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 3.6 Alpha 1 Released

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the waiting-in-the-wings dept.

Mozilla 212

An anonymous reader writes with word of the release of the first alpha of Firefox 3.6, "intended for developers and testers only." "As with Firefox 3.5, there are improvements to the performance; pages render faster, and pages with JavaScript code run much faster with the new Tracemonkey engine. Although this Firefox version carries the code name 'Namoroka' Alpha 1, it is also currently referred to as Firefox.next. And like other Firefox Alphas, it does not bear the Firefox logo. This release uses the Gecko 1.9.2 engine and will likely include several interface improvements in later versions, such as new graphical tab-switching behavior, which was removed from 3.5 with Beta 2." Update: 08/09 03:54 GMT by T : Read more at InaTux.com.

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

No link (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998273)

What? Is it me or there is really no link just a teaser?

Re:No link (5, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998297)

Here [mozilla.org] .

Re:No link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998503)

This is not the correct link (it points to the nightly builds, and doesn't use mirrors). Please use the link from https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2009/08/07/firefox-3-6-alpha-1-now-available-for-download/

Re:No link (5, Informative)

lastomega7 (1060398) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998555)

Re:No link (0, Offtopic)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998923)

Thanks! Imaginary upvotes to you!

RTFA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998505)

Oh wait... I guess editors don't even do that!

Re:No link (1)

Briareos (21163) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998885)

Actually, it's a teaser for the upcoming dupe two days from now - with a link yet pointing to the mysterious future... ;)

np: Death Cab For Cutie - Styrofoam Plates (The Photo Album)

OK... (3, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998277)

And like other Firefox Alphas, it does not bear the Firefox logo.

Um... yay?

Re:OK... (3, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999657)

Manbearfox.

Gotta Love Slashdot Linking (1, Interesting)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998291)

Getting the code right to link to something on Slashdot is so hard not even the editors can get it. Maybe that's a sign of something.

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot Linking (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998375)

> Maybe that's a sign of something.

Please, get the idea! That link needs Firefox >= 3.6 to be functional.

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot Linking (3, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998403)

Getting the code right to link to something on Slashdot is so hard

In comments, it's

<a href="URL">linky</a>

Standard HTML. You DO know HTML, right?

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot Linking (1)

lebscorpio (1368825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998485)

Yeah... It's weird, the HTML tag around the article does not bear an href attribute. I'm guessting there's no graphical editor, just an HTML source box for posting these articles?

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot Linking (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998809)

If Slashcode can't handle links without the poster implementing it in "Standard HTML", perhaps we should write the JavaScript to post the message too.

Missing links (4, Informative)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998293)

Downloads [mozilla.org]

Wiki page on Namoroka [mozilla.org]

Re:Missing links (4, Informative)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998373)

I downloaded and tried out the Mac build. Two things I noticed:
  • build alpha 2 is already available, only a day after alpha 1
  • the wiki lists the single most important feature missing from Firefox (imho, of course), namely OSX Keychain integration, as one of the requirements for "Firefox.next". Hooray! It's not in this build, though.

Re:Missing links (3, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999083)

build alpha 2 is already available, only a day after alpha 1

Hm.. You mean pre-alpha 2? That would at least be started pretty much immediately after alpha 1 release. But it also contains very few changes compared to alpha 1, and are the typical incremental nightly builds until the final alpha 2 is releaed.

Re:Missing links (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999089)

Hooray! It's not in this build, though.

No, and perhaps not even in the final Firefox 3.6 either. Perhaps the release afterwards. "Firefox.next" is the codename for a forthcoming "major" Firefox release (4.0?) and not 3.6.

Re:Missing links (2, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999107)

"Keychain integration"

They are offering a Firefox keyfob now? Cool, I want one!! Can we get them with early logos, like FF 0.5a ? That would be REALLY COOL!!

Re:Missing links (1)

Myen (734499) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999219)

Please don't use ftp.mozilla.org! That's the server used for things like nightly builds and other testing machinery.

Instead, please use the mirror network, http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/namoroka/alpha1/ [mozilla.org]

Besides... linking to latest-trunk/ and pretending it's a release is always bad.

Deja Vu (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998309)

It's like Web 1.0 browser wars all over again, except all the non-standard retardedness has been moved out of HTML and into CSS/JavaScript/AJAX tom wankery, there's less money to be made, and IE6 is a shit browser that no one can seem to get rid of instead of better than the once stagnant Netscape 4 that took forever to die.

Progress!

Too much too fast (2, Informative)

apankrat (314147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998343)

I was reinstalling the laptop the other day and installed FF 3.5. Used it for an hour, uninstalled and replaced with 3.0. A fresh install of 3.5 on a faster hard drive was noticeably slower than a well used 3.0 on an older hardware. Not just the start-up, but a regular use too. To me, personally, no amount of new features can justify that. So unless 3.6 comes with a performance fixes - thanks, but no.

For me on the same machine 3.5 is much faster (2, Interesting)

ZP-Blight (827688) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998429)

For me on the same machine 3.5 is much faster.

It's possible it might be taking more ram and on your old hardware with less ram it's using swapped memory, which is very very slow.

Re:Too much too fast (3, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998673)

I find 3.5 to be significantly faster than 3.0. As well as general optimisations, the history database backend has been improved so it puts less strain on your machine when doing lookups for things like the address bar suggestions. The new Javascript core is also a lot faster.

One major irritation with 3.5 is the new way tabs work. You used to be able to set it so that all links opened in the same tab, regardless of any target="_blank" rubbish. I.e., you have control over the browser, not the web developer. At the same time, there was a separate preference for links opened by external programs (e.g. you click a "go to product's homepage" link in a program, or a link in your email client) which allowed you to have them open in a new tab every time. Unfortunately the latter option has disappeared in 3.5, so now you can either have external links destroy your current tab or suffer endless new tabs being opened by badly behaving webmasters.

I wish the Moz devs would consult users on these sorts of major functionality changes before just doing them.

Re:Too much too fast (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998863)

You can still do this, although it takes a visit to about:config.

1. Go to about:config [about]
2. Ensure browser.link.open_newwindow [mozillazine.org] is set to 3 (should be default in current firefox)
3. Set browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction [mozillazine.org] to 0 (default is 2)

You can follow the links to see all the possible values.
Hope it helps!

Re:Too much too fast (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998895)

You can still do this, although it takes a visit to about:config.

1. Go to about:config [about]
2. Ensure browser.link.open_newwindow [mozillazine.org] is set to 3 (should be default in current firefox)
3. Set browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction [mozillazine.org] to 0 (default is 2)

You can follow the links to see all the possible values.
Hope it helps!

Err. I made a mistake.

Step 2 should be:
2. Set browser.link.open_newwindow [mozillazine.org] to 1 in order to open in the same tab.

Somehow I read it as open in same window. Sorry about that.

Hehe (1)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998389)

Looks like someone forgot href="url" in that linking code. ;)

Fixed Memory Bloat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998407)

And yet it's still a memory nightmare. Oh, that's right, figment of user imagination... My FF browser NEVER seizes up, requiring a shut-down via Task Manager...

Re:Fixed Memory Bloat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998463)

Your machine is broken, Firefox has lowest memory usage of all browsers.

Holy shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998421)

Mozilla is on fire dropping one release after another.

Re:Holy shit (1)

leenoble_uk (698539) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999167)

I'm getting update fatigue.

I seem to recall it seeming to take years to get from the various 0.x versions thorugh the 0.9.x versions before several 1.0a versions, and since then it's gone almost exponential.

I haven't bothered with 3.5 yet.

I am on OS X 10.5.7. (2, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998493)

Firefox 3.5 was terrible. Every few seconds, no matter what I did, it would pause, and I would have to watch a beachball spin. Really bad.

Further, tabs should be attached to the pages they represent, not floating around at the top, in limbo. That was the worst design decision I have seen in ages.

And finally, at least on the Mac, the "close this tab" button should be on the left of the tab, for consistency with everything else. Not on the right.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998543)

at least on the Mac, the "close this tab" button should be on the left of the tab, for consistency with everything else. Not on the right.

"at least"? So... please do tell us all the other OSes this should be the default on.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998613)

Every OS so MAC users can finally feel they dominate the world!

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28999165)

Since you're connected to the internet, you've got a MAC, too, you know...

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to get all technical on you.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (3, Interesting)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998589)

Further, tabs should be attached to the pages they represent, not floating around at the top, in limbo. That was the worst design decision I have seen in ages.

In my FF3.5, tabs are 'attached to the pages they represent'... unless I'm misunderstanding you. Care to provide us with a screenshot of what you're talking about?

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999417)

I'm not the OP, but I think I understand what he's saying.

In FF, the tabs are rounded at the bottom. In other words, they're "attached" to the browser on the top end, facing your URL bar, and then they extend into the dead space that is the tab bar.

What I think he's saying is that he feels it should attach the other way, at the bottom. The active tab would therefore blend into the page you're viewing while the other tabs would jut out of the top of that page. It would literally look as though the active tab was part of the page.

Personally I don't care that much. I'm just trying to articulate his point.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999573)

The whole concept of tabs, in the first place, was that of a tabbed folder, like a 3-ring binder with those little plastic tabs so you can find your place. That was the visual "metaphor" that was being followed. By visually detaching the tabs from the pages they control, the metaphor is broken, and the eye does not follow as naturally from the page to the tab, or vice versa.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (2, Insightful)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999691)

The whole concept of tabs, in the first place, was that of a tabbed folder, like a 3-ring binder with those little plastic tabs so you can find your place. That was the visual "metaphor" that was being followed. By visually detaching the tabs from the pages they control, the metaphor is broken, and the eye does not follow as naturally from the page to the tab, or vice versa.

Please remember that there are reasons for both ways and that you are debating which is less wrong. Not which is right. The tabs attaching to the toolbar is supposed to show that the buttons effect that particular tab which is also a very important thing to represent in the gui. Ideally, the tabs should be on the very top of the window like Opera and now Chrome.

Or alternatively you can use abstract PC [com.com] for the tab connecting to both effect so no one is happy. :)

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999693)

ff 3.5 on windows 7 has tabs that flow into the document. they are quite pleasing to the eye. i know the linux version has some appearance differences. I think I really prefer the default windows ff over the default skin in ubuntu.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (3, Interesting)

caerwyn (38056) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998599)

That's rather odd- I use Firefox 3.5 regularly on 10.5.7 with no such issues. The only slowness I've found is when quitting the app- it clearly does a lot of cleanup when you shut it down, and that process takes a ridiculously long time. Nothing with regular browsing, though.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998601)

I agree. That beachball is just as horrible as that apple with the bite. ;P

On a more serious note: I use is on Linux, so I can't comment about the Mac UI integration. But I think UI integration really is very important. I often hear of development teams neglecting the Mac. But every time I had to develop for the Mac, I found testing it to be very frustrating, because the whole system is so not-made-for real power usage like development. (At least for me.)
Maybe that's a part of the issue...

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (1)

AXNJAXN (673089) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998621)

I don't know that they really need to fit the "tab" metaphor any more than word processors need to stick to typewriting conventions. Seems like most web browsers have the same tabbing behavior, after all. I would think the usability of a system where the tabs are forced to attach to their pages would introduce more problems than benefits, and most of the benefits would be purely cosmetic. $0.02.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999585)

It is not just a "convention". It is a principle that is based on time and motion studies. If the tab is visually attached to the page, it takes less time and effort for the brain to associate the two. I don't know about other OSes (I could look in Windows, I suppose), but the active tab is not visually highlighted very much either, so it is sometimes not obvious at all which tab on your screen goes with the page you are on. So all the visual cues you can get are helpful.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (1)

danhuby (759002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998715)

Further, tabs should be attached to the pages they represent

Are you sure you aren't thinking of the Mac dev preview of Google Chrome, which has the tabs above the location / tool bar?

Firefox 3.5 didn't change the tab locations for me (on OS X 10.4). But it wasn't particularly fast, like the previous version, and I've now gone back to Safari which is much faster.

Dan

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (2, Insightful)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999181)

And finally, at least on the Mac, the "close this tab" button should be on the left of the tab, for consistency with everything else. Not on the right.

Uh, what? Everything on OS X has the close button on the right of the right. iTerm, Textmate, etc all have their 'X' on the right of the tab, not left.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999513)

Everything on OS X has the close button on the right of the right.

Safari has close buttons on the left of the tab. The software you mention is third-party, not Apple software, so looking to them for examples of UI consistency is a bit of a red herring.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999597)

Not mine. In all the programs you mention, including Textmate, my close buttons are on the left. Maybe it's in the preferences somewhere.

Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28999217)

And finally, at least on the Mac, the "close this tab" button should be on the left of the tab, for consistency with everything else. Not on the right.

I know this isn't the ideal solution, but I'm willing to bet that either a) there's a theme out there that does this, or b) you could write a theme that did this using whatever XUL thingy you needed.

And I like the close-buttons on right. Fits in with every other browser that I use and that uses tabs.

Firefox 3.5 was terrible. Every few seconds, no matter what I did, it would pause, and I would have to watch a beachball spin. Really bad.

Try disabling add-ons. I've found that speed-dial, for example, was a right performance hog. That said, opening a new tab for me (same Mac OSX version) is ridiculously slow, up to the point where I can type into the address bar faster than Firefox can catch up.

FYI, for those who replied. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999609)

I suspect that the problem was the JSSH extension, which I use for automating remote websites. With it disabled, the problem seems to have gone away. Only time will tell.

Random number bug (2, Informative)

manweekdayz (845140) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998515)

when will they fix that random number generation issue that makes the program take 3 mins to launch? Firefox has been a POS lately because of it.

Re:Random number bug (1)

Cap'n Refsmmat (1003152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998549)

Random number generation issue?

Re:Random number bug (4, Informative)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998947)

In 3.5.1.

Re:Random number bug (1)

manweekdayz (845140) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998995)

er...dont think so. I have ver 3.52 and it takes forever to startup. If only opera had the same sort of plugins (adblock, noscript) etc, i would dump ff. The firefox devs have gotten cocky of late, shame really since the only reason the browser has such a loyal following is because of the quality plugins and not due to anything innovative in the browser per se (usually ff just rips off opera, IE, safari etc).

Re:Random number bug (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999447)

Fixed it for me. Shame for you, but I really don't care about load time cos I only do it once.

Tried Opera but didn't like it. FF has the following because unlike Opera/IE etc it's always been open, always been free, always been non-shit. There's a lot of catching up to do which probably isn't going to happen. If I switch browser it'll be to something like Chrome, and only if it continued to be loads faster than the others, continued to be free/open, and only when it has a bunch of plugins. Chrome's not out on Ubuntu yet - that's the main reason I don't bother with it (even though I use both Ubuntu and XP). That and the lack of ad-block. If you can't block ads then I'm not using the browser.

Can we have tracemonkey on 64bits... (1)

koolfy (1213316) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998531)

... yet ?

Cause we deserve it, man, seriously, we were told 64bits is the future, that's just mean :(
Instead we have laggy JS, and /. takes a shitload of time to load comments :(

(more seriously: it's fun to notice that even if I'm pretty sure to have red somewhere that tracemonkey is disabled for 64bits, and that even /. is laggy in those conditions, Beta version of Google Wave (aka "3 tons of JS and some wave protocol somewhere under all that JS") works pretty fast, dunno why...)

Re:Can we have tracemonkey on 64bits... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998769)

You can enabled tracemonkey on any firefox >=3.5...

about:config > javascript.options.jit.chrome = true

You can also download 3.6a2 pre (1)

techmuse (160085) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998569)

3.6 alpha 2 pre (found here) has additional performance improvements (ie. is wicked fast), and seems quite reliable in the latest nightly build. Note that these are nightly builds, so you run the risk of being the first to experience a shiny, new bug!

Re:You can also download 3.6a2 pre (1)

techmuse (160085) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998579)

Ok. Let me try to get that link right. You can download Minefield here [mozilla.org] .

"pages render faster" (1, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998585)

How much faster can you get than "instant"? I'm still using 3.0 on a dual core windoze machine and everytime I hear someone say "its faster than the previous version" I think, "hunh?". Browser speed is not something that has come to mind since 2005 at least. Maybe they're talking about render speed on old 1ghz celerons burdened with norton antivirus and tons of spyware on 512mb of ram.

Re:"pages render faster" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998707)

What a cock choking fan boy! With a belly full of CUM, it's no surprise you're dazed and confused.

Re:"pages render faster" (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998725)

you know, not everyone has a new computer and frankly I am glad that at least some developers don't make the same assumption you just did. This is especially important considering the rising popularity of smaller notebooks that even bare Windows XP has trouble booting.

Re:"pages render faster" (3, Insightful)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998773)

you know, not everyone has a new computer and frankly I am glad that at least some developers don't make the same assumption you just did. This is especially important considering the rising popularity of smaller notebooks that even bare Windows XP has trouble booting.

How old are these machines that some people are running? My families oldest computer is from 1997 and runs Windows 95, should people expect that to be supported? If you slimmed down an XP install to run on older hardware and it can't handle a modern web browser is that the creators' fault? I can understand your grievance about netbooks, some are just plain underpowered for 3 tasks at once and you need to use the applications that it can handle, but how long is hardware supposed to be supported by software? 10, 20, 30 years?

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998851)

My families oldest computer is from 1997 and runs Windows 95, should people expect that to be supported?

Expect? No. But open-source is not a business, and doesn't have to bother with questions like "what's the ROI for continuing to support an older OS?".

Furthermore, the Windows API hasn't changed all that much in many years, save for the introduction of Unicode-enabled API functions that otherwise do the same thing as their ANSI versions. This makes older versions of Windows easier to support than, say, old Mac OS versions.

The latest SeaMonkey is still supported on Windows 95. I'm using it right now.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998911)

I forgot to mention that Opera, which is NOT open-source, also supports its web browser on Windows 95.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999237)

It might not be a business, but they still have finite resources, and need to spend them wisely.

In their case, the ROI isn't how much money they would get back from investing in supporting Win95, but whether or not such an investment would help with Mozilla's mission.

With that in mind "what's the ROI for continuing to support an older OS?" probably is a question they need to consider carefully.

But then I know little to nothing about Windows APIs, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about. Perhaps keeping Firefox alive for Win95 is actually quite an easy thing to do, and they chose not do because they can't be arsed.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

SlashV (1069110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998961)

but how long is hardware supposed to be supported by software? 10, 20, 30 years?

Current software will do none of those! 10 seems reasonable, but most software really doesn't run on 10 year old hardware. Set yourself up with 1999 machine and you'll be drinking really dangerous amounts of coffee when loading a recent firefox. So I think your parent poster has a good point.

Re:"pages render faster" (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999111)

the mentality of devs is that the hardware can take the bloat just give it some time and as far as I am concerned it's a cancer slowly eroding away at what software should be. quick, clean and efficient. BUt really, why shouldn't software be capable of running on hardware for over a decade- we've got a 12 year old compaq sitting in the basement that has less hard drive space than my ram is and yet it can surf the net just fine... The problem comes when devs start to think that they shouldn't be tasked with improving code efficiency because they aren't coding for older hardware. Well all I can say is maybe they should. If an old geezer compaq can hack it just fine on the internet today why can't newer versions of software that do the same basic things cope as well?

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999743)

How old are these machines that some people are running? My families oldest computer is from 1997 and runs Windows 95, should people expect that to be supported?

You shouldn't "expect it," but it's a certainly a plus when it works. The aim should always be to to write code that performs as well as possible for the task at hand and if you could boast that your software runs on a 486 with 16mb of ram, the response shouldn't be, "but who runs 486's these days?" The response should be "awesome, that means it'll be instant on my modern computer while keeping plenty of resources available for other apps to run AND I can recommend it to my grandfather who refuses to upgrade."

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998907)

When I bought my dual core machine in jan 2008 it was already year old hardware, the cheapest name brand stuff you could buy. That was for a $500 computer including $120 video card at the time. A standard $350 consumer computer without fancy video card from three years ago is going to be just as fast running firefox as a brand new one - i.e. instant. I think it's respectable to expect poorer performance on a 5 year old computer running it's original install of windows (and whatever spyware it's been choking on since), compared to a 2006 or 2007 vintage computer.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999171)

2008 is not an old. old begins at windows ME [not that you would ever use such a POS OS] the software ran fine at least if you don't upgrade the software that is... the functionality is basically the same [surf the net, check email etc...] so why is it that since that time a new firefox is currently using 137 megs of RAM while I'm reading slashdot. A computer even ten years ago doesn't even have that much ram and yet you can surf the net with it... explain to me why all of this ram use was worth it?

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

danhuby (759002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998741)

OK, this might not be important for you, but I think it's important that the development team continue to improve the performance of the engine. Not everyone has a dual core machine. It's useful if the engine runs nicely on older hardware or portable low power hardware such as netbooks.

Adding CPU power is no substitute for writing good code and constantly optimising that code.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

flydude18 (839328) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998823)

Instant? New Slashdot has been pretty sluggish for me in 3.0 for Linux on a decent dual core machine. While that's hardly the browser's fault, I say bring on faster Javascript.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998865)

I'm not sure what they include in rendering a page, but if I open a bunch of slashdot articles in different tabs it slows down noticably after I open more than four or five. And this is on a machine that has 3GB of RAM and a dual core / 2.6GHz CPU.

Also, the geocaching.com map is still pretty unusable on FireFox; only Chrome has enough oomph to actually make it work in anything approaching realtime.

So speed improvements are definitely appreciated.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999751)

Hmmm. There must be something wrong with your setup there. I'm running a dual core 2ghz machine with 3gb of ram and the page you mentioned ran in total real time. I was able to scroll around the map as fast as my connection could download the map. Pretty neat site. Never thought of combining google maps with geocaching......kinda takes a lot of the challenge out of it to be honest.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

genik76 (1193359) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999187)

Install an old Netscape, compare the results, and I will guarantee you will see that Netscape is really instantanious compared to FF 3.0. The difference is what you are missing, and what you are not realising. With a fresh install of Firefox on my Core i7 machine, I still cannot claim Firefox to be blazing-fast, although it's quite ok.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

Mia'cova (691309) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999189)

The developer excitement isn't around getting a youtube page to render 10ms faster. It's the application possibilities that these improvements allow. People are excited about building really solid media players with javascript and html 5 instead of flash and silverlight. They're excited about the possibilities of doing 3D in the browser with javascript and OpenGL-like hardware rendering. But the common glue is javascript and DOM. Anything you build will be limited by the browser's core. And from a current-day perspective, this is also very helpful for mobile devices. When you improve rendering performance, that will speed up your iphone and save battery life. Perf is just an all-around good metric. Incredibly important to keep our eye on it. Improve it if we can but also just be careful not to introduce any new perf problems.

Re:"pages render faster" (1)

Alef (605149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999385)

As web pages are progressing to become more and more like applications, where the browser serves as a standardized virtual machine, speed will become an issue (if it isn't already -- slashdot is rather sluggish on my box running Firefox 3.0). This includes both java script performance, which Google have been emphasizing with Chrome, as well as rendering performance.

awfulbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998603)

So, have they removed the awfulbar yet? 'Cause I'm not budging from Firefox 2 until they do.

Re:awfulbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28998775)

Good luck with that.

Firefox 2 is no longer supported or updated and has known security vulnerabilities. As Forrest used to say: "Stupid is as stupid does."

Re:awfulbar (1)

z121212mlmiac (1234794) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998803)

They've added options [mozillazine.org] to return everything but the appearance to the Fx 2 behaviour. For that missing part, there's oldbar [mozilla.org] .

Re:awfulbar (1)

z121212mlmiac (1234794) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998887)

OMG, I made a mistake. The link for "options" that I posted is outdated. This one [agadak.net] describes the current situation.

Re:awfulbar (0, Troll)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999357)

That's good. From looking at the page, it seems the relevant bit is:

"If you want the location bar to only match URLs of pages you've visited like Firefox 2, set browser.urlbar.default.behavior to 17 (1 for visited pages + 16 for URLs)."

"Similarly, if you want to additionally restrict results to pages you've typed in, add in an extra 32 for "typed" -- 49 for matching URLs of typed, visited pages."

Still a pisspoor design decision to not have a simple checkbox in the options that lets you restore sensible FF2.0 behavior. Smacks of marketing and steering committees.

I haven't messed with this yet. I hope it fixes the dreadful mix of font styles that is in the "awesomebar" popup.

Awesomebar really is awesome (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28999087)

Honestly, I could never go back to using any browser that doesn't have something similar.

Let's say that I've visited a wikipedia article about Houston recently (as I have) and want to go back. With awesomebar I can just write "Hous" and it suggests me the right page. "wiki/ho" if I would have visited a lot of sites about Houston. In the Pre-Awesomebar times I would have had to write "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ho" or something like that before it would have suggested the right page.

And more often than not I remember that I have visited something about which I remember only part of the name. It might have been a political comic strip with huxley in it's name but I don't remember where did I see it. So I only write "hux" to the bar and it takes me where I want to be. Or I might have watched some hot clip about gothic femdom but not remember which of the numerous porn sites I visit hosted it. If I remember even part of the url, title (usually both of them mention a clip's name) or anything like that, I can just type it to the bar and I am back at watching gothic femdom.

Pre-Awesomebar? Searching through the history, etc... It was slow and sucked.

A lot of people prefer the old approach. For some it is just resisting change, some might even have some good reasons... So I agree that they should perhaps have left a radio button somewhere to let you choose to revert back... But honestly, it is pretty awesome feature and extremely useful.

Re:Awesomebar really is awesome (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28999757)

Searching through the history has never been slow for me, I think you're just making excuses for Firefox mashing the functionality of something (history) with something else (ACTUAL TYPED URLs) that never should have been placed together in the first place. The URLbar has the letters "URL" in it for a reason -- it is for actual URLs, NOT history, NOT page titles, NONE OF THAT. If you want all that, there is a great, fast, easy search in the History dialog, instantly summoned using Ctrl+H.

Fortunately I can summon up some about:config preferences from Seamonkey which DOES allow you to customize it however you want, plus install Oldbar. Not only do you get the old look from oldbar plugin, but also the old BEHAVIOR.

Personally, I'd rather stick with Seamonkey 2.0b1. It's stayed much closer to what a browser should be than what Firefox has become.

Anonymous Coward because I know all the Firefox fanboys will disagree with me.

Re:awfulbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28999509)

yes, there are gui options to disable it and themes to make it look like the original, now stop trolling and go home!

Nightlies (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28998791)

Just get the Nightly builds @ http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/

Firefox ages with JavaScript code (1)

dealmaster00 (904299) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999033)

Much like a fine wine.

Firefox 3.5.2 also available (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28999195)

critical security updates

Graphical tab switching? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999375)

As opposed to the text mode tab switching we have now?

Re:Graphical tab switching? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28999575)

I hope it's not about showing thumbnails while switching...
Honestly, I don't get how all the recent window thumbnails craze is supposed to improve usability. That method is pretty much optimized for people having a total of 3 windows open, each a different color. But try distinguishing between 30 text documents with that...

Thats what I love about Firefox (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999381)

Frequently updated. However a slam if I may, 3.5.2 has HORRIBLE javascript rendering. Hopefully this is fixed in the new version.

FF3.6A1 user. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28999421)

Um, I've been running this for a while, how is this announcement "new" ?

CPU Usage issues still? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999495)

I'm downloading the test now, but does anyone who has tried it already know if it still has CPU Utilization issues like 3.5 has? I had to upgrade to 3.0 due to 3.5 hanging and/or crashing on flash content, particularly videos.

Thunderbird is not go (1)

rif42 (206260) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999615)

Mozilla, thanks for Firefox 3.5x, now could you please put some focus on finishing Thunderbird 3.0? Why does this have to take forever? And perhaps even get Sunbird/Lightning ready for version 1.0.

Now? (1)

Bryan Bytehead (9631) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999653)

I've been running the alpha as a portable app since 3.5 came out. Now it's true that it's a nightly, but it updates every day that I run it.

Weird.

Only one feature is really NEEDED (5, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#28999711)

A plugin like Flash should not be ABLE to lock up the browser. No, that's not the fault of Flash, it's the fault of the browser that _allows_ it to happen. The browser should be in control of the plugin, not the other way around.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?