I was using RC1 on Linux and it wasn’t as stable as the previous releases for me. It never crashes for me, but the new tab reordering that causes more of the issues. I hope it has become more solid for the final release.
You know? You know what’s better than Java or DotNet as a platform? Your own Linux distro the way you like it. 🙂
I have created my own “distro” and I called it “Operating System and Applications Platform”, because it’s what it is for me. This year is the first time that I’m using only Linux (Ubuntu) and I love it. No crashes, powerful tools, secure enough (behind a firewall), etc. But I have become an avid user of terminals, which coupled with two monitors are as productive as I ever dreamed of:
You know? You know what’s better than Java or DotNet as a platform? Your own Linux distro the way you like it. 🙂
Well, I think you’re way offtopic here. And you make a second mistake by comparing 2 development platforms with an OS. By the way, your fonts in Firefox really look bad but I can’t blame you on that one, because it always sucked in X (more with Gnome, less with KDE). I think it’s time to correct the issue. I can’t believe that most distros turn off the bytecoder interpreter (who care if Apple copyrighted it? ) and end up using some weird ugly fonts. At least it’s possible with KDE to rip-off Windows fonts and make them look exactly like they do under Windows. But with Gnome, they font config thing is so stupid that it won’t let you do that. The problem? I like Gnome better but I can’t get shit to work like with KDE. The solution? Windows. Thanks Bill for saving my time.
Oh… before some haters start telling that I’m an idiot and it’s possible to do all that shit WITHOUT too much hassle, I must tell you guys that I wasted so much time already writing font.conf scripts that worked good sometimes but never really good with Firefox. It’s such a pain in the ass to get Gnome+Firefox look good (I’m still talking about fonts). You get your fonts look not too bad in Gnome but they still look ugly or way too small in Firefox. You make it ok in Firefox, well now you have to fix Gnome. I think the only way to get it “ok” on both at the same time is too use some weird way too much anti-aliased fonts (what most distros do). But it’s not right. Sorry but I don’t want my OS to make me blind 😉
I admire you for your passion. But the problem is the false “pixel based control” of the Web. I really don’t want care if my fonts look the same on Linux and on Windows and on the Web, as long as they are good enough. Fortunately, I lack graphics skills so I’m not always trying to improve things graphically.
For example, some people still demonstrate interest in using Tables instead of CSS, and I am with them, if it works.
Maybe open source will be able to produce some usable Web components so we can reuse them without the need to tweak them so much.
This release feels much “smoother” than the last one. Gecko 1.7.x visibly choked on some websites with tons of nested tables…this one seems to handle these things a lot better. Of course the best solution is to use CSS for your website layout, but you already knew that, didn’t you? 😉
How can the “best” solution be to use CSS when CSS is broken to some degree in all browsers, and horribly in some of them.
Tables work predictably in every browser.
Maybe use your head for once instead of listening to marketing propoganda. Else, you’ll live out the rest of your life thinking Macromedia Flash is “da bomb”, all applications should be web based, and .NET is the answer to everything.
Presumably you’re either joking, or you’re not a web designer. Tables are clunky and awful to work with, and CSS is elegant and easy. Using tables is just a stupid design decision when CSS is available (W3C recommendations to use CSS over tables aside).
Spending a bit of time to fix up rendering problems in IE is worth the added design simplicity and extensibility, and the remarkable difference that CSS makes to maintainability over tables. The fact that CSS is broken “to some degree” in all browsers is really not very important when that “degree” is very marginal. I have come across very few CSS problems across browsers (except, obviously, for IE).
Also, where is this marketing propaganda in favor of CSS that you speak of? The only CSS advocacy I’ve seen has been by people who design websites professionally. You don’t sound like you know what you’re talking about, so perhaps you should be more careful about implying that other people aren’t using their heads.
Lay off him, it’s pretty obvious that he’s in favour of CSS, you’d either have to be (as you stated) not a web designer or one of my girlfriend’s professors at Sydney Uni to prefer tables.
Seriously. If you see any Aussie sites using tables, chances are the designer studied at USyd within the last two or three years. But I digress.
I’m about to upgrade my Firefox on OS X. Lettuce cross fingers.
What are you talking about? Every professional developer I know would use tables over CSS when producing a site for an actual client, because you’re guaranteed consistency, particularly with the browser that most of the world still sues. You probably just design homepages for your family. Try shutting down Dreamweaver MX and step into the professional world.
Sadly there are still cases where tables simply work better for layout than CSS. Until it’s possible to make robust, portable, reliable, liquid layouts in CSS without resorting to all sorts of evil hackery, tables will still see usage regardless of what’s recommended by the W3C (and I’m a big supporter of the W3C in most things — heck, I even try and work proper RDF metadata into most of the professional sites I work on, and I do personally try to avoid the use of tables, but realistically you can’t expect everyone to drop them until the alternative is solid).
Is it me, or do you guys have it looking completely different (toolkitwise, menus don’t have bevels, just blue highlight) too on windows with classic theme?
The new look is supposed to be more compatible with the Windows XP desktop theme. Unfortunately it no longer matches the standard theme for pre-XP desktops. Argh.
I thought that Windows2K and XP only had their own looks because they took control of parts of applications’ appearances. I wonder why Firefox implements a menu style, rather than leaving it to the OS. Is it necessary for Firefox to determine the menu appearance?
If you want somethibng that passes the Acid2 test try the new konqueror in KDE 3.5. It is supposed to be the second browser (after Safari) that passes this test.
I would have been nice, if Firefox had passed too, but it is still doing CSS much better than some other frequently used browsers in the market. As Safari and konqueror not have very large market share most web developers will make sure their pages works resonably well in most browsers.
If I had to chose between passing Acid2 and things like zooming in SVG images, XForms support available in the default installaion I would chose the latter. Especially XForms. It would be very useful in things like intranets where a more application like experience is needed from the web. If you havn’t checked it out you can download the plugin at
Why did they change the search engine for the firefox default home page? Other than some old themes/plugins not working, this release is so kewl. Nice work.
I downloaded linux firefox 1.5 and it is working great with gnome. It still has the memory problems. I opened it at 121 MB and I get you tomorrow when I check it it will be around 200MB. But it works well so I can wait for memory tweaks. All my extensions from RC2 appear to work well. A nice release. Extension updating appears to be much improved now that they have moved to the new updater system — which was badly needed.
You’ll be waiting some time! They’ve been promising to sort out the obscene memory leaks for some time (just like they’ve been promising to speed up GTK or OpenOffice.org startup!) but it never happens.
I love open source stuff, but it’s increasingly clear that performance and tight code is not a focus. Hey ho…
You’ll be waiting some time! They’ve been promising to sort out the obscene memory leaks for some time (just like they’ve been promising to speed up GTK or OpenOffice.org startup!) but it never happens.
I love open source stuff, but it’s increasingly clear that performance and tight code is not a focus. Hey ho…
Actually, I’ve found Firefox 1.5 to be much tighter than 1.0.7 on Windows. Are you setting browser.cache.memory.capacity in about:config? This setting didn’t do anything for me on 1.0.7/Win32, but it’s definitely doing the job with 1.5.
tables are clunky and awful to work with, and CSS is elegant and easy.
Sort of. Ever try to make a three column layout in CSS that flows properly like table columns and works well in all browsers. You will find it takes several hacks to get it right and it is not that intuitive. Tables may be clunky but they worked well for automatic resizing and reflowing of space in columns. The CSS standard never quite duplicated this use of tables for layouts correctly and the latest version of CSS now has a ‘column’ tag recommendation which browsers con’t recognize yet. In some regards CSS completely missed the mark with what kind of functions designers needed to get their job done.
a friend of mine swears to tables as a layout tool. in combo with php and maybe a bit of inline css (not sure) and he can pull of some nice, functional designs…
What does php have to do with tables or css, one being the server side technology and the other being client side? Would it make a difference if the same HTML was generated using ASP instead of php?
Websites that use tables for layout are a pain to maintain for web designers because of junks need to look better. In term of bandwith, tables are bandwith eater especially for people who still use narrowend connection (who is still the majority in the world). The new style is to use css for webapge with is more elegant and clean.
Sort of. Ever try to make a three column layout in CSS that flows properly like table columns and works well in all browsers. You will find it takes several hacks to get it right and it is not that intuitive.
Yes, I have done it many times.
he CSS standard never quite duplicated this use of tables for layouts correctly and the latest version of CSS now has a ‘column’ tag recommendation which browsers con’t recognize yet.
I disagree. CSS duplicated it and in a much more flexible way. The problem is not CSS but the poor implementation of it in Internet Explorer. In all other highly standards compliant browsers (Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror). CSS does three column layouts extremely well. Do not blame CSS for Internet Explorer’s failings.
The ‘column’ tag is for something entirely differt. It breaks up text into columns like in magazines an newspapers.
The ‘column’ tag is for something entirely differt. It breaks up text into columns like in magazines an newspapers.
No, it is not that different. It is just a DIV with the ability to set a reference to another div to control text flox. This html element should have been in the very first CSS spec. This is what designers were asking for but the engineers developing the spec. just didn’t get it. I think the funny thing about the css/table issue is that most people combine the two now so you can use css to position a table into place and the table is easy to just fill with data and let it expand naturally.
I have one css issue you cannot defend against with css mutiple column layouts: if the pag width is too small the css columns will usually overlap each other, unlike a table which will only shrink as far as the text width.
I have one css issue you cannot defend against with css mutiple column layouts: if the pag width is too small the css columns will usually overlap each other, unlike a table which will only shrink as far as the text width.
Sure I can. This is what the CSS min-width attribute is for. Again, a shortcoming in Internet Explorer for not implementing it, not a shortcoming in CSS which has it.
I read the comments on mozilla.org about the RC:s and some had reported problems upgrading their old ones. Did it work alright for you who have upgraded from 1.0.x versions? Apart from some extensions ofcourse 😉
I’m on a win xp box and it’s the installer I mean.
I’m by the way really eager to try the <canvas> tag!
“Much of the praised new features in Firefox 1.5 are just copied from Opera.”
Indeed! Without Opera, no one would have ever thought of moving tabs around, or that marginally improving back-button speed was a good thing! Seriously though, the main improvements to FF 1.5 are under the hood. We won’t be seeing major, killer features until FF 2 or perhaps 3.
RC3 was released on Nov 18th, the week in between was spent on testing and localization. Firefox 1.5 could be the same with RC3 if they didn’t find a serious bug in RC3, don’t be surprised if you will see the same Gecko version.
I just installed Firefox 1.5 on my Powerbook with OS X 10.4.3.
Now I would like to play with the new SVG functionality in Firefox. However, Firefox doesn’t seem to be able to render any of the SVG at any of the sites that I’ve visited. I haven’t been able to get Firefox to render even one SVG file.
Does anybody know of any sites that have SVG files that Firefox 1.5 is known to be able to render?
I haven’t used any of the release candidates, upgraded from 1.0.7. I don’t like the fact that the Live Bookmark subscibe icon is right next to the URL history dropdown. I have accidently clicked it a few times and end up having to close the pop-up window asking me if I want to add a Live Bookmark. Worked perfectly well down in the status bar for us people that don’t use that feature.
Installed 1.5 on Mac running OSX 10.4.2 and am unable to install extensions. A popup message appears stating – Software installation is currently disabled. Click Edit options… to enable it and try again. So I click Edit Options in the popup and a sliver of a window opens up which is totally useless. BTW, Software installation is NOT disabled, and yes I was only trying extensions for 1.5.
ANYONE who says CSS is superior to TABLE and should be used instead needs to get bent. It does not handle different system metrics AT ALL, generally locks you into designing a site with fixed width content, and on the whole makes 99% of the sites that use that technique look like CRAP on 99% of the machines out there that vary at ALL from the 96 DPI windows default system metric at any browser width other than 800 across.
TABLE is simple, handles dynamic resizing of content well (if you know what the {censored} you are doing; like anything else) and just plain works with little or no effort in a minimum of bytes… While <div> <span> CSS and all the other ridiculous hoops people jump through just to make their sites bloated and look like SHIT on anything apart from their own system, all in the name of making it look better… Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?
On to the topic at hand:
Wow, they FINALLY fixed the installer so that when you tell it not to make shortcuts in the start menu, it doesn’t create a empty program group. (not a big deal, but yet another silly drop of the ball that makes Firefox look amaturish and unpolished)
Let’s see how it fares against my usage, given that I’ve been able to crash EVERY build with the same memory leak in under 20 minutes since the alpha a year and a half ago… Of course every time I think they have it fixed, the damned thing crops up again.
And again, it APPEARS to have been resolved… Nope, stand corrected. It leaks like a sieve the minute you get the download manager going. Yup, and the download manager with multiple downloads quickly starts to consume CPU way out of proportion for the bandwidth that’s going by… to the point the browser seems locked up and unusable… Same piss poor tasking model which tries to do all the work itself instead of handing it off to the OS, resulting in the same buggy internals that plagued Netscape 6 on which all mozilla products are based. Same unpolished, unfinished and unprofessional feeling garbage as before.
Wow, I see it actually RENDERS SVG now… no anti-aliasing or scripting though…This is the one web standards technology I’m interested in, and the one nobody except Opera seems to have native support for that works right.
I´ve installed 1.5 over 1.07 on Windows XP and tried to install newer updates of extensions and themes. It told me I have to enable software installations (wich I had disabled in 1.07) but there is no option in preferences now, where I can change this behaivior again!!!! LOL
Thanks but already changed xpinstall.enabled to true.
The next problem was none of the very few extensions that are rated for 1.5 would install because of some problem with chrome not be properly registered.
Have uninstalled 1.5 and re-installed 1.07. Will wait till the bugs are worked out of 1.5.
BTW, turns out this was a known problem, yet 1.5 was released anyway.
If less devoted/new FireFox users run into this problem they will no doubt go back to IE and never return. To bad.
Submitted by 
Good on them–when they floated today as “the day” I thought that they might have to squeeze in at near-midnight Pacific time.
I hope now with this release more extensions will be updated. Sure, many have been, but alas few of the ones I really care about.
I was using RC1 on Linux and it wasn’t as stable as the previous releases for me. It never crashes for me, but the new tab reordering that causes more of the issues. I hope it has become more solid for the final release.
You know? You know what’s better than Java or DotNet as a platform? Your own Linux distro the way you like it. 🙂
I have created my own “distro” and I called it “Operating System and Applications Platform”, because it’s what it is for me. This year is the first time that I’m using only Linux (Ubuntu) and I love it. No crashes, powerful tools, secure enough (behind a firewall), etc. But I have become an avid user of terminals, which coupled with two monitors are as productive as I ever dreamed of:
http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200511291636312048x768scro…
(The desktop is Xfce 4.3, the version in development.)
I maybe wrong but I think that I have the rc3 installed on both windows et osx… so it’s more like from RC3 to release.
Indeed. I meant that I was going from RC1 to release. 🙂
You know? You know what’s better than Java or DotNet as a platform? Your own Linux distro the way you like it. 🙂
Well, I think you’re way offtopic here. And you make a second mistake by comparing 2 development platforms with an OS. By the way, your fonts in Firefox really look bad but I can’t blame you on that one, because it always sucked in X (more with Gnome, less with KDE). I think it’s time to correct the issue. I can’t believe that most distros turn off the bytecoder interpreter (who care if Apple copyrighted it?
) and end up using some weird ugly fonts. At least it’s possible with KDE to rip-off Windows fonts and make them look exactly like they do under Windows. But with Gnome, they font config thing is so stupid that it won’t let you do that. The problem? I like Gnome better but I can’t get shit to work like with KDE. The solution? Windows. Thanks Bill for saving my time.
Oh… before some haters start telling that I’m an idiot and it’s possible to do all that shit WITHOUT too much hassle, I must tell you guys that I wasted so much time already writing font.conf scripts that worked good sometimes but never really good with Firefox. It’s such a pain in the ass to get Gnome+Firefox look good (I’m still talking about fonts). You get your fonts look not too bad in Gnome but they still look ugly or way too small in Firefox. You make it ok in Firefox, well now you have to fix Gnome. I think the only way to get it “ok” on both at the same time is too use some weird way too much anti-aliased fonts (what most distros do). But it’s not right. Sorry but I don’t want my OS to make me blind 😉
I admire you for your passion. But the problem is the false “pixel based control” of the Web. I really don’t want care if my fonts look the same on Linux and on Windows and on the Web, as long as they are good enough. Fortunately, I lack graphics skills so I’m not always trying to improve things graphically.
For example, some people still demonstrate interest in using Tables instead of CSS, and I am with them, if it works.
Maybe open source will be able to produce some usable Web components so we can reuse them without the need to tweak them so much.
My fonts look perfect in Firefox, and so they do generally in Gnome (Gentoo 2005.1-r1) – without the artifacts from FireFox on Windows.
It’s so easy making fonts look good in Gnome and Firefox. Just remember to use the patented BCI in FreeType. And use “best shapes” as anti-aliazing.
Beats the crap out of ClearType, no matter the monitor (using LCD at school, and CRT at home. ClearType on both in XP/Win2K3 – FreeType in Linux).
ClearType generally renders fonts in a poor way, from a technical point of view. No matter how much you tweak it.
Kudos! The other option of blazing your own trail. Truly what oss is all about…
A number of the secondary mirrors don’t have 1.5 yet.
Nope, seen that. Tried norway`s mirror, not there yet.
But primary mirrors are updated
I installed it but how can i know it’s 1.5 Final not RC3 scince they didn’t write “RC” in all RCs release ??
Help > Abot Mozilla Firefox ! (No Defference)!!
it titlebar it’s Build 2005111116 >>> what that mean ?
Thanks !
They’re the same.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169676&cid=14141773
This release feels much “smoother” than the last one. Gecko 1.7.x visibly choked on some websites with tons of nested tables…this one seems to handle these things a lot better. Of course the best solution is to use CSS for your website layout, but you already knew that, didn’t you? 😉
How can the “best” solution be to use CSS when CSS is broken to some degree in all browsers, and horribly in some of them.
Tables work predictably in every browser.
Maybe use your head for once instead of listening to marketing propoganda. Else, you’ll live out the rest of your life thinking Macromedia Flash is “da bomb”, all applications should be web based, and .NET is the answer to everything.
Presumably you’re either joking, or you’re not a web designer. Tables are clunky and awful to work with, and CSS is elegant and easy. Using tables is just a stupid design decision when CSS is available (W3C recommendations to use CSS over tables aside).
Spending a bit of time to fix up rendering problems in IE is worth the added design simplicity and extensibility, and the remarkable difference that CSS makes to maintainability over tables. The fact that CSS is broken “to some degree” in all browsers is really not very important when that “degree” is very marginal. I have come across very few CSS problems across browsers (except, obviously, for IE).
Also, where is this marketing propaganda in favor of CSS that you speak of? The only CSS advocacy I’ve seen has been by people who design websites professionally. You don’t sound like you know what you’re talking about, so perhaps you should be more careful about implying that other people aren’t using their heads.
Lay off him, it’s pretty obvious that he’s in favour of CSS, you’d either have to be (as you stated) not a web designer or one of my girlfriend’s professors at Sydney Uni to prefer tables.
Seriously. If you see any Aussie sites using tables, chances are the designer studied at USyd within the last two or three years. But I digress.
I’m about to upgrade my Firefox on OS X. Lettuce cross fingers.
What are you talking about? Every professional developer I know would use tables over CSS when producing a site for an actual client, because you’re guaranteed consistency, particularly with the browser that most of the world still sues. You probably just design homepages for your family. Try shutting down Dreamweaver MX and step into the professional world.
My website is handcoded in Gedit, actually. Check it out; it works pretty well in IE, Firefox, and Opera.
http://bnonn.ath.cx/
Sadly there are still cases where tables simply work better for layout than CSS. Until it’s possible to make robust, portable, reliable, liquid layouts in CSS without resorting to all sorts of evil hackery, tables will still see usage regardless of what’s recommended by the W3C (and I’m a big supporter of the W3C in most things — heck, I even try and work proper RDF metadata into most of the professional sites I work on, and I do personally try to avoid the use of tables, but realistically you can’t expect everyone to drop them until the alternative is solid).
Is it me, or do you guys have it looking completely different (toolkitwise, menus don’t have bevels, just blue highlight) too on windows with classic theme?
Old look: http://www.wfu.edu/~yipcw/atg/moz_ff_tb/images/firefox-menu-01.gif
“New” look:
http://img314.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ff0sv.gif
Edited 2005-11-29 20:57
Ditto here.
I think that firefox look has been improved in windows to match the windows theme (I don’t remember the bug number)
i think this build has moved to the flat 2003server look, instead of the 3d win2000 look.
The new look is supposed to be more compatible with the Windows XP desktop theme. Unfortunately it no longer matches the standard theme for pre-XP desktops. Argh.
You can fix it by installing this extension:
http://ilpolipo.free.fr/fx/classicmenus/
The problem is documented in this mozilla bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=303806
I thought that Windows2K and XP only had their own looks because they took control of parts of applications’ appearances. I wonder why Firefox implements a menu style, rather than leaving it to the OS. Is it necessary for Firefox to determine the menu appearance?
it is optimized for windows xp.
I am using the browsing right now to post this msg
It is faster than pervious releases. The perferences menu looks better.
I’ve just ran the Acid2 test but it failed. Firefox 1.5 does NOT pass the Acid2 test.
Try it at http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html
Thanks for all the who made this happen. I really like this product
If you want somethibng that passes the Acid2 test try the new konqueror in KDE 3.5. It is supposed to be the second browser (after Safari) that passes this test.
I would have been nice, if Firefox had passed too, but it is still doing CSS much better than some other frequently used browsers in the market. As Safari and konqueror not have very large market share most web developers will make sure their pages works resonably well in most browsers.
If I had to chose between passing Acid2 and things like zooming in SVG images, XForms support available in the default installaion I would chose the latter. Especially XForms. It would be very useful in things like intranets where a more application like experience is needed from the web. If you havn’t checked it out you can download the plugin at
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xforms/
Why did they change the search engine for the firefox default home page? Other than some old themes/plugins not working, this release is so kewl. Nice work.
—
garapheane
uh? google is till default here
I downloaded linux firefox 1.5 and it is working great with gnome. It still has the memory problems. I opened it at 121 MB and I get you tomorrow when I check it it will be around 200MB. But it works well so I can wait for memory tweaks. All my extensions from RC2 appear to work well. A nice release. Extension updating appears to be much improved now that they have moved to the new updater system — which was badly needed.
“I can wait for memory tweaks”
You’ll be waiting some time! They’ve been promising to sort out the obscene memory leaks for some time (just like they’ve been promising to speed up GTK or OpenOffice.org startup!) but it never happens.
I love open source stuff, but it’s increasingly clear that performance and tight code is not a focus. Hey ho…
“I can wait for memory tweaks”
You’ll be waiting some time! They’ve been promising to sort out the obscene memory leaks for some time (just like they’ve been promising to speed up GTK or OpenOffice.org startup!) but it never happens.
I love open source stuff, but it’s increasingly clear that performance and tight code is not a focus. Hey ho…
Could’nt agree more with that statement
Actually, I’ve found Firefox 1.5 to be much tighter than 1.0.7 on Windows. Are you setting browser.cache.memory.capacity in about:config? This setting didn’t do anything for me on 1.0.7/Win32, but it’s definitely doing the job with 1.5.
Is this the release that makes Firefox fun yet?
Looks and feels the same for the most part.
tables are clunky and awful to work with, and CSS is elegant and easy.
Sort of. Ever try to make a three column layout in CSS that flows properly like table columns and works well in all browsers. You will find it takes several hacks to get it right and it is not that intuitive. Tables may be clunky but they worked well for automatic resizing and reflowing of space in columns. The CSS standard never quite duplicated this use of tables for layouts correctly and the latest version of CSS now has a ‘column’ tag recommendation which browsers con’t recognize yet. In some regards CSS completely missed the mark with what kind of functions designers needed to get their job done.
a friend of mine swears to tables as a layout tool. in combo with php and maybe a bit of inline css (not sure) and he can pull of some nice, functional designs…
What does php have to do with tables or css, one being the server side technology and the other being client side? Would it make a difference if the same HTML was generated using ASP instead of php?
Websites that use tables for layout are a pain to maintain for web designers because of junks need to look better. In term of bandwith, tables are bandwith eater especially for people who still use narrowend connection (who is still the majority in the world). The new style is to use css for webapge with is more elegant and clean.
Tables should be only used for listed datas.
Just using CSS to do form design and some kind of layout is a pita really.
Sort of. Ever try to make a three column layout in CSS that flows properly like table columns and works well in all browsers. You will find it takes several hacks to get it right and it is not that intuitive.
Yes, I have done it many times.
he CSS standard never quite duplicated this use of tables for layouts correctly and the latest version of CSS now has a ‘column’ tag recommendation which browsers con’t recognize yet.
I disagree. CSS duplicated it and in a much more flexible way. The problem is not CSS but the poor implementation of it in Internet Explorer. In all other highly standards compliant browsers (Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror). CSS does three column layouts extremely well. Do not blame CSS for Internet Explorer’s failings.
The ‘column’ tag is for something entirely differt. It breaks up text into columns like in magazines an newspapers.
The ‘column’ tag is for something entirely differt. It breaks up text into columns like in magazines an newspapers.
No, it is not that different. It is just a DIV with the ability to set a reference to another div to control text flox. This html element should have been in the very first CSS spec. This is what designers were asking for but the engineers developing the spec. just didn’t get it. I think the funny thing about the css/table issue is that most people combine the two now so you can use css to position a table into place and the table is easy to just fill with data and let it expand naturally.
I have one css issue you cannot defend against with css mutiple column layouts: if the pag width is too small the css columns will usually overlap each other, unlike a table which will only shrink as far as the text width.
I have one css issue you cannot defend against with css mutiple column layouts: if the pag width is too small the css columns will usually overlap each other, unlike a table which will only shrink as far as the text width.
Sure I can. This is what the CSS min-width attribute is for. Again, a shortcoming in Internet Explorer for not implementing it, not a shortcoming in CSS which has it.
I read the comments on mozilla.org about the RC:s and some had reported problems upgrading their old ones. Did it work alright for you who have upgraded from 1.0.x versions? Apart from some extensions ofcourse 😉
I’m on a win xp box and it’s the installer I mean.
I’m by the way really eager to try the <canvas> tag!
http://tinyurl.com/9t2fu
(slashdot link)
/Meng
runs nice!
…only downside i saw, those fade-ins of the prefpanels is IMHO completely useless and slows down my workflow. make it an option, please.
ps. on OS X, i dunno about other platform versions…
“make it an option, please.”
In about:config, set
browser.preferences.animateFadeIn
to false. That should do it for you.
“Much of the praised new features in Firefox 1.5 are just copied from Opera.”
Indeed! Without Opera, no one would have ever thought of moving tabs around, or that marginally improving back-button speed was a good thing! Seriously though, the main improvements to FF 1.5 are under the hood. We won’t be seeing major, killer features until FF 2 or perhaps 3.
Why is the Gecko version 20051111? RC3 was much later than that.
RC3 was released on Nov 18th, the week in between was spent on testing and localization. Firefox 1.5 could be the same with RC3 if they didn’t find a serious bug in RC3, don’t be surprised if you will see the same Gecko version.
Much of the praised new features in Firefox 1.5 are just copied from Opera.
It’s not true
Version still is 20051111 – RC3
hmmm FF1.5 crashes after reading this link from one of the other news stories:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/8566
Takes a few minutes to take effect, CPU usage gets higher and higher then it dies. Great…
What….. Trying to get people to read your article are we???? too funny…
nah, that’s probably just all those evil flash ads, just install Adblock.
Quote from mozilla.org:
“Looking for Firefox or Thunderbird? You’ll find them and a whole lot more at Mozilla.com.”
…where Firefox 1.5 is available from the front page.
I just installed Firefox 1.5 on my Powerbook with OS X 10.4.3.
Now I would like to play with the new SVG functionality in Firefox. However, Firefox doesn’t seem to be able to render any of the SVG at any of the sites that I’ve visited. I haven’t been able to get Firefox to render even one SVG file.
Does anybody know of any sites that have SVG files that Firefox 1.5 is known to be able to render?
Have you tried:
http://www.croczilla.com/svg/samples/
Try this one, from the Wikipedia article about SVG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Svg.svg
Renders fine here (1.5 RC3/Final, WinXP)
That worked great!
Thanks!
Just noting that it is now official, its all over Mozilla’s site..
Anyone have an success with getting flash up and running again with 1.5?
Just curious…
Just installed 1.5 in Windows XP, it uninstalled 1.0.7, and Flash 8 plugin (already installed) is working fine.
What platform are you using?
also check your extensions. the latest flash doesn’t work with adblocking extensions.
Awesome, thank you very much. This was the issue and uninstalling it fixed the problem.
I was wondering what was going on. Because all of my systems (Linux and windows boxes) had that extension installed and it seemed like a Firefox bug.
Once again, thank you very much
.
If you are using the Adblock extension, you could try allowing “Obj-Tabs” in the Adblock Options menu.
Worked for me.
I’ve been surfing for a mere 30 minutes are already I can see they’ve improved the memory consumption 😆
What is this memory leak?, can you prove firefox consumes loads of memory?
Too many bugs on the linux release
1. flickering bookmarks menu https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=306426
2. autoscroll icon is wrong for most cursor themes
3. cannot middle click bookmarks to open in new tab
4. close tab button is stuffed – only a 2 line css fix was not even checked in
the reality is Linux is not a tier-1 platform for mozilla anymore it seems now that it has taken up on windows so widely.
I haven’t used any of the release candidates, upgraded from 1.0.7. I don’t like the fact that the Live Bookmark subscibe icon is right next to the URL history dropdown. I have accidently clicked it a few times and end up having to close the pop-up window asking me if I want to add a Live Bookmark. Worked perfectly well down in the status bar for us people that don’t use that feature.
Heh, I kinda like it at the top, because I have my status bar hidden
Installed 1.5 on Mac running OSX 10.4.2 and am unable to install extensions. A popup message appears stating – Software installation is currently disabled. Click Edit options… to enable it and try again. So I click Edit Options in the popup and a sliver of a window opens up which is totally useless. BTW, Software installation is NOT disabled, and yes I was only trying extensions for 1.5.
Anyone having similar problems?
If you installed over a previous setting it appears that this setting is not updated.
open a new window in firefox
type
about:config
Scroll down to the preference
xpinstall.enabled
Double click it to toggle it to true
-BeDammit
The solution of BeDammit worked for me!
Thanks BeDammit.
I’ve just upgraded from Firefox 1.0.4. 1.5 seems to work very well, but 1.0.5-1.0.7 didn’t run at all on my computer.
ANYONE who says CSS is superior to TABLE and should be used instead needs to get bent. It does not handle different system metrics AT ALL, generally locks you into designing a site with fixed width content, and on the whole makes 99% of the sites that use that technique look like CRAP on 99% of the machines out there that vary at ALL from the 96 DPI windows default system metric at any browser width other than 800 across.
TABLE is simple, handles dynamic resizing of content well (if you know what the {censored} you are doing; like anything else) and just plain works with little or no effort in a minimum of bytes… While <div> <span> CSS and all the other ridiculous hoops people jump through just to make their sites bloated and look like SHIT on anything apart from their own system, all in the name of making it look better… Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?
On to the topic at hand:
Wow, they FINALLY fixed the installer so that when you tell it not to make shortcuts in the start menu, it doesn’t create a empty program group. (not a big deal, but yet another silly drop of the ball that makes Firefox look amaturish and unpolished)
Let’s see how it fares against my usage, given that I’ve been able to crash EVERY build with the same memory leak in under 20 minutes since the alpha a year and a half ago… Of course every time I think they have it fixed, the damned thing crops up again.
And again, it APPEARS to have been resolved… Nope, stand corrected. It leaks like a sieve the minute you get the download manager going. Yup, and the download manager with multiple downloads quickly starts to consume CPU way out of proportion for the bandwidth that’s going by… to the point the browser seems locked up and unusable… Same piss poor tasking model which tries to do all the work itself instead of handing it off to the OS, resulting in the same buggy internals that plagued Netscape 6 on which all mozilla products are based. Same unpolished, unfinished and unprofessional feeling garbage as before.
Wow, I see it actually RENDERS SVG now… no anti-aliasing or scripting though…This is the one web standards technology I’m interested in, and the one nobody except Opera seems to have native support for that works right.
Ah well, back to Opera.
No differences, no patches, no bugfixes. Only the tag.
I´ve installed 1.5 over 1.07 on Windows XP and tried to install newer updates of extensions and themes. It told me I have to enable software installations (wich I had disabled in 1.07) but there is no option in preferences now, where I can change this behaivior again!!!! LOL
ok i know… about:blabla works…but hey!?
Should I uninstall Firefox 1.0.4 before installing 1.5. I did not find any info.
Thanks but already changed xpinstall.enabled to true.
The next problem was none of the very few extensions that are rated for 1.5 would install because of some problem with chrome not be properly registered.
Have uninstalled 1.5 and re-installed 1.07. Will wait till the bugs are worked out of 1.5.
BTW, turns out this was a known problem, yet 1.5 was released anyway.
If less devoted/new FireFox users run into this problem they will no doubt go back to IE and never return. To bad.