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 12 Released; Fixes Over 650 Bugs

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the less-memory-leakage-makes-a-big-difference dept.

Firefox 181

darthcamaro writes "At last! Firefox 4 Beta 12 is now available. There are over 650 bug fixes in this massive update including a fix for a memory leak that kept Firefox consuming RAM even without opening new tabs. The other big thing that many users have asked for is that FINALLY, when you hover over a link, the URL is displayed in the status bar, instead of the location bar."

cancel ×

181 comments

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

What (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319564)

It still won't get me to use it even after all those fixes.

Congrats (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319608)

Congratulations to the development team of the most widespread Open Source project out there. Some of the bugs fixed were frustrating to say the least and it's nice to see some forward momentum. Regardless of the plan for the Firefox release schedule this year, we're all better served by release early, release often like this.

memory leak (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319610)

They finally fixed that memory leak! I was consistently using over 2gb ram by the time I got around to closing my FF windows.

Status bar? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319612)

How can URLs be displayed in a non-existent status bar? Did they resurrect it? I didn't see anything about a "status bar" in the release notes...

Right now I'm using the "Status-4-evah" add-on to get the status bar back - and that plugin already takes care of displaying the URL in the "status bar".

Re:Status bar? (3, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319662)

Replying to myself, since I just installed the update...

Basically as of Beta 12 they're imitating Chrome. If you hover over a link, a little pop-up displaying the link's URL appears at the bottom of the window.

Re:Status bar? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320240)

They're imitating Firefox too. I'm using Firefox 3.6, and when I hover over a link it displays the URL at the bottom of the window. Maybe it's not imitating Chrome after all; sometimes a bug is just a bug.

Re:Status bar? (0, Troll)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320478)

Basically as of Beta 12 they're imitating Chrome.

What else is new? "Imitate Chrome" has been the mantra for the entire Firefox 4 project. Everything about it reeks of "we can't think of anything original, so let's just copy Chrome". Violating the non-client area by putting tabs and buttons in the title bar (much more likely to break in future versions of $OS), removing important UI elements (decreasing usability), increasing the release schedule to artificially balloon version numbers, etc.

The best part is that everything I hate about Chrome, and all the reasons I don't use it, will now be translated over to Firefox 4. I can only hope that IE9 doesn't fail quite as hard as the other two, otherwise I guess I'll be sticking with Firefox 3 for the foreseeable future.

Re:Status bar? (1)

Obyron (615547) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320954)

Artificially inflate version number? What the heck does that even mean? It's still going to be "Firefox 4" when it hits release. No one stupid enough to care about "it's version 12!" is smart enough to be downloading a beta. It's not like they're pulling a Slackware or something and going with Firefox 7, or worse, Firefox XP, or Firefox 2011.

Re:Status bar? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321402)

While the version number IS a stupid thing to worry about in and of itself, what they are doing with it on the other hand is an indication of what the leadership of Mozilla is thinking.

The general thought (at least my general thought) is that their playing a marketing game to win users by bumping version numbers rather than actually providing features. There are two reasons to do this. The first is, its an easy thing to do to get marketing attention. Fair enough. The second, and more worrisome is that they are doing the version number bump because its an easy thing to do AND since they aren't CAPABLE of providing new features in a timely manner and stable, they'll just do it and hang on while hoping something changes.

Typically, when you see software do this, you know the ship is on its way to the bottom if not already half way there. Googles version changes are just them making some silly statement about version numbers by basically making them meaningless, which while they currently aren't 'well defined' in general you know that a 1.0 to 2.0 bump is a much bigger, more likely to be incompatible change than a 1.1 to 1.2 bump. This indicates they are intentionally trying to be confusing. Thats bad in and of itself, whats worse is why are they are doing it? They don't appear to need to play any tricks, Chrome is standing on its own just fine.

So the number itself doesn't matter, but how its treated does.

Re:Status bar? (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320666)

Yeah, that's all fine and dandy. Still, it's nice having status icons for NoScript and ABP in the right-hand side of the status bar. Any word on what happens to those? It far less of a waste of space than it would be to put them near top of the window.

And I also like having the search box on the same line as the menu so it stretches across the whole window. That way you can read the full suggestions, whereas the suggestions get cutoff if they're on the same line as the address bar.

This new release is gonna take a lot of getting used to.

Re:Status bar? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320780)

Still, it's nice having status icons for NoScript and ABP in the right-hand side of the status bar. Any word on what happens to those? It far less of a waste of space than it would be to put them near top of the window.

You can keep the Add-ons Bar down at the bottom, and put them there (that's the toolbar that "Status-4-Evah" used as a faux Status Bar.

What I've done for the moment with those sorts of buttons (ABP and Tor in my case) is move them up to the right end of the tabs bar.

Re:Status bar? (2)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319666)

Like Chrome does. It just puts a little textbox showing the URL in the bottom.

Re:Status bar? (3, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319704)

Like Chrome does. It just puts a little textbox showing the URL in the bottom.

It's a much better solution than what they were doing - I'm glad they changed it.

Re:Status bar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319766)

It took me a while to adapt to status bar at top, and now they have changed it back to bottom. Will these guys ever learn not to fuck with the UI.

Re:Status bar? (3, Insightful)

Again (1351325) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319898)

It took me a while to adapt to status bar at top, and now they have changed it back to bottom. Will these guys ever learn not to fuck with the UI.

Dude, you're using a beta product. This is where the developers test various UI changes. If you don't like this then maybe you shouldn't be running the beta edition.

Re:Status bar? (2)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321146)

I thought experiments were carried out during the alpha phase, and the beta phase was only supposed to be used to fix bugs...

Re:Status bar? (1)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321422)

Alpha, beta, whatever. they are just fancy labels, they have no set meaning.

Re:Status bar? (1)

Again (1351325) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321424)

I thought experiments were carried out during the alpha phase, and the beta phase was only supposed to be used to fix bugs...

You're probably right.

Whatever the case, I'm loving the status bar that is not a status bar being moved back to the bottom. I had a very hard time getting used to it on top.

Re:Status bar? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321462)

I thought experiments were carried out during the alpha phase, and the beta phase was only supposed to be used to fix bugs...

No, experiments are carried out during the prototype stage, defining any changes to your intended feature set before you start focus on the main development work.

The development stage you are organizing everything, getting some sort of sanity to all the random ideas ironing out issues left over from the prototype stage. Here you deal with any major issues and resolve things that will result in massive change that you missed in prototyping. You already screwed up if you're making a massive UNPLANNED overhaul of something in this stage. If you planned to rewrite a subsystem or part for some reason during prototyping or preproduction planning then its acceptable to do so.

The alpha stage is where you are pretty much in a feature freeze, with the exception that you're giving this to a wider range of early adoptors to ensure you haven't screwed up something that your limited internal groups didn't notice. You should be trying not to make changes to features that are more than bug fixes here.

The beta stage is a feature frozen, fix bugs only, no other changes till a release is cut.

Release Canidates are the last bits where almost nothing at all changes and no one but a very limited selection of people will ever notice any sort of difference.

Unfortunately, Mozilla takes its cue from Microsoft and calls things in the prototype and early development stages 'beta'. This shows in the finished product.

This might look like a long process that would take too much time in todays instant gratification world, but its not, you simply don't plan as many features between releases. You may not have 20 new features in your release notes, but having 3 releases with 5 features each, for 15 new features that WORK RIGHT and an application that is coherent will result in far more user satisfaction. You can jump on the race for having the highest version number if you want, but you don't change the process in order to do so. You'll cut off your nose to spite your face, and again, it shows in the product.

Re:Status bar? (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319910)

It's beta, not a final release version.

Re:Status bar? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320030)

It's a beta, retard. It's meant to test things like this.

Re:Status bar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35321474)

Please do not make a better retard, the ones I see are bad enough.

*ducks

Re:Status bar? (1)

daviee (137644) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320398)

It was horrible at the top. The space used in the URL box for that was way too short for screening the link before clicking on it...

Re:Status bar? (1)

shadowthunder (1921564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321816)

I'd wager you just weren't used to it being up there yet. I found it made hella more sense to be next to the current URL. In my short time with Betas 10 and 11, I grew accustomed to looked up there for the link and right-clicking to see the status of NoScript and AdBlock.

Re:Status bar? (1)

Eros (6631) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319706)

How can URLs be displayed in a non-existent status bar? Did they resurrect it? I didn't see anything about a "status bar" in the release notes...

Right now I'm using the "Status-4-evah" add-on to get the status bar back - and that plugin already takes care of displaying the URL in the "status bar".

No, the status bar is still gone. Now it is like Chrome and IE9. You hover over the link and the URL is appears in the bottom left of the window.

Re:Status bar? (1)

muindaur (925372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319920)

At least IE 9 still has the status bar. You have to enable it(hold alt menu), but it's still there.

Re:Status bar? (1)

Kernel Krumpit (1912708) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320734)

my (latest) ie9 has status bar w/out holding alt hold-down...

Re:Status bar? (1)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320202)

Enabling the "Add-On Bar" in the View > Toolbars menu restores the traditional status bar it appears. At least I now have the icons for ForecastFox and NoScript at the bottom of the browser window again.

Re:Status bar? (1)

pasamio (737659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320386)

They readded the status bar as the "add-on bar" in b11 or b10.

Re:Status bar? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319726)

If you've seen how Chrome does it, Firefox does it the same way now.

Re:Status bar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320922)

Unfortunately, it chopped off the URL at about half the window's width. And unlike Chrome, it does not expand the URL when the cursor stays at the link.

Re:Status bar? (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319948)

You can sort of enable if you right click the at the top and check add-on bar though the url doesn't show up on it it still shows up in the chromey way they'll probably fix that before the release candidate.

and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319640)

what about my links i used OT be able to place under grow location bar for ease of use....they seem to be done too.
if they want to be chrome just stop making firefox and hand it over to chrome .

no status bar also = i no use

Re:and (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319916)

The bookmarks toolbar is still there, and any time there's anything that needs to be seen a "status bubble" appears on the bottom. So yeah, you can use it again.

Re:and (0)

tqk (413719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320128)

... no status bar also = i no use

What a loser. Aspire to higher things, already.

Memory leak? More like gaping hole (1)

grimboryn (1989434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319646)

Haha. I just switched back to 3.x yesterday because of that insane leak. Guess I'm off to check the new shiny thing...

Re:Memory leak? More like gaping hole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319692)

That memory leak didn't seem to have any effect on my end. The memory stayed pretty steady.

Re:Memory leak? More like gaping hole (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319728)

Try Chrome Beta 10 as well, now that adblock and flashblock can actually stop stuff instead of just hiding them it's awesome. Extremely fast, memory use appears to be the same as FF 3.6 for the same number of tabs yet when I close a tab the memory really gets released.

Re:Memory leak? More like gaping hole (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319788)

It used to be if you were logged in somewhere likeslashdot but you closed the browser, when you went back you were still logged in. Now it seems to be doing hourglass-stuff on close, and it is making me re-login. Is that the far side of fixing the "memory leak"?

Holy Smokes (1)

Das Auge (597142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319658)

I tried this on an alpha of Natty Narwhal. Everything happened so freakin' quick. From opening to loading the add-on tab (no longer a pop-up) to loading a page, everything happened so fast I might as well call it instantaneous. I'm really looking forward to using this when I upgrade to the non-alpha of Ubuntu 11.04.

Pet Peeve (2)

zixxt (1547061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319672)

The fonts are still blurry under windows 7, fix it Mozilla please!

Re:Pet Peeve (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319838)

Tools, Options, Advanced, General, and uncheck "Use hardware acceleration when available."

Now fonts will be rendered using the Windows font rendering system and not whatever horrible piece of shit Firefox 4 uses for hardware acceleration.

Of course, you'll no longer be able to play those 1337 HTML 5 games, such as ...um..., but I think that's a small price to pay for being able to actually READ TEXT IN A FUCKING WEB BROWSER.

I mean, kick-ass 1337 SUPER 3D GRAPHICS, or legible text. It's a hard choice.

Re:Pet Peeve (0)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319976)

Now fonts will be rendered using the Windows font rendering system and not whatever horrible piece of shit Firefox 4 uses for hardware acceleration.

Not a Mozilla issue, but an issue with Microsoft's DirectWrite. IE9 looks the same.

Re:Pet Peeve (2)

zixxt (1547061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320164)

Now fonts will be rendered using the Windows font rendering system and not whatever horrible piece of shit Firefox 4 uses for hardware acceleration.

Not a Mozilla issue, but an issue with Microsoft's DirectWrite. IE9 looks the same.

Funny thing is I never had and/or have this issue with IE9 beta at all.....

Re:Pet Peeve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320360)

That's nice. Glad to know what the cause is.

Except you're flat-out wrong about it not being a Mozilla issue.

Really, I don't care WHY text is blurry crap in Firefox 4, only that it IS. Since the 3D acceleration features are basically worthless, I'll continue to leave them disabled until either Mozilla comes up with some other technology to use instead of DirectWrite or Microsoft fixes DirectWrite itself.

Re:Pet Peeve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320700)

Right click on the desktop or start menu icon, select the "properties" tab, and check "Disable display scaling on high DPI settings".

Re:Pet Peeve (1)

WeatherGod (1726770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320762)

You do realize that slashdot is not the bug tracker for Firefox, right?

"At last!" ...Really? (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319682)

We're now "at last!"-ing one of several beta releases? Can we at least save that for the final release? Please?

Re:"At last!" ...Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319796)

Considering that Firefox 4 was supposed to be released in November 2010, no, wait, scratch that, February 2011, no wait, who knows when - yeah, "at last" is starting to sound appropriate for beta releases.

Especially ones where they manage to, *gasp*, listen to user feedback and change functionality that user's universally hated.

Of course, they still did in an ass way and it's still not back to working the way it's supposed to, but, whatever. At least they met the user's half way.

Now if only they'd listen to us and ditch the AwfulBar...

Re:"At last!" ...Really? (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319868)

Considering that Firefox 4 was supposed to be released in November 2010, no, wait, scratch that, February 2011, no wait, who knows when -

Don't worry. Firefox 5, 6 and 7 will be released this year!!

Re:"At last!" ...Really? (1)

basotl (808388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320542)

But I like the Awesomebar.

Re:"At last!" ...Really? (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319890)

This is expected to be the last beta.

Re:"At last!" ...Really? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320134)

I'll be "at last!"-ing when they hit 4.5. If there's one thing the Mozilla org sucks at, it's .0 releases. Thunderbird is still a clusterfuck. Mozilla 3.6 actually isn't too terrible, but everything up to it was pokey.

I frankly still don't understand what's so damned hard about building a browser, but I haven't tried to do that since HTML 3 was all the rage, so I'm not exactly in a position to point fingers.

Re:"At last!"? Yeah, if it stops crashing! (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321054)

I've been under the impression that memory leak problems were getting better the last few betas, but FF still does the "burn the whole CPU core" trick, and Beta11 has been crashing a couple of times a day on me. So, yeah, "at last"....

Yow! Apparently it still crashes! Ugly! (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321436)

I just updated, and ran my usual browser reliability test on it - with my normal 10 or so windows and 100-200 tabs open, go to Fark.com, open the first 50-100 news articles in tabs, wait for it to stabilize, then read them. It burned a bit of CPU briefly, then froze hard - burned 1.5GB of RAM and I couldn't get it to respond to anything at all. Unlike in the past, the CPU was basically idle, but Firefox was frozen much harder than usual.

But there's no status bar (3, Interesting)

neo00 (1667377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319696)

the URL is displayed in the status bar, instead of the location bar."

The URL is actually displayed at the bottom of the page in a "pseudo-status-bar" overlaying the page contents. And guess what happens if the background of the page at that area is dark or matching the URL font color.!
Do I see phishing attacks coming soon?

Re:But there's no status bar (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319782)

its still better than the in-the-address-bar approach, as that wasn't long enough to show the full url. At least with the "status-tooltip" they can fiddle with borders, highlights, shadows and suchlike until they get something that looks smart.

Opposite the current URL address? UNDO? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319742)

Anyway to get the hovered link's URL to appear in the URL bar instead of the bottom of the screen?
Like in the previous versions of Firefox Beta 4?
I'd rather keep such information clustered with related information, like the current URL address.

Mod Parent Not Troll Please? I agree with him (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321058)

It took me a while to get used to having the hovered links' URLs displayed in the URL bar, but I've been deciding I kind of like it.

Too late, Mozilla. Chrome already won me over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319804)

Well, at least SRWare Iron did.

Oh, Snap! Chrome keeps failing for me! (2)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321120)

I keep a lot of windows with a lot of tabs open most of the time, depending on what I'm working on or reading about at any time. Currently about half my tabs are in Chrome and about half in Firefox, with 8-10 windows each. Firefox has been crashing a lot the last couple of betas, so I've been moving the more stable stuff over to the Chrome windows, but there are some things that cause Chrome to fail badly.

Go to a news aggregator site, such as Fark or sometimes Google News. Open 50-100 links in new tabs, and then try to read them. Because it's a news aggregator, there'll be pages from lots of different sites, with lots of different Flash and Javascript garbage and lots of different kinds of advertising and occasional video. (That's what gets through _after_ using AdBlock and NoScript and Ghostery, but for a bunch of news sites I do have Javascript allowed because otherwise they're unreadable.) Firefox mostly succeeds, at the cost of some memory leaks and CPU burn, and if it fails, it crashes, and when you restart and restore most of the links work pretty cleanly. And if it's totally hosed but doesn't quite die, you can go to Task Manager to kill it. With Chrome, it's been much faster and cleaner, but at some point it'll get upset about something and all the tabs turn into the "Oh, Snap!" page - and there's no clean way to make it redraw them.

What's the point? (2)

FLEABttn (1466747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319844)

So, if b12 has no set release date aside from "when there are no more hard blockers", why release it with 9 or 10 hard blockers remaining, with the promise of a b13 down the road? The entire point of not having a release date was so you could actually finish the thing. Perhaps I am ignorant in the ways of software releasing, but this release doesn't seem to have much of a purpose.

Re:What's the point? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319862)

In some ways this is more like the Minefield alpha channel, except they are calling them betas. I'm curious to see what 650 bug fixes solve!

Now that they are close, they can start to do harder tests having gotten the churn down.

Re:What's the point? (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319922)

I'm curious to see what 650 bug fixes solve!

Bug 355071 - Flash stops keyboard input in other FF windows (TSM doc problem)
originally submitted: 2006-10-01

Works for me, actually. (1)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319994)

They might have just kept a user.

Every FF4 beta before this simply didn't work on Mac OS X either with my desktop or my MacBook Pro. Up until about b8, it would suck 100% CPU usage (both cores) and do absolutely nothing in exchange, and I'd have to go to the command line and issue a SIGKILL to get my machine back. With b9-b11, it worked in theory, but all window and UI updates weren't actually "drawn" on the screen, needing a refresh in order to appear. In practical terms, any change to window contents was invisible until the window was dragged. This meant that trying to use FF4 even after the CPU issue was fixed was pointless because of the totally nonfunctional UI: click, then wait some abitrary amount of time (because you can't see any updates in the window to tell you how things are progressing), then drag the window a millimeter or two, if it's not done, wait a while longer and drag again, if it is done, begin again with click, then wait... no way to choose what's in a drop-down list because you click, you can't see it until you drag the window, but you click the window title bar and of course the drop-down closes... etc.

I'd switched entirely to Chrome for day-to-day browsing but kept FF4 around until b11 and finally last night just blew it away entirely along with my user data on the MacBook. The b12 release is the first FF4 that I can actually use to get some sense of FF4 as a browser and I saw the Slashdot story just as I was about to blow FF4 away on my desktop, too.

My first reaction is that it's plenty fast and actually has a much nicer *looking* UI than all previous FF releases, but my immediate caveats are (1) but it's ass-backward to fix such a critical bug for any testing or use cases all the way down the list at the b12 stage, (2) none of the most important plugins for my workflow are FF4-ready yet, and (3) now I'm really, really happy with Chrome and wonder whether I can be brought back. FF4 is faster, but only slightly. Chrome, on the other hand, is cleaner, lighter, and more intuitive.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Almost-Retired (637760) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320052)

<quote>So, if b12 has no set release date aside from "when there are no more hard blockers", why release it with 9 or 10 hard blockers remaining, with the promise of a b13 down the road? The entire point of not having a release date was so you could actually finish the thing.

Perhaps I am ignorant in the ways of software releasing, but this release doesn't seem to have much of a purpose.</quote>

You must be new here then. I first heard it said sometime back in cpm days, what, 30 years ago, that the only time a program was ever declared finished was when someone shot the last developer.

I think it is still a basic truism.

--
Cheers, Gene
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
NT (as in Windows NT) is short for Nasty Technology

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320816)

A fixed release date doesn't guarantee the program will be finished. It just forces you to release with a bunch of horrible bugs.

Re:What's the point? (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320908)

b12 was released when all the hard blockers that needed beta exposure (as in, could result in web compat issues and such) were fixed.

The remaining hard blockers are ones where the fix is expected to be very safe and extremely unlikely to cause compat or user-facing problems. So it's OK to go directly to RC after fixing them, instead of having yet more beta testing.

Still using Firefox 3 (2)

cstanley8899 (1998614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319954)

Wow. Looks like you guys have had a rough time. Firefox 3 is stable as can be.

And you download it from where? (2)

spacey (741) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319960)

Firefox has always had the most frustrating UI for their info pages. They'll send you to pages and pages of info, but there's never a standard sidebar to actually download the available versions. The page this article links to has a link to the mobile beta of 4, which is exactly not the platform I'm browsing from. Fail.

Re:And you download it from where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320092)

help->about firefox->check for updates

after a couple seconds it prompts to restart to apply the update.

Re:And you download it from where? (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320582)

Yep, works for me.

Re:And you download it from where? (1)

t0y (700664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320096)

That's the landing page you get after installing it.
Try https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/beta/ [mozilla.com]

Re:And you download it from where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320118)

www.getfirefox.com

Click the "Release Notes" (1)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320144)

Yeah, there should be a big button, right on the release announcement page, labeled "Download" for the OS/Architecture of the browser you're currently running. But the download's not that far off. For those to tired or lazy to look, the link to the download page is right under the link for "Release Notes" [mozilla.com] . (This might be a case of deliberate obfuscation, since this is a beta that you don't want to mistake for a supported official release.)

I kind of like BTW the sci-fi theme of the page background, where you got this team of people fixing or unloading things off their hovercars.

Re:And you download it from where? (2)

subreality (157447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320158)

http://firefox.com/ [firefox.com] , and then look for "Try the new Firefox 4 Beta! Free download" under the big green download link.

Yeah, it's not the standard software website UI, but I'd not call it "the most frustrating".

Re:And you download it from where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320186)

Found this page explaining how to update [mozilla.com]

Has to be one of the stranger ways to update something that I've seen.

Re:And you download it from where? (1)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321082)

It is a beta. If you have trouble finding and downloading it, then maybe you should not use it :-)

-- posted from FireFox Beta 12

Re:And you download it from where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35321588)

Uh, the page that you are referring to is actually the page that you get sent to AFTER downloading and installing it, not before.

still corrupts the screen (1)

mojo-raisin (223411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319986)

It still corrupts my desktop background and the Taskbar on my Windows7 laptop.

I have to change the size of the Taskbar to make my computer not look retarded after using FF.

Re:still corrupts the screen (2)

t0y (700664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320064)

Update your graphics card drivers or disable hardware acceleration. They could use a bug report with information you get from when you type about:support in the location bar, though. If it's as bad as you say that card/driver combo should be blacklisted

christian louboutin shoes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319998)

This is so cool. I am such a huge fan of their work. I really am impressed with how much you have worked to make this website so enjoyable.christian louboutin shoes [mvpchristian.com]

Re:christian louboutin shoes (1)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320708)

My jesus, we have blogspam on Slashdot.

Welp, this site just jumped the shark.

Spammers Love christian louboutin shoes (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321152)

You'd think with user IDs in the 7 digits that Slashdot would be a small tightly-knit community where nobody would be willing to risk their karma by doing something like that.... But nooooo, we've got spammers even here!

Can the floating URL display be faked? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320044)

How long until some naughty person hovers a fake URL box on top of the real one? To trick people into not knowing what they're clicking on?

Status bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320198)

So now I have a "plugins bar" that only has a few little things in it (mostly empty space) and an annoying little piece of text that pops up every time I mouse-over something. Just bring back the damn STATUS BAR and put the mouse-over links in there! The way it is currently implemented, not only is it distracting and a waste of real estate, it lends itself to phishing attacks as well.

Scrolling kinda sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320312)

Gotta say, IE9 and Chrome 11 perform better while scrolling through text. :/

Fixes Over 650 Bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320538)

Most of which were probably not even there before they broke the fast and snappy Firefox version 2.

Holy its fast (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320568)

Holy crap this is fast! This is probably the best FF release ever. I used to use Opera because I felt it was faster at loading pages. FF used to take a few seconds to properly load up and display a page. Now it loads up so fast I don't even blink before its totally done rendering the page. And its uber fast with scrolling pages. I'm using this on Windows.

Thanks for these updates Devs! And keep up the superb work!

IBM HMC compat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35320822)

Does it fully work with IBM's HMC yet?

Memory leak in FF3 (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320890)

Maybe it's just me but at some point in the last year FF3 started leaking tons of memory in long lived windows with a lot of activity. Has this issue been taken care of as well?

NoScript (1)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321140)

My guess is that NoScript causes this, I am having huge issus with it (presumably) getting FF to grow to 1.5GB RAM and beyond ...

Re:NoScript (1)

Teknikal69 (1769274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321804)

I ditched noscript a while back because of the ridiculous number of updates no doubt solely to generate Ad revenue. I'm still suprised there no real alternative to it or if there is it's passed me by, I do think it's a good idea I just hate the constant updating.

I stopped using firefox a while ago though when they announced the gui change although in a way they still have me because I'm mostly using Palemoon lately and hoping they keep things simple but I do have K-Meleon as a fallback. I guess you could consider my alternatives basicly firefox anyway I wish epiphany was on windows I just want a simple lightweight browser with a traditional layout and a few plugins like adblock and greasemonkey.

Then they still have a long way to go... (1)

SirMasterboy (872152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35320902)

I've heard countless times in Software Engineering literature that for every bug you find, there is probably another still out there.

Finding lots of bugs so quickly isn't actually such a great thing.

Incorrect summary (1)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321070)

when you hover over a link, the URL is displayed in the status bar, instead of the location bar

No, it is displayed at the bottom of the window. There is no status bar anymore.

Räphael (1)

snookiex (1814614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321332)

Finally the labyrinth example [raphaeljs.com] of Räphael Javascript library works smoothly. That and the status bar thing were keeping me from switching again to FF.

Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35321398)

Switched to Chrome. I need a real reason to switch back. Fixing what should have never been broken isn't a reason to switch.

Had MS pulled the same bullshit there would be about 90% of all comments that read just like this one but FF gets a free pass? Kiss my ass, fanbois. FF is needless bloat and you know it.

Tell me this ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35321536)

How many bugs of the 20 open bugs older than 5 years and having more than 50 votes are fixed? Ya, that's what I thought.

Thanks for the memory (leaks) (2)

Cameleopard (1366007) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321574)

Do any of the bugfixes address the gaping memory leak problem that's been with the program for years now? I often see addons being blamed for leaking memory, but I've used Firefox on a number of different systems with and without addons and it's been a consistent problem throughout.

URL should stay in locationbar (1)

shadowthunder (1921564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35321792)

I greatly preferred having the URL displayed in the menu-bar rather than the bottom of the window, Chrome-style. It made a helluva lot more sense to have the "next" URL next to the current one.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?