OSNews

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b1/releasenotes/

Those are the release notes. After fighting through questions, that this very document answers, in addition to the majority to which a beta is available to actually try out. I finally get to the garbage.

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.

The Firefox problem *has* been its memory usage more than *anything* although not the only regression with Firefox 2. I have a 1Gb of memory and use an OS that takes only a tiny part of that, so it isn't an issue for me. *My* major regression was that it *felt* a little less snappy than before a problem thats not just gone but even things like scrolling is smoother than *anything* else on my Desktop, but the bottom line is for *me* and I suspect most is that the new features outweighed the regressions. The fact that it had a spell checker made it a must have for me.

The higher memory usage was introduced to add extra functionality, and its functionality I *use*, what has been inexcusable is the "leave browser open for days!?" *wastes* memory...and that to some degree has been fixed. I suspect judging from the above quote they hit a point of diminished returns, and have begun focusing on reducing the memory footprint while *keeping* the functionality. That is why the original comment is off-topic

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

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

a) the desktop is where its always happened

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

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.

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.

...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.

Edited 2007-11-20 23:07