×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Firefox 4 Released!

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the building-building-building dept.

Firefox 554

A great number of readers have written in to tell us that Mozilla has officially announced the final, official, Firefox 4.0. Congrats to all the developers who have code in the build. If you want some neat eye candy, you can watch a sweet visualization showing where the downloaders are.

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

Awsome! (0, Flamebait)

viodlos (2021548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575308)

Mozilla is doing good job improving Firefox. They hunted down and patched thousands of bugs from Firefox 3. Not only that, they took the succesful look that Opera has and made Firefox look as good as Opera. I wish they would make the interface a little bit snappier, but it's ok! They're also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights! And I hope Mozilla makes the next version as secure as IE9 with its sandboxing and all the extra security features Microsoft has build on Windows 7.

Good job mozilla!

Re:Awsome! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575406)

I hope Mozilla makes the next version as secure as IE9

What a horrible thing to say

Re:Awsome! (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575618)

Its also an unsubstantiated thing to say, and beyond the scope of most people to prove. Although if you say it enough i5t becomes a truth. What is 100% true is Microsoft are happy to leave 60% of their customers using their old insecure browsers. Some of whom only bought there OS last year.

Re:Awsome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575780)

Who was buying XP in 2010? I didn't think you could still buy XP, and anyone who did deserves what's coming to them.

Yes, Vista was bloated and slow, but 7 has been shipping since October of '09. Windows 7 is objectively better than XP, XP is no longer being sold retail, and so I have no sympathy for people who assume that a 10 year old OS should be as secure as a new one.

Re:Awsome! (2)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575910)

What is 100% true is Microsoft are happy to leave 60% of their customers using their old insecure browsers. Some of whom only bought there OS last year.

Microsoft doesn't want people using their old browsers so their site to persuade people to change must be a decoy? http://www.ie6countdown.com./ [www.ie6countdown.com] And pushing their new browsers via Windows Update unless you take steps to prevent it must be smoke and mirrors?

Speaking of unsubstantiated, citation please for people who only bought "there" OS last year and are on old insecure browsers?

And when you talk about moving off IE6, you should start with the app developers... But don't let that get in the way of the fun.

Re:Awsome! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575702)

Check the timestamp of the newspost and the timestamp of the comment. It's another of Microsoft's poorly-planned astroturfing squad, with a paragraph of text including thinly-veiled praise of their Redmond masters ready to roll the very minute the newspost was made.

No, not "a few minutes afterward", the amount of time it would take to actually type all that. And not "a one-line response", the amount of text you'd expect to get out between noticing the post and responding. Numerous sentences of text, the same minute of the post. All this BEFORE the usual tool-assisted first post crowd comes in. It's a shill.

I've heard many times before that Microsoft itself is largely cloistered from the rest of the world, engineers, marketeers, and management alike. They actually DO think this is the best way to spread the gospel of Microsoft, and they actually DO think nobody will notice it.

Re:Awsome! (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575760)

Did you know subscribers [slashdot.org] can see articles in the future?

Re:Awsome! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575804)

No, the tin foil hat he's wearing probably blocked that information out.

Just becasue my Karma is BAD does not mean (2)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575426)

That I will agree with you. The last update from 3.xx broke stuff that was not broken.
End of story.

Re:Awsome! (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575438)

Mozilla is doing good job improving Firefox. They hunted down and patched thousands of bugs from Firefox 3. Not only that, they took the succesful look that Opera has and made Firefox look as good as Opera. I wish they would make the interface a little bit snappier, but it's ok! They're also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights! And I hope Mozilla makes the next version as secure as IE9 with its sandboxing and all the extra security features Microsoft has build on Windows 7.

Good job mozilla!

Do you get a good dental plan with the Mozilla Foundation?

Re:Awsome! (2)

tomp (4013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575726)

Have they dumped the awesome bar yet? It makes my browsing more difficult nearly every day.

What are they going to do next? Replace the menubar with a start button? Oh, wait...

Re:Awsome! (4, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575774)

According to the download page, the new version includes "even more awesomeness". No word on whether or not the level of suck has decreased.

Re:Awsome! (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575974)

I use the awesomebar all the time. Its excellent are finding sites that I have found useful and not thought worth bookmarking. Its a feature I use.

Re:Awsome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575788)

Agreed. The awesome bar is NOT awesome.

Re:Awsome! (1, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575970)

Flamebait? Okay, let's try this exercise: I'm going to take his post and change the names of those involved:

Microsoft is doing good job improving Internet Explorer. They hunted down and patched thousands of bugs from Internet Explorer 8. Not only that, they took the succesful look that Opera has and made Internet Explorer look as good as Opera. I wish they would make the interface a little bit snappier, but it's ok! They're also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights! And I hope Microsoft makes the next version as secure as Firefox with its sandboxing and all the extra security features Mozilla has build on FireFox.

Please explain to me how this post wouldnt' be considered paid-for-and-bought.

Re:Awsome! (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575644)

They're also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights!

Chrome still supports H.264 as of current versions. Youtube still uses H.264. The Youtube App for Android and iOS still supports H.264 streaming. Google Video still supports H.264. So what rights are they fighting? All I see is Google using VP8 to get all sorts of deals with entertainment companies and hardware manufacturers to make themselves more money.

Re:Awsome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575700)

They hunted down and patched thousands of bugs from Firefox 3.

Gee, when FF 3 was released wasn't it the greatest thing since sliced bread? Now they tell us...

Re:Awsome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575792)

There are (7) sentences in the parent post, and (0) said anything of significance. Chances that Slashdot was mistaken for a blog by the above poster: extremely high.

Re:Awsome! (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575858)

someones have to fight for our rights!

??? I fend for myself, and it is remarkably easy. I contribute to software development only if it is FLOSS, and I use non-Free software only if I am absolutely positively sure that it won't bite me in the ass. I don't miss Flash: all you get through proprietary tech is dancing Jesus, cat playing keyboard, and idiotic games that belong back in early 1990-ies. Richard Stallman is onto something when he says: don't use proprietary software. This passive attitude accounts for some 90% of "fighting for our rights".

Re:Awsome! (2)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575924)

Mozilla is doing good job improving Firefox

It's OK so far, I guess, but it doesn't have an OMGPonies plugin yet.

Re:Awsome! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35576022)

Firefox (no sandbox) and Chrome (with a sandbox) were the only two browsers that didn't fall during the pwn2own contest this year. That means that Firefox (pre-release version) is more secure than IE9 (release version, with "extra security features").

not the only release of the day! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575342)

I just dropped a fat obama. Nearly split my asshole in half, it did. Three flushes and it still won't go down. Fucking low flow toilets.

Re:not the only release of the day! (0)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575418)

I have a friend like you. Way overboard when it comes to politics and religion, unreasonable, outspoken, nonsensical most of the time, and extreme. Just have to keep him out of political and religious discussions.

On most other topics he's a pretty good guy.

Re:not the only release of the day! (0)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575490)

I didn't know they let 4 year olds on the internet unsupervised.

Re:not the only release of the day! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575598)

I didn't know people still fed the trolls.

Slow! (2)

avij (105924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575402)

I just downloaded and installed FF4, and unlike what I had expected from the new version, FF4 is actually noticeably slower on most websites, including Slashdot :-/

Re:Slow! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575462)

I just downloaded and installed FF4, and unlike what I had expected from the new version, FF4 is actually noticeably slower on most websites, including Slashdot :-/

Performance: Firefox is up to six times faster than the previous release. With improved start-up and page load times, speedy Web app performance and hardware accelerated graphics, Firefox is optimized for rich, interactive websites.

I think I see the problem here..

Re:Slow! (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575988)

Firefox is optimized for rich, interactive websites.

Like this one?
http://www.wenxuecity.com/ [wenxuecity.com]

Re:Slow! (2)

Raxxon (6291) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575464)

Compared to 3.6.15 I'm not seeing any slowness... Everything appears to be working ok speed-wise so far....

Re:Slow! (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575600)

I saw improvements on my Vista-Firefox4 install when I updated that not long ago. The Mac version feels generally better as well, and I've been using this one since mid beta as FF3 was starting to hog down. Obviously YMMV but at the moment it feels fairly smooth for me.

Re:Slow! (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575570)

That's a feature.

Everyone and their mother is coming out with faster web browsers. IE9 boasts increased performance. Chrome has been blowing away the competition with its blazing fast Javascript engine.

No one is coming out with a browser that takes its time. Until now. FF4 takes the concept of performance and turns it on its head.

Aren't you tired of websites that instantly display? Don't you like reading your favorite site leisurely? What if you could have that plus random crashes and uncontrollable memory leaks?

What would you pay for something like that? Would you pay $100 for software of that quality? What if I told you that you could have all this and more for the low, low price of $59.95?

That's right! A slow browser, massive memory leaks, and random crashes in your computer today for only $59.95!

If you act now, I'll throw in a set of plug-ins that will turn your modern day CPU into the legacy system of yesteryear!

Firefox 4! Bring computing back to the speed of life.

Call now. Operators are standing by.

Re:Slow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575648)

Hah you actually paid 59.95 for yours? I got my memory leaks and crashes free from Microsoft.

Re:Slow! (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575762)

Wow. I noticed the opposite, and it seems to be the opposite of every benchmark posted everywhere on the net. In fact the major gain I have seen is not so much downloading sites is the the smooth scrolling at least on Linux. If you want to download speeds. I would suggest using the Auto Pager plug-in which aggregates sites split over several pages into one.

Re:Slow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575800)

>> noticeably slower on most websites

Firefox Four

FFF

FFFFFFFffffffffuuuuuuu!!!!

Re:Slow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575928)

I think it's time to upgrade your old Cyrix 6x86.

Re:Slow! -- XP user? (4, Informative)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576064)

Are you using Windows XP? I find that FF4 is slower than FF3.6 on my work computer (winXP) but faster on my home computer (vista). The new version renders using Direct2D on Vista and Win7, but uses software rendering on anything older. I'm sure you lose a lot in that mode of operation.

Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575420)

Sadly, delicious has become indispensible to my online life and their add-on is only compatible with Firefox 3.0 - 4.0b3pre

I guess the latest UI changes in the later 4betas threw them for a loop. If anyone knows the status of that add-on
maybe give an update. Is there still a team working on it, given the shake-up a while back?

Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works (2)

noahm (4459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575712)

The latest rumors are that delicious is being sold, possibly to StumbledUpon. Unfortunately, given the lack of support that delicious gets internally at yahoo and the amount of time it takes for sales like this to happen, I suspect that third-party add-ons will come before anything official. It's unfortunate, because delicious is a really useful service and hard to live without. I've made myself do so with firefox 4, largely due to the uncertainty about its future.

Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works (1)

cixelsyd (239) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575820)

Delicious works if you install the Add-on Compatibility Reporter [mozilla.org] and enable it there.
I am currently using it on the release version and have been using it on RC1 and RC2 for some time. I haven't noticed any glitches yet.

Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575866)

The reason why delicious add-ons are not available is not because of Firefox, but because of Yahoo! they have announced that delicious is closing so developers are unsurprisingly are not updating there plug-ins. I suggest you look at the vast array of add-ons for sites that are not closing down that offer similar functionality.

Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works (1)

noahm (4459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576012)

Yahoo, although they thoroughly mis-managed all sorts of stuff related to delicious, never announced that delicious is getting shut down. They have, however, laid off a bunch of employees from the project and are apparently looking to sell it. While the future is uncertain, there's plenty of reason to expect that delicious will survive, and hopefully thrive, under somebody else's umbrella.

Still got issues.... (2)

Raxxon (6291) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575428)

RC1 had an issue with Menu Display. Seemed to be constrained to the application being open on the secondary monitor.

Release has the same bug, toned down a bit. At least now I can see the menu a bit before it vanishes.... But it's still an annoying bug.

Yes download now for all the latest security holes (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575440)

Which will take them 6 months to fix as they concentrate on pleasing the Oooh shiny! crowd with ever more useless bells and whistles.

Cynic? Moi?

Re:Yes download now for all the latest security ho (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575658)

Which will take them 6 months to fix as they concentrate on pleasing the Oooh shiny! crowd with ever more useless bells and whistles.

Cynic? Moi?

Yup, as everyone knows, new = insecure and old = secure. That's why I stick with good ol' IE 6: It's been out so long, I know all the holes have been patched.

Thanks Mozilla! (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575444)

You support my intranet worse than Firefox 3! Good work!

Re:Thanks Mozilla! (1, Troll)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576082)

My understanding was that the browser's job was to render code as required by standards, and the sites responsibility was to not suck and implement those standards.

Guess where the failure here is?

This is good news! (4, Interesting)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575448)

The visualization at http://glow.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org] is really nice, and I like the fact that there are over 120 downloads every second!
By the way, my firefox updated automatically, does anybody know if it counted as a download?

Re:This is good news! (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575668)

Oh that's rather pretty, and neat too.

Re:This is good news! (1)

psyclone (187154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575868)

Click the [?] button at the top of the link you just posted.

TL;DR : Yes, upgrades / auto-updates count as downloads.

Re:This is good news! (1)

kaychoro (1340087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576092)

On my laptop:
  • IE9 renders the dots on the world map smoother than Firefox 4, but messes up the map it's all stretched and funny looking.
  • Chrome renders the dots smoother than Firefox 4, but has semi-transparent artifacts remaining over the spiral graph image and slows down significantly when you hover over the bar graph.
  • I'd prefer to avoid Opera and Safari altogether.

How's that for new browser standards compliance?

extensions? (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575466)

Have they caught up yet? A few weeks ago half my extensions didn't work so I reverted.

Also, have they dropped the pretence of being a Foundation yet?

Re:extensions? (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575962)

There is no pretence. Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization. It owns Mozilla Corporation, which is a for-profit corporation.

It is not unusual for non-profits to own for-profits. The important thing is that the money that goes to the for-profit goes towards fundraising for the non-profit and/or working towards the underlying goals of the non-profit.

If you look at the stated goals of the Mozilla Foundation, Mozilla Corp is clearly working towards them.

Slashdot news already after 1M downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575468)

I managed to grab a small video of the moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKMelYofnc

15.5 MB on Windows (2)

89cents (589228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575494)

Back then I remember hearing about this Phoenix web browser referred to as Mozilla Lite that was just a few MB and I loved it. Now I have watched as Firefox has grown, but the bloat has as well. Well at least 15 MB is still nothing these days.

Re:15.5 MB on Windows (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575746)

Well that awesome APNG support doesn't come for free, you know.

Hardware Acceleration (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575500)

Blew up my video driver when I hit a mostly-text site. Lucky for me Windows 7 restarts it gracefully, but while the screen was black I was Waiting for BSOD.

Do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575502)

Went to Chrome... Not looking back without a good reason...

Re:Do not want (3, Insightful)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575620)

without a good reason...

Privacy and avoiding data miner look like pretty good reasons for me.

Re:Do not want (4, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575798)

Went to Chrome... Not looking back without a good reason...

Print Preview

Re:Do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575908)

Am I the only one who can't stand using Chrome because Ctrl-Tab doesn't cycle in most recently used order?

Re:Do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575938)

Live bookmarks (RSS bookmarks)

When is 3d support going into Linux? (2)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575512)

The interface is somewhat streamlined. It is noticeably faster. The support for open standards is better and that's great. They certainly worked hard to ensure they had a solid product--a long time in coming. But, I use Linux most of the time. I'd like to have the features supported in other OSes available to me in my primary OS. Any ideas as to when/if they will have full support for 3d acceleration? I would also like the interface to be identical. I know the Google Chrome guys complained about making their product identical to the Windows version. They ultimately succeeded. I can only wonder when they will for the Linux community.

Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? (4, Insightful)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575576)

According to something I think I read on Phoronix a couple weeks back, it support the binary Nvidia driver already. They say that trying acceleration with any other Linux driver crashes way too often to be shipped enabled.

You're waiting on the driver vendors to fix their shit, not Firefox.

Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575996)

I believe there is a setting to force enable the hardware acceleration, but i forget what its called...
My linux box with an nvidia card and binary drivers seems to run the mozilla hardware acceleration stress test very quickly, while osx running firefox 4 is extremely slow (4fps)... Is it not using hardware acceleration on osx? (i couldnt get decent performance out of any other browser on osx either, not safari, chrome etc).

Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575604)

Any ideas as to when/if they will have full support for 3d acceleration?

Works on my nVidia GT240...

Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575628)

I thought the Linux version did support 3d? The beta I tried a few weeks ago supported WebGL, at least (granted, noticably slower than Chromium, but still usable).

Damn you Adobe! (1)

cranil (1983560) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575528)

it's pretty neat but I can't get it to run Flash on Ubuntu 64-bit :( damn Adobe

Re:Damn you Adobe! (2)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575680)

That's okay, you're not missing much. It may even be seen as an undocumented feature instead.

Re:Damn you Adobe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575756)

Try gnash, the GNU Flash movie player (http://www.gnu.org/s/gnash/). The latest version (0.8.9) works great with youtube, and it have no problem with firefox 4 on a 64bit only system.

Re:Damn you Adobe! (1)

noahm (4459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575776)

The browser you get from mozilla.com is a 32 bit binary. Try installing the 32 bit flash. It worked well for me on Debian squeeze.

Re:Damn you Adobe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575852)

Well, try harder if you really want Flash, as it definitely works...
go here : http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/flashplayer10_2_p3_64bit_linux_111710.tar.gz
and you should be able to have a 64bits flash player on linux.

Porn made easy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575538)

"Start Private Browsing" is the second menu option. Guess they know their audience :)

Re:Porn made easy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575720)

The image rendering library isn't named libpr0n [libpr0n.com] for nothing.

Re:Porn made easy (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575840)

Honestly it's the only reason I still use Firefox. Not for private browsing necessarily (I'm a very socially sex positive person, and luckily so is my wife) since I have long since given up living in denial or shame (try it, it's great). I use Chrome for everything but pr0n, but Firefox has so many extensions for downloading galleries and flash videos that Chrome's design precludes that I can't let it go. However if Chrome ever supports DownloadHelper or similar with full functionality, I'll gladly dump ol' Firefox.

(I know there are several download managers for Chrome that *claim* to have similar features, but they don't work as advertised.)

Now released... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575542)

To those who don't know about the trunk. I've been using Firefox 5 since Beta 7.

* looks around cautiously *

I love it.

True traffic analysis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575606)

Does the graphic include only mozilla.org, or does it include mirrors? True traffic analysis would be much more complicated. Still, over a million shortly after the word, "Go!" is impressive.

Regarding traffic analysis, Firefox is packaged for specific Linux distributions. I see that Slackware (current) is right out in front on the leading/bleeding edge. They have a 4.0 firefox binary [xmission.com] up already. Don't tell me Slackware users are slackers!

Re:True traffic analysis? (1)

maswan (106561) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575716)

IAAMMA[1]: Downloads go through a central bouncer that issues http-redirects to mirrors. The stats come from the bouncer.

1: I Am A Mozilla Mirror Admin :)

Does it still have the AwfulBar? (3, Insightful)

gumpish (682245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575626)

Does it still have the AwfulBar?

Not interested.

Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575808)

Does it still have the AwfulBar?

Not interested.

Do a quick comparison between FF's location bar and Chrome's. Try to get to multiple book marked URLs that are on the same domain. What I find is that FF has a very rich and useful built in search/regex matching function in it's location bar, where as chrome has a very basic auto-complete.

I can easily type in multiple partial words into the location bar, (even just a couple letters) and easily find bookmarks that I use for work. With Chrome I have to type out the full url, or if a partial match is found, I have to still edit the URL to get where I want to go.

It also _learns_ and remembers the most hit URLs for partial words.

It seems Google doesn't want you searching your bookmarks at all, especially not from your browser locally. It seems like it wants to make you use their online services for something this basic.

-anon

Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? (5, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576032)

I don't want to search my bookmarks through my url bar. I already have my bookmarks sorted by category.

Seriously, more and more apps are enabling users to be absolute slobs with their data and try to "help." Those of us who already organized our data get these unhelpful, resource hogging "features" that we can't disable.

My bookmarks/files/etc are perfectly organized already! I don't need Firefox/iTunes/etc reorganizing my stuff for me, or helping me to find it!

Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575934)

Disable it then?

Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576050)

First of all, I love the "AwfulBar". It works a lot better than the older bar to me. If you, for some reason, absolutely cannot use the new location bar, you do know that an Add-on to fix it is only a quick search away, right?

Presentation only: OldBar [mozilla.org]
Presentation and features: (not marked compatible with Firefox 4, though you can force add-on compatability) Old Location Bar [mozilla.org]

I don't see how the new location bar is so bad. I love it! Yeah it takes up more space, but that's what scrolling is for ;)

Less buggy? (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575718)

Is it less buggy? Please, somebody tell me that some of the random crashing, failed renderings, and memory leaks are fixed. While Adblock is great, it's not going to keep me from reverting my whole company back to IE forever...

Re:Less buggy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575872)

It doesn't do any of those things!

But then FF3 never did for me either...

Re:Less buggy? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576046)

The betas have been pretty stable for me...
That said, if you're sick of firefox there are much better choices than saddling yourself with ie, chrome is pretty good or build chromium if you don't like google.

How to restore the older tabs look: (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575754)

Right click on the blank gray space next to the tabs and uncheck the "Tabs on Top" property. That will put the tabs back below the location bar, where they belong.

Re:How to restore the older tabs look: (1)

egladil (1640419) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576016)

And to get the statusbar back you can install status-4-evar [mozilla.org] .

So Far So Good (1)

BigFire (13822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575784)

The only indispensable extension that I use NoScript, XMark have been 4.x compatible already. The one other must have extension is All-In-One Mouse Gesture have a hackable version that I can live with for now. Two of my infrequently use extension haven't been updated yet, but they don't have too much development activities, and I'm not too worry.

Compare and Contrast (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575816)

This tone of this article summary versus the tone of the summary when IE9 was released [slashdot.org] .

Mention of new features? Reviews? None of that. Apparently unnecessary - only congratulations are in order.

Pleased so far (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575818)

Pleased so far. All my dozen add-ons worked, although eBay's sidebar update has failed to download an icon, which I would have removed anyway.

Was shocked to see the tab positions. Lucky "Hide Caption T. Plus" had an option to put them back where they belong. Dunno why they've moved the home button either - all buttons belong together devs!

Now to try some of this newfangled HTML5 I've been reading about, heh. :)

Chrome 11 beats all (1)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575856)

On every benchmark test I took online (HTML5 and javascript) Chrome 11 far, far outperformed Firefox 4, which in turn is comparable to IE9. I only have an integrated graphics chipset so that might have something to do with it.

Re:Chrome 11 beats all (1)

SirMasterboy (872152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576024)

Chrome 11? Where have you been? Chrome 12 has been out for several days already!

FF 4 (2)

Globe199 (442245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575860)

Tabs STILL are not in their own processes like Chrome has done since day one. It does look like closing tabs reallocates memory though. So at least that seems to be fixed (it's been promised since, what, version 2?).

And this time it only took me one add-on (Status-4-Evar) to regain lost functionality.

Oh good! (0)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575904)

I had an extra 4GB of free memory I wasn't using. FF4 will expand to fill that quite nicely. Sorta like expanding foam plugging up leaks. I wouldn't want any information leaking out.

memory hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35575912)

memory hacks yeah

Visualization (1)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575940)

The visualization [mozilla.org] looks like some virus outbreak :))
If this is so, Europe got a Firefox epidemic on its hands :D

97 on Acid 3 (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35575956)

Why would they even bother releasing before passing the acid test?

OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35576006)

Mac
Operating Systems

        * Mac OS X 10.5
        * Mac OS X 10.6

So, I can't use it. Using OS X 10.4.11 or whatever it is. They support Windows 2000, but not OS X 10.4 :/

FF 4.0 noisier than usual (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576038)

OK so I browse to the eye candy page showing downloads. Not much going on there. *shrug* Going to guess it only works on firefox or is tripping my annoying flash banner blocker.

So download 4 and install. Browse there again. OK there it is. I'll admit it's sorta nifty Though we've all seen those fake counters on web pages before that have no base in reality so it makes me somewhat suspect how realistic it is. I'll give them benefit of the doubt though but it'd be nice if it said somewhere.

Why are my fans revving up? (looks at processor usage) OK wow. Open activity monitor. Imagine that, Firefox process is consuming 100% of one of my cores. Is that really necessary to draw some numbers and animate a few pips on a map? I'd need to be playing COD or something to get that out of an app usually. Let me guess, flash? And people can't understand why Apple wants it to go away.

But then again I'd bet it's more a problem of poor flash programming than anything else. Thanks Mozilla for making your new shiney look like a processor hog while you're trying to show it off.

Addon compatibility? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35576062)

Hows the add on compatibility?

I will not use a browser unless it has the following installed:

adblock plus
firebug
flashblock
ghostery
noscript
remove it permanently
xmarks

Hows rollback support, in case 4.0 doesn't work with adblock plus can I trivially roll back to my working 3.6.15 install? I know you can't expect modern windoze software to work as well as a .deb package from 1993 but I'm hoping for something better than "reformat, and reinstall"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?