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 3 Beta 3 Officially Released

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the back-to-its-roots dept.

Mozilla 337

firefoxy writes "Mozilla has officially released Firefox 3 beta 3. This release includes new features, user interface enhancements, and theme improvements. Ars Technica has a review with screenshots. 'Firefox 3 is rapidly approaching completion and much of the work that remains to be done is primarily in the category of fit and finish. There will likely only be one more beta release after this one before Mozilla begins issuing final release candidates.'"

cancel ×

337 comments

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

HA HA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402142)

Firefox sucks!

Re:HA HA (0, Flamebait)

timberwolf753 (1064802) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402420)

Wow your comments suck. I bet you use IE7.

Re:HA HA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402500)

Firefox sucks!
Plus, it looks as if it still uses Gecko rather than the superior WebKit. When will Firefox finally make the switch?

Re:HA HA (0, Offtopic)

timberwolf753 (1064802) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402754)

Your a poor pathetic man Anonymous Coward. You never have anything nice to say.

CmdTaco is a homo!!@#$@# (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402150)

CmdTaco is a homo!!@#$@#

Re:CmdTaco is a homo!!@#$@# (0, Offtopic)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402596)

-1 Flamebait?

MORE LIKE -1 FLAMERBAIT AMIRITE?

So... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402156)

How about that memory leak?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402176)

Fixed.

Re:So... (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402210)

http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/releases/trunk-for-firefox-3.html [squarefree.com]
  • Memory leaks
  • Code size and memory use
    • 296818 [mozilla.org] - Don't hold onto decoded image data for so long.
    • 143046 [mozilla.org] - Reduce memory use for animated GIFs by storing frames other than the first at the original 8 bits.
    • Take a string constructor out of line. (From 345517 [mozilla.org] .) (1% code size win.)
    • 332174 [mozilla.org] - Drop SOAP support. (2% code size win.)
    • 313309 [mozilla.org] - Provide table-driven QI mechanism.
    • 407459 [mozilla.org] - [Windows] Switch from default MSVC malloc to jemalloc for better memory allocation speed and lower fragmentation.
    • Many more: 100 bugs fixed on trunk with the "footprint" keyword [mozilla.org] .

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402330)

That's nice, they've moved on from pretending it doesn't exist, blaming the user, blaming extensions, blaming plugins, blaming the memory monitor: blaming everything except the code.

However, as someone who routinely sees Firefox use 300MB (up to 100MB already!), I have to ask:

Did they actually fix it?

So they're addressing it. Does what they've done actually solve the problem? Or will I still watch Firefox use up to 500MB during a normal browsing session?

Re:So... (5, Informative)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402372)

High memory usage is different from memory leaks - every time you open a new tab it stores in ram some of the previous and next pages in ram. So if you do a lot of surfing on different tabs it very quickly goes up to 100MB in ram. You can disable that from the settings but you lose the ultra-quick back and forward capability.

Re:So... (1)

Enlightenment (1073994) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402972)

I'm running Beta 2 right now, and... yes, I think they fixed it.

In Short (4, Funny)

jsse (254124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402762)

Fast, really fast.

Don't trust me. Try it.

YAY! (0, Flamebait)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402174)

Oooh, I'm *excited* about the latest Firefox. Maybe this one will have GREAT features, like "not deleting my bookmarks and javascript whitelist when I update*. Or maybe "immediately load urls I click on them from the address bar, instead of waiting for me to hit return, like it did 3 updates ago, before they torched all evidence of that feature having been present, while IE still has it".

Re:YAY! (4, Insightful)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402592)

That's not a bug, it's a feature. I frequently grab text from the last known addresses without necessarily wanting to go to the page again (E.g. download heavy sites, buggy sites that crash the browser that I need to submit a bug report on.)

Re:YAY! (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402650)

"immediately load urls I click on them from the address bar"

thats a fairly trivial gripe, and a lot of the time you may not want to actually navigate to the URL, but simply put it in the TextBox/Address bar to copy the URL...

Although admittedly I dislike FireFox almost to the point of hate (I prefer Opera, or even Safari or Konqueror, although Phoenix was a kickass browser)... I think they should improve the AddressBar/Dropdown to incorporate things like being able to remove a URL from the list, or right-click a URL in the list and "Open In New Tab"

Something a few IE Shell/Clones have like Avant, and I think Maxthon does aswell... Opera has te dropdown addressbar toolbar which, you can add any button/textbox/favorites you want to it... FireFox doesnt seem to have any sort of ability like that, at least not without hunting down some obscure add-on or something.

Re:YAY! (5, Informative)

DudemanX (44606) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402822)

I think they should improve the AddressBar/Dropdown to incorporate things like being able to remove a URL from the list
You mean like hovering the cursor over a URL in the list and pressing the delete key? Works nicely in 2.x

Re:YAY! (5, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402856)

Yes I do, but how many average users are going to know that? I'd be willing to bet that the Parent didnt even know that...besides, thats only one of many features that its lacking in comparison to Opera, Avant, etc. There isnt much coding invlived to add a context menu on right-click, or even a tooltip saying "Yadda Yada for Yada!"

Re:YAY! (1)

SendBot (29932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402910)

I had no idea you could do that - thanks!

Re:YAY! (5, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402726)

immediately load urls I click on them from the address bar, instead of waiting for me to hit return
No. That's a terrible idea, and would drive innumerable people (myself included) completely crazy. Text-entry fields shouldn't do anything when you click into them in order to edit. The return key is the proper way to actually cause an action to be taken on the entered text.

That's a user interface paradigm that's decades old now, and just because the bunch of monkeys coding IE think it's fun to throw it out the window doesn't mean it's a good idea. Microsoft has the anti-Midas touch for interfaces these days anyway (cf. Vista generally, that new Office abomination generally, drop-down menus that hide half their contents for no particular reason, etc.). Emulating them would be a terrible idea.

Re:YAY! (3, Interesting)

marcushnk (90744) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402908)

AARRRGGHH!

Agreed that would drive me nuts.

I suspect it'd make a nice exploit as well...

Adding bookmarks (2, Informative)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402178)

In nightly builds that have been released since the beta 3 code freeze, the bookmark process has been refined further. When the user bookmarks the page by clicking the star icon in the URL bar, the browser will inform the user that the page has been bookmarked...
I've been using nightly builds for the past month or two, and this is not what I am seeing right now. I only see that box pop up if I double click the star.

Re:Adding bookmarks (4, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402230)

Not that box, apparently there was a notice that appeared when you clicked the star to let you know what the star did (that the page had been bookmarked)... however the notice was both added and removed in nightlies between b2 and b3 (guess it ended up being more annoying than helpful).

acid 2? (3, Interesting)

TheRealZeus (1172755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402204)

...does it pass?

Re:acid 2? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402790)

Yes, Firefox 3.0 passes Acid 2 [ajaxian.com] .

I'm hoping that they bring forward Tamarin support in Firefox. Any chance of getting fast javascript before Firefox 4?

Most plugins aren't working yet... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402222)

Although if you have a mac, be sure to install the proto theme [mozilla.org] . Although if you have a mac, you also should try the latest Webkit build [webkit.org] too. Its ridiculously fast.

That is all.

Firefox 3 Mac OS X UI (2, Informative)

swid27 (869237) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402520)

The Proto theme is now the default in Mac OS X; no additional download is necessary.

(If you didn't click the link in the parent post, the upshot is that Firefox now looks a lot more like Safari.)

Re:Firefox 3 Mac OS X UI (4, Interesting)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402594)

Except... the problem with themes which try to emulate the native look and feel of the platform is that it has to be all or nothing; getting even a minor detail wrong can throw off the whole theme. This is even worse on the Mac, where there are a lot of users who are much pickier than average about the look and feel of the UI -- it has to match the native interface, because if it doesn't they're going to notice. And in the provided screenshots, I can already spot ways that the "native" OS X theme doesn't cut it. For example, the screenshot which proudly shows off an Aqua-style select control and button next to a search box also shows those controls using the wrong font and with the text incorrectly placed. If they can't get those details right, they might as well not try to do a "native" theme at all.

Re:Firefox 3 Mac OS X UI (4, Informative)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402688)

If they can't get those details right, they might as well not try to do a "native" theme at all.

List boxes have always been ugly in Firefox. I don't think the theme has any control over this. Buttons look pretty good in 3.0 beta 3, but there are some nasty rendering artifacts on in the tab labels.

I agree with you that the details can make or break the experience. I keep trying to use Emacs shortcuts (Ctrl-A, Ctrl-E, etc.) in this text area, but this isn't a native control.

From what I've seen in the last fifteen minutes, 3.0 beta 3 is a big improvement. I've been pretty frustrated with Safari's performance. I'm not a kung fu memory master, but I do know that top shows up to 400 MB RPRVT and close to 2 GB VSIZE after it has been open for a while, even with only one or two tabs open. Sometimes when I close a tab it hangs indefinitely with a beach ball, so I have to force quit. If Firefox can spare me that annoyance, I'll forgive a few UI quirks.

Re:Firefox 3 Mac OS X UI (2)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402750)

lol... "they might as well not try to do a "native" theme at all."

Yeah, who are they to try and attempt something?... speaking of that, who the hell is Mozilla to release a Beta FireFox?... may aswell not try to do a "FireFox" build at all...

Themes are (usually) much the same as software itself, you piss around with your Alpha's get it working "pretty good" relase some Beta's... get it working to a certain proximety to the desired effect (I dont think any major software has ever been released exactly as it was desired)... and keep working on it from there... "trying" is more important than succeeding, because if you never tried, its impossible to succeed...

Re:Firefox 3 Mac OS X UI (1)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402932)

Think about this for a moment. Then compare Safari on OS X to Safari on Windows. Then think about it again. If Apple have trouble emulating a look (even their own from a different platform), it's probably not that easy.

Granted the widgets in OS X will look better than widgets almost anywhere else, but by any stretch of the imagination, it's not an easy task.

Re:Most plugins aren't working yet... (1)

kklein (900361) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402778)

Um. I use a Mac primarily, but I really prefer Firefox to look like Firefox, regardless of the platform. I wish MS Office would look like MS Office as well; it's very frustrating.

Extensions (4, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402224)

Looks good. All we need now are for the extension developers to make their extensions Firefox 3.0 friendly.

Re:Extensions (4, Insightful)

NickCatal (865805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402370)

Exactly! You would think there would be some 'legacy plugin support' for people to enable if they so desire. I don't know that all of my plugins are being actively developed, and I cannot stand this version of Firefox on OS X for much longer (the beta is much more stable, but no plugins work)

Re:Extensions (1)

Thornae (53316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402470)

Yes, that's exactly my problem.

Most of the plugins I use fall into the "Make Firefox work more like Opera" category, and very few of them work with FF3.

A "Legacy Plugins" option would be great.

Re:Extensions (2, Interesting)

jaxtherat (1165473) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402648)

Crazy though, why not just use Opera?

Re:Extensions (1)

Thornae (53316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402924)

I usually do. However, some websites I need to access regularly break with Opera, and sometimes I need to test things under Firefox.

When I do, I like things to work the way I'm used to.

Re:Extensions (5, Informative)

Buran (150348) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402502)

I get them to work by setting extensions.checkCompatibility to false.

A few still refuse to work, but most do.

Now, can someone tell me how to keep my bookmarks always sorted by name? The two extensions I know of that do this job ignore my "don't check compatibility" instructions and still refuse to show up in the menus.

Re:Extensions (5, Informative)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402558)

Exactly! You would think there would be some 'legacy plugin support' for people to enable if they so desire.

There is. Install the Nightly Tester Tools [oxymoronical.com] plugin. It adds a "Make All Compatible" button in your Add-ons dialog that does pretty much just what it says.

Re:Extensions (1)

Christophotron (812632) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402936)

Google browser sync is the only deal-breaker for me. I disabled compatibility checking and installed the nightly build tools and it still doesn't work :(

But I LOVE the zoom feature. Actually being able to read text within images from several feet away on a 37" 1920x1080 LCD is pretty damn nice. I may just have to copy over my bookmarks and live without syncing for a little while.

Re:Extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402944)

You would think there would be some 'legacy plugin support' for people to enable if they so desire.
Boy, you really would think so, wouldn't you? But it's far too much effort to actually check. No, it's far easier to just complain on Slashdot about things. Then other people do your searches for you, for free! [mozillazine.org]

Re:Extensions (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402954)

Seems like such a feature would also require a lot of legacy code to remain plugged in. There by increasing file size, and possibly memory footprint.

Is it faster? (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402226)

I remember when Firefox first started it was meant to be a faster and more secure replacement for IE. Well, the longer I have been running it (many of you know that I was probably the last Slashdot IE6 holdout for various reasons) the more I realize how slow and awful it can be -- especially the last few versions.

Now, I haven't run the new beta but I looked through the article and some of the past ones that have come up and noticed all this crap about theming, new features, etc, etc, etc but nothing really talks about how much faster it is and how much less memory the program consumes -- especially when it's been open for more than 24 hours on XP.

So, are they going to go back to light, tight, and fast instead of this feature bloat that seems to have prevailed? Yes, it's nice to have bells and whistles but I think that it's just as important to have a browser that doesn't require me to close it and reopen it so that my machine doesn't grind to a halt every other day if I don't.

Re:Is it faster? (4, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402258)

FF3 is loads faster than FF2. I find that most slowdowns in FF2 were caused by extensions, but FF3 loaded with extensions is just as fast as FF2 in safe-mode. Which is fast.

Re:Is it faster? (5, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402264)

While you're asking for it to be "faster", other people are asking for a smaller memory footprint.. considering that most performance issues in a browser are related to caching, they can't please all the users all the time.

Why not? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402560)

The original phoenix/firebird/firefox were both fast AND had a small memory footprint.
They ran very well on old SGI desktop systems with sub-300 MHz CPUs and sub-512 MB RAM capacities.
Sometimes I wonder if desktop developers shouldn't be forced to use such systems today for all development work. It would force some leanness.

Re:Why not? (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402630)

I'm also in favor of that.

Also, force them to be without mouse for 1 day of the week.

Re:Why not? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402740)

And supported 1/1000th of the functions of a typical web browser today.

The world has moved on from ad hoc HTML with very few sites even using javascript.

Back then the number of images on a typical page was three, now it is a hundred.

CSS didn't exist.

The list goes on.

Re:Why not? (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402820)

True, to a point... but if you consider that most web browers now (Opera, IE, FireFox, Safari) generally use about 80MB's of memory (if you've been browsing for a bit)... consider Windows95, or even Windows98... which used about the same memory and processor footprint... and I would consider them to be far more "featured" than Web Browsers.

Re:Why not? (2, Insightful)

BZ (40346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402942)

> and I would consider them to be far more "featured" than Web Browsers

Even if that were true, did they have to maintain large data structures in memory at all times (forced to do so by the DOM specs)? Did they need to try to guarantee 50fps redraw (10ms timeouts being the standard "dhtml" sites use)?

Plus, I'm not sure that your more "featured" is correct. But it's hard to compare features that are so different in concept (controlling hardware vs doing predictive guessing on search terms based on past searches... which is more of a feature? Which takes more memory? Should the past search database be in memory or on disk, for acceptable performance?).

The real issue is that web browsers are trying to do everything at once and please a number of very different demographics (people with 100MB (I kid you not!) HTML files full of tables, people with pages that link in 800MB (again I kid you not) of images, users who want instantaneous response to any action without any memory being used to hold partially precomputed results, etc, etc).

Really, you can have fast, low memory usage, or doing all the bells and whistles people want out of a browser. Pick two, or maybe even one and a half.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402946)

Well Opera runs fine on a PII 233 with 128MB, it is also cross platform and has kitchen-sink functionality. Face it, Firefox has disappeared up its own ass.

Re:Why not? (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402872)

Better idea: They could just develope for what they have available and prefer to use, but release the source code so that people with lesser machine can tweak things to run better for what they have!

Well. Except they do. Pick up the source and optimize what you think needs it and remove the features you think slow you down. Don't expect me to use your fork though as frankly i'd rather waste the resources for features than go without the features.

You could get a quad core 2.4ghz machine for less than the money bush is giving to stimulate the economy. Just saying.

Re:Why not? (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 6 years ago | (#22403012)

Yeah man. Programming is like digesting food to all people: everybody does it without even being aware of it.

Look around you. Get real. Think before you speak.

Re:Is it faster? (4, Interesting)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402986)

While you're asking for it to be "faster", other people are asking for a smaller memory footprint.. considering that most performance issues in a browser are related to caching, they can't please all the users all the time.

Actually, the perceived performance issues of Firefox mostly stem from the fact it's a single-threaded architecture running on a JavaScript+XML interpreter (XULRunner).

Extensions, which basically "patch" themselves into this single-threaded synchronous engine, often exacerbate the problem too.

All XUL applications seem to share this slow response / performance problem, other popular ones exhibiting the same issue being Joost, Miro, SunBird.

However this issue is so deeply ingrained in XULRunner, that I hear misguided excuses all the time, such as "it's about the RAM cache / CPU usage balance", which, oddly enough, no other major browser suffers from (I use all on a daily basis as a developer myself).

About when we'll see improvements: most likely starting with Firefox 4, which is to completely replace the current JS engine, SpiderMonkey, with the one in Flash 9 (codenamed Tamarin), which compiles to machine code before execution, instead of being interpreted from opcodes.

We'll hopefully see some threading too (one thread for the main UI and one per tab at least), although the lead Mozilla developers have some quite irrational fears of multi-threaded architectures.

Re:Is it faster? (3, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402274)

Assuming this is a compile from the main trunk, memory usage should be better in this for Windows users. A week ago a ported version of FreeBSD's malloc was checked in. This has much less fragmentation compared to Windows' low-frag heaps which should result in less memory used over time and slightly better performance.

Re:grinding to a halt? (1)

purpleraison (1042004) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402486)

Many people have said that FF slows their system down, and honestly I have not experienced this on Windows, Linux, or Mac (OSX)... in far over a year.

The fact is that these supposed 'memory leaks' are more a factor with prior incompatibilities with Windows inconsistencies than being due to Firefox itself.

Feel free to stick to Internet Explorer if you prefer it, but the whole 'memory leak' thing is wearing a bit thin at this point.

Re:Is it faster? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402524)

For the few moments I was able to run it, it seemed MUCH faster than Firefox 3b2. Unfortunately, something's gone completely fucked up with my machine in the last hour or so that causes Firefox to crash every thirty seconds or so. And it also made a horrible mess of, well, pretty much everything - however at this point I'm inclined to think that there's something else up with my machine, as it's happening in b2 now as well. *sigh* Looks like I'll be using Safari for the next while :(

Re:Is it faster? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402544)

Try Firefox's safe mode. If it works, something in your profile is futzing it up. I would recommend keeping just places.sqlite (originally bookmarks.html in FF2) to save your bookmarks. You can also keep extensions by saving the extensions folder and the files with "extension" in the name, but first disable them all and see if the crash still happens (to be sure you don't just carry it into the new profile).

Re:Is it faster? (1)

Zarel (900479) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402530)

Now, I haven't run the new beta but I looked through the article and some of the past ones that have come up and noticed all this crap about theming, new features, etc, etc, etc but nothing really talks about how much faster it is and how much less memory the program consumes -- especially when it's been open for more than 24 hours on XP.

So, are they going to go back to light, tight, and fast instead of this feature bloat that seems to have prevailed? Yes, it's nice to have bells and whistles but I think that it's just as important to have a browser that doesn't require me to close it and reopen it so that my machine doesn't grind to a halt every other day if I don't.


Well, that's probably because they talked about it when Firefox 3 beta 1 was released [slashdot.org] ...

...Mozilla [has] gone back to basics and worked on what really matters to users -- security, speed and ease of use ... Everything about Firefox 3.0 beta 1 is fast. The download package is small which means that it comes in fast, the installation is fast, the browser fires up fast, pages and tabs open fast, the browser shuts down fast...
...and when Firefox 3 beta 2 was released [slashdot.org] ...

Beta 2 feels snappier and far more responsive than beta 1... No matter what [you're] doing... it all happens swiftly and smoothly. What surprises me about the Firefox 3.0 beta is how many memory leaks that Mozilla have fixed.

Re:Is it faster? (0, Offtopic)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402582)

If you want fast, check out the latest build of Safari for Windows. I downloaded it a couple of days ago after hearing that WebKit is getting closer to a native Windows implementation being possible (their blog [webkit.org] has more details on the progress; its quite interesting).

Safari/WebKit is really, really fast. I know, you always hear people talking about how their browser is better/faster/stronger/whatever, and you try it and the difference is negligible, if you can even notice it at all. I've had a few people try Safari though to make sure I'm not mad, and without fail they all notice a big speed increase over Firefox.

Once the WebKit guys finish their work on it (this other blog [atoker.com] has more info on what is happening) I suspect we'll see some nice implementations of WebKit-based browsers on Windows - and if they can get it up to a decent base level of functionality without affecting speed, I'll definitely be checking it out.

Re:Is it faster? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402618)

If you've been following the development of Firefox 3, you'd know that there are several major speed, performance and memory usage improvements (e.g this [arstechnica.com] , this [arstechnica.com] ).

TFA is only talking about "bells and whistles" (most of which are really useful features and improvements) because it's about what's new in beta 3, not what's new in FF3 as a whole.

Re:Is it faster? (1)

rainhill (86347) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402756)

"Yes, it's nice to have bells and whistles but I think that it's just as important to have a browser that doesn't require me to close it and reopen it so that my machine doesn't grind to a halt every other day if I don't."

Well, I have to disagree with you on this one.

I rather close and reopen my browser every other day then to have crippled browser. For instance, its is such a blessing to have a function that checks my spelling as I type this message. Well done Mozilla!

Re:Is it faster? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402828)

Lynx is the faster and more secure replacement for IE as are some of the mobile phone browsers (eg. Opera). Other things get gradually slower as more features are added. Having a lot of tabs with the contents cached in memory is going to use a lot of memory no matter what you do. There are various tweaks to limit memory usage that I tried with one user that always had very large numbers of pages open. They were ultimately useless since limiting the memory killed sites like facebook (workplace computer but she still complained) which appears to load a vast amount just for the login screen.

Re:Is it faster? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402976)

I remember when Firefox first started it was meant to be a faster and more secure replacement for IE. Well, the longer I have been running it (many of you know that I was probably the last Slashdot IE6 holdout for various reasons) the more I realize how slow and awful it can be -- especially the last few versions.

K-Meleon [sourceforge.net] is your friend.

Wondering where the new back/forward buttons are? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402278)

If you're trying out the beta and you're wondering why your back/forward buttons don't match the article's screenshots, right click, customize, uncheck small icons. There ya go.

On an unrelated note, this story seems to be dredging up all the trolls and fanboys... check out the first few comments, and the tags...

Re:Wondering where the new back/forward buttons ar (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402548)

Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:Wondering where the new back/forward buttons ar (1)

boourns (1180959) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402564)

One thing that threw me for a bit was that my Home button was seemingly missing. They moved it to the Bookmarks toolbar, which I had hidden. At least it's able to be moved back without much hassle.

Firefox 3 (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402300)

I've been using Firefox 3 (trunk builds) before Firefox 2 was an official release. I love it.

Whatever happened to:

> Issue one major release every year (Fx 3 in 2007, Fx 4 in 2008, etc.) since it helps drive upgrades and adoption

http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3/Firefox_Requirements#Release_Roadmap [mozilla.org]

Now my dream is to see a QT brand of Firefox again, perhaps using QT 4's built-in Webkit. Unify Konqueror, Safari and Firefox on one rendering engine and work towards making that the best damned rendering engine out there. They spent nearly two years on the new Gecko rendering engine, and it still isn't as fast as Webkit/KHTML. Firefox has all the features I want for the most part. I'm not saying they should abandon GTK, but they support multiple widgets and toolkits. Someone please give me a QT 4 branch of Firefox and I've be very happy.

Re:Firefox 3 (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402392)

What ever it takes to make Firefox faster in Linux. It is unusably slow for me on Linux.

Re:Firefox 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402656)

If you use the open source radeon driver (or maybe even some other), try
disabling compositing. I also had this problem (firefox dreadfully slow), until I changed this. It's much better now, except for some pages with complicated styles, which are still slow.

Section "extensions"
  Option "Composite" "disable"
EndSection

Re:Firefox 3 (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402432)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding on what is possible between webkit and gecko: webkit is LGPL, gecko is MPL. They are incompatible.

Re:Firefox 3 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402480)

Firefox is all of (any of) MPL, GPL, and LGPL.

Add-on finder? (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402316)

One of the most promising and impressive new features in beta 3 is an integrated add-on installer system that allows users to search for and install add-ons from addons.mozilla.org directly through the add-on manager user interface.

Brilliant! Must build from trunk again!

Re:Add-on finder? (2, Insightful)

Scoutn (992649) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402394)

Because going to the website is so hard? Talk about feature creep.

Re:Add-on finder? (1)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402538)

More like long-overdue integration. I think this is the kind of feature that will make add-ons more accessible, since your average user probably misses the URL-like link in the bottom corner of the window. Also saves a step and also means less time spent loading useless web pages when all you want is a text description and a download link.

Re:Add-on finder? (1)

Arathon (1002016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402728)

I would agree, but I'm not sure I like the system the way it's implemented. I don't trust it to find the extensions I want (I searched for TabMix Plus and got nothing, though perhaps it was outsmarting itself by not finding TMP since TMP isn't technically compatible). Also, looking at extensions in such a relatively small window is kinda underwhelming...

Furthermore, the "See All Results" link doesn't work at all; it sends me to the webpage with a search reading "tab%20mix%20plus", which comes up with 0 results. Brilliant.

Re:Add-on finder? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402970)

So quit whining to slashdot and file a bug report maybe?

Re:Add-on finder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402700)

But, but.... I have to start my browser to go to the website to download add-ons. That means starting Firefox and... um, nevermind.

Re:Add-on finder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402876)

yeah, debian should take a hint from you. screw synaptic, users can just go to the website

Re:Add-on finder? (1)

SendBot (29932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402926)

every time I install firefox (which is surprisingly often), I go through a fair amount of hassle to track down the addons I want and install them. It's not impossible, but would be very nice to have streamlined. I'd probably discover more interesting addons that way too!

Changing the theme in Linux... (2, Interesting)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402342)

The default Linux theme is awful... is there any way I can get the windows theme for it under Linux?

Re:Changing the theme in Linux... (1)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402572)

Isn't the theme integrated with your Linux theme? So technically, would you need to change your theme to make it look better?

Re:Changing the theme in Linux... (1)

tqft (619476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402590)

Have a look here:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=18 [mozillazine.org]

Re:Changing the theme in Linux... (1)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 6 years ago | (#22403016)

I don't want to develop a theme... I just like the existing windows theme a lot more and would like to use it in Linux.

One thing is for sure, (1)

garphik (996984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402354)

The back and forward buttons will be used more frequently than before ;)

But did they fix... (linux) (1)

Tehrasha (624164) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402390)

Does it still steal focus and jump to the currently active desktop when another application gives it a URL to open?

Re:But did they fix... (linux) (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402426)

I just tried and it didn't seem to, but I'm not sure it ever did for me. It might be dependent on the OS or maybe the specific program and the method it uses to open a URL.

Re:But did they fix... (linux) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402608)

Not yet. I'm using the 20080211 nightly, and it's been there for a while.

Also, the back / forward buttons on my mouse stopped working within the last week or so. They still work in Opera.

Re:But did they fix... (linux) (1)

phsdv (596873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402978)

The focus of a new window is determined by the window manager only, not the application. The choice in which virtual desktop it opens might be an application issue, but there I am not sure.

disappointed at one fact... (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402484)

...that mention is made of [full] integration with GTK but no mention of KDE! My be it's time folks at KDE tuned Firefox to look at a native KDE application or make lots of noise while Firefox development is going on.

Re:disappointed at one fact... (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402870)

It was done the night the source code for Netscape was released. Sadly the licence argument of the time resulted in a move to the gimp tool kit instead. It's still better than motif apart from the really slow file browser dialog to save files. I often choose "copy link" and download links with wget in a terminal window instead.

IE..? (1)

noric (1203882) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402512)

Is it just me, or do those screen shots look eerily like IE?

SVG Filter Effects are working (1)

ldpercy (800509) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402546)

SVG Filter Effects are working in FF3 - hooray!
See for example:
http://www.svgbasics.com/filters1.html [svgbasics.com]

Although I imagine these have been in the FF3 branch all along, I only just noticed today because I've been playing with some drop shadows for my company's logo. Not only do the filter effects look really nice, FF3 does svg draws/redraws much more smoothly than IE+Adobe SVG Viewer, which had (up until now perhaps) been the best in-browser SVG experience for windows. Gotta say I'm really impressed and really happy.

I thank you for yo0r time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402552)

Blue, rruber [goat.cx]

Hints (4, Informative)

Arathon (1002016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402578)

First of all, I would strongly recommend actually uninstalling (completely) and reinstalling Firefox if you want to use this beta. Some apparent conflicts between my extensions for Beta 2 and this install caused some of the weirdest, buggiest behavior I've ever seen in Firefox. Only by wiping my profile and starting from scratch was I able to get tabbed browsing to work correctly.

Secondly, if you're annoyed by the new theme, just switch to Small Icons. It looks fine, except for the slightly annoying "Home" button.

Speaking of the "Home" button, it's on the Bookmarks toolbar now, in case you were wondering. You can move it back where it belongs while in the Customize Toolbar dialog.

So far, I don't see a whole lot to write home about. The new theme is definitely ugly. On the other hand, the beta feels very stable and very, very fast.

Re:Hints (1)

cyberfunk2 (656339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402864)

On the Mac OS X version I dont actually see a home button in the Customize Toolbar dialog. Furthermore, switching small icons on/off appears to do nothing on OS X.

Bring the old theme back!? (0, Offtopic)

cyberfunk2 (656339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402780)

Akk, I hate the new theme for Mac OS X. Is there an easy way to bring back the Firefox 2.0 one ? I can't even find my freaking home button ! Also I usually run safari side by side so this is actually super-confusing for me.

Firefox: better but still champion of godawfuflaws (1)

LordMyren (15499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22402782)

firefox <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414197">breaks if you have the ipv6 module</a> in without an ipv6 capable ISP.

the party lines seems to be that a number of serious gating ipv6 bugs cannot be marked as gating because no devs can verify them, for lack of ipv6 setups to test. a highly suggest <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&content=ipv6">looking at the ipv6</a> bugs if you're bored at work and want cause for a good chuckle.

i've always been an opera proponent because firefox consumes far more resources than is concievably acceptable for any piece of code to use (my p1120 laptop IS perfect, no theres nothing wrong with 224mb of ram and an 800mhz crusoe), but the mishandling of critical showstopping issues in firefox 3 has been hilarious. firefox 3 has made enormous strides to try and become something like respectable, but ten percent of linux users are going to have firefox fall flat on its face and thats <i>hilarious</i>.

And it passes the Acid2 test (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22402878)

Go ahead, take the Acid test!

http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html [webstandards.org]

themes (1)

ceroklis (1083863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22403004)

Just a naive question. Why the fuck do they use themes ? Can't they just use native widgets à la wxwidgets ? Seems to be the right way (c) to do it. And of course if the user wants to customize the look of the application he can do this using the desktop's themes feature.
I wonder how much time they loose trying to tweak the themes.
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>