Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 4.0 Beta 1 Released

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the that's-a-nice-good-morning dept.

Firefox 190

balster neb writes "Mozilla has released the first Beta of Firefox 4, the next major version of the popular web browser. Apart from the new 'Chromified' tabs-on-top UI, there are many major improvements in performance and HTML5 support. This release also adds support for the new WebM video format. Other changes include faster DOM and CSS performance, improved UI responsiveness, hardware 2D acceleration, experimental WebGL support, and better JavaScript performance (though this beta does not include the new JaegerMonkey JIT engine). More details on the Mozilla blog."

cancel ×

190 comments

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

First Post !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32824368)

First Post !!

Re:First Post !! (-1, Offtopic)

TeRanEX (916440) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824392)

Hooray, we clearly have a winner!

Re:First Post !! (-1, Offtopic)

TheMightyFuzzball (1500683) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824406)

Yes, and it's not FireFox... I like the new look, but it still feels fat and slow.

Re:First Post !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32824872)

...but it still feels fat and slow.

And yet, you made the first post. To me, it feels trim and quick.

Re:First Post !! (3, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824920)

Indeed, it is definitely faster than 3.6. Only problem I've noticed so far is that if you were using a third party theme with 3.6, 4.0b1 will happily use it even if not compatible, so you have to switch it manually.

Re:First Post !! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826024)

Thanks I was wondering what the heck was the matter with 4.0
It looked so bad that I figured that it couldn't be an issue for every one but I couldn't find anything on Google about it.
Now I can put 4 through some paces and see if I will replace chrome with it.

"Faster" for who? (3, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826572)

Its really annoying to see everyone saying their browser runs "faster", then browsing pages on any kind of out-of-date pc and seeing it go as fast as cold molasses. Come on, just to browse websites you need to buy new computers? It's not easy to make standards good for all, but some kind of tolerance for older equipment is necessary too, at least in public standards of stuff.

Re:"Faster" for who? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32827062)

Well how out of date are you talking?
I am using it on a P4 single core which is pretty dang old and it works just fine.

Re:First Post !! (2, Insightful)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824876)

Good, finding the winner is always bad. A continuous search for the winner is always in the interest of the user.

Re:First Post !! (3, Insightful)

OSDever (792851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824888)

I'll give you that it feels fat and slow in comparison to, say, elinks. I'll even give you that it's fat and slow in comparison to the first versions of Firefox. But in comparison to existing browsers, it trumps IE (obviously,) and, from the short time I've been using it, seems to be running faster with less of a memory footprint than Chrome. I won't lie, extensive testing will have to happen to make me switch, but things are looking up for Firefox right about now.

Re:First Post !! (-1, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824942)

It may trump IE, but it sure does feel and respond slower than Opera and Chrome. It's not always just about how quick the javascript engine and so on is, but how it feels to the user. Instant rendering of the page as soon as it starts loading (like in Opera) and responsive UI contribute a lot to user experience. Mozilla seems to forget this fact. Opera in comparison is really responsive, even while it comes build-in with huge amount of more features.

Memory footprint doesn't tell much because of the way modern OS tries to allocate RAM. After all, all non-used RAM goes to waste.

Re:First Post !! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825228)

While it's technically true that unused RAM goes to waste, RAM that isn't used by programs is typically used for disk cache, which does speed things up (sometimes a lot). So lower RAM usage is still a plus.

Now hopefully... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32824866)

...it can win some marketshare back from that company whose business is to track everything one does on the Web.

Re:Now hopefully... (4, Informative)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825244)

Can I ask how long you have actually been using the Internet for?

Because as recent as around 5-10 years ago, when Google were a lot smaller incidentally, I can recall using web browsers (mainly IE) where it was getting almost impossible to browse anywhere without 8 or 9 pop-up windows appearing that advertised all manner of sexual and non-sexual services and products - nowadays it's an unobtrusive Google ad at the side of the page or maybe an Adobe Flash advert or two at the top or bottom.

I don't believe Google is perfect by any means but ultimately they do make some pretty cool, good & free stuff that they let me use in return for finding out a bit about where I am and what I'm doing. I know this to be the case *BEFORE* I make the choice of using their stuff and, because I keep myself informed and check these things out, I have a fair degree of control over what information I do and don't choose to reveal about myself - because I consider myself a responsible adult.

Unfortunately, stuff you put on the Internet has to be paid for somehow which means financing it through advertising/marketing, making the user pay for it or a combination of the two. I'm sure that if Google wasn't there in its number one position, then Microsoft, Apple or A. N. Other would be there doing the same thing, and more than likely with closed, locked-in standards meaning that you can never go anywhere else.

Even in my case, having gone away from Windows Mobile-based phones to an Android one in the past 18 months, as a mainly Linux user anyway, for the first time I have been able to get rid of the necessity of a Windows and MS Office installation purely because I *HAD* to use Outlook & Activsync to synchronise with my mobile phone. The fact is, I use both Windows XP and Linux, managed to ditch MS Office in favour of OpenOffice and now have pretty good transparency across both OSes.

So, no, I'm not a Google fanboi but I do credit them with having done more to assist me in getting to using open standards and Open Source software than any other company has - a more than fair swap for sometimes wanting a bit of information about me.

Tried it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825384)

still shit compared to IE 8...

Re:Now hopefully... (1)

meow27 (1526173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825490)

Don't they still have loads of pop-ups on those websites?
If i recall correctly, all of the major web browsers by the time IE7 came out had anti-pop-up software in them.
It wasn't that those advertisers decided not to send them anymore. It's that they lost the ability.

just my 2 cents... correct me if im wrong.

Re:Now hopefully... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826250)

No, I agree with you and I'm sure very few, if any, companies are trying advertising by the browser pop-up method these days as a result of all the blocking.

But at the same time, Google (by virtue of their market lead at the moment) must have had considerable success with the "unobtrusive" advertising they use, which says to me that advertisers now use that rather than some even more evil mechanism than web pop-ups.

Apart from that, I'm a total tech-head anyway and advertising/marketing people will be the first against the wall come the revolution.

Re:Now hopefully... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825724)

financing it through advertising/marketing

This meme needs to die. Who do you think pays marketers salaries? You do via higher cost products and your lost time and attention. Marketing pays for nothing.

Re:Now hopefully... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826522)

I never said I agreed with it - but I quite like the option of either paying for something without ads or having it free with ads.

Re:Now hopefully... (3, Insightful)

f0dder (570496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826754)

Tell that to Sun when they gutted their marketing department. I am sorry even Apple runs adverts 24/7 for their iPhone, iPod, Mac book pro. Every other blog is about Apple apple apple. It's no accident. I am sorry you are very wrong when you say Marketing pays for nothing.

Option to use the old UI? (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824890)

I hate the Chrome interface. I was hoping that Firefox wouldn't go that route. Does anyone know if the new beta still has an option to use the classic interface?

Re:Option to use the old UI? (5, Informative)

mrjatsun (543322) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824918)

Just tried it out. You can enable the menu toolbar, and move the tabs back to the original position.. So yes.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1, Redundant)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825112)

Thank god. The on-top tabs is the single thing I hate most about chrome.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

elcid73 (599126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825266)

I understand, preferences are preferences, but tabs on top always made the most sense to me. The address bar is an attribute of the current tab that you looking at. Going back and forth in history, all are functions within the context of the tab- so it makes sense that the address bar isn't global. ...but like I said, preferences are preferences.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (5, Insightful)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825626)

Tabs on top makes sense. Tabs as the window's title bar doesn't.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825940)

It's title bars that don't make sense, imho. They're a hack that waste screen space to compensate for the limitations of mouse-based WMs.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (4, Insightful)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826456)

You can go further:
tabs are a hack by applications to make up for the failure of the traditional WM model and it's inability to handle large numbers of windows.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826858)

Pretty much. See Uzbl: the "uzbl-browser" doesn't come with tabs. You can get "uzbl-tabbed", a version that provides tabs to switch between multiple instances of uzbl-browser, but many users manage them directly with their WM.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

g253 (855070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825994)

It does if your window is maximised, because it makes aiming much easier (can't miss them by going too far up, fitt's law and all that...)

Re:Option to use the old UI? (0, Troll)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826726)

But if you are browsing on a maximized window on a widescreen monitor, you are already failing. Books and fliers aren't landscaped for a reason.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826100)

Tabs on top makes sense. Tabs as the window's title bar doesn't.

Agreed, 100%. Now, if Mozilla would fix their damn binary builds for Linux so that my CUPS printers work again....

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826120)

Personally I feel that an unused window title bar is wasted space.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825748)

Just tried it out. You can enable the menu toolbar

For me, the menu toolbar was hopefully enabled by default. And for you ?

It is only when I disabled it (View => Toolbars => Menu bar) that it was replaced by this orange horror called "Firefox". It took me a few minutes to figure how to enable it again (Customize => Menu bar, which doesn't customize it but simply displays it again).

Anyway, congratulations to Mozilla. For a Beta 1, it works really well.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

Masami Eiri (617825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824928)

When I installed it, it defaulted to the old AI, probably due to how I have the bars rearranged (I have bookmarks on my menu bar). I had to move the tab bar back down, but that was a simple right-click option.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

Masami Eiri (617825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824954)

UI, not AI. D'oh.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824936)

Yes, it does.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (5, Informative)

muzip (1220080) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824944)

Yes, it is possible to revert to original look by disabling "tabs on top". It is also possible to disable/enable menus.

However, I liked tabs on top of the addressbar, feels more intuitive.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825818)

So where does the search box go if the address bar goes with the tab?
I never got confused about the placement of the address bar. One instantly sees it as something dynamic, and just as intuitive.

And i can agree that there could be one or two menus that can be placed inside another, like Help inside tools or something. But everything in one button? I tried that with a few extensions, and it blows. Bulky, and unnerving - when you're tired and accidentally point away from the jungle of menus, it closes.
Willing to give it a try though, when they make it available to GNU/Linux..

I reduced everything in the menubar to icons and merged it with navigation with the help of Stylish and its awesome community. I've merged the statusbar with the tabbar and gained some space. Merged Stop, Reload AND Throbber. Nothing it too small, nothing is lost, yet it all fits in two bars.

They should look into the ideas coming from there, or ask for userchrome.css files to see ideas, not just ask people to write an essay. In any case, as long as they leave Firefox as an open box to customize, i'll continue using it. Nothing comes close to it for me.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825998)

Bulky, and unnerving - when you're tired and accidentally point away from the jungle of menus, it closes. Willing to give it a try though, when they make it available to GNU/Linux.

There are Minefield builds [mozilla.org] available for Linux. Just don't rely on them for important stuff.

In any case, as long as they leave Firefox as an open box to customize, i'll continue using it. Nothing comes close to it for me.

I completely agree.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

Digana (1018720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825276)

Y'know what, I was thinking the same, because it's a widely acknowledged fact that change sucks, but this guy has convinced me otherwise [mozilla.com] .

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825642)

Change is fine--if it is an improvement. Change for change's sake is just annoying. Personally, I don't find Chrome's interface an improvement in any way. I couldn't give a shit about the "clean look" fad myself (AFAIC, Steve Jobs can take his one-button mouse and shove it up his iHole). I just want my browser to be functional--and not force me to dig around in some new UI just to do simple stuff like printing.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (4, Funny)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826620)

I just want my browser to be functional--and not force me to dig around in some new UI just to do simple stuff like printing.

yeah, ctrl + p, that was a bitch to figure out, all different than anyone else has ever done it before, and just for the sake of being different.
Oh yeah, and they put it in the top-level of the page menu, which should take a complete retard at least 15 seconds to find.
I really think you should pick better examples.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826788)

Change is fine--if it is an improvement. Change for change's sake is just annoying. Personally, I don't find Chrome's interface an improvement in any way. I couldn't give a shit about the "clean look" fad myself (AFAIC, Steve Jobs can take his one-button mouse and shove it up his iHole). I just want my browser to be functional--and not force me to dig around in some new UI just to do simple stuff like printing.

Don't blame Apple for this one, that stupid "no menu" look is Vista's doing. Apple tried to go the tabs-on-top route with Safari 4 but luckily listened to its users and reverted to the old way.

Re:Option to use the old UI? (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825678)

I am glad there is a way to go back to the old interface that on-top tabs is a terrible feature. One thing I am happy about is the HTML5 support.

I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (5, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824932)

I've heard that Chrome and Opera perform better at this point than Firefox, but I can't help it...I just like the way Firefox "feels". I can't give it up.

WHY CAN'T I QUIT YOU????

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (4, Informative)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825054)

Why do you need to? Chrome renders pages faster, sure, but I don't really give a shit about a couple of milliseconds rendering time. Chrome has isolated tabs, but crashes more than Firefox anyway (at least for me).

Finally, when you have a really nice open source browser that isn't entirely controlled by a giant behemoth that knows everything about you, why not use it? Seriously, do we need to be throwing more power Google's way?

P.S. Gecko is still much faster at some things, i.e. image rendering and animation.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (-1, Flamebait)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825194)

I'm sure that Gecko isnt faster than Presto at anything. Not 100% sure how it stacks up against WebKit, but I have my doubts about Gecko doing anything faster than it as well.

Gecko really has become slow and bloated, competing on the same level as Trident..

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (-1, Troll)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825336)

I see that the FireFox moderation fans are out in force.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1)

balster neb (645686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825670)

Ok, here's a single counterexample to prove you wrong:

http://web.mit.edu/bzbarsky/www/mandelbrot-clean.html [mit.edu]

Try it in the Firefox 4 beta, and compare it to the latest Chrome release.

The reason you got modded down is probably because you made a dramatic, blanket claim without backing it up with facts.

Incidentally, browser performance isn't a simple yes/no issue -- it depends on a number of different pieces of technology. E.g. there's DOM and CSS, graphics, and Javascript. Chrome, for instance, does Javascript overall faster than FF (barring some instances, as above), hence Mozilla's work on JaegerMonkey.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32827024)

Ok, here's a single counterexample to prove you wrong:
http://web.mit.edu/bzbarsky/www/mandelbrot-clean.html [mit.edu]

Interesting example. Here are some results using a 7-year-old laptop (a newer PC would probably be a lot faster).
454ms - Opera 10.60
553ms - Firefox 3.6.6
661ms - Epiphany 2.30.2
992ms - Chromium 6.0.453.0
The two WebKit browsers were the slowest, while the Presto browser was fastest. It's not always so, of course.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825504)

Gecko may not be as fast as WebKit or Presto, but come on... comparing it to Trident?

Fastest to slowest:
WebKit/Presto, Gecko, (insert from 5 to 10 imaginary rendering engines here), Trident.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825704)

Why do you need to? Chrome renders pages faster, sure, but I don't really give a shit about a couple of milliseconds rendering time.

We're talking real-world (not synthetic benchmarks, but actual page loads) improvements of 100% or more, probably due largely to the fact that Chrome can execute Javascript on something like a reasonable schedule.

Chrome has isolated tabs, but crashes more than Firefox anyway (at least for me).

For me it's quite the reverse. And I'm running dailies!

Finally, when you have a really nice open source browser that isn't entirely controlled by a giant behemoth that knows everything about you, why not use it?

Chrome isn't "entirely controlled by a giant behemoth" either, it's based on WebKit. And Chromium is entirely open-source so if you really want to, you can see what's going on in there, change things, et cetera. Meanwhile, every time I've ever installed Firefox it's defaulted to google search with suggestions/autocomplete, which means that google is spying on you when you use firefox.

P.S. Gecko is still much faster at some things, i.e. image rendering and animation.

If every damned site out there wasn't overusing Javascript that might be a compelling argument.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (4, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825962)

P.S. Gecko is still much faster at some things, i.e. image rendering and animation.

If every damned site out there wasn't overusing Javascript that might be a compelling argument.

A lot of sites with heavy image content scroll smoothly in Firefox, Opera, and even IE, but struggle along at about 5 fps when scrolling with the webkit browsers. That's my main issue with Chrome.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826192)

We're talking real-world (not synthetic benchmarks, but actual page loads) improvements of 100% or more, probably due largely to the fact that Chrome can execute Javascript on something like a reasonable schedule.

Um, I'm talking real world too, I don't really look at the benchmarks. 100% faster at something I already feel is more than good enough is a whole lotta nothing for me. You may feel differently, of course, but the point of my original post was to point out that you shouldn't feel its somehow nerd-wrong not to switch from Firefox.

If every damned site out there wasn't overusing Javascript that might be a compelling argument.

I think it will become important, if/when Canvas gets traction. I've made some stuff involving multiple layers of transparent PNGs with transiotns between them using javascript. Firefox can render it all very smoothly, including animated transitions. Chrome and Safari, on the other hand, almost entirely choke up, and Opera is very slow. I decided to try the whole thing in Canvas to see if it would be faster, but the results were exactly the same. Firefox's canvas rendering ability is exceptionally good.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826900)

While I have never seen the speed increases that everyone has (yes, studies, studies, studies -- but in my real world use it doesn't make a difference) Chrome simply doesn't have a viable AdBlock and thus is totally useless for me. YMMV.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825996)

I am all for faster browsers. As it will allow for more interesting interactive applications. But lets face it folks we are 99% of the time waiting on things to download. That is the major bottleneck. It is measurable. Webpage render time is such a small part of what I do on the internet its not even factored in. Someday it may be.

Let me put this into perspective. I will pick one of the slowest part of our computers, the hard drive. The current average seems to be 30-80 MB per second. Average web speed in the united states? About 80k per second (DSL 1.5 meg). Some have it better at 300k to 5 MB per second depending on where you live and how much your willing to pay for it. Now lets say you have one of the 'good' connections at 5MB per second, and assume you can get full use out of it from some web server (not likely). You are still anywhere from 6-20x slower than the slowest part of your computer.

I put in a proxy server so I could measure what I am doing on the internet. Between me and my GF we waited for nearly 28 hours last month on things to download from the internet or about 14 hours each. We downloaded between the two of us 16 gig of stuff. So for 8 gig of data I waited 14 hours. My connection if it was maxed out would have downloaded all 16 gig in about 6 hours. To do the same thing off my HD would have been a few mins. Also remember I had a proxy server in the mix here. So this time would be even bigger (about 10%).

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32826318)

Because the whole interface FREEZES when rendering a tough page, while chrome and opera perform like modern applications? That's a pretty good reason to quit.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (0, Troll)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825144)

I couldn't quit Firefox either (and had no intention of doing so). But then Firefox went the way of IE in my book. I can't trust it anymore. There are now sites that will install spyware on my machine by merely visiting them in Firefox. That still hasn't happened to me with Chrome so I guess that's my flavor of the week until it starts getting crudded up as well. I'm not thrilled about the way Chrome "feels" but I am used to it by now. The Chrome UI is less annoying than random spyware.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826198)

What spyware? As far as I know the vast majority comes from plugins, not Firefox itself (Flash, Adobe Reader, etc). The second vector of attack is Javascript, but not only they're usually fixed very soon, you can use NoScript to stop them.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826668)

There were times when I couldn't follow links on Google or Facebook anymore. I had to manually copy link location and paste them. There were also a few times that ads would randomly pop crap up even if I didn't have a browser open at the time advertising spyware removal. The one that made me throw in the towel on Firefox was the one that looked like Windows Security Center. That thing was so annoying and I got it several times. I updated Firefox every time I got a notification to do so. I don't install executables unless I know where they came from. I don't go clicking OK on those obvious malware pop-ups. I don't surf porn or play Flash games online. Facebook is probably the sketchiest site I frequent and I don't have any 3rd party Facebook apps installed there. I feel I'm a fairly responsible web user. I don't really care what browser I'm using. I just want it to work without having to fiddle with settings or install plug-ins. Firefox did that for a long time, but it's my experience that time is over. So far I'm 6 months into using Chrome and haven't had a spyware outbreak yet. I hope it lasts but if it doesn't I'll be right back out there looking for new options (and re-evaluating old options like Firefox and IE).

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825214)

I know you post was probably just a joke, but still, I'd highly recommend you check out Chrome seriously if you haven't. I'm not the type of person that cares about benchmarks or static screenshots. The thing I value most of all is that intangible "feel" of the software that you allude to, and I don't know what exactly it is, but Chrome "feels" much, much better than Firefox - PARTICULARLY if you're running Linux (Firefox on Linux compared to Firefox on Windows/Mac is like Data vs B4. Sure they look exactly alike, but one's basically just a slow retarded version of the other. Chrome feels as good or better on Linux vs Windows).

If you like the more traditional look to your browsers, I'll say that Midori looks promising, but it's still not proven stable enough for me.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32826298)

I've heard that Chrome and Opera perform better at this point than Firefox

Who cares?

The remote site and/or your network connection is almost always the bottleneck. Try using a new computer and a several year old one to browse the web. I'd be shocked if you could notice any significant difference.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32826414)

WHY CAN'T I QUIT YOU????

I made a similar joke about Linux recently. Linux is like a crazy crack-head ex-girlfriend who keeps coming back, seducing you, emptying your wallet and then running off with your best friend leaving you to wallow in self pity with Windows and OSX.

Re:I'll never let go, Firefox. I'll never let go. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826554)

WHY CAN'T I QUIT YOU????

Slashdotter Extension, duh.

Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable 4b1 (5, Informative)

CritterNYC (190163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824946)

At PortableApps.com, we released the portable package of Firefox 4.0 Beta 1 yesterday soon after 4.0 Beta 1 dropped. It's a great way to test the latest beta without impacting your current Firefox install since it runs self-contained from a single directory. You can even install it to your Desktop or Documents folder.

Try Mozilla Firefox 4.0 Beta 1 out today with Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition 4.0 Beta 1 [portableapps.com]

Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition 4.0 Beta 1 homepage [portableapps.com]

Re:Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824968)

Nice, thank you! Definitely going to give this a shot tonight.

Re:Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824992)

I've been using their version for a long time. It's great to be able to easily take it with me wherever I go. Nice to see that they've already got a copy available. Personally, anytime I can keep an app out of the registry, I tend to do it, seems to greatly improve stability.

Re:Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825038)

Mod up, please. Informative post, excellent product. Put it on your thumbdrive.

Re:Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825076)

It's a great way to test the latest beta without impacting your current Firefox install

much like the version you download straight from Mozilla. Seriously, has there ever been a Firefox Beta, RC or nightly build that at all impacted your standard install?

Re:Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825366)

Nope, but there is no guarantee that it won't. At least this way you know that you've got a back up if something doesn't quite work.

Re:Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825250)

Thanks for the tip, the fast release, and more general all portableapps that really make life easier! You guys rule!

Re:Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable (1)

Jazavac (1344295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825510)

Excellent version, I would just like to know is there a way to copy my extensions from my local installation?

Re:Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable (1)

t482 (193197) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825906)

Anyway of getting flash working? Normally you copy flashplayer.xpt and NPSWF32.dll to  \App\firefox\plugins\. However that directory no longer exists.. Any suggestions?

Re:Try it safely on your PC with Firefox Portable (2)

t482 (193197) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825976)

Fund that the directory is now \Data\plugins - copied over the files on the locked down pc and everything worked....

Not bad (4, Informative)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824996)

After some UI tweaking, I got it looking and behaving like Firefox/Mozilla always has, and I'm left with a browser that's slightly faster and has better interfaces for some things. The drag-to-resize text fields in all websites is wonderful. The new extensions management interface is nicer but will take some getting used to.

Re:Not bad (1, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825466)

The drag-to-resize text fields in all websites is wonderful.

Just so people don't start spreading false truths about how Firefox invented that, Safari had that feature a long time ago. If someone knows if Opera had that before Safari, feel free to reply.

Re:Not bad (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825772)

True, but to be fully fair, resizeable textareas were available as a Firefox add-on since at least March 2007 via the Resizeable Textarea add-on [mozilla.org] , three months before Safari 3 was announced and released as a beta.

Re:Not bad (4, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825986)

Why would it matter who came up with any given feature first? In software, all ideas are recycled.

Re:Not bad (1)

weicco (645927) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826184)

To us perhaps. To marketing department it is not. To fanboys it most certainly is not!

Re:Not bad (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32826326)

Durrrrr... because Apple! They do everything first. In fact, I heard they invented the abacus over 100,000 years ago! Can you believe it?

Re:Not bad (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826634)

Prior art, so when some troll company comes along and tries to patent it we have a record.

Re:Not bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32826616)

Please tell me you managed to separate the Stop and Refresh buttons. That was one feature I absolutely detested back in the early days of the web, when Internet Explorer had the two buttons merged. A page would start loading, hang up on something, then I would go to click the Stop button and sometimes it would finish loading right before I hit it. Now the Stop button was a Refresh button, and it would START THE WHOLE THING ALL OVER AGAIN!

Sorry for yelling, but this was one of the reasons I switched to Firefox in the first place!

Feedback button (1)

muzip (1220080) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825110)

I also liked the Feedback button, a simple and easy way to report bugs and give thanks :)

Whoa (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825152)

Quite a bit faster than 3.6...

Re:Whoa (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825800)

I would like to see how it compares to other "Modern" Browsers in terms of speed. Lately Firefox (which was supposed to be the fast and light Mozilla) has been running at speads that beat IE but not the other browsers. I would love to see Firefox compete with the other guys as well.

Here's Hoping... (-1, Troll)

Jayws (1613285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825272)

I'm not too excited about Firefox 4.0 coming because it means that it will probably break compatibility with all my addons and re-arrange my user interface to what Mozilla thinks is most productive. I've continued to use Firefox because of how customizable it is, but that wont matter if they can't clean it up and keep performance on par with the other competitors. Chrome finally added extensions and just seems to make progress in leaps and bounds when they release a new version. I wonder if the efforts to make a cleaner, more reliable, faster browser are constantly being subverted by new features like improved javascript engines and HTML5, can we just slow down a bit?

Re:Here's Hoping... (1)

Diabolus Advocatus (1067604) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825716)

AdBlock+, NoScript, LastPass, Download Statusbar, Flashgot, all work. The only one left I really want are the Web Developer Toolbar.

Office 2007 (0, Troll)

space_hippy (625619) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825360)

Looks like MS Office 2007, which SUCKS!!!!
Please leave the option of using the classic interface. Concentrate on making it standards compliant and less blot.

Separate Stop and Refresh Buttons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825418)

Has anyone found a way to get separate stop and refresh buttons?

I don't know why Mozilla want to take my menus and buttons off me, but if things continue like this the Firefox user interface will soon be a blank window.

Re:Separate Stop and Refresh Buttons? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32826292)

What's the benefit of having two buttons when you can only use one 'state' of those at a given moment? You just need to stop acting like an 80 year old grandma and evolve a bit.

Re:Separate Stop and Refresh Buttons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32827016)

Say a web page doesn't load properly, what do you do? You press the refresh button! But wait, there's no refresh button in FF4 because until the web page loads there's only a stop button. In FF4 you therefore need two clicks (click stop, wait until it changes to refresh and then click refresh) to do what could previously be done instantly in one click.

The simple fact is the reason they're dumbing down the interface is to avoid confusing people like 80 year old grandmas. This isn't evolution, this is a reduction in the functionality in an attempt to cater for the lowest common denominator.

WebM (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825430)

So... where are the encoders for WebM? Don't give any links to Windows-only programs as it's useless to OSS users.

doh!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825566)

Keep hitting ctrl+t thinking i have no tabs open. This is going to take some getting used to

No easy way to close (0, Redundant)

JSombra (1849858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825590)

No close, minimize, maximize buttons at top?!? Come one guys that’s basic windows design 101

Re:No easy way to close (1)

JSombra (1849858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825702)

Ahh never mind, just figured out certain older themes hide them. Though quite amusing that the official 4.0b1 theme is also marked as "incompatible" by Firefox

I've been using it for a week now... (1)

Diabolus Advocatus (1067604) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825666)

This was released about a week ago. Saying that, I just clicked the 'Check for updates' in the Help menu and it said a new version (4.0 Beta 1) is available - the same version I've been using for a week. I updated, and the only change I can see is the addition of the Feedback menu next to my APB and LastPass menus.

Remove the big ugly orange button (2, Informative)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825692)

For those of you who don't like the big ugly orange button, Download Squad [downloadsquad.com] tells you how to change its colour or make it transparent.

if you want 64bit on linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32825758)

go here: http://nightly.mozilla.org/

WEBSOCKETS!!! (4, Informative)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32825924)

Finally, a major browser that supports websockets besides Chrome. hey IE get off your ass. Don't make us have to take another 15% of your market share.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>