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 4.0 Goes Chrome, New UI In Q4 2010

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the new-and-shiny dept.

GUI 556

sv_libertarian writes "Mozilla recently updated its product roadmap through 2010. According to the first draft, the current browser will see a minor update in Q4 2009 and another in Q2 2010. Version 4.0 is headed for an October or November 2010 release and will bring a new user interface and browser sync integration. 'There is not much information on [what] this new user interface will look like, but the first mockups that have been posted on Mozilla's website suggest that the Mozilla team favors a Google Chrome-like design that integrates Windows 7 graphics features. Overall, window elements seem to be floating over the background.' The mockup page emphatically notes that the design is not final."

cancel ×

556 comments

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

Nice but.. (1)

msh104 (620136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285631)

Let's hope this time they keep the user interface the same on all platforms.
Some of the mockups look pretty good though :)

Re:Nice but.. (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285977)

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7051/tabui.png [imageshack.us]

Tabs on side, appears on hover of firefox edge. I use the add-on tree style tab. Ignore the colors, I have my theme dark on purpose.

Re:Nice but.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286087)

Why keep it the same across platforms? No, seriously, do you use Firefox on multiple platforms AND are you bothered by the differences in UI between the various Firefox'en? You'll live.

The interface should be native to the platform, adhering to the platform's UI standards. The binaries location and configuration location should adhere to the platform's application development standards. Adhere to standards, they are good for you. (Note; Experts only: deviate from standards when necessary)

Programs that use non-native, non-standard UI (Quicktime on Windows) are quickly (haha) reviled. And for good reason.

Tabs on top, do it NOW! (2, Interesting)

Commander South (1139931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285645)

DO IT, I use chrome for the UI, and love FF for the plugins, if they go with the tabs on top and no titlebar, if only as an option, I am back on board with them...

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (5, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285773)

Just as a counterpoint, I decidedly don't like the tabs-on-top design, don't use Chrome in part because of that UI, and would probably switch to Opera if Firefox didn't make tabs-on-bottom an option. ;-)

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (4, Interesting)

zevans (101778) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285843)

Tabs should be down the side. A monitor (even 4:3) is too wide to read comfortably all the way across, ergo, tabs and toolbars should be on the side where they are not using screen estate that can otherwise be used effectively for browsing.

Yes, I know Firefox does it with plugins, but I don't understand how this basic mistake can have stayed with us for what, 10 years+ of tabbed browsing...

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (5, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285919)

The problem with tabs down the side is you either get (1) vertical text or (2) tabs that are as wide as they are above the window in which case the tab list takes up a HUGE proportion of the screen real estate, virtually all wasted unless you actually have a couple dozen tabs in one window to start eating up the available rows.

Neither of these options are very good IMO; I'd rather spend a few pixels of vertical height then have to read sideways text.

(Incidentally, this is why I never liked the taskbar on the side of the screen either. Maybe I should give it another shot with Windows 7 now that the taskbar is a little more icon-based and less word-based.)

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286039)

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7051/tabui.png [imageshack.us]

These tabs appear when you move the mouse to the screen edge.

I know I posted that earlier but I'm mentioning it again just for you =p the add-on is tree style tab by the way.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (3, Interesting)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286115)

Ugh, I hate UI elements that appear and disappear like that. I had the taskbar on auto-hide on my laptop (which only has a 1024x768 screen) and decided it wasn't even worth it there, even though that would have been present in every application.

Browsers have the added problem of me using ctrl-tab/ctrl-shift-tab to change between tabs a lot, but doing that non-blindly requires seeing where the tab is that you want. A hidden tab list would slow that down.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286167)

The tabs also appear when you press ctrl if that helps any.

But I'm just showing you an alternative. Don't take it too seriously. Also the tabs can be permanently stuck on the side, and it doesn't have to hide.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286243)

Agreed... I'm all for configurability, so making something like the tabs-on-top or your tabs-on-left options being a choice would be fine and dandy. But making either the only choice is a good way to get me to stop using Firefox. ;-)

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29285953)

No. Tabs should be diagonal. The obvious advantages of this are so obvious that I don't need to mention them. It can be mathematically proven, too, that diagonal tabs are the most aesthetic and comfortable layout. If you weren't so educated stupid by evil educators, you would realize the power of the four-corner diagonal tab.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (1)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286043)

Indeed. Also, you can read more of the page title that way and avoid having 10+ tabs whose title starts with "Slashdot Com...". For those who don't know, you can do this in Firefox using "Tree Style Tab" plug-in right now.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286169)

You obviously don't use firefox on a netbook.

Tabs on the side is a horrible idea.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286267)

....And the horse you rode in on. I have a widescreen monitor an in a few years so will everyone else. My three rows of 100+ tabs are, frankly, optimally placed in Firefox 3.0

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286327)

Everything is just the right ratio with my monitor turned vertically.

I tried this about 3 years ago, seeing how it felt and I haven't gone back.

It turns out that for me vertical real estate is more valuable than horizontal real estate.

Of course this is different if most of the use of your monitor is for running video, but I would venture that this isn't the case currently.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (1)

Commander South (1139931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285899)

Which is why I am all for the either/or option :) While I do acknowledge the issue with window resizing and whatnot, I feel the trade off is worth it.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286077)

Definitely. There are a lot of people out there (like you) who really like the Chrome UI, and a lot of people out there (like me) who really dislike it. Probably more than anything else, UI preference is a very personal thing.

There are definitely costs with making new options, but this is the sort of option that would make FF much more attractive to quite a number of people but be so contentious I don't think making it default would be a good idea, so it's a good thing for an option.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (0)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286121)

That's the only thing that I'd take from Chrome: tabs-on-top. Everything else is fine in 3.5.

But I'm using TreeStyleTabs anyway.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (2, Informative)

DarKnyht (671407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286273)

I would like them to get whatever it is that makes Chrome usable on a Netbook. Firefox on it runs like a dog (even without flash) while Chrome functions more or less as it does everywhere else.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (2, Insightful)

Jezral (449476) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286061)

Tabs on top is horrible...one of the key reasons I dislike Google Chrome.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286133)

Yup, as someone who auto-hides the start bar at the top of the screen, Chrome is basically unusable with the mouse with my setup. At least I'm pretty sure that this would be an option with firefox.

Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286337)

I don't understand why people don't like the tabs on top of the location bar. The location bar (and all the navigation buttons) pertain to the currently loaded TAB, therefore, it is logical that they are nested below the tab. Each tab has a different location, therefore, they get their own location bar.

Function before form (5, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285647)

I do have to say, what I really want out of a browser is function, not a flashier interface.

Make it not crash, and I don't care what it looks like.

Re:Function before form (4, Insightful)

Fizzol (598030) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285801)

Why is this post marked as a Troll? It's a legitimate viewpoint and one I agree with. I'll take function over form every time. Give me a good, fast, stable browser with a UI that isn't flashy, cluttered or distracting.

Re:Function before form (2, Informative)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285819)

Why is this post marked as a Troll? It's a legitimate viewpoint and one I agree with. I'll take function over form every time. Give me a good, fast, stable browser with a UI that isn't flashy, cluttered or distracting.

Perhaps mods took the view that Firefox was being called unstable and thus regarded the post as a troll?

Re:Function before form (0, Troll)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286181)

If he'd illustrated his problem by describing when and how Firefox crashes, he'd have a valid argument, but he didn't and I've never had trouble with this. So, in my opinion, he's whining about a problem that doesn't exist, and yeah, I'd call his post a troll.

They are abusing moderation for a long time now (4, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286297)

That is exactly why we must meta moderate like crazy these days. Troll has a very strict explanation and believe or not, it means exactly same on slashdot.

These idiots really confuse Slashdot moderation with digg down&up while Slashdot does make a favor to them, overrated and underrated are exactly for that purpose.

There are unhappy people with every kind of browser&application out there and yes, in this age, a browser should be really fast, simple to use and stable having very good standards support. It is valid for every browser out there. It is not just Firefox who doesn't get people's concerns, I have heard first time that system's default browser can't download files. It is Safari for Snow Leopard. Way to go Apple... All of this for run a freaking in 64bit mode, hurry of release to show finger to MS. See Firefox loving moderator? Every browser these days are a bit disconnected from users actual needs and demands.

Re:Function before form (1, Flamebait)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285857)

Give me a good, fast, stable browser with a UI that isn't flashy, cluttered or distracting.

No problem, just go here [opera.com] .

Re:Function before form (0, Redundant)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285873)

I have to agree but today sadly no mod points

Re:Function before form (2, Insightful)

Synchis (191050) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285825)

How is this a troll?

I agree. I personally don't care how pretty the browser is, and don't really like the Windows 7/Vista graphics interface.

What will it look like in Linux? Thats what I want to know.

I don't like the overly simplified interface, I think it makes it seem like they think their users are idiots. I don't use google chrome for much the same reason.

Re:Function before form (0)

edmicman (830206) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286251)

What will it look like in Linux? Thats what I want to know.

Just based on my experience, it will probably continue to look like ass. I actually *like* the FF icon styles they introduced for WinXP in FF 3.0, and hated that in Ubuntu FF looked like crap because it adopted whatever theme's style you had installed. It's 2009 - why do I still have to have big SQUARE buttons, with all of them looking like crap?

Re:Function before form (2, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285845)

Crash? The only Firefox crashes I've seen in many many months were due to testing 64 bit Flash. If FF is crashing, I have to wonder about your operating system and/or hardware, but the primary culprit is probably buggy code in addon/plugin/codec/peripheral software.

Re:Function before form (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286083)

Firefox crashes and locks up on me every single day. And lets not start on the issue of every browser instance hanging if one instance has DNS lookup issues.

Re:Function before form (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29285865)

I do have to say, what I really want out of a browser is function, not a flashier interface.

Make it not crash, and I don't care what it looks like.

"Form Follows Function" [wikipedia.org] . It's an eternal debate.

I'm of the team that says we can have both. Especially if they factor in software ergonomics [wikipedia.org] into their design decisions. Most people don't realize it, but they like intuitive designs. Clearly, minimalism (an element of both form and function) is what is "in" for web-browser designs right now. We don't apparently need 8 menus with 20 submenus with 14 more sub-submenus, combined with 9 sections in the options menu, each with 15 subsections. We don't need 40 icons between the top of our web page and the bottom of our address bar.

So, you can have your function (a web browser with less junk crammed into it, and therefore a lower probability of things going wrong) and I can have my form (a nice looking, easy to use minimalist web browser). Everyone wins.

Re:Function before form (1)

azior (1302509) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286343)

For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me. It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.

RMS [lwn.net] , 2007

Why bother with useless junk like browsers?

Re:Function before form (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285917)

Agreed, I'd like to add one other thing. I have a buggy wireless card and the drives will lockup Vista x64, every couple of days/weeks or so. The weird part is that if I have FF open when it decides to crash, FF looses all setting. I mean everything even, everything get set to default, this all affects ad-ons as well.

I would really appreciate it if they would fix that.

Re:Function before form (3, Insightful)

complete loony (663508) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286013)

Speaking of function, for god's sake don't combine the stop and refresh buttons. Or add a sufficient delay and animation when the button transitions from one action to the other so you dont accidently hit refresh when you intended to cancel the page load but it finished just before you clicked.

Re:Function before form (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286263)

True. I love Firefox and have used it for years, but ever since I overclocked my desktop, even though every other application runs dead stable, Firefox crashes on average at least once a minute. It still runs fine on my laptop though....but the crashing on my OC'd system is infuriating.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29285659)

Looks pretty fantastic, but why the end of 2010?

Thats when all the bugs in 3.x will be fixed (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286113)

Actually , probably not.

of all the things to copy from Chrome (5, Interesting)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285717)

If there's one thing I hate about Chrome it's the way the tabs replace the normal title bar functionality. It makes the window harder to drag, harder to maximize, and basically throws 25 years of Windows usability standards out the window. I expect something like this from Apple but not from Firefox (or Google for that matter).

A nonstandard UI is the epitome of developer arrogance. The tabs-on-bottom mockup is excellent, but the tabs-on-top concept needs to die on the drawing board.

On the flip side, if Firefox 4.0 supports some of the new Windows 7 standards like Aero Peek controls I will be very pleased!

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (4, Interesting)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285803)

Tabs on top makes a sense, they just shouldn't be part of the title bar.

I say they make sense because the address bar, back button, forward button, refresh/stop buttons, and home button are all part of the current tab, rather than the browser as a whole.

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286007)

I'd agree with this, but I was actually more taken with the concept of the Combo Stop/Refresh/Go button which with 20:20 hindsight just made me think "Duh! Why wasn't it done like this from the start?" What might be better for the tabs though is "Version C"; put the tabs over the location bar, but below the standard title bar of the OS in question. Of course, we are talking about probably the most configurable browser of them all, so the best solution has to be "Version D" which is where the user gets to use whichever style they prefer.

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286117)

Tabs on bottom makes a sense, they shouldn't be part of the title bar.

I say they make sense because the address bar, back button, forward button, refresh/stop buttons, and home button are not part of the current page, rather than the browser as a whole.

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285877)

Chrome is better optimised for small screens and maximising window real estate. I actually like the "throwing the title bar away and integrating tabs with window decorations" of Chrome - it gives a couple of cm more vertical space for the html render window. As does hiding the bookmarks bar, and status/download bars by default. Going back to a default Firefox layout now reminds me of those old 3D wireframe Elite style shootemups, and how they used to have huge blocks of static graphics at the top and bottom of the screen to speed up the frame rate.. ok, I'm exaggerating a little, but on my 17 inch monitor the difference in default vertical space is 28mm, that's a slightly >10% increase in vspace with Chrome.

So why don't you browse in full screen mode? (1, Troll)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286313)

In FireFox, enter fullscreen mode. Boom, 100% - a few pixels at the top, all for rendering the page content.
Want to get to the tabs - hover your mouse over those few pixels.. voila, there's the tabs and address bar.

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285881)

If there's one thing I hate about Chrome it's the way the tabs replace the normal title bar functionality. It makes the window harder to drag, harder to maximize, and basically throws 25 years of Windows usability standards out the window.

The tabs don't replace the title bar functionality in Chrome. The title bar, including its minize, maximize, and close buttons, is in its normal place, and performs its normal function. It's slightly less tall than on a normal window, though.

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286281)

In your current installation of FireFox, double-click your title bar.

Now go to Chrome, open enough tabs to fill up the row from left-to-right, and try to double-click the title bar.

For me, double-clicking an app's title bar (same function as "Restore Down" or "Maximize") is especially useful when I want to restore a maximized window so I can drag the app from my primary display to a secondary, or vice versa. I suspect many people do the same.

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (1, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285959)

"Windows usability standards"

You were shooting for the newest oxymoron? Ohhhh-kay.

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (2, Insightful)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285969)

Thank you, nonstandard UIs annoy the hell out of me. Personally I think rule #1 for HCI should be "for better or for worse be consistent."

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286137)

Thank you, nonstandard UIs annoy the hell out of me. Personally I think rule #1 for HCI should be "for better or for worse be consistent."

Or to put it another way, "The thought of change leading to progress scares me."

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286033)

Rubbish.
Tear away tabs are the perfect solution to your hate.

Calling an unfinished set of ui designs "The epitome of developer arrogance" Is a clear demonstration of your failure to read and is clearly a demonstration of your ignorance.
Giving users the choice of having tabs above or below would allow users to choose what they want. It's abundantly obvious that neither way has enough merits to warrant being as you put it "Worthy of death."

As a Windows user, I recommend you worry more about Windows' security features and more accurately; useless lack of them instead of the copied directly from Mac OSX and compiz eye candy features of Aero.

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (1)

rampant mac (561036) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286095)

"and basically throws 25 years of Windows usability standards out the window."

That's odd you mention that, considering the last two releases of Windows (Vista & 7) both have different interfaces (Vista with Aero, 7 with it's dock, er, task bar). I like how Google implemented its tabbed interface, but there is room for improvement. I find it fascinating that 10 years ago, IE *was* the internet! Now FF and Safari (along with WebKit dominating in the mobile space) have begun to push aside IE's presence on the internet. Who said the browser wars were over? :)

Missing what?? (1)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286269)

I don't know what you're smoking but Chrome has a title bar. It's an easy drag target. Here, have a look: http://www.google.com/chrome [google.com] .

See. Title bar. Big, double-clickable, dragable, resizable, titlebar.

I'm not a Chrome user but if you're going to complain, at least get it right ;)

Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (1)

jj00 (599158) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286335)

I completely agree, I like having a normal title bar. Then again, I still use the "classic theme" in Windows. I like the current UI as it is, and have even been a bit annoyed in some of the tweaks they've made over the past few releases.

I'd like to see these features as options or themes. Maybe even make an easy option to go into "support mode" which will provide a unified standard UI.

Sort of old... (3, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285759)

These screen-shots have been available for months. This is old news.

Frankly, I think worrying about minor details like whether the tabs are above or below the taskbar sort of shows how far browsers have come. On the list of things I was worried about 5 or 10 years ago, it's near the bottom.

Separate search box option? (2, Insightful)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285799)

I hope they make integrating the search box in the URL box optional. One of the things I really like about FF is the ability to use keyboard shortcuts to select specific search engines or sites. Of course with Ubiquity http://labs.mozilla.com/ubiquity/ [mozilla.com] progressing nicely I may be in the minority.

Re:Separate search box option? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285827)

By using keyboard shortcuts, yes, you are in the minority. Even more so for using something application specific (lots of people use control-c and friends for cut and paste).

Re:Separate search box option? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286209)

My keyboard shortcut is to hit tab to go to the search window :-)

Not really different than typing w for wikipedia, etc.

Actually not too bad (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285807)

I was half expecting to have to go on a tirade about the new look but it's actually pretty decent. Just looking at FF right now there's a lot of empty space that can be consolidated (mainly the file menu bar and the tabs bar area). The go/stop/reload consolidated into the path bar is a pretty good idea. Clears up a few buttons worth of space. And the file bar could really be hidden and opened up by right clicking the title bar icon in the upper left (where you'd normally just see 'restore, minimize, close, etc') to save even more space. As long as they kept a drop down button for bookmarks and either a button or hotkey for the home page I would definitely consider upgrading to this GUI.

Qt version? (0)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285811)

Another detail that would be nice to know is if Mozilla will take advantage of this major version rewrite to finally drop GTK in favour of Qt. Personally I can only see good things in that migration.

Re:Qt version? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286157)

Personally I can only see good things in that migration.

Care to elucidate? Man, give examples in a case like this.

Why transparency? (5, Interesting)

JPLemme (106723) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285829)

Am I the only person who thinks transparency sucks? If it's too transparent, the content can be hard to pick out from the background. And if it's only a little transparent (OS X), the menu can look like it got smudged with dirt. Are we expected to use only low-contrast, muted backgrounds?

If I wanted to see a partially obscured, blurry version of what's behind my browser, I can just smear my glasses with Vaseline and minimize Firefox.

Re:Why transparency? (5, Interesting)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285987)

I don't have mod points, otherwise you'd get them. There's zero functionality derived from transparency for UI elements.

It doesn't look cool. It's the UI equivalent of spinners and under-chassis neon lighting.

Re:Why transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286161)

wow... did anyone ever think those things inside Windows would ever become.... .... wait for it ...... WINDOWS!

read: you can see through them.

personally... i think the Aero GUI is ugly, its kinda like forcing the patches the Window Blinds ppl were doing years ago on the masses......

Re:Why transparency? (3, Informative)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286163)

This is an UI setting in Vista, it can be altered in seconds and has nothing to do with Firefox.

Re:Why transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286215)

Blurring is CPU-intensive, so transparency is something that wasn't possible years ago, but is now possible. No one likes it when their neighbor has something they don't, so transparency drives people to upgrade their hardware and OS.

Re:Why transparency? (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286241)

Agreed. I don't pick the highest quality screen I can afford to look at blurry screen.

Re:Why transparency? (5, Interesting)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286331)

Yup you're right! . . . Apple >> System Preferences >> Desktop & Screensaver >> Translucent Menu Bar

My favorite thing to uncheck.

Mockups page slashdotted? (1)

Saija (1114681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285833)

I love the smell of smoking servers in the morning, it smells like victory!

How about just getting 3.5 to work right (1)

rimcrazy (146022) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285837)

Been using 3.5 on OSX. Works like crap. Downgraded back to 3.0 and issues went away.

Re:How about just getting 3.5 to work right (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286347)

Using 3.5 on OS X and it works fine (10.5.7 and 10.5.8). So there! Check your add-ons. They're often the source of Great Evil.

Memory Usage (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285849)

I hope the new version will fix some of the memory issues in linux. I use Iron on my windows boxes and would love to have a version of that for my Nix boxes. If Firefox could get that speedy I would be very satisfied.

Re:Memory Usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29285913)

Wasn't that last years troll? Dam, you got me.

Re:Memory Usage (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286197)

Was not trolling-I was stating in more general terms of the desire for function over form. Firefox has always felt more "bloated" than I like. What does it matter about the visual theme? That is what skins are for-most people will end up tweaking it to their desktop theme du jour anyway. The long and short is there is no browser that is the perfect answer. Since firefox(or iceweasel) is bundled with the most "popular" linux distro, I think the next release should focus less on asthetics and more on speed and stability. Sure its fast and stable, but there is always room for improvement.

max (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285891)

for transparent backgrounds, I reply this:

most browsers are maximized, and transparent looks awkward

Re:max (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286143)

Is that right? I can't remember the last time I had a browser maximized.

Where's the menu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29285907)

In their haste to save vertical space, they seemed to forget that the menu bar is a perfect place to put all those "customize" icons for various functions that otherwise would have to go on a toolbar. Especially if you have a lot of extensions installed that use them. Even on a small screen, you can squeeze quite a few icons into the blank space next to the Help menu. Besides, menus are a perfect space-saving device. How else can you squeeze dozens or even hundreds of options into a single horizontal row? If you can't at least turn the menu bar on, I'm sticking with 3.5.

Same thing with the status bar. I like to hover over a link and see where it's pointing me before I click it.

Die IE Die!!! (1)

IAmKidding (1623797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285993)

Yes...much better UI.

and ofcourse..my favs would be.

1. Faster startup time - i hate when IE takes that time to even show me the white color of the page..I used to love IE6.0...but good to hear abt this startup time thing..
2. Saving on Vertical Space - its often nice to have a big working space and at the sametime dont have to have small buttons...good combination.
3. tabs-on-top (dont know what so good abt it though)

allthough the mockups dont talk abt statusbar thing..will it be like chrome? because..it feels as if we are floating without statusbar..statusbar is a must.

[opera 10 is good too..with that small thumbnails of the tabs on left hand side..but i guess not in the race yet?]

rest..firefox rules!! :)...die IE die.

"Going Chrome" (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29285995)

By "Going Chrome", I thought it was about having every tab be a separate process! But it's just the UI. What a disappointment.

Combo stop/refresh/go button FTW (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286011)

I like tabs on top because it makes them "pop" more--I save almost 0.1 second when hunting for an open tab at the top of the window compared to looking past the normal clutter to a lower tab bar! The lost title bar functionality doesn't affect me much since I always browse in a maximized window, but the mockup shows a thin strip above the tabs which should help those who don't.

The Windows 7 stuff doesn't excite me, because I am no longer a Windows user except here at work, where we will not be moving to 7 anytime soon.

The nicest feature IMO looks to be the combo stop/refresh/go button. That makes so much sense that I'm surprised I haven't seen it before. It removes excess buttons from the UI and shows only the functionality that makes sense within the current context. Very nice.

Combo stop/refresh/go button FAIL (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286227)

The nicest feature IMO looks to be the combo stop/refresh/go button. That makes so much sense that I'm surprised I haven't seen it before.

You have, in Safari, it sucks dirty swamp water through used oil filters [slashdot.org] .

Re:Combo stop/refresh/go button FTW (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286261)

One reason the triple button might not be such a good idea is that when you want to stop a page load, you might accidentally cause a refresh instead (if the page finishes loading between the time you wanted to stop and the time you clicked).

Re:Combo stop/refresh/go button FTW (3, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286345)

One reason the triple button might not be such a good idea is that when you want to stop a page load, you might accidentally cause a refresh instead

Happened for me within minutes of installing Safari. There's no "might" about it.

Combo Button (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286015)

I really like the combo button, seriously, you do only need one of those at a time, so automatically deciding which is needed is a great idea.

Only thing is when a page hangs I usually reload it to get it going again, this would make for a two click solution to that, but then again I just use F5 anyway.

As for the tabs above/below thing, I like chromes tabs on top method, saves more room for content, but the obvious solution is to make it a choice in the options menu.

Combo Button is hateful. (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286173)

I really hate the combo button. Safari introduced this and I started running into the following problems:

1. A page is loading slowly (slow site, busy computer, DNS lookup failure, ...) and I go to click "stop", but the load finishes just before I click, the stop icon changed to a reload, and now I have to wait through it loading again.

2. A page is refreshing on a schedule. I decide I want to reload it sooner, so I go to click the reload button... just as it starts reloading, so now the automatic reload gets stopped.

Moving it to the end of the address box in the latest Safari is just an extra layer of manure on the sandwich.

Fugly indeed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286063)

And just because you can do alpha-blending translucent windows doesn't mean you should.

Options. (4, Insightful)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286065)

Please make it look like Firefox 2. I want it to look like an ordinary Windows XP application. Nothing flashy.

And if you do add something flashy, please make sure to ADD IN THE OPTION TO DISABLE IT. Options are GOOD. KEEP ADDING OPTIONS. Make the options VISIBLE.

Poor UI design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286085)

I completely dislike the proposed interface. I refused to install Chrome because of this poor designed UI and I will definitely switch browser if FF does the same mistake...

Move along, nothing to see here... (1)

koro666 (947362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286101)

This can already be done. [howtogeek.com]

Also, I hope they will keep the tabs on the bottom, and not clutter the titlebar with it. It's the window manager's job to draw the window border and decoration, definitely not the application's.

More images for the "Oooh shiny!" crowd. (0, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286149)

No doubt they hope some pretty pictures will make the drooling fanbois forget about the endless bugs in 3.x.

im so glad (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286153)

firefox will become translucent. god knows you cant browse the web unless its translucent (thats how they do it in minority report.) When will we see the genie effect added so the browser will finally pass the Acid exam with 100% and i can use web 2.0 the right way?

Re:im so glad (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286257)

Like many before me have pointed out: The window transparency is a Windows Vista thing, not Firefox.

So much for "Redmond, start your copiers" (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286171)

This copying trend is going out of hand. How about some innovation from someone other than Apple for once?

Space ftw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29286239)

I too use chrome cause I have a 12.1" screen and the mozilla stuff on top takes tons more space.

I imagine every ultraportable ( I refuse to call them 'netbooks' ) on the market would need something like Chrome as a browser.

IE8 (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286245)

Can we look anymore like IE8? Did I ever tell you I don't like IE8's UI?

[sarcasm]wow[/sarcasm] (1)

owyn999 (856162) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286287)

yeah as if some of us don't get most of these features sans the transparency from oh I don't know opera 10 but you know it doesn't have plugins but it now has widgets and jscripts for greasemonkey scripts if you really need site specific and the widgets do external stuff that doesn't have to be site rendering dependant

FIXME: (3, Interesting)

thenextstevejobs (1586847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29286315)

Why'd all the browser developers decide that this same model we have for browsing web pages is adequate? Considering how much time we, as a human race, are currently using the web browser, I would hope that we could make one that is a little better than this Netscape 26.0 shit we're stuck with. Apple, are you there? Can you please do for the browser what you've done for the phone? Google, we know you have like $n! dollars, can't you throw some more money at this problem? Chrome (which I am browsing from ATM) is pretty half-baked.

Shouldn't this thing read to me by now, standard? Shouldn't I have a better way to look at multiple pages than separate tabs and windows? Why does it all crash so much? Why must it be such an unelegant, awful thing to display information to from programming languages?

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>