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)?


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By DeepBlue1975 on 11/21/2007 2:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ridiculous number to me.
Sometimes I can have more than 20 open tabs and the thing doesn't go even near 200mb RAM. More in the likes of 100-120mb, which is quite a heft already.

500mb??? I want to see screen captures of that to believe it.

BTW, this article got me interested enough to try this beta and leave my v2 in the shades for a while. I assume that most extensions are not working at this time (if not completely disabled), or are they?


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By SandmanWN on 11/21/2007 2:33:03 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah sounds a little weird to me as well. I decided to test it out on mine. FF 2.0.0.9

I opened up the entire folder in one of my bookmark sections. 63 web pages which gave me 184MB. Not bad as each page had a ton of photos and took forever to open. I am obviously not seeing the same here as others. So, I opened a second window with 5 more tabs in it along with the other window with 63 tabs and it only went to 207MB. Then one additional streaming radio site which is where I noticed the first memory oddity bouncing around between 212-220MB and is very slowly growing after that.

Seems to me like their might be some other issues involved. Incompatibility in coding on specific websites, bad plugins as they aren't always designed well, along with the known memory issues. Eh..


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By mars777 on 11/22/2007 6:16:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Incompatibility in coding on specific websites


That's W3C incompatibility...
Site owners are guilty for that :(


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By glennpratt on 11/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By wordsworm on 11/22/2007 5:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love Firefox, but it's almost unusable the way I use browsers.
How do you use browsers?

I've got 4GB of memory, and just for the heck of it I opened about 30 tabs over 2 windows to get 150 MB of memory used by Firefox. For all the personal accounts, I no longer doubt that 500MB was the right number posted. Still, it's quite shocking.


RE: '500GB' Was this correct?
By glennpratt on 12/4/2007 7:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
On my desktop, I keep probably 20 tabs going and I don't close the browser (except now I do because I know something will go wrong if I don't).

You can open 30 tabs for fun all you want, it generally wont go haywire. When it goes haywire is after you've been working on something for days, and forget to restart Firefox. It takes time for the memory leak/whatever it is to built up, but it will eventually.


Oy yeah. My Gmail doesn't work with FF either
By PAPutzback on 11/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Oy yeah. My Gmail doesn't work with FF either
By Spuke on 11/21/2007 11:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
And you're not a fanboy? I don't use IE at all. FF only and ALL websites function correctly in my use. Gmail works properly too (my wife uses gmail). Way back when FF was new, there were quite a few websites that didn't function properly or not at all when FF was used but that's just not the case anymore.


RE: Oy yeah. My Gmail doesn't work with FF either
By PAPutzback on 11/21/07, Rating: 0
By acme420 on 11/21/2007 1:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
When i click the link it takes me to the login page for newegg. what exactly were you trying to prove? i didnt get any errors. firefox 2.0.0.9. no plugins or anything added.

7 tabs open. using 122mb ram. but thats ok cuz ive got 2gigs.


By MaulBall789 on 11/21/2007 2:01:53 PM , Rating: 3
You have some other software issue. I have ordered several things over newegg over the past few years (a printer less than a month ago) and never once had a problem logging in, checking out, checking status. Been Using FF exclusively at work and home since 1.5. Have 2.0.0.9 right now.


By SandmanWN on 11/22/2007 1:03:37 AM , Rating: 4
I have 2.0.0.9 and opened the link just fine.

Me thinks the problem exists between the keyboard and the chair.


By FredEx on 12/21/2007 9:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
No problems here with Gmail or the Newegg login. I use both regularly. Just got a package from Newegg a couple days ago, login to check-out was all done via Firefox as usual.

As far as the other issues in these comments, I have 18 plugins and being sick right now I've been up all night surfing, have 6 tabs going and I'm using a tad under 70M of memory. I don't leave it running for days as some have said, why do that? I use a session manager and can save a session if need be.


RE: Oy yeah. My Gmail doesn't work with FF either
By PAPutzback on 11/21/07, Rating: 0
By ChronoReverse on 11/21/2007 1:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to work for me in FF3b1. Gmail works too. By fresh did you mean a new profile and all too?


By elpresidente2075 on 11/21/2007 2:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps IE caused the double post?

Kidding aside, I know of the problem you are referencing. Newegg's website sometimes incorrectly renders the secure login pages, but a simple reload fixes it every time.

To clear some of the air: Firefox just simply doesn't work on some sites. I have had two jobs in the last 6 months that have had websites that were IE only, using features that were only available to IE users. Of course, this is an example of bad programming, but it is a simple fact that Firefox isn't compatible with EVERYTHING (the vast majority though).

Don't get me wrong, Firefox is the only browser I use regularly, but it's got flaws, just like everything else.


RE: Oy yeah. My Gmail doesn't work with FF either
By omnicronx on 11/21/2007 11:52:31 AM , Rating: 3
I think you should take your head out of the sand, A Browser is a Browser .


RE: Oy yeah. My Gmail doesn't work with FF either
By cochy on 11/21/2007 11:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
I've never had any page not work under FF only to work under IE, including Gmail. Granted I've not surfed the entire Web.


RE: Oy yeah. My Gmail doesn't work with FF either
By PAPutzback on 11/21/07, Rating: 0
By SilthDraeth on 11/21/2007 7:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
I clicked your link, using Firefox 2.0.0.9 and it loaded perfectly fine. I always do the egg with the fox, and I never have any problems.

I would hazard a guess that there is something else wrong, and it is manifesting itself in Firefox.


RE: Oy yeah. My Gmail doesn't work with FF either
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 11:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
Back in the old days of Firefox, I would myself doing this 2 or 3 times a weeks. I've never had to switch to IE on a website since Firefox 2.0, and I can't think of any particular instances where Firefox 1.5 broke.

Could you give us an example web page?

Nor have I ever had any hang-ups in as long as I can remember. But I do remember getting them in old versions of IE 5 and 6, without anywhere to report them to, unlike Firefox. And to be honest, a browser should only display the web page as good as the developer writes it. IE broke a lot of the way developers started writing web-pages, I can make really nice web pages in CSS for both Firefox and Opera then I have to go about breaking the code so it works o.k for IE ¬_¬.

If it broke your gmail (which Firefox nightly builds tend to do because of its complicated JavaScript architecture) report it on Bugzilla once you've tried a clean install (i.e export bookmarks, uninstall, delete profile folder, install, import bookmarks).

Profile folder can be found here: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_folder


RE: Oy yeah. My Gmail doesn't work with FF either
By sxr7171 on 11/22/2007 3:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. Back in the day, "open in IE tab" was an essential plug-in, but now it's really not needed anymore.


By FredEx on 12/21/2007 10:09:49 AM , Rating: 2
On a couple sites my wife hits, one is for her school, it demands IE and won't let you go on. For the heck of it I used the agent switcher plugin for Firefox to tell the site I'm using IE just to see what would happen and everything worked fine. I could also set that URL to always open in an IE tab or automatically open an IE session, which the latter is what the URL does now. No big deal for those rare IE only sites anymore.

They don't want to open in any other browser either, just IE. I've run across hacker sites where they are IE fanboys and block other browsers.


Wow!
By Martimus on 11/21/2007 10:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
This update looks REALLY good! If they can plug the memory leaks in the next update, I will definitely d/l this browser.




RE: Wow!
By cleco on 11/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Wow!
By HaZaRd2K6 on 11/21/2007 1:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've never had a single issue using FF in Vista (either Home Premium or Business). I've only used IE about once or twice and stick to FF the rest of the time.


RE: Wow!
By Christopher1 on 11/21/2007 1:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
Firefox and Vista get together fine as far as I can see. Now, I did have some problems with Vista and Firefox 3 Alpha builds when I was installing them on it, but I expected that. Since we got into Beta 1 and now Beta 2 for early testers.... that problem is pretty much solved.


RE: Wow!
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 10:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
Firefox doesn't suffer from memory leaks like it used to at all. These days (version 3) it's very memory efficient.

What is really does suffer from is 'memory fragmentation' have a read it's quite interesting:

http://blog.pavlov.net/2007/11/10/memory-fragmenta...

A couple of updates have already come to beta 1 to fix long term memory fragmentation problem and they're working heavily to reduce it as a whole before Firefox 3 final release launches.


RE: Wow!
By omnicronx on 11/21/2007 11:20:40 AM , Rating: 2
Something gives me a feeling he is not talking about the current 2.* release of Firefox. I've been trying out the alpha releases of Firefox 3 for quite a while and they were just plagued with memory leak issues. It got so bad there was no point using it. Firefox is still my browser of choice though.. and I am excited for a final release of version 3.


RE: Wow!
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 11:25:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well, to be honest, this can be expected of Alpha versions. The Firefox team certainly content with having only 5 or 6 alphas and it got extended all the way to 8, just to make sure that the Betas would really be Betas and not just a wider release of an Alpha.

On top of that there was an extended period for Quality Assurance of the Beta, just to make sure everything was o.k. I've been using the nightly builds since about Alpha 3, been generally fairly impressed with them to be honest. But I have reported a few bugs on bugzilla.


RE: Wow!
By omnicronx on 11/21/2007 11:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I totally agree, an alpha release is still in the testing phase and is expected to have problems. Just wanted to point out they were not talking about current stable versions of firefox :)


RE: Wow!
By Martimus on 11/21/2007 2:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was talking about the memory leaks mentioned in the article. I run the most current released version of FireFox, but this new version looks pretty good. I just will wait until the memory problems are fixed before I d/l the beta.


RE: Wow!
By TomZ on 11/21/2007 12:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is really does suffer from is 'memory fragmentation' have a read it's quite interesting

I find it odd that FireFox is one of the only modern applications on a modern OS that has problems with memory fragmentation. I've been involved in software development for a long time, and I typically only see memory fragmentation as an issue in small embedded systems. Almost never an issue for Windows apps.


RE: Wow!
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 2:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, maybe they're going to have to significantly look at the way Gecko works for 2.0, unless they really get a handle on the problem in the next couple of months.

Here's an article on incorporating windows low fragmentation heap:

http://blog.pavlov.net/2007/11/11/windows-low-frag...

It doesn't fix short fragmentation by any stretch of the imagination, but it does appear to stop Firefox's memory ballooning out of proportion.


Except I still can't login to Newegg
By PAPutzback on 11/21/2007 11:13:29 AM , Rating: 1
This is the error I get at newegg:
XML Parsing Error: no element found
Location: https://secure.newegg.com/MyAccount/AccountLogin.a...
Line Number 1, Column 1:

This is not beta related. I could not do this with the latest release either.

So for me it is stll IE FTW. If I can't shop at newegg it is a no deal.

What exactly does firefox have that IE doesn't that most browsers need?

IE has Tabs and works fine with my roboform. What will I gain with firefox?




By Spuke on 11/21/2007 11:53:31 AM , Rating: 3
IE is just a plain jane clunky browser (even IE7). There's more to FF than just tabs. For me, it's all about the extensions. I use 22 extensions and I would not ever go without them. They range from automatically backing up FF (with the entire FF profile including extensions) to uploading pics to my Flickr account. I've got a weather toolbar that swtiches between cities, a PDF download bar, IM's, and a screen capture tool and some other stuff too. IE in any form doesn't offer that kind of customization AND not to mention if FF crashes it doesn't take the OS with it (IE does because it's part of the OS).


RE: Except I still can't login to Newegg
By probedb on 11/21/2007 11:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
You're obviously not an HTML coder.


RE: Except I still can't login to Newegg
By TomZ on 11/21/2007 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 1
What does that have to do with anything?!? 99.9% of Internet users know nothing about HTML, and why should they? The browser and web site should "just work."


By PAPutzback on 11/21/2007 1:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
He chose to pass on this statement "What exactly does firefox have that IE doesn't that most browsers need?"

I bet my mom or wife would have a lcue of what HTML has to do with the browser working.


By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 3:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
Because browsers need to be useful for 2 people:

Users
Developers

It's no good if a browser just works but only offers a HTML 1 and no JavaScript, things have to develop over time.

So getting things like compliant CSS and W3C standard rendering is quite important for developers. It makes their lives easier and in the long run makes it a better experience for users.

You have a shot term naive view on things.


500MB?
By fleshconsumed on 11/21/2007 10:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
How did the reviewer ever get firefox to eat 500MB of memory? I can keep 15 tabs open and it never goes above 200MB.




RE: 500MB?
By sam159 on 11/21/2007 10:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
i just tried the beta, used 400MB in a few minutes...


RE: 500MB?
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 11:45:37 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously? Doing what?

You should report that to Bugzilla


RE: 500MB?
By JoshuaBuss on 11/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: 500MB?
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 3:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
I've never had a problem with websites that use iframes, report it to bugzilla, or if the problem is already there vote for the bug to be fixed.


RE: 500MB?
By RyanVM on 11/21/2007 6:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
What you're experiencing is probably the reported issue with Phishing protection. Check out this blog post:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2007/1...


Just a little journalistic tip
By MPE on 11/21/2007 10:00:39 AM , Rating: 1
You guys technically did not report about the non bug squashing, the New York Times did, You reported that they reported.

I understand there is probably no malicious intent.

On that note... I am liking FF 3.0 beta. I have not compared the memory management compared to FF 2 - which is horrendous.




RE: Just a little journalistic tip
By Trisagion on 11/21/2007 10:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, a pause button for the download manager. Does anybody actually use the built-in download manager? I use DownThemAll which is the best accelerated downloader for Firefox IMO. The sheer number and variety of addons available for Firefox make it superior to other browsers.

P.S: I miss the Firefox girl, where is she? :(


RE: Just a little journalistic tip
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 10:49:50 AM , Rating: 1
Well given that the 'non bug squashing' was horrible taken out of context, it seems fair enough to report that it was reported.

The report of it and the consequences were more news than the orriginal story, look at the comments of the daily tech article on it. You'll see why it's all a bunch of rubbish.


Memory comparison
By PAPutzback on 11/21/2007 11:31:49 AM , Rating: 2
Both have the two tabs with the same webpage.

IE = 74,636
FF = 71,396

Both are just as quick. I was expeciting IE to be alot higher seeing as it is displaying my RoboForm2Go toolbar.

I can live with 3 meg of overhead on a 4 gig system. Even if I had 1 gig I wouldn't care.




RE: Memory comparison
By nomagic on 11/22/2007 9:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
OK, we all know that you like IE more. Good for you. Many have tried FF and found that FF is not for them.

But you are not proving anything.

"User experience varies"


By kinnoch on 11/21/2007 12:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Why do these companies care about browser market share? As far as I can tell theres no money to be made. Am I overlooking something?




What's wrong with SeaMonkey?
By Noya on 11/21/2007 1:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
I went from IE -> FF -> SeaMonkey and haven't looked back.

Right now I have 3 windows open with 8 tabs each, and I'm only using 148mb of RAM. Many of the FF plugins also work for it just fine. It also loads pages MUCH faster than IE or FF on my machine. I'm not sure how "secure" it is, but I've never caught a virus/spyware using it.




By asadotzler on 11/21/2007 6:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think we've got to the root of the problem that you and some other Firefox 3 Beta 1 testers are seeing.

Starting yesterday, we began receiving reports, like yours, of a new memory/cpu usage issue that happens shortly after a normal startup and can spike the CPU and chew up hundreds of MB of RAM. This is apparently happening to people with new profiles or in profiles that have a very outdated list of bad sites for the Phishing Protection feature and the Malware Protection feature.

What's going on is that soon after Firefox is started, Firefox tries to fetch updates to the site forgery and malware lists -- the lists of bad sites that allows Firefox to warn users about suspected Phishing and Attack sites. If the profile has very outdated or no local lists, as is the case for a new Firefox profile, Firefox is trying to bring down these rather large lists in one big chunk rather than slowly in small chunks. This causes Firefox to consume large amounts of CPU and memory and can slow the users machine to a crawl.

This problem is due to the change in the "SafeBrowsing Protocol" which only affects Firefox 3 Beta 1 and nightly build users. If you're on Firefox 2, this isn't going to affect you.

The work-around for this problem was for us to throttle it on the server side. We've done that and if you try Firefox 3 Beta 1 again, it should be fine.

- A




Soup pants
By nortexoid on 11/23/2007 12:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Buggy with Yahoo Mail!




Version Number Bloat
By Zoomer on 11/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Version Number Bloat
By glenn8 on 11/21/2007 10:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
Just because there aren't major changes visually, doesn't mean there wasn't significant changes to the underlying code.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By akugami on 11/21/2007 10:22:11 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree with your comment.

1.5 to 2.0 was version bloat. Honestly it felt like a 1.6 or at best a 1.9 release. From 2.x to 3.0 seems a much larger jump and truly worthy of a version number jump. Seriously, a new rendering engine, and a new bookmarking system is worthy of a version jump if nothing else is. That's on top of numerous other fixes and updates I'm sure that I'm not fully aware of yet. I won't be using it till beta 2 at the earliest and likely will wait for the release candidate.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By Zoomer on 11/22/2007 8:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
You should check out how version numbers are managed for the linux kernel.

If they were going to jump to 3 anyway, why use something like 2.0.0.10? That's just way too many. Why not just 2.x or 2.0.x?

I think they are trying to compete with version 7 (or 9) browsers out there.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 10:39:59 AM , Rating: 3
There was a version bloat, it wasn't Firefox 3.

The orriginal versions of Firefox were called:
1.0, 1.1, 1.5 and 2.0

But this got bumped to:
1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0

The old number system made more sense in terms of what was happening, but 1.1 sounded too close to 1.0.7, so they bumped the numbers.

3 certainly deserves a whole new number, there's a HUGE amount of changes in 1.9, full page zoom, acid 2 test support, new password manager, bookmark manager, history manager etc.., over 11'000 bugs knocked off on bugzilla.

Also there should be some visual changes between beta 1 and final release, I believe the password manager is getting a visual update among other things.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By ChronoReverse on 11/21/2007 11:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
I heard that they are going to have specific skins for XP, Vista and OSX (and probably KDE and Gnome for that matter) to match the look and feel of the OS. I hope this will turn out to be true even though as far as priorities goes, the looks isn't that high.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By Christopher1 on 11/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Version Number Bloat
By Parhel on 11/21/2007 1:45:30 PM , Rating: 1
What's the matter? Is this interfering with your ability to prey on children?

Anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about should read the following:

http://www.wikisposure.com/Christopher_Kidwell

http://www.corporatesexoffenders.com/


RE: Version Number Bloat
By Martimus on 11/21/2007 1:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
I just read part of the first link, and it was so disgusting that I could not finish reading it. I actually feel nausious right now, and a little light headed.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By Parhel on 11/21/2007 4:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry to do that to you. I just would like to make sure that every time this person posts, people who may choose to respond to him realize that they are speaking with a child molester.

Maybe on my future responses, I will make a note that the links are graphic and not exactly safe for work.

If anyone considers this spam, I apologize in advance.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By TomZ on 11/21/2007 5:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't think it's necessary to badger Christopher1, and technically doing so is against the terms of use of this web site. While I also find his views reprehensible and disgusting, we do have free speech in this country. The best we can do is respond to posts we disagree with and/or rate his posts down. Beyond that, there's effectively nothing that can be done or should be done in my view.

Furthermore, I'll bet Kris is keeping a pretty close eye on this particular situation, and I'm confident he would take action if he deems it necessary.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By Parhel on 11/21/2007 5:43:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
we do have free speech in this country


I don't need to tell you that the 1st amendment doesn't restrict what a moderator can do on a commercial website such as DailyTech. They could ban him if they so desired. And, since his e-mail address is displayed, they site's owners must understand that there is the possibility that he can use his posts to attempt to lure children to contact him.

quote:
I'll bet Kris is keeping a pretty close eye on this particular situation


Considering the poster has admitted to felonies right here on this site, I would expect that the "action" he would take is to turn over all of his information to the authorities.

Regardless, I'll defer to you on this. I won't post those links unless his post is obviously an attempt to proselytize child molestation. In those cases, I will consider such a response to be on topic.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By TomZ on 11/21/2007 9:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I won't post those links unless his post is obviously an attempt to proselytize child molestation. In those cases, I will consider such a response to be on topic.

I agree, I think that's a good idea. You'll notice that I always answer him when he gets into his sick-talk. The only thing I wonder about is if he just likes the attention and that's why he shoots off his mouth in the first place. Hard to tell.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By TomZ on 11/21/2007 2:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sick.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By sxr7171 on 11/22/2007 3:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
I really just want to vomit right now. I can't believe this.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 3:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not so much 'specific skins' as just trying to look native. The browser is designed to look like it's an application in whatever Operating System your using, rather than looking like an XP application in both Vista and various versions of Linux.

So the whole GUI and icons aren't drastically going to change.


RE: Version Number Bloat
By TomZ on 11/21/2007 3:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
That generally requires a "skin" type technology because an app's GUI typically has user interface elements that are not provided by the host operating system. Therefore, the skin is used to render those elements in a way that is visually compatible with the host OS. (The host OS can't render the custom elements of the app because it doesn't know anything about them.)


RE: Version Number Bloat
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 4:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah you're right, I thought some of it would be handled by having a clever code which depends on the OS' api for handling GUI based applications. But it looks like it's more just an actual skin (reading in to it a bit more).


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki