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 2.0 RC3 Released

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the good-morning-project dept.

238

midkay writes "Firefox 2.0 RC3 has just been released. The release notes cover all the changes since the first release candidate, but RC3 appears to have a new Windows installer and more security in the extensions aspect, among a few other things."

cancel ×

238 comments

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

Ungrateful Bitching (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466651)

After reading this list, I must say that there are more than a few features I don't care about. That's not to say other people don't need them, it's just that I'm not going to benefit from any of these yet. In fact, the only reason I'll upgrade is because it's so easy.

That said, I wish they would take care of these problems [mozilla.org] at some point. I know on the current Firefox, you can take measures [freerepublic.com] to restrict its size but I think it starts to thrash when I go to a largely intensive Flash site. I would rather it not steadily accrue memory as I use it through the day and visit sites that use Flash extensively. I know that Flash is a plug-in and this is one of the leading causes of memory problems in Firefox [mozillazine.org] . But it's the only extension/plug-in I use and it's so I can see average websites, I don't do anything special or extraordinary with it. You'll probably be able to convince me that this is Flash's fault yet I don't quite see the same effects in IE. Conspiracy? Well, I'm all ears and happy if it is.

Maybe it's the fact that I have between 5 and 10 tabs open at a time. Although I'm good at closing them, sometimes the memory doesn't seem to be freed up. Maybe that's not Firefox's fault and it's these shady sites (like Slashdot) that allocate resources that can't be freed? Maybe this is an unavoidable problem and IE 7 will experience the same problems--I'm not sure but we'll see I guess. What should worry Firefox proliferation advocates is that I'm willing to try out IE 7 when Windows forces it on my machine just to see if I can use it all day without having it blow up a couple times due to memory leaks.

So this features list has some intriguing points but the one that would make me squeal like a giddy school girl would be:
  • Large Amount of Memory Issues Fixed.
It's not a feature but it means the world to me.

So, in the end, I hope that the development efforts of Firefox 2 are spent implementing better memory management and control instead of introducing more features. More features are probably a lot more fun to develop and I know I get this for free so I'm not in any position to bitch. But if you want to make me an I'm-going-marry-Firefox fanboy, fix the memory leaks that plague the occasional user--I'm not saying all of them, just the ones that large percentages of your users probably experience.

Does anyone else experience memory issues with Firefox? Does anybody know if development efforts for Firefox 2 have included memory management? I can't seem to find any record of that online.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (-1, Troll)

ztransform (929641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466671)

I'm just waiting for drag-and-drop tabs so I can reorder my tab order.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (3, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466709)

I'm just waiting for drag-and-drop tabs so I can reorder my tab order.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if there's a red circle with an arrow in the upper right of your Firefox window, click it and update. My Firefox allows me to drag and drop tabs to reorder them. I think I've been able to do that since version 1.5. What I'm using:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7
Unless you're joking, I think this feature has already been implemented.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (2, Interesting)

guacamolefoo (577448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466803)

Tab reordering is nice (I'm at 1.5.0.7). Something I'd like to see is the ability to drag and drop folders in my bookmarks. The links themselves can be moved, but I can't seem to be able to move folders around. That sort of sucks.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466901)

In the "Organize Bookmarks" dialog, I can drag and drop folders just as well as links (using RC3, but I'm quite sure this was added at least a few versions back).

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (2, Insightful)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467435)

Yep, it's also available in 1.5 and I'm pretty sure it was in 1.0. It's just not doable in the menu itself.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (4, Informative)

roger6106 (847020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467995)

If you hold shift you can drag folders. I don't know why they decided on that idea.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1, Redundant)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466713)

Perhaps I am missing some subtle humor here, but drag and drop tabs are in 1.5.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1, Redundant)

irrons (908259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466717)

Using version 1.5.0.7, I carn reorder at will.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (0, Redundant)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466721)

I'm just waiting for drag-and-drop tabs so I can reorder my tab

I have that now in 1.5.0.5

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (4, Funny)

hunterkll (949515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467791)

you're 0.0.0.2 behind. Update. =]

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16466725)

You can change the tab order by dragging it. It works in Win XP at leaset.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16466745)

Drag-and-drop tab reordering was introduced in 1.5

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

pantera (30229) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466747)

I'm not sure what you are waiting for, you've been able to reorder tabs for a while.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

millwall (622730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466755)

I'm just waiting for drag-and-drop tabs so I can reorder my tab order.

You don't need to wait any longer - it's already there.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (0, Redundant)

ditoa (952847) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466809)

This has been available since 1.5

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

Warbringer87 (969664) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466763)

I'd have to agree, sure adding features just adds more bugs, but they should fix the memory issues, even little by little. Flash is a bitch, really fucking annoying. Lucky for mozilla, the web community will praise Firefox, until it doesn't deserve it. They should keep that last bit in mind.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

yannack (846999) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466927)

I know that I for one have the same problems. After a few days without closing Firefox, all tabs closed, it still was using 500+Megabytes of memory. Just answering your question though, nothing much more to say.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (2, Informative)

Atticka (175794) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467145)

Two Firefox windows open
Three pages loaded (Slashdot, Google/IG, internal work site)

Current memory usage: 110MB

Outlook is using: 78MB

So yeah, just a few issue's with memory usage.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467167)

Dozens of memory leaks have been fixed in Firefox 2. A memory benchmark shows Firefox 2 consumes less memory than IE 7 or Opera 9 [mozillazine.org] .

If you're still seeing a memory problem in Firefox 2, what you should do is describe steps to reproduce the problem so the bug can be reported and fixed [dbaron.org] .

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (2, Insightful)

Ekarderif (941116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467545)

My Opera runs at a constant 40 MB footprint. Until Firefox stops chewing up more and more over time, I'm not switching back.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (0)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467635)

I tried Opera 9 when it first came out and it hit 100 MB within the day. Even after using Firefox 2 for days, it is often still below the 100 MB level. If you could simply describe what you do when you see "Firefox chewing up more and more memory over time," the problem could be fixed.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467871)

Thanks for providing the link to MozillaZine, a website which I'm sure has unbiased views of IE vs. Opera vs. Firefox. I can't help but take this information with a grain of salt considering the website that this forum thread originates from.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467963)

I can't help but take this information with a grain of salt considering the website that this forum thread originates from.
Better yet, run the benchmark yourself and see what numbers you get. There's no reason to take anyone's word that Firefox uses so little memory. See for yourself.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467969)

Yes, these guys complaining about they focusing on features and skipping the bugs are missinformed or jump to conclussions, anyone who upgrades to firefox 2 from 1.5.0.7 would notice that they are slowly improving the stability and memory usage. It is not like they would fix all the problems that cause them in a single update but since Bon Echo until this rc 3 I have noticed improvements.

Also even in that bugzilla page you can notice that some bugs are getting fixed, then there are some that are the fault of windows media player or the flash player (leak when playing wmv files, memory is increased 10 MB per second when playing flash)

That said, some guys seem to increase the numbers when posting on slashdot, I personally have never seen firefox go higher than 140 MB, and I have used it since its first versions. Also lately I can hardly make it go higher than 70.0 MB, and I use flash to watch youtube and play games.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467239)

"I know that Flash is a plug-in and this is one of the leading causes of memory problems in Firefox. But it's the only extension/plug-in I use and it's so I can see average websites, I don't do anything special or extraordinary with it. You'll probably be able to convince me that this is Flash's fault yet I don't quite see the same effects in IE. Conspiracy? Well, I'm all ears and happy if it is."
IE uses ActiveX to interface with Flash plugin and Mozilla/Firefox uses Netscape plugin API. It seems that Macromedia/Adobe is not interested to fix Flash's memory leaks for Firefox users. If this bothers you contact Macromedia/Adobe...

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

jgc7 (910200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467327)

A lot has been said about the memory issues in Firefox, and I agree that it probably isn't a "leak" as the developers claim. But why the hell does Firefox continue to cache all of the history for a closed tab in memory. If I close a bunch of tabs, I want the memory freed up! I have no need to be able to instantly reopen a closed tab with all of the history, which is possible today with a simple extension. When I close a tab, I am not going back in the near future, and if I do, Firefox should just reload the page.

just my two cents.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467393)

Whenever I close tabs, I see the memory freed up. If you really want to, you can completely turn off the bfcache feature [mozillazine.org] .

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

jgc7 (910200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467783)

The thing is that when I have lots of tabs open, I want firefox to use lots of memory so I get the benefit of the hyperfast back and forward. I just don't want history cached after I close tabs. With the config settings, I can either turn off the fast back/forward(practically no caching), or limit the total memory usage. Neither of these solutions is proper. When I have 10 tabs open with lots of history, Firefox should use ~200 megs of memory. When I close 9 of the tabs, the memory usage should drop to ~30megs. This way, when I am primarily surfing, I would have a nice fast experience, and when I switch to working with a memory intesive application, I can just close a bunch of tabs and I don't have to worry about crap getting written to the swap. Do you know a way to achieve what I want?

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467899)

When I have 10 tabs open with lots of history, Firefox should use ~200 megs of memory. When I close 9 of the tabs, the memory usage should drop to ~30megs.
Do you know of any browser that actually exhibits this behavior? If so, please list which browser, version, OS, and which 10 URLs to open in the 10 tabs to see it. In my experience, once a browser is using well over 100 MB of memory, nothing will get it to use as low as 30 MB of memory except restarting the browser.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

jgc7 (910200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468137)

yes, IE 6 does this (albeit without tabs.) When I open 10 windows with pages like cnn.com, abc.com, nbc.com, nytimes.com. Memory usage goes in excess of 200 megs. When I close 9 IE windows, memory usage drops to ~50megs. In firefox, when I open a bunch of tabs and surf around, then close the tabs, memory usage barely decreases at all.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468471)

I tried this in IE 7 (I don't have IE 6 on my computer any more). I opened google.com, abc.com, cbs.com, nbc.com, cnn.com and nytimes.com each in a different window. Memory usage went up to 135 MB. After closing all but the window with google.com, memory usage went down to 57 MB. After opening the same pages in tabs, memory use went to 130 MB. After closing all tabs but the one with google.com, memory usage went back to 60 MB.

I tried the same operations in Firefox 2. It uses 99 MB of memory when the pages are opened in new windows. After closing all windows but the one with google.com, memory use went down to 51 MB. After opening the pages in tabs, memory use went to 97 MB. After closing the tabs except the one with google.com, memory use went back to 59 MB.

You're right. Firefox gives back less memory than IE 7. But that's only because Firefox 2 takes up less memory than IE 7 to begin with! I would rather that Firefox developers not fix this "problem".

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467865)

Why do people care about memory usage so much? It made sense back when we had 128K of RAM to play with, but now? People act like they have to pay per the bit stored in memory.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (2, Informative)

fprintf (82740) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467999)

Because if I want to run a memory intensive application alongside a web page I have open in Firefox I don't feel like copying the URL, restarting Firefox and pasting the URL back in. Not everyone has 2GB of memory now, my machine has 1GB on XP and Firefox at 500MB seriously curtails the other programs I want to run (at least on XP -- it gets very slow if it has to page anything)

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467339)

> So this features list has some intriguing points but the one that
> would make me squeal like a giddy school girl

Historically, the Firefox changelists have tended to not list changes to the core code (like leak fixes) as much as "user-facing" changes. Sort of comes with who's compiling the changelists.

There are in fact a bunch of memory usage fixes in Firefox 2 as compared to Firefox 1.5.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467609)

I would rather it not steadily accrue memory as I use it through the day and visit sites that use Flash extensively.

Really, which sites does not use flash extensively, even on slashdot they bother you with the flashy happy 3d smileys add...

I do experiment with memory issues in firefox. Fortunately I have been using konqueror instead of firefox for some time and along with Privoxy it makes everything I need (and it enters into sites Firefox never entered, like my bank portal).

I dont plan to upgrade firefox, but I still think Fx achieved something really good, they made Microsoft wake up pand upgrade their loussy web browser, for everything else, Opera has been there since the beginning.

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (2, Informative)

hahiss (696716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467917)


http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (2, Insightful)

tigerd (890439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468063)

I simply cannot use firefox 2.0. The thing with little arrows to get to the last of your tabs, when you got to many, sux so bad. I hate it when my tabs disapear, and I have to go and get them. Just stay on the old track, and who cares about the reordering?!? I want FF 1.6 instead of this new "u cant handle the tabs" shit. Dammit

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (2, Informative)

slocan (769303) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468117)

[...] Does anybody know if development efforts for Firefox 2 have included memory management? I can't seem to find any record of that online.

Maybe this MozillaZine Knowledge Base article about memory problems in Firefox [mozillazine.org] holds the answer:

Memory leaks can cause Firefox not to release memory that it is no longer using, especially with older versions. There has been a lot of effort to reduce the leaks in recent versions, and Mozilla developers have have created tools to detect them. [4] [squarefree.com] [5] [dbaron.org] To minimize leaks, you should upgrade to the most recent version. The most common memory leaks appear to be fixed in Firefox 2. [6] [mozillazine.org]

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (5, Funny)

lbrandy (923907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468255)

After reading this list, I must say that there are more than a few features I don't care about.

I jsut upgarded adn for smoe resaon firrefox uednerlines everyhting in red! WROST FAETURE EVAR!

FLASH - saved the universe! (1)

DuncanE (35734) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468389)

Man if I had 100 mods points I'd give them ALL to you.

I use Firefox each and every day - for work and for play; but for some reason when ever I visit a site with FLASH my CPU feels the pain. And by pain I mean **100%** CPU usage pain. Well maybe 60% on my new system. Well maybe not every FLASH site, but it seems to be most of them. And why does IE not have this issue? Will someone please help me? Mozilla? Linus? CmdrTaco?

Re:Ungrateful Bitching (2, Interesting)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468497)

Just a small correction: in general, Flash is not used to view average websites, but subaverage websites.

Still a memory hog? (-1, Redundant)

guacamolefoo (577448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466655)

Hopefully it will sop being a memory hog.

Re:Still a memory hog? (2, Funny)

endemoniada (744727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466973)

It's not a bug, it's a feature :)

Who cares? (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466669)

Who cares about memoryfox? IE7 rules my boat!

Re:Who cares? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467023)

Your boat has a hole in it.

Re:Who cares? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467537)

A script kiddie rules your computer.

What about extensions? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466683)

I do not want t try out this release becasuse all my extensions do not work, and Firefox without those particular extensions is not worth the effort. However, I applaud their coding effort.

Re:What about extensions? (2, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466853)

Give it a few weeks, this is a release candidate and hopefully this one will be ready for release. Unlike Microsoft, the Mozilla project usually mean the release candidates can true candidates for release therefore most extension developers can work on testing their extensions against this release knowing that it's unlikely to break in the final.

Last year 1.5 had 3 release candidates and 1.5 final was identical to RC3. So hopefully this year they get it right on the third attempt too.

Anyway, give it a few weeks and your extensions will most likely be working and tested. There's no one forcing you to upgrade and the 1.5 branch will be supported for a while yet.

Re:What about extensions? (1)

dracvl (541254) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466903)

I do not want t try out this release becasuse all my extensions do not work

Enter about:config in the URL bar, start typing the word "check" and double-click the extensions.checkCompatibility so that its value is False instead of True.

Now Firefox will no longer check for the version string in extensions, and you can use all the extensions that you are used to (I haven't found any incompatibilities with 2.0 RC3 yet).

Re:What about extensions? (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467601)

I've been using the Nightly Tester Tools to make older extensions compatible. So far, no problems in the ones I use regularly. Themes are a different matter, though...

Gonna wait out the RCs (1)

PhunWithPhysics (920024) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466689)

I installed RC2 when it came out and it completely wiped out my bookmarks in 1.5. To top that off, the tab functionality was completely broken. I think I'll wait till after the RCs.

Re:Gonna wait out the RCs (1)

Matt Edd (884107) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466839)

For anyone that wants to try it without any problems can download the portable version from here: http://portableapps.com/ [portableapps.com]

Re:Gonna wait out the RCs (1, Troll)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467253)

You forgot to mention that that is for CrapOSFromRedmond only.

Re:Gonna wait out the RCs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468229)

It would have been shorter to just type Windows.

Do you actually think you're clever or something?

Why... (5, Insightful)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466705)

...is this on Slashdot? This is almost like reporting on a nightly build. Remind me when it actually goes final.

Re:Why... (1)

rf0 (159958) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466743)

Well we've had IE7 RC blah and Vista so may as well include Firefox. They could just copy the front page of Freshmeat.net as well then we can get constant updates on software we've never even heard of

Re:Why... (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467083)

But the Firefox RCs are actual release candidates so they are released within a few days of one another. IE7 and Vista RCs are just Betas by another name which are released weeks or months apart.

Re:Why... (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467505)

Maybe because Firefox 1.5 RC3 was later renamed to Firefox 1.5.0.0 without any modification (hence that Firefox 2.0 RC3 has high chances to become 2.0.0.0)?

Plus every single IE7 RC made it to slashdot, no reason for the final Fx2.0 not to.

2.0rc3 is 2.0 under cover (2, Interesting)

mennucc1 (568756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467869)

I just told my Firefox 2.0rc2 to autoupgrade ; now when I ask "about Mozilla Firefox", it says "Firefox 2.0" - whereas 2.0rc2 said "2.0rc2" . So this , under the hood, is already 2.0 ; IMHO the dev team thinks that, most probably, there will not be a 2.0rc4, so they are betting on this to really be 2.0.

Here are some great, optimized ppc/intel builds... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16466735)

They are updated constantly and for my power book g4, they actually load around 2 times faster than the standard Firefox.

http://www.furbism.com/firefoxmac/ [furbism.com]

A little prettier. (1)

Honest Olaf (1011253) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466765)

Although not exclusive to RC3, I'd like to say that Firefox 2's UIis cleaner and fits in better with the more "friendly" GUIs out there, such as OS X and Ubuntu.

Re:A little prettier. (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466939)

It looks fine on Windows and although the tabs don't look native anymore I actually prefer them. But on the Mac it looks less like a Mac application now than it did before, but that can be corrected by themes.

Still, I'm hoping for better Mac integration in 3.0 than is seen currently not just on the UI front but with spellchecking and password management, Mac OS X has support for both built in and so it'd be better if they used this on a mac rather then their own implementations.

Not "new" in RC3 (5, Informative)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466835)

It's a bit obvious from the number of major additions described, but the "phishing protection" and "new Windows Installer" are just new features of 2.0, which were already in earlier release candidates. Compare the announcements of RC3 [mozilla.org] and RC2 [mozilla.org] on the developer blog.

The release notes page itself seems a bit misleading, since they specifically talk about "Firefox 2 RC3" even in places where they mean Firefox 2 - perhaps someone saved time with a search & replace.

--

So while this announcement probably means they fixed bugs and are another step closer to the final release, the major features aren't news.

WHy a new installer for Windows? (1)

Billy the Impaler (886238) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466843)

In the release notes they say:
New Windows installer: Based on Nullsoft Scriptable Install System, the new Windows installer resolves many long-standing issues.

What were the "long standing issues" that effected the old Windows installer? I've never really had any problems with it so I'm just a little curious about what was so bad about it that it required a new tool to get the job done.

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (2, Funny)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466943)

Because what they really mean is "someone thought it would be fun to re-write the installer", despite the fact that I've never heard anyone complain about the installer breaking ever. And I live around a lot of people who complain a lot.

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467209)

Why they went to the trouble of a new installer and don't create a msi installer for Windows I don't know. There has open requests for this since 1.x. Yes, I know Windows sucks, and I know that there are third-party msi packages, and I could make my own. But because of a stupid policy by our CIO, he won't allow me to deploy this till I get an "official" msi package. (approx 5400 desktops)

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467243)

Honest question, not trying to be snarky: Why don't you submit your MSI to Mozilla?

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468503)

Somebody else mentions frontmotion, and like I said I already know about that. I could submit an msi to Mozilla, but it would not be as good as what frontmotion has already done. I wish Mozilla would integrate what they have done. For large IT shops GP/AD/MSI is a requirement. While I love Firefox and appreciate what they are doing, I think they are going to have trouble with large corporate rollouts for a while.

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (3, Interesting)

Compholio (770966) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467377)

Why they went to the trouble of a new installer and don't create a msi installer for Windows I don't know.
Making proper MSI packages, at least with Microsoft's Orca tool, is a pain in the butt. Nullsoft installers are much easier to create and much easier to deploy as silent installations on large networks, unless of course the tool you're using doesn't support executables and only supports MSI packages.

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (1)

Aliencow (653119) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467761)

Making MSIs with WiX is pretty easy. I wish someone distributed a good MSI of Firefox in FRENCH.

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468245)

www.frontmotion.com

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467059)

I wish they'd provde an MSI package instead. It would help make Firefox a little bit more suitable for deployment in large networks.

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (2, Informative)

JustASlashDotGuy (905444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467293)


An MSI would be nice for deployment in large network, yes. However, deploying firefox for us
on our large network would be a piece of cake when bundled with the scripting application we
use (WinBatch). Winbatch makes deploying apps like FireFox a piece of cake.

I would love to see FF start supporting group policies. When the day comes that FF supports
MSI deployment and Group Policies, that will be the day (for me) when FF is ready to be taken
seriously for corporate deployment.

I long for the day when FF steps up to the plate are makes itself more attactive to the
corporate world. I'm not talking about just basic FF either. For me, basic FF sucks. FF only
begins to shine after you add a few extentions to is. Nothing would make me happier than if a
mandate came out that all FF extentions had to support MSI deployement and GP integration as
well.

Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? (1)

Quarters (18322) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467625)

Well, for one thing it would always create desktop and Start Menu icons, regardless of how the various "Do you want to create >location<?" checkboxes were set. That particular installer bug lived throughout every 1.x release.

Biggest problem with firefox... (3, Informative)

slib (876774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466859)

Memory consumption, for one. I've had situations where, upon running the app FRESH, it's shit all over 70 megs of my memory - on RC3. And on /. alone. Opera in the same environment only uses ~30, and even IE, heaven forbid, uses less. Although RC3 does look mighty swanky, I'll take Opera's modular approach to aesthetics any day - let's just hope the gents from Norway get those compatibility problems taken care of (infinitely expanding pages, anyone?).

Some nice new features (no, I didn't RTFA):

-auto spellcheck (GREAT idea, especially for your typical slashdotter)

-session saving (although Opera beat it to the punch like, well, everything else(aww snap -1 troll))

-security updates... ?

Re:Biggest problem with firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467111)

Well you are lucky if firefox is only using 70Meg, on my machine with a memory cache size set to 8meg the piece still manages to balloon up over 512-800meg after a couple of days of browsing, until it starts swapping in VM so I have to kill it. I have done all the config tricks, removed all extensions but unfortuantely is a shoddy piece of software. Its rather disappointing as there are NO decent browsers out in the market place.

Re:Biggest problem with firefox... (0, Redundant)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467235)

I've had situations where, upon running the app FRESH, it's shit all over 70 megs of my memory - on RC3. And on /. alone. Opera in the same environment only uses ~30
If you describe what those situations are [dbaron.org] , the problem can be fixed. Whenever I start Firefox 2, it uses 24 MB of memory, as opposed to 27 MB for Opera.

Re:Biggest problem with firefox... (1)

mrjackson2000 (733829) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467273)

there has been a session saver extension for ff since arouns the 1.0 release, still after opera had it though

Re:Biggest problem with firefox... (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467555)

session saving (although Opera beat it to the punch like, well, everything else(aww snap -1 troll))

There have been session-saving extensions for, like, years...

Re:Biggest problem with firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467843)

Memory consumption, for one. I've had situations where, upon running the app FRESH, it's shit all over 70 megs of my memory - on RC3. And on /. alone. Opera in the same environment only uses ~30, and even IE, heaven forbid, uses less. Although RC3 does look mighty swanky, I'll take Opera's modular approach to aesthetics any day - let's just hope the gents from Norway get those compatibility problems taken care of (infinitely expanding pages, anyone?).

Get rid of that piece of **** flash plugin.

-session saving (although Opera beat it to the punch like, well, everything else(aww snap -1 troll))

Of course Opera was first. It really did need it, Opera 6 was extremely prone to crash, and without session saving, I can't imagine anyone would have used it. Mozilla was unstable too, back then - not as unstable as Opera, but still to unstable to be usefull as it didn't have session saving.

Firefox 3 too (0, Offtopic)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 7 years ago | (#16466877)

After downloading the alpha of Firefox 3 a couple night ago, I don't think I'll bother. I couldn't see any worthwhile benefit from upgrading. If someone can tell me why two is better than three I might waste my dialup bandwidth. I RTFA'ed but nothing stands out.

Re:Firefox 3 too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16466961)

lol dialup

Re:Firefox 3 too (2, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467189)

It is not an alpha of Firefox 3, that has not been released yet. It's just the trunk is listed as version 3.0a1 that'll eventually be 3.0a1 but it is not there yet and won't be for a while

Finding the 2.0 Compatible Extensions (5, Informative)

coldcanofbeer (820296) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467173)

A guy has created a handy searchable list of the extensions / Add-ons that are compatible with Firefox 2.0:

Here is the link: Bill's Big List of Firefox 2.0 Compatible Extensions [extensionhunter.com]

IceWeasel 2? (1, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467207)

I guess this will be what will eventually become IceWeasel 2?

Thunderbird (0, Offtopic)

compwizrd (166184) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467271)

What about thunderbird, how is development coming on that?

I've already seen issues with Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 on WinXP 64 bit, you can't use the right click send to, mail receipient option.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467451)

You cna check out the roadmap [mozilla.org] or download the alpha [mozilla.com] .

Compose message to context works for me on Linux in 1.5.0.7. Are you running the official 32-bit build or an unofficial 64-bit build? Have you tried a fresh profile? If so, did you report to bugzilla?

Tab close buttons... (2, Insightful)

pugdk (697845) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467395)

and each tab will now have a close tab button.and each tab will now have a close tab button.

I seriously hope they have changed the preferences this time so that is easy to change back to the pre 2.0 behavior (its doable but its quite a hassle - using about::config to enter a new option that does not exist is not really that user friendly).

God, having to move your mouse to close a multitude of windows just UBER sucks.. the last beta I couldn't even change the behavior to full pre 2.0 behavior - when I had less windows than what filled the horisontal screensize, the closing button would be at the right end of the tabs, not at the right end of the entire firefox window.. talk about sucky inconsistent user interface.

-pug

Re:Tab close buttons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468009)

CTRL + F4 in Windows, and some similar keystroke in other OS should cover this.

Re:Tab close buttons... (1)

BlueCodeWarrior (638065) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468397)

I use control + w, myself...both Windows and Linux.

web 2.0? (1)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467855)

will this be finally compatible with web 2.0?

RC3 Totally broken for me! (1)

mcbevin (450303) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467879)

I was using RC2 which worked alright, although I actually preferred the way older versions did some things, like I don't like the way you have to scrolling through tabs now, instead of just making them smaller.

But with RC3 any URL I enter is opened in the first tab - its impossible to open pages in other tabs it seems. I'm amazed how this kind of massive bug made it into a release candidate.

Re:RC3 Totally broken for me! (1)

mcbevin (450303) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467925)

A further bug I noticed after posting that is that I can't navigate forwards, only backwards. Time to go back to a stable version I guess .... so are other people having the same problems?

Faster? (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467985)

It seems that page loads are even snappier in RC3 than they were in RC2?

What happened to the db-based bookmark system? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468379)

Firefox promised a new bookmark system that was based on storage in a database, which would make them searchable and whatnot++. Wasn't that touted for v2.0?

gBNaa (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468595)

also Dead, its [goat.cx]

12 hours (1)

Konster (252488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468619)

12 hours of always up useage...(I have the flu..and can't sleep)

Youtube, Veoh... lots of other sites.

It's using 90 Megs now, which I'm pretty sure would be 250+ megs idle under previous versions.

And this is on XP Pro.

still one of the best browsers I know (1)

Down_in_the_Park (721993) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468645)

I like it, yes it may have memory leaks, some browsers may be faster, but overall it is very stable (os x, linux and win versions in use), in an easy way extendable and at least for me , fast enough. The new version doesn't have that many changes, but what is it that you can change? Afterall it is a webbrowser and not an armed flying container ship on a red cross mission.

The restore session thingi works really nicely and the "list all tabs" button is a big help, as I have always >15 tabs open.

So, thanks a lot, whoever has worked on it

Memory Issue at Mozilla Forums (Reply There) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468665)

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=4736 82 [mozillazine.org]

Please voice your concern about memory at Mozilla.
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>