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!

Mozilla Releases Firefox 3 Beta 4

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the tuesday-toys dept.

Mozilla 356

Somecallmechief writes "Firefox 3 Beta 4 is now available for download. This is the twelfth developer milestone focused on testing the core functionality provided by many new features and changes to the platform scheduled for Firefox 3. Ongoing planning for Firefox 3 can be followed at the Firefox 3 Planning Center, as well as in mozilla.dev.planning and on irc.mozilla.org in #granparadiso."

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

first memory leak post (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715234)

did they fix THE memory leak?

Re:first memory leak post (3, Funny)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715498)

I find it interesting how the parent post is modded "-1, Flamebait" at the moment. Sure, there is stuff to read about the leak, and plans to read about fixing that "leak", and he might have been a little too ignorant to read those. But come on, "flamebait"?
If we could tag comments, this would pretty much be "hurtetdsomeonesfeelings"

Re:first memory leak post (4, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715612)

You're right. Flamebait is unfair. It's actually funny, seeing as how believing that Firefox somehow has one awful and obvious memory leak that developers can't seem to find is ludicrous.

Re:first memory leak post (0)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716088)

It's open source, right? Why hasn't anyone else found it and made a patch or plugin or something?

Re:first memory leak post (5, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716112)

No, it is a stupid question that gets asked over and over again, and answered over and over again.

There is no one major memory leak.

1 - Most major complex apps have small leaks. It is damn near impossible to plug all of them, but Firefox has been plugging away at these very heavily for some time.
2 - Many of the "leaks" that people see are caused by poorly-coded extensions. Turn off your extensions and notice the difference.
3 - Firefox uses a bunch of memory after you've been browsing a while. THIS IS A STANDARD FEATURE, AND NOT A MEMORY LEAK. Firefox doesn't just a cache of files downloaded, it keeps in memory a cache of fully rendered pages. If you don't like this feature, then you can adjust it, or turn it off completely.

Re:first memory leak post (2, Funny)

LMacG (118321) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716448)

Your sense of humor called; it says it's having a wonderful time on holiday and is thinking of just never coming back.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715274)

first post

Re:first post (1)

naylor83 (836780) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715758)

Sorry, no FP. But Firefox 3 is da bomb!

Re:first post (4, Funny)

XenoPhage (242134) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716230)

Sorry, no FP. But Firefox 3 is da bomb!
Oh, wonderful.. Now how am I going to get through airport security?

Re:first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716608)

mod down again; it's not that funny. (no offence intended, parent.)

If you think this is a good formula for humour, no wonder Linux has no chance versus the commercial/'smart' OS'es; the beanbag/propellerhead/pepsi-gulp style has to go some time or the other; smart up. - (This is why you don't get laid, too.)

And now, for the two burning questions: (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715290)

First: Which will be the very last browser with a final release that supports Acid2: IE or Firefox?
Second: What does it say about the Mozilla dev team's priorities that it's even possible that IE might beat Firefox to this punch?

Re:And now, for the two burning questions: (5, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715314)

The fact that Microsoft is even attempting to do it says something about the Mozilla dev team. They were quite content to sit around for years with no real browser development until Firefox got popular.

Re:And now, for the two burning questions: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715456)

Apparently, you've not heard of the Acid 3 test.

Re:And now, for the two burning questions: (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715558)

Firefox released a public build that passed Acid2 in December 2006. According to some sources (including Ian Hickson, who developed the Acid2 test), IE 8 Beta 1 still does not pass. Firefox (along with Opera and Safari) has far surpassed IE in standards compliance. I'd say supporting standards is definitely a priority for Mozilla. Can we stop it with the Firefox FUD? I thought we were glad that Firefox is helping to get MS off its rear to get IE up to speed with the other browsers?

Re:And now, for the two burning questions: (0, Flamebait)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715654)

We were glad about the existence of Firefox, until Mozilla got greedy and sold out to corporate interests. I'm just waiting for the day that Mozilla decides to reinvent itself as a company with a profit interest as opposed to an non-profit company, which it really is now in name only.

Re:And now, for the two burning questions: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715694)

This has already happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation [wikipedia.org]

Re:And now, for the two burning questions: (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715772)

Touché :)

Fork It (5, Insightful)

sd.fhasldff (833645) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716246)

We were glad about the existence of Firefox, until Mozilla got greedy and sold out to corporate interests. I'm just waiting for the day that Mozilla decides to reinvent itself as a company with a profit interest as opposed to an non-profit company, which it really is now in name only.


I don't care whether Mozilla is "a company with a profit interest" or not. What I care about is the product - if some people are making money, well, good for them. This isn't Communism, you know... (yeah, that's gonna cost me).

One of the many things that make Open Source Software so great is that you can just fork it if you don't like the direction the product is headed in.

I seriously don't understand the animosity towards Mozilla for becoming a "real" company. It's enabling them to do a lot of great things that they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise.

And, if you don't like it, fork it!

Re:And now, for the two burning questions: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715574)

But Konqueror with Webkit and Safari will be the first to support Acid3 :). As always...

Re:And now, for the two burning questions: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715604)

Personally I'd prefer Mozilla release a well tested product than rush out a beta to be first. They passed acid2 [designerkev.com] before Microsoft officially announced IE8, so if IE8 were first, you'd have to ask serious questions about Microsoft's QA. And Acid3? [anomalousanomaly.com]

What all this says about Mozilla's priorities is that they worked hard on producing a standards compliant browser before WebKit was forked from KHTML and while Microsoft were content with a bug-ridden, half-assed browser implementation.

Perhaps Acid4 will add SVG1.1 support, IE is the only major browser (icab isn't major) that lacks some level of native support. What would that say about the IE dev teams priorities?

Same bugs? (4, Informative)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715312)

There are at least two major bugs that have been there forever. I don't know if they annoy everyone, or affect everyone or just the people I talk to.

1) The damn proxy prompt window. For god's sake, if there's already one open window asking for the proxy user/pass, don't open another 20 at the same time. This is quite easy to reproduce: From a firefox that needs proxy to get out, go to any bookmark folder and choose 'Open All in tabs'.

2) For the life of me I can't figure out why sometimes the vertical scroll bar dissapear. It's not a specific page. Once the scroll bar is gone, it's gone forever, no matter what I load in that tab - if I open another tab it's all fine.

Yes I've opened bug reports for this. And no, I'm not fixing it myself, I've got my own projects to take care of.

Go ahead and mod me troll, I just needed to vent :-)

Re:Same bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715436)

The only issue I've seen is when searching, the find bar sometimes has a period or comma concatenated on the end of whatever search string.

I've been running beta 5 with similar success, google "firefox nightlies"

Re:Same bugs? (3, Insightful)

ewrong (1053160) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715722)

Don't want to be stating the obvious but is the issue number 2 related to the page not being taller than the screen? i.e. there is nothing to scroll to so the scroll bar is not needed. Not exactly a bug, just a debatably useful feature.

I'd agree it would probably be better to leave it there greyed out like IE as occasionally I get clients wondering why the page just "shifted" a bit when they navigate to an identical templated page that's short enough to cause this.

Re:Same bugs? (3, Informative)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715988)

Don't want to be stating the obvious but is the issue number 2 related to the page not being taller than the screen?
Well that's a new way I've been called an idiot this week :-) At least you get +1 for originality...

To answer the question no, that's not the problem. It happens to pages that obviously need the scroll bar, and the thing is, once a tab decides to remove its scroll bar, there is no way to make it come back (visiting another page in the same tab doesn't do it).

For some time I thought it could relate to a plug-in or a combination of plug-ins but I'm experiencing it now using a vanilla firefox.

It doesn't happen all the time, maybe once or twice a day.

Re:Same bugs? (3, Interesting)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715732)

The Mozilla team are number one on my list of open source projects that have the canned answers "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" and "don't like it, go fix it yourself".

I hate that when you click "view source", it reloads the page. I loagged this and was told that storing the page's source was a waste of memory. Forget that no other browser behaves that way. Forget that it's about 10k in the 200mb of ram used. Forget that it can be cached to disk.

I was also told that viewing the source made me a tiny minority and that if I wanted the feature I should go code it myself. Coz, y'know, viewing source is *such* a niche task. Only the tiny group of people with the very obscure jobs called "web developers" do it.

Idiots.

Source (3, Informative)

mhamel (314503) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716062)

I kind of agree with them. This is a waste of memory and time for the huge majority of people. We are talking about a project which is already under attack for it's bad memory usage. I understand why they don't want to go that road. It, to the least, show that their can be other points of view and that you do not need to be that aggressive with them.

A web developer will probably not use "view source" very much anyway. Try firebug [mozilla.org] . That's the way to go if you really want to understand a page. You'll rarely need "view source" after that.

Re:Source (5, Insightful)

brunascle (994197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716252)

I disagree, viewing source is very important, and if it's dynamically created content and it has to reload the page, the source you're viewing may not be the same source that created the page. It's essential for debugging (e.g. HTML typos). and for a POST request, reloading is absolutely unacceptable.

Re:Source (1)

Asztal_ (914605) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716628)

You could always use View Selection Source or DOM inspector (which I believe is now an extension on addons.mozilla.org instead) or one of the other tools that do a fine job of this.

Re:Source (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716380)

I have Firebug and Web Dev toolbar and a whole bunch of others. View source still gets used heaps, as the HTML real time validator uses it. View source is a core part of any web dev work.

Re:Same bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716118)

The web developer toolbar gives us "View Generated Source" which is basically what you are requesting.

Re:Same bugs? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716428)

The web developer toolbar gives us "View Generated Source" which is basically what you are requesting.

Close, but not quite the same.
While this does give you source that is not re-loaded, it is the interpreted source, and not the source from the server itself.

While this has its own use for debugging why something might render the way it does in the browser, it is not a true picture of what you get from the server and can make debugging server script output harder.

For a quick example:

<html>
<body>
  <table>
    <tr>
      <td>foo</td>
      <td>bar</td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</body>
</html>
Arguments of whether this is good/bad HTML aside - it IS the source provided. If you view it using the "View Generated Source" or through the Firebug DOM inspector, you'll find the inserted 'tbody' tags around the table body.

Arguably, those are correct in the context of the document in memory, but they are not an accurate representation of what was returned by the server. The 'view source' option returns the actual source, but it does a reload, so you may not get the same source in this view that the display got if the document has changed in the interim (has something state specific, etc.)

Re:Same bugs? (2, Informative)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716250)

Well, your bug is my feature. I'm glad that they don't keep that whole stuff page in memory. Some pages including styles can get up to half a megabyte. I could call you an idiot as well.

Re:Same bugs? (3, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716336)

Half a megabyte of source?! What kind of pages are you looking at? ASCII pron?

Re:Same bugs? (1)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716454)

I hate that when you click "view source", it reloads the page. I loagged this and was told that storing the page's source was a waste of memory. Forget that no other browser behaves that way. Forget that it's about 10k in the 200mb of ram used. Forget that it can be cached to disk.

I could have sworn that this used to happen to me but then when I tried to explicitly reproduce it I couldn't. I did a "tail -f" on my apache log and when I viewed source in Firefox it didn't register another hit, not even a 304. Changing the HTTP headers to turn caching on or off had no effect.

Glad to know I wasn't going crazy in thinking it did this at one point but I can't reproduce it now. Maybe it's some combination of extensions that are causing the behavior? People are often quick to blame Firefox for "bugs" when it's really their extensions causing the problem. Does the issue still happen when in "Safe Mode" (or a pristine profile) in the latest FF2?

Re:Same bugs? (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716550)

Yes, this is FF default behavior. Try viewing the source of the resulting page after a login form. You'll get the "Reload page and resend POST data?" dialog box.

Re:Same bugs? (1)

doti (966971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715868)

This disappearing scroll never occurred to me, but the proxy prompt surely is annoying. And more yet as it seems to be easy to fix.

Also, if it already stored the password, why don't it try to reconnect automatically instead?

IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE A THING GO RA-EET (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715324)

Been using it for 2 days now OSX (5, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715402)

Under OSX it's a giant leap forward compared to Version 2.X. It runs nearly as fast as safari, crashes less and does not consume all ram like the older versions love to do.

Re:Been using it for 2 days now OSX (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715470)

I have noticed that, however, it still takes forever to load. Mind you, I've got a "Sawtooth" 500MHz PowerMac G4 (running Tiger), and it might not be as bad on a modern machine.

Re:Been using it for 2 days now OSX (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715770)

Oh I know what you mean.

It takes AGES to load up on my TRS-80 Color Computer.

I went to Radio Shack and bitched about it, but the rep acted like I was crazy and basically ignored me. But you know how those guys are.

Fucking idiot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715560)

You sir are a fucking idiot. Using such an un-macintosh program on OSX is like eating your own shit on a Christmas Dinner.



people like you and all those newbies wannabe Mac users (read other OS morons) need to FUCKING die! Hands off from the MAC!

Re:Fucking idiot (3, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715828)

Yea! And all those Windows users should also be ashamed of themselves for not using IE! And don't even get me started on Linux users who don't use Lynx. Using Linux with a graphical program! How irresponsible!

wget the picture? (2, Funny)

newr00tic (471568) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716028)

don't even get me started on Linux users who don't use Lynx. Using Linux with a graphical program! How irresponsible!
Linux users should use wget with 'convert-links-to-locally-correspond' -flags.. ;)

Re:Fucking idiot (1)

naylor83 (836780) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715970)

Hmm... duh! Read his post again. The whole point of it is that Firefox 3 now actually feels like an OS X app.

Re:Been using it for 2 days now OSX (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715992)

Beta 3 was much faster than Safari on my November-issue MacBook. And memory usage was better on top of that. I was impressed enough for Fx Beta 3 to replace Fx2 as my primary browser at work.

Feature creep vs Bug fixes (3, Insightful)

spineboy (22918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716068)

Normally I'm somewhat against feature creep, but I think that the new features added are all very, very good. Most are security concerns, and some just make the dang thing easier, more eficient, and smoother to use (star button to add fav bookmark). The added features seem to not be of the bells and whistles type.

  The attention to reducing memory footprint, mem leaks, and speed are all very well received, and thoughtful. It seems to be a big push of this release to concentrate on that.

This seems like a very nice release and improvement. - I particulary like the thunderbird anti-phishing tie in.

Re:Feature creep vs Bug fixes (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716344)

I'm living in Minefield (Firefox 3 nightlies) on Windows at present. The interface feels just like Firefox 2 except better. Lots of nice little touches and lots of work improving the plumbing.

Re:Been using it for 2 days now OSX (1)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716570)

Agreed. Firefox 3 on OS X is making quite a strong statement against Safari 3.

Really the only issues I have left Firefox on the Mac left is no integrated PDF viewer and the fact that I really like Safari's find feature.

But those are quite minor. Overall, Firefox 3 completely wrecks Safari.

Nice and speedy (5, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715420)

Been using this all morning and so far it's been nice and speedy for me. It's been much faster than the previous betas and there's definitely a significant improvement with most google aps (among others, but I use these all the time). Might not be many new features over Beta 3, but the speed increase and reduced memory footprint (it's still quite big, but better than previous versions - around 100Mb usage after about 6 hours of constant browsing) are very welcome. If this trend continues, the final release should be the best since 1.0.

Toolbar UI Changes? (2, Insightful)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715434)

So where do we go to provide input on the batshit-insanely-ugly toolbar changes they've made, especially on XP/Vista? Those icons are some of the worst I've seen (including IE) and will do quite a bit of harm to Firefox's branding. Right now whenever you see Firefox in screenshots, ads, etc, you recognize it immediately based on the toolbar icons (minor changes from 1.5 to 2.0 aside). This toolbar... you'll wonder what unpaid intern in an ad graphics department cooked it up thinking it looked "kewl"...

Re:Toolbar UI Changes? (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715516)

I'm not a fan of the XP icons, and the jury's still out on the OSX theme, but I love the new Linux theme.

Mostly because it adopts my GTK+ theme and icons, and mostly blends in with everything else on my system (though IMHO Addons should be under Edit).

Re:Toolbar UI Changes? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716148)

though IMHO Addons should be under Edit
Why? I've really never really understood that. The Edit menu has always been intended for editing. Cut, copy, paste, search&replace, undo. That kind of editing.

I can understand the logic from people placing Preferences there, although it is flawed (because you can edit preferences there; since when do menus make full sentences? Although I'd like to see a menu item "Me" in the help section). But add-ons? You don't edit add-ons (well, regular users don't). They manage them.

Would you agree to keep it in the Tools menu if it had been called Add-on Manager instead of Add-ons?

Re:Toolbar UI Changes? (1)

Cska Sofia (705257) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715974)

i like the way the frequently-used back button is larger/more obvious than the rarely-used forward button. it is a shame it still uses as much toolbar space as two equal sized buttons though. oh i guess it's kinda ugly but it's a browser not a work of art. usability is what counts. and you'll still be able to recognise it in ads.

Re:Toolbar UI Changes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716312)

Agreed, especially

Those icons are some of the worst I've seen (including IE) and will do quite a bit of harm to Firefox's branding.
They are very noticeable in their ugliness right now.

Re:Toolbar UI Changes? (4, Informative)

Slimcea (832228) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716662)

For more discussion on the new UI themes and changes, there's a thread [mozillazine.org] going on at mozillaZine about it.

The icons will grow on you after a while, and they're still making refinements and changes to the icons and backgrounds. Personally, I think the Back/Forward buttons are pretty decent, it's the rest (Reload/Stop/New tab/window) that looks a little too simple and out of place. Can't say I really agree with using different themes across different Windows versions too, this has to be the first application I know that tries that.

Huh... beta 4 just barely got released? (4, Informative)

Utoxin (26011) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715468)

I've been using the nightly builds for a couple weeks now, and they're flagged as beta 5... I figured beta 4 had been out for a while already.

For what it's worth: I'm very impressed with what I'm seeing of Firefox 3 so far. It's faster, uses less memory, and I really like the new address bar features, and the bookmarking. (It has tagging built into the bookmarks now.)

Re:Huh... beta 4 just barely got released? (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715716)

The newest nightlies are marked "3.0b5pre," which I assume means pre-release. b4 was doing that for awhile, so presumably once it got to "release" stage they dropped the "pre."

Re:Huh... beta 4 just barely got released? (3, Informative)

jac89 (979421) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716366)

Once the code freeze was initiated for beta 4 the nightly builds changed to 3.05pre.

Re:Huh... beta 4 just barely got released? (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716398)

Which address bar feature are we talking about? Because if you're talking about this avalanche of text that really doesn't interest me but does a terrific job of getting in the way of actually finding the URL I'm looking for then I'll have to say I, for one, am not impressed.

Is there a way to turn that off?

Anti Virus (5, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715480)

From the release notes:

Anti-virus integration: Firefox will inform anti-virus software when downloading executables.

Why is this Firefox's job? Isn't that the point of Anti Virus?

Re:Anti Virus (5, Funny)

pdragon04 (801577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715698)

It's called "being considerate" and "playing nice with others". I know... novel concepts around these parts.

Re:Anti Virus (5, Informative)

Cska Sofia (705257) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715760)

it's more efficient for firefox to raise some kind of event than for an AV program to pick up this information on its own by polling.

Re:Anti Virus (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716404)

Well, right, but is efficiency the goal or is security?

If you have to rely on another app to inform you that it's doing something, that's pretty easy to circumvent if you don't want the scrutiny, and puts a burden on application developers to worry about informing the security app what it's doing.

That's like calling a building secure because visitors must voluntarily report to the security office and check in, as opposed to having guards stationed at the doors checking everybody as they pass through.

Re:Anti Virus (1)

skyriser2 (179031) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716620)

Here's an extension that launches your anti-virus program on downloaded items, and is working with current versions of Firefox, Downloads Scan: http://downloadstatusbar.mozdev.org/downscan/ [mozdev.org] .

First question (4, Interesting)

mistersooreams (811324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715502)

When will there be a properly-supported 64 bit version? Assuming 64 bit is the future, delaying it will only increase the difficulty of adding 64-bit compatability later. I know there are third-party builds but they're not updated regularly and their reliability is questionable.

Why do you need it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716024)

Seriously, people complain when Firefox uses a couple hundred megs of memory. Do you really need a version that uses more than 3-4 gigabytes? Also, have all of your plugins been updated to 64-bit versions? If not, prepare for a world of hurt.

Re:Why do you need it? (2, Interesting)

sd.fhasldff (833645) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716342)

Why I need a 64-bit version of Firefox????

Well, I'm running a 64-bit OS. I do have a chrooted 32-bit environment for my online banking, but keeping the chrooted environment up-to-date is a hassle.

If you think that *memory* is the sole raison d'etre for 64-bit, you are mistaken. AMD64 is a new instruction set with many advantages. In fact, almost everything I run is 10-70% faster in 64-bit and this has nothing to do with memory limits.

Re:Why do you need it? (1)

Tuzanor (125152) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716530)

Will it play nicely with proprietary 3rd party 32-bit plug-ins (ie flash)? IIRC, you can compile firefox as 64 bit in unix, but it will break flash. This may not bother some people, but will others.

Re:First question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716326)

Huh? I am posting this from 64-bit Iceweasel (Debian's distribution of FireFox).

Flash Performance? (1)

codemoose (1002724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715520)

Has Flash performance improved? I love FF, but Safari and IE consistently outperform it on pages with medium to heavy Flash.

Re:Flash Performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716426)

Hate it when I'm navigating with the tab or arrow keys and the mouse cursor gets 'stuck' on some flash ad abomination. This permanently disables all keyboard navigation, including the menus, so I have to f***ing kill the browser.

So hate me, I'm using unclutter (the cursor remover) with awesome, the window manager, because the mouse wasn't detected at boot by this esoteric prepackaged kernel. Hey links (and links-graphic), who luvs ya baybee??

what about wmode??????? (4, Interesting)

pulse2600 (625694) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715524)

What's the story on the wmode flash transparency issue? Last I heard Adobe was waiting for Mozilla to put some sort of code into the Linux version of their browser in order for the wmode fix in Adoobe Flash to work properly. Or maybe it's the other way around now? Anybody have a clue? How can I show somebody Linux/Firefox as an alternative to Windows/IE when this problem drastically affects the functionality of many websites out there?

Re:what about wmode??????? (3, Informative)

zzxc (635106) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716318)

Firefox 3 supports windowless plugins on Linux, and has since last summer. See bug 137189 [mozilla.org]

More info is on this blog post [blogspot.com]

Fixes a Gmail problem.. (2, Informative)

InDi0 (691823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715568)

...with resizing fonts and logo pictures, which happened automatically the second time I gave the gmail window focus. Now the correct zoom level is retained.

Acid3 (1)

Froggie (1154) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715614)

66/100, I get. Jerky on update, and I may be getting a slightly off rendering because AdBlock Plus is adding 'block' elements to the page.

Re:Acid3 (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715658)

66 with adblock, 67 without it. You aren't missing much.

Google Toolbar (0, Redundant)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715632)

Doesn't work with this beta. Anyone know of any fixes for this?

Re:Google Toolbar (2, Informative)

NickCatal (865805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715710)

There are none... Google toolbar, even when overriding your old addons to work with the new ones, doesn't work.

I am still using the nightly builds and absolutely loving it. So much faster than B3 on my MacBook Pro

Re:Google Toolbar (2, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715720)

Install the "Nightly Tester Tools" extension. Lets you override compatibility checks on extensions

is it just me (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715648)

or is it getting harder to sound excited about each beta release of a browser? All they do is smarten up the interface. Any speed increases are negligible unless they can render it faster than the pipes can download it. It is not like any of them are going to do anything too revolutionary as all they are doing is implementing standards.

Re:is it just me (2, Interesting)

naylor83 (836780) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716038)

Well, if you want to see how different page loads can be in different browsers, I suggest you try loading a few non-cached pages in IE7 and Firefox 3 beta 4. The difference is very noticable. Don't ask me how, but somehow Firefox 3 seems to suck the pages down off the web and display them in half the time it takes in IE7.

Re:is it just me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716136)

The speed increases are not negligible. Ever been to a javascript-heavy webpage? Ever been to gmail? Ever scrolled on a webpage and watched your processor usage go to 100%? Ever suffered from a firefox memory leak?

New Address Bar (2, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715652)

Ok, I can live with the speed increases, the nice new native look and feel, the decreased memory usage - but someone please tell me how to turn off that damn funky new address bar - its driving me mad (and slowing down new tab creation)!

Some docs say to tweak the 'browser.urlbar.richResults' setting, which I have done and it has had zero effect (FF3 Beta 3). Any ideas?

Re:New Address Bar (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715800)

Old bar should be updated soon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6227 [mozilla.org]

Re:New Address Bar (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716244)

Just installed that extension, unfortunately while it reverts the look and feel to the old menu bar, it doesn't seem to totally revert it - I use 'find while typing' a lot to visit certain pages a lot, and this behavior seems to have changed in FF3 to include content other than the URL, resulting in a weird display order. This is one of the behaviors I wish to revert.

Re:New Address Bar (5, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716604)

To put it bluntly: You're sh*t out of luck.

See here [mozillazine.org] for the discussion that basically goes:

Us: This is terrible behaviour and hugely inconsistent. It will confuse novice users with inconsistency and searching in an address bar and it'll annoy power users who used to be able to consistently locate the places they wanted to go based on the URL (which they remembered and which remained consistent). If we wanted to search then we'd search. Yes, it can be useful in some situations, but if we know what we want to type then we don't want the browser thinking it is better than me and incorrectly second-guessing what we want.
Them: Everyone searches, and it learns. Searching is the future, so we're going to make you search.

The two sites I visit most at work are Slashdot and the BBC news (news.bbc.co.uk). What used to turn up top for "ne", "new" and "news"? The BBC news, because I wanted to go there and it matched what I typed. What turns up now? Slashdot because of "news for nerds" in the title. It needs huge amounts more weighting on URL starts than titles, but they don't seem willing to change it.

The other one that really annoys me is one of my sites. I could normally go to "sk" and hit it as first result, but now I've got to type even more of it and it doesn't make it to the top until after I've done the whole domain (because the domain is in the title of another page that always turns up top).

Re:New Address Bar (2, Informative)

Rhabarber (1020311) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715864)

Try the magic oldbar extension.

FIX THE SHOCKWAVE/FLASH CRASHING PROBLEM ALREADY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715754)

wtf?

arg, requires gtk 2.10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715768)

My SLES10SP1 box has 2.8

Bookmark Sync? (0, Redundant)

Bander (2001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715802)

I used the previous beta quite happily under OS-X, but I've become seriously dependent on Foxmarks for keeping my bookmarks synced between the two (or 3, sometimes 4) systems I use regularly. Can anyone suggest a bookmark sync tool that works with Firefox 3? Ideally it would work with Firefox 2 as well, but 3 looks "ready enough for me" (if not my mom), so I'd probably be happy with using Firefox 3 everywhere if necessary.

Other than the compatibility issues with mods written for older versions (omelettes, eggs, etc), I am impressed by the quality of version 3. The speed and interface tweaks are certainly welcome.

Re:Bookmark Sync? (1)

Samurai Tony (1202095) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715984)

Rather than trying to sync bookmarks between multiple machines, why not use portable apps http://portableapps.com/ [portableapps.com] via a memory stick and only have the one set?

Re:Bookmark Sync? (1)

Bander (2001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716104)


The reason I don't use a portable apps sort of solution is because I use OS-X, Windows XP, and Linux systems in roughly equal measure. At work two of the boxes are physically adjacent and in use at the same time. I can't use a physical device like a USB drive on more than one system at the same time.

Obviously I can manually export and import bookmarks, but I did that for years and it sucked.

There was an addon with bookmark sync functionality that required you to use your own WebDAV or ftp server, but it was orphaned before Foxmarks came along. I'm not even going to try to get it to work with version 3.

2.0.0.12? (0, Redundant)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715816)

there is a javascript vulnerability that has gone unpatched for a while now http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/09/2215205 [slashdot.org]

i sure hope moozilla's developers don't depend on NoScript to keep javascript features patched for them...

ogg/theora/dirac/vorbis and video player DOM (1)

GNUPublicLicense (1242094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715822)

It's gone. I was told it's finished, no video player DOM and no default codecs (ogg/mkv/theora/dirac/vorbis/speex). That's a huge blow for GPL software since the web is now video/audio enabled...

is this the 'complain-about-firefox' thread? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22715840)

I'd like to complain about this new autocomplete address bar with bookmarks doohickey. I don't want the browser to second guess where I want to go. If I type www.slashdot.org and hit enter I expect slashdot, not some thread that I bookmarked last week so I could keep an eye on the comments! Really, how much is it to ask for a checkbox to uncheck and turn if off somewhere in the options?

For those interested in performance numbers (5, Interesting)

bconway (63464) | more than 6 years ago | (#22715850)

Re:For those interested in performance numbers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716102)

Who cares if it crashes every 2 minutes because of flash? I may get spywared and virused up the wazoo but at least IE WORKS.

Seamonkey is better than FirefoxUbuntu implementat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22716122)

I think that Seamonkey is way much better than Firefox, despite the fact that Firefox supports plugins, etc - dont care about those. Ubuntu implementation of seamonkey is called Iceape, I recommend it to everybody.

May not work with older Linux distributions ... (1)

Herschel Cohen (568) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716190)

I was already having problems with Beta 3, which would self destruct on startup. Now the latest beta says I need the newer Gnome developers tool kit. Therefore, until I upgrade my distribution I will no longer be able to try using version 3 tests. Nonetheless, beta 2 still works fine.

Security Security blah blah blah (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#22716224)

Is it faster and smaller? Does it run better and not crash? Is it a RAM whoring slut? Is it going to break all of my extensions to protect me from myself?

I work in security and I'm actually a little sick of everyone trying to incorporate more security features into every product under the sun. Hey, maybe a little bit of education and awareness is worth 10 million lines of antiphishing code.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?