kind of like the Special Olympics.

Re:Meh. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772177)

Not Google Chrome anyway

Because we run Linux (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772237)

Didn't Google Chrome 2.0.176.0 get a 100/100, and Opera 10.0? Why do we care

$ apt-get install chrome
fail
$ apt-get install opera
fail
$ apt-get install firefox
You win an intarnets

Re:Because we run Linux (4, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772261)

Your package manager not having much software in it does not make your browser better. Only your package database worse.

Re:Because we run Linux (2)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772641)

Not only that but Opera provide a repository for Ubuntu anyway. So not having Opera available is just poor config.

Re:Meh. (2, Interesting)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771895)

Agreed. Yesterdays 3.6a1pre scores 94/100 btw.

96/100 with svg.smil.enabled set to true (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771993)

Firefox 3.6 builds score 96/100 when you set the preference svg.smil.enabled to true because tests 75 and 76 require SMIL in SVG. You can find the four tests that Firefox 3.6 still doesn't pass on the Acid3 spreadsheet [google.com] .

Why the variation? (3, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771753)

Presumably the test should take about the same time to run each time, right?

Also, how can Safari's score change from 99 to 100 without any changes in the code? Is this a bug in Safari?

Garbage collection (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772135)

Presumably the test should take about the same time to run each time, right?

One of the 100 tests is JavaScript garbage collection. A garbage collector that uses tracing without reference counting isn't necessarily guaranteed to finish in a given amount of time.

Re:Why the variation? (5, Informative)

auzy (680819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772241)

One of the tests is related to rendering speed (#69) not design faults. That's because it wants the test to be completed fast enough to achieve 30fps.

Under system load, or browser load (such as extra stuff being done in the rendering thread whilst the test is running), a browser may not always pass this test. Whilst its an OK test, there will be no way to reliably pass it 100% of the time, and as CPU's become faster and more efficient, its likely browsers will pass eventually regardless of if they optimise their code or not.

Its also one example of why the ACID tests are quite overrated.

Re:Why the variation? (1)

newell98 (539530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772515)

I believe the test actually decreases the allowed time to complete over time. The base test was designed to pass on reasonably optimized code on a top-of-the line MacBook Pro. So yes, running the test on this years high-end computer will pass, but that doesen't mean the test will pass in 2-3 years time.

Re:Why the variation? (1)

jonnyt886 (1252670) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772427)

If you have any caching proxies on your network or your ISP has any transparent caches (many do nowadays), that might affect things.

Also, has the Acid3 site been slashdotted? :)

Re:Why the variation? (1)

ArcticCheetah (1537823) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772513)

I won't be surprise to find a large chunk of Safari Code is just to pass this silly test. Come on 20+MB for a web browser?

Opera 10 as well (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27771755)

Opera 10alpha is also a 100/100 on the acid 3 since dec 12, 2008

http://www.opera.com/docs/history/

Re:Opera 10 as well (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27771889)

That's because Opera rocks your fucking socks.

Too bad I mainly use it as my porn browser - though I guess that's where a good web browser is most useful...

Re:Opera 10 as well (1)

MasseKid (1294554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772081)

Only if you want a secure browser with mouse gestures and if you think passing the acid test is a good thing.

Previous tests (2, Interesting)

Rolgar (556636) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771767)

How does it rate on Acid 1 & 2, and have the other browsers worked on reaching 100% on the previous tests also, or did they give up on previous tests when the next one was released?

Acid2 already looks fine in Fx 3.0.10 (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771857)

How does it rate on Acid 1 & 2, and have the other browsers worked on reaching 100% on the previous tests also, or did they give up on previous tests when the next one was released?

Acid2 already looks fine in the latest general release version of Mozilla Firefox.

Re:Acid2 already looks fine in Fx 3.0.10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772019)

You have a different definition of "fine" than I do, then, since in my Firefox 3.0.10, the smiley is missing its eyes and has a red box over them instead.

Close, but not quite there yet.

Might slashdottings affect Acid2 results? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772249)

You have a different definition of "fine" than I do, then, since in my Firefox 3.0.10, the smiley is missing its eyes and has a red box over them instead.

Apparently the Acid2 on webstandards.org [webstandards.org] Acid2 on acidtests.org [acidtests.org] behave differently. Acid2 on webstandards.org renders instantly, but Acid2 on acidtests.org has a red box until the "Connecting to damowmow.com"/"Waiting for damowmow.com" disappears from the status bar, and then the red box is replaced with eyes. But given the slow response time and intermittent timeouts of the version on acidtests.org today, I think acidtests.org might be slashdotted.

Re:Acid2 already looks fine in Fx 3.0.10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772481)

You're obviously running NoScript, or some other filtering extensions. Either disable the extension or add an exception for the content referenced by the Acid2 test page. After you do that Firefox will pass just fine.

And in the future, how about you spend a few seconds checking your test environment rather than assuming the fault lies elsewhere?

Just fix FF's stability damnit (3, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771795)

I find the new versions of firefox are far less stable when it comes to AJAX sites. It appears to be getting better, but I just want th crashes to stop.

Re:Just fix FF's stability damnit (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771875)

I find the new versions of firefox are far less stable when it comes to AJAX sites.

Do AJAX sites still crash Firefox 3.0.x when you create a new profile with no add-ons? If not, you might want to try helping the Firefox team by finding which add-on causes crashes.

Re:Just fix FF's stability damnit (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772051)

What do you mean firefox is crashing? It is perfectly sta

Re:Just fix FF's stability damnit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772383)

My coworker has the constant random crashing issue too. Yes, he removed all traces of Firefox on his machine and reinstalled a fresh copy with no luck. It happens to me too, but not nearly as often.

Doesn't really help to file a bug report ("Firefox crashes all the time!") but with no way to reproduce it.

Re:Just fix FF's stability damnit (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772777)

Yes, he removed all traces of Firefox on his machine and reinstalled a fresh copy with no luck.

When you uninstall a program, the uninstaller might not remove your profile, which may contain valuable data such as your bookmarks, and the reinstallation may find the same profile from the previous installation.

Doesn't really help to file a bug report ("Firefox crashes all the time!") but with no way to reproduce it.

Can you compile a list of the sites on which it has crashed most often? Or is it a different site each time? Do they all use the same plug-in (e.g. Adobe Flash Player, Java, QuickTime)?

FF and AJAX sites (1)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772005)

"I find the new versions of firefox are far less stable when it comes to AJAX sites. It appears to be getting better, but I just want th crashes to stop

What sites exactly?

Theory, or practice? (1)

madamkistulot (1470995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771797)

Even if firefox is slower than safari, or not as acidic (is that how you'd say it?) safari has so many basic problems its not even funny, beta4 and 3. Even if firefox was 25% below, and rendered twice as slowly, the fact that you could trust it to load any page you needed it to as compared to safari's "maybe!" policy... Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to pretend not to be biased here. I know I love firefox a lot and am sort of anti-apple in some ways. But I think safari's constant website-compatibility issues that - acid or not - are ongoing is nothing to ignore.

Re:Theory, or practice? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772355)

So, which pages is it safari can't load then?

Re:Theory, or practice? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772743)

What sites don't load in Safari? You could send the list over to the Webkit team... I haven't run across any myself.

voluntary (on both sides) border closings (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27771813)

it might help. why let greed (airlines, etc...) decide the fate of so many millions of souls, again?

Safari and Chrome bound to get better? (5, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771823)

First of all, I'm not trolling.

Secondly, Firefox is my favourite browser, and I use it as my default both at work on my Windows workstation and at home on my Mac.

Having said that, with two corporate giants with deep pockets, and their respective browsers making solid improvements with every version, I'm wondering if it's just a matter of time before Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome become better than Firefox, which is essentially a community effort. That's not to say anything bad about the excellent work that Mozilla's programmers have done with Firefox, but they're doing so by drawing on fewer resources than those two large corporations.

Granted, Microsoft also has a lot of resources to draw from, but they also let IE stagnate because they thought they had a browser monopoly.

Re:Safari and Chrome bound to get better? (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771925)

Firefox is "essentially a community effort" with tens of millions of dollars of income.

I'm not sure that being able to pay dozens of developers is enough to keep up, but it probably helps.

Re:Safari and Chrome bound to get better? (0, Flamebait)

skeletor935 (790212) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772101)

Firefox is the slowest browser I've ever used and just sits there consuming more and more memory. Safari(for mac) and Chrome (for windows) are so much faster and lighter that I can't stand firefox.

Re:Safari and Chrome bound to get better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772267)

word. At work, I use chrome except for times I need firebug or adblock. At home, I only use firefox if I need tor button or (occasionally) firebug.

Safari and chrome both feel lightweight and snappy.

Re:Safari and Chrome bound to get better? (4, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772353)

I'm wondering if it's just a matter of time before Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome become better than Firefox

I use Firefox as my default browser too. I used to love it, now I tolerate it. Were adblock and flashblock available for Safari or Chrome (and I believe this is in development for Chrome), and were Chrome available as a Mac version, I would stop using Firefox overnight. Truth is as a basic browser these two are better already, as is IE.

Firefox is dangling by a hair on my machines. It is entirely their own fault. They have ignored fundamental problems with the browser since version 1.0, and spent far too much time developing "features" that should have been add-ons. It's never really worked well on a Mac either. There seems to be a lot of Netscape influence in Mozilla, this is exactly how Netscape failed

If Firefox 4.0 isn't multi-threaded and significantly stripped down, you can pretty much kiss it goodbye. This is a terrible shame. I want to continue to support it, however the Mozilla team is shooting itself in the foot far too much.

Re:Safari and Chrome bound to get better? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772381)

Huh?

WebKit: Open source project with large dollop of corporate funding.
Gecko: Open source project with large dollop of corporate funding.

What's the difference?

Re:Safari and Chrome bound to get better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772785)

Hype.

Re:Safari and Chrome bound to get better? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772717)

Well, to me, all this rendering "better" stuff does not matter anymore. Because I can't live without my extensions.

Any browser that does not offer me *all* my extensions, is not worth those milliseconds of speed improvement, and is doomed to not getting used here, And this includes being able to easily port my self-made ones.

I'm also not trolling, as I really *really* like proper browser implementations. (I was a web application developer [think "AJAX big time, before the term was coined"] for 5 years.)
I also like Opera very much and recommend it to everyone. Much cool stuff in Firefox comes from it anyway.

But still... no AdBlock Plus, no Greasemonkey, no configurable smooth scrolling, no gestures, no Firebug, no WebDev toolbar, no ColorPicker (with Palette generator), no TagSifter, no go! Sorry.

Re:Safari and Chrome bound to get better? (1)

bruthasj (175228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772737)

Google is supporting Firefox as well.

Ho hum, come back when they reach 100/100 (0, Flamebait)

kabloom (755503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771829)

Why is it at all interesting that an incomplete JS implementation has gotten less incomplete? Don't bother us until they reach 100%.

Does reaching 100% (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772027)

Don't bother us until they reach 100%.

One of the requirements is that the be able to render TrueType fonts. Correct rendering of Acid3 requires displaying a TrueType font called "Ahem". Unless an underlying graphical environment gives applications the privilege of installing arbitrary fonts into the display server, the application code has to do its own rendering. In any case, perfect rendering of TrueType fonts involves interpreting a hint bytecode, which is subject to a U.S. patent.[1] There is no evidence that Apple provides royalty-free licenses for general use in free software. FreeType 2 comes with an "auto-hinter" that does the patented part of TrueType in a different way that doesn't infringe, but its results aren't pixel-for-pixel identical to those of the TrueType spec.

The big question: Does correct rendering of Ahem in Acid3 require the patented parts of TrueType?

[1] Slashdot, Apple, W3C are headquartered in the United States, and the majority of the Web Standards Project's managers and members are in the United States. "Sucks to be you, American" is flamebait.

Re:Ho hum, come back when they reach 100/100 (1)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772097)

It is so interesting, because achieving 100/100 on Acid3 is extremely difficult and because you have no idea what you're talking about. Don't bother us until you know what Acid3 is 100%.

FYI, Acid3 is more than just "JS implementation"

PS: When was the last time you rolled out something that worked exactly as specified, exactly as expected and 100% of it was OK? Not even a typo in some text? Not even a missing pixel from an image? Did you also manage to roll out that product and give it away for free? Did it also end up being the second most used product of its kind in the world? Did it consist of tens of thousands of different things and they ALL had to interact with each in order for everything to work? I doubt you've managed all of these. In fact, I doubt you've managed to accomplish ANY of these, because if you did, you wouldn't be trolling on Slashdot.

PPS: The article says it's 93 but I see 94 on Acid3's Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] for Firefox 3.6a1pre.

Just block IE from your site. (-1, Offtopic)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771835)

I have a center - right web site http://www.treatyist.com./ [www.treatyist.com] Most of the left leaning folks on slashdot would probably puke at it but every web developer would like this: I block IE from using the site and redirect people to a page exhorting users to upgrade to a new browser. On that page I have links to download either Google Chrome or Firefox.

I did this because of all the CSS3 items available in Chrome (webkit) and FireFox (mozilla), like rounded corners, box shadows, and multicolumn text....and honestly, I don't use IE enough when developing to even know if the site is going to work.

I get like a trickle of hits, as I have no idea what I'm doing as far as advertising myself goes. But, I can tell how many people are getting bounced because of IE by looking at my stats for the block page and it seems more like only about a 1/3 of my hits are actually getting the IE bounce, rather than the 3/4s, if we were to believe the IE stats. I think this is an ok loss because it means I don't have to worry about IE stupid stuff, and, better still, I can start to roll out content using SVG.

I just wanted to share this because I would like to see Microsoft get on the stick. While we may love or hate Obama, we can at least all agree that IE sucks, and I'm hoping that I can convince other web site developers to block IE and redirect to a download page that explains why, and recommends users to move to FireFox or Chrome.

I'll see if I can't add a public stats page online so that everyone can see the stats for the site, and see how this IE blocking experiment works.

Re:Just block IE from your site. (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771885)

http://www.treatyist.com/ [treatyist.com] is the corrected working link. ( You had com./ )

Re:Just block IE from your site. (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771975)

1) Your link is bad.
2) Your site isn't all that sophisticated. Yet you can't handle IE traffic? 85% of all traffic?
3) Your site does accept advertising for IE. I had a nice flash animation for IE8. If that isn't ironic, I don't know what is.
4) Your site doesn't even render properly in Firefox. Your 'digg submit' button on this page http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/savetheearth.aspx [treatyist.com] hides behind the first table.
5) I love in your site how you have to scroll horizontally to see all the content.
6) And what the hell is with this page http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/comradeobamawoopspirates.aspx [treatyist.com] . I can't even CLICK on the scroll bars

So, if you are giving lectures on web design, stick it in your ear.

Re:Just block IE from your site. (1)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772329)

Yup... this [yfrog.com] is what your website looks like running in Firefox 3 at 1024x768 (only the status bar has been removed, the scroll bars should be visible, but they aren't, because of your awful design) on my Mac with the latest updates. The pot is calling the kettle back...

Re:Just block IE from your site. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772467)

The domain is treatyist.com but the headline reads "The Treatvist". At page load, part of the text is hidden and the only way to read it is selecting and dragging it, because he somehow managed to hide the scrollbars behind the background image. Using ASP to block Microsoft browsers is weird. And the childish content... I'm not going there.

Re:Just block IE from your site. (2, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771983)

I think that on balance users will see the perceived cost* of switching browser as much greater than the perceived cost of not viewing your site. That's not a criticism on your site, I'm just saying for anything short of Facebook they're not going to bother.

Why not detect if they're using IE and have a pop-up saying "Does this site look broken? Your browser does not properly support internet standards." and direct them to the appropriate explaination, list of browsers, etc. That gets the same message across without costing you any readership, and it removes the elitist connotations that "special browsers" seem to have.

* Emphasis on "perceived". I do find that users adapt to new browsers more easily than they think: my mother wound up easily switching from IE to a customised Firefox-lookalike when her broadband company's setup disk automatically installed it.

Firefox for users without a root password? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772473)

Why not detect if they're using IE and have a pop-up saying "Does this site look broken? Your browser does not properly support internet standards." and direct them to the appropriate explaination, list of browsers, etc.

I believe that's called End 6 [end6.org] .

That gets the same message across without costing you any readership

Except that portion of who browses the web on computers that they do not own. If you're a limited user, you may not have the privilege to modify C:\Windows or C:\Program Files or to run any program not in those folders [microsoft.com] . Limited users at home might be everybody but the head of the household; limited users at work might be everybody but executives and the IT department; limited users at a public library might be patrons.

Re:Firefox for users without a root password? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772685)

everybody but the head of the household

How very quaint...

Re:Just block IE from your site. (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772071)

Your site doesn't work in Firefox, either: http://schend.net/images/screenshots/treatvist_com.png [schend.net] You're probably in violation of Google's terms of use by obscuring their ad block, although I'm not 100% certain on that.

And the usability of it is GODAWFUL. Who decided it was a good idea to randomly swap copy on your homepage, thus moving its links all over the fucking place? "Oh that article looks interesting, let's click! ... Missed. Try again, click! ... Missed."

In short, maybe you shouldn't be such a snob about IE until you get your site working on at least *one* browser.

Re:Just block IE from your site. (1)

cjjjer (530715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772247)

Also a guy who bitches about MS and it's technology yet uses ASP.NET.

EPIC!!!

You might need a political dictionary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772713)

The term "center-right" refers to right-leaning moderates. Based on the content of your site, you are not even remotely center-right. In fact, I think that most objective people would classify you as right-wing, or possibly even fringe-right.

On a related note, why are the right-wingers trying to paint themselves as mainstream centrists these days? It's transparently disingenuous, and makes it seem like you're embarrassed of your own political ideology.

Opera 10 gets a 100 and it's only an alpha (0, Redundant)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771923)

Opera 10 got this done months ago. This isn't news until it gets 100 consistently.

Does this really matter? (0, Flamebait)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771949)

Don't get me wrong, standards compliance is important, but does anyone care that a firefox pre release is scoring better? Its not a full release so any of that could change, better or worse, plus as some people have pointed out there are already browsers doing better? Let me know when something actually happens.

Re:Does this really matter? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772001)

ACID3 doesn't really impact anything, nor does ACID2, as developers (that cater to the general market) still need to target some mix of Firefox 2 and IE 6/7 anyway.

Re:Does this really matter? (1)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772061)

That's an even bigger point, I was just talking about a beta of a browser doing better on the test, not the tests themselves, but I haven't heard of anyone having to switch a browser because it didn't pass an acid test...

Re:Does this really matter? (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772309)

I haven't heard of anyone having to switch a browser because it didn't pass an acid test...

You don't know any real geeks then.

Re:Does this really matter? (1)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772389)

Real geeks use text based browsing.

Re:Does this really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772493)

I didn't know you like ASCII pron.

Windows 9x is dead (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772605)

developers (that cater to the general market) still need to target some mix of Firefox 2 and IE 6/7 anyway.

I thought Firefox 2 autoupdated to Firefox 3 for everyone except users of old versions of Windows (98, Me) and Mac OS X (pre-Tiger). I also thought IE 6 autoupdated to IE 7 and now 8 for everyone except users of old versions of Windows (pre-XP). What portion of the general market runs Windows 9x again?

Just a random pet-peeve that came up here -- (2, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#27771969)

I hate when web developers use meta-redirect tags to make it impossible to use the back button to get to the previous page because it just sends you forward again. Sometimes you can hit back fast enough to race the redirect, but that's just silly -- I shouldn't have to fight against my software. At the very minimum, put a 3 second wait on it (with a link for the impatient) or, better yet, set a cookie so that if I revisit on the way back within a short period of time it won't redirect.

Another solution occurs to me on the browser-side, the browser could just not add pages that are redirected-to to the history. That would also preserve the intuitive function of the back button.

Sorry for the off-topic rant but it just bugs the shit out of me. Carry on ...

Re:Just a random pet-peeve that came up here -- (2, Informative)

RebelWebmaster (628941) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772013)

In the advanced options, under the general tab, you can have Firefox warn you about automatic redirects with an information bar instead of just going. Yeah, it's a bit of a workaround to the problem, but you may find it useful.

Re:Just a random pet-peeve that came up here -- (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772021)

Agreed. People who insist on this incredibly obnoxious behaviour should be beaten to within an inch of their lives.

Re:Just a random pet-peeve that came up here -- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772049)

Most browsers display a drop down on the back button that lets you choose which page in the history you want to go to. If not, there is a history menu item somewhere. Why don't you just skip over the last page and go to the one before it?

Re:Just a random pet-peeve that came up here -- (1)

JVolkman (771436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772067)

Assuming you're using Firefox, click the down arrow next to the "back" button and select the page you want.

Re:Just a random pet-peeve that came up here -- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772089)

Yeah Right! Do you not know how to right click on back button?

Re:Just a random pet-peeve that came up here -- (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772721)

Do you not know how to right click on back button?

For owners of some Apple brand notebook computers, right-clicking involves plugging in an external mouse.

Re:Just a random pet-peeve that came up here -- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772671)

I hate when web developers put a fucking useless 3 second (or more, especially on some download redirects, and I'm not talking about Rapidsharelike sites) redirect wait on pages when they could just redirect it immediately. As others have noted, there is a Back history, use it.

Really? (5, Interesting)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772059)

As I appear into my crystal ball, I see that Firefox 3.5 is released and still achieves 93/100. Wow, I'm a psychic!

Ffx 3.1/3.5 has been sitting at 93/100 for over 6 months, and the devs have stated *numerous* times that achieving 100/100 on Acid3 is NOT a priority for the 3.5 release, largely because implementing SVG fonts (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490/ [mozilla.org] ) for the purpose of passing those last few Acid3 tests is a much lower priority than other things they're working on (like javascript JIT). Why your summary of the 3.5b4 release focuses on something that literally hasn't changed in several beta releases is beyond me.

So, can we please move on now or are you going to switch to Safari because of that newfangled Youtube interface that implements SVG fonts? Oh sorry, I was looking into my crystal ball again and saw the web circa 2025.

Re:Really? (1)

palmerj3 (900866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772459)

Seriously, that news was so 3.1.15 pre-alpha!

Re:Really? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772569)

You know, it's kind of ironic that IE helped to ruin the web by supporting fancy new features over compliance and what is Firefox doing? Making Javascript faster instead of working on SVG fonts, a feature that we desperately need to get rid of stupid hacks like sIFR (which is still better than dynamically generated image headlines, whose text is not selectable.)

this looks like a bigger problem (4, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772119)

than just firefox...i tried it in Lynx and i cant get it to pass at all...

Firefox 3.6a1pre... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772149)

... gets a 94. Seems like SVG is the least of their worries.

We all take a performance hit on test 69 (3, Funny)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772153)

It's harder to concentrate with that particular feed back loop.

Re: Firefox Beta Score 93 On Acid3 Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772159)

And what in hell is this good new? Wake me up when it hits 100.

Got perfect score. (1)

alergia (1486805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772229)

I had a 100 score with 3.5beta4. Everytime I did the test and really fast.

Pixel-for-pixel rendering vs. console browsers? (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772285)

It struck me:

If your rendering is only correct if it matches pixel-for-pixel the benchmark rendering, does this mean that console browsers[1] can't be standards compliant? I'm no web developer; what's the exact significance of the Acid test? Surely you can offer the same ecmascript feature as everyone else, and ignore the css and have something that works?

[1] such as lynx, elinks, w3m-mode

Re:Pixel-for-pixel rendering vs. console browsers? (1)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772669)

Console browser can be standard compliant (HTML, perhaps ECMAScript). Just not CSS compliant. Acid3 test HTML, ECMASCript and CSS as the standards.

Re:Pixel-for-pixel rendering vs. console browsers? (1)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772757)

They can't comply with the standards of graphical web browsers, no.

About Safari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27772299)

Regarding how Apple works I won't be surprise if someone find the majority of the bloated code in Safari is just to get a 100 Acid Test Score.
Seriously how can a web browser be so big?

Very annoying change from Firefox 3.5b3 to b4 (1)

Is0m0rph (819726) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772327)

By default it changes the shutdown to clear all cookies. b3 I had clear history only, after the upgrade to b4 it wiped all the cookies out so I needed to log back in to everything. Very annoying, looking at the bug report for it I see some of the devs actually think this is fine to change those settings from b3 to b4 with no warning to users.

Re:Very annoying change from Firefox 3.5b3 to b4 (1)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772695)

They are beta. They are not for general consumption. If you have actually taken care to read the changelogs you will have see it.

Honestly it all comes down to the extensions (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772331)

I have no desire to ever use Safari. Why you ask? Sure it's incredibly compliant but what good is browsing the web without ad block?

I have no desire to ever go back to the days of ad cluttering up and slowing down websites. Sure there are those nifty little host edits that you can do in Safari to block some ads, but for the most part firefox wins out.

Until there is a robust adblock like program for Safari, firefox will always be my bread and butter.

EDIT: Almost spoke too soon, but I found a good adblock safari clone. I can't get it to work for some reason though http://pimpmysafari.com/plugins/adblock [pimpmysafari.com]

Re:Honestly it all comes down to the extensions (1)

zero-point-infinity (918349) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772775)

Privoxy [privoxy.org] works just fine for me. I rather prefer having a browser-independent ad blocking solution. It's one less feature to worry about when 'shopping' around for browsers and as someone who uses more than one browser it means only having to manage one filter list, not two or four or whatever.

93 on Xp, 91 on RHEL 5 (2, Informative)

anghelcovici (1177619) | more than 5 years ago | (#27772419)

I've just tested 3.5b4 on RHEL 5 and I get 91/100
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>