Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Firefox 2.0 Officially Released 405

Many readers wrote in to make sure we all knew that Firefox 2.0 has officially been released on, unlike yesterday's early preview. Here are builds for all languages and Win/Linux/Mac, and the release notes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 2.0 Officially Released

Comments Filter:
  • Needs more colours (Score:5, Informative)

    by naylor83 ( 836780 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:16PM (#16568218) Homepage

    Once again...

    If you find the Firefox 2 theme too bleak, I've got your fix right here [].

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Despero ( 918907 )
      Well, I was just gonna say... Firefox is much better looking than I ever expected it to be! Isn't it Opera's job to look modern? Congratulations to the people who designed this new theme. It's nothing special, but definitely a big step up from 1.5.
  • Hmm, so we're calling yesterday a "preview" are we? ;) We know where to go and we know how to download it. Lock and load, gentlemen.

    If you're like me and you've already been running RC3, then you've got it already.
    • Nah, I'm calling this one I'm surfing with right now a wet dream.
  • ... until the automatic update installs it for me.

    With all the fake^Wmistaken announcements, it's the only way I'll be sure it's out.

    And, of course, I'll be reasonably certain most of my extensions will work with 2.0.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ChodeMaster ( 773739 )
      On the topic of functioning extensions, I use a few, and they've all updated themselves and are functioning perfectly.

      For those intereseted (I'm guessing none of you), they are: Ablock, Adblock Filterset.G Updater, All-in-One-Gestures, DownloadThemAll!,ForecastFox,IE Tab, and Web Developer (toolbar).

      Also, since the [] is linking to the 2.0 downloads it seems safe to assume this is the official release.
      • I have considerably more extensions. The majority of them worked, but some did not. Hopefully, they will soon.
  • ... but can it run the flash 9 beta without crashing? I've had no luck so far.
  • Too Many! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wellington Grey ( 942717 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:21PM (#16568298) Homepage Journal
    Wow! The third firefox 2.0 article in 24 hours. Boy, I can't wait to read all the insightful comments people will leave. Again.

    -Grey []
  • 2.0? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stonefry ( 968479 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:23PM (#16568312)
    I have been using Firefox 2.0 for a day now. I can't really see how this warrants a 2.0 release. It seems like there should be more added features and innovation that we have come to expect from the Mozilla team to jump to 2.0. Don't get me wrong, I love the software and I have converted just about everyone I know to Firefox. This is a Solid release, but maybe a 1.6 or something.
    • Re:2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OneSeventeen ( 867010 ) * on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:29PM (#16568422) Homepage Journal
      Part of me wants to agree with you, but the other part of me says the whole point of Firefox is that not all of the cool features are built in. While I would like better RSS integration, I'm glad they are leaving the major feature upgrades to the add-on developers.

      (although would it be so hard to add the cool click-and-drag margin resize features for printing that IE7 has?)
      • If they had a great way for me to click a button and add an RSS feed to my google homepage. (They have something LIKE that but I don't know about that exactly, yet...) That's all I need for RSS.

        Personally I think RSS feeds need better integration. The live bookmark idea sucks, I can't stand it because I have to open up each book mark to look at it. I rather get too much info in a second then have to take minutes to search all my feeds, I don't use many, but something makes me not want to trust live feeds.
    • I agree, the only killer feature they have added that make it stand out on the windows platform is the spell checker. (konqueror have had spell checking for quite some time). Even though FF the CSS support, still is much better than that of IE7, I would at the very least expected that FF 2.0 should comply with the acid2 test.

      The smart thing to do for the Mozilla people would have been to make FF easy to use in corporate environments, an area where IE have been strong. That means having support for easy netw
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by naylor83 ( 836780 )
        Firefox 2 is not Acid2 compatible because of the development tree they have used. Firefox 2 uses basically the same rendering engine as 1.5, while Firefox 3 will be a huge leap ahead on the rendering side. For Firefox 2 they have mainly concentrated on a few nice features + loads of polish. This is what Firefox 1.0 should have been like :) (I'm thinking search engine manager, tab overflow handling, etc.) But then we would have had to waste another two years with IE6.
    • Re:2.0? (Score:5, Informative)

      by cyclocommuter ( 762131 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @07:10PM (#16569046)
      IMHO, this release warrants the 2.0 moniker. Aside from the inline spell checker, it appears the dreaded "memory usage" problem has finally been nailed. FF 2.0 does appear to reclaim memory much faster than the older version. To me, this bug fix together with the perceptible increase in launch time and page loading/rendering is a major improvement, which combined with the inline spell checker is enough to warrant the 2.o moniker. I also agree that additional features are better left to extension developers.

      Part of 2.0 release it appears is also not just contained in the browser code itself but in Mozilla's Add-ons website which gets launch when you click the "Get Extensions" link in the Add-ons dialog. Add-ons or extensions are now grouped together by functionality as opposed to being grouped together by popularity, ratings, etc.
    • Re:2.0? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @07:27PM (#16569326) Journal
      I have been using Firefox 2.0 for a day now. I can't really see how this warrants a 2.0 release. It seems like there should be more added features and innovation that we have come to expect from the Mozilla team to jump to 2.0.

      First, Firefox 2.0 is supposed to be a "0.5" upgrade from 1.5; that is, approximately as much of a change as 1.5 was compared to 1.0.

      Now, Firefox 2.0 offers these noticeable features, among others:
      - Updated UI
      - Anti-phishing
      - Tab close undo
      - Session restore
      - Form spell checker
      - Microsummaries
      - JavaScript 1.7
      - Loads and loads of bug and stability fixes, including improved memory usage

      I'm really not sure why this couldn't be a 2.0 release? What else should it be? 1.6 would be way to minor for its features anyway. Heck, this is the scale e.g. IE 5 -> 6 was on IMHO, if not more, and then that was an incremental step of 1, not 0.5 as Firefox 2.0 is.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drew ( 2081 )
        IE 5 -> IE 6 included a substantial improvement in DOM and CSS support (which is a little sad when you consider how awful IE 6 is at both...) while Firefox 1.5 -> 2.0 changed virtually nothing on either front, so I would say this is nowhere near the scale of IE 5 -> IE 6 (or even IE 5.5 -> IE 6).

        Anyways, IMO even if Firefox 2.0 is, as many people have claimed, as much of an upgrade from 1.5 as 1.5 was from 1.0, than no, it doesn't deserve to be called 2.0. If they didn't think the last upgrade
        • I agree (Score:3, Funny)

          by missing000 ( 602285 )
          All this two.oh talk is bunk. This is clearly more than a point level release though, so I suggest a new naming convention. We should lobby to have it named after a defunct car. This release is called Yugo. Next up is Chevette followed by the Pinto, the Nino and the Santo Maria. Oops, got off track.

          Let's just take the current system and make it fractional. This release should now be known as 1 and 5/8. No decimal notation anymore. I can't wait for 33 and 1/3!

          OK, name it whatever you want, just don't
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by reub2000 ( 705806 )
        A 0.5 upgrade from 1.5 would be 1.10. Compare Konqueror 3.0 to Konqueror 3.5. You'd find much more of a difference.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:23PM (#16568314)
    Firefox 1.x made a reasonable attempt at mimicking the interface of OS X using XUL. Sure, its contextual menus weren't slightly transucent and some of its metrics were slightly off, but it didn't look completely out of place on the system. Firefox 2.0 has thrown away the Aqua interface and replaced it with some generic chrome which looks rather poor per se, but is especially jarring on Mac OS X.

    I hope someone comes up with a decent Aqua skin, but it still doesn't make any sense to force users to resort to skinning just to make a program fit with the default system interface. The Mac build of Firefox should look like a Mac program by default; skinning should be for those people who want to make it look like a pink christmas tree or whatever.

    Please do not bother mentioning Camino: it lacks support for Firefox extensions, which are the only reason I have for using Firefox.
    • by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:52PM (#16568742) Homepage Journal
      The Mac build of Firefox should look like a Mac program by default;
      Agreed. It is really annoying when developers of cross-platform apps don't realize that you need to conform to what users are accustomed to on their platform by default. Even Sun figured this out with Java (eventually), when will Mozilla?
      • by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@tru 7 h .org> on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @07:21PM (#16569192) Homepage
        Near as I can tell, they've been shifting away from that philosophy and moving towards a "their way or the highway" tactic. With 1.0 they usurped the use of ctrl-u to clear a line of text, which has been a convention with unix (emacs introduced it afaik) as far back as I can remember. Now, it opens the "view page source" window.

        Disabling it requires mucking with dotfiles, and I appreciate that the capacity is there.. but that's not the point. Running firefox under a given platform should cater to that platform's conventions. I don't want it to be the same under all platforms, I want to be the same with MY platform.
  • Fasterfox (Score:2, Informative)

    by Despero ( 918907 )
    Sadly, my favorite extension, Fasterfox, currently has no support in Firefox 2. That was pretty much my favorite thing about Firefox, too, so I really hope they continue to update it to support new versions of the browser.
    • by BeeBeard ( 999187 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:44PM (#16568632)
      Ack, that horrible thing seems to sometimes cause weird problems with some websites that don't like all the simultaneous connections, and it can also cause memory leaks. Just be hardcore and modify your about:config yourself. []
  • by CyberZCat ( 821635 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:25PM (#16568344)
    Yesterday's "pre-release" (CRC32): 4F3CF1D7
    Today's "official" release (CRC32): 4F3CF1D7

    I guess not much has changed since RC3...
  • by asa ( 33102 ) <> on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:25PM (#16568354) Homepage
    The auto-update system will automatically apply security and stability updates. We're planning on providing an "optional" update to Firefox 2 through this system, and that will likely happen in a few weeks. In the meantime, please do download through []. As long as you do not use a direct or [], we're pretty confident in our ability to handle demand, thanks to our volunteer mirror network.
    • We're planning on providing an "optional" update to Firefox 2 through this system

      Thank you for making this an optional update.

      IE7 will be distributed as a "high-priority update" in a few weeks. This is a very aggressive schedule [1] -- for many users, a "high-priority update" is effectively the same as a "mandatory update".

      I wouldn't complain if Microsoft waited 6 months before making IE7 a high-priority update. But they really should allow more then a few weeks of 'real world' tests--- early adopters of th
    • thanks to our volunteer mirror network.

      .. just waiting for the day that bittorrent is built into Firefox.. ;-)

      (yes i tried it myself a bit but got distracted..)

      But seriously, even for automatic updates, it would certainly take a load off the servers. (Perhaps falling back to http if it's not available through a firewall or whatever.) Bittorrent's not restricted to only files over 500MB, it works fine for smaller files too. Azureus, for example, uses this technique (somewhat obviously, I guess.)

  • Buggy Release (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hibiki_r ( 649814 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:25PM (#16568362)
    Am I the only one getting all kinds of bugs in the new release?

    The search engine box starts blank, and the 'get more search engines' link does nothing.

    Right clicking and selecting 'new tab' opens a blank tag that doesn't react to the location bar at all, and refuses to close by clicking on its button, right click + close, or hitting 'close all other tabs'

    It lost every single one of my bookmarks, even though it kept most extensions intact.

    I don't want to sound like a troll, but is this really the quality we want in a new release?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Its most likely extensions, extensions, extensions.
      I've found a couple of bugs myself but nothing as drastic as you seem to have encountered.
      If you were coming up from a late 1.5ish version of firefox, your profile folder will contain a backup of your entire bookmarks file.

      Best advice before performing a major update of anything is backup your data before you start.

      Find out where your profile is stored on your machines and find out how to backup for the future.

      As for my bug, I've got "tabbrowser preferences
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by wolf08 ( 1008623 )
      This might help: _from_Search_Bar [] Worked for me!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Talennor ( 612270 )
      Same thing for me. And bookmarks were broken. I thought I'd lost them, but when I couldn't make any new ones I realized that it just wasn't doing the bookmark thing at all. Running the install a second time cleared up some things for me.

      Also got an error about not having a function in js3250.dll at one point. Reminds me very much of the pre-RC1 releases. Remember those that didn't really handle upgrades without an uninstall and install (and even that was buggy).

      Oh well, maybe we'll see 2.1 next week.
  • It's a bit over the top to announce this once more.

    OK, you're trying to entice us to write about our 24 hrs. of experience, thank you it works fine :).
    But I still have to decide whether I like the close X in every single tab.

    I've used this installer script to get it onto my Kubuntu and Xubuntu boxes and it worked flawless. to-install-firefox-20-bon-echo-in-ubuntu/?namhuy.o rg []

    What *does not* work is getting a Dutch version of IE7, it's just not yet avai

  • Best. Feaure. Ever. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Skynyrd ( 25155 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:29PM (#16568428) Homepage
    I just installed 2.0 on XP and it seems to be working quite well. Most of my extensions work, and I'm happy.

    Then I discovered The Feature(tm). A website popped up a window, rather than a new tab, with no ability to control the size and whatnot. I discovered a button in the upper right corner that says "open this window in default browser". Clicking it opens that window in a new tab in my open browser.

    Thanks to whoever added that feature. Brilliant idea.
    • If it was a popup ad, then it's too bad it couldn't just block it. If it opened it because you clicked it, there was the option to have links that spawned a new window to open in a tab in version 1.5
      • by Skynyrd ( 25155 )
        If it was a popup ad, then it's too bad it couldn't just block it. If it opened it because you clicked it, there was the option to have links that spawned a new window to open in a tab in version 1.5

        It wasn't a popup ad, and the vast majority of those get blocked.

        It actually was spawned from FoxyTunes (which is a great little plugin). In any case, sometimes I want the popup in a new window, adn sometimes I don't. This offers me a choice, and I love having more options and choices.
    • by DragonHawk ( 21256 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @07:41PM (#16569522) Homepage Journal
      (Notice: Lower-case 'w' in subject.)

      Enter "about:config" in to the Address bar.

      Filter on "dom.disable_window".

      Make sure every resulting knob is set to "True".

      This prevents JavaScript-spawned windows from having their title bar, address bar, tool bar, menu bar, status bar, scroll bars, or other decorations removed/disabled. Now I can move, resize, or otherwise twiddle with all the windows in my browser, the way I should be able to.

      Me to web developers: They're my windows; get your grubby JavaScript off them!
  • by nu-gundam ( 999099 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:31PM (#16568458)
    Will mozilla ever release an official 64 bit version of firefox? Not that I really care that much since I am usually running the 64 bit trunk build that I compile weekly anyways. But supposedly one of the reasons that Sun won't release a 64 bit java plugin for firefox is because there is no official 64 bit firefox. I am hoping that by Mozilla releasing an official 64-bit firefox Sun will finally get a 64-bit java plugin out.
  • 64-bit support? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by empaler ( 130732 )
    Godsdamnit, why must it be so hard to get proper 64-bit OS support? Yes, I know I can get an alpha-build of Minefield/FFx3 in 64-bit, but that's just not cutting it on a work computer. Might be fun in a VM, though (which is where I always use unfinished and dangerous softwares, e.g. IE7)
    • Re:64-bit support? (Score:4, Informative)

      by AaronW ( 33736 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:55PM (#16568786) Homepage
      The problem I think is that a lot of browser plug-ins won't work with 64-bit support, i.e. Flash. Konqueror solved this problem by making plugins run in a separate process context than the browser, so while the browser is 64-bit, it handles 32-bit binary plugins just fine. It has an added benefit that if a plugin goes berserk it doesn't take out the browser and I can kill the plugin task without affecting the browser.
  • by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:34PM (#16568492)
    Okay, so I had a problem where when I hovered over a tab's close button, it would disappear (though it would still when clicked). Also, when I installed the beta of the upcoming Tab Mix Plus, the main tab close button would flicker when hovered over it, and I'd have to click several times very quickly to make it work.

    The problem: a theme I had installed (which has since been updated today).

    So, if you experience any UI weirdness, you may want to switch over to the default theme and restart to see if that makes a difference.

    Now that I have my Tabs Mix Plus, I'm doin' okay with FF2.

    Shame about the non-multi-threaded UI, though. Maybe someday.
  • by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:37PM (#16568532) Homepage Journal
    I have been using RC3, which I believe is the same codebase as the actual release. For several months I have found that the Firefox 2.0 branch froze up on my Mac (10.4 MacBook Pro) several times a day. Every time a new release would come out I would try it for a day or two, then it would freeze up, and I would switch back to the stable release. I'm sorry to say that RC3 has been freezing up on me in much the same way, meaning that even with the official 2.0 release, its not stable enough for me to use it as my primary browser (and yes, I do submit bugs when the occur if I can, I have been submitting bugs to Mozilla since the project was first open sourced).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dhalka226 ( 559740 )

      Do you have any extensions?

      I had a similar problem earlier today and yesterday (though I don't use a Mac). I'm not prepared to say 100% that it was the cause, but at least so far, I have yet to have the freezing issue recur since disabling the official Google Toolbar extension. If you have that installed, you may want to try disabling it and seeing if you have any better luck.

  • But does it fix the Slashdot bug?
    • Eh? The old Slashdot rendering bug was fixed ages ago, certainly as of the initial 1.5 FF release if not a bit before that. And with the move to the CSS-based layout of Slashdot, that nasty old table rendering bug would no longer affect Slashdot anyway.
  • How hard can it be? Is the development team so ossified and chauvinistic that they want to force a particular navigation scheme on all users? Let folks who want to use tabs use them, but don't make the rest of us drink from a separate drinking fountain around the back!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Zorque ( 894011 )
      You don't have to open links in tabs. You can set them to open in the same window or in a new window.
  • Cookie Monster (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Beardo the Bearded ( 321478 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:41PM (#16568588)
    You can no longer block 3rd-party cookies.
  • Trying to find something that wasn't discussed in the last thread, are there any new config options, in about:config or elsewhere, in the new version?

    The last thread mentioned browser.tabs.closeButtons and browser.urlbar.hideGoButton. Any others?
  • Gripe #1 (Score:5, Informative)

    by no_pets ( 881013 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @06:55PM (#16568784)
    I've had v2.0 for all of 3 minutes and already have a gripe. The X tabs icon has been moved from the far right to the right of each individual tab. I rather liked the old version as I could quickly X all my tabs down to the original window that I had open. Now I must mouse around to click all tabs.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by GFree ( 853379 )
      Well apart from editing the config file to change the close-button style, do what I do and adapt: you want to close all by the first tab, just select the last tab and press CTRL-W a lot. There's a solution to basically everything.
      • Thanks. And I noticed that if I fuck up and delete too many tabs or the wrong one I can easily restore under History > Recently Closed Tabs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Skim123 ( 3322 )
      Also, can't you right-click on a tab and say, "Close Other Tabs" to close all tabs but that one? I'm not sure if that's in 2.0 - I imagine it is - but it's right here for me on 1.5 (although perhaps that's a feature added by an extension). hth
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by hawaiian717 ( 559933 )
        "Close Other Tabs" is still there in 2.0. And to answer another reply, you don't need the Tab Mix Plus extension.
    • Re:Gripe #1 (Score:5, Informative)

      by mdd4696 ( 1017728 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @08:25PM (#16570098)
      Two about:config settings that I changed after installing Firefox 2.0:

      • 0: Only show close button on currently selected tab
      • 1: Show close button on all tabs (default)
      • 2: Never show close buttons on tabs
      • 3: Show a single close button at the far right (1.5 behavior)
      • false: Show Go button next to location bar (default)
      • true: Hide Go button next to location bar
      I couldn't find anything related to the tab list drop-down button or for the magnifying glass button next to the search box.
  • I admit I am using the release candidate of Ubuntu but as well as starting it up can crash it. I also crashed it once on WindowsXP too. You may want to wait til 2.0.1 comes out if you like stability or if your a power user.

    Otherwise its quicker to start in Linux and uses alot less memory. Especially when using lots of tabs.

  • Attention Mac Users (Score:3, Informative)

    by astrosmash ( 3561 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @07:01PM (#16568886) Journal
    OS X users should be aware of the following:
    1. Firefox 1.5 users will be happy to know that Firefox 2.0 includes numerous performance and usability improvements over v1.5 specifically for the OS X platform, bringing the Mac version closer to the Windows version in terms of quality. You'll want to upgrade immediately. If you thought that Firefox 1.5 sucked, give 2.0 a try. Big improvements on the Mac.
    2. If you're a fan of the smooth, pixel-resolution scrolling that comes with two-finger touchpad and Mighty Mouse scrolling, and you lament the lack of this smooth scrolling in Firefox, well lament no more! Smooth pixel-resolution scrolling was introduced in Firefox 2.0 Beta 2, and it rules. Unfortunately, this feature was removed because it made the bookmark manager scroll too quickly. If you're like me and do a lot of scrolling (and don't care about how the bookmark manager scrolls) you'll want to stick with Firefox 2.0 Beta 2 [] on OS X, like I do.
    • I believe you can change the smooth scrolling on OS X by going to Preferences|Advanced|General and toggling the "Use smooth scrolling" checkbox. This is in a copy of Firefox 2 that I downloaded last night.
      • No, I'm talking about the pixel-resolution trackpad scrolling. Firefox's old "Smooth Scrolling" option has never worked well on OS X.
  • Who's made themselves a portable version already? :)
  • On Windows, it seems to be performing better than the last version. I'm going to install this on my Mac tonight to see if it's as fast as Safari. Firefox has always been a tad poky on the PowerPC.
  • Why is mozilla complaining about bandwidth, and yet not offering a bittorrent link? Surely this is the ideal candidate for a bittorrent release?

    Amazing release, mind you. Great work, to all the contributers, in all the many ways they contributed to bringing Firefox to this quality of project.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    OK it's one thing to call yesterday's release "2.0" -- after all it was a big improvement from 1.5.

    But this today is really just an incremental release from yeseterday's. Calling it "2.0" again is a slap in the face to all of us loyal users who downloaded it yesterday and felt like we were getting something special.

    I think that today's release should be called "2.1" or maybe "2.5" (or even "3.0"). What's the point of even having a version number if they make two releases with the same version? Come on gu
  • Add the following to your userChrome.css file [] to make inactive tabs less visible and the active tab stand out a bit more:

    * Make un-selected tabs less visible.
    #browser tab:not([selected="true"]) {
    color: #555 !important;
    #browser tab:not([selected="true"]) .tab-icon,
    #browser tab:not([selected="true"]) .tabs-closebutton {
    opacity: 0.6;

Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.