backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 93 comment(s) - last by FredEx.. on Dec 21 at 10:09 AM


Shot of Firefox 3.0 Beta 1 in action...okay so it looks a bit like Firefox 2.0, but its packed with features and faster.  (Source: ZDNet)

The new download interface. Note the filter box and the pause and cancel buttons.  (Source: ZDNet)
Firefox 3.0 is shaping up for a lean, mean, fast internet surfing machine

Yesterday morning marked the first official release of Mozilla Firefox 3.0 Beta 1.  Owning over 14 percent of the total browser market, Mozilla's changes to the Firefox browser can significantly impact many users' daily browsing.  Firefox 3.0 also represents Mozilla's latest attempt at nipping at the heels of Microsoft. The Internet Explorer browser is gradually losing market share, but still unquestionably the leading browser in terms of market share.

DailyTech recently reported on claims that only one in five of the current bugs will be fixed before the final Firefox 3.0 release.  Firefox has had trouble pushing the new iteration of its browser out on time and missed a July deadline for the Beta release by over four months. 

Mozilla did change its roadmap after the July miss to include multiple alpha release candidates to provide limited testing until the Beta could be finished.  These alphas did not have to meet Mozilla's standards for a beta release -- a stable software product with all planned features fully implemented, a useable browsing interface and acceptable performance on the majority of webpages. 

ZDNet and Ars Technica each took the browser out for a spin and gave their impressions.

ZDNet came into the test obviously biased against Firefox due to past experiences.  As the reviewer mentions, Firefox often consumed over 500 MB of RAM during operation, due to memory leaks and inefficiencies, something the reviewer saw as untenable.   Internet Explorer and Opera, it was pointed consume far less memory.

However, the reviewer warmed up to Firefox 3.0, which is apparently quite good.  The first highlight is the small download package, which downloads fast and installs equally fast.  Opening tabs, opening pages, and shutting down the browser all occur visibly quicker.  The application even comes with a polite and easy to use uninstaller, which works quickly and painlessly, in case Firefox 3.0 isn't for you.

The interface is crisper and many of the functional tools have been streamlined to make finding words, saving passwords, and bookmarking pages feel more natural.  Two key features are the option to resume paused downloads and the ability to zoom in on webpages, an ability long touted by Opera and Safari.

ZDNet also feels that Firefox 3.0 is shaping up nicely to be more secure.  The SSL error pages have been redesigned while malware protection and forgery protection have been added.

Ars Technica was equally wowed by the new Firefox.  They got into a bit more detail, pointing to what’s under the hood.  Firefox 3.0 is powered by a new html rendering engine, Gecko 1.9, which delivers significant performance improvements.  In addition, Gecko 1.9 leverages open-source vector graphics library Cairo to deliver hardware accelerated rendering.  This allows for more fancy effects such as the new full page feature.  The browser now also supports animated .png images.

Another key feature detailed is the new Places system which uses SQL to unify the user's browsing history and their bookmarks to simplify the process of browsing and bookmarking.  In the url auto completion box, stars are shown next to sites that are bookmarked.  The system also features new user interfaces to help users sort and make sense of their history and bookmarks.  The system includes a new querying language that allows you to say, find sites you'd bookmarked but only been to five or less times.  The scripting API has also been overhauled, which should allow for some exciting new Firefox scripts.

As previously mentioned, the download system has added the ability to pause and resume downloads.  Another fun feature of the system is the ability to filter downloads.  The new download system also interfaces with antivirus software to beef up security.

Firefox 3.0 does away with the sometimes obnoxious password saving dialog pop ups of Firefox 2.0 and replaces them with a thin bar with button options at the top of the screen.

Ars Technica came away from the experience with very positive things to say about the new Beta candidate.

For Firefox 3.0, Mozilla fixed a total of 11,000 bugs and has plugged over 300 memory leaks.  It has also added the XPCOM cycle collector component to minimize memory waste.

For a full list of changes, refer here, and for Firefox's unofficial trunk changelog, aimed more at developers and software aficionados, refer here.

The result appears to be a leaner, meaner, faster Mozilla, which at the same time delivers eye-catching new features and a much more elegant and refined interface.  New features allow Firefox 3.0 to flex its graphics muscle, allowing for attractive graphical effects.  It may be a bit behind schedule, but it looks like the wait is worth it as Firefox moves along towards what’s shaping up to be a great final release.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

'500GB' Was this correct?
By wordsworm on 11/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By lumbergeek on 11/21/2007 11:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. I have 3 tabs open and I'm at 84MB. I haven't seen a ridiculous number like 500MB though, but never say never. ffx2.0.0.9


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By Araxen on 11/21/2007 11:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
I just installed the beta and it has a BIG memory leak in it. I was getting up in the 500mb range with 99% processor usage. I uninstalled it and went back to the 2.0.* release and I'm fine now at 75mb with about 10 tabs open.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 11:47:06 AM , Rating: 4
I promise to do this only 1 or 2 more times, I think people will get the point.

It's a Beta, it's expected to have problems, as a Beta tester you should report bugs to Bugzilla


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By HaZaRd2K6 on 11/21/2007 12:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
What were you doing to get such a huge memory leak? Remember, it's not a bug if it's not repeatable.

Also, right now I've got two tabs open (Gmail and DT) and I'm sitting at just under 47MB. A quick test to open five tabs (Gmail, DT, Facebook and two Gamespot tabs) made the memory usage jump to a smidge over 92MB, however. So it does take up quite a lot of memory.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By RyanVM on 11/21/2007 6:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
What you're experiencing is probably an issue with the Phishing protection. See this blog post:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2007/1...


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By omnicronx on 11/21/2007 11:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
Heh from firefox alpha release 4-6, on average firefox consumed about 300MB as soon as i opened a second tab.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By Cygni on 11/21/2007 11:36:02 AM , Rating: 3
Look around the internet, or these comments. Firefox has a very well documented memory problem on some systems. In fact, its using 180mb on this computer right now, with just 2 tabs open (Pandora and DailyTech).


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 11:43:45 AM , Rating: 2
500MB have been known to occur on some systems. Though it's very rare.

Memory leaks really isn't the issue though with Firefox 3. Firstly there's memory 'features'. If you have 2GB or over of RAM Firefox will assign up to 10 backwards or forwards pages for each tab you open, so you can click back or forward fast and instantly get the page. (I believe each image is store uncompressed so it can be directly inserted in to the frame buffer once accessed).

Also, as I've mentioned before, Memory fragmentation is a big issue:
http://blog.pavlov.net/2007/11/10/memory-fragmenta...
http://blog.pavlov.net/2007/11/11/windows-low-frag...
http://blog.pavlov.net/2007/11/14/leaks-memory-we-...


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By omnicronx on 11/21/2007 11:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have 2GB or over of RAM Firefox will assign up to 10 backwards or forwards pages for each tab you open, so you can click back or forward fast and instantly get the page.
I was reading about that a long time ago, thats an amazing feature. Its great to know they finally implemented it.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 11:50:23 AM , Rating: 3
It was implemented in Firefox 2, which is where a lot of the misnomer about 'memory leaks' comes from. Just because it's suddenly using a lot more memory doesn't mean it has anything to do with memory leaks. Though I'm sure there will have been some improvements on it in Firefox 3.

The new version of Firefox 3 even includes a C++ implemented garbage collector and the developers have an array of tools to find and detect memory leaks.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By James Holden on 11/21/2007 11:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
I usually have 5-10 windows open, all with about 2 to 10 tabs. My memory usage for FF sits over 1GB regularly.

But then again, my usage is probably not really typical! :)


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By JoshuaBuss on 11/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 2:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's independent from the normal experience of Firefox, want to give some examples on bugzilla and report the problem?

That's how things get fixed in open source :-).


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By sxr7171 on 11/22/2007 2:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
You know what? I have 2GB RAM and I barely ever crack a Peak Commit Charge of greater than 500MB. So why not let this program actually use the RAM I paid for to cache history on all my tabs? Even if it did use 500MB by itself, I'd still have 1GB of unused RAM.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By Eric Adams on 11/26/2007 4:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
I routinely have 50-70 tabs open in FF 2.0.0.9 with about 12 extensions.
Running this in Windows on a laptop with 2GB ram for days, I never break 400MB of used memory.
There must be some video plug-ins or dodgy extensions at work to gobble up 1GB+ of memory.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By middlehead on 11/21/2007 1:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
Mine's at 500MB right now, on a machine with 1.5GB. I see it cross 750MB pretty regularly.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By Oregonian2 on 11/21/2007 6:09:31 PM , Rating: 1
Mine curently has a "virtual size" of 628-MB and a "working size" of about 200-MB.

But then I've also a TON of plug-ins which is also is a source of big memory users and causers of memory leaks.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By Oregonian2 on 11/27/2007 8:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious why someone gave me a negative "hit". Was it my memory readings given by "Process Explorer", or was it my comment about plugins that basically was a retelling of what Mozilla said (in their comment about how they were going to try and help plugin developers with memory size and memory leak problems)?