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!

Gran Paradiso Alpha 3

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the car-insurance-not-included dept.

Mozilla 187

kbrosnan writes "Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 is a release of the Gecko rendering engine for testing purposes only. Here are the release notes. While this release uses the interface of Firefox, no significant interface changes have been made. These alpha releases focus on making improvements to the core elements: graphics, JavaScript, page rendering, etc."

cancel ×

187 comments

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

So.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18480801)

Does it fix the massive memory leak issues? Can it browse MySpace.com without slowing to a crawl and/or crashing?

Why should it? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18480949)

I consider it a feature if a browser prevents people from visiting MySpace.

Re:Why should it? (1, Offtopic)

cjdkoh (991723) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481363)

Hey! I found my girlfriend, of 5 months so far, on MySpace you insensitive clod!

Re:Why should it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481375)

She's probably the parent AC.

Re:Why should it? (5, Funny)

pipatron (966506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481397)

I knew the MySpace-crowd were young, but 5 months, wtf?

Re:Why should it? (1)

cjdkoh (991723) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481407)

lol. if only it would let me moderate that comment as funny. as you can tell by my id, i'm kinda a n00b here.

Re:Why should it? (1)

aetherworld (970863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481497)

Hilarious ^^ Sadly I'm out of points...

Re:So.. (3, Insightful)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481139)

If they "fixed" this "leak", the other bunch of fucknozzles would come back asking "Why are back and forward so slow?!??". I think for the time being you people are slightly less annoying, so the "leak" stays.

Re:So.. (2, Informative)

jesser (77961) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481721)

It's possible to turn off the back-forward cache by setting browser.sessionhistory.max_viewers to 0 in about:config. That said, for some users, Firefox uses a lot of memory due to actual leaks rather than this kind of caching.

Re:So.. (1, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481759)

A browser consuming hundreds of megs of ram is hardly a reasonable trade-off for a slightly faster back button that people rarely use to begin with.

New word! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481833)

Fucknozzles! That's a new one. I suppose if you've already got an asshat, you need some matching fucknozzles to go with it.

Re:New word! (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482415)

Fucknozzles! That's a new one. I suppose if you've already got an asshat, you need some matching fucknozzles to go with it.

Just wait for the metric assload of fucknozzles.

Re:So.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481975)

If they "fixed" this "leak", the other bunch of fucknozzles would come back asking "Why are back and forward so slow?!??". I think for the time being you people are slightly less annoying, so the "leak" stays.

Yet another feature FireFox copied from Opera, but misimplemented it so badly it has become a net negative...

Re:So.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482057)

I wish fucknozzles would stop claiming the leak was from the back-forward caching, when it leaks like a sieve even with that feature turned off.

Changes. (3, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480803)

no significant interface changes have been made. These alpha releases focus on making improvements to the core elements: graphics, JavaScript, page rendering, etc."
In other words, there have been no changes to anything that MSIE users care about, like 3d buttons, blocky, chunky, weird, chunky tabs and nifty "click" noises every time you click something, load something, go back a page, go forward a page, scroll down a page, select something, delete something, type something, submit something or refresh something?

Re:Changes. (2, Interesting)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481213)

Aww but I love the click in IE. Sometimes when I click in Firefox I wonder if it's actually DOING anything.. it does seem to sit there and churn a lot in the background. When I click in IE and it's locked up because of some dumb flash anim and not responding to my button press, it doesn't make any sound.

The click makes it very clear when the browser is sucking ass, and when it is not :)

Re:Changes. (3, Insightful)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481283)

Perhaps someday soon they might invent some innovative technology to update you of these events.

I would call it "The Status Bar".

Re:Changes. (1)

GetSource (807184) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481399)

Hmm, I find this interesting ...

If anyone says something good about Firefox, the World sings ... but one slightly positive thing about MSIE, and it's all over ...

Re:Changes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482407)

But even my grandfather, who is most definitely NOT a power user, is annoyed by the click in IE, and almost begged me to turn it off.

Re:Changes. (1)

BibelBiber (557179) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481351)

IE users don't go for Alpha Software, do they? When you use MS Windows you expect fully functional software that always works as expected. I'll recommend to wait for Firefox 3 Final.

Re:Changes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482069)

When you use MS Windows you expect fully functional software that always works as expected.

I wonder why you haven't been modded up? That's the funniest thing I've heard or read all weekend!

Release notes and comments (5, Informative)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480809)

* Animated PNG (APNG) images are now supported.
* The DOM clientLeft and clientTop attributes are now supported.
* Introduced support for , which puts resources into the browser's offline cache. This allows a web application to ensure that its resources are available in the cache when the browser goes into offline mode. See * * * Marking Resources for Offline Use for further details on offline support.
* Improved precision of layout and scaling across a wide range of screen and printer resolutions.
* Implemented cycle collection in XPCOM, which detects cases where two released objects hold one another, but neither is held by anyone else. In this scenario, both objects can safely be purged. Previously, the holds each has on the other would have prevented them from being purged.
* Added support for the HttpOnly cookie attribute, which marks a cookie as readable only by the server and not by client-side scripts.
* Added a new preference, "Warn me when web sites try to redirect or reload the page", which notifies the user when the page specifies HTTP-EQUIV=refresh.
* Windows 95, Windows NT 4, Windows 98, and Windows ME are not supported for Gecko 1.9.
* OS X 10.2 is no longer supported, and OS X 10.3.9 or better is required.
* The non-standard JavaScript Script object is no longer supported.
* Moving DOM nodes between documents now requires a call to importNode or adoptNode as per the DOM specification.


It's kind of sketchy that they're not supporting older Windows or OS X versions, but I don't think that's a huge deal. I wish they'd reintroduced MNG instead of APNG (purely a personal preference; APNG is probably actually a better way of doing it), and any fixes to JavaScript are nice to have.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480875)

It's kind of sketchy that they're not supporting older Windows or OS X versions

At a certain point, this sort of decision has to be made: Move forward, or live in the past. The technical issues that surround supporting old systems verses moving forward with more elegant solutions for modern systems.

But what I don't understand is why they continue to insist that there are no memory usage issues when there is a lot of practical evidence that there are?

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480911)

Not to mention, why continue to support Windows versions that MS doesn't support anymore? If someone wants to port it to them and is able, then I'm sure they will but they seem like an odd place to put priorities anyway, when they could be spent elsewhere.

As for the memory usage, it seems that the answer is always "it's not a memory problem - that's just the result of how Firefox uses it's page caching features to provide fast recall!". I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense to me, because it strikes me as odd that any kind of browser "feature" would possibly consume 500mb or more memory on a regular basis.

Re:Release notes and comments (0)

mboverload (657893) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480993)

Why do you want to punish people who feel just fine about their computer? Jesus, Windows 2000 is still a great, light OS still used in tons of workplaces.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481013)

Uh, brainfart. 2000 still supported.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481095)

If you're happy with win2k you'll be happy with Firefox 2. Simple concept.

Re:Release notes and comments (2, Interesting)

neongrau (1032968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481101)

i remember ppl saying the same about windows 98SE when w2k was released.
ppl like you prefer the eye-candyless w2k.
and i now hear ppl saying it about XP since vista is out (including me).
and i'm pretty sure ppl will say the same about vista once the successor is released.

so like someone earlier posted:
it's ok to live in the past

(for a while at least)
we don't want to come to a total halt in technology

Re:Release notes and comments (2, Interesting)

shawn443 (882648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481243)

I don't remember 2K bothering me quite as much as XP. Everytime I see that balloon telling me I have unused desktop icons I get mad. Eye candy is useless to me unless it enhances my work. Otherwise, give me TWM [wikipedia.org] . That said, I am sitting down with a Vista Home Super Duper Bee's Knees Fucking Ultimate cd coupled with a Barnes and Noble style training session sometime this week. I am sure I am going to be mad.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

oddfox (685475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482649)

You'd be much less angry at Windows if you'd simply use Google or another resource to find out how to tell it to not do what you don't want it to.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481039)

As for the memory usage, it seems that the answer is always "it's not a memory problem - that's just the result of how Firefox uses it's page caching features to provide fast recall!". I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense to me, because it strikes me as odd that any kind of browser "feature" would possibly consume 500mb or more memory on a regular basis.

But if a large number of people us FF in a way that causes problems, it is a design flaw. Either that, or they just don't care what their users want.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481113)

...they just don't care what their users want.

Don't you think users want the lesser of two evils?

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481389)

Don't you think users want the lesser of two evils?

I think users want Mozilla to build a browser that takes into account common usage patterns, and not respond with flip comments that it's being used wrong.

Re:Release notes and comments (2, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481433)

This is the common usage pattern. Uptime on desktop or notebook computers is generally low, and so Joe Average is not too likely to keep Firefox open for days or weeks and notice problematic memory usage. However, Joe Average would certainly notice sluggishness in the workings of the Back button.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481467)

it strikes me as odd that any kind of browser "feature" would possibly consume 500mb or more memory on a regular basis.
Firefox using 500 MB of RAM sounds like a serious problem to me. Tell us how we can reproduce the problem so someone can write up a bug report and a developer can fix the problem.

Re:Release notes and comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482003)

Open 10 tabs. Wait.

Re:Release notes and comments (2, Interesting)

EugeneK (50783) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482283)

50 megs per tab is not unreasonable - suppose each page is 20k (for example, this slashdot story with all the comments that I just clicked on is 26.87k). Now, you have to build an in-memory DOM for that page. Suppose each byte is a single DOM node (of course it is a tree, so there are would be more nodes than bytes, but on the other hand, several words might be in a single #text DOM node, so it kind of works out). Surely 1024 bytes is reasonable for a DOM node, when you consider all the pointers to various CSS, javascript and other kinds of things that a DOM node needs to have. So :

1024 bytes / node * 20k nodes / page = 20,2048 k bytes / page
about 20 megs per page, or 200 megs for 10 tabs. Now, of course you have overhead above and beyond the tabs, such as the UI code (which of course in Mozilla is *iteself* a DOM node and Javascript. So that's the other 300 megs.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482323)

Open 10 tabs. Wait.

How long?

I've had 40 tabs open, and (in the v1.5 & 2.0 series) see the RES mem get up to 300m, but no higher.

Re:Release notes and comments (1, Insightful)

LoveMe2Times (416048) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482333)

Open a bunch of tabs that use plugins. I haven't pinned it down exactly, but one time a couple weeks ago I had Firefox using 1.5 GB of RAM. Yes. GIGABYTES. I was stunned, frankly. I had a dozen tabs open, tops. I was surfing Adobe's website, Verisign's website, googled a few things, so there were a couple of Flash movies playing and a PDF loaded. One and a half freakin gigabytes. The amount of swapping caused by this resulted in much anomalous behavior, and I was forced to use task manager to terminate the process. On another computer, Seamonkey regularly uses 500+ MB, but that's in large part due to the fact that I use the mail component. It is still quite ridiculous.

As of right now, my firefox has 5 tabs open and is using about 73 MB. More revealingly, when I close 4 of them, leaving just this comment page, I'm still using 68 MB! My ./ tab does have a chunk of history, but I'm quite certain that 60 or more of those 68 MB have just been leaked away. And I only opened this firefox this afternoon. It hasn't been running for very long. For what it's worth, this is 1.5.0.10. The 1.5 GB problem was on 2.whatever-the-latest-is.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482663)

When you say "a couple of flash movies" do you mean "five or six 300MB TV episodes from Youtube"? If so, that would be most of your 1.5GB memory usage right there...

Release notes and future comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18480951)

"At a certain point, this sort of decision has to be made: Move forward, or live in the past. The technical issues that surround supporting old systems verses moving forward with more elegant solutions for modern systems."

I dub thee Vista.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481445)

they continue to insist that there are no memory usage issues when there is a lot of practical evidence that there are?
Where do "they continue to insist that there are no memory usage issues" and where do you find "a lot of practical evidence that there are"? I find that Firefox does have some memory leaks, and they are being fully acknowledged by the developers. Do you think there are some memory leak reports that are being ignored? If so, you should be far more specific about what these are.

Re:Release notes and comments (5, Informative)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480961)

It doesn't support older Windows because it uses Cairo [cairographics.org] for faster rendering, which I've read doesn't support older Windows versions. I'm not sure if it's the same reason older versions of OS X are not supported.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

Dh2000 (71834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482637)

funny thing is, cairo is dog slow

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481185)

> It's kind of sketchy that they're not supporting older Windows or OS X versions

There is a reason for this. The changes they have made to the core won't work with older versions of Windows as easily as they do with more modern versions. This means that a lot of work would be need to add support for them. But it has been said that if anyone is interested doing the job, he/she is quite welcome to do it.

Bug! (3, Interesting)

Zarel (900479) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481539)

I had a feeling the rendering engine improvements would break something. The Quick Contacts list of GMail with Chat has a huge space on the bottom that increases each time you hover over a user. I wonder if it's a rendering engine bug or a GMail bug.

Re:Bug! (2, Insightful)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482247)

So file it [mozilla.org] if it's not there already. That's what the alpha is for.

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

G-funk (22712) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482345)

Does it support inline-block yet FFS?

Re:Release notes and comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482431)

It does. Both inline-block and inline-table. Look at the changelog for the previous alpha: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.0a2/rele asenotes/ [mozilla.org]

Re:Release notes and comments (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482509)

I couldn't care less about having another format for obnoxious animated ads, TBQH. What really pisses me off is that an actual useful format [wikipedia.org] got killed off for BS political reasons.

For a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18480843)

I thought it was a GTA mod....

Re:For a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481413)

I thought it was the name of a mature porn star.

Not a gecko release (5, Informative)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480845)

It's an alpha release of Firefox 3, it uses the Gecko 1.9 engine.

Re:Not a gecko release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18480897)

FTA:

Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 is an early developer milestone for the next generation of Mozilla's layout engine, Gecko 1.9.

Re:Not a gecko release (1)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481557)

I'd disagree. I'm using Minefield, the nightly preview of FireFox 3. While it uses Gecko 1.9, it's still calling itself -- and this is the 20070325, tonight's build -- FireFox 3.0 alpha 3 pre.

I swear someone from Capcom's Street Fighter team was involved in that name.

Re:Not a gecko release (1)

jesser (77961) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481681)

Since it contains a lot of changes to Gecko but very few changes to the Firefox UI, I think it makes more sense to call it a "Gecko 1.9 alpha" than a "Firefox 3 alpha".

ACID 2 Compliance (5, Informative)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480855)

Yes, it does completely pass the Acid 2 [webstandards.org] CSS compliance test.

Re:ACID 2 Compliance (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481425)

Aaaaactally, the nose on GPA3 appears 1px too far to the right and to the bottom. ;-P

Re:ACID 2 Compliance (3, Informative)

jesser (77961) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481659)

It's ok if the nose is a pixel offset from the reference-rendering position. IIRC, it depends on the order in which borders are drawn, which isn't specified by CSS. It's even ok, and considered ideal by some, if the nose is anti-aliased to be "half a pixel offset" from the reference-rendering position.

That felt weird (-1, Offtopic)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480871)

Just to be ironic I downloaded and installed Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 and then read this thread and submitted this comment through it. (Well, will see about comment in a moment when I press the button ...)

Re:That felt weird (5, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480947)

Just to be ironic
I do not think that word means what you think that it means.

Re:That felt weird (2, Funny)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481091)

Don't worry...he's just been hanging out with Alanis Morsette. On second thought, worry.

Alanis uses irony correctly (1)

gvc (167165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481229)

"Saying the opposite of what you mean" is but one sense of irony. Here's another:

OED 2 fig. A condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was,
or might naturally be, expected; a contradictory outcome of events as if in
mockery of the promise and fitness of things.

Re:Alanis uses irony correctly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482011)

A black fly in my wine isn't ironic, it's just shitty luck.

Re:That felt weird (1)

ady1 (873490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481307)

I think he actually meant redundant.

Ironic (0, Redundant)

26199 (577806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480959)

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Which I suppose makes your post ironic. Hmm.

What? (4, Funny)

mboverload (657893) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480957)

WTF? Where did the cars go?

redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (1)

dankelley (573611) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480979)

On OSX, Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 had an annoying habit of flashing a white screen before redrawing a page. To test this, just go to http://www.mozilla.org/products/ [mozilla.org] and click from tab to tab.

One can only hope that this won't occur in the release versions, because it is really quite annoying.

Re:redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (4, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481041)

That's a feature, dude. The white screen in between page loads is where the government flashes the subliminal commands, instructing you to consume, worship and be content.

Re:redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481217)

No, it's where Steve Jobs flashes subliminal advertising, how great the new $APPLE_PRODUCT is.

How did you think the RDF works?

Re:redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481079)

Knowing Firefox's commitment to OS X, that bug will not only still exist in the final release, but several new OS X-only bugs will be introduced. The annoying issue of the window snapping halfway across the screen that cannot be moved without restarting FF will become even more annoying. The new theme for FF3 will look even less like OS X apps, and will continue to have ugly Windows 95-ish form controls. Actually, they'll be switching to Windows 3.1-ish controls.

Really, though, if you use a Mac try one of these:

1. Camino (based on FF, but actually looks and feels native)
2. Safari
3. Opera

Re:redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (2, Interesting)

Anc (953115) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481285)

The new theme for FF3 will look even less like OS X apps, and will continue to have ugly Windows 95-ish form controls. Actually, they'll be switching to Windows 3.1-ish controls.
Quite the opposite. One of the already implemented changes that will make it to Fx3 is enabling native Cocoa widgets.

Re:redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (1)

dankelley (573611) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481535)

I like Camino, Safari, and Opera, but I have come to rely upon a variety of FireFox plugins, so the aforementioned aren't really options.

Re:redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481597)

Actually, changing it from a Carbon app into a Cocoa app has changed a lot. No more weird incompatibilities with Exposé, drawing is done through Quartz instead of ancient Quickdraw and we'll possible see native OS X spell checking and Keychain support in Firefox 3.
 
You should try it. Mind you, it is still an alpha and final is at least six months away so expect some weird stuff but it certainly looks promising from has been achieved so far.

Re:redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481607)

...Opera? Did you just complain about Firefox not looking like an OS X app, and then recommending Opera?

Re:redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (1)

jesser (77961) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481695)

I think this is bug 361600. I agree that it's annoying, and it looks like it will be fixed in time for Firefox 3.

It's even more annoying in debug builds ;)

Re:redraws involve headache-inducing white flashes (1)

Rogue Pat (749565) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481821)

Completely off-topic: I know bugzilla doesn't like links from /.
So instead i opened a new tab in Firefox, and pasted the bug number "361600" in the address bar and hit enter. Obviously i meant to make it a bugzilla search, but it's past midnight here, and i'm tired so i forgot to enter additional search terms.

Nevertheless, with only "361600" in the address bar, Google actually returned the bugzilla link as the top link.
Just thought that was pretty neat :)

Newsworthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481011)

Apart from dropping support for older OS's, is this really worthy of being /.'d?

It's an alpha of the Gecko engine. The most interesting features are APNG and some enhancement for offline browsing. Seriously, what the hell? This isn't Digg...

Re:Newsworthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481117)

Seriously, what the hell? This isn't Digg...

No, it's a sad attempt from a "wannabe" Digg.

Re:Newsworthy? (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481337)

I mostly agree that this prob isn't newsworthy,

However, after trying it out on linux it does seem to be rendering and fetching pages a bit faster.

Release schedule? (1)

Tester (591) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481135)

I was looking at the mozilla wiki and I couldn't find a release schedule for Gecko 1.9 / Firefox 3. Does it exist somewhere? I read allusion to like March and then to the end of the year. I guess if we are still in Alpha, its more like Q3/Q4 ?

I tried recent nightly builds, and I really liked what I saw on the painting front. I hope we can get a stabilized release soon.

Re:Release schedule? (2, Informative)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481271)

Firefox 3 is planned to be released on November: http://wiki.mozilla.org/ReleaseRoadmap [mozilla.org]
Wikipedia quotes the same source.

APNG question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481153)

Is this the first browser that supports APNG?

Run both firefox and Gran Paradiso ? (1)

mallumax (712655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481173)

Is there a way to run both firefox and Paradiso without affeting firefox settings and extensions etc ?

Re:Run both firefox and Gran Paradiso ? (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481279)

I keep a separate user account for this sort of thing. Not exactly convenient though.

Re:Run both firefox and Gran Paradiso ? (1)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481295)

Yes, but it might be risky. Install both on separate folders and create a profile for each of them. Then modify the shortcuts for both to use their own profile. The risk is that if you click a link the profile set for the shortcut won't get counted in, so what ever profile was last used, will be loaded. This could cause corruption for the profile, so please backup your profile before trying this at home.

Re:Run both firefox and Gran Paradiso ? (2, Informative)

obender (546976) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481365)

Is there a way to run both firefox and Paradiso without affecting firefox settings and extensions etc ?
Unzip firefox in a separate directory, for example c:\beta\firefox, make an extra directory for profiles and start firefox with the -profile option:

set MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1
c:\beta\firefox\firefox.exe -profile c:\beta\profile
The MOZ_NO_REMOTE variable will prevent it from connecting to another running instance of Firefox. All the settings are stored in the profile directory so it will leave the regular installation alone.

Re:Run both firefox and Gran Paradiso ? (0)

Nutria (679911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482379)

The MOZ_NO_REMOTE variable will prevent it from connecting to another running instance of Firefox. All the settings are stored in the profile directory so it will leave the regular installation alone.

What if you don't have write-access to c:\beta\firefox ?

Re:Run both firefox and Gran Paradiso ? (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481379)

"Is there a way to run both firefox and Paradiso without affeting firefox settings and extensions etc ?"

First of all I recommend you create a new profile for V3 (Gran Paradiso). After that it's possible to run new instances of Firefox from a batch file with the contents:

set MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1
firefox -P

Its there a windows component? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481461)

What i want its an updated windows gecko component (activex better than .net) with his own native api not a ie cloned one (http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm) if Xul Runner based much better

Having the app (firefox) its nice... but a component would be better. I must use crappy ie-control for work because there is not an updated gecko component

I work hacking internal apps for a medical research company in borland delphi, scheme and dolphin smalltalk. Like me, many people arent good enought at c or have the time to hack something out of firefox.

Gn4a (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481617)

Expulsion of IPF they want you to There's no design aaproach. As the project to

Mac users, give it a try! (3, Interesting)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18481743)

For OSX users, Gran Paradiso is a huge improvement over previous Firefox versions. It's way faster, and it feels as fast as Safari. While there are still some bugs especially with forms, this is definitely something OSX users should try.

Does it still have crappy memory management? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18481779)

Is it going to crash and burn using up 99% of my RAM after opening two websites?

Even Mozilla guys ignore non-x86 Linux (3, Insightful)

cyba (25058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482039)

There's only single "Linux" download link that refers to Linux/x86 binary. If leading Free Software project doesn't treat non-x86 platforms seriously, how can we expect something different from e.g. hardware manufacturers?

Re:Even Mozilla guys ignore non-x86 Linux (0, Flamebait)

PipOC (886408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482259)

Are there ANY desktop platforms that are non-x86? If you're running linux on something non-x86 it's likely not a desktop platform.

Re:Even Mozilla guys ignore non-x86 Linux (1)

JohnGalt00 (214319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482375)

Linux on any of the old PPC Macs. Those are desktop, non-x86 systems. Most/all of the major distros support desktop PPC linux running the standard X, Gnome, KDE, etc.

IIRC, Linus himself develops on a Dual G5 PowerMac. (running Linux, of course!)

Re:Even Mozilla guys ignore non-x86 Linux (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482331)

Anybody running Linux on a non-x86 box will know how to install from a distro's repositories. The same can no longer be said for Linux on x86, because of people installing ubuntu on their grnadmother's computer, etc. However, in this case it really doesn't matter. This is alpha software. If you are messing with it, you should know how to compile it yourself. It is not really worth Mozilla's time to acquire obsolete non-x86 desktop hardware for building nightlies and alpha releases.

I find your comment about hardware manufacturers odd. Which companies are currently ignoring the non-x86 market that would actually profit from making hardware for that very small market? The way I see it, market forces have decided that x86 is the only architecture that matters for desktops.

Page Zoom? (1)

tomblag (1060876) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482503)

Still just text zoom I see. Not a full page zoom option yet. I thought I read it would be in alpha3?

I hope... (1)

theshibboleth (968645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482799)

this really does mean that we'll have Mac-native widgets now as another poster said, and perhaps they'll throw in color management so that I can consider replacing Safari with Firefox. A lot of people criticize Safari, but its rendering engine actually appears to be superior--it passes the Acid2 test for instance.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?