Submitted by 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.
Now that the StiX font has been (beta) released…
Will MathML rendering be fixed in firefox 3 ?
MathML is specifically mentioned in the release notes.
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.
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.
You can install different widgets, which is what I do on Linux.
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).
I beg to differ, as I said, when on Linux I install new widgets.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=369596
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.
It is not Ubuntu specific. It replaces all the widgets that Firefox uses, the fact that it is a debian file on an Ubuntu forum just means someone made it easy to install.
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
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
)
Yes, it uses native widgets.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
very nicely worded, if only everyone around here would follow that line of thought.
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.
Kaiwai:
Hear, hear.
Cyclops:
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.
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
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
lol. That is the funniest post I have *ever* read. I still cannot get over how funny it is.
I was unsure how to reply to this off-topic; personal attack. I thought about the way you use “open-minded” in place of “zealot” because you have no real response, when the reality is I’m actively looking forward to Gtk+ WebCore and would consider elinks to be an essential to *any* user.
I see you still haven’t read my quote, perhaps you should search for things like “memory fragmentation firefox” although I just think its an excuse to point at other browsers
. Although I suspect the main advantage that any browser had over Firefox is finally going.
*Yes* you are meant to gush praise on Firefox, because its a good beta release, that is better than its previous releases; has no obvious regressions; best browser out there, its no wonder its captured 20%+ market share even with Monopolistic abuses. If you read my posts. I don’t shy away from pointing out where Firefox is deficient.
Ignoring the fact that I modded you down so it *must* be a “personal attack” rather than you making a pretty weak post. For I suspect reasons of preferring another browser
As an Adult(sic) you should not get so upset.
The bottom line is you have nothing bad to say about this release, because its really good, and your scattergun accusations speak volumes. Thats not to say problems won’t creep out the woodwork…its not yet in the wild.
but seriously read your own quote, and then look up irony.
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?
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.
I don’t know whether the Mozilla developers regularly whine about Apple or not, but if they do that was a horrible example you gave us. Most of the bug was during Leopard’s pre-release phase, so it’s not a surprise that there might be a few bugs in there. What comments show up after?
This is marked as P1 because it is commonly reported, confusing, and
destabilizing. AppKit is getting into an essentially corrupted state.
Created an attachment (id=288560) [details]
test app v1.0
This test app demonstrates the OS bug. It does the same thing our app does, but
in a reduced way. Much easier to play with than our actual menu code.
Filed Apple bug 5598550 on the issue, which includes the test app.
Created an attachment (id=288616) [details]
fix v1.0
I found a way to handle menu bar swapping that doesn’t trigger the AppKit bug.
This works on 10.4 and 10.5.
landed on trunk
That seems to me to be pretty much the perfect bug fix – there are no recriminations, no backstabbing, not even a hard time tracking down the bug. A quick simplified test case, followed by filing a bug in the upstream software, followed by a quick workaround. What exactly do you find so wrong about it? I’m sure there are similar bugs for working around issues that have been found with Windows and Linux as well.
Edited 2007-11-22 07:05
True, its a bit of an exaggeration by my part.
Right now, however, I am running the latest build (Firefox ‘minefield’) – and it is very nice. Its sitting on 62MB, and I’m uploading a youtube video at the same time, so I guess it isn’t too bad.
I’ll probably have to resort to using Firefox given the bugs within Safari which Apple refuse to fix – that sit out like a sore thumb. I mean, the bugs I come accross, many relating to Blogspot/Google, are hardly bugs that aren’t obvious. I guess Firefox is my only alternative given that Opera falls over the same issues.
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?
“Grow up. If Kaiwai is a retard, then you are the sphincter out of which filth issues.” Ignoring your rather playful example
I actually called meianoite a retard, although to be fair Kaiwai coming off none too clever here.
I won’t respond to the rest, but because its been done better in the quote.
Its not my team that wrote this. I choose my Firefox is *my* main browser because it fulfills my needs the best.
I do find it funny that you try and put a negative spin on Firefox fixing 300 memory leaks…oh and thank you for letting me get *my* point accross myself.
I do love the fact that someone who has made *2 comments* makes such strong statements about Kaiwai and against me. I look forward to seeing your posts in future
Edited 2007-11-21 01:12
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
Now I got modded down? For what reason? :O
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
Fixed.
(unlike bugs in Firefox)
Fixed.
(unlike bugs in Firefox)
Except of course the 11,000 bugs fixed just for the Firefox 3 Beta 1 release.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2007/11/ignorance_or_ma…
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.
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!
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!
There’s a high risk you’ve experiences this bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404645
The Mozilla developers are on it right now and hopefully this will be fixed very soon.
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)
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.
When an application starts to swap like mad, it has crossed the “resources available to it” by a long margin.
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’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.
People wiser than me describe this sort of attitude as “famous last words before obsolescence”.
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?!
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.
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.
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
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?
lol, I straight out call you a retail. I point out where the comment was off-topic and move on. I’m glad your not interested in my bullet points, and will get back to the point.
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.
Oddly my *whole* machine uses less than that…and I’m doing more with it, and firefox has been open all day.
I feel embarrassed for you that you cannot read the statement above, and draw an alternative conclusion to mine…I suspect because their isn’t one. Perhaps you should have taken a course that would help you build some skills.
I actually listed *3 alternative* linux browsers in my posts try to spot, Hint: you actually quote them; One use regularly, and consider part of my essential toolbox.
If you do not understand my point about enlightenment…just trust me, computers *used* to contain an awful lot less memory than they do now, and enlightenment+linux was more than my cutting edge computer could cope with. You should re-read my point its quite clear.
I loved this don’t you have like a degree or something… I’d love you to look a tiny little more in depth at where the slowdown between you getting you pages is, and then talk about bottlenecks. start looking into things like latency, but I actually mention alternatives to Firefox…and you don’t even recognize them.
Yes your comments are only about promoting alternative browsers, and your comments says it all.
Firefox’s own release notes which I have quoted four times, but basically in direct contradiction they have focused on memory leaks; now moving to memory footprint…perhaps you should have paid more attention in class
For this I will now call you lying scum, simply because of what they have completed, and what they are working on.
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 :/
It was a troll comment, and disgusting from someone who hadn’t even tried the product.
The reason why I mention Vista, is simply because of that part of my argument that states I have the memory I want to make best use of it, by using it for applications, not the OS…unless the features justify it.
The bottom line is I’m running less than half the memory of his Firefox…and I’m including running the whole OS + Desktop + background jobs + other applications, and had firefox open all day.
His made a comment about thrashing, having seen what is running, and looked at my 5 year old machine coping very nicely. I can only conclude his problem is Vista.
My comments are nothing to do with Microsoft, but more about him being a retard, who clearly should run a machine with a different OS, so he can at least run better programs than minesweeper.
“””
My comments are nothing to do with Microsoft, but more about him being a retard,
“””
And if that is not a personal attack, I don’t know what is. Cyclops, Linux has enough going for it that we don’t have to resort to calling users of other OSes “retards”, which you have been doing a good bit recently. We can point to the strength of our platform. We can even make reasoned criticisms of other platforms. But please, don’t resort to name-calling. It makes us all look bad. People label us based upon such childish behavior by a few well meaning but overenthusiastic, advocates.
No low level intimidation (as you like to accuse me of) involved. Just good, common sense, advice about effective advocacy.
Hi, I haven’t felt you breathing down my neck for ages. I hope you have been well. Do I need to light a candle for you, I do hope its because you are seeing someone for your compulsiveness.
First off, that above is an example of a quote, unlike your quotes. Its done to deceive nobody, but then subterfuge is your nature. It is not *my* fault I called him a *retard* and then he turned out to be a Vista user, suffering from…well Vista problems.
Welcome Back
I can only point out that Firefox is *cross-platform* perhaps you didn’t realize. I don’t use your OS whatever is, and I’m not into advocacy. If I did it, sort of creates a *paradox* to your point, as I find you a somewhat tiresome poster.
…but again good to have you back. I’ve though some other poor sod was being harranged by yourself and felt somewhat jealous.
Edited 2007-11-22 18:52
“””
“””
Glad you feel that way. No candles necessary.
“””
“””
Last I looked, calling people retards was considered a voluntary action.
“””
“””
Thanks! I was wondering about you, too! 🙂
“””
“””
Yes. I had heard something about that.
“””
“””
Obviously.
“””
If I did it, sort of creates a *paradox* to your point, as I find you a somewhat tiresome poster.
“””
Could you elaborate on that?
“””
…but again good to have you back. I’ve though some other poor sod was being harranged by yourself and felt somewhat jealous.
“””
There has never been anyone else for me but you! 🙂
Take care,
Steve
lol, I have missed the spaces just to make you look like you have said everything…the deliberate inability to link my post to your post, and the way that you have clearly nothing to say on the subject matter.
Just a thought why don’t you download the beta, and join in, with at least an opinion…make a fluffy opinion, and an off-topic attack like you do so well.
,and I know I’m the only one.
btw I bookmarked your comments about Novell and patents. I show that to people.
It was a troll comment, and disgusting from someone who hadn’t even tried the product.
If he can post the memory usage of FireFox on his computer then doesn’t it mean he has tried/used it? Umm.. -.-
His made a comment about thrashing, having seen what is running, and looked at my 5 year old machine coping very nicely. I can only conclude his problem is Vista.
AFAIK FireFox uses more or less the same amount of memory no matter which OS you use so Vista has nothing to do with that. And according to FireFox bugzilla they sure have a big problem with FF3 leaking huge amounts of memory..Just look at some earlier posts for the link.
My comments are nothing to do with Microsoft, but more about him being a retard,
That is a direct insult and against the site rules. As such,you deserve to be modded down. Watch your language..
“If he can post the memory usage of FireFox on his computer then doesn’t it mean he has tried/used it?”
The comment was about kaiwai although I suspect Retard hadn’t used it and lied to make a point. I say lied…but thats the wrong term. because for your information I have used the Firefox beta+OS+applications all day, and have never come close to that kind of memory usage for *everything*. Unless he is suffering a platform specific bug, which is not by any means unlikely, which is why I was cautious of using the word.
Oddly your “leaking loads of memory” goes in the face of all the reviews that have been on the net *and* my own usage. In fact I would argue that the problem if still a problem is “memory footprint” which is *still* smaller that that of Internet Explorer, and is being worked on, and depending on how you argue is either a badly implemented feature, or that is getting a better implementation. So you are definitely a liar.
Now f–k off.
Edited 2007-11-22 20:43
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404645
Check that link yourself. If I am a liar so are FireFox devs themselves.. Get your facts straight.
“https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404645
Check that link yourself. If I am a liar so are FireFox devs themselves.. Get your facts straight.”
Thats a good link but I suggest you read it, and understand what it is saying. Oddly I have “Tell me if the site I’m visiting is a suspected forgery” selected and do not run out of memory in minutes, and clearly not everyone does. Thats a bug in a beta product…in a *new* feature.
Edited 2007-11-22 21:03
This bug is also in Firefox 3.0 beta 1, which tens of thousand people are
testing just now with fresh profiles as recommended. Freezing their systems
without warning.
That’s a direct quote from there, they are also stating that it’s such a severe bug that final release WILL NOT happen unless they get this one sorted out. Oh, and it’s you who should have read it.. If your FireFox profile already has an up-to-date urlclassifier3.sqlite file then it won’t cause such a behaviour. But just try removing that file and you will see that bug in action for yourself too. So, to quote yourself: “Thats a good link but I suggest you read it, and understand what it is saying”, ok? As said, you are in effect saying FireFox devs themselves are liars.. Nice job.
Right this bug reporting is *open* so they can *fix* bugs thats the point.
“The effect is temporary”, “unable to reproduce using a tree pulled right now” – the problems not universal, and temporary. I didn’t even notice it.
Also note words like regression, or where the bug is “Phishing Protection” how about when the bug was reported “2007-11-20”
You do not seem to notice any of these things. I can read a bug report. This IMO regression needs to be fixed even if the effect is temporary. If this were the final release that bug would be unacceptable, its none too pretty now.
Now I’m beginning to believe you are being facetious. If you do not expect bugs of this magnitude to rear there heads in a beta release then I am surprised, as I cannot believe anyone here expect bug free software. The fact that I have to delete a file to *enjoy* this temporary bug…and its new and the one you have chosen is a good example. Your initial post was subterfuge.
I will remove the file in moment, but I do believe you.
-edit-
Just tried nothing happened, CPU was higher for a moment, 35 tabs in 4 windows coming in at 80mb. I didn’t check the memory before I reset Firefox which I should have done. Memory after a few minutes is almost exactly the same, I’ll check again in another 10.
I suspect I will have to delete my whole profile for this to work.
Edited 2007-11-22 22:22
*sigh* I am getting quite tired of you. I never once said that there aren’t any bugs in open-source software. The whole point was that you were preaching like FireFox 3 is the perfect solution to any single wish one might have and that there are no memory issues with FireFox.. And I just tried to show you that there are. That’s all. If you think I am trying to lie about something or such then could you please elaborate as to what I am lying about and WHY would I do that? After all, the browser I use happens to use FireFox’s engine..And for that matter, I personally really wish FireFox 3 final would come soon. Also before you start nitpicking about my OS of choice I can inform you that I am a happy Linux geek.
I have to also state that I find your behaviour very much unacceptable here, calling people names and acting all aggressively and being so damn volatile like everyone was trying to attack you. I wish the moderators will do something.
@WereCatf
“I never once said that there aren’t any bugs in open-source software.” What the hell are you talking about…what on earth has this to do with open-source. *All* software has bugs, what we are talking about, is transparent bug fixes.
“The whole point was that you were preaching like FireFox 3 is the perfect solution to any single wish one might have and that there are no memory issues with FireFox”
First I wasn’t preaching, I’m the first to critise firefox…even in this thread. I never claimed that a beta product was *perfect*, I am absolutely *positive* that there is *NO* software ever developed or will be developed that ever will be. If you think otherwise then you should never speak on this topic again.
I’m going around in circles. This bug has *nothing* to do with the original comment made, which was at best made by someone to lazy to download the beta, and really a slight at current offering which is a just criticism made I suspect for the wrong reasons.
I use the term liar, becuase thats what you are unless you are really ignorant. currently Firefox has two problems(It doesn’t really)
1) runaway memory(have to reset firefox next day)
2) large footprint
you post a comment, about a bug that floods memory temporarily in the order of 100’s of Mb and then goes away…This new bug in a beta program that has *nothing* to do with Firefox 2, his comment, or any of mine.
The fact is the runaway memory hasn’t been one bug but *at least* 300 tiny ones which have been fixed…and they have done a little magic to make sure that any further problems are limited. In reality there could be thousands more…is this a problem!? I’d say the problem has been fixed, because I don’t have restart Firefox because it takes up all my memory. Even the picky…and when I say picky, I mean people who are deliberately misleading other about “how stuff works”, have to except that on the scale of memory leaks the situation has dramatically improved.
Don’t take my OS comments out of context, your OS of choice *unless* talking about an OS feature is irrelevant. I only pointed it out simply becuase the problem he described could be about *any* program on Vista simply becuase thats how Vista works, and its massive memory footprint, thats larger even my typical Firefox.
Like I say I think your post was appalling, or ignorant. Pick one.
Edited 2007-11-23 08:37
From now on I’m ignoring you the same way I’m ignoring Moulinneuf. Now I clearly understand why you call yourself “cyclops”: somehow you managed to transfer your rear hole to your forehead, and you’re kindly nicknaming it your “eye”.
For your own amusement, contact the OSNews staff and ask them the user-agent strings for my accesses to OSNews for the past two years. Then do yourself a favour and exile yourself from this site. Your snotty attitude and extreme laziness when composing your messages show a lot about you already, the name calling is just icing.
“From now on I’m ignoring you the same way I’m ignoring Moulinneuf. Now I clearly understand why you call yourself “cyclops”: somehow you managed to transfer your rear hole to your forehead, and you’re kindly nicknaming it your “eye”. ”
I’m glad, because I have little to say your obsession with bottoms and kissing kaiwai’s was making me feel uncomfortable.
Edited 2007-11-22 22:12
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).
@MamiyaOtaru
“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. ”
Absolutely, and that applied to almost all competing products. I don’t like the word better. I actually spend a lot of time talking about suitability, although in particular interface is important.
“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).”
Not interested in promoting *anything*. I only question peoples motives it flies in the face of the truth, in this case it flies in the face of his posting record.
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.
You hadn’t noticed until now?
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?
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
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/
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
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…
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.
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.
Yes, it does not look like someone made even pkgbuild for it! I’m building from source right now, it’s nothing complicated anyway
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.
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.
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.
Just out of curiosity, what version of Mac OS X are you running?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Apparently you hit the same bug as me..
The same experience on WinXP with 768M RAM. I’ve reverted to FF2.
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
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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…