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!

Mozilla Reveals Firefox 4 Plans

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the just-make-it-faster dept.

Firefox 570

Barence writes "Mozilla has given a breakdown of its plans for Firefox 4. Perhaps the most striking change to Firefox 4 is the user interface, which takes a great deal of inspiration from Google Chrome. 'Something UI designers have known for a long time is that the simpler an interface looks, the faster it will seem,' said director of Firefox Mike Beltzner during the presentation. Also mooted was the ability to give applications such as Gmail and Twitter their own permanent tabs for easy access, and the introduction of a 'switch to tab' button, allowing power users running hundreds of tabs to quickly find the one they want. Beltzner said Mozilla was also looking at replicating Chrome's tactic of silently updating the browser in the background, removing the annoying wait when Firefox first loads up."

cancel ×

570 comments

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

Retarded (-1, Troll)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32167948)

Pretty much the only thing the new version will be is retarded. Permanent tabs? Garbage.

Re:Retarded (4, Insightful)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32167964)

"the simpler an interface looks, the faster it will seem". What a joke.

Re:Retarded (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168010)

at a magical and unbelievable price too!

Re:Retarded (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168080)

"the simpler an interface looks, the faster it will seem". What a joke.

For many average users, it's not a joke at all.

Personally, I don't care that much. As long as I can remove as many extra menus, bars, etc. as possible I'm happy- I like to run the most minimal menu bar setup possible.

What I would like to see happen, however, is for FF to stop allowing any installation, uninstallation, enabling, disabling, or other modification to the addons from ANY source other than the user. Any plugin or addon should be able to be removed as well.

Re:Retarded (2, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168274)

GP's point is that there are real performance gains that they could be making (Chrome doesn't just appear faster because of the interface, it is faster in benchmark tests), and while the UI is important, it's pretty telling that they're focusing on the UI changes rather than telling us about the fantastic performance gains they've made (kind of suggesting that they haven't).

Re:Retarded (4, Informative)

dintlu (1171159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168494)

It doesn't help that the linked article is terrible. A whole pile of performance updates are being made in addition to the UI changes:

JagerMonkey
HTML5 Parser off main thread
64 bit support
Startup timeline optimizations
Reduced I/O operations on main thread
JS threads and GC
DOM Performance improvements
Layers for compositing, scrolling

+

Graphics compositing with Layers
Hardware acceleration using Direct3D
Multitouch support
Aero Peek integration
OSX integration

I'd suggest reading the actual presentation for more information:
http://beltzner.ca/mike/2010/05/10/firefox-4-fast-powerful-and-empowering/ [beltzner.ca]

Re:Retarded (4, Insightful)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168420)

Aren't we discussing semantics here?
It's pretty obvious what the man means. An application with a simple user interface works much nicer than an application with a UI that's littered with ambiguously labeled buttons and hidden menus. If you have to click 4 times to get something done, an application will feel (seem/look/whatever) slow compared to when you can do that in one single click as well.

One thing I hope is that "silently updating in the background" doesn't mean there will be some sort of "Firefox updater.exe" service loaded in the background when I start up my PC. I hate it when applications do that.

Re:Retarded (1, Flamebait)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168456)

So instead of actually fixing the weird bottlenecks and sloppy code, they're just painting racing stripes and calling it a day.

Firefox is in dire need of a fork.

Re:Retarded (3, Insightful)

pete-wilko (628329) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168506)

Yes, because increasing user satisfaction shouldn't be an objective for a browser which is constantly trying to increase its market share...

Much like the story of people complaining about elevators taking too long to arrive, and the installation of mirrors stopped the complaints, this is much the same. If users perceive the browser to be faster, then that is just as important as it being faster from a user satisfaction point of view.

Sounds like speed holes (4, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32167968)

Anyone remember that episode of the Simpsons? "These are speed holes. They make the car go faster."

Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.

Got that right. (3, Interesting)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168086)

On my cheap laptop, there is a noticeable performance difference between FF and Chrome - Chrome is snappier and much less of a resource hog.

With the popularity of Netbooks, I see FF losing market share to Google because of the performance differences.

Re:Got that right. (5, Interesting)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168360)

"Noticeable" is an understatement. My primary machine is a P8600 dual-core laptop with 2Gb of RAM and firefox + 4 plugins take 5 times more to load than Chrome + 4 plugins. My workhorse is a quad-core Q8400 with 8 Gb RAM. There, Chrome loads instantly, whereas Firefox takes 2 seconds even with no plugins.

I'm using Firefox for development only and just because of Firebug (I know there's a Firebug lite for Chrome but it's not even close, like its Developer Tools).

Re:Sounds like speed holes (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168110)

Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.

First, the article says "seem", not "look".

Second, are you sitting there with a stopwatch, shrieking "Ah hah! Caught you! I was happier because you seemed faster, but the evidence conclusively proves that I should instead be miserable. Miserable and angry."

If so, then you have enough time on your hands that browser speed isn't your top concern.

Re:Sounds like speed holes (2, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168202)

You're missing his point. He'd prefer that Mozilla focus on making the browser actually faster, instead of focusing on making it seem faster. See the difference? One is reality, the other is an illusion, the equivalent of delaying startup of services on login to the user has a command prompt sooner, but then has to sit and wait for the cursor to stop spinning before he/she can do anything.

My personal opinion is that the new version looks like ass -- where's the menubar? Ribbon interfaces don't seem fast to me, they seem like an update to UI for the sake of updating things so people will buy the latest version. If this is the best that Mozilla can do, perhaps I'd better give Chrome a try after all.

Re:Sounds like speed holes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168430)

Because Firefox's long-standing responsiveness issues are rooted in deep architectural problems, and nobody from mozilla is willing to admit they f-ed up so badly they need to rethink the whole thing.

Re:Sounds like speed holes (2, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168500)

Because Firefox's long-standing responsiveness issues are rooted in deep architectural problems, and nobody from mozilla is willing to admit they f-ed up so badly they need to rethink the whole thing.

The folks doing deCOMtamination, as they call it, would like to have a word with you.

Re:Sounds like speed holes (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168226)

Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.

First, the article says "seem", not "look".

Actually, it says both: "...the simpler an interface looks, the faster it will seem...".

Second, are you sitting there with a stopwatch, shrieking "Ah hah! Caught you! I was happier because you seemed faster, but the evidence conclusively proves that I should instead be miserable. Miserable and angry."

If so, then you have enough time on your hands that browser speed isn't your top concern.

I wasn't planning to, but you make it sound fun. ;)

To rephrase my original point, I'd rather have the browser be faster than look/seem faster. I know it doesn't matter all that much much but it is important to me.

Re:Sounds like speed holes (1)

epiphani (254981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168206)

I'd settle for a windows 7 64-bit native build.

I'm not completely sure what exactly my problem is, but I updated to windows 7 64 bit on my desktop two weeks ago, and firefox crashes probably once every 20 minutes while using it.

Re:Sounds like speed holes (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168282)

Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.

Right. Because, of course, the only thing they're working on is making the browser seem faster while actually being the same speed, or possibly even slower.

The fact that the presentation also discussed their plans to speed up the browser significantly means nothing. No, of course not. Focus on the one quote that was repeated in the summary.

Re:Sounds like speed holes (1)

weszz (710261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168336)

mythbusters tried this with a golfball pattern, and got quite a bit BETTER gas mileage out of the car over the 1 mile course repeatedly. The downside would be that your car has hundreds of huge dimples on it... Wasn't faster, but it was more efficient.

Sounds like.. progress bars. (3, Insightful)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168344)

Most progress bars on the world are there to make the wait more fun. Drawing the progress bar takes CPU, and probably some activities sould be done in a incremental way, to be progressbar friendly, where a bach apropach would be faster.
Most progress bars are not really needed, but make programs feel faster by making programs a bit slower but more fun.
Anything that make a program 0.1% slower but feel 20% more faster is better for everyone. Yea, any human.

Re:Sounds like.. progress bars. (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168458)

In that vein, it should probably be mentioned that many progress bars are purely for psychological effect.

The ones that just have a moving gradient, or a bar that zooms back and forth don't actually indicate progress at all, they just reassure the waiting human that the machine is working, rather than frozen, which apparently makes the wait seem shorter.

Also, outside of some fairly specific niche applications(and video encoding/transcoding, which may not count as 'niche' these days), most progress bars that would last long enough to be visible are probably not there to indicate the status of a CPU constrained process. Pretty much any computer that runs on single-phase current at 15 amps or less is ridiculously powerful in the CPU department, but has severely questionable I/O performance.

Re:Sounds like speed holes (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168388)

A qualitatively "faster-feeling" browser and a quantitatively "faster-running" browser are not mutually exclusive. They are more likely to be utterly orthogonal.

Re:Sounds like speed holes (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168436)

The late 50's Pontiac Catalina's had holes drilled throughout the frame to reduce weight and thus increase the car's performance on the racing circuit. It was called a "swiss cheese frame."

Speed holes aren't a joke. ;)

Re:Sounds like speed holes (5, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168470)

Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.

Personally, I'd rather have a stable browser with useful features that I use than a browser that can render a page 0.1 second faster. I really don't understand this obsession over the speed of the browser.

H.264 support? (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32167994)

First of all, am I the only one who hates Chrome's interface? But that's just window dressing, the real question is will it support H264/HTML5?

Re:H.264 support? (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168038)

Do you want to foot the bill for H264 royalties?

Re:H.264 support? (4, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168162)

From the numbers a lot of people have posted, it would only cost about 3 cents per copy of Firefox. Ask the users to pay the bill: "Do you want to still be able to view YouTube? Please donate 25 cents today!" It would fund Mozilla AND pay the H.264 royalties where it's needed.

Others have suggested that the Mozilla Foundation should just use the OS to playback video and stop complaining for nothing. H.264 has already won, it's already used everywhere. The more they fight, the longer Flash video will survive. Does Adobe pay Mozilla or what?

And some people live in countries where software patents are not even legal. Why should they pay anything?

Re:H.264 support? (4, Insightful)

camcorder (759720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168276)

It would cost 3 cents now.

Mozilla Foundation is a U.S. company (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168308)

And some people live in countries where software patents are not even legal. Why should they pay anything?

Are you willing to foot the bill for the emigration of the entire Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation to one of these countries?

Re:H.264 support? (4, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168368)

H.264 has already won, it's already used everywhere. The more they fight, the longer Flash video will survive. Does Adobe pay Mozilla or what?

Why is everyone so eager to suddenly replace one proprietary format for another? I'm not saying that h.264 is the wrong choice, it certainly seems better than the competition right now, but just because the licensing group are playing nice at the moment, don't assume they will always play nice. Maybe the right choice is to stick with Flash a little longer to further development on an open source alternative and Mozilla have got it right. I guess time will tell as h.264 looks pretty inevitable now, I just hope we're not having similar discussions in a few years about how we're shackled with it as a format and the people behind it are screwing everyone.

Re:H.264 support? (3, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168252)

Supporting H.264 doesn't mean FF has to actually ship the codec. Go learn about GStreamer and DirectShow, then rethink your silly argument.

Re:H.264 support? (4, Informative)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168090)

h.264 and HTML5 aren't synonymous - HTML5 just provides a video container, the browser vendor decides what codecs to allow, so it's entirely possible to fully support HTML5 yet still have no h.264 support.

Re:H.264 support? (3, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168406)

h.264 and HTML5 aren't synonymous - HTML5 just provides a video container, the browser vendor decides what codecs to allow, so it's entirely possible to fully support HTML5 yet still have no h.264 support.

It was also possible to sell fully functional VCRs that weren't VHS. But it wasn't easy finding content for them.

Re:H.264 support? (1)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168182)

No. Well that was simple.

Re:H.264 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168408)

Firefox already has HTML5 support in the current version, and has for a while.

Of the major browsers, Internet Explorer is the only one that does not have HTML5 support (but its coming in the next version).

h.264 support is hard to say - but I wouldn't count on it. It goes against what Mozilla Firefox is supposed to be (by their own words), which is it instead operates on the other most common video codec used in HTML5 - OGG Theora.

Silent update (3, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32167996)

It won't be "silent" if it keeps that obnoxious behaviour it does now, where it interrupts you with a new version splash page. It's no less rude than a popup ad.

Re:Silent update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168254)

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Startup.homepage_override_url [mozillazine.org]
I set it to a blank value, and don't get the splash page.

Finally surf the WWW with FFF (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168006)

Fire Fox Four, sounds like a cheesy name for a new Charlies-Angels-kinda-group... But seriously, the new browser looks good with some nice new technologies for web developers and hopefully some better speed for the users... For other waiting: we can expect the beta in June, and the RC in October with a release within a month, so FFF should land this fall.

Re:Finally surf the WWW with FFF (4, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168044)

You're probably thinking of "Fox Force Five", from Pulp Fiction

http://www.whysanity.net/monos/fox.html [whysanity.net]

Re:Finally surf the WWW with FFF (3, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168138)

Ketchup!

Re:Finally surf the WWW with FFF (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168416)

Oh man, that's fucked up! You ruined it... Now I'll have to wait until version 5 comes out to make that lame joke again.
I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't like people barking orders at me. ;)

Still a Firefox user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168022)

I still love my Firefox, but it seems like those devs have been playing catch-up for the last couple years instead of being the innovators. I dunno, but that inclines me to want to make a switch..

Re:Still a Firefox user (1)

radicalskeptic (644346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168146)

But look at this from the other angle: the browser is not cutting edge, it is mature and stable.

On my aging Mac, I started out with Safari, then switched to Firefox when Safari started getting buggy as hell for no apparent reason. A couple months back I switched to Chrome just for kicks, but after a while started noticing it wasn't as stable or bug-free as Firefox (specifically, Flash would die and my Youtube vids would have to be restarted, also when I have lots of tabs open some pages appear to be blank even though they have loaded and are supposed to display content on them). So I switched back to good ol' Firefox. Sure, maybe it's not the fastest, the sleekest, or the most advanced browser on the planet, but it's damned reliable and eminently useable!

Re:Still a Firefox user (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168492)

Those blank tabs, from my experience (also on one older machine, not a lot of RAM, HDD readily audible when seeking), are typically due to OS almost completelly swapping out the process behind this specific tab. Takes a while to get it back / a side effect of Chrome architecture - it is fast as long as it has plenty of physical RAM, for the amount of tabs you open. If that's not true, the experience goes down the drain.

Re:Still a Firefox user (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168434)

try chrome for just one day, it is awesome

i tried chrome as soon as the beta came out, and since then i have never switched back, firefox seems slow, clunky and has way too much interface clutter (well, to be fixed in 4.0 apperently) compared to chrome

and dont get me started on IE

"the faster it will seem" ? (5, Insightful)

ifrag (984323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168024)

Seems faster? In my experience it has been more than "seems", Chrome actually is faster. The thing keeping me on Firefox is the various add-ons which I cannot get in Chrome. If Chrome were to get vertical tabs, that would go a long way towards making a switch.

It would be nice if Firefox did improve performance though. Would be a lot more significant than a trimmed down interface while the program runs just as slow.

Re:"the faster it will seem" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168098)

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/imimolldggofidcmfdkcffpjcgaggoaf?hl=en

Re:"the faster it will seem" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168480)

You have to push a button to see your tabs instead of it putting the tab bar on the side.
Compare with Tree Style Tab [mozilla.org] . As far as I know this is not possible with Chrome's limited extension system.

Re:"the faster it will seem" ? (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168288)

Yes, I'm a long term Firefox fan, and it's still my primary browser on most machines, but I was blown away by how much faster Chrome was on my netbook, and now there's adblock for Chrome, Firefox doesn't get a look in on that machine. And that is Firefox with only 2 or 3 add-ons to enhance small-screen use, not the 20 plus add-ons I use on the desktop. Resuming from sleep, Chrome is ready as soon as the wi-fi has reconnected, whereas Firefox seems to take maybe 30-40 seconds before I can use it, and sometimes goes into off-line mode, so I have to hit the menu to put it back in on-line mode before I can do anything. So "seems faster" is not good enough, I want "is faster" before I'd go back to Firefox on the netbook.

Re:"the faster it will seem" ? (1)

apostrophesemicolon (816454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168302)

The lack of noscript in chrome/chromium is a dealbreaker for me. Although I've heard some attempts at creating noscript-like features on Chrome, you can't possibly expect a browser by google to include googlead-blocking feature.

Also, I <HATE> the top location of tabs for two things; 1. You have to _look_ higher from the page you're currently browsing, as opposed to right above it, 2. You have to _click_ further up to switch between tabs. I know there's cmd+1/2/3 or ctrl+tab but sometimes it's faster to just drag n click.

Re:"the faster it will seem" ? (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168346)

It would be nice if Firefox did improve performance though. Would be a lot more significant than a trimmed down interface while the program runs just as slow.

They're working on that. Unlike the summary, the actual presentation gives information about more than just "slimming down the UI to make it seem faster". Their first of three stated goals is "making Firefox super-duper fast". If you look at the slides here [beltzner.ca] , the "fast" discussion starts at slide 23.

removing annoying wait when Firefox first loads (5, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168026)

Thank you! That is the most annoying part of Firefox. I hate when I open Firefox and it makes me wait while it updates, and then when it finally does open, it does so on a pointless tab that offers me absolutely no useful information and once again delays what I'm trying to do.

I don't like the secret/stealth update either. Here's a very simple idea:

First, install the update when I shut down the browser. You're not wasting my time then because I'm done using it. Second, don't give me a tab telling me what I already know. I know it was updated, I just fricken saw it updated. I'm not an idiot.

Re:removing annoying wait when Firefox first loads (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168066)

Why not ask, with four options? Do it now, do it at next startup, do it at next shutdown, don't do it.

It pisses me off that randomly my Firefox install will suddenly and without warning install an update when starting up. I have been caught out several times by that until I turned off automatic updates. In my view, automatic updates should be off by default, with a dialog during install asking if you want to turn them on.

Re:removing annoying wait when Firefox first loads (5, Insightful)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168128)

First, install the update when I shut down the browser. You're not wasting my time then because I'm done using it.

Unless the whole reason you're shutting it down, as is often the case for me, is that FF has been running so long that it's become an enormous memory hog and you need to shut it down then restart it so your system will speed back up. Or you're shutting it down in order to shut down or reboot your entire computer. I agree with the previous commenter, just give us the choice.

Re:removing annoying wait when Firefox first loads (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168214)

Good point, although Firefox runs pretty stable for me and I've been using it since it was named Phoenix. I guess I'm just lucky.

SIGKILL during shutdown might leave Firefox broken (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168392)

First, install the update when I shut down the browser. You're not wasting my time then because I'm done using it.

When you shut down the browser, you could be shutting down your computer.* Firefox doesn't want a SIGKILL from sudo shutdown -h now to make the updater leave the system in an inconsistent state. So if startup is unacceptable and shutdown is unacceptable, the only remaining solution is to do so in the background while the browser is in use.

* Not everybody is as lucky as you are to have proper driver support for hibernation. And some people apply security patches to their operating system kernels every month or two.

Re:removing annoying wait when Firefox first loads (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168432)

Here's a very simple idea:

First, install the update when I shut down the browser. You're not wasting my time then because I'm done using it.

No, if I shut something off, I want it shut OFF. If I have renders to do, or whatever it is I wanted to do instead of use firefox, I do NOT want firefox to decide to stay open in the background, doing things.

Menu Bar..? (4, Interesting)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168032)

So that's gone MIA, then? What's the current obsession with removing menu bars, creating "ribbon" interfaces and taking away stuff that has served us well for over 20 years..?

Not sure I like the look of that new interface. Aint broke, don't fix it.

Re:Menu Bar..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168100)

But the whole point is that it's NOT "aint broke". Anything else/more to be said is mere opinion.

Re:Menu Bar..? (3, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168122)

More screen real estate. With the small screened netbooks being all the rage, that menu bar does make a difference.

Re:Menu Bar..? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168184)

Hopefully, if they do remove the menu bar, they'll at least take a leaf from IE's book (yes, I never thought I'd be saying that again) and have a single Alt press pop the menu back up so I don't waste time hunting down little used options.

Re:Menu Bar..? (5, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168310)

Is the menu bar really that useful? Apart from using it as a way to get to Preferences, I can't think of a single option that I use the Firefox menu bar for. Also, it takes up some screen area; on small screen devices it may be more optimal to drop the bar make the functions accessible from elsewhere.

Aint broke, don't fix it.

Maybe. On the other hand, Chrome has grabbed 20% market share in one year which is no small feat. There are reasons that people are switching to Chrome - allegedly quicker browsing and the user interface. It's worth experimenting with a similar approach in Firefox. Maybe it will work out, and maybe it won't, but if they don't try we will never know.

Re:Menu Bar..? (3, Informative)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168422)

On any random day, I use the the print button under the file menu, the "save page as", preferences, zoom, history, bookmarks, in the tools menu I use the preferences for add-ons I've got. Occasional use include the "open file" in the file menu, view page source in the edit menu, and the about tab in the help menu. So maybe you don't use the menu bar but I do, just about every day. Removing it would really, really, really piss me off.

Please, please, (1, Flamebait)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168036)

... takes a great deal of inspiration from Google Chrome.

Nooooooo!!!

Seriously, what is the point of having Firefox then? The fact that I need to open new tab in Chrome in order to access some bookmark pisses me off and pretty much makes bookmarks pointless.

Re:Please, please, (1, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168104)

Seriously, what is the point of having Firefox then? The fact that I need to open new tab in Chrome in order to access some bookmark pisses me off and pretty much makes bookmarks pointless.

RTFGSR [google.com] (google search results, for "chrome bookmark menu" and quit your whining.

Re:Please, please, (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168248)

I don't use it often enough to bother googling, because I only test our stuff on it, but thanks anyway.

Re:Please, please, (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168428)

I don't use it often enough to bother googling, because I only test our stuff on it, but thanks anyway.

You should try it. I find that it is dramatically faster than Firefox in every way. Unless you need an extension not available for chrome, or a plugin which doesn't work properly with it, it is definitely superior. For Windows there's SRWare Iron, but it's perpetually a little dated; for Linux and MacOS X there's Chromium. Unless, of course, you want to phone home with every click :p

Re:Please, please, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168142)

the point is that on firefox you have noscript, downthemall, firebug and others. I too like current FF UI on my laptop, if FF changes it too much a new extension with good ol firefox UI is in order.

Re:Please, please, (2, Informative)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168148)

Turn the bookmark toolbar on.

Re:Please, please, (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168158)

This behaviour greatly puzzled me on Chrome / Win32, because on OS X it still has a dedicated Bookmarks menu. Obviously this is because there is somewhere to actually put it on OS X (with the split between the window itself and the top bar) but it's still a strange inconsistency between platforms. I would have expected them to either all have a bookmarks menu, or all of them to lack a bookmark menu - not a mishmash.

Meh.

Re:Please, please, (1)

Chameleon Man (1304729) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168176)

What? Have you heard of the bookmark bar? To go to your favorites you don't HAVE to always use that default page that displays every time you create a new tab...I never do.

Re:Please, please, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168298)

They better include a means of reverting the interface back to how it is in Firefox 3. If they don't then they'll likely start losing market share rapidly. If you're forced to use the Chrome interface in Firefox then you may as well just switch to Chrome for its faster speed, greater stability and lower memory usage.

The dire interface in Thunderbird 3 can almost totally be reverted back to Thunderbird 2 so hopefully Firefox will be the same.

Re:Please, please, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168396)

Find-as-you-type in FF is the only reason why I failed to convert to Chrome. I hope they steal every idea they can from Chrome and keep FAYT

Plugin isolation (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168046)

As long as they manage to isolate Java and Adobe from crushing the whole damn thing it's good enough for me.

HTML 5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168264)

I'll second that, and put in a request for more HTML 5 support. I am particularly interested in when firefox will implement the "combo box" feature of HTML 5. This is something that has been requested in web programming since day one.

Here is an example [myopera.com] of how to do it (opera has the only implementation as of yet).

UI (3, Funny)

visualight (468005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168056)

Perhaps the most striking change to Firefox 4 is the user interface...

There's a shocker.

The faster it will seem? (3, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168060)

Something UI designers have known for a long time is that the simpler an interface looks, the faster it will seem.

Just because an interface looks simple doesn't mean it looks faster. Who thinks like that? The "Speed holes" reference" above is quite right. Those UI designers either have been misquoted or are just complete fools.

What a simple interface means is that common tasks should be more obvious to do.

Don't give the users 100 options at once, especially things that only power-users use only once in a while. I'm not a fan of putting options in tabs and sub-menus, but sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Put the basic features at the beginning, the most obscure ones at the bottom. Put them in named groups such as "Basic", "Advanced" and "Expert" if necessary, so that non-technical users aren't afraid to mess with the basic ones, and advanced users don't waste time looking for what they need in the basic and advanced options.

Re:The faster it will seem? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168244)

Something UI designers have known for a long time is that the simpler an interface looks, the faster it will seem.

Just because an interface looks simple doesn't mean it looks faster. Who thinks like that? The "Speed holes" reference" above is quite right. Those UI designers either have been misquoted or are just complete fools.

What a simple interface means is that common tasks should be more obvious to do.

Don't give the users 100 options at once, especially things that only power-users use only once in a while. I'm not a fan of putting options in tabs and sub-menus, but sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Put the basic features at the beginning, the most obscure ones at the bottom. Put them in named groups such as "Basic", "Advanced" and "Expert" if necessary, so that non-technical users aren't afraid to mess with the basic ones, and advanced users don't waste time looking for what they need in the basic and advanced options.

I can only infer from their comment that what they actually mean is, for the regular user, a simple interface with as few options as possible will result in a faster experience (and they're right, if the user doesn't need to see all those menus, showing them will just add to confusion). What they skipped over is that there are a lot of power users of Firefox at the moment, who do need quick access to those menu items, and for them, removal will doubtless result in a slower, more frustrating user experience. The hidden message is, we're happy to frustrate our existing users to try and grab some market share. I can't say if that's a good or a bad thing (the more competition to IE the better, but as one of those existing users, I don't want my experience to become more frustrating).

Re:The faster it will seem? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168350)

Without context, it sounded like "browsing is faster because the UI is simpler".

Explained that way, however, it becomes obvious that "faster" is about the time it takes for a user to do something with the UI and it has nothing to do with browsing or rendering speed.

slides don't work in Gnash (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168074)

His slides (on "slide share") don't work for me, using Firefox and Gnash.

C'mon guys. Attention to detail with your open web!

Thanks for nothing (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168126)

the most striking change to Firefox 4 is the user interface, which takes a great deal of inspiration from Google Chrome.

Great. That means I will be staying with the current version of Firefox for a long time. I just tried Chrome a few days ago and the user interface totally sucks. What is is with these people who have to fuck up a good design just so they can make it different and justify a new version number.

Re:Thanks for nothing (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168194)

Don't forget about Opera. As Firefox and Chrome become bloated, there is an alternative.

Re:Thanks for nothing (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168286)

Don't forget about Opera. As Firefox and Chrome become bloated, there is an alternative.

Having used Opera 10.53, I can see why "the user interface totally sucks" would make you think of Opera.

Re:Thanks for nothing (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168294)

I'm using the Vimperator extension and don't care what the UI looks like, you insensitive clod!

(Also, it's not as if Chrome is the only browser that pre-loads. IE pretty much does it, unless they changed that behavior as part of the "damn, now we actually do have to separate the browser from the OS" initiative.)

Re:Thanks for nothing (1)

BrandonJones (1581809) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168354)

I really don't get all the hate against Chrome's UI. I love it, as does nearly my entire office. It keeps the crap I don't care about out of my way and let's me see more of the crap I do care about (you know, the page?) And yes, it's stupidly fast. None of that condones Firefox just blindly lifting their interface, of course. But on the flip side of that coin there are far, far worse places to look for inspiration!

Video presentation. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168134)

For those who don't want to rtfa, there's a video presentation on the director of firefox, Mike Beltzners blog: http://videos.mozilla.org/serv/air_mozilla/firefox4.ogg [mozilla.org]

tabs on top (1)

rhendershot (46429) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168190)

I used chrome for several days but went back to firefox because I hated having the tabs at the top.

Hundreds of tabs?? (1)

Pigeon451 (958201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168234)

My dual core with 2 GB memory slows down when I have 10-20 tabs open. Hopefully Firefox will address the memory issues before implementing this feature...

User Issue (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168320)

Hopefully Firefox will address the memory issues before implementing this feature...

Firefox has no memory issues, what you're seeing is a user issue. Just as the Firefox Devs...

Re:Hundreds of tabs?? (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168400)

they are not "memory issues" they are "features". I wish i was kidding, but both chrome and FF slowly take up more and more RAM and CPU time the longer they are open. It has to do with the whole saving your tab history so that you can "Reopen last closed tab". Most days i'd rather just use my history and be done with it.

... yay ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168262)

Firefox 4 ! The best mashup of Chrome and Opera since Firefox 3.5

stop messing wih the UI (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168278)

its hard enough to convince users that the internet isnt the blue E on their desktop and use Firefox instead.
keep changing the UI and sure as dammit they will be back using the blue E,
it may take us geeks a couple of minutes/hours to get used to a new UI but the average user it takes forever and they want familiarity they dont want to hunt for that buried option or find the new print button, hell some people dont even know what a home button is! and they absolutely hate having to throw away the knowledge gained on learning an applications UI just for it to change again

Tweak the default UI slowly, very slowly.

and for the record Chrome's UI sucks like Fisher Price (an example in gone too far in dumbing down)
eg. removing https:/// [https] from the location bar after we (the security/it industry) have spent 25 years teaching people to look for it when signing into their bank/mail etc.
lets trash all that training and start again ? after all that business training is free right ?
and and people wonder why IE is standard in corporations ?

perhaps Mozilla should start working on aiding administrators (group policy options (have you seen IEs massive list?) /locking down functions/ automatic updates that are truly automatic and dont need user interaction etc)
instead of playing with fluff.

A.Dmin

Hundrerds of tabs? (2, Insightful)

andy1307 (656570) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168280)

Seriously...if you have 100s of tabs open, you have ADD or you need to learn to let go of your tabs. Relax. Close them. They'll still be there when you wake up.

Re:Hundrerds of tabs? (3, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168454)

Seriously...if you have 100s of tabs open, you have ADD or you need to learn to let go of your tabs. Relax. Close them. They'll still be there when you wake up.

So will the ADD ;-(

Please focus on standards, speed and security ... (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168410)

Leave everything else to add-ons and plug-ins.

hundreds of tabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32168446)

hundreds of tabs??

Gmail and Twitter their own permanent tabs (2, Insightful)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168460)

Provided I can delete these "permanent" tabs. If not, fuck off.

Central Management Please! (4, Insightful)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168468)

I'd love to switch our companies users to FF but having no way to centrally manage/monitor and update is a complete killer. There's no way we can have users with 10 different versions and different issues, etc. It's a nightmare. Give me a cool central control panel and have each browser be able to be hooked into it and it would be amazing.

Final blow to Firefox (1)

acid06 (917409) | more than 4 years ago | (#32168488)

The only thing which keeps me from switching to Chrome is that Firefox still has a non-sucky UI (after some extensions such as LastTab).
If Firefox will look the same as Chrome, I'll just switch as Chrome is way faster.

They're just too eager to jump into the "me too" bandwagon and will lose market share because of it, by betraying their loyal users. They've done it once with the "awesome bar" and are doing it again now. No wonder its market share is currently stagnated.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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