Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:54 UTC, submitted by lefty78312
Mozilla & Gecko clones The Mozilla Corporation today released Firefox 3 Beta 1, which is now available for download in a variety of languages. The beta includes updates to the default theme, the new places site management features, improved security architecture, and Gecko 1.9. Release notes with a more complete list of features, are also available.
Order by: Score:
STIX and Mathml
by Lakedaemon on Tue 20th Nov 2007 17:21 UTC
Lakedaemon
Member since:
2005-08-07

Now that the StiX font has been (beta) released...
Will MathML rendering be fixed in firefox 3 ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: STIX and Mathml
by bousozoku on Tue 20th Nov 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "STIX and Mathml"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

MathML is specifically mentioned in the release notes.

Reply Score: 2

Performance
by rhyder on Tue 20th Nov 2007 17:26 UTC
rhyder
Member since:
2005-09-28

What's performance like under Kubuntu? That said, I don't think that I'll swap back from Konqueror unless FF3 offers a huge improvement in performance and features.

Reply Score: 3

Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Tue 20th Nov 2007 17:51 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I don't really like FireFox (I prefer to use Epiphany) but one thing I am curious about is does FF3 support native widgets instead of those ugly grey boxes... Didn't see any mention of that in the release notes.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Native widgets?
by CPUGuy on Tue 20th Nov 2007 18:00 UTC in reply to "Native widgets?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

You can install different widgets, which is what I do on Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Native widgets?
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Nov 2007 07:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Native widgets?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually Firefox 1.x and 2.x does not support widgets on Linux for rendering of web-content. Firefox always use the ugly win95-like buttons - no matter which theme you use.

What can be changed is the look of non-website widgets, e.g. Firefox preferences dialogue, download window, the look of tabs and stuff like that. But comboboxes, buttons, text fields and stuff like that are not themed for page content.

Firefox 3 however has support for native look for widgets in content as well. Place a submit-button on your webpage and it will have the look buttons in your gtk-theme. And that at least is a bit cool. Next problem is the memory leaks and out-of-process loading of plug-ins (read flash and java).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Native widgets?
by CPUGuy on Wed 21st Nov 2007 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Native widgets?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

I beg to differ, as I said, when on Linux I install new widgets.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=369596

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Native widgets?
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Nov 2007 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Native widgets?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It's an ubuntu-specific solution and has nothing to do with Firefox or widgets as such.

That solution still doesn't follow the native look, but merely allows for some ugly hacking of the look. Of course it might be better than nothing else, but the solution still doesn't make the widgets follow the native look. And the solution is not a Firefox-solution but merely an ubuntu-solution, since Firefox has no such thing as a widget installer.

The moment such widget-'themes' can be installed in the Firefox 'Extensions'-dialogue we might talk about 'Firefox Widgets'. Until then I'm looking forward to Firefox automagically theming the widgets according to the GTK+-theme in use.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Native widgets?
by CPUGuy on Wed 21st Nov 2007 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Native widgets?"
RE[3]: Native widgets?
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Native widgets?"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

As a matter of fact, I'm not all that keen on native widgets in web pages. As far as style is concerned, there's no telling whether they will match the look and feel of the page. And I do hope they're still going to allow the web page to override via CSS, in which case native widgets are mostly for nothing. I'm not at all sure this was a feature worth putting effort into. It's pure eye-candy. I'm sure there are others more useful. I'd gladly give up native widgets for less consumed RAM or snappier startup when I have many extensions loaded.

Edited 2007-11-21 18:39

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Native widgets?
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Nov 2007 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Native widgets?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Of course it should still be overridden by CSS. That's for sure. But there are many websites that don't theme widgets at all. Those ought to follow the native theme.

But widgets theme by websites should stay untouched. It looks really ugly otherwise (konqueror is a sinner here - it uses the colors from css on widgets from the KDE-theme in use - doesn't fit when playing online RPG ;) )

Reply Score: 1

RE: Native widgets?
by trikloretylen on Tue 20th Nov 2007 18:19 UTC in reply to "Native widgets?"
trikloretylen Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, it uses native widgets.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Native widgets?
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Nov 2007 19:20 UTC in reply to "Native widgets?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

On Mac OS X they're finally using native widgets; hopefully once Firefox is released they'll get the memory management bit under control because right now its abysmal in terms of the amount of memory used.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Native widgets?
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Nov 2007 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Native widgets?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Nice to see censorship is live and well, under 5 minutes a point is taken off my score; interesting to see the maturity of some around here is taken to all new pathetic lows. When in doubt, and too lazy to debate, remove a few points to silence the critic(s).

Edited 2007-11-20 19:43

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Tue 20th Nov 2007 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Native widgets?"
RE[4]: Native widgets?
by mojojojo on Tue 20th Nov 2007 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Native widgets?"
mojojojo Member since:
2007-11-20

If the memory thing is out of date, reply to that effect. An outdated comment is not off-topic, it's out-of-date. You should reply indicating current information. If you can make a point, do so.

Then again, maybe the comment isn't out-of-date. Sounds like meianoite and others have seen reports of continued issues with memory usage. In fact, you imply that work in this area is ongoing, so you can't even maintain the assertion that the issue is out of date for 20 words.

200+ fixed memory leaks is a great thing, and the people who identifed, fixed, and verified these leak fixes should all be proud of their work. However, in the final analysis, a lot of people won't care if leaks have been fixed if the product still uses too much memory.

Think of it this way, would you care if 200+ safety problems had been fixed in the new model year car you bought if the tires still came off at speeds over 62mph/100kph? Is it a good thing that the 200+ safety problems had been fixed? Is the car maybe safe for folks that never have to go very fast? Yes and yes. Is it time to declare comments regarding the car's safety problems out-of-date? Maybe you would think so, but many others would disagree.

How about you try not being a jerk? If it helps, here's a post you might have made instead of silently modding kaiwai down:


RE[2]: Native widgets?
If you look, you'll see that there have been 200+ memory leaks fixed, so there should be some reduction in memory usage already. There are some bigger issues, mainly in memory fragmentation, which [we are | the team is] currently working on. It's hard to say now when this work will bear fruit, but you and other users concerned about Firefox's memory usage should know this is on [our | the team's] radar and that it is being worked on.


See, this way, instead of looking like a total anus, you get your point across. As an added bonus, you make [your | the Firefox] team look like what they are, which is a conscientious group of developers, testers, and others working hard to produce the best damn browser on the planet.

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Native widgets?
by raver31 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Native widgets?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

very nicely worded, if only everyone around here would follow that line of thought.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Native widgets?
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Nov 2007 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Native widgets?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

wtf? kaiwai is right about Firefox having memory problems. It still has those issues. It has many memory problems solved, but there are still many left to solve.

Personally I prefer webkit-gtk (the 'official' webkit.org port) a lot more and luckily it's been picking up speed recently.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Native widgets?
by meianoite on Tue 20th Nov 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Native widgets?"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

Kaiwai:

Nice to see censorship is live and well, under 5 minutes a point is taken off my score; interesting to see the maturity of some around here is taken to all new pathetic lows. When in doubt, and too lazy to debate, remove a few points to silence the critic(s).


Hear, hear.

Cyclops:
I modded you down for being off-topic. The memory thing is already out of date. If you look it has 200+ memory leaks fixed and have now moved to dealing with memory fragmentation. I know this...and can make a point on this, you clearly can't.


It was definitely not off-topic, given the subject of Firefox 3 nearing golden and still hogging memory as always. Bullet points on a release notes document won't change the fact that FF3b as it stands is hardly an improvement over FF2 in memory management:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/20/firefox-3-beta-1-the-memory-us...

Given that, my opinion is that despite believing otherwise, you had zero reason to mod Kaiwai down, period. And pretending FF3 is the vessel of the divine blood won't change the fact that modding him down for his criticism is akin to sweeping bugs under the mat: people will trip over them. Specially people with constrained hardware resources. Specially 3rd world governments trying to jump into the eeePC/OLPC/Classmate/whatevercomesnext bandwagon of cheap internet-oriented computers.

Reply Score: 7

v RE[5]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Tue 20th Nov 2007 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Native widgets?"
RE[6]: Native widgets?
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Nov 2007 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

1) I have run Firefox 3.0b1 and subsequent builds - yes, bugs have been fixed, but memory usage is still far too high. Instead of fixing them, what I see in bugzilla is the constant blaming of Apple for all problems in the world.

2) Sure, I use Safari, but I'm open minded enough to give Opera and Firefox a go. Opera has come along well, still got problems with Blogger/Gmail, and Firefox has improved.

3) What are we supposed to do? sit around gushing praise upon something - yes, we know, things have improved, but lets be adult and instead of dwelling on the success, focus on the failures and get them sorted.

Edit: Nice to see you take another point off one of my posts; dear god I wish the moderators did their job here and kicked people off who abuse the system.

Edit 2: And again - truly, this pathetic; its gone from being a way to filter out spam to simply acts of vendetta against those whose opinions individuals don't agree with.

Edited 2007-11-20 23:31

Reply Score: 3

v RE[7]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
RE[7]: Native widgets?
by djst on Wed 21st Nov 2007 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

1) I have run Firefox 3.0b1 and subsequent builds - yes, bugs have been fixed, but memory usage is still far too high. Instead of fixing them, what I see in bugzilla is the constant blaming of Apple for all problems in the world.

Do you have any examples of where people blame Apple for all problems in the world?

Reply Score: 6

RE[8]: Native widgets?
by kaiwai on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 05:16 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Native widgets?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385966

Read through there with the whining and whinging by developers over 'bugs'.

Interesting, they're never able to explain how millions of developers around the world don't suffer from the same issues as they do. I'm sure there are bugs in the framework provided by Apple but to blame them (look through bugzilla for more) for every bit of problems speak of incompetent programming than anything to do with Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by mojojojo on Tue 20th Nov 2007 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
mojojojo Member since:
2007-11-20

Grow up. If Kaiwai is a retard, then you are the sphincter out of which filth issues. Whatever point you are attempting to make is not supported by statements that so-and-so is a retard. Saying that the memory usage is not a problem for you would be reasonable. Perhaps arguing that the importance of memory footprint has been overblown might work, too.

Modding people down because you disagree with them, saying things like "[ I ] can make a point on this, you clearly can't.", and calling them "retards" makes it appear that you have a few years to go before you're ready to mix with the grown-ups and have a reasonable conversation.

I must say I don't know a lot about Firefox's memory usage (aside from the casual notice that it *does* seem to use more memory than seems reasonable, prior to the 200+ fixes in FF3). However, on the basis of your exchange with Kaiwai, I'm inclined to think that some reasonable people think memory usage in FF3 is still a problem and at least one immature jerk wants the "retards" who think memory is a problem to just shut up. Is that the effect you're going for?

Reply Score: 3

v RE[7]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
RE[6]: Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Memory issues are clearly not out-of-date..I just tried FF3, read OSNews and left it sitting here for a few minutes. Then when I turned back to the computer I noticed it was crunching away on the harddisk like mad and almost nothing worked :O Yeah, it was FF3 eating away all available memory and chewing it's way to the swap, already happily about 300 megs..I guess I just hit some nasty bug, but it clearly is a memory issue ;)

EDIT: Just tried it three times. It clearly is reproducible. All I have to do is open FireFox and leave it there for a few minutes and it brings the whole system down to it's knees. Darn. I really like the fact that it now has native widgets and would have used it...

Edited 2007-11-21 00:18

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Now I got modded down? For what reason? :O

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Native widgets?
by kaiwai on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:59 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Native widgets?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

No need to worry, I've modded your comment(s) up.

Side note; anyone who knows me, knows I am cynical; whilst we have people here to jump around, I've always been one of being a realist when it comes to a product.

Yes, a product has good points (all do) but the concern should be on the parts which aren't good, that need to be addressed. To simply ignore the deficiencies you end up with a giant reality distortion field equal to that of the Steve Jobs and his on stage evangelical like marketing hype feasts.

Case in point, the department I managed at my last job was the fastest growing in New Zealand for that year - my reaction was, "there are some issues we still need to work on" and headed off back to work. Whilst some might like to bath in the after glow of success, I'd sooner get back to improving things.

Edited 2007-11-21 01:02

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Native widgets?
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Nov 2007 07:59 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Native widgets?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Fixed.

(unlike bugs in Firefox)

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Native widgets?
by djst on Wed 21st Nov 2007 11:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

Memory issues are clearly not out-of-date..I just tried FF3, read OSNews and left it sitting here for a few minutes. Then when I turned back to the computer I noticed it was crunching away on the harddisk like mad and almost nothing worked :O Yeah, it was FF3 eating away all available memory and chewing it's way to the swap, already happily about 300 megs..I guess I just hit some nasty bug, but it clearly is a memory issue ;)

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have Firebug installed? That is one extension known to cause serious memory leaks in Firefox (unfortunately, probably not the only one). I saw a graph once that showed Firefox' memory usage over time with and without Firebug running. The difference was pretty dramatic.

Reply Score: 3

RE[8]: Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Wed 21st Nov 2007 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Native widgets?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have Firebug installed? That is one extension known to cause serious memory leaks in Firefox (unfortunately, probably not the only one). I saw a graph once that showed Firefox' memory usage over time with and without Firebug running. The difference was pretty dramatic.

I have no idea what Firebug is, and as I said I just tried FF3, I haven't been using FireFox (any version) or installed any extensions. I had never even fired FireFox up on this machine before I tried FF3. It's sad, I think I would have started using it instead of Epiphany, just because FF3 looks better now.. :/ I have no idea what could cause that strange memory-eating behaviour, but I hope it gets fixed soon!

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by meianoite on Wed 21st Nov 2007 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

You are a retard. The irony of Kaiwai comment that you are you happy to quote is that its simply not the case. You will notice it is *I* who mods him down after being the first to make a criticism of the *new* Firefox. Note I use the term new. He cried because someone modded him down.


On the other hand, you seem to swing from retard to cynical, and back. You completely misunderstand/misuse the modding system, and you openly admit so.

As I said, no amount of bullet talking points on a release notes document change the fact that FF is still a huge resource hog.

(btw, current user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.7; current memory usage: Working Set: 402,312K; Private Working Set: 374,288K; Commit Size: 1,032,508K; and that's with nine tabs open: 1 gmail, 5 OSNews, 2 Best Buy, 1 NIN Hotline)

That is why the original comment is off-topic


No matter how you cut it, it can't be off-topic if you're talking about the subject on topic. Your M.O. of evangelising Firefox is doing a massive disservice to the alternative, standards-compliant browsers community.

The reality is though is I strongly *believe* that an application should make *best* use of resources available to it,


When an application starts to swap like mad, it has crossed the "resources available to it" by a long margin.

clearly it is *not* doing so with Firefox 2, but you can see that they are striving to do just that with 3. Anything else is stupid.


This is not fact, this is just your opinion. Which, AFAICT, bears no authority whatsoever.

(OTOH, I hold a degree in Computer Science, so I sometimes actually know WTF I'm talking about.)

I will address you final point which I am more than happy for you to disagree with, is that I would rather participially due to Firefox's large release cycles is building Firefox to be *scalable* as you describe, although I have seen references to work being done for a mobile(sic) Firefox. Personally I would rather the emphasis was on heavier requirements rather than less simply because


I've once complained that some of your sentences are really hard to make sense of, but... Here's my best shot: I'm not demanding that FF scales from wristwatches to Crays, but I do demand that my web browser uses less than 200MB of RAM at any given time, PERIOD.

a) the desktop is where its always happened


People wiser than me describe this sort of attitude as "famous last words before obsolescence".

b)the move will always be towards bigger and faster. Look at Linux built for the server, or how gOS is going down with enlightenment both originally memory hogs, both come on a $200 computer...that runs Firefox of all things


Yeah, as if there's really any real alternatives when you run Linux. (No, Konqueror isn't a valid alternative, not when not even Gmail loads itself with the AJAX interface unless you tamper with the user-agent string; but that I blame on Google more than on the K guys.)

And where did you get that wild idea that Enlightenment used to be a memory hog?!

c) Microsoft is in the process of *buying* the internet, and rebuilding it on OOXML, and other patented/proprietary standards of all things...but they are moving in the *right* direction, the fact that Firefox is built on standards and *finally* passes the acid test is just a pleasant bonus.


You're mixing a lot of stuff up here. I'd recommend you to wash your face with cold water, but it would seem like I'm attacking you personally. OTOH, you called me retarded, so I wonder why I'm holding my punches... Elegance and common courtesy, maybe.

d) Any benefit gained from having an browser work on a machine of limited specs for the vast majority and we are talking 200million users so far is *lost* because the bottlenecks with the internet are elsewhere...and don't make me quote the rest of the release notes on performance. If anything that should be left to the eLinks/Dillo's of this world.


You really have no idea what you're talking about. There are NGOs whose sole mission is to provide public schools in 3rd world countries with broadband internet access. In Brazil those NGOs promote what's called "digital inclusion". I know that much, I used to work at a place that fostered digital inclusion and served as a hub to interconnect 200+ public schools spread over 5 states.

...but basically your making a point thats not here. I suspect the reasons for you making such a point is to promote an alternative browser.


Just because I cited Opera as a browser that doesn't burn my patience out? Dude, were that the case, I'd simply stick with IE. I don't use Opera, as I profoundly dislike its interface, but despite my reservations towards it, I can recognise it's a decent product, specially the mobile version; it's the only thing out there that manages to somewhat compete with MobileSafari. I've made a comment on this very topic not too long ago.

Please, take your head out of the sand (I'm being very courteous here) and get a grip: there's a reason why most "regular" people reject Firefox despite plenty of evangelism, sponsorship and bundling with Google's software. There's a reason why Google went with Webkit and not with Firefox on Android.

The FF team needs a *good dose* of criticism towake up and get their act together. I've been using Firefox since back when it was a Gecko demo that fitted a floppy, and it really hurts to see where we stand today.

Firefox is giving me a lot of déjà vu regarding the GCC 2.8 situation, except that I see no EGCS coming to the rescue.


Edit: stray (q) tag

Edited 2007-11-21 02:18

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Native widgets?
by djst on Wed 21st Nov 2007 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

I've once complained that some of your sentences are really hard to make sense of, but... Here's my best shot: I'm not demanding that FF scales from wristwatches to Crays, but I do demand that my web browser uses less than 200MB of RAM at any given time, PERIOD.

Regardless of web page complexity? I just fired up Safari on Mac OS X 10.4 and opened six tabs (cnn.com, bbc.co.uk, aftonbladet.se, expressen.se, facebook.com, gmail.com). I clicked around a few links in each tab and *boom*, there it went passed 200 MB. Is that a bad thing? It might be, depending on how Safari handles caching and the DOM, but I'd guess it's pretty normal considering it has six heavy websites loaded at the same time.

Not that I care much about web browser memory usage comparisons, but I did the exact same test with Firefox 3 Beta 1, and I never exceeded 200 MB. Right now, Firefox 3 has 11 tabs opened (same sites as in Safari, plus Zimbra, my blog, another blog, and two OSnews.com tabs) and uses 121 MB. And now Safari just dropped its memory usage to 166 MB without me doing anything.

My point here? It's hard to establish in formal tests that Firefox has worse memory problems than any other modern browser. Today's websites are complex beasts, memory management is tricky, and both Safari and Firefox uses a lot of memory. In any isolated test case, your mileage will always vary.

Please, take your head out of the sand (I'm being very courteous here) and get a grip: there's a reason why most "regular" people reject Firefox despite plenty of evangelism, sponsorship and bundling with Google's software. There's a reason why Google went with Webkit and not with Firefox on Android.

Pardon me, but this is just nonsense. What on earth do you mean by "most regular people" rejecting Firefox? Maybe you mean they keep using IE?

Reply Score: 4

v RE[7]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Wed 21st Nov 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
RE[8]: Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Native widgets?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I point out where the comment was off-topic and move on

You're not supposed to pick parts of other's posts and mod them down just because that single part is off-topic. Talking about FireFox, current release or older ones, is very much on-topic. The following quote is very much off-topic but should I nitpick about that and mod you down because of that?

Having looked at your note, I cannot help but giggle that you are using Vista...perhaps you should start with using an OS with space for applications.

Besides, no matter what OS one uses doesn't make a difference as to how much FireFox uses memory. If you use Linux then fine, have fun, but that doesn't give you any right to belittle others' opinions nor does it mean you're always right. Oh, and picking on someone just for using Vista is quite childish IMHO. It's a personal choice after all, and there might be f.ex. some apps which he needs and which don't work under Linux..And Linux still sucks for gaming :/

Reply Score: 2

RE[8]: Native widgets?
by MamiyaOtaru on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Native widgets?"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Yes your comments are only about promoting alternative browsers, and your comments says it all.

So? There are some things that other browsers do better than Firefox. Firefox does some things better than others. To make a balanced choice people need to know about both.

I'm not sure why you think your promotion of an alternative browser (Firefox) is somehow better than his, if that's even his motive in the first place (you seem to be reading a lot into his motivations).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by Endica on Wed 21st Nov 2007 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
Endica Member since:
2006-07-07

I left only your emphasized words and this is what I got:

*I* *new* *has* *anything* *My* *felt* *anything* *me* *use* *wastes* *keeping* *believe* *best* *not* *scalable* *buying* *finally* *lost*

I can't make anything out of it, so I'm modding you down.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Native widgets?
by Soulbender on Wed 21st Nov 2007 06:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Native widgets?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Nice to see censorship is live and well


You hadn't noticed until now?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Native widgets?
by Lettherebemorelight on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Native widgets?"
Lettherebemorelight Member since:
2005-07-11

According to zdnet memory management is indeed improving (notice that FF3b1 actually beat IE7 by using less memory in the 12 page test).

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=960

Does this now mean you are going to start whining and carrying on about IE7 in the same manner?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Native widgets?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Well...IE is Windows-only, ie. it's not multi-platform as the open-source alternatives, it's closed-source and no matter how much you whine and whinge, or even offer to help for free, nothing will change unless Microsoft so sees fit. So, it would be kinda useless ;)

Reply Score: 1

kad77
Member since:
2007-03-20

If you haven't seen this blog entry, its worth reading. A great description (illustrated!) of why Firefox ends up hogging so much memory-- fairly bad heap fragmentation, and what they are now doing about it.

Great blog comments too, really nice to see dtrace and other analysis tools to benchmark and debug Mozilla. Plenty of useful solutions offered, and the blogger is currently testing OpenBSD's malloc with positive results.

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

Reply Score: 5

html video element
by jemmjemm on Tue 20th Nov 2007 18:24 UTC
jemmjemm
Member since:
2007-08-06

I hoped that bug 382267 would be implemented, but looks that is has been left for abstract future (target milestone & priority missing, etc).
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382267
The issue is about rendering Ogg Theora+Vorbis video directly in browser and that is something that would definitely set new standards. As far it is known also Opera is looking for quick implementation of the same feature.
Those who are interested can see a couple of months old demo here (a web-page implemented in SVG+Theora):
http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/video_svg_demo.ogg

Reply Score: 2

No x86_64
by johkra on Tue 20th Nov 2007 18:55 UTC
johkra
Member since:
2007-09-12

Mh, unfortunately there's no x86_64 build yet (at least I couldn't find one on the FTP).

I was interested in the new rendering engine and the faster start speed - and I doubt the beta is much worse than the Opera 9.5b2 I'm currently running...

Reply Score: 1

RE: No x86_64
by siimo on Tue 20th Nov 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "No x86_64"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

If you are 1337 enough to use x86_64 you can compile it from source ;o).

Or do you win Windows x64? Cause it's a nightmare to compile on windows I've tried it before.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: No x86_64
by johkra on Tue 20th Nov 2007 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE: No x86_64"
johkra Member since:
2007-09-12

Sure I could, but I don't think there's anything "elite" about using x86_64 nowadays.

It's most probably the second widespread architecture out there and most open source do already ship prebuilt binaries, so I consider it a bit strange for one of the best-known projects not to offer builds at all.

And no, I'm using Arch64 here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: No x86_64
by kajaman on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No x86_64"
kajaman Member since:
2006-01-06

Yes, it does not look like someone made even pkgbuild for it! I'm building from source right now, it's nothing complicated anyway ;)

Reply Score: 1

dislike changed interface
by cyclops on Tue 20th Nov 2007 19:31 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Its definitely a better browser, and more importantly more responsive.

The two things I haven't liked, although it wouldn't surprise me is the move from scaling the tabs to resizing them, although this is well implemented. The other thing I dislike is that when I open tabs from my bookmarks...it adds them to what is already open in my browser window. Although I'm not sure if I will grow to like the behavior.

I'm busting for this to be released its been too long since a real release.

Reply Score: 0

RE: dislike changed interface
by patrick_ on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 13:50 UTC in reply to "dislike changed interface"
patrick_ Member since:
2006-03-02

Yeah... usually, when there's a lot of time between releases, that means the product doesn't have many bugs; most are satisfied with the product, and no new features/fixes need to be added for the product to make the consumer happy.

However, I must say, that's not the case with FF right now. It needs a _lot_ of work, mostly on the resource-usage end. Plus, it's rendering engine is rather slow compared to others, IMO.

Hope FF3 fixes this.

Reply Score: 0

OS X
by mbot on Tue 20th Nov 2007 21:27 UTC
mbot
Member since:
2007-09-18

Does anybody else think that text doesn't look right in FF3, OS X? Also, it's a little blurry. It's probably the new graphics engine.

Reply Score: 1

RE: OS X
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Nov 2007 22:11 UTC in reply to "OS X"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Just out of curiosity, what version of Mac OS X are you running?

Reply Score: 2

RE: OS X
by Larz on Tue 20th Nov 2007 22:25 UTC in reply to "OS X"
Larz Member since:
2006-01-04

Running Leopard here. For me the text is much less blurry than in FF2 (as a new Mac user, I am actually a bit dissapointed by the rendering in FF2 on Mac compared to Windows).

Much better, but still not quite as nice as Safari 3.0.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: OS X
by mbot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE: OS X"
mbot Member since:
2007-09-18

I'm running 10.4.11 PPC. FF3 renders text differently from Safari and FF2. Those two look identical to me. Strangely, FF3 on XP does not have this problem, cleartype on or off.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: OS X
by smitty on Wed 21st Nov 2007 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE: OS X"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Try setting the browser.display.auto_quality_min_font_size to 0 in about:config. It should use a higher quality font-rendering path, but I'm not sure what it does to performance.

Reply Score: 3

RE: OS X
by bousozoku on Wed 21st Nov 2007 18:03 UTC in reply to "OS X"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

The Mac OS X text interface changed in Leopard, if that's what you mean. Firefox 2 and 3 both look different than they did in Tiger.

Otherwise, I find the text to be as good as that of Safari.

Reply Score: 1

Memory
by supergear on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:26 UTC
supergear
Member since:
2007-07-06

I just tried beta 1 and man while browsing it took 724 MB of ram causing my system to crawl (i have only 1 GB of RAM). I think i'll wait till final release

Edited 2007-11-21 01:27

Reply Score: 1

RE: Memory
by WereCatf on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:55 UTC in reply to "Memory"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Apparently you hit the same bug as me.. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Memory
by Temcat on Wed 21st Nov 2007 22:47 UTC in reply to "Memory"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

The same experience on WinXP with 768M RAM. I've reverted to FF2.

Reply Score: 1

Firefox
by Luminair on Wed 21st Nov 2007 02:56 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Is Firefox getting better or worse? :O

Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was special because some guys took the Mozilla Suite and cut it down into JUST a good browser. The Mozilla code has always been a mess, but their goal was to make Firefox fast and good at browsing, and they succeded. Over time though... Firefox seems to be regressing.

[As an aside, I think the commercialization of the Mozilla Foundation (which is now explicitly focused on Firefox rather than Mozilla in general, thus making it more of a Firefox Foundation) might be blamed for both the good and bad advances in Firefox.]

In any case I think we might find that the future has a lot more Webkit in it. A Webkit browser in 2010 could be the Firefox of 2003.

Edited 2007-11-21 02:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Re: OSX font rendering
by VManOfMana on Wed 21st Nov 2007 06:00 UTC
VManOfMana
Member since:
2006-11-01

The font rendering in OSX is expected to change:

http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/cairo-beats-safari

In summary, gecko used quickdraw for text rendering. The new gecko version uses Cairo with CoreImage, which results in a still different, but a lot cleaner (compared to quickdraw at least), text rendering.

Something that I also noticed is that text rendering used to break when using Calibri (all you see is underscores), but the new gecko handles it fine. I have since switched to Myriad as my sans-serif font but its something nice to know. Too bad Cleartype destroys Myriad with anything less than 16 points.

Reply Score: 2

Re:2 OSX font rendering
by mbot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 06:26 UTC
mbot
Member since:
2007-09-18

@VManofMana

It's good to here that they'll be working on Cairo for OS X.

@Smitty

Nope, didn't fix the problem. Still looks different.

Reply Score: 1

Late to the party
by Nephelim on Wed 21st Nov 2007 10:58 UTC
Nephelim
Member since:
2006-07-26

I suppose I'm coming late to the party. I don't know which are the problems between cyclops and kaiwai if any at all, but I think that both of them have wasted rather enough posting space on this topic.

About this Firefox BETA: I am using it both under GNU/Linux and under Windows XP. I have not suffered the memory problem other posters are relating, so I suppose it depends on the configuration or something else.

What I consider important to remark is the following: this is still a beta (in the web it is said to be for developers), and honestly, when the final release is out, I bet it will be a good product. As any other software in the world, it will have bugs, of course, but despite all of its problems, I still prefer it (even the beta, and that's a good point for it) to another browsers (such as Opera, Seamonkey, Internet Explorer, Konqueror, Lynx, Links or Safari).

Kudos to the developers. I am not asking you for the impossible (bug free software), I just want to thank you for your efforts.

I almost forget this one: please, put the configuration options (when possible) in the same place. In Windows they are at Tools -> Options and in GNU/Linux they are at Edit -> Preferences (Netscape inheritance). If we want Windows users to switch to GNUL/Linux, the same program under GNU/Linux should behave as close as the Windows one. Not that this is very important, but I'd like to see it done.

Reply Score: 5

Fine release
by shaniadollinger on Wed 21st Nov 2007 11:00 UTC
shaniadollinger
Member since:
2007-07-04

I find this beta to work as well as a lot of supposed final releases, so keep on doing this good Firefox team. I can't wait to test the final Firefox 3 software.

Reply Score: 4

FireFox 3 nightly builds (Minefield)
by WereCatf on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 00:31 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

To anyone who might be interested theres Minefield available for download at the following link. And as for the bug that caused my machine to crawl: I haven't had any such issues anymore. Seems quite stable and usable.

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk...

Reply Score: 1