Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 1.1 Boasts New Features

Posted by timothy on from the on-a-roll dept.

Distro Jockey writes "The Fedora Core Blog gives a review of the features we can expect from Firefox 1.1. Many uses have been running the latest trunk builds and seeing dramatic improvements in page rendering, managing many tabs quickly, and the much-anticipated fix for the /. layout bug. From the article: 'One major new feature in Firefox 1.1 is the "Sanitize" feature. This enables secure browsing with much more ease. Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences).'"

34 of 479 comments (clear)

  1. What I'm curious about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (1) Does it finally fix that bug where sometimes images from certain hosts will stop displaying until you restart Firefox?

    (2) Does it finally start to reverse the recent trend for firefox to become a huge RAM hog, or does it continue this trend?

    1. Re:What I'm curious about by Guy+LeDouche · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I REALLY hope that something is done about resource usage. We are constantly told how much lighter, and faster Firefox is, yet it's still just as slow and bloated as Mozilla. Yesterday I was browsing with 4 tabs open and the RAM usage for Firefox was ~98MB This is not a good thing.

    2. Re:What I'm curious about by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yesterday I was browsing with 4 tabs open and the RAM usage for Firefox was ~98MB This is not a good thing.

      Mine is presently using 229MB. Of course, my X server is presently using 303MB, which, together is more than the amount of physical RAM that I have. Does Firefox map the video RAM into its address space?

    3. Re:What I'm curious about by jesser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      David Baron, a Mozilla Foundation employee and one of the strongest Gecko hackers, has been spending a lot of his time fixing memory leaks in Gecko and Firefox.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    4. Re:What I'm curious about by ergo98 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      and is a completely and totally useless statistic that reflects nothing particularly interesting about how much memory a program is actually using

      You have that complete bass ackwards. Memory usage shows how much physical memory (something which is usually somewhat limited) is currently allocated to the process, while VM Size shows the virtual memory (something which is practically limitless).

      If a process starts up, allocates 100MB, and then never touches it, the VM Size will be significantly larger than the real memory usage, and in the real world this makes a big difference - having some seldom-used space in a paging file set aside for a task is a lot less relevant than having a block of physical memory set aside. If, on the other hand, a process allocates 100MB and then perpetually scans through it looking for Waldo, it won't be paged out and it'll consume real physical memory.

      Of course memory usage can include shared memory blocks, but overall it is the best indicator of the real, practical memory usage of an application. No one cares how many new statements exist in the code - they care how much finite physical memory is practically used by the app.

    5. Re:What I'm curious about by Ark42 · · Score: 2, Interesting


      You are just making that up. Look at the commit charge on the performance tab, which corresponds to the memory graph. Commit charge is the sum of all processes VM Size, not memory usage. VM Size is the amount of memory the process has allocated in memory and swap combined. Mem Usage is like RSS (resident set size) under top/ps, which is the amount of physical RAM being used, which is meaningless because of the fact that the amount of RAM being used is NOT the amount of memory the process has allocated, because it depends greatly on how the OS manages memory behind the scenes.

      Even the Task Manager help file is pretty clear here:
      Memory Usage: In Task Manager, the current working set of a process, in kilobytes. The current working set is the number of pages currently resident in memory.
      Virtual Memory: In Task Manager, the amount of virtual memory, or address space, committed to a process.

      Again, the amount of memory allocated (committed), is the number anybody cares about. Whether or not the OS has decided to swap some of the memory to the paging file or not is completely useless when all you care about is the amount of memory the program has gobbled up.

      Normally, one might think that the RSS/Mem Usage should never be higher than the VM Size, because a process should never have more RAM being used than it has total memory being allocated, and I believe under Linux this is true, but under Windows, Task Manager will frequently show the Mem Usage as being higher simply because it hasn't subtracted freed memory yet, because the OS hasn't used those pages for anything else yet.

      --
      Morphing Software
    6. Re:What I'm curious about by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are just making that up.

      Astoundingly you start off with this, and then basically repeat exactly what I said.

      However your conclusion, that VM memory is more important, is absurd - if an app has large swaths of memory that it basically doesn't touch, and thus can be paged out, that reduces the real memory load of the application - basically it's free memory management for apps (which a lot of apps rely upon). However if Windows deems that the memory shouldn't be swapped out, keeping the memory usage high, because a process keeps touching the pages, then that matters. That really bogarts real live physical memory.

      You see, perhaps this might be the reason that those crazy Microsoft folks put that crazy mem usage on the task manager, and left vm memory as an extra option. Or maybe they just didn't consult with you.

    7. Re:What I'm curious about by Ark42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Again, though, what I am saying is that physical RAM usage is not important compared to the VM Size. I don't particularly care what portion of the programs memory is actually in RAM and what portion is swapped out. I care how much memory it has allocated total (VM Size).

      Another example of why people should be looking at VM Size instead of Mem Usage is that many people run a program, open something then close it, and repeat a few times, and expect that each matching close operation should bring the Mem Usage back to the value it was before the open operation, otherwise they get all fussy and claim the program has a memory leak. The VM Size will typically settle after a few iterations, while the Mem Usage will not. If the VM Size grows after each iteration and can grow continuously, you might just have a memory leak, but if the VM Size remains relatively constant and the Mem Usage increases after each iteration, it means nothing! Just minimize the application and all of a sudden the Mem Usage is back to normal.

      --
      Morphing Software
  2. Does the status line work properly now? by British · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Try hovering over a link in fark. It seems the text to display it is so complex, it overhwelms Firefox.

  3. Another "hope they fix this" post. by antizeus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I for one hope that the MacOS X version properly supports the middle mouse button (apparently the nightly builds have before the 1.0.3 release, but that release doesn't). Additionally, I hope it also uses Emacs key bindings.

    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
    1. Re:Another "hope they fix this" post. by CTho9305 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason releases that come after a given nightly don't have the same features is branches. Before each release, a branch is made (usually at the beta) so that the code is stable, and rapid (dangerous) development can continue on the trunk. Firefox 1.0.x were released off the 1.0 branch - branches usually only get very important bugfixes and security fixes. The trunk is where the day-to-day stuff happens, but as a result it can often be in pretty bad sahpe.

      --
      My server
  4. Copy? by sammykrupa · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the article: 'One major new feature in Firefox 1.1 is the "Sanitize" feature. This enables secure browsing with much more ease. Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences).'

    Sounds something like the "Private Browsing" feature in Safari.

    --
    Dashboard Widgets
  5. erm by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But does it fix the memory leak? That's the biggest issue for me right now.

    --
    I like muppets.
  6. How About That Memory Leak, Fixed? by BRock97 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, how about that Firefox "feature" that keeps dynamically grabbing RAM as new images are displayed (at least that is where I am seeing it). Being a weather guy with my image looper adding new images every 5 minutes (and deleting the oldest one; the memory still isn't given up), I hate to see my browser using 500MB of RAM after a couple of hours. I was able to fix it with an entry in about:config called browser.cache.memory.capacity, but it would be nice to know if it is fixed by default since we will be rolling out Firefox on a bunch of desktops where I work in a few months.

    --

    Bryan R.
    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
  7. Firefox also boasts remote code execution. by wschalle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I haven't confirmed it myself, but this report says that firefox V1.03 is vulnerable to remote arbit. code execution.

  8. Re:google maps by Ark42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Might be related to http pipelining being enabled or disabled on one of your installs. It makes a HUGE difference in the speed all those little tiles load for me.

    --
    Morphing Software
  9. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences)

    Sounds like the "delete all private data" feature that Opera has had for several years.

    Going down! Since this is Slashdot, I'll be modded flamebait for making an honest observation.

  10. /. Rendering by leapis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I actually found a "fix" for the /. rendering problem. If you go to https://slashdot.org, it never displays incorrectly. Curious that SSL should have any affect on what is displayed, but I've been using it for weeks with no ill effects.

  11. A few setbacks, UI wise by erikharrison · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think there are a few setbacks, UI wise, in the latest builds.

    The new preference dialog sucks. I suspect it's design is an attempt to match what OS X users expect, since Firefox devs have this (IMHO) crazy notion that the product should look as identical as possible across OSes.

    The whole thing looks much more cluttered, and it has the same bugs that the UI did in pre 1.0 where the text was rendered inside of windows all the time (Like in the toolbar customization pallete, or in the current prefs). Which makes me worry that actually it's an XUL problem. If text placement is a thing that's hard to get right in XUL, it makes me worry about it as a platform.

    However, performance did increase noticably for me, and the sanitize feature could be handy. I don't offhand find it much more useful that the "Clear All" button under privacy now. But it is nicely customizable, and not loosing my login cookies is kinda nice . . .

  12. Thing about FireFox I don't like... by PocketPick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really enjoy FireFox, but I still have two peeves:

    1.) If I hit the middle mouse button and use auto-scrolling for something like this slashdot page, Firefox will use 30 to 40 percent CPU. And I wouldn't classify my system as slow(Athlon64 3200+ w/512Mb of RAM). Hopefully the can do something about this.

    NOTE: Prior to making this post, I observed that IE holds at around 7 percent for the same action.

    2.) Unexpected browser closing in v1.01 and above that wasn't present in the pre-v1.0 releases, such as when I'm holding down several keys or typing something in the browser and then switch to another page with the mouse, causing the browser to close (or crash, though I don't get an error message).

  13. Make Firefox Look Like Maxthon? by Munna2002 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm all for open source and competition to IE7. But Maxthon seems to take less resources, can save flash files, and have little usability tweaks for tabs (i.e. activate or deactivate tabs for new windows, etc., location of new windows relative to original tab, and so on). Is there any tweak to make Firefox look like Maxthon since its UI is very "meh". Tips anyone?

  14. URL history sort in address bar by guacamole · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will we have this old mozilla feature back? I want the URLs to be sorted based on the time they were last typed in the address bar as opposed to whatever sorting scheme that's being used right now in Firefox 1.0.x.

  15. Just like commercial software by NineNine · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And here we see the beginning of Firefox becoming just like commercial software.... they're working on new "features" to "sell" the piece of software faster/better/whatever instead of taking time to fix current bugs. If Firefox continues at this rate, it'll be no better than IE soon, and we (web developers) will be back to the drawing board, looking for another decent browser.

  16. Re:back/forward by Saeger · · Score: 5, Interesting
    back/forward can cache the rendered layout

    YES! Finally!

    Instantaneous back/forward (with mouse-rocker) navigation is one of the major killer features that has kept me using Opera as my main browser for years now. And if the tab switching and general snappiness of Firefox v1.1 has also improved to Opera's level, as some attest, then I can ditch Opera for good...

    ...well, as soon as Firefox gets the one last feature I can't live without: opera-like image AND text zooming (+/-), instead of just text scaling (Ctrl+/-).

    Yep. That's it. I can live without the rest of the kitchen sink.

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  17. MOD PARENT UP (and another suggestion) by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's another suggestion: use a browser, such as Opera, that supports disabling the referrer field. Granted, the last time I really used Opera was in the 6.x days, so I don't know if it still has that feature. Worst comes to worst, find an old copy of 6.x.

    --
    I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
  18. Re:time for a new icon? by fbjon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hm, I think it definitely looks more like a colourful sphere of some sort. Looks better than the small Opera icon, but perhaps not as recognizable. Where's the nice looking "W"?

    --
    True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  19. google search by goat_of_wisdom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've recently switched from mozilla to firefox and it's really frustrating not to be able to google search by typing my query into the url field and hitting the down arrow (like you would in mozilla). I'm sure this has been addressed before, but does anyone know how to make this work?

  20. Uh-oh by XanC · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I hate to report this, but I uninstalled Web Developer, just to see... And it was like getting a whole new computer. FF is fast. And it's holding at 22MB resident. Normally by now it'd be at 75 at least, and climbing forever and ever.

    Maybe I'll see if I can send some info to the developer... It's such a useful extension. But I've never seen FF fly like this.

    1. Re:Uh-oh by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Whoa, that's quite a difference! Of course, one has to wonder whether that's a static difference, or whether the difference is actually proprotional to the total amount of memory being used. If Firefox is still going to be using 250MB at the end of the day, a 50MB difference isn't going to matter that much. However, if Firefox will stay 1/3 as big throughout the day, that could be very significant!

      If the latter ends up being true, perhaps it would be worth creating a separate profile that contains the Web Developer plugin. When you say you "uninstalled" it, do you mean you actually totally uninstalled it, or did you just disable it?

      --
      Steven N. Severinghaus
    2. Re:Uh-oh by XanC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Another profile... That could work.

      I totally uninstalled it; I didn't want to make my test messy. I would imagine that disabling would give the same results though.

      I've posted on the Web Developer extension forum.

  21. x64 version too? by mnmn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I certainly wouldnt mind an x64 win64 version. A proper one, not one that says "Gecko Browser" where extensions dont work, and plugins dont work (maybe it needs x64 plugins i which case I'm complaining about the lack thereof).

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  22. Re:Some good and some bad by LadyLucky · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Back/Forward Cache: Yes! Yes! Yes! This brings Firefox one step closer to the way I feel caching should be done. Back/forward should always pull pages from the cache (ignoring meta expire), and clicking links should always load the page from the server.

    While this may at first glance seem like a good idea, the browser absolutely must respect no-cache headers.

    A trivial example is if you go to an online bookshop say, and you order a book. If you hit the 'back' button, you may get very confused if you start to see out of date information 'huh? It says that I haven't ordered this book yet, but I did'.

    Then extend this further to more critical areas that web applications are getting used for these days. Bringing up medical information, for one. Say you order a drug through a web interface, and then hit back to go to the summary screen of all the meds the patient is currently taking, to print it out for your ward rounds. In this case showing the incorrect cached data is very very bad indeed.

    --
    dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
  23. how about moz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    is it going to be fixed up too?
    some don't like FF's layout/key codes

  24. A REAL download manage by Torin+Darkflight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think Firefox should have a REAL download manager, one where you can pause the download, DISCONNECT from the internet, RECONNECT at a later time, and resume the download. As it is right now, you cannot do this! Yes you can pause the download, but if you disconnect then reconnect, when you tell it to resume, the download dies and you have to start all over again. Firefox should have this functionality built-in without the need for an extension, for us who are forced to use dialup.