Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Mozilla The Internet

Firefox 3.0 Preview 269

Posted by Zonk
from the hey-there-paradiso dept.
Brian Heater passed us a link to a PC World preview of the upcoming Firefox 3.0 release. In addition to the usual smoother UI, bug fixes, and feature updates, Firefox 3.0 will introduce several new components that should expand offline Web application functionality. The inclusion of DOM Storage, an offline execution model, and synchronization should all work together to allow for wider adoption of software like Google Apps at the end-user level. "As the breadth and depth of the competing applications expand, perhaps Microsoft's 90-percent stranglehold on the preinstalled and post-PC-purchase installation suite market will loosen, if only a bit. Then, too, if Windows Vista is any indication of what lies ahead, the company's software will continue to require ever more awe-inspiring hardware--a far cry from the light and nimble Web-based applications Mozilla engineers envision." The piece covers more than just the new functionality, of course, and should be of interest to anyone looking forward to 'Gran Paradiso.'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 3.0 Preview

Comments Filter:
  • What I hope it has (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:35PM (#18548849)
    1. Let me stop the damn animated gifs and flash things with the "stop" button like the old Netscape let me.
    2. Smaller memory footprint.
    3. Let me stop sounds/music with the stop button.

    Otherwise I like the product.
    • by Teckla (630646) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:04PM (#18549229)

      1. Let me stop the damn animated gifs and flash things with the "stop" button like the old Netscape let me.

      You can stop animated GIFs by pressing the Escape key. Also, if you're like me and want to stop all GIF animation entirely, hop into about:config and set "image.animation_mode" to "none".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bacon Bits (926911)
        Any time I have to go into about:config, FireFox's dev team has failed.
        • by diegocgteleline.es (653730) on Friday March 30, 2007 @07:02PM (#18550659)
          Any time the firefox UI doesn't do what you want to do 1) the firefox team has failed 2) your needs are different from the needs of the vast majority of population

          Every time I install firefox anywhere I set browser.enable_automatic_image_resizing to false. For me, this doesn't me that firefox's dev team has failed, it's just that I need different things than Joe User, who is the primary target of Firefox.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Yes, for I am the most important user of Firefox. The developers shall implement their application to exactly match my usage patterns!

          Holy crap are you ever full of yourself.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by bconway (63464)
          Are you a KDE user? Some people prefer not to have every obscure, configurable option in an enormous preferences window.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by iabervon (1971)
          Really, Firefox should drop Preferences (which doesn't have any of the really useful stuff, and is hard to find things in anyway), and just make about:config nicer. Preferences has a bunch of stuff sorted into non-orthogonal categories that are often vague ("main", "content", "advanced") or inappropriate (the choice of font is clearly a matter of presentation, but it's under "content").

          The configuration engine should be extended to keep track of what the options are for things with options (and, in general,
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Matt Perry (793115)

        Let me stop the damn animated gifs and flash things with the "stop" button like the old Netscape let me.

        You can stop animated GIFs by pressing the Escape key. Also, if you're like me and want to stop all GIF animation entirely, hop into about:config and set "image.animation_mode" to "none".

        Those are good suggestions but they don't solve his problem. He wants to stop animated gifs by clicking on the stop button, just like Netscape and the old Mozilla suite used to do. His hand is already on the mouse and

      • you can also set it so that it plays the animation just *once*, which works for me (TM).
    • by dvice_null (981029) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:15PM (#18549339)
      1. Why stop them when you can totally get rid of them: Adblock plus: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/186 5 [mozilla.org]
      2. http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_-_ Firefox [mozillazine.org]
      3. Goto 1

      Your suggestions are how ever already listed in the wish-list. The only problem is that the list contains probably a thousand feature requests, so I'm not sure when they will be implemented.
      http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Feature_Brainstorm ing:User_Interface [mozilla.org]
    • I'd even be happy with native volume control.

      Stop should be for stop loading (click it again to stop timebased media?)
    • 2. Smaller memory footprint.

      Firefox never seems to gobble up memory for me, but things do become noticeably slower after a while, with errors occassionally breaking in. I'd suspect they have some kind of memory fragmentation issues moreso than anything else. But that is just a wild assed guess on my part.
    • by matt me (850665) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:55PM (#18549895)

      1. Let me stop the damn animated gifs and flash things
      2. Smaller memory footprint.
      3. Let me stop sounds/music with the stop button.
      Consider lynx?
    • by zCyl (14362)
      I think your idea is in a good direction, particularly with 1 and 3. I would like to see that implemented as a checkable/uncheckable option under "View" for "Enable plugins". Some pages become much more tolerable if you could disable all the flash/video/sound plugins for just that page.
    • Those and a one-button way to stop *all* animations (Flash, whatever), and I'll be happier than a clam.

      In fact, there should be a control that says, "no A/V". That and get the memory sucker under control. That's all I ask.
  • And it passes ACID2. (Score:3, Informative)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:37PM (#18548883) Homepage Journal
    The latest build that I got of Firefox 3 did pass ACID2. Another step forward for standards. Now if we can drag IE there.
    Oh and first post.
    • by bcat24 (914105)
      WRT the first post: Close, but no cigar. First "real" post, maybe. :)

      On a more serious note, it's really great to finally see Acid2 compatibility. It may not be the test-to-end-all tests, but it's still one more thing to love about Firefox.
    • by kinglink (195330) on Friday March 30, 2007 @07:59PM (#18551217)
      Applaud it passes Acid 2 compatibility but don't expect it or demand it. Acid2 is NOT a standard. Acid is a really poorly written page with many issues or features developers want including error checking in CSS. Acid2 finds out if a browser can correctly interpret the errors for instance.

      Personally I hope no one passes Acid 2 for one reason. It enables people to write poorly designed webpages. If you're going to write a web page do it correctly or not at all. Expecting a browser to fix your stupid errors shouldn't even be an option.

      It's good Firefox 3 passes the acid test but who cares. It is better working than it was for poorly written pages. I'd much rather choose a lighter weight browser than a bloated piece of software that supposidly works with "Everything" no matter how much of a screwup the web designer was. One of the reasons I avoid IE7 like the plague.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SirTalon42 (751509)
        "Acid2 is NOT a standard. Acid is a really poorly written page with many issues or features developers want including error checking in CSS."

        The page is MEANT to be 'poorly' written and full of errors. It is meant to check the browsers error handling. Saying Acid2 isn't important is like saying checking for invalid input in your code and failing gracefully isn't important. Also if you prefer standards compliance over 'supporting the junk', you should go with Konqueror, Safari, or Opera (or any of the oth
      • by Excors (807434) on Friday March 30, 2007 @08:17PM (#18551403)
        Acid2 is only testing the error handling that is required by the standards – it is necessary that browsers support the error handling properly so that future standards can extend the language in a backward-compatible way. To a browser that was written to support CSS2, pages that use CSS3 will look like invalid nonsense; but since CSS defines the error handling, CSS3 can be designed so that it will fall back gracefully for users who only support CSS2 (and even CSS1), and it will be relatively painless to adopt the improvements. That's why it's important to specify and to test the error handling.
  • by FrankSchwab (675585) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:37PM (#18548887) Journal
    Is there anyone other than me who wants my browser to just be a browser?

    Why do I have to browse the web on something that wants to be an applications platform, an office suite, a local filesystem browser, and a dessert topping? Don't you remember that the original advantage of the Firefox browser was that it was smaller, faster, and more secure than IE (because it didn't include things like ActiveX)?

    What happened? /frank
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by beef623 (998368) *

      People started using it...

      Then they told other people, and pretty soon loads of people were convinced to switch from IE just to be away from IE. Then all the people who switched just because someone told them firefox was better started wanting all their web pages to work again. It's a vicious cycle I tell you.

    • by BKX (5066) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:49PM (#18549029) Journal
      At first, I wanted to agree with you, but after careful consideration, I do not. The web-apps feature that the article spends three pages on is really a useful browsing feature whose time should have come ten years ago: offline browsing. The only difference is that now that they've extended offline browsing to work well with newer things like DHTML and added in an API so that web-pages can better control it. A side-effect: better support for webapps. Does this mean that Firefox is getting bloaty? Not really.
      • by Colin Smith (2679) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:14PM (#18549333)

        Does this mean that Firefox is getting bloaty? Not really.

            PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
          5373 colin 15 0 246m 71m 23m S 18.9 16.3 14:08.68 firefox-bin


        Seems pretty big to me. Konqueror is a fraction of that size.
         
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30, 2007 @06:37PM (#18550375)
          3/2 is a fraction.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30, 2007 @06:46PM (#18550481)
          Even if we consider the poster a credible source...

          The parent post gives numbers without context of any kind. We do not know what version of Firefox is being used. We do not know how many and which extensions are being used. We do not know how many concurrent windows and/or tabs are in use. We do not know what URLs or files Firefox has been asked to open. Without this information, we cannot reach any actual conclusions, as these could be perfectly reasonable values for any browser, depending on the tasks the browser was asked to accomplish.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by no_pets (881013)
        Okay, I didn't RTFA but why do we need to browse OFFLINE in the new, always-connected world?
        • by aridhol (112307)

          I've got a laptop. I often fly from one end of Canada to the other. That's about 12 hours, including stopovers. On Air Canada's new planes, there are 115V jacks I can plug in my laptop and use it for the 12 hours. I could probably work with offline mode.

          Also, I'm in the Navy. We don't necessarily have internet access in the middle of the Pacific. And yes, we're allowed to bring our personal laptops with us as long as we don't bring them into classified spaces.

      • "The web-apps feature that the article spends three pages on is really a useful browsing feature whose time should have come ten years ago: offline browsing"

        Why would you ever be offline?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nonpareility (822891)
      Firefox isn't an office suite because of offline storage any more than it's a photo gallery because it can display images or a calculator because it can do math. They are all features that allow web pages and extensions to do interesting things that the browser itself does not.
    • by Black Art (3335)
      What happened?

      AJAX/Web 2.0/CSS/[Insert Buzzword here].

      People wanted more and more bells and whistles in page rendering.

      Try reading Slashdot with a 199x era web browser. I doubt it will work very well.

      The nature of the web has grown in complexity from the httpd 0.9 days and so have the tools needed to view them.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sconeu (64226)
        Try reading Slashdot with a 199x era web browser. I doubt it will work very well.

        Works fine in Lynx.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by brunascle (994197)
      you mean you're looking for the web, only the web? [wikipedia.org]

      yes, i remember the time you're talking about, the time when i considered firefox just a Galeon clone with crapping tabbing.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kabocox (199019)
      Is there anyone other than me who wants my browser to just be a browser?

      Why do I have to browse the web on something that wants to be an applications platform, an office suite, a local filesystem browser, and a dessert topping? Don't you remember that the original advantage of the Firefox browser was that it was smaller, faster, and more secure than IE (because it didn't include things like ActiveX)?

      What happened? /frank


      Short answer? Firefox is now competing against IE rather than just being a fork of Mozil
    • by Excors (807434) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:14PM (#18549335)

      If you want Firefox with its original advantages and just its original features, why not use the original Firefox? Meanwhile, those who can benefit from the new technology will do so.

      The only reason I can think of is that the old versions have unpatched security problems, so you'll want to upgrade after they're unsupported – but if you want the Firefox developers to stop adding new features, they're not going to still fix the security problems, they'll just move to more interesting and worthwhile projects and Firefox will die. Firefox has inertia now – and the whole web is gaining inertia, after stagnating during IE6's dominance, with even the W3C restarting realistic work on HTML [w3.org] – so it would be a waste if it didn't continue to grow and change.

      In any case, they are planning [mozillazine.org] to make future versions of Firefox faster and more secure and make the code less crufty, with better C++ usage and a better garbage collector to fix memory leaks and a new JavaScript VM. And Firefox is still only a 6MB download – it's not exactly the heaviest of programs you'll ever download.

      • by zCyl (14362)

        If you want Firefox with its original advantages and just its original features, why not use the original Firefox?

        Well, you'd still need to worry about discovered security bugs. So if you like the original firefox better than the newer ones, you should go fork yourself.
        • by sumdumass (711423) on Friday March 30, 2007 @06:19PM (#18550169) Journal
          It looks like a lot of people will support a fork. Firefox 3 will only support 2000/cp or better. There are quit a few people still using 98 and I have no plans on upgrading my computers because of firefox.

          With this rush to be like IE and all, I'm wondering how long until Linux or other OSes are no longer supported either. It could be possible that they start limiting that to only the latest version of windows managers and kernels too. It would bring an interesting development around. Still I see the need to keep support for older platforms as well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jawtheshark (198669) *

      Yes, you're not alone....

      I use Firefox 2.0.x at work, because it was what came out when I started working there. At home, I am faithful to the 1.5.x range. Why? Because Firfox 2.0.x is noticable slower, the interface is... let's say, not as good as the FF 1.5.x interface. Even now, when I install Firefox for someone, I'l more likely to take the 1.5.x branch than anything else.

      I hope that Firefox 3 goes back to the roots...

      • by sumdumass (711423)
        I have found 2.0 to be prone to crash every so often. It is probably because of the memory usages or something. I click the submit on the error report but nothing has fixed it. I'm about to uninstall again and go back to 1.5 for a while.
    • Why do I have to browse the web on something that wants to be an applications platform, an office suite, a local filesystem browser, and a dessert topping?

      Um, because that's what computers are for?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Door in Cart (940474)

      Is there anyone other than me who wants my browser to just be a browser?

      Why do I have to browse the web on something that wants to be an applications platform, an office suite, a local filesystem browser, and a dessert topping?

      Agreed, but the problem dates back to the c.1995 (I think) when the HTML form-element was tacked on to the (arguably) already mature notion of a hypertext document layout rendering engine. From that moment on, the notion of what a web browser is (and what it ought to be) has become increasingly jaded. What web applications need is their own protocol, and their own scripting / markup language. But in lieu of that they continue to make their awkward home in the ill-fitting web browser -- because there's no

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Kohath (38547)
      What happened?

      Everyone else in the world forgot to ask you what you wanted. Normally, they'd check with you, because your needs and wants are more important than theirs but it completely slipped their minds this time.

      Maybe buy them all a nice birthday gift this year and then they'll think of you when they see/use it. It'll act as a reminder.

    • by vhogemann (797994)

      Why do I have to browse the web on something that wants to be an applications platform...

      Consider for a moment that currently, the web itself is an application platform. But as cool as some websites might be, HTML + Javascript wasnt designed for complex interface design... Flash and JavaWebStart are too heavy and intrusive.

      We *need* a sane standart way to define rich user interfaces that can be deployed using HTTP, something designed to better support assincronous events, and that look and behave consistent

  • by Channard (693317) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:42PM (#18548937) Journal
    The biggest problem I had with Firefox was that it would take more and more memory as you opened more pages, and despite trying a few things there seemed to be no limit to how much memory it would take. And it didn't release the memory until you actually closed the program and opened it again. So you could open 12 pages, close all but 1 and it'd still be using the memory equivalent to those eleven closed pages.
    • I think the core execution engine is supposed to be improved, so this problem might be fixed. One way to know is to try the alpha build and see what happens. It's probably fine, I've used the nightlies without too much issue. Memory isn't a problem for me anyway, my system has more memory than I've ever seen it use.
    • On my Windows machine, Firefox is the only program that actually consumes more memory than Outlook. And that's only with a couple of tabs open and five extensions (noscript, adblock, filterset updater, farky, tabmix). Outlook on the other hand has 3 pst open (about 1.5 gb each) + spambayes + lookout (now part of the msn desktop search)

      And yet I won't give up firefox. It's so darn convenient (specially with the extensions) that I'm willing to put up with the memory footprint.
    • by daeg (828071) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:23PM (#18549459)
      You can help curb it by adjusting "browser.cache.memory.capacity" in about:config. It's in KB, so a value of 30000 means 30,000KB or roughly 29MB.

      View: about:cache to see your current cache/memory status (click the links for further details).

      Also note that the setting doesn't entirely stop the "runaway RAM", but it can greatly curb it. If you only view a few pages a day and use your back/forward a lot, I don't recommend changing it. However, if you, for instance, do a lot of Google searches and visit hundreds of different sites a day, dropping that setting can greatly reduce your memory usage. If you are restricted to only a few sites, your RAM shouldn't go too high anyway.

      Most of them aren't leaks. Although I think there have been a few leaks regarding plugins, but I'm too lazy to go look it up.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bunratty (545641)

        You can help curb it by adjusting "browser.cache.memory.capacity" in about:config. It's in KB, so a value of 30000 means 30,000KB or roughly 29MB."

        That setting for browser.cache.memory.capacity [mozillazine.org] would cause Firefox 2 and Firefox 3 to consume more memory than the default setting, as long as you have less than 4 GB of RAM installed. Let's stop spreading misinformation about Firefox memory usage, please.

        • by daeg (828071)
          Correct, it was simply an example. For some unexplicable reason, my profile originally had a value of over 60,000 (default, not user set). Far, far more than the default values. Setting it back to what the default should have been fixed most of my insane memory issues (2GB, Win32).
    • by bunratty (545641) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:31PM (#18549581)

      And it didn't release the memory until you actually closed the program and opened it again. So you could open 12 pages, close all but 1 and it'd still be using the memory equivalent to those eleven closed pages.

      Although Firefox does have memory leaks, what you're describing is far worse than any confirmed memory leak. Perhaps what you're seeing is that memory use reported by the operating system is not going down when you close tabs, but Firefox is at least releasing and reusing memory internally. If what you describe was really what most Firefox users experienced, most users would not be able to use Firefox for more than a few hours before they would have to restart it. There's no way Firefox could get the 14% usage share it has today with such a serious memory problem.

      In summary, Firefox does have some memory leaks, but it doesn't leak anywhere nearly as badly as you're describing for the vast majority of users. For most users, it takes many days of use before memory leaks become readily apparent by looking at memory usage numbers alone. The real memory leaks are far more subtle than what you describe, and usually require some sort of memory leak detection tool [squarefree.com] to track down.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sumdumass (711423)
        I think he is describing the cache thing were Firefox caches parts of the page to make loading the next pages faster and to navigate between back and forth faster.

        I have seen the same or similar features. It appears that Firefox loads this and adjust the number/amount used based on the 12 pages and then doesn't resize it for a while later. It is annoying as hell on my limited XP system. It causes everything to slow immensely because it takes what was just enough memory and makes it not enough if you open 12
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What difference does that make? Is this memory not being freed when you need it for other applications?

      I really don't understand this obsession with free memory. Your RAM should be close to full at all times if you are at all interested in performance. You just dump cached information if you actually need more memory for something else. The days of DOS are long gone.
  • by thisisauniqueid (825395) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:43PM (#18548945)
    The biggest performance hit in Firefox seems to be to do with the fact that the UI is multithreaded (as is the JS engine). Is there any chance this is going to be addressed in Firefox 3? Using a single-threaded browser in a multicore environment is painful, especially when working with many tabs at a time.
  • Screenshots (Score:5, Informative)

    by homm2 (729109) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:43PM (#18548951)
    Screenshots available here [mozillalinks.org].
  • light and nimble? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ClosedSource (238333) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:53PM (#18549077)
    "Then, too, if Windows Vista is any indication of what lies ahead, the company's software will continue to require ever more awe-inspiring hardware--a far cry from the light and nimble Web-based applications Mozilla engineers envision"

    Despite the alleged lightness and nimbleness of web apps, they're still slower and more unreliable than native apps, when they work at all.
  • DOM storage? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by asninn (1071320)
    DOM storage? Great, *yet* another way in which websites can store data. I haven't even managed to educate people like my parents about why they shouldn't automatically accept cookies from every server forever - and don't get me started on Flash and its ability to store data on your computer without you even noticing (a "feature" that's enabled by default, one might add, and that can't even (easily) be disabled without going to Adobe's website).

    Now, don't get me wrong, there certainly are legitimate reasons
    • I have the feeling that we are talking about caching rather than storage in the strict sense. Imagine if gmail could cache some stuff so you could use it even when offline. While you won't be able to read new incoming mail, you will be able to cached messages that you opened, like, in the previous days or something. This would save server capacity for Google and speed up your experience. It is a win win situation. Privacy is not an issue, at least no more than it was before, as long as you are able to push
  • Lightweight?

     
  • It's quicker than FF, handles profiles better and is generally well built. The only bone to pick is the lack of extension update checking. Other than that Seamonkey is better than FF/T-Bird.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:19PM (#18549409)
    "Then, too, if Windows Vista is any indication of what lies ahead, the company's software will continue to require ever more awe-inspiring hardware--a far cry from the light and nimble Web-based applications Mozilla engineers envision."

    Firefox, light and nimble?
    Jebus, the memory footprint on that thing is far, far beyond ridiculous at this point, not to mention noticibly larger than even IE7's memory requirements.

    And even ignoring that, you're comparing Firefox to Vista. I should bloody well hope it's light and nimble in comparison, unless, of course Firefox 3 aims to be a whole operating system.

    Furthermore, Vista actually has fairly reasonable hardware requirements if you turn off all of that fancy GUI stuff. People forget that not only can all those flashy things be turned off, but you can painlessly swap out the explorer shell in and of itself. The comparison is outright stupid. Noone claims that Linux has obscene hardware requirements on the basis that you'd need a decent cpu/ram/gpu to run XGL/Compriz/Beryl or whatever, why should Aero be any different, you don't have to use it. The only difference is that Aero is included in the default install.

    I understand that this is slashdot, and we never pass up a chanceto take a shot at Microsoft or Vista. But seriously, this has gotten to the point of sheer stupidity, and hipocracy: Id someone were to make a completely uneducated, false claim about Linux, it'd be followed up by a few dozen posts crying bloody murder, yet, now, because its ashot at Vista, its suddely okay to make completely asinine claims that in no way at all intersect with reality at any point whatsoever?

    No wonder there's all this talk about Linux's superiority, and Firefox's superiority, and [random OSS app here]'s superiority, people have absolutely no clue about the competition. At least have a basic grasp on the competing broducts before making these comparisons. Know thine enemy and all.

    I could swear Sun Tzu turns a full rotation with every other post here.

    Yeah, yeah, -1 flamebait, whatever.
  • Not PC World (Score:4, Informative)

    by MSTCrow5429 (642744) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:21PM (#18549431)
    It's PC Magazine. Fact checking, anyone?
  • by SeaFox (739806) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:35PM (#18549621)
    I'd much rather see Thunderbird 2.0 get released. I thought Mozilla was going to try and have the development of the two projects a little more in sync than this.
  • by Ant P. (974313) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:52PM (#18549851) Homepage
    Whoever decided it was a good idea to add animated PNG support to the core instead of making it a plugin is clearly smoking crack.
  • One thing that annoys me is that when a plugin dies with Fx that also entire Fx instance dies. I guess it is less of a problem on Windows where everything is closed source and things like Flash plugin are more polished. But on Linux it is a fucking nightmare. My Fx crashes few times a week because of Flash Plugin. It would be cool if Fx did like Opera does - in Opera when plugin dies it is just that the does not display (you can reload it) but entire browser still sits there without a hickup. In Fx when pl
    • That's an issue that's on their radar for Gecko 2.0 (Fx4) when they're doing a more massive overhaul and cleanup of Gecko.
  • I can't count the number of times I've had to kill -9 firefox on my PowerPC based Mac Laptop. It would be nice if they could FIX the bugs that crash/freeze Firefox BEFORE moving on to the next release.
  • Google Docs??!! This is not even close to MS office. The only free online office suite worth using (if you want something that reproduces MS office) is Thinkfree http://www.thinkfree.com/ [thinkfree.com]. It faithfully reproduces PowerPoint, Word, and Excel with full compatibility. The ONLY thing keeping something like this from replacing office for most people is that, obviously, you've got to be online to run the office suite. Now, what happens to an "online" office suite like this when you can use it offline, as well?
  • Very annoying. It happens from time to time, windows just can never move from their frozen screen position. If you can nav the browser somewhere else (depends if the buttons are not occluded) then it can unstick itself. Did I mention its annoying?

    H.
  • by Animats (122034) on Friday March 30, 2007 @07:10PM (#18550735) Homepage

    Too much in the browser, again. It's a browser. Not a "platform". We went through this already, with Mozilla, which had to be chopped down to provide a browser of manageable size. The Firefox crowd is repeating the mistakes of Mozilla and Internet Exploder. We don't need this.

    In Firefox 2, there's already too much bloat. Saving images of pages hogs memory, and didn't visibly improve performance.

    The project seems to have been captured by the "browser as a platform" people again. Nobody cares about XUL, people. All users want is a browser.

    In a few years, all web pages will have to work on the minimal browser comes with the OLPC machine. The OLPC is going to force computing to go on a much-needed weight reduction program.

    • by geekoid (135745)
      It does improve performance for dial up users.

      You are right, people just want a browser. They also want to watch videos, do there spreadsheets, etc all in a browser.

      I hope you are right about OLPC, but I don't think so. Anymore then browsing by phone slimmed down anything. More likly there will be OLPC versions of various websites.
  • Nice trolls (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30, 2007 @07:32PM (#18550945)
    Noez mah firefox uses 5 more MB than Opera!

    Stop the Fucking trolling, firefox does not ever use more than 100 MB, you may wish to friging update yourself

    Also whatever bad thing you have to say about firefox consider:

    • You are not a FUCKING WEB SPIDER, you do not need to open 100 tabs at once, the internet is made to be read so it doesn't make any sense to ever have more than 5 tabs open, seriously. If you are used to 10 tabs, you are not a 1337 HAXORz you are a MORON!
    • Opera is still a gay browser with no real life functionality that is not truly free
    • Konqueror is still useless and no cross platform
    • Safari and IE are still shit
    • If you want light weight browsing do the world a favor and : Kill yourself or use a text-mode browser
  • by josepha48 (13953) on Friday March 30, 2007 @08:01PM (#18551231) Journal
    I just have to wonder how security is being handled in this. How is this going to prevent a virus from being part of someones storage and run in mozilla. I read that they are thinking about it, but what is to stop someone from setting up a fake google app and installing a virus on to your system instead of a word processor, or worse a wordprocessor that turns you machine into a bot while you run your app off line. My connection is always on line, so even if I am working in 'offline mode' what is to stop a virus from working online.

    Just a concern.

  • by aliens (90441) on Friday March 30, 2007 @08:56PM (#18551725) Homepage Journal
    What exactly are you saving that RAM for? True love?
  • by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Friday March 30, 2007 @09:26PM (#18551947) Homepage Journal
    Firefox, or Eclipse?

Measure twice, cut once.

Working...