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 Beta 8 Up

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-the-fish dept.

Firefox 385

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has released a new beta of Firefox 4 this morning. Originally intended as a quick update for the feature-complete Beta 7 release, the new Beta includes 1415 bugfixes, a fine-tuned add-ons manager, improved WebGL support as well as URL bar enhancements."

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

How Many Beta's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631216)

I think I'll catch the 26th Beta before the final release.

Re:How Many Beta's? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631300)

If I am not mistaken firefox(maybe 3.5) Went to beta 8 as well. Before releasing the final version. Nothing wrong with that. Just different philosophy how when and how to release.

Re:How Many Beta's? (2)

Soul-Burn666 (574119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632240)

Firefox 4 goes up to 11!

Re:How Many Beta's? (2)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631862)

i seriously need them to release ff4. enough beta-ing around already!!1

Re:How Many Beta's? (2, Insightful)

BatGnat (1568391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631968)

i seriously need them to release ff4. enough beta-ing around already!!1

So you would rather have buggy code as long as that it is released? use IE!

Roll a d20, save VS Stupidity......

Huh? FF 4? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631950)

I thought Firefox 5 [opera.com] was released last week.

The only question I have is (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631228)

Will the next version of Firefox (whatever version it may be) be slower? Because quite frankly, FF has become a giant turd in that respect, so much so that, although I love it, I'm considering alternatives on my lower-end machines...

Re:The only question I have is (5, Informative)

Wordplay (54438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631318)

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2010/10/are_we_fast_yet.html [mozillazine.org]

That benchmark is a bit old (two months ago), but you get the idea.

Re:The only question I have is (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631494)

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2010/10/are_we_fast_yet.html [mozillazine.org]

That benchmark is a bit old (two months ago), but you get the idea.

Funny, I initially misread the article title as "Firefox 4 Beat 8 Up", which could be true if that trend line continued for the past two months. ("8" meaning Chrome v8.) Browser deathmatch!!

Re:The only question I have is (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631502)

There's more to a browser than rendering and Javascript performance. Firefox has become a hard disk hog. It almost continually writes to disk, which can be very slow, for example on netbooks with first generation SSDs or when you keep your profile on a USB stick (portable Firefox). Worst of all, when it does write to disk, the whole browser locks up. It's barely usable on netbooks for that single reason. You'd think that nothing a browser does could justify writing or reading megabytes of data almost every minute. That's still what happens. (No, extensions or plugins are not involved.)

Re:The only question I have is (1)

MichaelKristopeit306 (1962660) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631602)

i would not think that nothing a browser does could justify utilizing storing large amounts of data... because i understand the importance of local caching to minimize network utilization.

Re:The only question I have is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631684)

Oh, forgot to mention, I disable caching to disk, so that's not it.

Re:The only question I have is (1)

MichaelKristopeit309 (1962666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631772)

oh, forgot to ask, do you disable your OS from paging memory to disk?

Re:The only question I have is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631902)

Doesn't make a difference.

Re:The only question I have is (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit305 (1962658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632024)

i doubt you would know if it did.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:The only question I have is (4, Informative)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631740)

The simplest solution is to turn of hdd-caching, but a more in-depth solution is to actually setup a RAMdrive and point your FFCache, IECache, and Windows Temp directories at that.

Unfortunately setting up a ramdrive is above the general public's scope of ability.

Re:The only question I have is (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631858)

There's more to a browser than rendering and Javascript performance. Firefox has become a hard disk hog. It almost continually writes to disk, which can be very slow

Isn't that because they moved to using sqlite to store bookmarks because NTFS used to eat your entire bookmarks file if Windows crashed? Whereas sqlite syncs multiple times every time you update the database?

Re:The only question I have is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632020)

I don't know, I don't care. All I'm saying is that "we're faster than Chrome" is not the whole truth. I use a browser, not a bare HTML widget. Firefox should simply not need to write so much data to disk and it should write more intelligently.

Re:The only question I have is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632088)

NTFS is a journaling file system. It is unlikely that a system crash would cause data loss on anything that has already been written to disk.

Re:The only question I have is (4, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632138)

NTFS is a journaling file system. It is unlikely that a system crash would cause data loss on anything that has already been written to disk.

Perhaps you should tell that to the many, many, many people Cc-ed on the infamous 'Windows crashed and ate my bookmarks' Mozilla bug.

And yes, it happened to me several times: any time XP blue-screened with Firefox running I'd find my bookmarks had gone after the reboot.

Re:The only question I have is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632356)

Journaling ensures filesystem consistency it doesn't guarantee against data loss.

Re:The only question I have is (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632182)

You may wish to re-try this on FF 4. There has been significant work put in to reducing disk access in Firefox:

There is also a tracking bug [mozilla.org] for bad I/O patterns available, so you can see what they're up to.

Re:The only question I have is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632112)

I read on Slashdot that the last Chrome release included a new V8 version that's up to twice as fast in some Javascript benchmarks. Would be interesting if they updated the table so we can see the current situation.

Re:The only question I have is (1)

data2 (1382587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632180)

There are somewhat more recent graphs at arewefastyet.com, although only up to Nov 4th.

Re:The only question I have is (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631346)

It is a lot faster. But don't take my word for it, try it out. You might want to use the Profile Manager (google for the launch option) to make a second profile so it doesn't try to convert your existing profile over to new formats and such.

Re:The only question I have is (2, Informative)

trrichard (1774338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631360)

It is in fact faster or as fast as chrome in version 4 from a javascript perspective, and it has always run on less ram. So it should be much snappier now.

Re:The only question I have is (0)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631564)

JS isn't the problem. The problem is dumb stuff like not running tabs in separate processes, so loading a single slow tab from, say, a bookmark group locks up the whole browser.

Slashdot is by far the #1 culprit on my system, BTW: since the redesign, it can take an eternity to load a page with lots of comments on it, which is painful if you're looking up a few articles and the corresponding comments off the front page. Ditto for most other social news sites to some extent, though none I use is anything like as bad as here for page load times.

Javascript is not the problem, it's the interface. (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631590)

Take a page from opera's (11) book, I can be loading my default 20 tabs all at once and the interface is still responsive.
Firefox, good luck, the entire browser chugs to a grinding halt for 10 seconds, then the next 10 seconds it's hitchy but at least responsive.
This is on a quad-core machine running at 3.5ghz. Chrome maxes out all of my cores to 100% and is done rendering in about 4 seconds, AND it's rendering all the ads that are being blocked by adblock. Firefox never uses more than 30%. Bad programming. Opera doesn't use more than 30% at once either, but the user interface is incredibly responsive.

I hear multi-core support is coming, but it's not going to be here in FF4.

Re:Javascript is not the problem, it's the interfa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631984)

This is not the interface, it's the SQLite database. Every time you access a page, it has to write to the database. Because it's a flat file it completely shits its pants if you try to write to it 20 things all at once. SQLite is a piece of crap, it's the reason why firefox goes really fast when you make a fresh profile, and therefore the reason why speed bugs never really get looked at properly (because they can't be reproduced with a clean profile surprise surprise.) High time they dumped it for something better IMO.

Re:Javascript is not the problem, it's the interfa (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632034)

This is not the interface, it's the SQLite database. Every time you access a page, it has to write to the database.

It doesn't _have_ to write to the database, it chooses to write to the database. I believe it's updating things like the time you last visited the page, which I totally don't care about.

Re:The only question I have is (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631722)

It is in fact faster or as fast as chrome in version 4 from a javascript perspective, and it has always run on less ram. So it should be much snappier now.

I Beg to Differ
My desktop [photobucket.com]

There is a reason people have been calling FF bloated lately. This is without any addons, plugins (besides maybe Java), or themes or any crap built into FF. This is a fresh install.

Sure, FF may be working on good Javascripting engines, I haven't looked at the benchmarks recently, but the claim "It runs on Less Ram" died a long time ago.

Re:The only question I have is (1, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631894)

There is a reason people have been calling FF bloated lately. This is without any addons, plugins (besides maybe Java), or themes or any crap built into FF.

34.7 megs? I can only run 120 FF processes on my main desktop then. Bummer. Hmm, that would be 12 across and 10 down.

Only things that matters to me are:

Adblock plus
Firefox sync
firebug
flashblock
ghostery
remove-it-permanently
Noscript

once I can get all that cross platform, I'm ready to switch. I'll put up with anything else, as long as those addons work.

Re:The only question I have is (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632072)

Oh don't get me wrong, there's plenty of reasons to use Firefox and you've compiled a nice list.

Thing is people are claiming it's this much slimmer streamlined browser, like something really lightweight. If you've got a decent computer you obviously won't have any problems running Firefox as a regular browser.

However, there are people who will set up their Dual Monitors, and they'll want to have Crysis on highest settings on One monitor while a Youtube video plays their favourite song on the other with MSN Live chat open and a wikipedia page tab on some topic or another, meanwhile they are also downloading a game from Steam.

It's in these kinds of setups that I wouldn't recommend firefox to most people because having that nice lightning theme which most 'non-power-users' tend towards is entirely useless and doesn't really provide them with any benefit and then they'll complain when they don't get +30FPS in their game when they try to do all this stuff. It's when you have mutliple processes running and actually maxing out your RAM that you find a nice lightweight browser handy. And there are people who do that. As a developer I find Visual Studio can be resource hoggy at times, oink oink.

Great browser, not dissing Firefox, just arguing the claim that it doesn't use as much Memory as other browsers.

Re:The only question I have is (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632016)

Lightweight! I've got Firefox/Firebug open to a single tab (granted, a lot of refreshing and ajaxing) and it has 3:52 of CPU time and is using 206MB of RAM and 202MB of VM. Ha!

Re:The only question I have is (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631608)

Yeah, I've been using Beta 7 for a while and for whatever odd reason, I've been getting momentary freezes as it's doing routine stuff. Is this happening to anyone else, or just my specific configuration?

Re:The only question I have is (5, Informative)

augustm (147506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631618)

It has been a turd since this summer, mostly due to the bug in the SQL code which
killed interactive performance. It was repaired this week and should make beta9. It
is also in recent 3.6 builds so mainline firefox is almost unbearable.

Meaningless javascript benchmarks are not very useful for this sort of bug- which
gives 10 second hangs when working with history or bookmarks.

Bug number 595530

Re:The only question I have is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632424)

That bug doesn't affect me in any way, so maybe a lot of people haven't had it yet.

Re:The only question I have is (4, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631656)

Given the burden of the many ad-ons I run, I'm not sure which is fucking up, the browser or the add-ons.

One nice thing about running 8GB RAM on a 32-bit system with PAE enabled is that when FF gobbles memory it maxes out at 4GB!

I'll keep it for the add-ons. RAM is cheap.

Re:The only question I have is (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631748)

My experience with Firefox 4 beta says no! I've been running it on my laptop for a few weeks and it's far faster AND more stable than 3.6

Re:The only question I have is (1)

aeoo (568706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632318)

FF, and especially FF4 are very fast for me on Macbook. As fast as Chrome for all intents and purposes. Of course that's not scientific, but then there do exist some benchmarks and you can look them up yourself.

Re:The only question I have is (1)

quixote9 (999874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632324)

Firefox is not slow, or any of the other BS, for ages now. Get a current version before you make outdated comments. Is Google doing a Microsoft these days, and telling employees to sprinkle PR on forums?

I run Chrome, Safari, Opera, and IE up to 8. (No Win7 to run IE9 on.) At times I run them all on the same websites during web design. IE is the champion dog. No question about that. The rest? In actual use? Indistinguishable.

Except that with Firefox I have Adblock and Noscript, so way less crap. Which means that my brain gets to load the information about ten times faster. Unless you don't use your brain, that's an important factor.

Chapter 1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631242)

September 16, 1991. Today it finally began! After all these years of talking and nothing but talking we have finally taken our first action. We are at war with the System, and it is no longer a war of words.

I cannot sleep, so I will try writing down some of the thoughts which are flying through my head.

It is not safe to talk here. The walls are quite thin, and the neighbors might wonder at a latenight conference. Besides, George and Katherine are already asleep. Only Henry and I are still awake, and he’s just staring at the ceiling.

I am really uptight. l am so jittery I can barely sit still. And I’m exhausted. I’ve been up since 5:30 this morning, when George phoned to warn that the arrests had begun, and it’s after midnight now. I’ve been keyed up and on the move all day.

But at the same time I’m exhilarated. We have finally acted! How long we will be able to continue defying the System, no one knows. Maybe it will all end tomorrow, but we must not think about that. Now that we have begun, we must continue with the plan we have been developing so carefully ever since the Gun Raids two years ago.

What a blow that was to us! And how it shamed us! All that brave talk by patriots, "The government will never take my guns away," and then nothing but meek submission when it happened.

On the other hand, maybe we should be heartened by the fact that there were still so many of us who had guns then, nearly 18 months after the Cohen Act had outlawed all private ownership of firearms in the United States. It was only because so many of us defied the law and hid our weapons instead of turning them in that the government wasn’t able to act more harshly against us after the Gun Raids.

I’ll never forget that terrible day: November 9, 1989. They knocked on my door at five in the morning. I was completely unsuspecting as I got up to see who it was.

Read more... [avrtech.com]

1415 bugs?! (0)

MichaelKristopeit308 (1962664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631302)

1415 bugs in a mature release of a spec based media rendering engine? how is that possible? why would anyone use a product riddled with so many problems created by obviously unfit developers?

how many bugs did mozilla choose to not fix?

Re:1415 bugs?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631434)

moron...

Re:1415 bugs?! (1)

MichaelKristopeit308 (1962664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631480)

yes, you are many things, including a moron.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:1415 bugs?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631626)

Moron

Re:1415 bugs?! (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit310 (1962668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631750)

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:1415 bugs?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632140)

So I've been calling commodore64_love the dumbest person on slashdot for quite some time now, but I'm afraid I have to stop. The king is dead! All hail the king!

Re:1415 bugs?! (-1, Offtopic)

MichaelKristopeit307 (1962662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632220)

i've been calling you a coward for as long as you've cowered in my shadow.

what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:1415 bugs?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632390)

Wow buddy you're childhood is really coming through today.

Re:1415 bugs?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632426)

You're a moran for not posting ac.

and yer easilly trolled.

Re:1415 bugs?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631756)

I didn't write the second moron, but I think he is right...

it is a beta it is supposed to have bugs, when they fixed most bugs it will become a release candidate...

You probably don't have any experience programming, else you wouldn't write such stupid comments...

If I could put in a name I would, but I don't see the point for every forum out there in the world to have an extra account with username + password.

So I just write moron....

Re:1415 bugs?! (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit309 (1962666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631986)

i have 20 years experience programming... enough to understand that 1415 fixed bugs (no clue how many left unfixed) is a PATHETIC and UNACCEPTABLE number of logical failures for a spec based media rendering engine platform entrusted with millions of credit transactions. there are not even 1415 features.

you're implication that programming is an iterative process that MUST begin with errors and then fixing those errors, leads me to believe that you probably have a lot of a experience doing very very very very very poor programming.... else you wouldn't imply otherwise.

you're a moron.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:1415 bugs?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631520)

I fail to read the part where they mentioned that this the final release. People can use the beta version to find bugs and to test the software. No one is forcing anyone to use this version!

Re:1415 bugs?! (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit300 (1962648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631674)

your insistence that bugs must exist to be found is very telling.

1415 new bugs on a platform that doesn't provide 1415 features is pathetic at best.

Re:1415 bugs?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631934)

moron

Re:1415 bugs?! (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit303 (1962654) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631998)

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:1415 bugs?! (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631538)

1415 bugs in a mature release of a spec based media rendering engine? how is that possible?

How is it possible? Easy. Last month there was an entry in Bugzilla where they fixed a bug that was submitted in November 2000. That's right 10 years ago -- before Firefox even existed. It means that Firefox is still running old Mozilla code from a decade ago.

Re:1415 bugs?! (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit301 (1962650) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631732)

so 141.5 bugs per year is acceptable for a platform utilized for millions of credit transactions?

is that how you justify your own development shortcomings? "mozilla doesn't fix bugs for 10 years, why should i? mozilla puts thousands of bugs into production systems, why shouldn't i?"

Re:1415 bugs?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632040)

If you file a bug each time you want to change the color of a bikeshed, and if you repaint the bikeshed in a slightly different color each year then you'll have 10 bugs just for one small bikeshed. The fact that the bikeshed is a slightly different color may reflect evolving trends or the intent of a designer to influence trends. It doesn't mean that the bikeshed was rotten, just that someone felt it could look prettier. And with time, a single person's idea of how to make something look pretty can change.

Note that we tend to file bugs for very small components, so if you think of a project as a building, then we might be talking about painting a single brick (it might be a cornerstone). If you're painting a mural on one side of the building, each brick might need to be painted in a different color, but the end result can look beautiful.

Re:1415 bugs?! (0)

MichaelKristopeit305 (1962658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632152)

i don't file a bug each time i want to change the color of a bikeshed.

i file feature requests for feature changes in html browsers.

bug reports are for BUGS. bugs are logical FAILURES.

you're an idiot.

Re:1415 bugs?! (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632048)

I'm not sure if he was defending Mozilla so much as pointing out that Firefox is not exactly running on all-new code, which takes them 10 years to fix on occasion.

Re:1415 bugs?! (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit306 (1962660) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632192)

no one can defend a corporation requiring 10 years to fix logical failures in their flagship product utilized by millions to process credit transactions.

Re:1415 bugs?! (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632330)

pointing out that Firefox is not exactly running on all-new code, which takes them 10 years to fix on occasion.

Exactly. When some of your code is 10+ years old, it's not surprising that you can find lots of bugs.

I like it (2)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631446)

Looking forward to getting this update, my beta 7 doesn't see the update available yet.

Only problem I've been having is that it crashes my graphics drivers periodically (Nvidia 189.5 I think). But performance is great and once I got my normal status bar back, I really like Firefox 4. Big fan of Sync too and looking forward to having Firefox 4 available in the Ubuntu repositories.

URL Bar (5, Insightful)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631482)

as well as URL bar enhancements

If by "enhancements" they mean "throw the awesomebar out a window", I'm all for it.

Yes, part of that is resistance to change, but part is from my first experience involved typing a URL and seeing results getting pulled from the middle of a page's title that had nothing to do with what I wanted.

and it's slow (2)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631670)

That and it's terribly slow. When I want to check websites, I check five. I type one press enter, then CTRL+T, and then start typing. But by tab 3, Firefox is too busy rendering to bother returning the URL results in any timely fashion. I can usually finish typing the url before it's found a result for me.

I credit this to the thugs in charge with superiority complexes who refuse to admit something is wrong and needs fixing.
Opera&Chrome are supremely smoother. One of these days I will just jump ship to Opera. I just don't want to have to learn yet another new interface.

Re:URL Bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631698)

Ahh the "killed my love of Firefox bar", I'm all for change but co-opting the place that I use to enter URLs (however apparently manual and stupid it might be to do so) for some kind of bookmark/history search was a stupid, stupid idea.

I had a lot of respect for the Mozilla team until version 3, then I found Chrome and never looked back.

Re:URL Bar (1)

Fusen (841730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631730)

that's actually a positive for a lot of people including me, if I can't remember the full url to a page I visited but remember what was being discussed, I can normally find it. you can turn the awesomebar off as well iirc

Re:URL Bar (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632122)

that's actually a positive for a lot of people including me, if I can't remember the full url to a page I visited but remember what was being discussed, I can normally find it. you can turn the awesomebar off as well iirc

Uh ... no. You are not recalling correctly. The Awful Bar cannot be turned off. There is an extension which attempts to restore the URL bar to its previous functionality but it doesn't work.

Let's review. I used to be able to click on the URL bar and drop down a list of all the URLs I had manually typed in recently. This was a really nice feature. If I visited a website a few days ago, but forgot to bookmark it, I could just drop down the URL list and select it from there. But now we have this wonderful improvement. The URL bar now drops down a list of random URLs that has absolutely no relation to anything I have recently entered manually. What a load of crap.

Re:URL Bar (1)

radish (98371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632360)

If I visited a website a few days ago, but forgot to bookmark it, I could just drop down the URL list and select it from there

Only if you had visited it by typing the URL. If you'd got there by following a link, it wouldn't be there. Given the likelihood of one of those vs the other, I personally found the drop down "typed URL history" completely useless. The history, on the other hand, contains all the visited sites - whether typed or not - so you can still look there to find it.

Better yet, if you remember something about the site or page (for example a word from the page title) then typing that in the URL bar will usually find it pretty quickly. I don't know about you but I'm much more likely to remember that the page was about "geeky shirts" than that I'd visited it on Friday afternoon via a typed URL.

Re:URL Bar (5, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631994)

as well as URL bar enhancements

If by "enhancements" they mean "throw the awesomebar out a window", I'm all for it.

As a long time Firefox user, this has been one of the most infuriating things, as they continually remove or fuck up useful features. The Mozilla developers seem obsessed with changing things just to make them different. The list of things they have eliminated or made less useful is almost endless. I'm sure they can give us all sorts of rationalizations for what they do, but it's all bullshit. Making things less useful is not an improvement.

Re:URL Bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632268)

I have my FF 3.6.13 set to only provide URLs for bookmarks when I type into the address bar.

I love the awesome bar (1)

aeoo (568706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632374)

I seriously hope Firefox doesn't change how the awesome bar works. That's one of the many things I prefer in Firefox to Chrome and all other browsers.

Re:URL Bar (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632376)

If by "enhancements" they mean "throw the awesomebar out a window", I'm all for it.

I'm actually quite a fan of the awesome bar. I know i'm probably in the minority around here, but when I create a bookmark I just add a few tags to the bookmark and I'm done. No more having to go through folders and submenus of bookmarks. Also makes it easier to search through my history, especially if I want to run the same google query. Makes it pretty handy in that respect.

I know that if you have a bad experience you tell 10 people and if you have a good experience you tell 1 person.

fine-tuned add-ons manager (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631508)

Can this thing prevent covert, un-removable install of add-ons (e.g. .NET Framework Assistant)?

Does it set layout.css.visited_links_enabled to false?
(See http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1894680&cid=34430992 [slashdot.org] )

Re:fine-tuned add-ons manager (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631600)

If you execute a program on your computer under a user account with access to your browser's profile directory, it will be able to install addons without your specific consent (because, as far as the computer is concerned, you gave it consent by running the program). Now you can deny your user account write access to the registry keys Firefox checks to load external addons; but at least one Microsoft installer aborts with a fatal error if you do that and rolls back the entire install process.

Re:fine-tuned add-ons manager (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631712)

In other words, it's Mozilla's fault that this is possible, and we're still waiting for a Firefox release that fixes the bug.

Re:fine-tuned add-ons manager (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632090)

In other words, it's Mozilla's fault that this is possible, and we're still waiting for a Firefox release that fixes the bug.

How do you plan to allow Mozilla to install per-user addons without allowing other programs to install addons when logged in as the same user?

If Mozilla runs addons in ~/.addons, then anyone can put one there. If Mozilla reads a list of addons from ~/.addons.list, then any program can add one to it. You can only prevent programs from adding addons by preventing users from changing that configuration, which then means they have to be root or some other privileged user in order to install the addons that they want to install.

And the program installer probably runs as root anyway, so that won't make any difference.

Re:fine-tuned add-ons manager (0)

MichaelKristopeit307 (1962662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632370)

are you joking? the operating system layer and file system layer both provide methods to allow access to resources while not allowing changes to those resources.

such a system is trivial. the reason it doesn't exist is the marketeering zealots infesting this site that demand that the user is always the central authority, and the browser has no right to limit how they utilize their own computers... if you demand a door without any knob or locking mechanism, just so it's as easy as possible to open the door when you want it opened, then don't complain when someone else opens it when you'd rather it stay shut.

mozilla = slashdot = stagnated.

Re:fine-tuned add-ons manager (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632332)

Firefox 4 fixes the CSS history bug [mozilla.org] without having to kill visited links altogether. Essentially it lies to JavaScript so everything looks like it's not been visited.

Firefox had its chance (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34631660)

It has delayed its releases so many times that other browsers like Chrome and Opera have caught up. Despite $50 million a year in Google money, Firefox has gone from the fanboys browser to the second most hated browser after IE6. Now that IE6 market share is limited to china and corporate intranets firefox is getting the heat. Fix your bugs and get it out on time or else.

Is "Beta" an appropriate label? (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631706)

It seems to me that if they cleared 1400+ bugs between Beta 7 and Beta 8, then there's a whole lot of significant bugs that still need to be fixed. That doesn't sound like what I'd call "Beta".

Re:Is "Beta" an appropriate label? (4, Insightful)

revlayle (964221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631840)

If it still has bugs and needs more testing before a stable release (or even Release Candidate), then yes, Beta is MORE than an appropriate label. (Methinks, people these days don't really understand what beta software is? Hell, may I don't, anymore.)

Good but great? (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631742)

I like that firefox wants to be fast and everything but does it even matter anymore. I have at least 10-15 extensions in my browser and at least one of them keep crashing/leaking memory etc. Does this release have a better plugin container for these extensions? My overall satisfaction with FF is at an all time low because of this. I am not ready to move to chrome yet, but I am seriously thinking about it.

Re:Good but great? (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631922)

Not trying to troll a primarily Firefox (but will come off that way anyways, sorry!)... however, if extensions are stopping you from using Chrome, there are "gazillions" of them now (via the Chrome Web Store). I am not sure if there are equivalents to the one you use in FF now, but probably good alternatives are available. Note, Chrome *will* use more memory as each tab, extension and plug-in usually runs sand-boxed in separate processes, but it does have decent performance.

No it's not (2)

bartok (111886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631762)

The download links are still pointing to beta 7.
https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html

addons (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631798)

The main reason I run FF is the wealth of addons.
Will 4.0 break compatibility?

Yeah. Delicious toolbar specifically (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631942)

Can't migrate til that is compatible.
(Yeah I heard the news.)

Will it support languages other than JavaScript? (2)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34631898)

Will it finally support languages other than JavaScript for client side programming? Just when we seem to be entering a point in time where people finally realize that they can choose the right language for the job, so much is moving to the web where there's only one language or nothing at all.

Re:Will it support languages other than JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632276)

Will it finally support languages other than JavaScript for client side programming? Just when we seem to be entering a point in time where people finally realize that they can choose the right language for the job, so much is moving to the web where there's only one language or nothing at all.

JavaScript will remain the only language available on all web browsers everywhere. But, you can write code in other languages and run that on the web. Just like you can run code from all sorts of languages on x86 assembly - you compile into that.

Here is a demo of Python running, clientside, on the web [syntensity.com] .

Try it. (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632012)

It's just as fast as Chromium now, and with many windows and tabs and after being open for days it seems less of a resource hog than Chromium. Only the startup takes longer, at least with several extensions. There's a Greasemonkey beta for it too now - the last reason that held me back from setting FF as my default browser again.

uhm how is beta 8 news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632082)

i am running firefox 4.0b9pre which translates to firefox 4.0 beta 9. how is beta 8 news???

Re:uhm how is beta 8 news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632234)

4.0b9pre which translates to firefox 4.0 beta 9

No, it really doesn't. Did you really miss the "pre" part?

Want to help? Test Hardware Acceleration... (1)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632142)

If you do get the beta, go and run this add-on, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/200733/ [mozilla.org]

It will help the Firefox developers learn how best to use hardware acceleration.

1415 bugs fixed... (1, Insightful)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632244)

...and not one of them is broken font rendering. Hell, it actually seems to have gotten even worse since Beta 7. I used to love FIrefox, but I'm definitely sticking with Chrome until they get that cleared up. That blurry nonsense hurts my eyes.

Downloads still broken on Mac OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34632262)

Files downloaded in FF4b8 still have the permissions set incorrectly to 600 rather than 644.

Extremely annoying when you download apps as an unpriviledged user but install as an admin as you have to chmod every single file you download.

JS Benchmarks (2)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632300)

Are we fast yet.com [arewefastyet.com] shows the measurements used by the Mozilla Javascript development team, comparing performance of ff4 to chrome/v8 and safari/nitro using both the sunspider (Mozilla) and v8bench (Google) test suites. LOTS of movement in Firefox over the past few months, including the apparent surpassing of Safari's Nitro engine in both tests and even beating Chrome's V8 in the Mozilla test suite.

This boost is likely due in part to the recently added hardware acceleration [mozilla.org] . This is listed as supported on all major operating systems (see the Firefox 4 Beta Technology [mozilla.com] page).

Google told me to get it - (1)

buckadude (926560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34632392)

After you get it, try out - http://bodybrowser.googlelabs.com/ [googlelabs.com] I think it's neat anyhow and and I had never used a WebGL app prior. Awesome stuff.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?