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 Unleashes JaegerMonkey Enabled Firefox 4

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the some-big-hype-to-live-up-to dept.

Firefox 279

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has published the first Firefox 4 build that integrates a new JavaScript engine that aims to match the performance in IE9 and reduces the gap to Safari, Opera and Chrome. This is really the big news we have been waiting for all along with Firefox 4 and it appears that the JavaScript performance is pretty dramatic and seems to beat IE9 at least as far as ConceivablyTech shows. Good to see Mozilla back in the game." The Mozilla blog gives a good overview of the improvements this brings; Tom's Hardware also covers the release.

cancel ×

279 comments

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

The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (4, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | about 4 years ago | (#33527066)

Ironically, the primary site for which I really need a faster Javascript engine is Slashdot. For a heavily-commented article I switch to Chrome.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (5, Informative)

rsborg (111459) | about 4 years ago | (#33527108)

Ironically, the primary site for which I really need a faster Javascript engine is Slashdot. For a heavily-commented article I switch to Chrome.

Switch to old-style comments viewing system... I just get a dump of comments, nested appropriately. Makes for much nicer reading on a non-mobile device, albeit being a bit more bandwidth intensive initially.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33527194)

Ditto.

Plain text slashdot is the way to go. And I use Mozilla/SeaMonkey which seems to operate faster than Firefox, and has built-in Usenet support.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (1)

Seakip18 (1106315) | about 4 years ago | (#33527230)

Agreed. Even on mobile, it's much easier to go through comment threads than rely on javascript to handle it properly.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 4 years ago | (#33527848)

Switch to old-style comments viewing system... I just get a dump of comments, nested appropriately. Makes for much nicer reading on a non-mobile device, albeit being a bit more bandwidth intensive initially.

My trick is to load up the /. front page, then open the articles in a new tab. This hides the bandwidth usage enough that when I'm done scanning, the first article should've finished loading and I can read that while the rest of the tabs load.

I do dislike the javascript comment system for that reason - too much clicking and it's sloooooow. I'm glad /. didn't decide to do the eBay and force everyone over to the new interface with no option to switch back. About the only thing missing is a good way to quote - I think the javascript one does a nice job that embeds links and everything that the old style one doesn't.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527174)

I noticed this in a recent thread with around 800-900 comments. On that note - it was infuriating that there was a 'Get More Comments' but not a 'Get all Comments' or at least a 'Get [{50,100,200}] comments' button.

I was left with the 'Press this button 20 times to get enough comments to find that +1 post' button.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#33527282)

There is a option in the account settings to control how many comments are loaded. Mine loads 250 at a time.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527268)

I was reading the other day some comments regarding on how google instant is slow for some slashdotters. When I tried the new google search I was amazed that my 1.2 ghz ulv fedora netbook could run so fast. Slashdot is the slowest website I used on my 1ghz phone (hands down) - I'll give you that - but on any desktop, even a netbook I just fail to grasp why does anyone find it slow.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (3, Informative)

Teese (89081) | about 4 years ago | (#33527426)

Ironically, the primary site for which I really need a faster Javascript engine is Slashdot. For a heavily-commented article I switch to Chrome.

Is chrome the only broswer that has problems with the idle.slashdot comment thread. It anytime I try to open a closed comment, it refreshes the page and only gives me the comment, it doesn't expand the comment inline like it does in a normal comment thread. I've always been to lazy to try other broswers.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527510)

All browsers cry when they hit Idle. I don't think it's actually a code problem, I think everything cries at the sight of Idle.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (2, Funny)

cc1984_ (1096355) | about 4 years ago | (#33527684)

The site of Idle, surely?

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527868)

That's not even punny..

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527542)

I've noticed that in FF and Chrome, the "Full, Abbreviated, Hidden" sliders don't work for Idle stories.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527846)

This is by design. The /. employees have been trying to kill idle ever since day 1 when the PHBs forced it upon them.

The launch announcement was "from the do-not-read-the-idle-section dept." (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/14/1512250)

Just look at the responses in this subthread from that discussion
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=646041&cid=24603867

Taco _wants_ idle to suck as hard as possible, to retain the soul of /.

Re:The Slashdot Firefox Paradox (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | about 4 years ago | (#33528048)

I'm using FF on slashdot for ages never had a "slow" feeling o.o

In a Beta? (3, Interesting)

reub2000 (705806) | about 4 years ago | (#33527120)

My understanding of the term Beta is that all features are complete. Has something changed?

Re:In a Beta? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#33527156)

Alpha is when code is released in-house for testing, beta is when it's released to outsiders for testing. Presumably one wouldn't release a beta unless the features were not only completed, but tested in alpha.

Re:In a Beta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527494)

Actually, being in beta means the app is feature-complete, but still needs testing. The whole idea that 'beta testing' is done by the customer/public is what used to be called 'acceptance testing'.

Re:In a Beta? (-1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 4 years ago | (#33527610)

Not always. At Microsoft, beta == RTM.

Microsoft Beta, Alpha, RTM (0)

HannethCom (585323) | about 4 years ago | (#33527902)

I disagree, Microsoft ships many products feature incomplete, so they wouldn't even qualify as Beta quality.

Windows Vista for example was supposed to ship with EFI and Video Desktop Backgrounds support. These didn't come until later.

Some of the software engineers on Windows 95 and 98 have complained that some of the code they finished the day of RTM was in the RTM build with no testing done at all.

TFS 2005 was being sold and delivered before the client tools were completed.

Basically I think I'm saying at Microsoft alpha = RTM

Re:In a Beta? (4, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 4 years ago | (#33527172)

It's my understanding that feature freeze is tomorrow.

Re:In a Beta? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527402)

I'm going to drink JaegerMonkey all fokin night. I fokin shower in dat shit.

Re:In a Beta? (3, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 4 years ago | (#33527660)

I'm going to drink JaegerMonkey all fokin night. I fokin shower in dat shit.

That's a novel approach. Normally when *I* drink Jaeger all night, I end up shitting in the fucking shower in the morning.

Seriously. That stuff is like using a brass-bristle brush on the inside of your bowels and then using clamps to pry your asshole open to give the residue unimpeded egress.

Re:In a Beta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527744)

Seriously bro? That stuff is some of the lamest, weakest, poor tasting garbage I've ever had. If you think you're a man, try a whole bottle of Bacardi 151. (Appropriate catcha: downfall)

Re:In a Beta? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33528104)

That's not from the jaeger, that's from the ass-raping after you pass out.

Re:In a Beta? (2, Informative)

flimflammer (956759) | about 4 years ago | (#33527890)

Like version numbers, alpha/beta/etc are subject to interpretation...

I Want Advanced Blocking Capabilities (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527128)

What I want most in my browser's javascript engine is the ability to block ads, popups, and to prevent outbound connections to domains other than the one I initially visited. The ability to shut javascript off altogether is also nice.

Re:I Want Advanced Blocking Capabilities (3, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 4 years ago | (#33527254)

Install ad-block and noscript.

Re:I Want Advanced Blocking Capabilities (4, Funny)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 4 years ago | (#33527484)

A /. viewer who uses firefox, but hasn't heard of ad-block or noscript?
Todo list:
[ ] Turn in geek card
[ ] Write a will
[ ] Buy shotgun

Re:I Want Advanced Blocking Capabilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527958)

[ ] Buy shotgun

Is it the Zombie Apocalypse already? I call dibs on Bill Murray's house.

Re:I Want Advanced Blocking Capabilities (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33527330)

Are you joking?

Re:I Want Advanced Blocking Capabilities (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 4 years ago | (#33528046)

Or Trolling.

The're going to need to do a lot more than that. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527178)

Firefox has turned into such a whale over the years that it's become intolerably slow even with java turned off. I remember when I discovered firebird and thought 'wow, this is really fast'.. Those days are over. For a long time I was using Dillo unless I HAD to use Firefox. Now I use Iron and it's similar experience to when I used Firebird years ago.

Re:The're going to need to do a lot more than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527900)

If you're so concerned about speed, why don't you just go use Lynx? Or, better yet, why not cut out the middleman, telnet to port 80 and send your http requests manually?

Kinda Sad (4, Interesting)

DeionXxX (261398) | about 4 years ago | (#33527198)

Anyone else kinda sad that now Firefox is playing catchup. When no one cared about JS performance, the Open Source crowd was king, then all of a sudden big corporate money was poured into JS performance and now FOSS is lagging behind.

It seems that FOSS can't compete head to head with corporate backed projects, if the corporation actually cares. For example, MS didn't care about JS performance in IE6/IE7 and Firefox was king. Now, Microsoft is trying to compete in the browser space again and IE9 is catching up in features and exceeding Firefox in certain respects.

This is coming from a very long time Firefox user, but I have definitely switched to Chrome for general web browsing. I stick with Firefox for development though because of the large amount of niche plugins specifically tailored for development.

Compatibility (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527274)

Firefox lagged chrome mostly because firefox cares a LOT more about compatibility, and adding all this crazy JIT compiled JS stuff is hard when you're trying to support all the introspection features which people have been using in firefox.

Re:Compatibility (-1, Troll)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33527354)

Is that why firefox has been dead last in ACID tests (other than IE of course)? If they had stuck to real standards in the first place instead of offering "do not use this wink wink" nonstandard features.

Re:Compatibility (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527488)

If they had stuck to real standards in the first place instead of offering "do not use this wink wink" nonstandard features.

The reason HT(X)ML advanced at all was because browsers implemented "wink wink" non-standards.

Remember CSS? That wasn't standard.

Re:Compatibility (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527678)

The reason for that is that Mozilla is honest. Unfortunately, honesty is rarely appreciated.

Opera and Webkit just added little tricks to pass the ACID 3 tests. They don NOT really correctly support all the stuff that ACID 3 is testing.

It's comparable with graphics drivers that include tricks to score higher in specific benchmarks, but do not really make the graphics card faster. It's simply cheating.

Re:Compatibility (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527804)

Focussing too much on the acid3 test, or any other scorecard list of features, is bad for Web Standards.

You'll find that the Webkit developers have outright states that they have bare-minimum implementations for some standards just to pass the last few points of acid3 that isn't really usable. Hixie listed as one of his bullet points of lessons learned to focus more on useful web standards rather than just any old non-widely-implemented standard.

Re:Compatibility (1, Interesting)

Intron (870560) | about 4 years ago | (#33528072)

Firefox lagged chrome mostly because firefox cares a LOT more about compatibility, and adding all this crazy JIT compiled JS stuff is hard when you're trying to support all the introspection features which people have been using in firefox.

Firefox cares about compatibility [mozilla.org] ? Are you kidding me? Reported: 2000-03-28

Doing a basic html element wrong for 10 years is not compatibility.

Re:Kinda Sad (2, Insightful)

kungfugleek (1314949) | about 4 years ago | (#33527284)

I don't know. I think that if the big corporations are made to care about things that "common folk" care about simply because of competition from FOSS projects, that in itself is a kind of victory for FOSS.

Re:Kinda Sad (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about 4 years ago | (#33527376)

Why the heck should anyone be sad? One of the reasons open source is so important to the industry is to prevent the state of the art in software from becoming moribund. Microsoft practically stopped working on IE once it had what it thought was an unbreakable monopoly on browsers. Imagine where we'd be today without Firefox and the Apache Group. It might be a world of IE6 browsers served from VB ASPs on IIS 5.

Even people who don't use F/OSS benefit from it.

Re:Kinda Sad (3, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 4 years ago | (#33527666)

It might be a world of IE6 browsers served from VB ASPs on IIS 5.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Re:Kinda Sad (2, Funny)

D Ninja (825055) | about 4 years ago | (#33527694)

It might be a world of IE6 browsers served from VB ASPs on IIS 5.

:: cry :: Make him stop, mommy!

Re:Kinda Sad (4, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | about 4 years ago | (#33527406)

When no one cared about JS performance, the Open Source crowd was king, then all of a sudden big corporate money was poured into JS performance and now FOSS is lagging behind.

Last I checked both WebKitCore and V8 were faster than IE9 and were both open source (the former LGPL and the latter NewBSD). I don't think this is a FOSS vs. Proprietary thing, just a Mozilla vs. Everyone Else thing.

Re:Kinda Sad (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527434)

You're not making any sense. Firstly, Firefox isn't playing catchup as a browser just because it hasn't been a top JS performer in a while. (Was it ever? I don't recall it beating the Opera betas for any appreciable length of time.)
Secondly, the major parts of Chrome are FOSS, including IIRC the ECMAscript engine.
Thirdly, I'm not aware of IE9 actually being ahead in anything, now that Firefox has hardware accelerated graphics.

Yes, a commercial entity can indeed put together just a good a team of programmers as a random internet community. How is that in any way sad?

Re:Kinda Sad (2, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 4 years ago | (#33527462)

Big corporation and FOSS aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I use Chromium on my Linux machines. It's open source, and it's blazing fast.

Re:Kinda Sad (3, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | about 4 years ago | (#33527522)

Isn't Chrome open source? And isn't IE9 still unreleased?

Look, there's nothing wrong with Firefox. Performance improvements are lagging a bit behind Chrome, but obviously they're working on it. It's still a great browser.

Safari, Chrome, and Firefox are all great browsers, and they're all (at least to some extent) open source browsers. When a story comes out about how Firefox is preparing a new release with substantial performance improvements, I think you have to bend over backward to turn it into a sad anti-FOSS story.

Re:Kinda Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527806)

That is the simple truth. Open source is excellent as long as there's nobody around. The surprising part is the brain dead geek marketing of the open source projects. It makes you think that even if they are all alone on the playground, if they don't work well they risk getting the second place.

Re:Kinda Sad (2, Interesting)

schlameel (1017070) | about 4 years ago | (#33527962)

With few exceptions (modern Linux, early Firefox, your-favorite-here), when is FOSS not playing catchup? I'm a big believer, but it is my experience that most F/OSS projects are a response to some commercially available / big corporate solution. Often the FOSS project provides some some feature set or widget or level of access that is an improvement over the existing package, but, as a whole the F/OSS project often lags behind bad-guy-based software. And the more UI there is, the greater the disparity becomes between F/OSS and big corporate.

Commercial software vendors would have a hard time staying in business (and plenty didn't) if they couldn't stay ahead of F/OSS.

Re:Kinda Sad (1)

selven (1556643) | about 4 years ago | (#33528024)

Chromium is not proprietary.

Re:Kinda Sad (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | about 4 years ago | (#33528036)

Chromium is FOSS. Chromium's JS owns. Period.

Re:Kinda Sad (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | about 4 years ago | (#33528084)

I'm pretty sure there's a name for this kind of argument, but it's basically a regular fallacy.

Firefox JS performance has nothing to do with being open source. Javascript did not matter for a very long time, it was only used for seldom tiny effects. That's why Firefox JS engine was not super high performance (albeit still much faster than anyone elses at that time), because it would have been seen as totally overkill.

Things have changed and Firefox JS is adapting. Since it's using an old codebase, it's not as quick (it took Apple quite some time to give birth to Nitro, and Google just plain bought V8 tech - as for IE9, we all know it took them time too, it's not yet there.)

And that's all there is. So much for the anti open source FUD btw.

DX10 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527206)

But, you know, IT DOESN'T WORK IN LINUX ... :(

This line is added to bypass the filter against the use of caps. Pretty stupid thing of slashdot to add.

Who cares? (0, Troll)

ickleberry (864871) | about 4 years ago | (#33527210)

I would rather they focus on making things other than JavaShit faster, i try to leave it switched off when I can. I don't use Slashdot 2.0 or Web 2.0 apps so JavaShit speed is pretty much irrelevant to me.

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | about 4 years ago | (#33527224)

Who cares? You can't make a guess at answering that question? Okay I'll give you the answer: everyone but you.

Re:Who cares? (1, Troll)

Dusty (10872) | about 4 years ago | (#33527298)

Not exactly everyone but you. I'd guess anyone, like me, who blocks almost all Javascript is going to find an improvement in it's execution speed fairly irrelevant.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527362)

I guess you've never heard of "noscript" or the number of times it's been downloaded.

Re:Who cares? (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33527604)

JavaShit - I like that.

Unfortunately, there are a bunch of business and finance websites that I use that have JavaShit all over the fucking thing and the only way to see their content is to have JavaShit turned on. And then you have these websites that have so many JavaShit shit on their websites that you can't click on things because they have these JavaShitty popup bullshit that gets in the way.

I think there should be an operating system written in JavaShit that web developers would have to use by law - JavaShit OS. Build it on top of MS DOS. That'll slow'em down.

The big news we have been waiting for? (1)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | about 4 years ago | (#33527228)

If this is "really the big news we have been waiting for all along," then we can officially proclaim this as a Slow News Week!. Who didn't expect Firefox 4 to beat IE9 and narrow the performance gap to Safari, Opera, Chrome? Wake me up when Firefox 4 blows them all out of the water!

Re:The big news we have been waiting for? (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33527364)

It's not really news we've been waiting for anyway when all the work has been public all along.

Take a shot of Jaeger (2, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 4 years ago | (#33527240)

And cheers to the release!

Re:Take a shot of Jaeger (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 4 years ago | (#33527496)

Were you in a fraternity?

what hardware for video (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | about 4 years ago | (#33527296)

Anyone know what hardware they were using in the demo video (tom's hardware) to get the 12fps and 91fps comparatively. Is this the kind of performance increase the average user will see or just people with high end systems?

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527300)

Matching IE is back in the game? Since when...

Humorously, my captcha reads "nonsense"

4.0b5 on Snow Leopard (3, Interesting)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about 4 years ago | (#33527314)

Slashdot is quite perky with the last couple of betas. But it's especially disheartening that the video "upgrades" in this most current release fall short on my platform. When viewing the demo page ( http://demos.hacks.mozilla.org/openweb/HWACCEL/ [mozilla.org] ), I get 1 fps. I get 6 fps when running the same demo on Firefox inside a Parallels Windows XP SP3 VM. The VM is significantly faster... which boggles the mind actually.

So far as I remember, this was an Apple issue not necessarily a Mozilla issue, but still disappointing.

Re:4.0b5 on Snow Leopard (1)

rjstanford (69735) | about 4 years ago | (#33527704)

Huh. I get Safari=7, Chrome=5, and Firefox3.6.9=3 running that test on a pretty recent MacBook Pro - current stable versions of each, I believe.

Re:4.0b5 on Snow Leopard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527914)

7 FPS on Firefox 3.6.8 on an old 2GHz A64 running Linux 64-bit

Re:4.0b5 on Snow Leopard (1)

donutello (88309) | about 4 years ago | (#33527966)

8 core Mac Pro with 10GBs of RAM and I only get 5fps on Safari and 2fps on Firefox.

Re:4.0b5 on Snow Leopard (1)

AhabTheArab (798575) | about 4 years ago | (#33527862)

I'll have to try this on my Mac Mini. I just tried Firefox/4.0b6pre on my Lenovo T500 running 64 bit Arch Linux: 2fps - and it severely impacted overall performance while it was running. I fired up Chromium 7.0.515.0 on the same machine and scored 26 fps with no performance problems. TFA said it had to do with directX, so I don't think Macs would see a great increase either.

Mozilla chose DirectX not OpenGL (1)

Burz (138833) | about 4 years ago | (#33527924)

...for their acceleration. Pretty friggin sad.

It is a MOZILLA issue.

Re:4.0b5 on Snow Leopard (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | about 4 years ago | (#33528124)

72 fps , FF4b4 Linux, i7620m

Re:4.0b5 on Snow Leopard (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | about 4 years ago | (#33528136)

should have included it but oh well:
6 FPS , chrome 6.x Linux i7 620M

i'd say firefox is a bit faster. lol.

anyone else (0, Troll)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 years ago | (#33527324)

anyone else not really care about Java performance? it works for me, thats all I care about. Until the other browsers have adblock and Noscript they are all dead to me.

Re:anyone else (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527498)

Kinda surprising that someone around here doesn't get the difference between Javascript and Java.

Re:anyone else (1)

moonbender (547943) | about 4 years ago | (#33527586)

YHBT?

Re:anyone else (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#33527530)

You mean Javascript? ;)

I care a lot about it. As a partial JS developer it means I can do more without lagging the heck out of my users. I can create more complicated fun stuff instead of doing bare minimum. I can run that extra DOM check that I was scared to do previously looking for items that match some jQuery string. There's just so much more than that and those just sound like the "lazy" stuff.

(It's not about laziness of coding... more: "I can't add this because..." -- I do interactive stuff in Flash/JS/etc. I welcome faster scripting in any language.)

Re:anyone else (0, Troll)

cptnapalm (120276) | about 4 years ago | (#33527682)

Err, wouldn't faster JavaScript + more JavaScript = lagging the users, same as now?

Are We Fast Yet? (5, Interesting)

theY4Kman (1519023) | about 4 years ago | (#33527332)

Check out http://arewefastyet.com/ [arewefastyet.com] to see the speeds of several JavaScript engines compared to Mozilla's.

Re:Are We Fast Yet? (4, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 4 years ago | (#33527784)

OMG, all the 32bit Browsers beat the 64bit browsers!

Why did I bother for a 64Bit Windows 7 OS!

Just one of the necessary features (0, Troll)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about 4 years ago | (#33527346)

So, they introduce a faster Javascript engine. Good for them; they've got a working prototype/alpha of 1/4th of the necessary features to catch up with everyone else, at this point:

* multiprocess functionality
* security mechanisms resulting from said multiprocess functionality
* better thread/tab/etc. management

At this point, the only thing Firefox has going for it is adblock and the huge extension repository. Even then, its debatable: Chrome, for instance, seems to implement most of the extensions I used natively, and does it better than Firefox extensions did, to boot. (Most of which were only necessary to make up for FF shortcomings, like crashing.)

Honestly, the very first thing FF should be working on is multiprocess shit. It's big, bloated, and at this point, somewhat archaic in architecture - the code base is over 12 years old, isn't it?

Re:Just one of the necessary features (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 4 years ago | (#33527526)

Is the multiprocessor functionality of chrome optional? That is, I like the fact that a bad page ( usually bad java script or flash ) can only hang one core and not my entire processor.

Re:Just one of the necessary features (1)

cynyr (703126) | about 4 years ago | (#33527722)

Also does the FF3.0 JS engine work on AMD64 linux yet?

Re:Just one of the necessary features (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527832)

What are you talking about? I've never had a problem with Firefox on AMD64, even with 32-bit support disabled in my kernel.

Re:Just one of the necessary features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527764)

Are Chrome's ad-blocking extension finally blocking them from downloading/processing in the first place? Or do they still get downloaded and run but are "hidden"?

Re:Just one of the necessary features (3, Informative)

MacTenchi (104785) | about 4 years ago | (#33527808)

Agreed. They are working on multiprocess, it's called Electrolysis [mozilla.org] . It's very quiet, so I imagine they're behind schedule. It's also my impression that it's a very small team.

Re:Just one of the necessary features (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 4 years ago | (#33527858)

adblock is a total must-have, IMHO. Also a good feature about firefox is that you can trust it to not send all your traffic informations to Google...

Hyperbolic flamebait (3, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | about 4 years ago | (#33527884)

the only thing Firefox has going for it is adblock and the huge extension repository. Even then, its debatable

Apparently access to source code and the ability to be compiled and run on platforms like BSD and Solaris doesn't count for anything any more.

Re:Just one of the necessary features (1)

Xtravar (725372) | about 4 years ago | (#33528002)

Chrome does not support the HTTPS Everywhere extension. Once it does, I may switch. But privacy is my first concern when using the web.

Re:Just one of the necessary features (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | about 4 years ago | (#33528066)

So, they introduce a faster Javascript engine. Good for them; they've got a working prototype/alpha of 1/4th of the necessary features to catch up with everyone else, at this point:

* multiprocess functionality
* security mechanisms resulting from said multiprocess functionality
* better thread/tab/etc. management

At this point, the only thing Firefox has going for it is adblock and the huge extension repository. Even then, its debatable: Chrome, for instance, seems to implement most of the extensions I used natively, and does it better than Firefox extensions did, to boot. (Most of which were only necessary to make up for FF shortcomings, like crashing.)

Honestly, the very first thing FF should be working on is multiprocess shit. It's big, bloated, and at this point, somewhat archaic in architecture - the code base is over 12 years old, isn't it?

Perhaps they should just ditch the Gecko/GTK combo and adopt Qt, Webkit and V8, what's the point in trying to compete when they could just assimilate :).

Wrong versions in summary (3, Informative)

radish (98371) | about 4 years ago | (#33527490)

The linked article is about 4.0b6-pre which is the first version to include JaegerMonkey. The other two links are to articles about the public release of 4.0b5, which doesn't include JM (it's headline feature is really the DirectDraw support on Windows).

4.06-pre isn't currently being pushed to regular beta testers AFAIK.

Fails the old acid2 test though (1)

codeshot (1618203) | about 4 years ago | (#33527512)

The acid2 test [slashdot.org] has the nose of the acid face half a pixel too high.

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527564)

...Mozilla unleashes Jaegermeister enabled monkey on YOU!

Back in the game? (0)

yoyhed (651244) | about 4 years ago | (#33527616)

Seems like they're shooting pretty low by trying to match IE9's performance. Chrome, Safari, and Opera are all still kicking ass in the JavaScript speed space - come on Firefox, I want to go back to you but you still waste an entire bar of vertical screen space on the titlebar (MOVE THE TABS UP THERE) and JS performance is still going to be subpar?

Re:Back in the game? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527746)

They're getting pretty close to matching chrome and safari: http://arewefastyet.com/ ... and getting there without breaking backwards compatibility horribly like chrome and safari have.

Re:Back in the game? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33527908)

If you are annoyed about the vertical space caused by the title bar you should not be using a window manager that has title bars. Also, you can move the contents of the navigation bar into the menu bar (unless you are on Mac of course).

I'll stick with Firefox only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33528062)

... until the day I can get AdBlock for another browser.

I'm fine with looking at ads -- it's how the Internet works and remains "free". I am not, however, fine with looking at adds when they often contain malware delivered simply by viewing the ad.

NOT a REAL tractor beam (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33528080)

This device just heats up a cylinder of air, in the center of which a particle can be suspended and float along due to the effects of heat & pressure.

It's no more a "tractor beam" than a hot air balloon is an "anti-gravity levitator"

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>