Firefox 1.0 Preview Release Candidates Available

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 1.0 Preview Release Candidates Available

Posted by timothy on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:41AM from the cutting-edge-is-the-bleeding-edge dept.

blakeross writes "The preview release of Firefox 1.0 is just around the corner, and we've now got candidate builds available. Please help us bang on these builds to ensure that the preview release is sound and ready to go, as this will be our largest and most public release to date. We're also working hard on an exciting and unprecedented grassroots campaign that will launch with the preview release, so stay tuned."

88 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good thing, too. by adolf · 2004-09-12 00:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Would you believe that I just reloaded Slashdot in Firefox, right as this article is posted, only to have the thing turn glacial and unusable?

You'd think we'd be farther along than this after a decade.

Let's hope that the new Firefox RC series Doesn't Suck. (That earlier versions tended to suck less in general than other browsers does not a non-sucky browser make.)

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Not to complain... by dmayle · 2004-09-12 00:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Not just to complain..., but has the Slashdot reflow bug been fixed in 1.0? It's been known for ages, but it's recently gotten much worse in 0.9.x (In 0.8 I rarely had the problem, under 0.9.3 under three different operating systems, (and three different microarchitectures) I get it more times than not on Slashdot articles and comments.)

Granted, I won't give up the best browser I've ever used, but it's getting to be really annoying.

And come on, we all know that the Mozilla devs spend more time reading Slashdot than anything else, so why hasn't it been fixed yet?
1. Re:Not to complain... by josecanuc · 2004-09-12 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm using yesterday's build and it still has the problem.
  
  Hard to say that it's a mozilla problem, since Slashdot's HTML is not quite up to the standard. But perhaps mozilla/firefox needs a different failure mode so that this problem doesn't happen.
2. Re:Not to complain... by colinramsay · 2004-09-12 00:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217527
  
  That's the bug. It's fixed on the main trunk but not on the Firefox 1.0 branch... yet.
  
  --
  Free iPods - now in the UK!
3. Re:Not to complain... by jilles · 2004-09-12 00:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217527 , according to this, it has been fixed. I'm running the release candidate now and everything looks ok. It never really bothered me anyway.
  
  --
  
  Jilles
4. Re:Not to complain... by colinramsay · 2004-09-12 01:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "The problem is fixed on the trunk, which is why the status says "fixed". It is known not to be fixed on the Firefox 1.0 branch or Mozilla 1.7 branch (which is clear if you read the previous comments)."
  
  From Michael Lefevre in the bug comments. It's marked FIXED for the trunk, not the aviary branch.
  
  --
  Free iPods - now in the UK!
5. Re:Not to complain... by cymen · 2004-09-12 01:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I managed to trigger it on the main page after 3 reloads.
  
  Anyone find updates for disabled extensions? Going to hunt down Adblock, SessionSaver, and BugMeNot updates.
6. Re:Not to complain... by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-12 01:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It is definitely a Gecko bug (the rendering component of Mozilla and Firefox) relating to incremental reflow, not a problem with Slashcode. It's not something to be glossed over. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, it's fixed in Gecko -- just the fix hasn't been rolled into Firefox.
  
  In the meantime, you could try disabling incremental rendering (at the cost of potentially greater delay until a web page is in a readable state) and see if that works around the problem: go to about:config and add a boolean value for content.notify.ontimer and set it to false.
  
  There's some random Firefox-related discussion on a forum here. While these people don't really know what they're talking about, they do nicely list the incremental reflow prefs that you can play with. You might be able to come up with a reasonable workaround until the fix gets rolled in.
  
  Remember to set the prefs back when you update Firefox to a fixed version -- you don't want to be either burning CPU time like mad or waiting longer than you need to to be reading pages.
  
  --
  May we never see th
7. Re:Not to complain... by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-12 02:03 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "Hunt down updates"?
  
  You can just use the Tools->Extensions->Update feature.
  
  --
  May we never see th
8. Re:Not to complain... by Homology · 2004-09-12 02:05 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Not just to complain..., but has the Slashdot reflow bug been fixed in 1.0? It's been known for ages, but it's recently gotten much worse in 0.9.x
  
  Security-wise, the 0.9 series are worse as well. Enough so that the port maintainers at OpenBSD will not yet upgrade from 0.8 to 0.9.x until later. OpenBSD will mark the port as broken rather than upgrade.
9. Re:Not to complain... by cymen · 2004-09-12 02:12 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "You can just use the Tools->Extensions->Update feature."
  
  I wish. It never works here. For example, Adblock with the update detected an updated version but couldn't install it. All the other extensions weren't recognized as being updated but in fact did have updates.
  
  Has it these feature *ever* worked for you?
  
  BugMetNot 0.60 here: extensions.roachfiend.com (mozdev still has 0.50 version that is incompatible)
  
  SessionSaver & Adblock from mozdev worked.
10. Re:Not to complain... by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-12 02:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Has it these feature *ever* worked for you?
  
  I think I picked up one update at one point.
  
  The only problems I've had with updating plugins, really, came when I tried to update a very old version of AdBlock to a newer version and the update really screwed up rendering (a known bug), requiring a lot of hair-pulling and eventually a prefs.js deletion.
  
  I'm not running into problems ATM, but then I plan to wait to update Firefox until Fedora packages and ships the next version, nicely tested and all.
  
  --
  May we never see th
11. Re:Not to complain... by _xeno_ · 2004-09-12 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I wrote my own extension, so yes, the update feature has worked for me in Firefox 0.9.3.
  However, it's never displayed as an "Update Available" in the status bar like it's supposed to. If you double click on the "Update" area to make Firefox search for new updates now, it doesn't work either. In fact, the only way it does work is to go to Tools -> Extensions, specifically select my extension, and then choose "Update."
  After that, it worked fine.
  So... yes, it works. Sorta.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
12. Re:Not to complain... by Hooded+One · 2004-09-12 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  With the overhaul of update.mozilla.org combined with a recent build, extension updates actually *work* for me. My biggest issue is that u.m.o frequently takes a while to get the most recent stuff.
  
  Also, I don't like the new toolbar button for update notification instead of the statusbar item, partially because I can't figure out how it works. It seems to have 3 states -- blue (which I think means there are updates), green, and completely nonexistent. By "nonexistent" I mean it takes up no space on the toolbar so that I can't even move it back to the Customize Toolbar dialog or anything. It's always visible when looking at browser.xul in the DOM Inspector however, so I can't figure out what the problem is that way.
  
  The update checker always finds the DOM Inspector and Talkback as available Optional Components to install, even though I already have both as I installed via tarball instead of installer. Ah well.
13. Re:Not to complain... by asa · 2004-09-12 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  "Security-wise, the 0.9 series are worse as well. Enough so that the port maintainers at OpenBSD will not yet upgrade from 0.8 to 0.9.x until later."
  
  Now that's just crazy! Seriously. Security didn't regress in 0.9, many existing issues were discovered in 0.9 and fixed in 0.9.1, 0.9.2. 0.9.3. thanks to our great testing community and the increased press (not to mention the bug bounty). Not moving from 0.8 to 0.9.3 is a serious disservice to OpenBSD users.
  
  Who at OpenBSD should I be talking with. I can't believe they'd really leave their users at risk to the many serious security issues that were resolved since Firefox 0.8. Can some one please email me with contact information for the OpenBSD Firefox maintainer. This is very concerning.
  
  --Asa
14. Re:Not to complain... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  It's true that OpenBSD have marked the port 0f 0.9.x as broken but the grandparent poster is incorrect in saying it is for security reasons. As far as I can gather, the OpenBSD maintainers have judged that Firefox is becoming far too popular and they don't want to be seen jumping on the bandwagon.
15. Re:Not to complain... by jdkane · 2004-09-12 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  and add a boolean value for content.notify.ontimer and set it to false
  Because this topic of about:config has popped up here, I want to ask: where is there a *definitive* list of *all* the possible about:config keys? For example, how did you find the setting you suggested? Thanks.
16. Re:Not to complain... by Homology · 2004-09-12 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Who at OpenBSD should I be talking with.
  In the link in the post thre is the e-mail adress of the one who made it : robert AT openbsd DOT org
  I would be nice to find that I misread the post regarding the security issues, and that the lack of upgrading was due to other issues.
17. Re:Not to complain... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 07:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  sigh I have answered this like 3 times last month mozillazine (stupid noobs dont know how to search).
  oh well here it is again
  http://preferential.mozdev.org/preferences. html
18. Re:Not to complain... by dn15 · 2004-09-12 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  It is definitely a Gecko bug (the rendering component of Mozilla and Firefox) relating to incremental reflow, not a problem with Slashcode.
  I'm not going to try questioning that statement because I don't know enough to prove or disprove it.
  
  But the funny thing is, I personally have only seen this bug in Firefox 0.9.x (both OS X and Linux) while I have not seen it in Mozilla 1.7.x on the same platforms.
  
  Is there any chance threre is something weird about Firefox itself that is causing this rather than Gecko in general?
19. Re:Not to complain... by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-12 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Read the whole paragraph that that sentence is part of.
  
  The fixed Gecko has not been rolled into Firefox.
  
  --
  May we never see th
20. Re:Not to complain... by jdkane · 2004-09-12 12:47 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Thanks. Glad you're willing to help out despite how exhausting it might be.
21. Re:Not to complain... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  In that thread: http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/200 4-08/2068.html
  Interesting... :(
  
  The mozilla-firefox-0.8 package lists ports at openbsd.org as maintainer.
22. Re:Not to complain... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  "http://preferential.mozdev.org/preferences.html"
  
  And where is that located? Do you ahve a link?
23. Re:Not to complain... by phrostypoison · 2004-09-12 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  Happens to more oftenly happen whilst logged in. Infact, refreshing it 3 times doesn't work for me on the frontpage. Seems to depend on the first part downloaded by Gecko. Sounds like being a coward has a good side after all!
24. Re:Not to complain... by BZ · 2004-09-12 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  Keys can be dynamically generated and queried, so there can't be a definitive list....
25. Re:Not to complain... by jesser · 2004-09-12 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the post meant "0.9 must be ported, or I will mark Firefox (0.8) as broken due to security issues". I'm not familiar with the process and jargon surrounding distributions, so I can't be sure.
  
  --
  The shareholder is always right.
26. Re:Not to complain... by Elendur · 2004-09-12 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  > > No chance firefox 0.9 for 3.5 patch branch? Yes. And it must be. Or I will mark it as broken due to numerous security issues.
  
  I am pretty sure this means "if FireFox 0.9 doesn't get into OpenBSD 3.5 then I will have to mark FireFox as broken because earlier versions have numerous security issues."
27. Re:Not to complain... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  oh! well look at that
Change log? by julie-h · 2004-09-12 00:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Have anyone found the ChangeLog from 0.9.3 to 1.0rc ? It isn't in the tar.gz =(
1. Re:Change log? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 04:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/0 .10.html http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/bigger-pictu re.html#newin1.0pr1
2. Re:Change log? by julie-h · 2004-09-12 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks! You are the best=)
Meta RC by reignbow · 2004-09-12 00:54 · Score: 4, Funny

So this is the candidate for the preview release for the final release? What is this called? Release Candidate Candidate?

--
Divide et impera!
1. Re:Meta RC by arcade · 2004-09-12 01:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So this is the candidate for the preview release for the final release? What is this called? Release Candidate Candidate?
  
  Personally I think the entire concept of "Release Candidate" has been abused severly in many Open Source projects. A Release Candidate should be released, and if no showstoppers is found it in - it should become the FINAL release.
  
  I shuddered when KDE had both "RC1" and "RC2" in their release schedule long before they had actually reached that stage. An RC2 should never - in my opinion - be planned on beforehand.
  
  Anyways. "Final Beta" would probably be a nice name for it. ;)
  
  --
  "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
2. Re:Meta RC by cymen · 2004-09-12 02:58 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I agree. We should move to SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, and maybe SP6 instead of RC1 and RC2. These SP releases convey a stronger message to the consumer that "their problems are our #1 goal" than such driveling things like RC1 and RC2 that they will never download and use. Why wait for a well-tested release when you can always service pack your problems away!
3. Re:Meta RC by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2004-09-12 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  And once you fix the bugs in RC1, you cant just assume its flawless and push out 1.0, so you move it to RC2. Repeat until no bugs are found.
  
  --
  Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
4. Re:Meta RC by arcade · 2004-09-12 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Uh? What relevance does this has to do with what I'm saying?
  
  The definition of a release candidate is something you THINK is free of release-critical bugs. There may of course be more than one - but when you release the first, you should not have the second in your thoughts yet. It should ONLY arrive if show-stoppers are found in the first.
  
  If no show-stoppers are found, the release candidate should be retagged to be the final release.
  
  In other words - having "RC2" in the plans for the beginning shows that RC1 isn't really a release-candidate.
  
  --
  "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
5. Re:Meta RC by Anthracks · 2004-09-12 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  For what it's worth, this is how recent Mozilla releases have worked pretty much; put out a build, and if there's no showstoppers, it gets renamed to Final. And yes, I agree that it is completely nonsensical to schedule more than one "release candidate" :).
  
  --
  Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.
6. Re:Meta RC by cymen · 2004-09-12 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  I actually agree that it is nonsensical to have 2 release candidates scheduled but many open source projects lament the fact that good beta testers are few and fair between. Getting people to actually try the browser isn't an easy feat. With a complex application like Firefox, the odds that there are release-critical bugs are fairly high. So scheduling two release candidates is a good idea because Firefox gets more testers of the potential release, there is a bit of extra buffer in the release schedule, and 1.0 might actually be a decent browser.
  
  Now if the release candidates where non-sequential, maybe things would be a little more interesting? Battle of the browsers?
  
  I'm curious if previous release have been handled in this way or if this is something special for 1.0. Whatever the case may be, I'm not one to point out the idiosyncrasies when they are giving me all their work for free.
7. Re:Meta RC by Tanktalus · 2004-09-12 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm ... where I work, we plan for a "final build" and then it's a month before we plan on actually shipping anything. It's merely saying that we know this will not be actually final, but we need to put hard dates down, or we'll never ship.
  
  I would think that this is the same thing. It's sorta like NHL playoffs - "Game 5 (if needed)" is scheduled on TV.
8. Re:Meta RC by Finuvir · 2004-09-12 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's precisely why there are preview releases. They don't claim to be candidates for release as 1.0. This is an actual candidate to become a preview release. If no bugs are found in this version it will be relabeled as preview release 1 (PR1) and released. Then more bugs will be fixed, candidates for PR2 will be released until one is acceptable as PR2. Same process again, candidate, bug fixes, candidate, etc. until... version 1.0.
  
  --
  Why is anything anything?
9. Re:Meta RC by asa · 2004-09-12 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  We are going to have our Firefox 1.0 Preview Release early this week, probably Tuesday. These builds are candidates for that release. We don't expect to take further changes into Firefox between now and 1.0 PR unless we find major regressions or new problems in these candidate builds.
  
  --Asa
Mozilla still rules for me by tsa · 2004-09-12 00:57 · Score: 1, Informative

Last week I tried Firefox and Thunderbird on the Mac to see if they were good for replacement of the Mozilla suite, but I was disappointed. The Mozilla browser has a few features that I missed in Firefox (not too much though because I can't even remember which), but I was really disappointed to see that I couldn't even import my e-mail in Firefox. Yes I know that you can copy some vague directory to some other place and have ALL mozilla mail and preferences copied but a few buttons in a configuration window is so much nicer! I guess all that I like in Mozilla is just around the corner for Firefox et al., so I will keep trying them from time to time.

--
-- Cheers!
1. Re:Mozilla still rules for me by Xetrov · 2004-09-12 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Why not use Firefox for browsing and Mozilla for mail only, if you do not like thunderbird (no idea what you are complaining about though).
2. Re:Mozilla still rules for me by tsa · 2004-09-12 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  If I like only one of the two then I can just as well keep using Mozilla for both. I'll just wait a while longer. I grant you, there's not much to complain about.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
3. Re:Mozilla still rules for me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you want to import your e-mail to Firefox? It's a web browser, not an e-mail program.
4. Re:Mozilla still rules for me by tsa · 2004-09-12 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry I meant Thunderbird.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
5. Re:Mozilla still rules for me by srcosmo · 2004-09-15 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, Thunderbird still has a ways to go with mail importing. Specifically, it should be able to easily import messages from Mozilla Mail and itself (for backups, etc). Messing around with mail store folders is too much to expect of the average user.
  Having the ability to import individual .eml files would be nice too.
  
  --
  free speach
  Did you mean: free speech
Cockbiting moderators by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 01:00 · Score: 0

How can a post be "Redundant" when it is both the FIRST FUCKING POST, and the still the only one posted so-far which covers the topic?

How the fuck is that possible?

Just curious.

(Oh. And neither "overtly critical," nor "cynical" are synonymous with "redundant".)
1. Re:Cockbiting moderators by joeljkp · 2004-09-12 06:47 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It's possible because "redundant" does not mean "repeated".
  
  From Dictionary.com:
  redundant adj. 1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous. 2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases. 3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy. 4. Chiefly British. Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed. 5. Electronics. Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment. 6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages.
  
  --
  WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
2. Re:Cockbiting moderators by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Because everytime there is a Firefox post people whine about this. Therefore it's redundant. An argument could be made about the redundant nature of the positive post but that's not the question here. If it were modded offtopic then you might have an argument.
What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows... by fluor2 · 2004-09-12 01:15 · Score: 2, Informative

is that pages with lots of pictures scroll VERY slow. it's much faster in IE.
Lets... by fozzmeister · 2004-09-12 01:35 · Score: 2

... See if they can stop it prompting me twice for everything!
One Yay and one Boo by hsoft · 2004-09-12 01:40 · Score: 1

Yay! The bug annoying me the most is apparently fixed. (Well, A quick tried showed that it works for me...)

Boo, The web developer extension doesn't work anymore :( .

Nevertheless, mozilla/firefox team: you rule.

--
perception is reality
1. Re:One Yay and one Boo by hsoft · 2004-09-12 01:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Oh wait, web developer DOES work. I thought it wouldn't work because I had a warning that Web developer doesn't work with the new version... But having tried is quickly, it works!
  
  Which means: Only Yays for Firefox 1.0!
  
  --
  perception is reality
2. Re:One Yay and one Boo by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  I wish browsers would not attempt to refresh favicons every time user opens bookmarks. IE does this also, 'undesirable information leak' at best but also mild privacy problem. UA should only issue GET on favicons when the site is visited.
Impressive moderation, actually by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-12 02:08 · Score: 0, Offtopic

50% Redundant
30% Interesting
20% Offtopic

So, let's take a look at the post in question.

It obviously isn't "Redundant". As the parent pointed out, it's the first post.

It isn't offtopic -- it's about v1.0 Firefox functionality.

I personally don't think that it's a very interesting post, though I realize that this is a subjective metric.

Overrated, Underrated, Troll, Flamebait -- all of these could be applied with some degree of reasonableness -- as a matter of fact, there wasn't a single appropriate mod chosen, and the only inappropriate mod that the moderators *didn't* apply was Insightful. :-) This may be a new low for moderation.

--
May we never see th
1. Re:Impressive moderation, actually by Frizzle+Fry · 2004-09-13 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  It obviously isn't "Redundant". As the parent pointed out, it's the first post.
  
  This isn't "obvious" at all. A first post can be redundant just the same as it can be anything else.
  
  --
  I'd rather be lucky than good.
No source bundles? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 02:25 · Score: 0

Some prefer the ease of a clickable .gz/.bz and the Firefox team doesn't seem to care.
1. Re:No source bundles? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 06:48 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  If you're going to the trouble of building it yourself, a CVS checkout is but a minor inconvienience.
Windows Installer by kosmosik · 2004-09-12 02:37 · Score: 1

It would be neat to have one with Mozilla Firefox (also with Macromedia Flash, Java and so on)... I mean *msi files. They make life easier in large networks and would make adoption easier for sysadmins.
1. Re:Windows Installer by Forbman · 2004-09-13 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... then grab InnoSetup (it's Free!) and create it.
unprecedented grassroots campaign? by foniksonik · 2004-09-12 03:16 · Score: 4, Funny

"unprecedented grassroots campaign"

Read this as "we'll be posting announcements on Slashdot every day for the next month"...

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
1. Re:unprecedented grassroots campaign? by Finuvir · 2004-09-12 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's not unprecedented. Weren't you here in July?
  
  --
  Why is anything anything?
Re:What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 04:49 · Score: 1, Funny

Stop looking at porn.
how can in be more public? by portscan · 2004-09-12 05:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

this will be our largest and most public release to date

Firefox is already at the top of the Mozilla.org website, taking up about 6 times as much space as the full Mozilla suite. There has been no real marketing for Netscape, Mozilla, or Firefox recently, so I am wondering how this release will be more public. Any ideas?
1. Re:how can in be more public? by tsa · 2004-09-12 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Write to the press about it. Writing is free, and if you phrase the story well and there are no new nuclear tests in Korea there is a chance that the press will bring this news ot the public.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
2. Re:how can in be more public? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Why isn't RC1 on the front page of mozilla.org? Is it less stable than 0.9? If so, why call it a release candidate?
3. Re:how can in be more public? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  It's not RC1..
  
  0.9.3
  1.0PreviewRC (0.10RC)
  1.0Preview(0.10)
  1.0RC1
  1.0RC2
  1.0
  
  When 1.0PR is actually released, you'll see it on mozilla's front page.
Re:What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 05:28 · Score: 0

layered translucent PNGs using css background look very pretty but the scrolling goes to shit, so much for the most standards compliant rendering engine in existance. It also seems to have cache problems after **cough** prolonged tab browsing sessions involving huge images **cough**, this is when I noticed it freezes. These problems are manifest cross platform, they are probably on bugzilla somewhere but I hate the fucking thing.

Still overall a better product than IE.
Re:What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows.. by SecretMethod70 · 2004-09-12 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

If Firefox wants to be a popular browser, it needs to fix this bug for that very reason. Porn drives the internet, and if a person's browser crashes or crawls to a halt when they're looking at porn, they're not going to stick with said browser. They'll go back to IE, where they can look at porn (and also get viruses) more easily. This bug is probably one of the most important bugs in Firefox that needs to be fixed, and it's been there for a LONG time now.
Re:What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows.. by login.pl · 2004-09-12 07:17 · Score: 0

I was having the same problems until I upgraded from PicPorn 1.0 to MpgPorn 9.0 Optimized. Since then, I've had zero issues with Mozilla Pornbrowser.
Better and Better by jefu · 2004-09-12 07:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

The new firefox looks great and seems to run great.
Just two quibbles from me.
Firstly the tab extensions does not seem to be a supported extension. Now I've read often enough about how it is horrible and ugly and all, but I use it for everyday browsing. I'd really like the default to be "open link in new tab" for just about everything with the middle mouse button set to "open link in this tab". The tab groups are also nice, but could be managed outside the standard tab extensions.
Secondly, SVG does not seem to be supported yet and I'd quite like it to be. Once a couple of major browsers support SVG, I think it will take off and become a very powerful web tool - but it is going to take that support in some browser.
1. Re:Better and Better by Earlybird · 2004-09-12 09:51 · Score: 1
  Firstly the tab extensions does not seem to be a supported extension. Now I've read often enough about how it is horrible and ugly and all, but I use it for everyday browsing. I'd really like the default to be "open link in new tab" for just about everything with the middle mouse button set to "open link in this tab". The tab groups are also nice, but could be managed outside the standard tab extensions.
  
  If you're referring to the Tabbrowser Extensions plugin, it works, and you can install it right here. It has been updated to work with the RC.
  The only plugin that I so far I have not found an update to is the Googlebar.
2. Re:Better and Better by hsoft · 2004-09-12 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  And if you want to view SVG files with firefox, just install the adobe viewer, and copy the dlls in the plugin dir of firefox. it works here.
  
  --
  perception is reality
3. Re:Better and Better by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  I think his point was that Firefox should support SVG out of the box, not that he could get it to support SVG with some tinkering. Also, your solution is (at least superficially) Windows-specific.
4. Re:Better and Better by hsoft · 2004-09-13 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Adobe has a linux version of it's plugin. Well yeah, maybe it should work with SVG out of the box, but my point is that it is very possible to view SVG files with Firefox :)
  
  --
  perception is reality
5. Re:Better and Better by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Adobe's SVG viewer runs in firefox, you need to copy two files into the plugins directory. Details are in the viewer's readme file.
Re:What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 09:13 · Score: 0

Never had that, mayby its time to update(or downgrade) your videodriver.
Re:What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows.. by pmsyyz · 2004-09-12 10:02 · Score: 1

// Slow startup after long periods of inactivity (minimized window or other) // http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76831# c277 user_pref("config.trim_on_minimize", false);

Or just go to about:config and create a new pref with that name.

--
Phillip
Re:What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows.. by recursiv · 2004-09-12 16:15 · Score: 1

nothing to do with the video drivers. i've got a geforce4 with recent drivers, and i get this all the time. (well, only ever on porn, so... yeah, all the time) The problem is typically exhibited on pages containing at least 100 large images.

--
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
It is fixed by pamri · 2004-09-12 16:34 · Score: 1

It is fixed.
Squarefree has a good summary of the changes in 1.0, along with the releases. Another major improvement i love is the find as you type toolbar that appears everytime you do a search. The behaviour is like opera, but much more user-friendly since the toolbar is dynamic, appears at the bottom and allows you to highlight the searched text.
The only thing i complain is, there should be a CTL and Pango enabled binaries available for linux for people viewing indian language sites(UTF-8 encoded).
Re:What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows.. by alacar · 2004-09-13 02:22 · Score: 1

Did you try to disable smooth scrolling? Tools - Options - Advanced - Browsing - Uncheck 'Use smooth scrolling'
can't use it... by acroyear · 2004-09-13 06:41 · Score: 1

it disabled too many of the extensions i've come to rely on. i'll wait until the extensions get updated (hopefully they will and soon).

--
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Re:What I hate about Mozilla Firefox for Windows.. by geekboy2k · 2004-09-13 08:44 · Score: 1

Oh, come on - the slow scrolling is an ADVANTAGE. You got that whole anticipation thing going for you. *grins*