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 1.1 Boasts New Features

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the on-a-roll dept.

Mozilla 479

Distro Jockey writes "The Fedora Core Blog gives a review of the features we can expect from Firefox 1.1. Many uses have been running the latest trunk builds and seeing dramatic improvements in page rendering, managing many tabs quickly, and the much-anticipated fix for the /. layout bug. From the article: 'One major new feature in Firefox 1.1 is the "Sanitize" feature. This enables secure browsing with much more ease. Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences).'"

cancel ×

479 comments

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

Rendering Bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464771)

Huh, what rendering bug? I mean Slashdot looks like this [mozilla.org] to everyone, right?

RIP GOOG (1, Offtopic)

hacked (838690) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464778)

RIP GOOG

Re:Rendering Bug? (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464858)

Bugzilla has banned links from slashdot.

I've been using the nightlies and haven't had a problem with Slashdot for a while.

That said, if you really do feed a copy of any slashdot page to a web validator, it comes up with 100+ errors. The problem is that direct linking of Slashdot to validators have been banned by Slashdot maintainers.

Slashdissed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464866)

Nobody loves us. :(

Re:Rendering Bug? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464915)

How to evade referrer bans:
  1. right click link, "Copy link location"
  2. paste into URL bar
  3. press enter
Warning: This is illegal in the United States under the DMCA.

Re:Rendering Bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464961)

et tu, krama wrhoe?

Re:Rendering Bug? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464942)

If you want to validate Slashdot, saveit in Firefox and upload it to the W3C validator.

You will be horryfied by what you see. A so called site promoting free standards, but it can't even pass a simple HTML 4.01.

Re:Rendering Bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464965)

Well, it would help Slashdot if it would actually use a HTML 4.01 DOCTYPE instead of the HTML 3.2 one they're using now.

The W3C's validator spews a lot of crap regardless, though. Things like unquoted attributes, bare ampersands in URLs, and other things that are on nearly every page on the Web, and certainly don't affect any serious browsers.

Re:Rendering Bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464865)

Yes, slashdot looks like an error page to me too.

"Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled."

Glad they fixed that in 1.1!

What I'm curious about (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464774)

(1) Does it finally fix that bug where sometimes images from certain hosts will stop displaying until you restart Firefox?

(2) Does it finally start to reverse the recent trend for firefox to become a huge RAM hog, or does it continue this trend?

Re:What I'm curious about (5, Interesting)

Guy LeDouche (713304) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464799)

I REALLY hope that something is done about resource usage. We are constantly told how much lighter, and faster Firefox is, yet it's still just as slow and bloated as Mozilla. Yesterday I was browsing with 4 tabs open and the RAM usage for Firefox was ~98MB This is not a good thing.

Re:What I'm curious about (2, Insightful)

billieja2 (848397) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464821)

It isn't actually using that much ram. Minimise it then check the RAM usage. That worked for me. I think this bug has been reported.

Re:What I'm curious about (5, Informative)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464890)


While it's true that the "Mem Usage" in task manager can easily show much more memory than the program is actually using, an minimizing a program will make this number drop, the number it drops to is still not the accurate memory usage figure. You really want to go to View/Select Columns and look at VM Size, not Mem Usage.
VM Size is the actual amount of memory the program thinks it has, between whats swapped out and what is actually being used. Mem Usage can be higher than VM Size if memory was freed but not yet flushed by the OS, or it can be lower than VM Size if some memory hasn't been touched in a while and is swapped out to disk. Minimizing an application just gives Windows a hint that it should flush freed memory and swap out pages that have not been touched recently, which is why the Mem Usage figure drops when you do that.

Re:What I'm curious about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464954)

Here's a fun trick. Move your mouse around in a firefox window and watch the CPU skyrocket!

Re:What I'm curious about (5, Informative)

Shook18 (878947) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464827)

I... have 6 tabs open right now and 29mb ram usage with the 1.1 release. Don't know if that is because the new release is so good, or yours is so bad, however.

Re:What I'm curious about (2, Insightful)

Guy LeDouche (713304) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464906)

I'm still using 1.0, so I don't know how much has changed with regard to resource management in the maintenence releases so far, if anything. It may also depend on how image intensive the pages are, but even then it shouldn't use so much.

Re:What I'm curious about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464855)

Maybe people that have a computer with 500 bajillion megs of RAM can't tell, but there are some horrible memory leaks in 1.0.2. If I leave it open for a few days it brings my 128 meg system to a crawl.

SHOVE IT UP YOUR HOLE! (-1, Flamebait)

Albert Pussyjuice (675113) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464958)

SOLUTION: Buy some more fucking RAM and stop whining like a little girl. Guess what - Firefox doesn't run so fucking well on an Apple IIe but it's not reported as a bug, you jackass.

Re:What I'm curious about (5, Informative)

FuzzzyLogik (592766) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464856)

That's why i switched to Opera. the ram usage and responsiveness of the interface is great. it took a little getting used to, but i use Opera on my windows machine, safari on my mac, and firefox in linux. granted i got opera for $20 with the edu pricing.

Re:What I'm curious about (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464887)

Fag

Re:What I'm curious about (1)

SuperIceBoy (787273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464875)

I have six tabs open and am using 30mb of ram with 1.0.3

Re:What I'm curious about (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464903)

People talks about a memory leak.

Re:What I'm curious about (0, Troll)

RickHunter (103108) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464913)

There have been memory leaks connected with tabbed browsing in Firefox for years now. No-one on the Mozilla team seems interested in fixing them, as it requires actual hard work.

Re:What I'm curious about (2, Interesting)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464922)

Yesterday I was browsing with 4 tabs open and the RAM usage for Firefox was ~98MB This is not a good thing.

Mine is presently using 229MB. Of course, my X server is presently using 303MB, which, together is more than the amount of physical RAM that I have. Does Firefox map the video RAM into its address space?

Re:What I'm curious about (1)

Punboy (737239) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464926)

You must be using an old version of Firefox. I'm currently running it with 7 tabs opened and its only using ~20MB of memory. And this instance of Firefox has been open for 4 days, 3 hours, and about 26 minutes.

Re:What I'm curious about (2, Funny)

glazed (122100) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464963)

That's why they make faster computers.

Re:What I'm curious about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464987)

Does the Firefox installer come with a faster computer bundled?

Re:What I'm curious about (1)

Kryxan (767161) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464969)

im using 1.0.3 with 5 tabs open, all to sites with lots of images and other content im only using 33mb. thats according to the virtual memory size, which is the actual usage (30 according to mem usage maximized, 5 while minimized). i dont consider it to be a memory hog by any means.

Re:What I'm curious about (1)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464984)

The most RAM I've seen Firefox use is 170MB. Of course, that was with Zombo [zombo.com] open in fourteen tabs simultaneously. Put your complaints in context- what was on those four tabs?

Re:What I'm curious about PDF! (2, Informative)

Fussen (753791) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464949)

Whenever I load a PDF in firefox it hangs somewhere during the initilization of Acrobat. It also hangs equally as long if I leave the pdf, and having firefox 1.0x shut down the acrobat engine.

But if I launch Acrobat as a separate program and just have it sitting empty in the taskbar, Firefox goes through PDFs just fine.

A strange bug. A frustrating one. One I hope they catch.

Cool!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464779)

It'll be great to be able to run activex controls....

Re:Cool!!! (0, Offtopic)

Col. Bloodnok (825749) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464918)

...out of town.

Yawn (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464782)

Safari 2 still kicks its ass in speed, looks and general quality.

Now with the memory leak fixed... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464783)

but with a few megabytes of code for a file format nobody's ever heard of to make up the difference.

back/forward (5, Informative)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464785)


And back/forward can cache the rendered layout instead of having to re-render everything: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6 567 [mozillazine.org]

Re:back/forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464793)

Oh good, now I can have hundreds of megabytes of memory wasted storing DOM trees of pages I was looking at hours ago. But at least if I hit back, I won't have to wait 1 second for it to render, that would be horrible!

Re:back/forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464846)

Nice troll, but in all reality, IE6, Opera, and Safari all already have this feature, so while Firefox is the last to the party here, it's obviously a good feature, and hardly adds to RAM usage since the recommended value looks to be about 5 or 10 pages worth.

Re:back/forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464932)

On some pages it takes much longer than 1 second (P4 2.6Ghz). This is annoying because with IE I can press backspace-backspace-backspace and instantly go back 3 pages. Firefox usually (but not always) stops after the first page.

Re:back/forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464872)

Yet another feature Opera has had for over a year that FF is only just getting...

I really like FF, but it has a lot of catching up to do yet. I donated some money, but the slow pace of development is frustrating.

Re:back/forward (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464907)

It's also a nice feature that IE has had long before Opera, so whats your point? It's hardly an original idea, and there is no need to get into a pissing match about Opera, since obviously any good idea one browser has will make it into the rest, given enough time.

If it's about what we can expect... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464787)

...it's called preview, not review.

Re:If it's about what we can expect... (1)

NemosomeN (670035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464843)

If it's about what's in the nightlies, it's a review. With OSS, there's never much of a "preview" possible, since everything is available (Generally, though take ZSNES for example, occasionally pagefault keeps changes private for a bit, only letting some see, or only releasing binaries, etc. Example: Star Fox 2 build.).

Umm Sanitize (5, Funny)

thundercatslair (809424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464794)

So this will clear all my tracks automaticly when I, say look at the hardcore of porn?

Re:Umm Sanitize (5, Funny)

Ride-My-Rocket (96935) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464825)

So this will clear all my tracks automaticly when I, say look at the hardcore of porn?

Yes, but it won't hide your posts on Slashdot from your girlfriend.

Re:Umm Sanitize (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464850)

Ummm...no. It's actually it's design to make loud siren noises from your PC speakers at full volume in order to draw full attention from your family and friends in regards to your porn habbit. Not only that, but it uploads your browsing history to a webserver along with your full name and address. Last but not least, it forwards the web address via e-mail to everyone you know including your employer. :P

Re:Umm Sanitize (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464991)

Thanks for making me smile :).

Re:Umm Sanitize (3, Funny)

Ed Thomson (704721) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464923)

Yes it does, It also works for softcore and midget porn.

Re:Umm Sanitize (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464938)

All but the sticky ones.

Does the status line work properly now? (5, Interesting)

British (51765) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464797)

Try hovering over a link in fark. It seems the text to display it is so complex, it overhwelms Firefox.

MAYBE BECAUSE FARK SUCKS MY NUTSACK? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464884)

THINK THAT COULD BE IT?

Re:Does the status line work properly now? (1)

evilquaker (35963) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464900)

Try hovering over a link in fark. It seems the text to display it is so complex, it overhwelms Firefox.

An article link? A forum link? One of the links on the right or left sides? All of these seem to work for me (FF 1.03). Got a screenshot of what you're describing?

Re:Does the status line work properly now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464982)

WindowsXP, FF1.0.3 Article links don't update the status bar. /Not the grandparent submitter

Re:Does the status line work properly now? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464924)

hay guys i cant browse fark guys its so cool and if ne1 syas its not i will beet them up because i am ain internet toughguy am i rite

Layout? (1, Offtopic)

sploxx (622853) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464803)

Funny, I just realized that firefox/mozilla created a rather messy layout of slashdot on my screen.

Maybe this shows that really only a site's content is important?

Re:Layout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464904)

Yeah to bad the bug makes the site's content unreadable.

Re:Layout? (1)

lappy512 (853357) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464941)

for some reason if you follow the link to bugzilla you get "status: fixed", so it must be fixed...

Another "hope they fix this" post. (5, Interesting)

antizeus (47491) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464806)

I for one hope that the MacOS X version properly supports the middle mouse button (apparently the nightly builds have before the 1.0.3 release, but that release doesn't). Additionally, I hope it also uses Emacs key bindings.

Re:Another "hope they fix this" post. (4, Interesting)

CTho9305 (264265) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464928)

The reason releases that come after a given nightly don't have the same features is branches. Before each release, a branch is made (usually at the beta) so that the code is stable, and rapid (dangerous) development can continue on the trunk. Firefox 1.0.x were released off the 1.0 branch - branches usually only get very important bugfixes and security fixes. The trunk is where the day-to-day stuff happens, but as a result it can often be in pretty bad sahpe.

Re:Another "hope they fix this" post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464945)

Wait ... Macs have more than one mouse button?

(Actually, this is just a setup so that I can login with my MacGenius account and get a score 5 informing everyone about USB mice.)

Re:Another "hope they fix this" post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464981)

Additionally, I hope it also uses Emacs key bindings.

In related news the parent poster is gay.

Copy? (4, Interesting)

sammykrupa (828537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464809)

From the article: 'One major new feature in Firefox 1.1 is the "Sanitize" feature. This enables secure browsing with much more ease. Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences).'

Sounds something like the "Private Browsing" feature in Safari [apple.com] .

"Private Browsing" and "Sanitize" (2, Insightful)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464930)

Really "Private Browsing" and "Sanitize" should be renamed "Porno Privacy Browsing."

I'm sure people will use these new features to protect sensitive data and whatnot... but come on... most folks will use this new browse mode to keep their filthy habits on the DL .

Re:Copy? (1)

tqft (619476) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464934)

It is currently a max of 4 mouse clicks and has been in ff1.0 (and earlier - like phoenix versions) there for a while.

There is also a button you can currently put in your toolbar to do this.

Or you can setup ff in kiosk mode and closing the browser clears it all autmatically.

Kill IE7 before it gets going (3, Insightful)

Anti-Trend (857000) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464811)

I'm glad Mozilla.org is keeping the pressure on the Redmond-based behemoth. The fact that IE7 will continue to ignore established web standard makes me sick at the very thought of it.

My wife is an exclusively Linux user, and she does business with Candle-Lite. Unfortunately, their site is rife with IE-only garbage which makes it impossible for her to submit her orders online. If more people were using standards-compliant browsers, we really wouldn't have situations like this to begin with.

-AT

Re:Kill IE7 before it gets going (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464877)

Unfortunately, with 90%(ish) of the market, Explorer IS the standard. The W3C can come up with a lot of nice stuff, but people simply cant use much of it if 90% of their users cant experience it.

Re:Kill IE7 before it gets going (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464974)

> The fact that IE7 will continue to ignore established web standard makes me sick at the very thought of it.

Solution: don't invent stuff that makes you sick. You have no idea what IE7 will or will not do.

erm (2, Interesting)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464813)

But does it fix the memory leak? That's the biggest issue for me right now.

Re:erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464894)

The parent is not a troll. FF has a genuine bug. Denying the problem is not a solution and only hurts the cause.

The sooner we acknowledge the resource leaks and other bugs (mis-features? ;) the better.

google maps (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464818)

Firefox 1.0 is very slow on google maps. Mozilla 1.7 is way faster, so are Firefox nightly builds. I wish there was a way to get Firefox 1.0 to work as fast...

Re:google maps (4, Interesting)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464869)

Might be related to http pipelining being enabled or disabled on one of your installs. It makes a HUGE difference in the speed all those little tiles load for me.

Re:google maps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464960)

I always turn on http pipelining. The loading time is actually OK. But panning is really painfully slow.

How About That Memory Leak, Fixed? (4, Interesting)

BRock97 (17460) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464819)

So, how about that Firefox "feature" that keeps dynamically grabbing RAM as new images are displayed (at least that is where I am seeing it). Being a weather guy with my image looper adding new images every 5 minutes (and deleting the oldest one; the memory still isn't given up), I hate to see my browser using 500MB of RAM after a couple of hours. I was able to fix it with an entry in about:config called browser.cache.memory.capacity, but it would be nice to know if it is fixed by default since we will be rolling out Firefox on a bunch of desktops where I work in a few months.

Re:How About That Memory Leak, Fixed? (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464883)

Even if it isn't completely fixed yet, it will most likely be fixed by 1.1 considering that would be released sometime in the late summer/early fall. I don't know about the 1.1 alpha and beta (developer preview and preview release or something like that), but I can be pretty sure that the 1.1 release will. I am also irked by that bug.

Cool thing about OSS projects is I can ask you... (4, Insightful)

msimm (580077) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464921)

Did you report it along with your fix? Because not everyone uses the image looper quite that much and this could slip through the cracks without someone pointing it out.

I'm sure they'd like to have as much working flawlessly as possible, so they'd probably really appreciate this kind of feedback. I'll assume you did report it (or at least verify someone else already had) and leave it at "this is the beauty of OSS" even the users have their part in the process (is IE displaying PNG's or CSS properly yet?).

Re:How About That Memory Leak, Fixed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464927)

the cache hack doesnt work, iam still using 380mb even though its set to 16mb, i feel sorry for the 64-128mb people

Copy and paste bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464826)

Does it still have the f-ing annoying copy and paste bug where it won't let you copy things from the URL bar?

Firefox also boasts remote code execution. (2, Interesting)

wschalle (790478) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464828)

I haven't confirmed it myself, but this report [frsirt.com] says that firefox V1.03 is vulnerable to remote arbit. code execution.

How can there be improvements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464837)

Are you implying there was something NOT perfect about Firefox?

Safari's builtin RSS reader and Firefox (4, Insightful)

konmaskisin (213498) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464838)

The Tiger version of Safari truly does load faster than Firefox now (this must have been a priority for Apple!) ... not sure if it's preloaded like IE is but it is quick now. Generally though Firefox is jus a better and more convenient browser.

There's only *one* area where Safari truly has a usabilty edge and that's RSS. The reader is *really* nice. Mozilla/Firefox could do something similar by improving Sage marginally (the article length slider is all that's missing it seems).

Is better syndication support (rss atom etc) being considered?

time for a new icon? (-1, Offtopic)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464841)

This might be off topic, but I am of the opinion that Firefox launches a new icon. In many cases, I have been asked what it currently is but all my responses have been met with: "It would be better for Firefox to adapt a new identifiable icon". I tend to agree because all other major browsers have the famous "e" and the "N" and the "O". They should also find a way to help users spell check just like in Konqueror. Just my $CAD 0.02.

Re:time for a new icon? (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464956)

It's hard to make a good icon using an 'F'. The current red fox on blue world is pretty nice, it scales well. I don't use firefox much at all, but I recognize it instantly anyway.

Here is a list of new features (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464845)

FUCK YOU, FAGGOT fucks!, FIREFOX IS BLOATED SHIT CODE fuck you faggot!!!

OMG GOOGLE WAS HACKED!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464852)

how do you like them pineapples huh?!

Will Mozilla be getting these features? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464854)

Or is v1.7.x end of the line that I read a while ago due to lack of resources?

Remote code execution against firefox 1.0.3 (1)

kyhwana (18093) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464863)

See http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2005-05-07 [sans.org] for info on the javascript bug in 1.0.3 that allows remote code execution.

Doh.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464870)

Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences)

Sounds like the "delete all private data" feature that Opera has had for several years.

Going down! Since this is Slashdot, I'll be modded flamebait for making an honest observation.

Ridiculous (5, Informative)

GarfBond (565331) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464873)

This isn't really so much a review as a description of features currently in the nightly. Firefox 1.1 isn't expected until June at the earliest. The roadmap (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/roadmap.h tml [mozilla.org] ) gives a rough overview of the timeframes involved right now, though it is not always accurate as it isn't updated frequently.

Honestly, Firefox 1.1 isn't even in alpha-release yet. To take some highly unstable code and to "preview" it is a bit premature right now. I would call 1.1beta a better time to 'preview' things, as hopefully by then there will be a feature freeze and things will have stabilized a bit. I'm not kidding about the unstable bit either: up until a couple days ago themes and extensions wouldn't install in the nightly builds.

In fact, an article like this does a disservice because it's misleading the /. crew. Yes, an incredibly fast back/forward feature has been checked in to the latest nightly builds, but what they won't tell you is at present this feature is DISABLED. While that doesn't mean it won't be enabled in the future and might be enabled for 1.1, as it stands this feature is off by default and only accessible through a custom pref, so in its current state it changes nothing for the average end-user.

This forums post gives a better idea of the new features to be expected in 1.1 with one line sentences: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2577 66 [mozillazine.org]

Sanitize already available (1)

Patik (584959) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464882)

"Sanitize" sounds like having the X extension [mozdev.org] preinstalled but requiring several more clicks.

Re:Sanitize already available (1)

tqft (619476) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464975)

Actually less clicks than currently - you can have it setup to automatically clear everything you want and keep what you do want - eg some cookies, some passwords, all form info - when you close the browser. If you don't want automatic it is still less clicks in the new interface.

Almost working perfectly - bugzilla=284086 is a small pain (if you have the download window open) ff won't clear as it should - but this marked as a 1.1 stopper.

/. Rendering (2, Interesting)

leapis (89780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464893)

I actually found a "fix" for the /. rendering problem. If you go to https://slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , it never displays incorrectly. Curious that SSL should have any affect on what is displayed, but I've been using it for weeks with no ill effects.

Pornzilla (2, Funny)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464895)

Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences).

Pornzilla lives!

A few setbacks, UI wise (4, Interesting)

erikharrison (633719) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464902)

I think there are a few setbacks, UI wise, in the latest builds.

The new preference dialog sucks. I suspect it's design is an attempt to match what OS X users expect, since Firefox devs have this (IMHO) crazy notion that the product should look as identical as possible across OSes.

The whole thing looks much more cluttered, and it has the same bugs that the UI did in pre 1.0 where the text was rendered inside of windows all the time (Like in the toolbar customization pallete, or in the current prefs). Which makes me worry that actually it's an XUL problem. If text placement is a thing that's hard to get right in XUL, it makes me worry about it as a platform.

However, performance did increase noticably for me, and the sanitize feature could be handy. I don't offhand find it much more useful that the "Clear All" button under privacy now. But it is nicely customizable, and not loosing my login cookies is kinda nice . . .

Acid2 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464914)

The real question is wether it can pass the Acid2 test. Safari needed ~2 weeks to pass it. Firefox 1.1 is coming out like forever.

On a side note, if any FF developer is reading this: make it so that the download manager doesn't popup if you save _images_ (and other content which is already downloaded). Extremely annoying.

The REAL news: Firefox 1.03 remote .exe execution (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12464916)


wait for the spyware slags get hold of this one
full remote execution of an exe with no user interaction
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/397747/2005 -05-05/2005-05-11/0 [securityfocus.com]

catching up with MSIE

/. bug (5, Insightful)

kinema (630983) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464936)

"the much-anticipated fix for the /. layout bug"
I for one think this is great but is it really the job of the Mozilla devs to bring Slashdot into the modern times with a valid XHTML/CSS layout?

Thing about FireFox I don't like... (3, Interesting)

PocketPick (798123) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464976)

I really enjoy FireFox, but I still have two peeves:

1.) If I hit the middle mouse button and use auto-scrolling for something like this slashdot page, Firefox will use 30 to 40 percent CPU. And I wouldn't classify my system as slow(Athlon64 3200+ w/512Mb of RAM). Hopefully the can do something about this.

NOTE: Prior to making this post, I observed that IE holds at around 7 percent for the same action.

2.) Unexpected browser closing in v1.01 and above that wasn't present in the pre-v1.0 releases, such as when I'm holding down several keys or typing something in the browser and then switch to another page with the mouse, causing the browser to close (or crash, though I don't get an error message).

Make Firefox Look Like Maxthon? (2, Interesting)

Munna2002 (785158) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464977)

I'm all for open source and competition to IE7. But Maxthon seems to take less resources, can save flash files, and have little usability tweaks for tabs (i.e. activate or deactivate tabs for new windows, etc., location of new windows relative to original tab, and so on). Is there any tweak to make Firefox look like Maxthon since its UI is very "meh". Tips anyone?

The big question is... (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 9 years ago | (#12464979)

Will it support ActiveX?
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>