Firefox 2.0 'Beta Candidate 1' Released 368
Krishna Dagli writes to mention that a Firefox 2.0 Beta Candidate has been released to the public. Ars Technica looks at some of the included features such as tab scrolling, anti-phishing measures, and an integrated spellchecker. From the article: "There is an option to search for updates for any extensions that have been broken, but it was not able to update any of the extensions I had installed. Fortunately, Firefox has been integrating many useful extensions (like the ability to drag and drop tabs to new locations) along its development, so this is not as big of a problem as it might seem. The browser seemed quite fast and stable, although I did not perform any benchmarking tests. I found one really obscure bug, where if the user clicks on a help link when a preferences dialog box is open, a new copy of Firefox will load without the user being able to switch back to the original either through Alt-Tab or the Windows task bar."
PLEASE DO NOT DOWNLOAD THESE BUILDS (Score:5, Informative)
PLEASE DO NOT DOWNLOAD THESE BUILDS
Unlike the real Beta 1 release, the RCs for it are only intended for internal use, and are not mirrored. Thus widespread distribution of these links stands a good chance of DDOSing the poor Mozilla servers, which are only hosting these for internal testing.
Furthermore, we're already in the process of spinning RC2 builds with a half-dozen fixes.
We're hoping to get Beta 1 out this week; until then please just be patient and wait a few days longer, or else grab nightly releases if you must have something up-to-date.
Note that these release candidates will NOT properly auto-update to anything in the future.
Re:PLEASE DO NOT DOWNLOAD THESE BUILDS (Score:2)
Too late >_<
Oh well, I'll upgrade to RC3...
Re:PLEASE DO NOT DOWNLOAD THESE BUILDS (Score:2)
If that's your username, I can't imagine how crazy your password is!
Looking at it, it is actually very simple: incrementing digits, spaced by the number nine.
Its up to RC3 (Score:5, Informative)
You can aleady get release candidate 3 [mozilla.org]
Or you could wait a few days an get the actual beta.
Re:Its up to RC3 (Score:2)
Quick! Someone with power tag this story "oldnewsday."
Keep up with IE (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, to be honest, if you want to keep up with IE, you gotta start jumping up in numbers. To the general jo-blo user, IE is light years ahead of FireFox just simply cause it's on version 7 versus version 2.
Re:Keep up with IE (Score:2)
Does that strategy actually work? Internet Explorer 4-6 weren't substantially different, nor has Windows been since Windows 95.
Yes, I know, "under the hood" Windows 95 and Windows XP aren't much alike, with 95 having DOS roots, and XP having NT roots. I'm talking about interface here.
Hell, even Slackware has done it. [slackware.com]
Re:Keep up with IE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Keep up with IE (Score:2)
I think it's all a big game, but seriously I think there's a point where you have to cave in and raise the numbers. Developers can't be all gung-ho about NOT raising the version numbers cause otherwise users will never feel the need to update to the newer version. Example :
You have FireFox 1.1, Now FireFox 1.2 has come out
Re:Keep up with IE (Score:2)
Re:Keep up with IE (Score:5, Funny)
> * Second decimal - Features and requirement changes, but still backwards compatible
> * Third decimal - Bug fixes
Let's take Linux as an example:
Re:Keep up with IE (Score:2)
IE4 is significantly different from IE6. Most notably different is that:
1) Nearly all of the things claimed actually work.
2) DOM support
3) CSS support
In practice, that means that there are a lot of things that you can do (and Websites you can go to) with IE6 that you can't with IE4.
Firefox 1.0 to 1.5 is a pretty big jump too, IMHO, because rendering works right most of the time.
Before, if you did funky things with div manipulatio
Re:Keep up with IE (Score:2)
MS called their new games console "Xbox 360" because it has a 3 in it. They were afraid a 2 would make it look inferior to the PS3. Effective? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely.
Re:Keep up with IE (Score:2)
Re:Keep up with IE (Score:2)
Integrated spellchecker??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Integrated spellchecker??? (Score:2)
Re:Integrated spellchecker??? (Score:2)
Re:Integrated spellchecker??? (Score:2)
It's not there for the slashdot spelling Nazis to check spelling on web sites.
Author has never seen Spellbound extension (Score:4, Informative)
The Spellbound extension already does this for Firefox.
-Eric
On related news ... (Score:5, Informative)
Users beware (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Users beware (Score:3, Informative)
Beta candidate? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Beta candidate? (Score:2)
Re:Beta candidate? (Score:2)
Re:Beta candidate? (Score:3, Informative)
This ain't new. (Score:2)
I liked "2.0 Beta Candidate" better back when it was "Beta 2 Preview [msdn.com]".
In both cases, people have said not to download, and wait for the real Beta--though for somewhat different reasons.
Firefox: "Unlike the real Beta 1 release, the RCs for it are only intended for internal use, and are not mirrored. Thus widespread distribution of these links stands a good chance of DDOSing the poor Mozilla servers, which are only hosting these for internal testing." [slashdot.org]
IE: That's why this is a preview for developer test [msdn.com]
The Google Extensions (Score:2, Interesting)
NOT released to the public! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:NOT released to the public! (Score:2)
Not the first time this has happened, and it certainly won't be the last.
Once they integrate enough extensions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Once they integrate enough extensions (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wish Firefox would go back to the lightweight browser it once was. The power was the ability to have extensions to do anything you wanted, but it was my choice which ones I wanted using my system resources.
Re:Once they integrate enough extensions (Score:4, Funny)
Congratulations! You've demonstrated, far more eloquently than I ever could, why an integrated spell-checker is so important in this day and age
Re:Once they integrate enough extensions (Score:5, Informative)
Have you mucked with?
config.trim_on_minimize = true
(Useful in some scenarios when nothing else works.)
browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers
(A better thing to muck with. When set to "-1", Firefox assigns it a value based on your total amount of RAM, I think. Setting it to a lower value such as 2 or 4 should result in less memory used. The Mozilla site has details on how this setting works [mozillazine.org].)
Changing the second item from the default (-1) to a lower value (2) made a big difference in the amount of RAM that Firefox was chewing up on my system.
SVG (Score:5, Insightful)
I've alway liked the idea of SVG overtaking Flash as the format of choice for more complex multimedia online, but nobody seems to use it very much. Any ideas why not? Why isn't the OSS community promoting SVG more?
Re:SVG (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:SVG (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see the point... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't see the point... (Score:2)
Extensions built-in? (Score:2)
Trying it out now (Score:5, Funny)
Feature creep, leaving huge bugs unfixed (Score:5, Insightful)
My biggest beef with Firefox is that it still crashes frequently and has massive memory leaks that require me to quit and restart the browser on a daily basis. It doesn't take much to get Firefox to grow to 1GB in memory footprint and start causing my system to thrash. A fundamental flaw is that it does not release memory back to the OS, so when you close tabs and windows, the process doesn't shrink. While this isn't directly Firefox's fault, there are lots of ways around this that they refuse to implement. On the other hand, the true memory leaks ARE their fault.
I once suggested a solution to their problems. The basic philosophy is that they want to fix the crashes. But at this rate, they never will, so it's better to find ways to limit the damage done by crashes. The best solution, IMHO, is to stop using threads. Instead, fork a separate process for each document and one more for the UI, and use IPC for them to communicate. This way, when a web page or plugin inevitably causes the browser to crash or even just grow too big, killing that one window or tab won't bring down the whole browser, and the memory it used will be returned to the OS. This will have the side-effect of making the browser much more responsive, because you're not kept from switching tabs while a DNS lookup hangs the browser for one document. Naturally, they didn't like my solution.
I think stability isn't really all that important to them, at least not proactively; if you're just reactive to bugs, you're never going to get a solid product.
Re:Feature creep, leaving huge bugs unfixed (Score:2, Interesting)
Using a gig of RAM? (Score:4, Funny)
At first I couldn't imagine what could possibly make Firefox use 1 GB of memory, but then I realized that's probably the average size of a typical MySpace page...
Re:Feature creep, leaving huge bugs unfixed (Score:5, Informative)
1) config.trim_on_minimize = true
2) Install the leak monitor extension for a day and disable any extensions that it complains about. (Bugging the authors of those extensions is optional.)
3) browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers - Set this to something other then -1 (such as 2 or 4). With 1GB of RAM, this defaults to a larger value. (Mozilla's wiki has the details on what "-1" translates to for various RAM configurations.)
Firefox had a bad habit of eating up 350MB on my 1GB system. Now it's much better behaved (around 120MB) just by changing option #3 to a value of "2" instead of "-1". I've also disabled some of the extensions that the leak monitor extension complained about.
I haven't used suggestion #1 yet.
My biggest complaint is similar to yours, separate tabs should be separate threads rather then hanging all of the browser windows and tabs waiting on network activity. An implosion in one tab should only take out that tab (or worst-case that window).
extensions (Score:4, Insightful)
work with a new version of firefox yet have many times had to manually alter
files so that a new release of firefox would work with them (while waiting for
the extension writer to make any changes he deems necessary beyond updating
the version compatability).
Why can't firefox have a 'try it one time' feature similar to windows and screen
resolutions? Let people use their extensions and if they crap out they can then
be disabled.
Re:extensions (Score:2)
Re:extensions (Score:2)
I have yet to use one which did not work with a new version of firefox yet
I have, although it seems pretty rare, last time on the change to 1.5 which changed some menus.
many times had to manually alter files so that a new release of firefox would work with them
Try the MR Tech Local Install extension, you can override the version compatibility on other extensions and dispense with the file changes.
Re:extensions (Score:3, Informative)
When you install a new extension, and it's for an older version, it warns you and lets you bypass the warning.
You can donwload the extension here [mozilla.org]
--
Luckily there are others that had before the same needs we have now
still no acid2 test (Score:2, Insightful)
but i do like the built in spell check feature!
Re:still no acid2 test (Score:3, Informative)
In other news, (Score:4, Informative)
Still no inline-block [mozilla.org], and broken XMLHttpRequest [mozilla.org]. (Bugzilla links, so block those referrers.)
MEMORY USAGE OMG! (Score:4, Insightful)
And where's the memory leak? I've been running my browser for 3 days, with gmail, and I'm not swapping memory yet. I only have 512mb on this machine. If it's a real memory leak, and not managed memory caching, then I will eventually hit swap, no? Please let me know how long I can expect for that to happen.
Memory is extremely fast, so the fact that an app is taking up a whole 42mb of memory doesn't mean it's going to be slower than an app using 12mb. Memory usage is not an indicator of performance, or bloat. It's simply what the application has allocated. Also, with IE, there's parts of it integrated into the OS, if I recall correctly, so there's hidden memory usage you're missing.
Look at how much paging the app is doing while it's operating. Run vmstat when running IE vs. Firefox and report those numbers. Wait, you can't do that.
Never mind. Remain ignorant and opinionated.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could live with a browser that consumes vast amounts of memory if it would bother to periodically return that memory to the system. I'm likely to be modded down for saying this, but the real (and perhaps only) problem with firefox the memory leak which has pretty much always plagued it.
And before you respond by saying "read article X and change Y in about:config", I suggest you try a simple experiment: Open up a firefox window and start Gmail, leave the window open for several days and monitor how much memory is used each day. The memory will increase over time. Apply the "memory fixes" and run the same experiment. While these hacks can reduce the amount of memory used, they can't fix the memory leak.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2)
Tell me why a non-technical end user should have to monitor memeory use at all.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2)
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2)
That's not a good test because the JavaScript is constantly running and the page is never reloaded. That means it could easily be a leak in Google's JavaScript causing the results you see - it's not as if a browser can magically decide that a script doesn't need an object any more if it's still hanging onto it.
That's not to say I don't
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2)
Bah, that's nothing -- I was using it when it was still Phoenix!
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've run into this problem myself in an actionscript (flash) application, where I initially blamed flash for my memory bloat, until I learned that it was my own weak understanding of closures that was the cause.
Since firefox extensions are written in javascript, I expect that a lot of them have memory leaks in the form of ill-designed closures, which would cause the firefox process to bloat, even though the firefox developers are not at fault.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2)
Now i've never looked at the Firefox code but I have done multithreaded programming and I suspect that might just stifle the great selection of extensions users curr
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2)
Mac OS X has third-party pretty form widgets; you should be able to find them via Google.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:5, Interesting)
There was requirement about "native interface". Only when Opera will learn that double-click used to select text (not to open pop-up menus). When drag'n'drop will finally start working (try to drag URL from location bar to create link, try to drop link to open in new window/tab). When UI will be drawn using host OS (menus are always too thin - provided the amount crap in the menus - they are barely readable, controls don't use system font, etc etc etc) When tabs will be closing in the order they are on screen - not some random order. When tabs would be simply switching by Ctrl-Tab. And finally when about box will be what it is meant to be - dialog box.
Until then, tradition of Opera to break UI rules with every new release, does no good. Opera can called anything - but "native application." Unstandard keyboard shortcuts (easy to mistype), unstandard behavious (always confusing with other applications), etc. "Native application" doesn't mean "picture looks like everything else". Opera's "nativity" - is skin deep only. For definition of what native application I can only direct you (and hopefully Opera's devels) to sources: MS Guidelines for UI development [microsoft.com] & Apple's HIG [apple.com] & GNOME HIG [gnome.org]. Read that before reinventing square wheels. Send that to Opera - probably they do not know about the guidelines.
Mozilla people spend lot of time making sure that people used to various OSs and various UI standards will feel themself comfortable. Specifically goal of Firefox was good integration with host OS - Windows or Linux - even Mac OS X support now improved greately. Br... Somebody stop me. I'm flaming.
Extensions! (Score:5, Funny)
Extensions!
"Does Firefox 2.0 meet your needs?"
Yes!
"What would you like to see improved?"
Opera.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:3, Funny)
Pron on demand. I want everything, from the advertisements, the logo, the menu backgrounds, everything to have pron.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:3, Interesting)
Plain and simple. That's the one thing I've been waiting on in a mainstream browser.
Yes, you can get it with betas and prc's but, mainstream, main trunk, production releases that include this are unknown to the public at large.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then I would like compliance with all W3C web standards. All of them, starting with XHTML and CSS1 / 2. You can start tacking the others on when you nail that big one.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2)
I'm using the new Word 2007 beta which supposedly has Blogger support, but I can't get it to work at all.
Long story short, the spellchecker is worth its weight in gold! This feature alone will considerably improve everyone's usage and enjoyment of
Better cookie and JavaScript handling (Score:2)
What I want is something more like the pop-up blocking--it blocks cookies and JavaScript by default, and there's a button I can click to add a rule to allow cookies and JavaScript for particular domains.
Re:Better cookie and JavaScript handling (Score:2)
Two Versions (Score:2)
2) Firefox Basic - straight-up Firefox like we have now, add-your-own extensions, etc.
This way, Firefox can claim as features the pre-bundled extensions, and it compares better to IE when the user-installed packages are installed. Assume users won't maintain Firefox (by adding useful extensions), so allowing users to get all the extensi
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2)
2. No memory leaks. Yes, it still does leak memory.
3. NO BLOAT. NO BLOAT. NO BLOAT. The integrated spellchecker and various shit is something I don't want. If someone wants it, they can just install the extension to provide that functionality. That is the whole point of the extension system. I don't want beginner-user-oriented feel-good features, tyvm.
4. Better standards
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:2)
Then again, the browser is taking up 40MB of RAM right now which is no small chunk of change. It's no biggie for me (1.5GB RAM) but it may be unacceptable for people on lesser machines
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mostly, I'd just like existing behaviour to be more robust. The only new functionality I'd like to see is much more sophisticated bookmark handling and the ability to export/export a full set of configuration settings, including extensions and bookmarks, between different firefox installations, including up-version. Kudos to the team.
Re:What features would you like in your browser? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IE7 (Score:2)
Why do you think IE7 is better?
Firefox 3.0 (Score:2)
Yes, it's called Firefox 3.0.
Re:IE7 (Score:2)
name at least one thing in which IE7 is better than Firefox
("it supports ActiveX" doesn't count)
Re:IE7 (Score:2)
It counta for users in markets where IE is still the dominant browser snd the baseline OEM install.
Why doesn't it count? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but yes it does, at least if you're a business user with a corporate intranet that uses ActiveX as many do. This stubborn attitude among the Moz community that ActiveX == bad, integration with Windows authentication == bad, etc. is exactly why Firefox has such low penetration on corporate desktops, which in turn is exactly why it's so rarely included with off-the-shelf PCs from big name vendors.
Seven deadly sins of successful software development, #5: Beli
Re:Why doesn't it count? (Score:2)
Re:Why doesn't it count? (Score:3, Insightful)
I like Firefox too, and use it at home.
Nevertheless, at work we are forced to use IE or miss out on functionality on the corporate intranet. One of my colleagues, also a Firefox fan, sent a mail to the admins asking them to tweak their site to support other browsers. They basically told him to get stuffed, IE is the corporate standard and that's all they care about.
Though it irritates me to say it, why shouldn't they say that? It is not the company's job to support personal web browsing preferences, and
Re:Why doesn't it count? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, so much for the cornucopia of choice that free software offers! User must be FORCED to use application X for EVERYTHING.
Way to go buddy!
Re:IE7 (Score:2)
That sounds like "It does something slightly differently from the market leader, therefore it's wrong", which is a [poor] reason not to adopt something (familiarity), but not an objective reason why IE is better.
Re:IE7 (Score:2)
That's new. Good.
I hope it's done better than in Opera (where it breaks a lot of pages), but it's a very good thing.
To the contrary, a page loaded with ads will never more responsive. And it lacks adblock and co.
It's buggy extensions what leaks memory
That's a huge negative.
Re:IE7 (Score:5, Insightful)
And OSX. And linux. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IE7 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IE7 (Score:2)
You laugh. I laugh. The vast majority of users don't give a damn...
Re:IE7 (Score:2)
Worried about data loss? Wait for 2.0 final. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Opera Killer? (Score:3, Informative)
Is that the only dynamic thing you're looking for?
Re:Opera Killer? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Spellchecker? (Score:2)
Firefox's spell checker only checks text input fields. You can right-click any text field and choose whether it should be spellchecked (default is yes). Why inform you of misspellings on a static page you can't fix?
And I'm sure Tori is beside herself with grief. Now that daddy's gone she'll never work again.