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, A Day Later

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the foxy-lady dept.

Firefox 435

Yesterday we noted that Firefox 4 is out in the wild. Since then, the popular browser has been downloaded 6 million times, double the numbers reported for MSIE9. Now the development team is talking about a new development process and what to expect for FF 5 and 6. And unsurprisingly, naysayers proclaim that IE will survive, while Firefox will die.

cancel ×

435 comments

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

Interesting idea (-1, Flamebait)

manofwild (2024350) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587144)

I have an interesting idea on how we can drop IE's market share and gain more for Firefox. Someone should make a firefox installer that works without user, and we put those out on torrent sites as something else. Firefox gets installed on lots of people and internet is better again.

Re:Interesting idea (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587168)

I have an interesting idea that Microsoft's marketing department are idiots.

Re:Interesting idea (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587212)

Also remember to install it on public computers and at your school and make sure IE is removed from start menu and desktop.

Re:Interesting idea (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587214)

Are you proposing a trojan that silently installs FF in the background? Yeah, that's going to work out really well for the reputation of FF.

Stupid idea is stupid.

Crikes.

--
BMO

Re:Interesting idea (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587296)

Nah, we'll just be in awe of their mad skillz and ability to own us.

Re:Interesting idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587312)

But people wont learn otherwise. Someone needs to teach them.

Re:Interesting idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587220)

I have an interesting idea on how we can drop IE's market share and gain more for Firefox. Someone should make a firefox installer that works without user, and we put those out on torrent sites as something else. Firefox gets installed on lots of people and internet is better again.

Most people that use torrent sites probably have firefox silly.

Re:Interesting idea (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587366)

I have an interesting idea on how we can drop IE's market share and gain more for Firefox. Someone should make a firefox installer that works without user, and we put those out on torrent sites as something else. Firefox gets installed on lots of people and internet is better again.

Most people that use torrent sites probably have firefox silly.

If for no other reason than to block all the obnoxious and possibly malware ads that torrent sites are infested with.

Re:Interesting idea (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587530)

I don't see Firefox every rising above ~30-35%, due to fragmentation of the market:
- 1/3 for mozilla
- 1/3 for microsoft
- 1/3 for google
- Plus a few percentage points for "minor" browsers like Opera and Apple safari. Oh and if Firefox ever did "die", which I doubt, I'd sooner switch to Opera's opera or Mozilla's Seamonkey then IE.

I am forced to use IE with my Dialup provider (image compression only works with IE6/7/8), and it stinks. Mostly from the lack of features.

Re:Interesting idea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587618)

Semen, 'kay?

Re:Interesting idea (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587636)

I don't think that it would be healthy for the net to rise much about that 30-35% range. One of the problems that Firefox had to address early on was the after math of one of the two browsers losing the battle for market share. At least with 3 dominant browsers you'd be in a much better situation trying to claw back in.

Re:Interesting idea (1)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587684)

Firefox is currently at about 42%, and it's not even its higher share (w3schools browser statistics [w3schools.com] ).

CmdrTaco, a day later (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587164)

still a pathetic feeb.

Ah, ZDNET (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587174)

...still propping up the Microsoft Monopoly after all these years!

Development process (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587188)

Surely we all know what to expect from FF 5 and 6: whatever Chrome does next, implemented in a not-quite-as-good way....

Re:Development process (1)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587318)

While a bit "trollish" (mind you), that statement does have some truth. And don't forget opera. The Firefox UI is quite a copy paste of Opera's UI, at least on first sight.

Yeah, I agree that lately they have been dragging behind in most features, especially tab management. But I think its a good thing that they improve those things where they are lacking, even if it means copying others. New tab management? new javascript engine? new UI? new process architecture? OK, its been copied from chrome and opera, but since FF is still the leader among the free browsers, I'd say its a good thing that they can keep up :)

Re:Development process (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587486)

And don't forget opera. The Firefox UI is quite a copy paste of Opera's UI

I've been hearing a lot of this in the last few days, and, having never used Opera, I don't understand. Are we talking about FF4, or FF in general? Because once I moved my tabs back down and set my menu bar customizations (all of 5 seconds work), FF looks like it has for several versions now.

Re:Development process (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587590)

The default look of Firefox 4 looks nearly identical to the default look of Opera 11.

They're also pulling features from Opera - "App Tabs" in Firefox are "pinned tabs" in Opera. Mozilla seems to be short of innovation lately, and is instead playing catchup.

Re:Development process (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587840)

Sadly app tabs are a pretty useless feature in Firefox 4. They should work the way pinned apps work in a Windows 7 taskbar or OS X dock, namely when you restart your session the app tabs should be there. The normal tabs, should be subject to a user's privacy settings, i.e. to restore them only if a user chooses not to wipe their session history on exit.

On the whole Opera vs Firefox thing, I consider tabs on top to be most useful on netbooks and their ilk. The status bar, title bar, tab bar, menu, bookmarks all carve a significant chunk of real estate out of the screen. In Windows 7, it's great to be able to merge title, tabs & menu into a single line and status is gone completely. I can't say I appreciate tabs on top as much for larger screens where it's less likely the browser window will be maximized anyway and the effect looks pretty awful in XP too.

Re:Development process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587514)

Fair enough! :-)
I was a bit trollish, I admit, but I'm just getting a bit jaded with FF these days.... and I think there are the beginnings of a slow change in the perception of FF in the community too - even nerds are getting a bit pissy with some aspects of its development. Not to say that the devs aren't doing good things, it's just that it feels like they've moved from leading to following....

Re:Development process (1)

herojig (1625143) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587816)

If only Chrome had better addon support, I'd ditch FF... It's like they overnight became the new dinosaur, like Netscape did back in the day. So what's next?

Jesus Flipping Christ... (5, Insightful)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587244)

Is this guy really saying "wow, look, Firefox took forever to release a version which was just 0.5 higher, while Chrome went from 9 to 10 in four weeks."?

How the FFFFFFFFFUUUUUU- does a moron like this get hired to write a tech column?

Re:Jesus Flipping Christ... (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587342)

We should blow his mind and claim the true Firefox version number is divided by ten for display so it doesn't harm monitors.

Re:Jesus Flipping Christ... (3, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587422)

How the FFFFFFFFFUUUUUU- does a moron like this get hired to write a tech column?

He writes articles with inflammatory headlines and gets clicks. He gets it into clueless middle managers' heads that IE is better than Firefox. There are people who will pay well for both of those things.

Re:Jesus Flipping Christ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587480)

It gets better: he's saying businesses will want to only use a Microsoft or Google browser because they'll want the one that works best with Office Live or Google Docs. Which, y'know, businesses are just falling all over themselves to use nowadays. That must be why my employer's firewall specifically blocks both of them.

Re:Jesus Flipping Christ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587650)

He works for Ziff-Davis, which should explain how he has a job at all in the tech industry. Oh, wait, ZDNet is more a Microsoft entity, errrr industry, than a tech based one.

Re:Jesus Flipping Christ... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587804)

Yeah, they could at least pick one that is a bit negative yet not utter crap and flamebait - but I guess it drives hits. If you go to news [bbc.co.uk] on BBC it says:

Millions download latest Firefox
Mozilla celebrates more than five million downloads of its latest browser, however Firefox's market share is declining.

The article goes on to say that the 5.5 million downloads is short of the 8 million downloads Firefox 3 saw, that it has gone from a peak of 24% to 21% now etc. Those are at least reasonably supported facts, until the ZDNet crap which in one sentence goes

It took Google only a bit more than two years to ship Chrome 9 last month, and it was replaced by version 10 just a little over four weeks later.

then a bit later

Itâ(TM)s also easy to be skeptical about Mozillaâ(TM)s ambitious roadmap that has them shipping versions 5, 6, and 7 before the end of this year.

So Google shipping monthly releases, no problem but Firefox shipping quarterly releases is overly ambitious. It's a wonder this guy can tie his shoelaces in the morning...

Re:Jesus Flipping Christ... (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587854)

My understanding from reading other online articles is that Firefox 4, within the first 24 hours, was downloaded over 7 million times.

Re:Jesus Flipping Christ... (5, Funny)

balbus000 (1793324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587916)

According to their roadmap [mozilla.org] , Firefox will be up to version 7 by the end of 2011.

They say that they want to "ship our new technology to users in smaller bundles, more frequently" but personally, I just think they want more cake [slashdot.org] .

Animated UI icons (2)

Paul Townend (185536) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587246)

So one of the major thinsg to expect in FF5 is "UI animation"?
For some reason, this makes me feel kind of sad....

Ed Bott is an MS schill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587252)

That is all.

To play devils advocate (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587254)

And unsurprisingly, naysayers proclaim that IE will survive, while firefox will die.

IE has been getting faster, I can't say the same thing about Firefox.

Re:To play devils advocate (5, Interesting)

Compholio (770966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587322)

And unsurprisingly, naysayers proclaim that IE will survive, while firefox will die. IE has been getting faster, I can't say the same thing about Firefox.

People keep saying this, but I just loaded the new Firefox and it feels to me like the interface is much more responsive and flash-intensive pages that used to take forever to load now show up extremely rapidly. I was sticking with FF3 because of the great plugins, but FF4 actually seems to be pretty decent out of the box.

Re:To play devils advocate (5, Informative)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587912)

Same here. The performance difference for me is huge. Its so big, its instantly obvious from the second it starts, which even includes a much faster start for all my tabs. Its instantly snappy and I'm an extremely heavy tab user too. Flash sites are slightly more responsive and now I'm even running greasemonkey (didn't before) which should further slow things. And yet, things are definitely faster. I'm even observing a reduce memory footprint, which I didn't expect, of roughly 200M for the same tabs. I'm extremely impressed. Version 4.0, by far, exceeds my expectations.

As for plugins and add-ons, everything I use is already available for 4.0 so I'm pretty pleased. The only gotcha I've run into is the default linux release is 32-bit and you have to dig to find the 64-bit download. If any cares, you download the 64-bit linux release here. [mozilla.org]

Oh ya, am observing an extremely annoying issue with 4.0 and slashdot in that entry fields get pushed past the bottom of the screen when making posts, with the new slashdot interface abomination, truly a pain in the ass. Yet another reason to continue to use the old interface. Works great with the old interface. New interface is broken with 4.0.

Re:To play devils advocate (1)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587382)

IE has been dying faster.

Re:To play devils advocate (2)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587484)

Yeah, no. As someone who runs FF everywhere, the recent speed increase and extra snappiness is real useful on my lower end machines.

Re:To play devils advocate (1)

Buggz (1187173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587560)

IE certainly couldn't get any slower, so a comparison in terms of speed increase between versions isn't worth much.

Is this a riddle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587902)

IE certainly couldn't get any slower, so a comparison in terms of speed increase between versions isn't worth much.

Are you saying that
when fixing a problem, fixing a problem doesn't fix a problem?

Re:To play devils advocate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587732)

IE has been getting faster, I can't say the same thing about Firefox.

Duh, that's like saying my my scooter is better than a Ferrari because I ramped up the engine a bit.

Re:To play devils advocate (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587898)

Windows has also gained much more stability and security over the past years than Linux has.

The past three versions of IE have been steep improvements because it had years of catching up to do.

App ecosystem! (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587260)

The "IE will survive/firefox will die" article:
Firefox will die because it ONLY has extensions. It doesn't have an app ecosystem, and is therefore not buzzword compliant.

Erm, yeah.

Re:App ecosystem! (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587358)

I have a brilliant idea - rename the "extensions" tab to "apps". Sorted!

Re:App ecosystem! (2)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587450)

Apple would sue in microseconds.

Re:App ecosystem! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587802)

cant. 'app' has been used as a term for web scripts for a long time. 'web app'.

Re:App ecosystem! (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587920)

The term app is far to generic. Though Apple is trying to trademark it and is playing a game with the trademark office by claiming App means Apple, they'll loose. Far too many companies have used the term app long before Apple. In fact, almost everyone used to call computer programs apps (as in that app). To add store onto the end doesn't detract from the fact that it's just an app store.

Re:App ecosystem! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587626)

The author appears to be a die-hard MS fan with a lot of his history invested in MS products so it is unsurprising that he would write a pro-IE article.

Ref:
Personal website "Microsoft Expertise" - http://www.edbott.com/weblog/
Profile on MS: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bott.mspx

the reason why IE will survive is (1)

Jinzo (955633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587272)

Cause IE is a parasite and Microsoft wont let it die out. Windows is the host (though this is a parasite as well to) and IE is sucking it dry

Re:the reason why IE will survive is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587580)

Cause IE is a parasite and Microsoft wont let it die out. Windows is the host (though this is a parasite as well to) and IE is sucking it dry

That's alright, I'll still use FireFox on my Windows computers. I could care less if Windows comes with IE or not, because I won't be browsing the web with it.

Re:the reason why IE will survive is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587930)

I could care less if Windows comes with IE or not, because I won't be browsing the web with it.

Good to see that someone cares :)

Seems Slow To Me (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587314)

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I downloaded FF4 yesterday on my work machine. It seems like it takes longer to resolve any given url than FF3.whatever did. Once a page loads, then it zips through the page pretty snappily, but it definitely takes a bit longer to resolve the url in the first place.

That said, does anyone know how to change the loading icon in the upper left corner of a tab that is loading a page? Personally I don't want a damn thing on my computer to remind me of the Windows OS eye candy like that little circulating ring does.

Re:Seems Slow To Me (1)

silanea (1241518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587562)

Does disabling the "Block reported $evilstuff" options under Security in the options make any difference with regard to name resolution?

Re:Seems Slow To Me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587672)

That said, does anyone know how to change the loading icon in the upper left corner of a tab that is loading a page? Personally I don't want a damn thing on my computer to remind me of the Windows OS eye candy like that little circulating ring does.

Two ways, really.

1. Install a theme that doesn't use it. The tab throbber is a theme-dependent widget, and I'm certain someone's developed a theme that avoids using it. Perhaps you can make your own if you're so passionate about it?

2. Grow up and get over yourself. Windows may be a blight on the computing world, but "don't do ANYTHING Windows does, no matter how minor or if other GUIs do it, too!!1!" is purely shortsighted and childish. The "rotating ring" style throbber has been around for a bit in other GUIs and has come to replace the old hourglass animation. Someone'll need to check me on this, but I actually think the rotating ring came about before Windows started using it as their general "busy" indicator.

ie6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587338)

So ie6 => ie7 never happened?

I actually really like IE9 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587346)

As much as everyone at /. likes to hate... I think MS has done a pretty good job with IE9.

Apples to Oranges? (1)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587396)

Maybe Firefox 4 is being downloaded more then IE9 because FF is a [b]release[/b] version and IE9 is a [b]release candidate[/b] version?

Not that I use either (Opera here), but if you want to compare the two, lets compare them right...

Re:Apples to Oranges? (4, Informative)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587646)

Nope, the IE9 release candidate was February 10th, the IE9 release version was March 14th, a little over a week before Firefox 4's release version.

Re:Apples to Oranges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587658)

Maybe Firefox 4 is being downloaded more then IE9 because FF is a [b]release[/b] version and IE9 is a [b]release candidate[/b] version?

Uhm, http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/03/15/1331231/IE9-Released-Media-Has-Opinions

Re:Apples to Oranges? (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587688)

IE9 has been released. I'd wager the real reason is because the people who would download IE9 aren't the people who follow browser release schedules.

Re:Apples to Oranges? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587888)

There is also considerably trauma to an IE update. It's a large download with a reboot in the middle.

Re:Apples to Oranges? (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587776)

I'm guessing you don't know that IE9 was officially released last week [slashdot.org] .

So they're comparing the released version of IE9 to the released version of FF4.

Re:Apples to Oranges? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587874)

That hasn't been the case with previous releases. Part of which is the result of MS not offering the latest IE to older OSes. Right now even if I wanted to I couldn't install IE9 because it isn't supported by XP. Also it's far more likely for users of IE to be tied into a corporate application which requires IE6. (Though technically not as true as it used to be Browsium [browsium.com] )

I predict that within the next few months the number of users still on something prior to Firefox 4 will drop to under 20% and keep dropping. At least that's the way it has been in the past, and this is a much better release than they've had in a while.

You just wait (5, Funny)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587408)

To be honest, I'm not really sure what any of this article said, because I was too busy being mesmerized by the blinky lights on the Firefox download stats page [mozilla.org] .

awsome. (2)

acomj (20611) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587586)

I love that page. I've been watching it for the past day. You can tell where daylight is by the download rates.

  Even Europe slows down at night, but those europians seem to be up at all hours....

I love it when a pacific island lights up.

Re:awsome. (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587858)

That site drags Firefox 4 to a halt on my machine. It works fine in Chromium. Which is really too bad, because I prefer Firefox due to the UI and a couple of awesome plugins.

64-bit Debian on Intel Core 2 Dual E7500 @3GHz, 4GB RAM - 1GB still free, using nVidia binary driver.

Re:awsome. (0)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587880)

I'm using Ubuntu, so I'm looking forward to playing with Firefox 4 sometime around Christmas, because there's clearly no need for anyone to prioritize what's probably the single, most important and more frequently used app for an operating system. (Yes, I know I can get it myself, but I want the regular install so subsequent updates "just work" without me having to subscribe to a mailing list to discover when they have appeared).

Re:You just wait (1)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587798)

For added lulz, download it multiple times while cycling through public proxies. Try to catch your blinky lights.

Re:You just wait (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587814)

Is it sad that in my computer, the website looks more "fluid" in Chrome browser than in Firefox 4?

I just Firefox due to several extensions. But damn Chrome is FAST. Opera is "so fast" that sometimes it won't render some pages until I reload them.

Re:You just wait (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587828)

Is it sad that in my computer, the website looks more "fluid" in Chrome browser than in Firefox 4?

I just Firefox due to several extensions. But damn Chrome is FAST. Opera is "so fast" that sometimes it won't render some pages until I reload them.

And I know I a word.

Meanwhile, in ExtensionLand... (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587416)

The rest of us who value our extensions (add-ons, whatever) will continue to hang out here with the most recent 3.x until said extensions become supported in FF4. I'm not saying this is Mozilla's fault by any stretch, either. I just want to make sure I still have gestures, web developer, firebug, and so many more well-tested and confirmed working before I make the jump.

Re:Meanwhile, in ExtensionLand... (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587746)

The rest of us who value our extensions (add-ons, whatever) will continue to hang out here with the most recent 3.x until said extensions become supported in FF4. I'm not saying this is Mozilla's fault by any stretch, either. I just want to make sure I still have gestures, web developer, firebug, and so many more well-tested and confirmed working before I make the jump.

The three you listed have been working since the beta versions. But point taken, not everyone is or should be an early adopter.

Re:Meanwhile, in ExtensionLand... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587756)

That, and the extensions or well documented ways of disabling all that new and fancy crap and revert my browser to look like it's supposed to look.

Did it with the redesigned address bar, did it with personas and much of the other extra crap that went into v3. Going to do it with the retarded (imho) new look of v4. The first thing to fix is essentially to revert v4 to look like a browser in a PC with a large screen, and not a flashy portable device where every vertical line counts.

Re:Meanwhile, in ExtensionLand... (4, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587782)

I just want to make sure ... firebug ... well-tested and confirmed working before I make the jump.

Don't know about "well-tested" (well tested like "a two year Debian release cycle" ?) but I can certainly confirm firebug is working or at least it hasn't failed yet.

Also working:

Adblock plus
flashblock
ghostery
noscript
xmarks

Not working:

Remove it permanently (I can survive without it, but its nice)
Microsoft .net framework assistant 1.2.1 (WTF is this anyway?)

Immediately upon installation:
Right click on that wee little down triangle in the address bar. Uncheck "Tabs on Top" then breathe a sigh of relief as your eyes stop bleeding. Then de-turd the toolbar by right click on the same triangle and select "Customize..." and then rip out the search bar (useless), the home button (so 1993), the stop button (again, so 1993), rearrange the refresh/reload button where god intended it to be, ditto the spinner. Basically just clean it up a bit. Should have come preconfigured this way.

I don't like the weird new forward / reverse buttons. I have muscle memory from FF3 to move back to the start of history in a tab, which no longer seems to work, epic UI fail to screw the user that way. That's the only UI problem I haven't been able to work around yet.

So with about five minutes of amount of work, upgrade results in only two dead (admittedly useless) addons, and one UI fail that'll only strike me about 50 times a day no big deal. I've seen worse dot-zero releases.

I have a clunky many years old desktop and on both FF3 and FF4 everything comes up in "blink of eye" speed, I don't even know how to test if its slower or faster because everywhere I go is faster than my visual cognition (and thats fast, I'm a very fast reader). Its hardly orders of magnitude different, anyway.

Re:Meanwhile, in ExtensionLand... (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587928)

Just so you know, with all the preview releases the extension people have generally had time to get ready for the release.

I'm using Web developer, Firebug and NoScript with no problems so far in FF4. I don't use gestures, though.

Why do we have to bring up IE9 (1)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587458)

Why does this have to be some us versus them again.

How many people upgraded to Chrome 10?...who cares because the version don't really mean as much.

Firefox probably popped up and said 4 is available and people clicked okay.

IE won't do that for various reasons. Most windows client admins want this behavior because they want to control the rollout. That is part of the diversity...in some sense IE is a better option in large corporate environments and a worse one for individuals at home...aside from the standards stuff...from the purse install\app standpoint. If you don't work as a client admin for a firm of 10,000+ you might not get this and even if you do you won't want to admit it :).

Most admins just don't want to support the browsers. And all browsers when installed on 10,000s of machine whether they be Linux or Windows will sub-come to some sort of issue..broken profile blah blah.

As a web developer and a web surfer Firefox gives me nothing new. Chrome's built in developer tools are as good and in some cases better than Firebug. My extension survive between major versions. Chrome is so much faster it is sort of silly. Now IE 9 doesn't give me anything either except for some older sites working...but we are trying our best to get away from it...although I don't have some religious type of idealogy against...most people forget just how bad Navigator 4 was...and lets face it IE 4 thru 6 was IE 4. IE 7 and 8 was a patch. IE 9 at least is the first major re-write and they are taking standards seriously. Get on the W3C mailing lists...a lot of the froms are @microsoft.com asking thoughtful questions moving the standards forward. Like it or not MS has funded these standards.

I wonder if Firefox put Chrome and IE links on their home page. And said hey download these others and compare you'll come back. I wonder how many people would stay with Firefox? I suppose it will live on with the open source crowd who want no corporate sponsorship behind the browser and that is fine and dandy with me...but now that Android 3 is going to have native Chrome and Chrome netbooks come out I don't see a path were Firefox usage goes up....but it doesn't have to die and it doesn't have to be the IE killer.

Re:Why do we have to bring up IE9 (2)

Shados (741919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587676)

IE won't do that for various reasons. Most windows client admins want this behavior because they want to control the rollout. That is part of the diversity...in some sense IE is a better option in large corporate environments and a worse one for individuals at home...aside from the standards stuff...from the purse install\app standpoint. If you don't work as a client admin for a firm of 10,000+ you might not get this and even if you do you won't want to admit it :).

Chrome is starting to go that way too. Its beggining to have the corporate features IE was so popular by sysadmins for, and a Google Apps subscription now doubles as a support contract for Chrome in the enterprise. So sysadmins can control deployments, can use domain policies, etc, with Chrome.

Bonus points: Chrome supports windows auth out of the box (Firefox does too with a tweak in the about:config I guess)

Bad reasoning, Sound conclusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587502)

It's not crazy to think the Firefox could lose market share, but it's more likely to lose that to Chrome and Safari (already happening) than to IE. Chrome really did make Firefox 3-3.5 look kind of bad. I switched almost immediately. Firefox 4 is a huge step up but it's catching up from behind now in the perceptions of many people. I think it will still have a strong showing, but the market share that might have normally gone to Firefox alone will now be split between the two, probably pretty evenly unless one of them does something really stupid.

It's also not crazy to think that IE is going to stick around, not because it's a better product or has an "app ecosystem" though. It's obvious that as long as there is a Microsoft and that Microsoft continues to make operating systems, there will also still be an IE and it will probably still be used by the majority of people running those OSes simply because most of them don't have a personally compelling reason to change that.

This guy came to the right conclusion all in all. He just got there by a really weird path.

Summary of last link (1)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587524)

Version numbers with decimal points and failing to use "App" to describe everything and anything more than basic HTML both prove that Firefox is dying.

I'm actually suprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587526)

...it's doing so well. I suspect it's a bit of "oh well, it's too late now."

I personally love it but any of my friends and colleagues who are not exactly technical aces find it annoying and uncomfortable to use. Even after I guide them to the add-ons to replace their missing functionality complaints (primarily the status bar, and the new menu) they just say "Well why the hell do I have to download an addon to do that now? It was built right in!"

he might be technically correct (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587552)

> IE will survive, while firefox will die.

Probably. IE will live on at 30 -- 40% penetration solely due to being bundled with Windows, old fogies and unsophisticated users continuing to believe that IE is "the internet".

Firefox will probably go away at some point when Mozilla changes the name again.

There. Prediction confirmed.

Re:he might be technically correct (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587784)

Right, because using FF is a mark of 'sophistication', as is being a fanboi.

What blog was that again? (5, Insightful)

Kynde (324134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587554)

"Ed Bott's Microsoft Report" predicts that IE will survive and Firefox will die.

In other news a VCR said that VHS ain't going nowhere...

(And what's worse, the fkuc up is making arguments based on major version number delta over time. Such uncanny insight is rare!)

Kind of a dumb issue (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587572)

But when you think about this development process and naming convention that Chrome uses and FF is going to use, are we eventually going to be comparing Chrome 65 to Firefox 48? And eventually Chrome 138 and Firefox 172? Putting aside software engineering and release cycle concerns, it would seem incrementing the number on each release might be a bad idea.

Re:Kind of a dumb issue (1)

Dunega (901960) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587834)

Why? It's just a number. Would Chrome 8.138 be easier?

Re:Kind of a dumb issue (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587892)

Eventually they'll all converge on using the time in Planck units since the Big Bang as version number.

"When Can I Use?" rating (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587592)

"When Can I Use?" (http://www.caniuse.com/) updated right away that the current version Firefox is 4. Must be database driven to update everything so fast. Anyway, with "All" features selected, the final Summary lists current Firefox only 3% behind current Chrome and 10% ahead of current Safari. Of course, "When Can I Use?" is supported by Google to highlight Chrome's strengths in new technologies.

It's kinda sad, isn't it? Apple contributed WebKit to open source, Google used it to get a quick presence in the browser market, and now Google doesn't contribute its HTML5/CSS3/etc code back to the project to return the favor. Hmm, I wonder why?

Re:"When Can I Use?" rating (2)

madmark1 (1946846) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587918)

I wonder why then Google now tops Apple in WebKit commits?

WebKit commit numbers [neugierig.org]

Hint: the green line is Google, the blue is Apple.

Worth upgrading? (1)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587614)

Firefox 3 came with the totally worthless "awesomebar" that suggests all kinds of things that are not the least relevant to the url you start to type. Has this been fixed in FF4, or have they perhaps ruined more things?

Re:Worth upgrading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587648)

Firefox 4 isn't luddite-compliant, but Firefox 2 is still available for download if you're interested.

Re:Worth upgrading? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587706)

As has happened in other threads, you can go install "oldbar" to get the gimp autocomplete-only URL bar if you really want it.

The rest of us who enjoy having the ability to pull up a page even if the URL doesn't begin in www or we forget the URL completely will continue to use the Awesomebar.

Re:Worth upgrading? (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587830)

As has happened in other threads, you can go install "oldbar" to get the gimp autocomplete-only URL bar if you really want it.

The rest of us who enjoy having the ability to pull up a page even if the URL doesn't begin in www or we forget the URL completely will continue to use the Awesomebar.

I suspect the folks who hate the Awesomebar don't adapt well to change of any kind. Still, everyone has their own preferences and that's ultimately the value proposition for Firefox. You can make it work just about any damn way you please.

De-bloated (1)

koan (80826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587714)

FF4 behaves like it went on a diet, fast and snappy like it used to be.

I approve.

Re:De-bloated (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587860)

What do you mean by bloat. Could you clarify that statement Chrome is 30mb while Firefox is 15.

Hihihihih ... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587752)

"ie will survive, firefox will die" -> that possibility went out of the window by eu commissions mandating of the browser ballot box in europe.

Firefox will die because Firefox will die? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587808)

What kind of sense does this article make?

"Businesses and consumers will want to use the same browser that powers their installed apps. In the PC space, that means Google or Microsoft. It doesn’t leave room for a third player."

Huh?

Last time I checked, Google and Microsoft stuff works just fine in Firefox.

Also, last time I checked, Apple iPhone/iPad/iPod apps are not run by the browser... so where is Chrome and IE again?

And let's just forget about the 55% Windows XP market share... LOL.

Note to self: Ed Bott is an idiot.

So is there a way to revert to the old layout yet? (1)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587832)

I want my tabs just where they are now.

IE will survive, while firefox will die. (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587850)

I'm pretty sure that MSIE is only available for one of the four operating systems I use every day.

Fx4 vs Minefield? (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587856)

I am using Firefox Minefield 4.0b13pre which is updated almost daily. Could anybody tell me if it is OK to use this as the "final" release? I do not want to download and install the "retail" version.

This makes no sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35587862)

What he's saying is that MS could have slapped a user interface on the IE9 platform previews, and release as fast as Google. Now what is the difference with the 12 Firefox 4 beta's? I'd call these more usable than the platform previews.

Also, he ignores the fact that Firefox has a 3-month release cycle now, while IE is still on a 2-year schedule.

What Ed Bott doesn't understand is amazing (4, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35587906)

Google is able to turn out new browsers quickly because it uses WebKit to render its pages. MSIE 9 uses Trident (MS's own) and Firefox uses Gecko (Mozilla's own).

Microsoft did not update Trident "over night." It has been going on for a very long time.

For Ed to assert that Google and Microsoft took a similar route on anything is simply inaccurate.

All this nonsense about "faster browsers" is already out the window due to this movement to hardware acceleration. Now different browsers will perform differently based on the hardware present, the level of support for the hardware and more. Linux is still the red-headed stepchild where hardware support is concerned. This is especially the case where graphics drivers are concerned. Microsoft does not have to worry about this because it controls the platform it supports. Google and Mozilla and more write for more than Windows and operate against the APIs which are known and documented.

Despite all of Microsoft's tremendous resources and programming talent, they are still not producing a standards compliant browser on par with Chrome or Firefox. I can't believe it is due to a lack of talent or resources. It must be for some other reason and I suspect it has to do with backward compatibility and possibly even maintaining the appearance that "all other browsers are broken" as users seem to perceive.

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>