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 9 Out, Now With IndexedDB and Tabs On Titlebar

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the let-us-now-praise-famous-foxes dept.

Firefox 537

surveyork writes "''Mozilla today officially released Firefox 4 Beta 9 and it's a big improvement over previous betas and a parsec beyond the Firefox 3.6.x experience. At this stage, after months of development, Mozilla developers are clearly nearing the end of this development marathon.' After Firefox beta 9, a beta 10 and a single RC are scheduled (this road map can change, of course). The main features of Firefox beta 9 are IndexedDB and tabs on titlebar (just like Chrome and Opera). IndexedDB allows sites to store data on your computer (with your prior authorization). Tabs on titlebar is self-explanatory. Old-schoolers can always turn on the 'show menu bar' to get their familiar GUI back. Oh, and Fx beta 9 is fast and starts fast. Firefox beta 9 available here and in lots of official mirrors."

cancel ×

537 comments

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

Status Bar??? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34886896)

Does it have a status bar at the bottom?

If not, then it's still EPIC FAIL.

Chrome... (3, Interesting)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34886906)

I just switched to Chrome from using firefox for the last what 4, 5 years? I gotta say chrome just seems to make sense. not trying to troll just saying.

Re:Chrome... (2)

Soukosa (1965442) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887230)

Same here. Was using Firefox since it was Phoenix 0.x and all of these idiotic changes like the removal of the status bar disgusted me so much that it finally pushed me to try another browser. I might be called out as a troll on this too but what's wrong with sharing thoughts on a browser that I used to love to death? It saddens me that the devs feel they have to do things like this rather than fix the much more serious issues the browser has...

Granted on the plus side I can finally use a browser that properly frees up memory after closing a shit load (80+ tabs) at once. So I guess I could thank the thoughtless devs for that! [/troll]

Re:Status Bar??? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34886936)

Browsers are going the way of minimizing the amount of space taken up by the user interface and maximizing what's available to the actual content. I think it's a good thing, especially as web pages transition from something like a post board full of stickies to having their OWN user interfaces that look odd next to the browser's. I don't see what's bad about not having a status bar.

Re:Status Bar??? (2, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887240)

In general it is a good thing. But why not go a bit further. I have the line File/Edit/.../Help and there is a LOT of place right there after that. Perhaps a good place to have the status bar icons from right to left.

Or make it possible to use it for other things. Now it is just a big blank useless emptiness.

Re:Status Bar??? (4, Interesting)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887360)

Like this? [ompldr.org]

Menu is TinyMenu, Back/Forward appear and disappear depending on where in the tab's history you are, the "B" is bookmarks. User agent, ABP and a few other useful plugins make FF 3.6 a firm favourite of mine for the foreseeable future.

Re:Status Bar??? (5, Informative)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34886994)

Yes, although it's moved to a more logical spot (the URL bar)

Re:Status Bar??? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887032)

Is that logic, or is that training? The reason I ask is that the only reason I dislike it at the moment, apart from it blocking the favorites star, is that I look to the bottom of the screen. In a sense it probably is a more logical place since it's right next to all the buttons.

Re:Status Bar??? (4, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887084)

Additional advantage is that it squeezes even more space out of the UI, thus giving you more screen space for what really matters: the website.

Re:Status Bar??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887126)

Except that we're not hurting for space, even on 1024 let alone higher resolutions.

Re:Status Bar??? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887184)

You're ignoring the millions of cheap laptops sold each year with 1366x768 resolution. It's a stupid trend but we're in a period where vertical res is shrinking not growing. Even most LCD monitors aren't truly 1080p, an underdeveloped standard.

Re:Status Bar??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887226)

Let me state it again then. We're not hurting on 1024x768 let alone 1366x768 let alone 1900x1200 and resolutions are only getting better not worse.

Re:Status Bar??? (3, Insightful)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887356)

My netbook is 1024x600, and having a statusbar blocks crucial links on my homepage. I'd have to scroll down (not as fun when you don't have a scrollwheel)

Re:Status Bar??? (4, Insightful)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887152)

If LCD manufacturers would actually stop making 1900x600 screens then we wouldn't be having a lack of space for the status bar. (1900x600 was a random resolution plucked from my backside that highlights the stupidity of current low to mid range displays currently available)

Re:Status Bar??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887254)

"Additional advantage is that it squeezes even more space out of the UI, thus giving you more screen space for what really matters: the website."

Not trying to be snarky, I just use F11 key.

Re:Status Bar??? (2)

TigerTime (626140) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887034)

So when i mouseover a link, it displays the url it points to in the URL bar and overwrites the current URL? And i have several plugins that display icons in the bottom status bar currently: ForecastFox, Firebug, Greasemonkey, IETab, Delicious, Echofon, Stylish. Where would those be displayed in Firefox 4?

Re:Status Bar??? (2)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887052)

Nope, even worse. It shows the current URL, a > and a part of the new one.

There is an "addon bar" for addon stuff, though, you can enable it from the toolbars menu.

Re:Status Bar??? (5, Insightful)

Wallslide (544078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887108)

Yes, although it's moved to a more logical spot (the URL bar)

When I hover over a link, there's a few things I'm expecting to see. I want to see the protocol, the domain, and finally the end of the link that would have the actual page/file that the link is pointing to. When the status bar is at the top next to the URL, there isn't enough space to display all of those things. I much prefer the status information at the bottom because the available horizontal space is much larger, and there's a better chance I'll be able to see all the info I need. In that sense, I believe locating the status information at the bottom is much more logical.

Re:Status Bar??? (1)

Felix Da Rat (93827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887182)

^ This.

I like most of the interface, but I'm not happy about not being able to see where I'm going. We always have PDF warning here, and now my browser will no longer give me that same heads up when I'm clicking even a reasonably long link. If it was an option, that would be one thing, but not having a choice on this - it's making me mad.

Re:Status Bar??? (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887338)

Extension to chop out the middle instead of chopping off the end in 3...2...

Re:Status Bar??? (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887364)

It does chop out the middle. I don't know what he's talking about; you can always see the protocol and domain.

Re:Status Bar??? (2)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887366)

You were correct until GUI standards changed. Everyone before IE7 has designed a shorter URL bar than the expected status bar's size of near-window-width. We're getting short-changed.

URL bars now give up valuable room for back, refresh, home, our obligatory search bar. It gets worse with site icons, add-to-favorites stars, RSS indicators, down arrows for history, "GO" buttons, Firefox's domain confirmation in green for HTTPS sites... and more importantly uselessly long links like: "http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/15/0238253/Firefox-4-Beta-9-Out-Now-With-IndexedDB-and-Tabs-On-Titlebar" that are made NOT to fit on the URL bar without H-scrolling, let alone on 4:3 screens.

Rarely is a link you're following going to be short enough for this new "logical spot" that is underprepared to handle the job of the original statusbar. I won't complain that much... we got back some vertical space that we lost on widescreens.

Re:Status Bar??? (5, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887060)

Does it have a status bar at the bottom?

If not, then it's still EPIC FAIL.

The status bar is gone for good. Why? Because the developers said so, and like many other decisions, they couldn't care less what the users think and apparently have so much free time on their hands that they constantly look for ways to fix things that don't need fixing. Fortunately there's an extension that adds the status bar back in. Of course it's horrendously stupid that you now have to resort to extensions in order to get back things, like the status bar, that have existed in every browser ever made since the beginning of time. The issue here is not resistance to change. The issue here is removing functionality and actually making things less useful.

Fortunately the stupid and pointless "Tabs on Top" and equally stupid and useless big orange Firefox button in place of the normal menu bar are both optional. However, I have a bad feeling about this, given all the other stupid changes they've made, and I wonder how long it be be until they are forced on us and we will have to rely on yet more extensions in order to have a decent browser.

Firefox has lots to fix. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887142)

... they constantly look for ways to fix things that don't need fixing.

That's the most aggravating thing about this whole debacle. Of all of the major browsers, Firefox is second only to IE in terms of shit that's broken.

I know it's "trendy" to deny the problem, but Firefox still suffers from some pretty major memory leaks. Things got better during the Firefox 3.x releases, but opening the same pages in Firefox and the same pages in Opera or Chrome will result in Firefox needing 5 to 8 times more memory, if not more. That's a huge problem, but the Firefox community doesn't even want to acknowledge it, let alone fix it in any meaningful way.

The general performance of Firefox is still in the shitter, as well. It feel noticeably slower than Chrome or Opera. The UIs of Chrome and Opera are blazing fast, while Firefox's JavaScript and XUL monstrosity slugs along.

Firefox has just so many core issues to fix first that UI changes should be the least of their concerns at the moment. Only once Firefox's memory usage and performance are reasonable should any consideration be given to these cosmetic issues.

Re:Status Bar??? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887150)

The status bar is gone for good. Why? Because the developers said so, and like many other decisions, they couldn't care less what the users think and apparently have so much free time on their hands that they constantly look for ways to fix things that don't need fixing.

I am a Firefox dev, and I see what you mean about the status bar - it's definitely controversial. But we definitely do care what users think. If this was a mistake, then it was a mistake made in good intentions, because we thought it would be useful to our users. We're not making a browser for ourselves, but for many millions of people.

Again, I'm not defending this particular decision, of the status bar removal - I am personally not in favor of it.

Overall, though, I truly believe that the features for 4.0 are ones Firefox users like - speed, HTML5 support, stability.

Re:Status Bar??? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887176)

Do you guys really care, or do you just say that you care?

There are absolutely no users who think that getting rid of the status bar is a good idea. Absolutely none. Had you guys even bothered to consult with any actual users before making this change, you'd immediately have known that it was a stupid change to make.

Re:Status Bar??? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887242)

You might want to talk to this guy [slashdot.org]

Re:Status Bar??? (3, Insightful)

Soukosa (1965442) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887290)

If you guys care so much then why not leave in an option to have everything that previous versions had to remain there as they were before? Not just the status bar but also the split home and refresh buttons and non-transparent menu and tab bars. The interface was just fine how it was before. If you want something different yourself then sure, go ahead and add options for it but don't assume your users want the same and force it on to them as well. We should have to be forced to use add-ons for this stuff either, especially considering how many times it been said that too many add-ons are the reason for the slowness and memory bloat problems the browser has.

Re:Status Bar??? (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887304)

Because the developers said so, and like many other decisions, they couldn't care less what the users think

Or maybe they do care what users think, but not all users agree with you...?

If your complaint were simply, "I don't like the design," then I think I'd say, "fair enough." But you seem to be complaining that the developers are making design decisions about the project, as though it's somehow improper. Like they're supposed to just take a vote on everything, and literally design by committee? But it's not even that, it's more like you think the developers should cede their own tastes and judgement and do things the way you would personally like them to, and if they don't, then they're committing some abusive act.

Developers need to make decisions, and no, sometimes those decisions won't adhere exactly to your personal tastes. If you don't like the decisions, maybe you could get more involved? Or you could help to create a fork somehow? If all the users are really being alienated by these changes, then it should be possible to get a fork going. A lot of people didn't like it when Mozilla dropped the old suite, and so Seamonkey development has been going on this whole time.

Re:Status Bar??? (4, Informative)

shadowthunder (1921564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887132)

I've actually found the lack of the status bar quite nice. I only ever used it to see the target link and change NoScript settings. I'm liking the former being done in the remainder of the location bar, and NoScript is handled well through the context menu.

Re:Status Bar??? (4, Informative)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887212)

Yes.

Right click the panel in which the address bar sits, Customize, then drag whatever you want (such as Activity Indicator) to the Status Bar, then press OK.

Personally I find the status bar to be annoying and like the new design, however.

Re:Status Bar??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887382)

Agreed. Well, I don't mind how Chrome does it - no status bar at the bottom, but if you hover over a link, you get a small floating box at the bottom left indicating the URL. In the new FF betas, you have to look UP at the address bar to see where the link will take you, and it feels like it takes significantly longer to do that than to glance down. I really don't like it.

yeah but is it snappy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34886910)

should i uninstall safari in my windows machine and use firefox instead?.

Re:yeah but is it snappy? (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34886944)

It is definitely snappier than safari on Windows!

Re:yeah but is it snappy? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34886946)

Safari is a piece of shit even on its own Mac platform.

How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all*?

* Those of you who got the reference without Googling it have true grit.

Re:yeah but is it snappy? (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887000)

No picnic on an iPhone either.

Re:yeah but is it snappy? (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887082)

How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all*? .

Don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers.

Re:yeah but is it snappy? (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34886958)

Dear $DEITY, why would you use Safari on OS X, much less Windows? Terrible UI, serious security issues, and all the shit that Apple shoves onto your system when you install any of their software on Windows.

Use Chrome, or even Konqueror, if you need WebKit.
Use Firefox if you want a browser that looks exactly like you want and has exactly the features you want, while still being fast and regularly updated.
Use Opera if you want stupidly fast and standards-compliant, plus *all* the features.
Hell, use IE9 beta if you want fast and generally excellent standards compliance and don't mind pre-release code.

Re:yeah but is it snappy? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887066)

Dear $DEITY, why would you use Safari on OS X

The UI is clean, its responsive on my system, and I like the RSS reader.

Yours truly,
$DEITY

Tabs on top was already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34886928)

A few betas at least... and disabled via addon for me at least.

Re:Tabs on top was already there (1)

Mystiq (101361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34886948)

Tabs are REALLY on top now. My only gripe is I can't drag the title bar of Firefox any more in Windows 7 to get it out of a maximized window unless I click in empty space. It only does this when it's maximized.

Re:Tabs on top was already there (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887002)

change your userChrome.css. I've had the tabs in the titlebar ever since the first beta was release ;D

Re:Tabs on top was already there (1)

shadowthunder (1921564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887096)

What change(s) should I make to take it back?

Re:Tabs on top was already there (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887138)

Not on XP, unless there's some sort of a bug, the position hasn't changed.

... in lots of official mirrors (3, Informative)

jackdub (1938908) | more than 3 years ago | (#34886942)

The real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34886978)

Will it blend?

(plus one Infor4mative) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34886986)

want thIem there. way. It used to be All major marketing All major surveys Troubles of Walnut about outside gig in front of FrreBSD continues [amazingkreskin.com]

Tabs on titlebar (0)

Zexarious (691024) | more than 3 years ago | (#34886988)

Tabs on titlebar does not work on linux. Are these clowns for real?

3.6 Starts pretty damn fast. (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34886990)

Literally, 1 second on my SSD RAID-0.

Not sure how much faster it's going to be and it won't really make any difference.

Re:3.6 Starts pretty damn fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887030)

Haha, riiiight.

So because it starts in 1s on your 300+mb/s RAID-0 - it is therefore fast enough for everyone?

Re:3.6 Starts pretty damn fast. (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887062)

a full 1000ms on an SSD? that's pretty slow is it an IDE SSD or something? i could swear i only took ~300ms to load and i didn't even spend much on my kingston SSD

Re:3.6 Starts pretty damn fast. (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887124)

I wish I could even remotely get that sort of performance out of Firefox on my machine. I finally switched over Chrome because of how slow Firefox has gotten over the years. I feel like they lost one of their original and most important design goals.

Re:3.6 Starts pretty damn fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887128)

3.6.7 takes a good 15 seconds to start for me. It might be because I keep a 365-day history, but really, the developers should have thought of that. The thing that annoys me, is that when it is starting it only uses 25% CPU, I would like it to use closer to 100% and start 4x as fast.

Re:3.6 Starts pretty damn fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887170)

honestly even on my ssd its not fast. even b10 nightly. chrome is instantaneous. ff needs a couple of seconds. it makes all the difference to users

Re:3.6 Starts pretty damn fast. (1)

trentfoley (226635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887326)

This new Firefox beta loads in just under 2 seconds on my 2007 Macbook Pro w/ Intel X25M 160GB SSD running latest OS X. But, Safari loads in under one second. Chrome loads just as fast as Safari. So, unfortunately, Firefox is still the slowest choice for me. I have no idea how javascript performs compared to Chrome (not even going to compare it to Safari).

Re:3.6 Starts pretty damn fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887334)

The beta 8 was intoxicatingly fast to start compared to 3.6, even from a single ordinary ide drive. You would probably be GPU limited there.. ;)

I thought the final would be out now. (2)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887012)

I really thought the final release would be out by now. Remember last year when Mozilla said they were moving away from big releases and adopting a fast release cycle with mixed bug fixes and new features? Whatever happened to that plan?

Re:I thought the final would be out now. (5, Informative)

asa (33102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887038)

The plan you're talking about is Mozilla's post Firefox 4 plan.

Re:I thought the final would be out now. (1)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887144)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

Re:I thought the final would be out now. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887042)

Remember last year when Mozilla said they were moving away from big releases and adopting a fast release cycle with mixed bug fixes and new features? Whatever happened to that plan?

The plan is to do that after 4.0. 4.0 was always planned to be a *big* release, with tons of new features. Post-4.0, they will switch to the model you mentioned, of more rapid and incremental releases, sort of like Chrome.

Re:I thought the final would be out now. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887056)

They apparently made a mistake. But at least they're not releasing a final release that's buggy and not working properly. I've been using the betas for a while now and they've gotten a lot better, not that the first betas were that bad.

Re:I thought the final would be out now. (1)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887158)

Yeah, I'm excited about the final release. The web browser landscape is pretty awesome right now. I can't wait to see the final release. If only all my favorite add-ons will finish updating for 4.0. :-)

Tabs on Titlebar Issues (2)

shadowthunder (1921564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887020)

Why is this touted as a feature/benefit? In Windows (7, specifically) when the window is maximized, the tabs are so flush with the top of the screen that it makes Firefox almost unusable for snapping (left, right, or down from top). I understand that pushing the tabs up save pixels - a scarce asset in netbooks - but are five or ten pixels so valuable that it's worth rendering one of the best features of Windows useless?

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues (4, Interesting)

asa (33102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887058)

The trade-off is between using Aero Snap, something users do only rarely, and not repeatedly during a browser session, and benefiting from Fitts's Law as you switch between tabs, something users do all the time. The current thinking is that it's better to optimize features for the overwhelmingly common case at the expense of the exceedingly rare case.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887106)

You do realize that they let you disable it, right? Probably the easiest way is to right click on the menu bar and uncheck the option for tabs on top. Personally, it isn't something that seems to have changed, but that might just be an XP thing.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues (1)

shadowthunder (1921564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887222)

I do. Tabs on top made sense - the forward, back, home, etc. buttons apply to the pages within the tab and therefore belong there - so I have no desire to move those back below. I've read some Mozilla bug reports saying that the placement change has either already been implemented in an earlier version or has yet to be implemented (I don't remember which), so that's likely an "XP thing".

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887316)

Then about:config, browser.tabs.drawInTitlebar = false.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues (1)

Mr. Vage (1084371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887388)

That's not the issue that he's talking about. The problem is that when when the window is maximized, it aligns the tabs with the Firefox button in the titlebar. If you have enough tabs open to go all the way across the titlebar there is no space where you can grab the window since the whole titlebar is covered with tabs. There is no problem with the tabs on top when the window isn't maxmized because the tabs are not in the titlebar, they are in their own row below the Firefox button.

Fortunately this behavior is easy to disable. Just open up about:config and change browser.tabs.drawInTitlebar to false.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues (0)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887130)

but are five or ten pixels so valuable that it's worth rendering one of the best features of Windows useless?

YES!! Why? Because the Firefox Developers said so!! That's all you need to know. They will NEVER NEVER EVER admit that one of their ideas wasn't so great.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887200)

but are five or ten pixels so valuable that it's worth rendering one of the best features of Windows useless?

YES!! Why? Because the Firefox Developers said so!! That's all you need to know. They will NEVER NEVER EVER admit that one of their ideas wasn't so great.

Hello, Firefox dev here. I'm sorry you have that opinion of us, but I for one definitely will admit that we have had ideas in the past that were not great. We make mistakes like everyone.

I do not have an opinion on the specific feature you are talking about in this thread, since it is just on Windows, and I run Linux.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues (2)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887354)

Yeah, just look at awesomebar, people hated it, people still hate it.

Tabs on titlebar is self-explanatory. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887026)

Tabs on titlebar is self-explanatory.

I really need someone to break that down for me.

Still busted (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887028)

Now up to Firefox 4.0b9 and STILL you can't watch Flash videos with 64-bit Flash on 64-bit Firefox on Mac OS X. It's been two or three betas now since they broke this, and they just refuse to fix it. The videos play fine in Safari and in Firefox in full-screen. But in a Firefox window, the video freezes (while the audio is okay).

Re:Still busted (4, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887110)

Now up to Firefox 4.0b9 and STILL you can't watch Flash videos with 64-bit Flash on 64-bit Firefox on Mac OS X. It's been two or three betas now since they broke this, and they just refuse to fix it..

In November 2010 they fixed a bug that was originally submitted in November 2000. That's Not a typo. 10 years ago. So just get in line and wait your turn.

Download link on mozilla is not working (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887040)

May be that page needs to be upgraded too?

The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to use (5, Insightful)

barrkel (806779) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887074)

The more it copies Chrome, the less reason there is to use it, and more motivation to switch to Chrome instead.

I don't even use tabs at the top; I use tree-style tabs. Hopefully they'll still work.

In other news, I do like the status bar being visible. The primary reasons I don't use Chrome are the missing menu and status bars.

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u (-1, Flamebait)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887162)

The more it copies Chrome, the less reason there is to use it, and more motivation to switch to Chrome instead.

Unfortunately, Chrome is still too bare-bones and missing too many features. However, I remain hopeful that by the time they totally fuck up Firefox and make it unusable, Chrome will be an adequate replacement. The guy who created the AdBlock extension for Firefox is now working on a Chrome version (the other AdBlock for Chrome sucked pretty bad) so hopefull it will be just as good as the Firefox version and that will make any future change to Chrome a little easier, since that's the only real "must have" extension for me.

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u (2, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887166)

As long as Chrome lacks NoScript, there will continue to be a reason for Firefox. Fix that dealbreaker, and all of the rest is negotiable.

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u (1)

after.fallout.34t98e (1908288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887350)

For me the module is Firebug. Chromebug is not nearly good enough yet (it is getting there).

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887368)

overrated, if you actually browse the web and not just 2 sites, it requires constant management to get everything working on the site.
Makes more sense just to use adblock (which Chrome doesn't _really_ have) and THAT'S the deal breaker for me.

Check out opera, much more responsive UI than firefox, supports addons, etc.

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887370)

For Chromium there is NotScripts [google.com] . At first there is some BS about needing a password of sorts entered in a config file, but once you're done with that it's pretty much the same.

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887250)

Right. Because that was Firefox has been all along. Visuals and some interface decisions. The incredible amount of useful Add-ons have nothing to do with it's popularity.

All in all, Firefox is probably the most customizable browser around, which might benefit users who know what they want.

Finally, nothing prevents people from using several browsers for different things.

Confused by Tabs on Top (5, Insightful)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887086)

One thing that confuses me about tabs on top is that it implies that everything below the tab is associated with that tab. Ok, I get that part. I watched the video by Alex Faaborg and it makes sense.

But I therefore expect that if I rearrange any items below the tab, such as customizing the layout by adding or removing buttons or moving the home button to the right side, or resizing the size of the address bar versus the search bar, that those changes would be limited only to that tab and be sticky for that tab. That doesn't happen and visually it's confusing. All of those elements are grouped underneath the tab and when I switch tabs, the changes are there too. Huh? It's completely counter to what I was expecting and doesn't make sense. The only thing that changes from tab to tab is the text in the address bar.

I would think this would be very important due to the ability to save app tabs. I might want to save an app tab to a specific site and have the navigation toolbar customized a certain way just for that tab.

Note: I'm using beta8 and haven't upgraded yet so maybe this bug has been fixed.

Re:Confused by Tabs on Top (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887172)

But I therefore expect that if I rearrange any items below the tab, such as customizing the layout by adding or removing buttons or moving the home button to the right side, or resizing the size of the address bar versus the search bar, that those changes would be limited only to that tab and be sticky for that tab. That doesn't happen and visually it's confusing. All of those elements are grouped underneath the tab and when I switch tabs, the changes are there too. Huh? It's completely counter to what I was expecting and doesn't make sense. The only thing that changes from tab to tab is the text in the address bar.

You're seriously confused by this? It's not rocket surgery, christ get a grip.

Re:Confused by Tabs on Top (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887286)

Did you file a bug for that? To God, I mean. He's the one responsible for the bug (the bug being your retardation).

Persistent data storage? (1)

sgunhouse (1050564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887146)

Persistent data storage for web apps is something other browsers have had, so I'm surprised that FF is only now producing versions with this feature ...

Insane CPU load solved yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887168)

You open a hundred or so tabs and your laptop melts.

Why do background tabs use any cpu at all?

None of this other junk matters when browsers are basically unusable once a few tabs are open.

My performance test (0)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887192)

Mozilla.org is 404'd for me so I will post my "performance testing" and hope beta 9 is beta.

I developed a javascript script to resize an image. about FF4 Beta 4 it would take about 45 seconds to start the js. All other browsers(FF, IE, Chrome bot home and work) it was instant to a second or so.

I hope this is fixed. I have a little game I have made, and the 45 seconds is a show stopper.

*crosses fingers while mozilla,org is 404

FF. Double F (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887198)

People actually use this carp?

Sucks (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887228)

Leaves us Tiger (10.4) users on PPCs out in the cold.

Re:Sucks (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887280)

Don't worry, it doesn't work on my Macbook 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo OS X 10.6.6 either.

Re:Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887390)

Works for me ... Flash just crashes like crazy.

What about those that don't USE titlebars? (1, Flamebait)

hacker (14635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887244)

I haven't used titlebars on any app in almost a decade (sawfish). I also don't use icons, docks, wharfs or menubars. I prefer my environment to be clean, fast, functional and uncluttered.

As long as the browser's default behavior remains the same, and the 'tabs-on-titlebar' is an optional feature that can be enabled, that's fine.

Changing the default behavior is always bad. Always.

Re:What about those that don't USE titlebars? (3, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887282)

Changing the default behavior is always bad. Always.

If that were true then you'd turn on the computer and get "C:\>" (or "$" as appropriate). Clearly absolutes are not so absolute.

Firefox Portable 4.0 Beta 9 - Easy Way To Try It (4, Informative)

CritterNYC (190163) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887258)

As always, we've packaged it for portable use (USB, cloud drive, etc) which also lets you try it out right on your desktop without installing it and impacting your local Firefox install at all.
http://portableapps.com/news/2011-01-14_-_firefox_portable_4.0_beta_9 [portableapps.com]

And it really is noticeably faster than previous released.

Personas broken? (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887260)

Can anyone running the beta tell me if the "Personas" skins they mainstreamed in 3.6 are broken in 4.0 ? It would be sad to see them go, since I love monochrome themes for myself and colorful ones for the family. The latter allows me to tell from the other side of the room that they're using the correct browser when an issue is "called out" to me. I digress... any brokenness means that they went from 3.6 support to abandonment in a single release, where 3.7 is AKA 4.0. Chrome changes version numbers all the time, and they rarely update their general GUI.

On another topic, summaries sometimes make you "pause" slashdot to seek clarification, though not always not for the articles. [google.com] I tried to link to personas, but mozilla seems to be slashdotted or something [mozilla.net] /i>

Why the need to become other browsers? (5, Insightful)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34887264)

I'm using Firefox because I prefer it over Chrome and such. I don't want the layout changed every major release.

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>