Anyone know if the memory problems that everyone was complaining about in v1.5 is fixed for 2.0?
Re:Memory
by
apollosfire
·
· Score: 5, Informative
As reported before, Firefox does not have memory problems - it has a feature that is very memory intensive.
To disable this feature, do the following:
1. type about:config in you address bar
2. scroll down to browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers
3. set its value to 0 (zero)
Huh? I don't remember anything about any memory problems.
Didn't they eventually say that the memory issues were intentional and that it was caching the tabbed pages or something?
-- This guy's the limit!
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
And.. as reported before by countless users, that is not the problem.
I have had memory leaks since the 1.0 days, so this new enhanced session history thingy isn't the cause (and yes, I have actually tried it and it does not help one bit).
Even if it was the problem, why would I still have hundreds of megs being eaten when I have opened a new window and closed all other windows.. If this was the cause, Firefox should be destroying all the other sessions because I closed everything else out and opened a new window that has no session information, no tabs, and no back/forward buttons to click.
Please stop the spin.
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Firefox does not have memory problems - it has a feature that is very memory intensive.
Well, some memory leaks can't be helped: maybe it some extension or Javascript that makes my Firefox memory usage skyrocket (153 MB now) unless I restart it regularly. I'm sure that there is a way to associate each memory allocation with a script, and extension or internal Firefox code so I'll really welcome something that tells me who's the culprit of all those memory leaks.
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Fine, then is it off by default so that you don't have to discover that, then wade through about:config (talk about a user-friendly interface ) so that FF doesn't take up hundreds of megs even though you've closed most of the tabs?
I'm sorry the fact that Firefox will consume memory until it becomes unusably slow and/or crashes and has no way for me to free up that memory; that is a memory problem.
There are real memory leak bugs (at least in 1.5), such as one that caused Firefox to consume all of my 1.5 GB of RAM in mere seconds. What event caused this I cannot remember, although it may have been due to a bug when loading a plug-in, in which case it would be a joint effort to fix the code. Firefox isn't perfect, no browser is. However, I do think that Firefox is on its way to be a browser among browsers.
Firefox does seem to have the cleanest UI (in my opinion) of the major 3. Firefox also seems to be the most extensible, but don't quote me on that. The improvements in the options show the progression of the browser as a whole, and the commitment of the community to improve the browser. Firefox has quite a few new features that may be useful, such as the automatic spell checking by default (without an extension), and search term suggestions. Firefox has lots of momentum, and it may be best for the public if it maintains it.
So install Leak Monitor. Then you can see the cause of the most severe memory leaks: poorly coded extentions.
Whenever you close a tab or window and a leak is detected, you'll get a message about it. I used it for a few days and discovered several minor extentions I'd been using were causing some very large leaks.
-- The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you have any extensions? Some of the extensions have memory leaks, which can cause browser to consume over 100 MB of memory. If you run Firefox in safe mode, do you still have the same problem?
So install Leak Monitor. Then you can see the cause of the most severe memory leaks: poorly coded extentions.
Can anyone explain how this happens. All(?) extensions are written in XUL using javascript right? How is it possible to create a memory leak using javascript. The garbage collector of the javascript engine should get rid of unused allocated memory right? Is it the javascript engine that has leaks? Or is it just the definition of memory leak taken very broadly?
Uh, Dunno about windows n stuff, but Firefox on X has major memory problems, like never freeing pixbufs it stores in the X server. Your "fix" does nothing to solve this.
Or the "close a tab (or the browser with more than one tab) lets grab 100% cpu for 10-15 seconds" bug? Now I know that's not a long time but why does it do it at all? And a better question is it something I can switch off?
Sorry, but poorly designed caching is a memory leak. I shouldn't have to restart my browser because it is taking 700mb of memory (no lie). Especially when I only have one window open.
Everytime a Firefox article gets posted, I see someone post a hack to fix the memory leak problem. I've tried every one of them and none of them fix it on my end. The only externsion I'm running is Google's Toolbar. Regardless though, no one except the most hardcore Firefox users would ever know to look in about:config to turn off this "feature". And they shouldn't have to either.
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Firefox is rather bloaty period. There is no magic fix.
And that would be wrong (otherwise extensions wouldn't be portable across platforms). All extensions are written in pure Javascript/XUL. The real nasty bit is that the Javascript can (and usually does) call back into the runtime using XPCOM, and as a result, the Javascript can generate memory leaks by allocating resources and not freeing them.
Extensions exist in a global context for the process. They can maintain a permanent reference to objects that are never used again, and should otherwise be freed. They may also create cyclic references, in which one or more objects contains references to each other. This creates a situation where the objects are not referenced by an accessible code path, and the reference count can never drop to zero. The result is a leak, and it is an inherint weakness simple of reference counting garbage collection.
Even web pages can create circular JavaScript references that result in leaks. FF isn't alone in this area either. IE has always been vulnerable to memory leaks via JavaScript, theirs are just confined to bad pages. However, FF 3 will have a cycle detector that identifies unused cyclic references and frees the objects. But that still won't fix sloppy extensions that hang on to large objects for no goood reason.
In my experience, Plugins are pretty bad too. They operate outside the scope of the garbage collection and often don't clean up after themselves. For instance, my installation of Acrobat eats up a large chunk memory just for loading, and doesn't let it go after I navigate away from the page. The PDF Download extension helps, but it isn't perfect.
And now to reply to myself, the other possibility, as outlined in the Leak Monitor page, is that the Javascript code passes objects into the XPCOM layer which are not automatically released by the native code, thus creating a leak (since the Javascript object can't be garbage collected).
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All extensions are written in pure Javascript/XUL
That is blatantly wrong and uninformed. You can write extensions that use compiled code. You just have to include binaries for all platforms that you want. The Pearl Crescent Page Saver extension is an example. Unzip the xpi to see the binary files.
Sorry to contradict, but you are incorrect. Extensions can be written in any any language that supports XPCOM bindings, and many are not portable across platforms. Enigmail and the Calendar extension are two perfect examples of compiled C/C++ binary extensions that can't be written in JavaScript. However, most extensions are cross-platform and written in JavaScript. Also, a JavaScript extension doesn't need to do any XPCOM wizardry to cause memory leaks. It just needs to maintain references to unused objects or create cyclic references.
As reported before, Firefox does not have memory problems - it has a feature that is very memory intensive.
And as mentioned before there are bugs for memory leaks that predate the fast back-forward feature. And to say that memory probelms are all becuase of this feature is revisionist history.
I have 0 extentions, and run as configured (on multiple machines). Say what you will about this feature, but it is poorly implemented if the is cannot gracefully deal with running out of memory.
Whoah there boyo. You are saying that the Firefox boys implemented a cache poorly so that it can render the browser unusable or crash (0 plugins and default config) and it is MY FAULT because I didn't turn of the feature?
The GC can't destroy unused allocations if there are still references to them.
Leak Monitor watches extension code to see if it leaves references to parts of a window or tab even after it is closed.
Memory leaks are entirely possible even in languages with automated memory management.
Yeah it doesn't completely return the memory and not in a satisfying way either (that is, it never gets down to near where it was at opening the first browser). Although, I don't get the massive leaks so many people are talking about. With about 25/. pages opened in tabs, mine gets up to about 72mb. Then after closing down to one page, it 'returns' to 33mb. I tried the same with some other websites with same results. I do have noScript enabled most of the time, but not at this moment.
To disable this feature, do the following: 1. type about:config in you address bar 2. scroll down to browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers 3. set its value to 0 (zero)
For those who had to look this up (like me:-)): "Pages that were recently visited are stored in memory in such a way that they don't have to be re-parsed (this is different from the cache). This improves performance when pressing Back and Forward." (Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers)
Is there any sort of extension that tracks what tabs use CPU? Sometimes I have tons of tabs open and my CPU goes to 100%--it's some tab, somewhere, but I just don't know which one.
Sorry to contradict, but you are incorrect. Extensions can be written in any any language that supports XPCOM bindings, and many are not portable across platforms.
Then I shall amend my statement for both you and the other poster. The vast *vast* majority of extensions are written in Javascript, with a few exceptions.
It just needs to maintain references to unused objects or create cyclic references.
Certainly, but I don't believe most extension leaks are caused by such things, as they're rather difficult to trigger in practice. As far as I'm aware, most leaks caused by extensions are due to interactions with the XPCOM layer.
Firefox does not have memory problems - it has a feature that is very memory intensive
So why does this "feature" remain the default?
To disable this feature, do the following: 1. type about:config in you address bar 2. scroll down to browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers 3. set its value to 0 (zero)
This is something less than obvious or user friendly. Unlike the advanced options that can simply be checked and unchecked in IE's "Internet Options."
1.5.0.3 supposedly fixed the memory leakage issue but there was also a setting in about::config that would tell Firefox to release memory when it was minimized.
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So do any of us who, despite having done that, still have firefox eating 120+ megs have any reasonable alternative besides cursing at how shitty this browser is and, of course, change to opera?
I can't really count the number of different about:config modifications people say should terminate this "feature" that I and most certainly many others have tried just to be utterly disappointed at both your useless help, this useless browser and the useless fools (developers included) who claim this monster of a bug to be a "feature" which is supposed to be as easy to turn of as pulling a whole laptop out of our collective asses.
Oh and I've got news for you all, it's not about exensions, at all. I've tried it, many others did too, and we still run against this same two year old wall
And one last word, dear developers. I love to read you all yapping about how hard this bug is to replicate, it just strikes me kind of odd that you are the only ones who don't have to restart FFox after half an hour of light usage. Anyway you'd do well to hire someone for the sole purpose of filtering the "features" you pre-enable in the browser, it isn't that smart, or shall we say, it is utterly ridiculous to have a feature that completely destroys the usablity of your software, do we at least agree on that?
Doesn't work for me. I have done that and firefox STILL creeps up to 300 meg with only one or two windows open.
-- This space available.
Re:Memory
by
Mistshadow2k4
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Poorly coded extensions definitely are the biggest memory leak problem. I was using forecastfox for a while and Firefox was leaking like a rusty bucket, even with the sessionistory fix. One day, forecastfox popped up with the latest temperature over an hour after I'd closed Firefox. I uninstalled it right then and Firefox has been pretty well-behaved memory-wise ever since; I haven't seen it's memory usage go over 85 mb.
Also, this fix helps too:
1. Open Firefox and go to the Address Bar. Type in about:config and then press Enter.
2. Right Click in the page and select New -> Boolean.
3. In the box that pops up enter config.trim_on_minimize. Press Enter.
4. Now select True and then press Enter.
5. Restart Firefox.
-- I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
A very good point. Along with the session history and the minimize config option I posted above, these two could and probably should be put on the options panel. Make it as simple as checking and unchecking it -- "Set session history to 0? (Saves memory, slows some pages)" should work fine.
-- I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Well, I don't know about Windows, but on Linux, an application can't deal gracefully with running out of memory unless /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory is set to 2.
Even if all that memory was free(2)'d, it still wouldn't return to the OS.
You mean free(3)'d.
I assume you're referring to brk(2) style allocation, in which memory is not freed until a program exits. GNU/Linux doesn't use that (yes, "GNU/Linux". Linux supports brk(2), but GNU libc mostly doesn't use it, IIRC). Instead, it uses mmap(2) to allocate memory, and munmap(2) to return it to the OS.
For instance, my installation of Acrobat eats up a large chunk memory just for loading, and doesn't let it go after I navigate away from the page. The PDF Download extension helps, but it isn't perfect.
Try the Foxit PDF Reader http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php It loads instantly.
For instance, my installation of Acrobat eats up a large chunk memory just for loading, and doesn't let it go after I navigate away from the page.
I don't know about Linux, but under Windows Acrobat Reader stays memory resident even after you navigate away from the PDF that originally launched the plugin; look for the acrord32.exe process in Task Manager. It dies if you close the last "real" Reader window (which also kills all PDFs open in browser windows!), but not if you close a PDF open in the plugin.
Can you read or not? The caching feature added in 1.5 is not the reason Firefox leaks memory. Firefox has been leaking memory since well before the 1.5 release. Moreover, Opera has had that very same caching feature since version 6 or 7, and it has never had Firefox's memory problems.
Firefox is at war with Opera, and allied with IE. Firefox was always at war with Opera and allied with IE.
-- /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How much longer do we have to live through people posting that everywhere?
Goodger got so bombarded with people disagreeing with that being the reason for Firefox's out-of-control memory usage that he posted in his next entry:
Firefox's caching behavior is just one area of memory usage. I'm really glad that there's been such a lot of discussion in the previous post I made, since many people have raised specific issues, bugs have been filed, and people are looking at the things people are reporting. This sort of feedback system is one of the things that makes the open development model great. Firefox 2 will be much better because of your help!
Now can you stop linking to that first blog only? And maybe tell all your friends to stop too?
If Firefox is using 700 MB of RAM, it's almost certainly not a cache that's causing the memory use. You can check how much RAM the memory cache is uing by going to about:cache. You can make sure the bfcache is using only a little memory by visiting eight simple pages, one after the other.
I would suspect Google Toolbar, which many Firefox users report leaks memory.
-- What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
You're having a serious problem with Firefox that the vast majority of Firefox users aren't seeing. I recommend completely uninstalling Firefox, reinstalling it, and creating a new profile. That will likely fix the problem.
-- What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
However, Adblock is an extension that has, at least in the past, leaked hundreds of megabytes of memory. And the vast majority of Firefox users aren't seeing a leak of the magnitude you're describing. Perhaps Adblock is causing your problems?
-- What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
How does using some more memory cause the browser to be unusable or crash? If you find Firefox to be unusable or it crashes on you, it doesn't sound those problems are caused by Firefox using a few tens of megabytes more memory.
-- What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I've tried similar tests in other browsers (Opera and IE). None of them "return" to their starting amount of RAM. Even though all browsers exhibit this behavior, people complain about it only when Firefox does it.
-- What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
This will result in a really slooooow restore when coming back after, say, 15 minutes. Actually this was set to false in 1.5 and true in 1.0, for this reason.
No, they said the memory use that is obviously higher than Firefox 1.0 is mainly due to the caching. The memory leaks are far more subtle. The extra memory due to the caching is noticeable after visiting a few pages. The memory leaks are usually not noticeable until after days of continuous use. That is, unless you use one of the many extensions with a bad memory leak, in which case you can see Firefox use hundreds of megabytes within hours.
-- What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Because firefox continues to consume memory until it completely (or nearly completely) fills physical and virtual memory. We aren't talking a few tens of megabytes as you say, we are talking about the fact that, for me on multiple computers, a stock firefox will eventually leak hundreds and hundreds of megabytes. At that point it can take minutes to even close the program because of the burden to return that much memory to the system.
Perhaps they should work on an extension framework for 2.0 that will make it less likely that authors will write leaky extensions? Obviously the vast majority of extension authors are not getting the idea that they need to check the code.
-- "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Adobe is trying to turn their Acrobat product line into a platform. And a bloated pig of a platform it is becoming. The Foxit Reader has rescued a number of us who are forced to use PDF.
Adobe is at this point vulnerable and should be thrashed in the marketplace of 'PDF/Postscript' things by Ghostscript-based projects. Ghostscript used to be significantly slower, but as Adobe wills their product to become ever more of a bloated pig the comparison no longer holds.
I don't know if it's the cause of my problem, but I installed that memory leak deterctor thingamajig, and so far the only leaks it's finding all come from gmail.
You're having a serious problem with Firefox that the vast majority of Firefox users aren't seeing. I recommend completely uninstalling Firefox, reinstalling it, and creating a new profile. That will likely fix the problem.
Er... Everyone I've ever talked to who runs Firefox on linux has told me that they've got creeping memory leaks that will eat all of their RAM given time. None of them have been able to fix it through reinstallation shenanigans. Maybe the people you've been talking to just close their browser every half-hour so they never have a chance to run into problems? There's a memory leak, and it sucks. Badly.
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Make sure that browser.cache.memory.enable is set to _TRUE_.
Setting it to false causes firefox to leak gigantic amounts of memory. Don't ask me why.
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're having a serious problem with Firefox that the vast majority of Firefox users aren't seeing. I recommend completely uninstalling Firefox, reinstalling it, and creating a new profile. That will likely fix the problem.
ummmm I think you better turn that statement on its head, The VAST majority of people are seeing this serious problem. Firefox is the browser of choice between myself and my friends but we ALL (8 of us) see this problem. Yes it is mostly caused by crap firefox extensions but that is STILL a firefox problem as firefox doesn't provide good functionality without them. mind you firefox still has creeping memory problems without extensions as well.
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It could be gmail leaking all the memory, if you check gmail a lot. See bug 321282.
sigh, this statement really shows your bias, what you should have written.
"If you regularly access gmail there is a firefox bug that is triggered via use of gmail that results in a memory leak in firefox."
Yes, Firefox does have memory leaks. These will eat all your RAM given time. However, people who are reporting a serious problem are not seeing these subtle memory leaks that take a long time to build up, but a much more serious memory problem that happens quite quickly. These serious memory problems are often fixed by uninstalling extensions. For good measure, reinstall Firefox and create a new profile to make sure any accumulated junk causing problems is gone.
-- What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
What you're describing sounds like a horrbile memory leak, not normal operation of the caches. Don't blame the caches for the problem you're seeing.
-- What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:Memory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Certainly, but I don't believe most extension leaks are caused by such things, as they're rather difficult to trigger in practice. As far as I'm aware, most leaks caused by extensions are due to interactions with the XPCOM layer.
You would be correct.
XPCOM objects are reference counted. JavaScript objects are mark-and-sweep garbage collected.
The problem comes when an XPCOM object holds a reference to an XPConnect-wrapped JavaScript object. The XPConnect object holds a "root" reference to the JavaScript object. This means that the JavaScript object will never be GCed, and anything it references will never be GCed.
So, now, if you create a circular reference between a JavaScript object and an XPCOM object, the XPCOM object will mark the JavaScript object as a root object, preventing it from ever being released, and the JavaScript object will prevent the reference count of the XPCOM object from ever falling below 1.
Hence, neither will ever be collected.
What's a good way to create a circular reference between JavaScript objects and XPCOM objects? Generally speaking, adding JavaScript objects as event handlers, and having those JavaScript objects hold a reference to some XPCOM object. Screw it up, and you can easily have a JavaScript object added as an event handler hold a reference to the entire DOM tree (hold on to one DOM node, you have access to the entire tree - ie, the entire page).
So, yeah, it's easy for extensions to make a small mistake (mostly involving not being aware that JavaScript supports closures and making a closure that accedently contains a DOM object, and then forgetting to remove an event handler), and leak massive amounts of memory.
The idea is that there have been no issues with memory leaks and all current grousing about memory usage is just people who don't understand the kind of system resources necessary to make fast back/forward function supposedly.
The truth is there have been memory issues on people's minds since before FF 1.0 shipped and some of these issues have been somewhat ignored to focus attention on new features and keeping up on security standards.
Firefox was billed as being a streamlined, quick, secure browser back in the Firebird days. A program that worked effiecently and didn't pack a rats nest of features in like the old Netscape Communicator/Mozilla suites. That notion has somewhat gone out the window. Features are creeping in more because herd-mentality consumers don't want to bother with finding extensions to add the features they want (so if it's not there when they install, they simply think it's not available) and ideas (while innovative) are being implemented that require a lot of extra system resources.
The only extensions I use are Forecastfox and Adblock on all of my Firefox installs spanning FreeBSD, Linux and Windows XP+2k. I have never had any memory problems. In my experience it seems to me that they are usually caused by 1) outdated Flash and 2) outdated JRE. On the few machines I've seen this on, updating those fixed the problem.
Please let me know which extensions you have installed. I run firefox for 9 hours a day, with usually 10+ tabs open. (I'm a web developer) Rarely does it ever go above 75 MB of memory usage. I don't know where people get these numbers of 700 MB.
--
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
That still holds true. It may take up more memory than it used to, but it's much faster than some of the competition. I recently installed the lastest version of Netscape and was taken aback by the progress bar start-up procedure which lasts at least 30 seconds on my P4 3 GHz with 1 GB of RAM at work. My P2 266 with 192 MB of ram can start FireFox in less than 10 seconds.
--
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I disabled the cache and i see firefox consuming 98% of cpu time and over 100mb in ram, especially on flash sites.
Granted, maybe it is a bug on the plugin, but anyway firefox is slower than IE or opera, not only because of its cross platform interface (xul) but rather gecko as well (ktml feels faster, guess why apple chose it instead of gecko)
An also, most missing features in firefox without extensions are available in opera by default. (source: a digg article, too lazy to search for it)
If you only run it for 9 hrs a day, then you probably won't see the 700MB usage. It gets really annyoing after about a week. And after a week, some people have lots of different tabs and stuff open, making it annoying to restart Firefox.
Hm, funny I haven't noticed this, and I'm using a lot of extensions...
Could be that it takes a very long time to eat a lot of RAM, or that I occasionally close the browser, but I really haven't had problems with my system running low on memory.
-- I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
That still holds true. It may take up more memory than it used to, but it's much faster than some of the competition. I recently installed the lastest version of Netscape and was taken aback by the progress bar start-up procedure which lasts at least 30 seconds on my P4 3 GHz with 1 GB of RAM at work. My P2 266 with 192 MB of ram can start FireFox in less than 10 seconds.
But Firefox 1.5+ (and Seamonkey) is much slower than Mozilla 1.7+ -- where Mozilla renders a typical (cached, to take bandwidth out of the equation) page in about 3 seconds, Firefox takes 10-15. Yes, the difference is that bad, and I have yet to find a single page where Firefox isn't a lot slower. This on three vastly different systems with two different operating systems.
To compensate for being so much slower, Firefox uses a lot more memory and has dumbed down preferences and fewer options... The main reason I see for Firefox having become so popular is plain and simple hype.
Garbage collectors are not magic. They don't release memory where there's a reference to it. If an extension is storing references to objects on a window that's subsequently closed, and the extension doesn't then remove those references, the GC isn't going to discard the objects, because as far as it's concerned, they're still in use.
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
All I know is that I'm not running any extensions, and I get the same problem with Firefox. All of its memory errors may not be related to the caching "feature", but the program definitely leaks memory like a sieve.
Number of entries: 849 Maximum storage size: 56320 KiB Storage in use: 62042 KiB Inactive storage: 0 KiB
Am I missing something, or should current <= maximum?
My solution was to get 4GB for reasons other than browsing; I'm only going to worry if Firefox starts using over 1GB. Now I just need to figure out how to get a faster disk subsystem without paying > $5,000.
I think the point being made was that this isn't a bug; it's there by design. A bug is a coding mistake that needs to be rectified. This isn't a coding mistake; it's a design choice that can be changed if you, the user, don't want the behavior. It's like saying "the fonts are too big, it must be a bug." It's not; it just requires you to change a configuration option.
What is desired behavior for some isn't for others. Just change the setting, and be on your way. That's what I did when I slightly changed font settings to look the way I like them. I didn't go calling the "drives me nuts" font choices that were pre-installed a "bug".
Even the article linked there admits that Firefox does have memory leaks. It also has memory-intensive features which probably overshadow the amount of memory lost to those leaks.
It really bugs me when people talk about "the memory leak" in Firefox as if it were one issue. In reality, the high memory usage some people experience is a combination of many different factors: an unknown number of small memory leaks (some of which have been fixed in the updates to the 1.5 series, as note in the release notes), memory-intensive features like the back/forward cache, combinations of extensions, and individual browsing habits.
Does Firefox have memory problems? Yes. Do those problems affect all Firefox users? No. Is it a single issue that can be solved in one place? No. Are people working on fixing the individual problems? Yes.
It *might* be a Firefox bug. It might equally be a GMail bug. You have no way of knowing if it's Firefox that's not freeing unused memory, or GMail not clearing references to data it no longer needs.
GMail is a Javascript application, and it does allocate memory. Without someone pointing at specific code and saying "This is where the leak is occuring", it's simply not possible to point at either Firefox or GMail and say "This is where the bug's occurring".
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I never said it was a bug, I said it was a problem. Additionally it isn't a feature that is obvious to turn off. Certainly not for the average user. If you look at the posts around here you will see that there are a number of people who are experiencing issues with FF consuming massive amounts of memory. It is a real issue, and not one that should be dismissed by blaming the user for not (in this case) disabling a hidden setting.
It is a real issue, and not one that should be dismissed by blaming the user for not (in this case) disabling a hidden setting.
I know someone somewhere claimed it was a bug? Maybe that wasn't you; if so, sorry about the confusion.
As for the pref -- you can't have a UI for everything (though perhaps someone could make an extension for some of the more esoteric stuff like this to add to the prefpanes) but if it becomes enough of a problem for enough people the default might be changed. It's a good thing to think about in terms of maybe filing a bug in bugzilla and voting for it.
I can honestly say that I had a big impact on FF2 in terms of the search engine management -- bug 232272 ("buran" wouldn't work in gmail, dangit) as I reported that enhancement request. It was pretty cool to see it specifically mentioned in that review article -- so the bugzilla enhancement/bug fix process really does work.
No you can't have a UI for everything. But I would actually classify this (caching) behavior as important enough to have one. However what I was really complaining about was the snarky comment that seemed to imply it was my fault for not turning off a hidden default behavior.
I was simply annoyed that people call things "bugs" that aren't bugs, when they don't like the setup. As said before, if it wasn't you that did that, and I accidentally responded to the wrong comment, then please, don't take it as being aimed at you.
Couple of questions
by
caluml
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Slightly off topic, but probably the best place to ask:
Is anyone having a problem with recent versions where the URI autocomplete sometimes doesn't work, even if it's an address you often go to (e.g. google.com).
Or when you click on a tab, it doesn't "release" fast enough, and start moving the tab around?
Re:Couple of questions
by
ezdude
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have some similar problems, but not exactly those. I often find that when I click on a previously visited link from the URL drop-down list, it doesn't go to that site. Also, one thing that annoys the heck out of me is that when I try to close PDF's, which are in separate tabs, it takes forever. I don't know if this is a Firefox issue or Adobe, but it seems worse in more recent versions of Firefox.
Re:Couple of questions
by
aussersterne
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yesssss! The I-didn't-mean-to-drag thing drives me nuts. In fact, general UI slowness is the thing that keeps me from using Firefox instead of Konqueror a lot of the time.
I know that my processor is "only" 1.3 GHz, but I swear there was a time when a gigahertz-plus CPU was enough to operate a GUI smoothly. But maybe I'm remembering incorrectly...
-- STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Couple of questions
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
where the URI autocomplete sometimes doesn't work
Actually, yes. If a page is currently loading in another tab, the autocomplete stuff sometimes doesn't come up at all until the page is done.
Or when you click on a tab, it doesn't "release" fast enough, and start moving the tab around?
I hadn't had that happen to me before, but after some testing I got it to do it a couple of times but it only does it if I'm moving the mouse fairly quickly when I click, and about 95% of the time, it just snaps back right away. Maybe you are twitching the mouse slightly when you click? If this is on windows, then I believe the mouse settings have a threshold for drag-and-drop to start. Otherwise, I'm not sure where (or if) the setting would be (might be hardcoded in firefox, even on windows).
Re:Couple of questions
by
bigbigbison
·
· Score: 1
I have totally had the click a link in the dropdown adress bar and it only reloads the page you are on. Frustrating as hell. I've had it happen on two different computers so either it is something in firefox or one of the extensions i have on both machines.
-- http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Yesssss! The I-didn't-mean-to-drag thing drives me nuts.
<aol>Me too!</aol>
I know that my processor is "only" 1.3 GHz, but I swear there was a time when a gigahertz-plus CPU was enough to operate a GUI smoothly.
Are you using Debian or Ubuntu, by any chance? I've noticed that the packaged Firefox builds supplied by those distributors are markedly slower than the official builds, for some reason. The official builds are still a bit slow on my vintage 900MHz machine (rendering is fast enough, but there's some degree of UI latency), but not too bad.
everytime i click the drop down for the first time in a browsing session i have to click it twice as the first time it drops down and immediately goes back up. Extremely annoying. Oh and PDFS are slow... Before 1.53 I had to kill adobe process to get back control of browser, now it just takes about 10 seconds.
Re:Couple of questions
by
ConceptJunkie
·
· Score: 1
I always thought that was a KDE thing, because I never have those problems in Windows or OSX, but when I use Firefox and Thunderbird on SuSE 10.x running KDE 3.5.x, I have the problem in spades. I thought maybe it was a problem with the minimum time and distance values for a click to be considered a drag. Maybe this is completely wrong, but it makes sense.
-- You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Hehe, I remember using IE on a 486 PC with a 133 Mhz AMD CPU, 32 megs of RAM and a 1.6 Gb hard disk drive. The funniest thing was that IE 5 was much faster than Netscape 4 and even Opera, probably because this little amount of RAM was completely dedicated to Windows 98 and IE 5.
i actually have been forced back (due to my normal comp exploding) to my dads hand-me-down P350, with 256MB RAM. I'm running 2.6.14 with KDE 3.2 and actually goes pretty well considering. Just makes me wonder where all that extra power really goes to...
-- "if i'd known it was harmless, i'd have killed it myself"
Re:Couple of questions
by
Bing+Tsher+E
·
· Score: 1
I remember when a 486-33 with 32M of RAM would run even KDE reasonably well.
Re:Couple of questions
by
ashayh
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Blame it on GTK. I use Firefox simultaneously, on similarly configured XP and Linux machines. They use the same monitor through a KVM switch. FF on Windows XP is lightning fast and dog slow on Linux (Fedora 5 GNOME for now).
While I applaud the efforts of people who worked hard on GIMP/GTK/GNOME and all related technologies, fact remains that they are dog slow on the same hardware when compared to Windows and QT.
On top of all this, most distros insist on making GNOME the default and KDE the bastard child.
That still makes KDE zippier and therefore more usable.
There are so many things wrong with GTK, the file open/save dialog and the utter wastage of whitespace are the first to come to mind.
Re:Couple of questions
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, that and another one which is very frustrating. Sometimes, when I copy some text, it is not available to paste it in other places inside the browser. I noticed that when this happens I cannot type in form input boxes. Although I can focus on a form field with the mouse, if I start typing, the search bar pops up and starts searching what I type in the current page. It's very frustrating... did I mention that?
I've tracked the autocomplete thing down. If I open a new tab from a bookmark or a toolbar link with the middle mouse button, the autocomplete doesn't work right away. I have to click the focus away from the input box, then click back into it and it works. And of course all my most common pages are on the toolbar, so it happens a lot.
If I manually open a new tab first, then just click the bookmark or toolbar link normally, then it's fine.
I would blame it on Gnome or KDE rather than GTK - I use Fedora Core 5 with WindowMaker (not as a window manager for KDE or Gnome - just WindowMaker) and my machine flies - no GTK problems here.
-- Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Or when you click on a tab, it doesn't "release" fast enough, and start moving the tab around?
Why do GUIs behave that way anyway? I mean, why should the action behind a widget be triggered by releasing my finger instead of by pressing it?
Every physical button in the world is triggered by press events (except perhaps landmines... but I may just have been watching too many war movies), so GUI buttons should do the same thing - it would occasion the least surprise, and completely eliminate this problem even on the slowest machine.
But no, all GUI toolkits I know wait for the release event, and some even suppress the action unless you release in the exact same place where you pressed. Is there an arcane usability reason why I'm supposed to prefer the unintuitive behaviour? Is it just in case I should change my mind in the split second before releasing? I would gladly give up that capability to be able to perform faster clicks.
Because most buttons change graphics on press, and the user is given feedback at that point as to which button was actually pressed. As there is often some lag in mouse pointer placement, this gives the user a moment to reposition the pointer over the proper button before releasing. You can make an arguement for the action on mouse-down, but in practice, users almost unanimously prefer the action on mouse-up behavior.
Only when it allows me as a developer to install programs on your computer without your consent or at least when you click "NO" to installing something will it be better than IE.
I guess it's not concerned about what else is out there. Konqueror has "open in firefox" and "open in opera" options, firefox doesn't have anything like that. And of course, Konqueror, like everyone else, has a better version number than firefox.
That's just a third party add on, and one specific for explorer, while konqueror is automatically integrated with both those web browsers and all other applicable programs to an extent(they can be selected under "open with: other" but can't be added tho the "open with" list easily enough), and it's also easily configurable to open images with any other program. Besides, it's a very basic feature, one that shouldn't require an extension.
The extensions are starting to get more useful than Firefox itself. There's your grocery-list generator, your calendar, your birthdays reminder, your gmail checker and everything else imaginable. I think the Mozilla team is going to keep cutting features and options to spur more extensions until finally someone makes a web browsing extension and then no more work for Mozilla team!
-- "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Browser Speed
by
reporter
·
· Score: 3, Informative
He concludes, "So overall, Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. However, it is still not as fast as Opera, and Opera also offers a high level of standards support, security and features."
Wilton-Jones tested both version 1.0 and version 1.5 of Firefox. Does anyone have any thoughts on the performance of version 2.0?
Re:Browser Speed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's a load of crap!
firefox is lightyears faster than IE. I've done side by side testing. FF wins every time. by a large margin.
and opera is NOT the fastest browser for window. that honor goes to a little known browser called Kelowna (i think I got the name right). tiny little thing. but man is that thing fast.
often times opera is slower than firefox.
there is only ONE feature opera has I wish other browswers would get. the resume function. operas is really awesome. it works so well. i can even quit the browser, reopen later, and click resume on ANY download, even ftp, etc.
Interesting, I hope sure someone will do such a comparison at some point, just to satisfy curiosity. However I have to say that speed is way down on my list, behind security, functionality, reliability, and extensibility. The time spent reading a page is much so greater than the time taken to render it that I really couldn't care less about whether one browser renders a particular page half a second faster than another.
-- Oh no... it's the future.
Re:Browser Speed
by
JanneM
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
For many users, speed is the most important aspect of a browser.
For most users, speed is a minor issue as long as it's perceived to be fast enough. And response times from the distant website (not infrequently in the second+ range) typically swamps local things like redraw speed.
So no, unless you have the hots for Opera and need a way to motivate your obsession, speed is not a major issue today.
-- Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
For most users, speed is a minor issue as long as it's perceived to be fast enough. And response times from the distant website (not infrequently in the second+ range) typically swamps local things like redraw speed.
It matters, because frequently on Firefox opening more than 7 tabs at once means your CPU pegged on 100% and sometimes it even locks up the browser for a minute or so.
I'm still using Firefox since I'm lazy: all stored passwords and history and visited addresses and cookies... it's kinda making it hard for me to switch to Opera at once. But damn, the moment 0pera9 is out, I am switching.
Also the more I investigate the issue, the more IE7 seems a viable choice on Vista. IE was always a very fast browser (and noone gimme the crap about "preloaded" components because I do not mean startup times).
I'm a web developer and keep all sorts of browsers on my machine, but I didn't start using FF in favor of IE until IE started getting new "just visit the site and you're set" holes every week.
When IE is secured, and with the new improved standards support, I think I'll welcome IE again as my default browser.
Re:Browser Speed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Trust me, you'll never get through to people who use Firefox. Their faith in their browser is impenetrable even by piles upon piles of facts showing it's not the best after all. You'd be better off trying to teach fish to fly.
I run a lot of tabs in Firefox, but never pegged unless several of them are running Flash animations at the same time, which is one reason why I like FlashBlock.
Re:Browser Speed
by
Jeff+DeMaagd
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I won't use Opera because there is no apparent way to rearrange the control bars. The Address bar is at the top, the tab bar is in the middle and the control bar (back, forward, stop, reload, etc) is at the bottom. I don't understand why someone would think that the control bar makes sense where it is, it breaks the tab indicator from the page that it indicates. I want to set this order, top down: control bar, address bar, tab bar.
True, there is no way to rearrange the bars, but you can re-arrange everything on the bars to a different place. I did this and now my opera looks like a deafult firefox.
I'm more curious to know for what user speed is the most important aspect of a browser? There is no page I have ever visited that took more than 2 seconds to load in firefox 1.5. At that speed, for whom is speed an issue of consequence? I can't read any page faster than it renders, so who cares? What matters most to most users I would think would be two things: convenience and security. IE, you don't want to use IE because it can compromise your system so easily. And you don't want to use Opera because of the hassle. So in all seriousness, can you think of anyone whose primary consideration when choosing a browser is speed and not functionality? And unfortunately for Opera, while it is fast, different versions are the winners in different categories (so there's not even a single version of Opera to pick if you do want speed), and the difference between opera and firefox is so small as to be meaningless (when compared to say the time variance of packets being delivered over the internet).
-- "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Browser Speed
by
Killshot
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The difference is often more than half a second, for a while the difference could be as much as 10 minutes on orbitz.com. I'm not sure if it was something fixed in a recent firefox update or if orbitz did something to their code.
Re:Browser Speed
by
Dlugar
·
· Score: 2, Informative
View: Toolbars: Customize
Then click on whichever toolbar ("control bar") you want to change, and change "Placement" to top/left/right/bottom/off. I have the tab bar at the top, then the address bar, and the status bar at the bottom. (No other toolbars visible. Since the address bar has forward/back/reload I don't like wasting screen real-estate with a "control bar".) Opera is probably the most configurable UI I've used--I guess you just have to know.
-- Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
That only changes where on the window the bars are located. I want the tab bar and the address bar to both be on top, but the address bar to be on top of the tab bar. In addition to this, I can't find a way to display my (a) bookmarks toolbar on the same bar as the "File / Edit / View / Go..."
And trying to claim that Opera beats FireFox feature-wise is just a pathethic piece of FUD. First, FireFox intentionally gives you the choice to use a lean bare-bones trunk, and add any features of your choice to it. Even if you count just the officially approved ones, you can choose from 1365 extensions. Without AdBlock, Opera is useless on the IntarWeb of today, where nearly every page consists mostly of ads.
Speaking of ads, let me throw in a blatant pitch for my Debian package to eliminate 18-33% of http requests at DNS lookup phase so your network will get at least a bit less clogged by users of lesser browsers: dnscruft.
-- The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
"And trying to claim that Opera beats FireFox feature-wise is just a pathethic piece of FUD."
It does beat it with features out of the box. Now, Opera is clean and all by default, but there's all this functionality hidden below the surface. No need to mess around with buggy extensions and all that to get basic functionality like sessions.
"Without AdBlock, Opera is useless on the IntarWeb of today"
Have you read how limited account works in Vista? I leave it up to you to assess the security implications of this on IE7.
Also whether it has "W3C Support" I hope you realize the phraze is non-sense, however it has plenty of CSS fixes and ehnancements which I've studied in detail and had the chance to test myself in the Ie7 beta 2.
I'm not guessing here as I have first hand experience. What do you have? Smugness and desire to mix with the Slashdot crowd by coming here and bashing Microsoft products with little or no real information at all.
But if you believe a closed source program can ever be secure, then I think the problem rests with you.
At least I don't have my head up my ass, repeating anti Microsoft cliches like a fanatic without putting any thought into it.
Firefox is essentially its own virtual XUL machine. I don't expect it will ever be as fast as a natively coded application such as Opera. Even the fact that it manages to come close to Opera is a remarcable feat. Perhaps, one day, if the virtual machine will be shared with Thunderbird and optimized separately...
The fact that it is about equal to Explorer is a shame for Explorer -- IE runs on its own operating system, for god's sake, with part of it preloaded.
Opera's JavaScript engine has been acknowledged as being an order of magnitude faster than Firefox in certain aspects. Firefox caught up in 1.5, 1.0 was slower.
I think it's also a very clever thing that Opera uses small tricks to confort the user into [i]feeling[/i] it's faster. Its back and forward are truly instant, and it has the status bar which creates a psychological effect that diverts the user's attention off the actual loading and rendering time (which otherwise is comparable with Firefox).
-- i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Re:Browser Speed
by
jesser
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Firefox 2 won't have many performance improvements over Firefox 1.5, since Firefox 2 is a frontend release. Most of the speed improvements that have gone into the trunk since Firefox 1.5 won't be shipped to end-users until Firefox 3.
One major exception is the work on memory leaks. Firefox 1.5.0.x releases have been getting the simpler (less risky) leak fixes, and it looks like Firefox 2 will get most of the less simple memory leak fixes that are going into the trunk, including the nsIDOMGCParticipant work that fixes the large leaks with Gmail and most Greasemonkey scripts.
-- The shareholder is always right.
Re:Browser Speed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"For most users, speed is a minor issue as long as it's perceived to be fast enough."
They tend to redefine "fast enough" when they get used to some faster software though.
"and the difference between opera and firefox is so small as to be meaningless"
Opera has had far fewer security problems than FireFox.
--
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Browser Speed
by
Cal+Paterson
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Have you read how limited account works in Vista? I leave it up to you to assess the security implications of this on IE7.
There are a number of things you haven't considered. Firstly, that when you say "limited account" what you are actually refering to is a chroot. This new feature you mention is simply that the web browser does not run as the super user; now it runs inside a chroot. This has no affect on the security of Internet Explorer whatsoever! It just means that now, malicious code can only take control of IE and IE's own files.
IE can still be broken into (probably in much the same way it can be broken into now), but with only a localised effect. Are you saying that putting a program into a chroot means that all the bugs and holes magically disappear? You are mistaken as to the importance of this change.
This has been a point of play on every other operating system that runs a webbrowser since webbrowsers were first written. Do you think Tim Berners-Lee ran WorldWideWeb as root on his NeXTSTEP box when he invented the internet? No other Operating System will run webbrowser as root for one simple reason; it's a totally stupid idea; get hacked and the whole machine will go down.
This is hardly a feature worth trumpeting; it should have been this way by design. If your "assessment" of the security of IE7 has lead you to this piteous conclusion, then you really have a problem.
Also whether it has "W3C Support" I hope you realize the phraze is non-sense, however it has plenty of CSS fixes and ehnancements which I've studied in detail and had the chance to test myself in the Ie7 beta 2.
You may be interested to note the correct spelling of the word "phrase".
If you we to have written that sentence correctly, it would look something like this; "Also, (COMMA)as to whether it has "W3C Support,"(COMMA) I hope you realize,(COMMA)that phrase is nonsense.(FULL-STOP)However,(COMMA) it has plenty of CSS fixes and enhancements,(COMMA) which I've studied in detail,(COMMA) and have had the chance to test myself in the IE7 beta 2.
The sentence where you accuse me of nonsense actually is nonsense in itself. You can barely manage English, let alone HTML.
You note that it has fixes to rendering, but you fail to mention that it is not an attempt to actually bring IE in line with W3C specifications. It is still lacking W3C standardisation.
At least I don't have my head up my ass, repeating anti Microsoft cliches like a fanatic without putting any thought into it.
Instead, you prefer to sound off about new features when you have no actual understanding of their effect.
Re:Browser Speed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"can you think of anyone whose primary consideration when choosing a browser is speed and not functionality?"
Well speed is a primary concern for me, and with my browser I feel I'm not trading off functionality or security.
"I can't read any page faster than it renders, so who cares?"
I do. If I have to wait (loading, rendering, whatever) for something I am reading or typing something in another tab. Sure, some tasks take time, but the *UI* had better dispatch work from my fingertips *instantly* in this day and age. On my 50MHz Amiga, there was some client lag on my browser. That was more than ten years ago. I would like to think that computers are actually getting faster (and I doubt web browser workload increases anywhere propotional to say Moore's "Law"). I consider it a fundamental right of mine not to sit around waiting for my 1.7G P-M to think.
Re:Browser Speed
by
fdicostanzo
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
>> You may be interested to note the correct spelling of the....
I was in agreement with you til about here. When you start commenting on silly grammer and spelling it looks to me that your grasping desperately.
Not everyone speaks English as a first language and, IMO, its the ideas that are more important. Stick with commenting on those.
Frank
-- Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
Hmm, using time to start and close as soon as it appears, looks like Opera is the slowest?
joe@gentoo ~ $ time opera
real 0m13.832s user 0m1.970s sys 0m0.617s joe@gentoo ~ $ time mozilla No running windows found /home/joe/.themes/T-ish-Brushed/gtk-2.0/gtk rc:2: Unable to find include file: "iconrc"
real 0m4.412s user 0m1.466s sys 0m0.143s joe@gentoo ~ $ time firefox
real 0m1.009s user 0m0.033s sys 0m0.026s joe@gentoo ~ $
It WAS an issue for me when I switched to opera as soon as it became free. It was all nice and fast until it froze the entire browser if a page in one tab wasnt loading. Its a bug. It was enough to make me switch back to firefox about a week ago.
-- "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you."
-Nim Chimpsky
I have used that menu. Nothing I have tried in that menu allows me to reorder the toolbars to what I think makes sense. Opera is very configurable, but it doesn't allow me to do what I wanted to do. I think both Firefox and IE have more flexibility in reordering and adjusting those toolbars.
Re:Browser Speed
by
toddestan
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I guess it depends on what metric you want to use to measure speed. I've been using Opera for quite a while, and what really annoys me about just every other browser is how they like to redraw/reload the page when you use the back and forward buttons. Opera doesn't do that - rather the back and forward buttons are instant because Opera has the rendered page still in memory. Because of this, Opera overall seems a lot faster to me than the other browsers, despite the fact that is a bit slower to load, and it really isn't any faster when it comes to rendering pages.
Instead, you prefer to sound off about new features when you have no actual understanding of their effect.
I wonder if I'm the one confused here. You said yourself that running a browser in root is stupid and insecure, then you go and say that introducing the capability of limited privilegies and running IE in limited mode is nohing big of an improvement compared to, say, XP.
Which one is it?
FYI the only rights IE has in limited mode is access to the temporary files and reading its own preferences. That's it.
For even as basic things as saving a file you will download from it, IE talks to broker processes and can't do it itself.
Since the interface with the broker processes is simple and specific, it's easy to audit it for security issues due to the massively reduced attack surface a potential 'virus' can have.
Can a virus attack IE like now? Yes. Can it do the same damage? No. It's not that hard to understand.
As for W3C standard compliance, you can bend it and twist it any way you want. But adding full PNG transparency support, CSS 2 selectors, full support for:hover, pseudo elements (like:first,:last and more), fixed position elements and tons of other *newly supported* features (besides fixing issues in the existing code) in my eyes is pretty much improving standards compliance.
But all of that ain't important, I guess more important is where I missed a friggin comma in my post, right?
I was referring to the speeds in the performance table referenced by the parent. However, one might suspect that Opera has fewer security breaks due to less usage. It's really difficult to compare when the two products don't have similar usage numbers.
-- "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
*opens 67 tabs (webcomics)*
100% for 10 seconds, erratic between 80%-100% but responsive for 20 seconds as everything loads, back down to 2%.
Oh, right, I'm running flashblock and NoScript.
Still, happy shiny data point, hot and fresh to your door.
It's a fair assumption that almost all security problems of firefox will not afect opera and vice-versa. Two completly diferent browsers, with diferent base code, there is no reason to assume that both will undergo the same mistake, unless it is a case in witch the specification it self is the buggy part.
Well, unfortunately, as a statistic that is also not very useful, because security flaws are usually a matter of specific code vulnerabilities, so a flaw discovered in one browser would be expected not to be found in another browser in most if not all cases. Most IE vulnerabilities aren't in FireFox either, or even vice versa.
-- "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
"I don't understand why someone would think that the control bar makes sense where it is, it breaks the tab indicator from the page that it indicates."
I never undestood this- I see what you're saying, but the address bar also goes with the page that it indicates as well right? So why put the tab in between them? Your philosophy from top down goes: page that it indicates, all pages (global), then page that it indicates (the actual page) This makes no sense to me at all.
I think Opera got it right the way it is, but you shouldn't have any problem changing it to the way you'd like.
right click on tabs bar, and click customise, drag stuff around, press ok. my girlfriend managed it on her own, and she hates fiddling with programs that dont do what she wants.
I wonder if I'm the one confused here. You said yourself that running a browser in root is stupid and insecure, then you go and say that introducing the capability of limited privilegies and running IE in limited mode is nohing big of an improvement compared to, say, XP.
I didn't use XP as an example for a reason. If you want to use XP as your benchmark for design quality, you're just going to confuse the debate. XP is currently the least secure system available, by a rather large margin.
Running IE in a chroot isn't this massive improvement you say it is. While it's probably a good starting point for a program with security issues, it's hardly a cure. What needs to also happen is for the developers to fix the exploits, and start to use design principles that prevent them happening in the future. Chroots aren't a design principle; well designed programs shouldn't need them, and they often have the negative effect of meaning that the program gets vastly more complicated (the case in point being the "broker processes" you mentioned).
Can a virus attack IE like now? Yes. Can it do the same damage? No. It's not that hard to understand.
That's the point I was making. Using a chroot doesn't stop IE wrecking itself; it just stops IE wrecking everything use. "Woohoo! The webbrowser can no longer bring down the system!" actually _isn't_ an impressive claim.
But all of that ain't important, I guess more important is where I missed a friggin comma in my post, right?
The irony of it may have escaped you. You attempted to accuse me of using nonsense phrases, while making no sense yourself.
The irony of it may have escaped you. You attempted to accuse me of using nonsense phrases, while making no sense yourself.
In the future, when you argue with someone remember: changing the subject and commenting something totally unrelated in an attempt to be "ironic", like his syntax, accent, height, wealth, past, religion, or color of his eyes, makes you really seem short of *real* arguments.
You might want to try the FasterFox extension http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/, it does some of what you ask (it prefetches links and keeps the back and forward links in memory for example) although some people have warned me that some of what it does is considered bad ethics by webmasters, like prefetching or opening more threads than default.
-- There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
You've misunderstood me, I wasn't commenting the grammar. W3C is a huge amalgamation of technologies used and not used, finished and not finished, CSS 2.1 has *flaws* in the very recommendation that forces browser writers to write with hacks and approximation about some selectors.
Just claiming that a browser should "support" W3C is a very naive and wrong view of things. No browser in the world supports all of CSS. Actually, even Amaya, W3C own (now discontinued) effort had laughably buggy support for the standards they came up with.
What Microsoft did with IE7 was the only thing they could do: they collected a big list of the most annoying bugs, and most requested by the devs features regarding CSS support and implemented them. A lot of techniques that were impossible in IE6 without hacks like pure JS-less nested popup menus or fixed position elements are now fully supported.
They didn't went into blindly trying to implement everything in the tight schedule they have to claim "support", instead they they those changes where it would be most useful and most important.
This is what Firefox and Opera do most of the time, with the significant difference IE6 was frozen in time for over 6 years. Firefox/Opera also have plenty of CSS features improperly implemented or missing at all, and they ALSO extend the specs by adding their own standards (like XUL, in the case of Mozilla for ex. - this is NOT w3c standard, XForms is the W3C alternative).
What I wanted to urge you to see, is the matter is complex, messy and it's not as white and black as saying that a browser supports or not W3C. Hell, frequently W3C had to be pushed like a little kid screaming and kicking to introduce basic features in HTML, such as image support, which didn't came from W3C... the W3C standard was modeled AFTER the browser who "extended" HTML by introducing it (same can be said for the infamous frames, which still are useful in web applications and help systems).
At the time Microsoft was still updating IE, IE was the first browser with solid (for the time) CSS support, and for a long time the only one (did you forget NS4 and its "layer" tags and "JS Styles" and all other crap, god I hated that browser).
My basis for saying that was there were at least 3 exploits that affected FF and IE, but didn't affect Opera. I haven't found those again so no hard feelings if you don't believe me. One of them was actually a flaw in the WC3 standard. Using a malformed FTP address that contained the username etc, you could mask a URL. Somebody would think they're going to paypal.come but end up going somewhere else entirely. When this exploit was announced, FF and IE (IE was PARTICULARLY bad about this...) were susceptible to it. Opera threw up a warning saying "Are you really really sure you want to go to this domain...?"
I'll concede that this is hardly empirical. Still, though, I'm far more comfy using Opera than FF. Maybe I'm an idiot.
--
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Browser Speed
by
wheany
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There is Adblock in latest Operas. Right-click on the page and select "block content".
Please, by no means I was impliing or telling that your are an idiot or any other "bad name" for that matter. I do believe that there are problems in common for all browser, as I stated and you confirmed, there could be flaws in the specifications that would render all conforming browsers vulnerable. There may be subtle implementantion mistakes that are easily to be followed by two or more people that would implement the same thing.
I also don't think opera is a bad choice, it is much better then IE and it even can render the acid test, witch I believe that FF still does not pass. I do not know how secure it realy is, I believe that only opera workers can be sure about it, since it is a closed source browser. But in the other hand it's usage is not very high so there isn't much incentive to dig out problems with him, so I guess this could cancel out the "security throgh obscurity" factor.
I fell myself more confortable with FF, due to both my belieth that open is better then close and the fact that it has shown over and over that it is responsible and will fix the problems promptly as they appear.
I don't believe no project is perfect and without flaws, we're all humans, and we humans tend to make mistakes.
I imagined that, but you can never be too sure. As trait of my nacionality, I am Brazilian, I don't like to be rude and to offend people, more so with someone I don't know personaly. In fact, many of us here are unconfortable with being rude even with people that we actually dislike or consider them as a enemy.
This may seem good, but it has a dark side also, you have to learn how to "read people", otherwise is very hard to know when the person you are talking too is only being polite or when she really means to be friendly.
But anyway, back to topic, I aways try to be carefully when speaking in foruns in the web, because is very easy to hurt of offend people. We don't have a face-to-face or voice stress feedback, and those two are very comunicative, without those a simple joke can turn into a flametrhower, sometimes.... You can never be too carefully.
"As trait of my nacionality, I am Brazilian, I don't like to be rude and to offend people, more so with someone I don't know personaly. In fact, many of us here are unconfortable with being rude even with people that we actually dislike or consider them as a enemy."
Hehe. Believe it or not, I know that from personal experience. I've been to Brazil. I have a lot of nice things to say about the people there, made me envious in many ways. (I think the USA has lost some of its hospitality over the years...)
In any event, we're cool man. THanks for replying, and have a great weekend.:)
--
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
CoralCDN - just in case
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Informative
That would be very nice. I didn't know it worked before, and now that I know it I'd like them to bring the feture back. I noticed that problem many times while editing a Wikipedia entry, for example, that many times consists of a big text area with a lot of text and a mispelled word you want to correct.
Re:Here's something to fix
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Next version will be for those who can't write or read, I guess.
Nah, Internet explorer has a monopoly on that userbase.
Re:Here's something to fix
by
Paul+Crowley
·
· Score: 1
Mozex is a great boon to Wikipedia editors. Load the entry in a real editor, then you'll have not only search but replace and other such nice features.
Let's not forget the ' key causing the Find box to come up instead of putting a ' in the textbox. Google Mail is one place it seems to happen, among others.
Re:Here's something to fix
by
Compuser
·
· Score: 1
I also see this error. To reproduce, go to any slashdot comments page and search for "comments" using CTRL-F. Notice how it does not find the string in the drop down combo-box (you may have to press CTRL-N a few times).
Re:Here's something to fix
by
tompreuss
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It would also be nice if the in-document search worked within about:config since that's the only way to get to the bulk of the configurability.
One other "feature" the browser used to have (long before it was Firefox) was scrollbar/sliders that actually worked as expected in a unix environment. Namely, the function of continuing paging past the pointer while the mouse button is held above or below the slider in the trough. I forget the bug number, but several years ago one of the Mozilla engineers so much as told me "tough shit" that it doesn't work like every other application in my environment in that respect; that it had been that way originally but they'd gotten some complaints (they must have implemented it in the Windows builds too) and that he'd thought it was stupid anyway. I did some diligent research and discovered that both Windows and Mac users got their different-but-expected behavior so there was obviously an #ifdef in the source already. He wanted me to download over my modem the 50MB of code and submit a patch since he wasn't going to devote any engineering time to the task. I reminded him that he already knew where the routine was and that he'd spend a greater amount of time vetting my patch submission than simply inserting another #ifdef possibility.
That pretty much sealed Mozilla's fate for me. I don't use Windows by choice and I'll be damned if I'm going to have Windows-type behavior shoved down my throat. Which is also why I don't use GNOME crap.
Re:Here's something to fix
by
kadathseeker
·
· Score: 1
Okay, so it doesn't find text in drop-down menus, but it works perfectly for everything I do. I love it, personally. With Google and Find-in-text, I can find almost anything. This is especially nice because i have a gmail email "conversation" as they call it of me emailing any cool quotes I find to myself, and I can find any of the hundred or so of them in about 10 seconds.
-- The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
Re:Here's something to fix
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
As the developer working to fix this particular bug, I can say that it will hopefully be fixed in Firefox 2, and that there are working patches to do this right now, but they currently suffer from some leaks and other issues. If you're lucky, you'll get to see this in beta 1.
Simply just adding new flare to help new, inexperienced users, while not generally fixing problems that us veterans have come across. Of all the issues right now, I never noticed having a "close" button on the individual tab itself as a high priority. Maybe that's just me.
Of all the issues right now, I never noticed having a "close" button on the individual tab itself as a high priority
I have. Currently, there is no way to close a tab without first selecting it. If you are on a low-memory machine (and after FireFox has been running for a bit, most machines are low memory) then switching to a tab you haven't used for a while can involve some swapping. If this happens then it can take several seconds (during which your browser is completely frozen) to close a tab. Hardly ideal.
In contrast, using Opera on the same machine allows an old tab to be closed very quickly, since I just click on the button on the tab.
Re:For new users
by
plover
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Currently, there is no way to close a tab without first selecting it.
I used to think this too, which is why I used to use the TabX extension. However, since at least Firefox 1.5 I've been able to "middle-click" a tab to close it (without giving it focus.) Once I learned that, TabX was gone.
Just download TabClicking Options (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/260/). It gives you multiple methods of closing/opening/reloading tabs using the mouse buttons and modifier keys.
-- First God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made Jack Thompson.
Tabs in Safari have the close button on the tab. I hate it. With the close button in the corner, I have to aim the mouse pointer one time. When the close button is constantly moving, it's just plain old harder to be efficient. Plus, I find when I'm closing many tabs I often close one I don't want when using Safari. I hope they let the user choose and keep the upper right close button in place AND have the tab located button as well. They could even set it up in preferences so the user could choose one or the other or both. That way, everyone's personal preference is served.
"I can't seem to find this "middle-click"-button that you speak of on my iBook.. Help, anyone?"
Sure, ctrl-left click usualy acts as a middle button in Firefox. Having said this I just tested this on my box and it works for opening links in new tabs but wouldn't close them. Not sure if TabMixPlus stopped the closing behaviour or not but you can change it back to ctrl-click closes tabs in the options. I use ctrl-click a lot on my laptop... why don't they make more laptops with middle buttons?? =/
-- Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Re:For new users
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Try clicking the left and right buttons simultaneously. That makes a middle-click in many *-pads these days (cf. my 2002 Toshiba w. Alps touchpad)
Mozilla used to have a nice keyboard/mouse shortcut setup:
* shift-click == middle-click. * control-click (windows) == cmd-click (mac) == open link destination in new tab * control-enter (windows) == cmd-enter (mac) == open URL destination in new tab from the address bar * alt-click (windows) == option-click (mac) == download link destination * alt-enter (windows) == option-enter (mac) == download URL destination from the address bar
But the Firefox team f**ucked it all up because they decided that they needed to add some IE imitation, US-centric domain name typing shortcuts, even though you could add quicksearches with URLs that look something like http://www.s.com/ already.
Oh, and they decided that supporting users who don't have a "middle click" configuration for their mouse was out of the question. Gotta remove convenience from the software that previous developers worked to add in. Also, that annoying timed left-click contextual menu pop up is not likely to go away anytime soon in the Mac version. Yeah, I'll stick with Safari. Since I've hacked quicksearch functionality into it, I'm satisfied with it.
I use ctrl-click a lot on my laptop... why don't they make more laptops with middle buttons?? =/
Better yet, why don't they make more software that don't require a middle button? I have my middle button programmed to do shift-click. Even with only two buttons, you can already get so much:
left click
right click (ctrl-click for macs)
ctrl click (cmd-click for macs)
alt click (alt/option-click for macs)
shift click
... and if you want more, you can always do combos like alt-shift-click, etc.
Maya for OS X was also guilty of *requiring* a middle button. (Comparatively, Firefox's case isn't as bad since their middle click feature is non-essential.)
With the close button in the corner, I have to aim the mouse pointer one time. When the close button is constantly moving, it's just plain old harder to be efficient. Plus, I find when I'm closing many tabs I often close one I don't want when using Safari. I hope they let the user choose and keep the upper right close button in place AND have the tab located button as well. They could even set it up in preferences so the user could choose one or the other or both. That way, everyone's personal preference is served.
I absolutely second this. A close button that constantly moves around - uhh, no thanks. As I read that bit in the article I immediately thought of how freaking irritating that would be. That alone will keep me from migrating off v1.5 unless its optional (either that or it would force me to learn how to write extensions to put it back where it should be!).
Re:For new users
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Currently, I am too damn retarded to close a tab without first selecting it.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT. PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP.
Close button at same tab
by
omeg
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Okay, so now they placed the close tab button on the active tab itself. I've heard of that being planned. I, however, really don't like that myself. Does anyone know if it's possible to turn off? Because if not, I'm not switching.
There's no reason to not let the user be able to pick the old way of handling a UI functionality that a reasonable amount of people don't agree with.
Turn off the automatic update now, before you forget!
I'm strongly resisting the temptation to start another "it's more natural" argument....
Re:Close button at same tab
by
ElleyKitten
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Okay, so now they placed the close tab button on the active tab itself. I've heard of that being planned. I, however, really don't like that myself. Does anyone know if it's possible to turn off? Because if not, I'm not switching
There's an extension for the alpha already that turns it off.
I like extensions, but sometimes it seems like you have to have 80 of them just to get options that seem like they should be common sense.
-- "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
That was one of the best things about Galleon, it took some time to get used to pheonix (as it was back in 2002). Close buttons on tabs (or vice versa) will irritate somebody at most for a week, it's just habit. PHP6 is dropping this syntax:
$var = (condition)? true: false;
For someone who has thousands of lines of code and uses conditional assignment syntax liberally, this is a valid reason not to upgrade. You are just being silly.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Tx
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Because one man's common sense is another man's stupidity, and they want to avoid having the million configuration options necessary to cater for everybodys views. Having some people need a handful of extensions to tweak the things that bother them, while only having a small number of core configuration options is actually a much neater solution IMHO.
Personally I've been using the TabX extension to get a close button on my tabs since I started using Firefox, having the close button attached to the thing it closes seems like common sense to me;), so I won't even notice that change.
-- Oh no... it's the future.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
the_wesman
·
· Score: 1
my close button is in the exact same spot it always was - on the keyboard (ctrl-w)
-- calling all destroyers
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Blakey+Rat
·
· Score: 1
If they added an option for every single thing people "might not agree with", the preferences dialog would be a 8 MB download on its own.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Having some people need a handful of extensions to tweak the things that bother them, while only having a small number of core configuration options is actually a much neater solution IMHO."
Pardon, but are you fstupid? The number of people who hate the completely redundant, spacewasting, cluttering and annoying usage of close buttons on every tab are hardly counted in the "some" people category. Try "lots" instead. I bet you are one of those gnome-heads, since this smacks of the "You-will-use-the-spatial-view-and-we-are-teh-1337 -devs-so-shut-up" attitude.
Thank God you can disable that crap in opera.. I guess that makes it bloated from your pov, right?
I suspect they made that particular change because a large majority of users wanted it, so although I was actually speaking in general terms, yes, the rest are indeed "some people". And BTW I prefer KDE as it happens, Mr Coward.
-- Oh no... it's the future.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
heffrey
·
· Score: 0
As a developer of professional software one of the most important lessons that I have learnt is that every (well, almost every) time you offer the user a option of interfaces you have failed to do your job properly. Your jobs is to make a good choice for the majority of users.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You don't get it, do you? This is how it works: Version 1.0: Simon sez the close button is on the right. Version 2.0: Simon sez the close button is on the right part of the tab. Version 3.0: Simon sez the close button is...
You cannot stop progress.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Cl1mh4224rd
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone know if it's possible to turn off?
I don't have the Firefox 2.0 alpha release, but I'd imagine it's as easy as making anything else in the interface go away. You'll have to find out the element name for the button, and then in/chrome/userChrome.css add...
-- People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
malsdavis
·
· Score: 1
Couldn't agree more.
I started using one of the earlier Bon Echo Firefox 2.0 builds just to try it out. I soon had to delete it and reinstall version 1.5 simply because of this ridiculous close-tab button change and how frustrating it makes trying to close multiple tabs quickly.
I fear the Firefox guys are making a huge mistake by changing a feature which the vast majority of users are completely happy with. History is littered with instances of large-scale user frustration resulting from unnecessary UI changes. Personally, if the update and this feature were made mandatory (I mean hypothetically), then I would switch to another browser!
Could you explain what you don't like about the close button being on the tab? If an unselected tab is one you want to close, you must select that tab and then move the mouse all the way to the right to click the close button. With this feature you only have to move a little bit to the right. Of course using a keyboard shortcut is fast but that's not the point of this feature.
I'm genuinely curious why that feature is such a show stopper for you. I've not read much more than "I don't like it." where I've been looking thus far.
Not that it matters much to you but I'm in the camp who likes this feature. Safari has this feature and I think Opera does based on a post I read elsewhere. I'm a heavy tab user and closing tabs with the mouse in Firefox as it stands now is a PITA compared to how it will be with that feature.
I don't know how you define reasonable but I'd venture a reasonable number of people like that feature on other browsers that implement closing of tabs that way. In my opinion, I think it's great that the developers of Firefox are willing to evolve the browser in ways that have been found successful to users of other browsers. Keep up the great work guys, you're making a fantastic browser!
I use Tab Mix Plus to modify certain tabbed browsing options, myself. Amongst other things, I turned on close buttons on the tabs while at the same time leaving the one at the end of the tab bar. That way, if I want to close lots of tabs I can use the one at the end, whilst if I want to close a specific tab I don't have to switch to it to do so.
There'll always be extensions allowing you to modify things - and whilst it's nice to have options there always, standard option screens that the average user will need to use really shouldn't be too complicated.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
dhasenan
·
· Score: 1
I used TabX, but then they made two changes: they removed the reliable close-tab button on the end of the tab bar disappear, and they used the same visual for the tab close buttons as the theme uses.
The latter change is minor, but makes the default theme look worse in my opinion. The former meant that I had to move the mouse to whichever tab I wanted to close each time I wanted to close a tab--not good when I wanted to destroy multiple tabs.
So here's hoping they have two options: 'show close buttons on tabs' and 'show close button on tab bar'.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
belg4mit
·
· Score: 1
C-F4 C-F4 C-F4 C-F4 C-F4...
-- Were that I say, pancakes?
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I dislike it because it becomes very easy to accidentally close a tab when you are trying to select it.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Threni
·
· Score: 1
I'd like to be able to open a tab I've just closed. Sometimes it's usually tedious to find the page you were just viewing in the history.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
cosmotron
·
· Score: 1
afaik, they are keeping the ternary operator, but making the true arguement optional, so you can write this:
$a = ($b) ? $b : "c";
or $a = ($b) ? : "c";
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"I suspect they made that particular change because a large majority of users wanted it"
Ok, source for this "large" majority claim please. Considering the number of people that are already up in arms about this here, I'd say that majority isn't anywhere as large as you'd like it to seem.
", so although I was actually speaking in general terms, yes, the rest are indeed "some people"."
In other words, "I make an assertion based on nothing, and thus it is so, and everone else is clearly in a utterly small minority". Sorry I don't buy that.
"And BTW I prefer KDE as it happens, Mr Coward."
Oh, I'm sorry, it looks like you picked the wrong DE if you like arbitray annoying decisions being made about your tools with the thinnest of excuses.:-)
And btw: Ffs, if they could come up with the idea that an RSS reader should be part of the browser, rather than an extension, you'll have a hard time to sell me on the idea that where the close button go should be handled by one.
Firefox has long ago lost track of it's original goals, and it appears to have been infiltrated to boot by gnome-heads as well. Too bad, it used to be a good browser, now it's just "tolerable", apparently heading for "plain sucks".
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Ramze
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I open about 50 windows at a time, and I like being able to close them all as i read through them with one button in a static position. I don't know where you get the assumption the developers let everyone vote and the majority of the users picked a close button on each tab. No one ever asked my opinion or gave me the option to vote, and I think having a close button for each tab is horrendous. I'm only guessing, but I bet the developers looked at other tab implimentations and went with this because it's similar to other implimentations and works for people who only use a few tabs at a time. I'll be using an extension to turn this off and maybe if enough people use the extension, they'll build the option in to change the interface. I doubt it'd be a huge amount of code to include in the release, but you go ahead and flame on w/ your opponent poster if you like.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Andrew_T366
·
· Score: 1
1. When closing a large number of tabs, the tab button changes position depending on what tab is active, reducing user efficiency. Previously, the user could simply keep the mouse in the same position while triggering the close button each time.
2. Since they're now located on each tab, the close buttons add clutter by taking up extra screen space and reducing the length of page titles visible on tabs.
3. When switching from one tab to another (especially when many tabs are open), the tabs physically change size depending on whether or not they contain a close button, forming a distraction.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
AnyoneEB
·
· Score: 1
If you don't mind using Tab Browser Extensions, it allows you to middle-click on the tab bar for unclose tab (or [ctrl]+[shift]+[z] or menu Tab --> Undo Close Tab). On the close button topic, I just middle-click on tabs to close them, so a close button would be wasted screen space for me. I think there is an extension currently that puts a close button on every tab. I guess the default behavior does not really matter to me.
Do you realize that if a majority of users like Design 1 for accomplishing Feature A and a majority of users also like Design 2 for accomplishing Feature B, it's very unlikely that those two majorities perfectly overlap? Not a problem with just two features and two design decisions on each, but once you've got dozens of features, it's easy to come up with a design that no one will be happy with, even though each individual solution appeals to a "majority" of users...
Re:Close button at same tab
by
glens
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ha! Ha!
Just wait until all those people who clamored for the feature actually get a chance to try it. I predict there will be an uproar to either revert or at least provide a prominent optional choice.
Either that or yet more bloat will be required to immediately recall recently-closed tabs.
Konqueror has been an absolute dream for so long now that Firefox isn't even on my radar.
Exactly. Especially when you've got a bajillion tabs open and you click on a tab and you're not quite sure if you clicked on it so you click again but your original click brings the tab to the front (since the response was just slow from having so many tabs open) and your second click closes it. Bleargh.
Middle-click tabs to close them. We don't need no stinking close buttons cluttering up the tabs.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
livewire98801
·
· Score: 1
The issue i have with the 'close button on tabs' "feature" is simple. I have closed tabs in opera when I'm trying to select them because my tabs got small (about a dozen loaded) and the close button was as big or bigger than the rest of the tab.
I haven't used the close button on the FF tabbar since I figured out that middle-click will close a tab. Before I knew that, I used right-click->close tab to close them if they were in the background.
There are several features in FF2 that I hope can be easily disabled. Adding clutter to the core is not the way to go forward and keep your advantages here. Right now, FF consists of tabs, address bar, search field, and in-page find. Any other features are extensions. I like what they're doing to clean up the UI (add-ins item will be nice for exensions and themes, they should move search engines to this), their only other focus should be stability.
For the record, I've only run into the memory leak at my last job, and that was more likley the memory-intensive database we used, and having a dozen tabs open with different views of it. FF/win32 usually takes up between 40 and 80mb, I've never seen it breat 100m. Under Linux, it usually hovers around 30mb.
-- "He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
Re:Close button at same tab
by
seguso
·
· Score: 1
Okay, so now they placed the close tab button on the active tab itself. I've heard of that being planned. I, however, really don't like that myself. Does anyone know if it's possible to turn off? Because if not, I'm not switching.
Why? If you are just afraid to close tabs by mistake, consider there's a function to reopen closed tabs. You can get a taste of this with the excellent Tab Mix Plus extension.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
pilkul
·
· Score: 1
But are you aware that you can always press the middle mouse button on a tab to close it? I don't see why you would want an additional button that can be pressed by accident when you have that.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Krimszon
·
· Score: 1
That's because this way FF stays mean and lean, and it's difficult to add features that everyone wants.
Also, small stuff like this might not really need an extensions. Smart/. readers can probably find this in the about:config page.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Mean and lean? Bullshit.
Opera comes with far more features than Firefox, and yet Opera is far less bloated than FF. FF is both feature-stripped and bloated to the point of being unusable.
Well, in this case I'd say that having a close tab button on every tab has a lot of sense, just like you have a close button in every window, not a single button in the taskbar.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
heffrey
·
· Score: 0
Yes, it's a very difficult task. And it's important not to shy from it by giving the users vast amount of configuration.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
anagama
·
· Score: 1
FWIW, I'm with you. Having close buttons on tabs is a horrible experience when doing any sort of intensive googling. I commonly have so many tabs open you can't even see the text. I know in Safari the tab size hits a minimum and then scrolls off to the side. That blows too.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
anagama
·
· Score: 1
But are you aware that you can always press the middle mouse button on a tab to close it?
Actually no I'm not aware. And fact is, you're dead wrong. I don't if it works like this on other OSes but in Linux, if you highlight some text, press middle button, it pastes that into the url bar and goes there. so if you something like wwww.somesite.com -- not made into an actual link -- just double click the text, middle click and you're there. It works with words too, for example, if I saw the word IBM, I could double click middle click and bam, I'm at IBM's site (works even though the comma at the end of IBM gets selected). But middle clicking on a tab defintely doesn't close it. Besides, even if it did work, it still creates a moving target of resizing tabs.
So you and all you others: stop with the BS about tabs closing with middle click. That is not universal.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
AhtirTano
·
· Score: 1
This is true, but it took me about a week to get used to it in Safari. I make that mistake about as often as I accidentally hit "minimize" when I meant "close" in the titlebar. Now I like the feature so much, I have a hard time using Firefox without TabX installed. I'm happy about this change, because TabX seems to have some small bugs.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
DoktorSeven
·
· Score: 1
So. I'm the only one that wants close buttons on *both* the tabs and the end of the tab bar?
Close button on the tab to close individuals, close at the end to quickly close a stack of pages just opened.
*hunts for extension to let me do exactly that*
-- This is a sig. Deal with it.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Tarqwak
·
· Score: 1
Put this to your userChrome.css or just use parts of it:
Re:Close button at same tab
by
sasha328
·
· Score: 1
I agree. I have the same problem with Safari. The close button is on every tab. If you're trying to switch tabs, and accidentally land your mouse over the close button, that's it. All is lost, you'll have to start all over again. It is a much worse problem if you have a form being filled in, and you're switching tabs to get info. I agree, the close button should as in the current incarnation of Firefox: far away, that you have to be deliberately aiming for it to close a tab. Please FF Developers, make it an option not requiring an extention.
I'm not arguing against the change--I think it will make the UI friendlier to less experienced users. I'm arguing to expose an easy way to keep the status quo. I don't think the current close button behavior is broken, especially not for power users. It's antagonistic to that part of the user base to proclaim "No, that way of doing it is wrong; we're changing it," when it would've been pretty easy to add a configuration option to keep the current behavior (especially somewhere hidden like about:config)...
Re:Close button at same tab
by
pilkul
·
· Score: 1
Okay, it always works in Windows anyway. IIRC it also works in OS X. Haven't used desktop Linux in ages so I'll take your word for it that it's broken there. I don't see why you're so angry about my informing people about it though, since Linux users probably don't form more than 5% of Firefox userbase.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
MrCreosote
·
· Score: 1
What's wrong with 'right-click -> close tab' on the tab you want to close?
-- MrCreosote
Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!
"You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Re:Close button at same tab
by
MrCreosote
·
· Score: 1
If they are going to move a 'close' button, they should be moving the close button on the find bar to the RHS of the bar, where everything else has its close button
-- MrCreosote
Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!
"You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Re:Close button at same tab
by
ArcticFlood
·
· Score: 1
The close button disappears if you have too many tabs. For me, the close button disappears with nine or more tabs, but it's browser width dependant.
-- This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is something that *can* work. There's an about:config value you can toggle, if I remember. Some linux maintainers set it one way, others another.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I really love the way with "user friendly" applications I always have to go and use some registry like tool to change some random variable to an even more random value to get the correct settings. All because having proper configurability would "confuse the user".
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Briareos
·
· Score: 1
The close button disappears if you have too many tabs. For me, the close button disappears with nine or more tabs, but it's browser width dependant.
The Too Many Tabs! extension fixes that nicely by giving you several choices of what should happen in that case - I prefer a scrollbar to scroll through the tabs, but there's other options like a menu or multiline tabs too.
--
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
That is both news and very useful to me, thank you.
-- If noone rtfa, then what's the slashdot effect?
Re:Close button at same tab
by
ElleyKitten
·
· Score: 1
Actually no I'm not aware. And fact is, you're dead wrong. I don't if it works like this on other OSes but in Linux, if you highlight some text, press middle button, it pastes that into the url bar and goes there. so if you something like wwww.somesite.com -- not made into an actual link -- just double click the text, middle click and you're there.
I just tried that (I'm running Ubuntu 6.06) and it didn't work at all. I've used firefox on other distros too, and I've never had a problem middle clicking on tabs to close them, and I've never heard of middle clicking doing anything like you're describing.
-- "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, it's a show stopper. I use tabs a lot, and a gratuitous close button on the tab makes each tab harder to hit (without accidentally closing it).
If it's not easy to turn off this clanger, it's the bitbucket for firefox.
It's the dumbest thing I've seen all year. I'm astounded that anyone thinks it is a "feature".
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's why I've always said that Firefox should come with a collection of popular extensions enabled by default. The average Joe doesn't have the attention span to (1) discover that extensions exist, (2) search for one that might solve his problem, and (3) install and configure it to his liking. You might consider it a trivial process, but it's just too much to ask of the average Joe who is best suited by a turn-key solution.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
WuphonsReach
·
· Score: 1
Okay, so now they placed the close tab button on the active tab itself. I've heard of that being planned. I, however, really don't like that myself. Does anyone know if it's possible to turn off? Because if not, I'm not switching.
I'm not thrilled about that particular "feature" either.
Unless... Firefox 2 gives us a "undo last closed tab" action.
That would at least make it a little more clumsy-fingered friendly. (Although I tend to use Ctrl-W to close tabs anyway rather then the mouse button.)
-- Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Dave2+Wickham
·
· Score: 1
That's because the Ubuntu FF maintainers change the default setting. Download a stock Linux FF build, extract it into ~/, then run it and see. Alternatively, open up about:config, and set "middlemouse.contentLoadURL" to true.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
ElleyKitten
·
· Score: 1
That's because the Ubuntu FF maintainers change the default setting. Download a stock Linux FF build, extract it into ~/, then run it and see.
I did have a stock Linux FF build, from whenever 1.5 came out until I upgraded to Dapper a couple weeks ago (Ubuntu takes forever to update its FF, the stable version (Breezy) still has 1.0.7) and I've always used middle click to close tabs.
Alternatively, open up about:config, and set "middlemouse.contentLoadURL" to true.
I just tried that, and it's really wierd. I highlight "Linux" and middle click on the tab, and the last tab goes to a Ubuntu forums thread on Firefox. Is it sending my whole post into google or something instead of the word I highlighted? How is it supposed to work? I see why it was turned off by default, but it seems like it could be useful if I understood it.
-- "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Heh, if only they had a Windows compatible version.
I use Firefox 1.0 (among other browsers - I do some work in web development). While I think the memory usage is bizarre at times (I can close 5 windows and sit at my 20KB homepage holding over 80MB for half an hour), I suppose I was lucky not to get hit with hundreds of megabytes. Then again, on a 256MB laptop, it doesn't have quite so much to fill before it thrashes terribly.
It's funny, because I used to use Netscape 3.0 (and IE 2.0 and AOL 2.0) on a 25Mhz 486 with a whopping 8MB of RAM in the entire machine and what little (if any) virtual memory Windows 3.1 could provide on a 100MB hard drive, and I never remember it being such an obvious pain.
Yes, they're light years apart in features and UI, but it's a ridiculous price to pay, all things considered.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Dave2+Wickham
·
· Score: 1
As to it being off, that's strange. Perhaps the setting was set in your profile by Ubuntu's build, then this was inherited by your stock install? Or maybe upstream's just changed it, I'm not sure.
As for how it works, theoretically it should just send "Linux" through Google, and that's what it does with my install here. If you were to clear the "Location" bar, middle click in there, and press enter, exactly the same process should occur, which may show why it did that. Perhaps some extra text got highlighted (thus copied into the copy/paste buffer).
FWIW, the "middle click loads a URL" behaviour has been around since before Mozilla existed (in Netscape) I believe, which is why I'd be surprised to see it disabled recently.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
ElleyKitten
·
· Score: 1
As for how it works, theoretically it should just send "Linux" through Google, and that's what it does with my install here. If you were to clear the "Location" bar, middle click in there, and press enter, exactly the same process should occur, which may show why it did that. Perhaps some extra text got highlighted (thus copied into the copy/paste buffer).
Actually, I tried it on my work computer which runs Windows, so that might have explained some of the wierdness. I'll try it again when I'm home.
It seems like it would be useful, but I'm so used to middle clicking to close tabs that I'm not sure if I could get used to it. I'll mess around with it though, thanks for telling me about it.
-- "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Bob+Uhl
·
· Score: 1
Could you explain what you don't like about the close button being on the tab?
It's poor UI: there's far too great a chance of accidentally closing a tab when one means to switch to another. I use Lotus Notes regularly at work, and this problem creeps up constantly. Moreover, especially with tabbed browsing the convenience of having a single screen area to hit with the mouse in order to close tabs is wonderful.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
Dave2+Wickham
·
· Score: 1
Ah, that would be why then; presumably on Windows it uses whatever's in the clipboard, whilst on Linux (or X11, I guess) it uses the highlight/middle-click buffer. It's always been non-default on Win32 for that reason.
Re:Close button at same tab
by
shellbeach
·
· Score: 1
Because one man's common sense is another man's stupidity, and they want to avoid having the million configuration options necessary to cater for everybodys views.
That's why you hide options from general users, but provide them to the power users in about:config...
I'd like to think that there's an about:config option to turn off tab close buttons for those users mature enough to understand middle-clicking...
1. Is there a way to make the 'goback' response as fast as opera's ? It could be a little faster.
2. Why does firefox need XUL gui ? Why not use gtk or something else ?
Updating the plain default gui would be cool.
The big question is...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
..will 2.0 be released before 1.5 is marked stable for x86 in portage? Seriously, how's SVG support comming along? Last I checked they couldn't add SVG to the accept header because of issues with the rendering backends.
Re:The big question is...
by
Jeffrey+Baker
·
· Score: 1
SVG works wonderfully in FF 1.5/Debian (and Ubuntu). If there are problems with the rendering backends in portage, that's a local problem.
Re:The big question is...
by
LnxAddct
·
· Score: 1
Yea, the SVG rendering is a portage issue, it works fine in everyother distro I've tried.
Re:The big question is...
by
azaroth42
·
· Score: 1
SVG in 1.5.0.2 is a little busted -- one of my relatively simple SVGs took out the browser. That bug is fixed in 1.5.0.3.
Seriously. It's fast becoming the XP Home of browsers. Too bad neither the fanboys nor the development team realizes this. It could've been a nice browser, smaller and faster than SeaMonkey. It lost its way around the time they renamed it "Firefox." Now it's just SeaMonkey with memory leaks (yeah yeah it's a feature) and an incomplete, annoying interface.
No, I don't care that I'll get modded down for criticizing Firefox.
-- Slashdot - where to disagree, is to be a troll
Re:Dumbed down again
by
Kroc
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"I don't care that I'll get modded down for criticizing Firefox." No, you're trolling. Criticizing would mean you had some semblence of an idea about what you were talking about, which you clearly do not.
"Too bad neither the fanboys nor the development team realizes this" Yes they do. Firefox is being simplified in order to appeal to the greater market. You know, the ones who make up 85% of the market and matter alot more than you do. IE is a simple browser, it's one of its successes, and Firefox aims to be something that IE users can feel comfortable switching too without being bombarded with anal retentive geek features. Firefox can be customized and as geeky and powerful as you want it to be with extensions, so how simple it is is up to you.
Since version 1.5 it hardly leaks at all. Firefox has high memory requirements, complain about that if you must but stop spinning your tired, ignorant, uniformed, arrogant bullshit. K, thnx.
Re:Dumbed down again
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"You know, the ones who make up 85% of the market and matter alot more than you do"
I think that its unfair to say that they matter much more than the current userbase. In fact, if this is the concensus of the major developers in the project, i would go so far as to say that if I dont get any consideration in the development process, i can allways switch to another borwser, or back to seamonkey.
It's not about me "needing" an old feature back, I just wish I didnt have to download so many extensions for common sense things that, if the devs had considered their current market, would be there.
Re:Dumbed down again
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because textures and audio files are different between 32 and 64 bit versions. Uh huh. None of those are different. How much of UT2k4 is really bit dependent? The/system folder is only 51 MB on my computer (out of 5.2GB in my full install). There might be more code elsewhere that I missed counting, but it can't be more than 1 or 2 MB. So the size increase is more on the order of 40% for UT2k4.
Thanks for the freak. My life is now complete, I can die without regret
But seriously, if you weren't a rabid, foaming at the mouth fanboi, you'd recognize what's happening to Firefox, and that I am absolutely not after it to become loaded with "anal retentive geek features." I am not for it to become loaded with features at all. I'd like to see some stripped out, in fact. Although I will admit recent version of Firefox have been 'less annoying' to me, I still don't like where it's heading.
What I want is enough completion in the preferences dialog to not have to go to about:config. Does that sound like a geeky desire to you? I don't mind if they make it a toggle so that others can have their simple, cutesy version. I just want to be able to access it. What I want is a clean (free of cuteness) and comprehensive interface.
That, and I want download progress windows back, instead of the download manager.
-- Slashdot - where to disagree, is to be a troll
Re:Dumbed down again
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1.5 hardly leaks at all? Everybody in this thread disagrees with you.
Although I vastly prefer Opera, anything that can help decrease market share of IE and its broken everything is good.
You're lucky then, a new browser is coming out, which has better security than IE6 (especially on Vista), a lot better standards support, good RSS support and a fresh compact interface.
Bullshit... Microsoft once again rejected w3 standards, especially in the CSS department. The web design community is just as pissed at Microsoft now as they were before. Sure the security might be better (though I've heard evidence to the contrary), and I have no doubt the interface will be more sexy (will it be more functional though?) but they still aren't anywhere close to being w3 compliant. If I write a page, it currently renders identically on Firefox, Safari, and Opera, about 99% of the time, IE is still down in the low 20%s. From what I hear about IE7, it might reach a nice mid 30%, somewhere just above Bush's aproval rating, which still doesn't make me feel very good.
-- Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Bullshit... Microsoft once again rejected w3 standards, especially in the CSS department.
Boy you definitely missed to do your homework this time, didn't you. Why don't you check the list of CSS bugfixes and improvements on IE7 before you go rant on forums.
And I'm sure pulled those "it might reach a nice mid 30%" right out of your ass since you didn't even test how IE7 renders in detail (if at all).
I did that job, and I can tell you that it's a big improvement in terms of standards support.
FYI, Firefox is also not "W3C compliant". No browser is. Even passing the ACID2 test doesn't mean W3C compliant as it test a subset of features (and FF 1.5 doesn't pass it anyway).
Hell, even W3C is not exactly sure about some details of its own standards most of the time.
Damn it I hate zealots:P....
Re:Good Work
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
w3 compliant
You can by learning the name of the organisation you're defending so vigorously, it's not w3, it's W3C, but nowadays you don't have to know a lot to rant on Microsoft, do you.
That's the right attitude, FOSS is a brotherhood against teh suck. I like Opera, but I have Firefox tweaked to perfection and though I have played with Opera, I'm just gonna stick to FF for a while.
-- The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
I use opera mainly, but also have firefox open for a few pages that don't seem to work. I also prefer the find on Firefox.
Slashdot will never be the same
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
A new spell-checking feature has been added. Text entered in multiline text boxes is automatically checked for mistypes words, for single line text boxes, you must ask for it (right-click, Spell check this field). Words not found in the dictionary are marked with a red underline.
It's about time they incorperated a spell checker! Vary nice.
Re:Slashdot will never be the same
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is that something that should be implemented on the OS or application level? Common sense suggest OS.
Re:Slashdot will never be the same
by
kfg
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
vim, an application commonly run from the commandline, has gotten spellchecking as well. This actually bugs me a bit. I already have shell level spellchecking. Now I've got an extra wheel to haul around.
I suppose the next version will have an embedded MTA.
Hey guys, remember that "Unix Way(tm)" thingy? There was a reason for it. How about a little cooperation between the wheel makers?
KFG
Re:Slashdot will never be the same
by
Aqua+OS+X
·
· Score: 1
This has been the one feature that has prevented me from using that browser. I've been using Safari since I NEED red squiggly lines. My speeling is teh horable.
A year or two ago I recall seeing a few spellcheck projects being done for Mozilla / Firebox. Did one of those projects finally become incorporated with the 2.0a trunk?
-- "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Re:Slashdot will never be the same
by
msuarezalvarez
·
· Score: 1
Yum. It's amazing no one thought of it before you. The key to success is going to be a spell.ko! Then a browser.ko and we'll be almost there as integration goes.
Re:Slashdot will never be the same
by
pomo+monster
·
· Score: 1
Given your username, and the fact that Firefox is anything and everything but Aqua, is spellcheck really the "one feature" that's kept you from using it? Personally, Firefox would have to see a complete philosophical overhaul before I ever considered touching it again.
Or when you click on a tab, it doesn't "release"..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Or when you click on a tab, it doesn't "release" fast enough, and start moving the tab around?" - AAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey! I want FF to get more share, takes the heat o
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey! I want FF to get more share, takes the heat off of IE7. The more popular the more it gets exploited! If you think you've had enough FF exploits, wait a while.
Don't believe the crap that the N.S.A. just collected phone numbers. Phone numbers are meaningless. They were intercepting the CONTENT.
The content of the Bush-Cheney phone calls to Pakistan and Aghanistan will be very entertaining.
Call your senator and demand the arrest; trial, conviction: and sentencing of Al-Qaeda.
Thank you for your patriotism, Kilgore Trout, M.D.
Download manager still broken?
by
edxwelch
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Fixfox and mozilla are unable to resume downloads across sessions. In other words if you have to reboot the PC for any reason, you will have to start that 300mb download from scratch. This bug has been outstanding for several years. There are numerous other missing features in the download manager, just compare to the download manager in Opera.
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
Mostly+a+lurker
·
· Score: 1
It is annoying for casual FF users, but for regulars the FlashGot extension allows you to easily use a dedicated download manager for big downloads. Under Windows, I like NetTransport; under Linux, I just use Kget.
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
if you cant keep your pc up and running for the length of a download session.
your browser is the least of your problems.
and you might be stupid.
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
if you cant understand why someone might not want to keep their pc up and running for the length of a download session.
your browser is the least of your problems.
and you might be stupid.
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
HorsePunchKid
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand why my web browser—designed to browse web pages—needs to also be a download manager. I also don't understand why my web browser needs a spell checker. Or why it needs to be an RSS feed aggregator. There are better pieces of software for doing all of these things; let them do their job! What I wouldn't give to be able to edit my Slashdot posts in Vim, for example!
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against extensions. But why is all this functionality that has existed in the form of extensions being integrated into the core Firefox install?
-- Steven N. Severinghaus
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand why my web browser--designed to browse web pages--needs to also be a download manager.
Simple: while browsing web pages with your web browser, you may encounter a download link. The problem is that to the browser, this download link looks exactly the same as a link to any other web page. The only way for your browser to tell the difference is to start downloading the file. At that point, it might as well just keep going.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
msuarezalvarez
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And Fielding et al. made the HEAD method: and it was so.
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
jesser
·
· Score: 1
From bug 18004 and bug 230870, it looks like this is one of the most voted-on issues, and it also looks like Mozilla developer Christian Biesinger has ideas for fixing it. Have you considered bribing him to fix it faster?
-- The shareholder is always right.
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I probably should have mentioned something about that. A couple of problems:
1) do you want to send two separate HTTP requests for every page (HEAD and GET) just so if the HEAD request indicates something that should be downloaded, you can send it to a download manager?
2) what if the file to be downloaded is not a link, but rather the result of a POST? Sending a HEAD request isn't gonna work, and since the POST data could include a credit card transaction, you'd better not POST it again.
3) sometimes it may be a good idea to not trust the MIME type the server gives you, because misconfigured servers are so prevalent. When the server says text/plain, sometimes you should probably download the file anyway. Mozilla trusts the server in more cases than most other browsers, but I don't remember if it might make some exceptions when the server says the MIME type is text/plain and the file content is obviously something else. Personally I think it should, in some cases (but IE's behavior sucks ass, so don't copy that).
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
jrumney
·
· Score: 1
when the server says the MIME type is text/plain and the file content is obviously something else.
How is it ever obviously something else? Are you suggesting that speakers of languages other than US English should be forced by their browser to download text and view it externally?
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
HorsePunchKid
·
· Score: 1
this download link looks exactly the same as a link to any other web page. The only way for your browser to tell the difference is to start downloading the file
Plenty of information is available without beginning a download, assuming you're willing to trust the server. If you (the browser developer) are lazy, examining the file extension will work most of the time (the DownloadSort extension makes use of this).
If you're only very slightly less lazy, you can just send an HTTP HEAD request and get all sorts of great information about the file: MIME type, last modified date, and file length, at least. Perhaps I only want to launch a download manager for movies or for files larger than 10MB.
Regardless, I see no reason that advanced downloading features can't be encapsulated in an extension. But I realize that this merely changes the debate into a quibble about who considers what features to be sufficiently advanced to warrant being moved into an extension...:)
-- Steven N. Severinghaus
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
pen
·
· Score: 1
From my experience, it's not even across sessions. If you paused a download or your connection dropped, the download is gone and you have to restart it from scratch -- as simple as that. I have never been able to restart a download in Firefox.
Re:Download manager still broken?
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
Of course not! Text in other languages is still text, but a zip file doesn't look very pretty when displayed in a web browser. It's not that hard to tell the difference.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
On my Linux machine, I recently ditched Firefox for Epiphany. It is much more responsive and less of a memory hog. I love some of Firefox's features, but until the developers polish up the interface and improve speed and memory usage, I'm sticking with Epiphany. For me, speed is much more important than extra features.
might I interest you in Dillo? it is crazily fast and has a few of the important firefox features... it has some drawbacks, but it you really want it to be small, use very little memory and quick then it is a jolly good choice
-- *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Re:Firefox too slow...
by
linux+pickle
·
· Score: 1
I have tried Dillo, and I agree with you about the speed, but it simply lacks too many features (JavaScript, CSS, etc.) for me to use it. What I like about Epiphany is that it renders the pages exactly the same way as Firefox, but it is much more responsive.
2. Why does firefox need XUL gui ? Why not use gtk or something else ? There is no other toolkit besides XUL that works well cross-platform? XUL is very easy to write for new extension developers? XUL allows for more rapid development?
I hope the developers said a big thank you to
by
Timesprout
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Opera for all the ideas, and the lesson in what users actually like in UI design
-- Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth What truth? There is no dupe
Re:I hope the developers said a big thank you to
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't like the flicky opera GUI and I don't like KDE or modern Windows app GUIs either. I prefer solid interfaces for my applications.
Re:I hope the developers said a big thank you to
by
TheRaven64
·
· Score: 1
It's post like these that make me wish there was a '+1 Troll' moderation option.
Re:I hope the developers said a big thank you to
by
ClamIAm
·
· Score: 1
Yeah dude, all the examples you gave were awesome! Oh wait.
Firefox with extensions
by
spudnic
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Just about everything in the review is available now, and has been for quite awhile, through extensions?
It seems that future development of firefox should be on the core application and let the extension developers handle the pretty stuff.
--
load "linux",8,1
Re:Firefox with extensions
by
Surt
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think the problem with that philosophy is that downloading the 'right' set of plugins to get a good experience is too challenging (for most users). You really do want your users to download, once, a package of stuff that yeilds a great experience, so that your reviews will be nice an glowingly positive. Hence, we'll always want to see the best features of the most popular plugins make their way into the core browser.
-- "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Firefox with extensions
by
belg4mit
·
· Score: 1
Right, well then you ship the core with a standard set of usability/feature extensions included for people to enable/disable at will. It'd also help if they had a better central repository.
-- Were that I say, pancakes?
Re:Firefox with extensions
by
martinmarv
·
· Score: 1
One thing that's good about having the extra features in the core product, is that the quality should be better. As noted by a commenter above, it's often extensions that cause memory leaks, and it's difficult to know which are stable and which aren't. In theory, anything that's implemented in the core code has been tested for stability, memory leaks and usability.
Re:Firefox with extensions
by
belg4mit
·
· Score: 1
There's no reason that wouldn't be true of officially sanctioned extensions that ship with the core. I was thinking of things like Perl, etc. that have a subset of the "most useful" of all available modules included
MozStorage baby(sqllite with an XPCOM iface or some kind of iface). Built in, default, and used. Thanks goodness.
Re:Firefox with extensions
by
WuphonsReach
·
· Score: 1
I think the problem with that philosophy is that downloading the 'right' set of plugins to get a good experience is too challenging (for most users). You really do want your users to download, once, a package of stuff that yeilds a great experience, so that your reviews will be nice an glowingly positive. Hence, we'll always want to see the best features of the most popular plugins make their way into the core browser.
Exactly.
Under the Firefox folder in our Software folder at the office, I maintain a few sub-folders with the best-of-the-best extensions. It works, but this is stuff that should be in Firefox proper (such as session restoration). Those sub-folders are titled:
There are a LOT of Firefox extensions that simply aren't suitable for regular users. Either they conflict with other extensions that are better (and more fully rounded) or they are very esoteric and narrow in scope. Other extensions are more "because it was cool to build" types. Things that you'd install once, look at once, but not use on a day-to-day basis.
I spend about a full day once a quarter digging through the extension listing, looking for gems to be added to the sub-folders.
-- Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
It appears that MSN Search, despite being one of the three most popular search engines, is still not offered as one of the default search options.
Re:Default search options
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
MSN is only listed as one of the popular search engines because they put links to it on all their stuff which basically forces the lazy or oblivious people using computers to go with MSN Search. It's not because MSN is a good search engine. It's not. Nobody respectable actually uses it.
Re:Default search options
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If MS want to pay mozilla some money (ms have some of that don't they?) then I am sure they could get it added! That is the way google, answers and co. got there (don't think the bbc one is paid though).
I doubt if MS would be happy with the situation though, as the FA says, 2.0 is going to have search plug-in uninstaller built in - and we know that MS don't like the user having the ability to get rid of their junk (messenger on XP as a nice tidy example) easily.
I just went trhough the changelog...
by
giorgiofr
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
... and there's not a single feature in FF 2 that hasn't been in Opera for ages. The FF team is slacking - they're not innovating anymore. Not that they OWE me anything, of course. Just saying.
-- Global warming is a cube.
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
chrisgeleven
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Question is, does Opera do these features better or will Firefox?
It isn't so much who had what feature first, it is who does it best. How hard is it to understand that?
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Opera has extensions? The only reason I use firefox is for the adblock extension.
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
giorgiofr
·
· Score: 1
Opera lacks extension. However it has adblock (and more generally content blocking) and widgets.
-- Global warming is a cube.
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Anonymous+Brave+Guy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If history is anything to go by, then probably Opera will. Sometimes, you do get what you pay for, and while Firefox is a great improvement over IE in many respects, it's been trailing Opera for several years IMHO.
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Lisandro
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Question is, does Opera do these features better or will Firefox?
It does. I like Firefox a lot, but i'm not blind - every single feature that it's available in both and works better in Opera. With a fraction of the memory usage, and much faster to boot. Much more stable too - i only had Opera hangning on me a couple of times (both on Windows and Linux) - when it happens, it promptly apologizes and offers you to open the windows you were browsing at the moment of the crash. Priceless!
Also, Oprera has a shitload of functionality not available on FF or not needing extensions (gesture browsing, searches in the url bar, etc...). Those are the reasons it has been my main browser of choice for years now.
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
jb.hl.com
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Sometimes, you do get what you pay for, and while Firefox is a great improvement over IE in many respects, it's been trailing Opera for several years IMHO.
FYI, Opera is free (as in beer for the pedants) now.
-- By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
xigxag
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Too bad there's no way to mod a post as "potentially life changing." I've been putting off trying out Opera since before it went free. Your post made me decide to give it another try, and so far (admittedly only an hour or so of heavy surfing) I love it. I was able to get it to connect to my banking site. It does phpbb better than FF. My machine seems about 50% faster, and memory use is something like 200 megs lower than my FF installation.
Most importantly, I didn't have to install any extensions to get it to work acceptably.
If there's one functionality that should be built into FF 2.0, there should be a brainless way to export and import your extensions, forms, passwords and bookmarks in one "FF2go" zipped bundle so that when you reinstall it on another computer, you can get started right away with your old configuration.
-- There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Crayon+Kid
·
· Score: 1
Also, Oprera has a shitload of functionality not available on FF or not needing extensions (gesture browsing, searches in the url bar, etc...). Those are the reasons it has been my main browser of choice for years now.
That's a rather bold statement. You do realize it can't compete in terms of functionality with an entire community allowed to implement thousands of extensions freely. They didn't implement the widgets for nothing.
-- i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Trogre
·
· Score: 1
i only had Opera hangning on me a couple of times (both on Windows and Linux) - when it happens, it promptly apologizes and offers you to open the windows you were browsing at the moment of the crash. Priceless!
I've discovered the joys of TabMixPlus for Firefox. One of its nice features is the exact ability you described. Some times I've shut down my machine without closing firefox. Next time I power it up, I get "would you like to restore your previous session?" and there it is, tabs windows and all. Form data isn't preserved unfortunately but I suspect Opera doesn't do that either.
As for searches in the URL bar, try right-clicking on a search field of a web page and selecting "Add a keyword". Gives you all the URL bar searching you could ever want for Google, Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, imdb, trademe, freshmeat, or whatever you want.
Since it was someone on this site who pointed me to both these features I'm now paying it forward.:)
-- "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
m50d
·
· Score: 1
when it happens, it promptly apologizes and offers you to open the windows you were browsing at the moment of the crash.
Actually this is one thing that really pisses me off about Opera. No matter how many times I tell it "start with no pages, and don't ask me again", it always gives me that dialog after a crash. Is there any way to get it to stop doing that.
-- I am trolling
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Lisandro
·
· Score: 1
You CAN extend Opera, it's just most of the time it's not really needed. Opera offers a whole lot of functionality without the need for thrid-party plugins, that most of the time aren't cross-platform compatible
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Roguelazer
·
· Score: 1
Erm. Most Firefox extensions most certainly are cross-platform compatible. As a matter of fact, I've never run across one that didn't work equally as well on Windows, Linux, OS X, and BeOS. So what are you talking about?
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
IE Tab?
IE View?
Sorry
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Tesla+Tank
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, I don't think so. Like you, I also turned off the start up dialog. However, the way that Opera works now is actually quite smart. See, normally, I would start with a homepage. Opera respects that, and doesn't ask me every time. When it crashes though, it means the browser was killed at a time that the user was still using it. Therefore, it makes sense to prompt the user if it should start with the last session. Since you might want to go back to those pages that you were interrupted from so abruptly.
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
tar -xvzf FF2go.tgz ~/.firefox ?
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Lisandro
·
· Score: 1
Glad to hear you liked it! Just passing the torch...:)
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
Incadenza
·
· Score: 1
and memory use is something like 200 megs lower than my FF installation
Weird, I got 3 browsers open here, all with exactly the same three pages:
No 200 MB to be gained here by ditching FF for Opera. Besides, every time I try to switch browsers to avoid some clunky operation in FF, I return crying within 15 minutes. How can people even try to surf without Adblock?
Re:I just went trhough the changelog...
by
JCholewa
·
· Score: 1
Mine no longer gives the dialog. Edit the "opera6.ini" file
I think the below is what you add, to the "[User Prefs]" section: Show Startup Dialog=0
Combining the status and location bars is a great idea. Having read the article on a PDA, I only wish M$ had been as clever with Pocket IE... Could use the extra screen real estate.
-- This sig washed every five years whether it needs it or not!
Right above the parent is a post asking for exactly this feature. Now what is a developer supposed to do eh?
As for there being no reason not to give both options, well there is plenty of reason. The two most significant, it ads complexity to the project to support yet another feature and it asks the user yet more question about how to configure the browser.
Personally? I like it the way opera does it. On the tab. More logical.
Visually it's a waste of space. Opera already handles multiple documents being open poorly, shrinking the button size so that's much harder to select documents; so does Firefox, but at least it's just a simple extension to have them wrap and the tabs/buttons not shrink below a certain width.
More logic (and more ease of use for those with limited mobility, in particular) to get into the habit of 'parking' the pointer towards a particular corner of the screen.
how will I tell fake links from real when surfing porn? And speaking of which, when will the option for not allowing window.status to be used in JS be fixed?
Then I'll have to hover the mouse for a few seconds to see the URL. And when it's displayed, I'll have to read it and then move the mouse away if I want to continue reading the context.
And if I specify any alt text on my links, it'll be more likely to be ignored.
I don't have a problem with that being the default option, or with the location bar showing the loading status like Safari does. Still, if I can't turn that behaviour off, I might well stay with 1.5 for quite some time. Or create an extension to give those options.
A link's tooltip will show both the title of the link and the URL it links to. That's the way Opera's been doing it for ages.
Technically, they shouldn't do that. There are clear uses for stuff like that in the specifications. The writer of the HTML will use a title attribute if they feel they need to describe the link. Opera and Firefox shouldn't muck about with title attributes anymore than IE should've rendered alt attributes as tooltips.
Otherwise, Opera is just trying to get rid of the status bar, methinks. Noticed how the loading stats have also been moved by default into the address bar in version 9?
-- i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Okay, so maybe they need a gramar check as well...
Search plugin order
by
cpt+kangarooski
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Fucking dammit.
Why the hell are there buttons ('Move Up' and 'Move Down') for reordering the search plugins. They should be able to be dragged and dropped. It's not like the developers can't do this; the bookmarks can be. Why not this?
(It would also be nice for Firefox and Mozilla to understand URL files generated by IE. Safari seems to manage.)
-- --
This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Step back from the computer, take a breath, and relax for a moment. You have lost your perspective.
Environmental destruction, cancer, heart disease, war, terrorists, fascism, peak oil, illegal wiretapping, epidemics, your eventual and innevitable deatb, and buttons for reordering search plugins. One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong....
-- There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Don't know if your just complaining about the buttons in the alpha or wanting drag and drop ordering.. but Search engine ordering plugin lets you do just that.
Re:Search plugin order
by
hswerdfe
·
· Score: 3, Funny
yes, one of these things is topical in the current thread.
Because there are people who can't drag and drop precisely. And do you know if Firefox 2.0 allows you to drag and drop *in addition to* using move up and down?
Does this beta still use the same pathetic non-informative dog-slow downloads screen of 1.5?
Re:Downloads screen
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I have to agree that the download manager is one of the weaker parts of FF. (Which hardly separates it from other browsers, but...) My complaint is that I want its behavior to change depending on what I'm downloading. For example, I have a fast connection, so downloading a file smaller than 500KB or so takes less than a second. I don't want the download manager to pop up for that. But if I'm downloading a 50MB file, or a smaller one from a slow site, I do want some feedback that the download is happening. I don't know how many times I've accidentally clicked on a link five times, not realizing that the download had started automatically, and gotten five copies of the same file.
All that said, I'm not mad about it or anything, because I don't have a better idea. As implied earlier, I've yet to see a browser which handles downloads the way I want. Moving the download manager into a tab instead of a window would be an improvement, but I can definitely see it being a major annoyance too. Does anyone have any examples of plugins which "solve" the download manager problem?
Re:Downloads screen
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I would welcome a lot of changes as well - but as a 'fix' which has saved me from having the hellish download box on my screen for many months now I would point you to the download statusbar extension:
Firefox has numerous serious focus problems that continue to be ignored.. I hope they fix them in version 2 but I don't hold out much hope given that they've been ignoring them for years. It seems the devs are mouse-only users. A lot of the problems occur when keystrokes are used to open windows, close windows, etc.
Firefox steals focus constantly under enlightenment. Older versions of Firefox (0.8) do not have the problem.
Re:Firefox focus problems
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
focus bugs have been outstanding for years now, don't get your hopes up
Re:Firefox focus problems
by
swarsron
·
· Score: 1
Same problem with ion but IIRC the problem wasn't firefox but gtk. Google the ion mailing list if you want to know more
Kill The Download Manager
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
The FF Download Manager thing sucks the shit. It saves every image or minor file that you save, and it gets dog slow if the list gets long. And as you point out, it doesn't even manage downloads. Retarded.
How about going back to the old-style download dialogs? Those worked fine and didn't create a number of obvious problems. And stop stealing ideas from Microsoft IE/Mac. It was a shit browser.
Re:Kill The Download Manager
by
Tim+C
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
it gets dog slow if the list gets long
In my experience, it gets pretty damn slow after the list hits a couple of dozen items; not what I would call long by any means.
XUL in Python?
by
Dausha
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So, does the 2.0 series allow XUL coding in Python instead of Javascript. I have heard about this for some time. However, I've not heard what 'live' Firefox version would start offering this sweet gem.
-- What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Re:XUL in Python?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That work is being done by a private company IIRC. Still, it would be of more use if they could embed a VM into moz and then every language could target that. There was some talk of using Mono or Java for the Moz2 platform (both unacceptable IMHO). NekoVM could make for an interesting runtime, and NekoML makes it an even more attractive target.
FF2 still needs to be recompiled for Python support. However, FF3 sits on top of XULRunner and uses a more generic XPCOM interface. This will let developers use any language with an XPCOM binding (Python and Java already exist). Of course, you will still have to install the runtime for your favorite language, but they are working on a way to streamline this process.
One other nice feature of hosting on XULRunner is that the runtime will be shared. This will reduce the disk and memory footprint between apps (eg. FF and TB). It should also allow you to install an extension once for multiple apps.
Re:Questions . Features.
by
zlogic
·
· Score: 2, Informative
XUL is a layer, allowing Firefox and its extensions create widgets. All the widgets that are requested from XUL are rendered with the appropriate toolkit: GTK on Linux, MFC (I think) on Windows and Cocoa (not sure) on OS X. This allows Firefox to use the native toolkit on all platforms and allows extension to be used on any platform without rewriting anything.
Slashdotting Google already?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I know the Slashdot effect is powerful, but taking down Google's servers seems a tad overambitious.
Re:I'll switch, but only ...
by
Jussi+K.+Kojootti
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Just a note to TBE users: Anyone using Tabbrowser extensions should stay silent when the next Firefox-is-a-memory-hog flame fest ensues -- it has been one of the worst culprits in that area...
I've got a question: I installed that extension and I'm trying to figure out what caused the leak. For example, I get this when I go to google and close the tab:
handleEvent
function (e) { InstallAC(f, f.q, f.btnG, "search", "en); }
How to get Bookmarks out of Alpha 1
by
ericdano
·
· Score: 1
So, I have been using Deer Park Alpha 2 (or so it says), and when I load the latest version, none of my bookmarks tranfer. And, I can't get Deer Park Alpha 2 to export them. Ideas?
--
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
The parent was unfairly labelled a troll. I love the Firefox browser, and use it all the time. But it and Thunderbird have a lot of annoying, quick to fix problems that could have been fixed, and are often actively ignored. If you want a real list of stuff that is broken, we could start with the parent poster's list, which seems somewhat valid, and continue from there...
1. Under the XP home theme (reduced functionality without reason) - No "Block images from this server" in context menu - available in Mozilla forever, this prevents kids from seeing the constant AdultFriendFinder crap that comes up on some non-pornographic sites.
2. On my system, it does seem to be smaller and faster than Mozilla, though I am not sure about the new Seamonkey developments. I tried it when they first started, and their first task was apparently to introduce lots of bugs and change the icon to something they created in Microsoft Paint. Not impressed with their priorities.
3. Renamed to Firefox - Wow. This was a bad move. I get a questioning look almost every time I bring up the "better browser to use" argument to businesses. Plus, everyone ends up calling it Foxfire. There are too many "cool" names involved. Mozilla was hard enough to explain, but at least I could connect it to Netscape's mascot (since people still remember Netscape). But Firefox, Firebird, Phoenix, Thunderbird and SeaMonkey? Surely someone came up with something better, but it was turned down as too practical. Think about the words "Internet Explorer" or "Netscape". The title describes the function.
4. Memory leaks - Running latest Firefox Stable build for Win32, one window, no tabs, no extensions, haven't visited any sites with Java, one Live Bookmark (default BBC World News thing). Browsing around for a few hours, memory use creeps up by several megs. Even as I type this (watching Task manager, memory has gone from 37,??? to 39,132. Weird.
5. Incomplete, annoying interface - Well, I would call a "resume button that has not ever apparently worked an annoying interface feature. I would also say that losing favicons for no apparent reason is annoying. No built-in function for removing or re-ordering search engines (you shouldn't need an extension for this simple task.
6. Offtopic Thunderbird complaint - Signatures now have a stupid "--" in grey that cannot be turned off, and the signature is in grey too (no option to disable) which has annoyed countless customers. Some people don't feel like typing their own name 50 times a day. Email is not Newsgroups. Don't try to make it that way.
7. Memory usage is now up to 40,648. Eventually, Firefox will crash on me. Not a huge deal for me (I used Mozilla M9, M10, etc. all the time). But pretty lame for a browser that has had this much development time. No, it's not just this machine either. 40,860 now.
So stop modding people as troll, just because they didn't feel like they should have to type all this junk out, when the accusations hold water.
Vidar
-- The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
I remember the Mozilla suite with only the browser installed being faster than Phoenix for me a while back. I believe this was without the fast launcher running as well. I'm not sure if it's still the same with Seamonkey and Firefox, or even if you can still install only the browser component of Seamonkey.
This is slashdot - to disagree is to get modded 'Troll'
On my systems, Mozilla and Seamonkey have always performed as well as, if not better than, Firefox. Firebird and Phoenix were faster, Phoenix moreso. Phoenix reminded me of Opera 3 -- go super fast, go splat once in a while (either by rendering funky, or crashing).
Seamonkey though uses Gecko 1.8, which even with the suite wrapped around it, is damn snappy. K-Meleon uses (or used to) use the 1.8 engine. It's wicked fast. I prefer Seamonkey, myself.
-- Slashdot - where to disagree, is to be a troll
Re:Mod Parent Up
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you do realize that the text you're typing has to be stored somewhere, right? memory seems like a logical place.
nya nya! I can beat you! I'm on 60,000kb of memory! we should hold a competition.:)
Re:Mod Parent Up
by
dcam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'll add one:
8. Bookmark sorting. Mozilla from about 3 years ago (or more!) used to do this perfectly. I'd like to sort bookmarks by name, with all the folders at the top. Firefox doesn't support this. The only way to do this aside from manually editing the bookmarks file is to import them into Mozilla, sort them and export to Firefox.
-- meh
Re:Mod Parent Up
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The parent post contains just under 3K of text. Remembering that the figures he's giving are in KB (as that's what Task Manager shows) Firefox apparently allocated 3MB to store 3KB of text.
While that wouldn't surprise me given how well Firefox is written (I've seen better code from first year CS students), it's still a little on the fucking insane side.
Some people don't feel like typing their own name 50 times a day.
And some people get tired of reading huge signatures over and over.
-- Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:Mod Parent Up
by
complete+loony
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"... quick to fix problems..."
Right, written any complex software lately?
Something that might look easy to fix from the user's perspective may break assumptions that have been made in the code and require a significant amount of rework / refactoring to change.
If you really think it's that easy to fix the problem, hunt down the bug in the code and fix it. While I know this sounds like the typical linux developer reaction, I can sympathise with the sentiment. Most open source devs are not paid to fix bugs. While they might fix things that directly affect them, any other issues will go onto the end of a long list of other priorities.
Thankfully firefox seems to have the support of developers who will eventually get around to fixing such issues, but it's still a question of priorities.
-- 09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
That's fine and well. The problem is that despite the "problem" signature people, there are many who just sign off with their name. They don't want the recipient to see it in grey and with a "--" over it. Therefore, the option should be there to turn it off. It's not even part of any RFC that I can find regarding email (it does exist I believe in an RFC re: Newsgroups).
This also completely ignores the fact that most people with large annoying signatures seem to use Outlook anyway. The issue is really very simple: provide the tools for people to get their job done more easily, and people will use the tools. Make conversion difficult because you have an axe to grind about top posting or what have you, and you will constantly play second fiddle to a very bad set of programs (Outlook and Outlook Express come to mind).
Vidar
-- The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
Re:Mod Parent Up
by
DRM_is_Stupid
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Bookmarks can be sorted from the contextual menu, but now it only sorts one folder at a time. Firefox used to do global + recursive sorting, regardless of which folder the context menu came from. To many, this was an unexpected behaviour and too much of a change for an undoable edit, so the behaviour was modified.
It wouldnt have helped the article writer
by
bcore
·
· Score: 1
"...automatically checked for mistypes words..."
Re:It wouldnt have helped the article writer
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm afraid spell check wouldn't help that one. Think about it.
Re:It wouldnt have helped the article writer
by
bcore
·
· Score: 1
Indeed. That's why I titled my post "It wouldnt have helped the article writer".
Mod storm ... off topic
by
PenGun
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Wow the mad modder strikes. This place gets stranger and stranger.
PenGun
Do What Now ???... Standards and Practices !
I don't use the Search Engine feature
by
Rheingold
·
· Score: 1
Am I the only one who doesn't use the search engine feature? I much prefer to use the "Keywords" in bookmarks to make my own search-engine shortcuts, mainly because I don't want to devote more screen space to the search engine box. It's just as easy for me to type gg define:earsplittenloudenboomer in the Location box.
Re:I don't use the Search Engine feature
by
J0nne
·
· Score: 1
Rightclick somewhere on your chrome (like next to 'file' 'edit' 'view', etc), select 'customize', and drag the search box off your gui.
Just in case you didn't know that yet, because I kinda like the search box myself (even though I use the address bar search too in some situations).
Re:I don't use the Search Engine feature
by
user24
·
· Score: 1
yup yup yup. I currently use keywords for google, google images, traceroute, whois, ebay, wiki, xe.net, php.net, mysql.com (though their website is mostly useless (in comparision with the brilliantly useful php.net)), amazon, archive.org, a file extension search page, and ip2country. yay for bookmarks! your suggestions welcome.
If you have a scroll wheel instead of a middle button it acts the same way.
Re:Memory-- collective? Contradictory?
by
davidsyes
·
· Score: 1
How can both of these be 5 and informative? One says there are no memory leaks, just a feature with intense memory consumption. The other says s/he used a tool and FOUND leaks when closing tabs. (Reminds me of someone who peed in bed, and when confronted, said "THAT'S NOT PEE! THAT'S NOT PEE! I SWEAT A **LOT**! But, pee or sweat, both have salt and ammonia and other byproducts from eating and breathing and being active life forms...)
Who's right? Do we fire Apollo? Do we fry Bacon's Bits?
-- Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..."
Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Did I miss this feature?
by
HangingChad
·
· Score: 1
I was hoping that there would be a way to open firefox and have it remember all the tabs you had open when you closed it. Or at least be able to have it open to a set number of addresses. So I could open it up and have my five favorite tabs appear.
-- That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Re:Did I miss this feature?
by
cyborg_zx
·
· Score: 1
Well there are two ways to acheive what you want.
You can use SessionSaver - it's a great little extension I use that saves your browser state and reloads it when opening.
Or you could organise your bookmarks and have the ones you want to open in a folder and then open the folder in a set of new tabs.
Re:Did I miss this feature?
by
corrosive_nf
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Tools --> Options --> General. type your favorite urls in the homepage box seperated by |
Re:Did I miss this feature?
by
HangingChad
·
· Score: 1
It works. That is so handy. Thank you!
-- That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Re:Did I miss this feature?
by
David+Horn
·
· Score: 1
Well, since it has this handy feature to resume right where you left off after a crash, all you need to do is build an extension that deliberately brings FF crashing ungracefully to the ground, and call it a "Close" button.
And that, good Sir, is a bug that is most definitely a feature.:-)
My advice? Give it a fair try. Download it, and stick with it for, say, a week - it's free (as in beer, no ads or whatever) for desktop users. The UI is, IMHO, the best Opera has to offer, but it takes a bit to get accostumed to. Once you do, though, you just can't go back.
Actually, Lisandro might not have realized that the latest public beta of Opera 9 contains a built-in Content Blocker. I find it even easier to use than Fx's Adblock extension, and the latest weekly builds of Opera 9 have refined the feature even further.
I use both opera and firefox, because I do SVG. Like the SVG support of opera and speed etc. very much, but the content blocker of opera is still behind Adblock + filterset.G
-- There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
But the question is...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Will it run Linux?
You are looking for RetroFind
by
MarkByers
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Is Firefox just incorporating extensions?
by
Maniacal+Laughter
·
· Score: 1
Going over the review on the blog, all I could make out was that many extensions are being incorporated into Firefox. Tab Mix Plus can introduce close buttons, Google toolbar already has Google suggest, Sage is a built in feed reader, Google toolbar does spell checking in text boxes, and so on, all in Firefox 1.5 only. Will the authors of these extensions be credited in Firefox 2.0?
Apart from Microsummaries, there appears nothing that is sparkling new. 'Places' could have been the one thing that would have pulled it up.
Don't get me wrong, I love the browser, but I guess the developers have spoilt everyone as they have been quite innovative in the past.
-- Where are all the mod points when you *really* need them??!!
Re:Is Firefox just incorporating extensions?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The google toolbar spelling is not the way the 2.0 will work. 2.0 will be offline and use custom dictionaries - google just shunt the text to a spelling server, which has the disadvantages of having to be connected to the net to work, and also some additional privacy concerns. The 2.0 spellchecker will be a handy addition since the spellbound extension stopped working with the 1.5 branch - and I am getting fed up copy/pasting to word all the time!
A review?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Blah, it appears more like blatant Firefox propaganda to me.
Mozilla and SeaMonkey supported?
by
antdude
·
· Score: 1
I noticed it says Thunderbird and Firefox supported, but what about Mozilla and SeaMonkey?
-- Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Oh wait, you want a way to do this with one hand. Err, can't help you there, I'm afraid.
-- --
Trinity in high heels carrying a whip:
The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Re:That's easy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
unless you're left handed:)
Where are the rants?
by
suv4x4
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Firefox 2's key new features:
1. the close button was moved to each tab 2. you can spell check forms.. and various other minor features
I'm still excited about it and realistic regarding the fact that getting a product of that importance out the door ain't easy.
Something is missing though. When IE7 was announced, we had hordes of Slashdotters rant how the upgrade is totally trivial just adding tabs and skinning the interface, and how Microsoft is idiotic and IE7 will be just the same piece of shit.
Where are those hordes of Slashdotters now when FF2.0 doesn't seem to live up to what was initially announced, with major features delayed or cut forever?
Or is being objective too hard for most of you, immature ranting pests:)?
Haha, hope some of you have their filter set at -1 to read this one;)
Re:Where are the rants?
by
ClamIAm
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Wow, why not try and read the thread, bud? Nearly every other top-level post is a complaint that X wasn't fixed or that feature Y isn't in this release. I realize it's easy to get a +5 by making a righteously indignant post. Unfortunately, your claims don't reflect reality in the least.
Re:Where are the rants?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow, it looks like the Firefox devs are still doing their best to rip-off Opera.
Re:MY DONG YOUR TONGUE
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ok, Ted Bundy. Back into your coffin you go!
Note to self: Weld coffin shut and fill the grave with concrete this time.
Have they fixed....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Have they fixed the disappearing URL problem yet? When you "open in a new tab" (and preferences are set so that focus is on new tab) the URL disappears from the location bar, then reappears after the page loads. If you "open in a new tab" and press the escape key to stop the page from loading, the page stops loading but the URL never reappears.
The suite is still the way to go.
Cmon Firefox devs, just because your marketshare and popularity have gone up doesn't mean that you don't have to fix some basic problems like:
1) the disappearing URL as noted above 2) find text anywhere on a page, including inside text areas 3) the I-didn't-mean-to-move-that-tab problem
amongst others.
You may also want to make the close button on each tab thing an option.
You're slacking and it shows.
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So, write the code. Don't complain.
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
rbatista
·
· Score: 1
It's exactly that kind of attitude that really makes FOSS seem to arrogant and out of touch sometimes.
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
The+One+KEA
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Darin Fisher did this on the trunk in bug 326273. The complexity of the repair, as you surmised, means that Firefox 3.0 will be the first consumer release to contain these changes.
-- SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
Right Click Printing Here Yet?
by
jammindice
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I would personally like a friggin r-click option to print. I mean every other thing i use has a r-click option to print. Not just web browsers but regular applications have options to print or print preview. This is a pretty damn ignorant thing to do, this is supposed to be open source so that you can configure it "your way" and they refuse to add it. Bug 204519
What might be better though is an entire context menu options preferences page that allows you to select what options/dividers you want and where. They already have this for the bookmark toolbar folder and bookmarks in general. INASD (i'm not a Software Developer) so i wouldn't know the first thing about wrighting something like that, though i would if i could. I just think it would make a lot of people happier, hell they could even leave off the print option for a default install.
Well enough ranting, if your like me, they made an extension for printing from the r-click context menu here: Right Click Firefox Extension
-- -
My uid ends in 69...
Re:Right Click Printing Here Yet?
by
oberondarksoul
·
· Score: 1
so that you can configure it "your way" and they refuse to add it.
It may surprise you, but the developers are not at your beck and call to add every feature that you want. Perhaps they are busy writing other parts of the code. Perhaps you could help. Open source doesn't mean other people will do the work for you - it means that if you want to, you can.
-- And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
Re:Right Click Printing Here Yet?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
i wouldn't know the first thing about wrighting something like that
or about spelling..;)
Re:Right Click Printing Here Yet?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Have you read the history of the bug on the tracker? This isn't so much about developers being at someone's beck and call as them arrogantly refusing to implement a feature that every other browser has and that many users have requested. At one point someone went went so far as to submit a fully working patch which was rejected.
I personally think it is ridiculous that the developers claim that adding right-click->print (especially for printing a single frame - something I use on a regular basis) would clutter the context menu while having almost entirely useless context menu items like "View background image" and "Send Link".
here are you dl links
by
mikefitz
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Direct download links, as requested: ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/b onecho/alpha1
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
Tumbleweed
·
· Score: 1
Darin Fisher did this on the trunk in bug 326273. The complexity of the repair, as you surmised, means that Firefox 3.0 will be the first consumer release to contain these changes.
Darin Fisher is my new hero - he is a golden god!
As for having to wait for FF3... *sigh* At least it's coming.
Thanks much for answering this burning question of mine.
Re:Memory-- collective? Contradictory?
by
bunratty
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Yes, there are memory leaks in Firefox. However, they are generally so subtle that you don't notice them until you've had Firefox open continuously for a week. The problems people are referring to as "Firefox memory leaks" are generally not memory leaks, or are leaks caused by extensions, not leaks that exists in Firefox itself.
-- What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Why then is the firefox GUI on Linux so much slower than native GTK apps/gnome apps?
They might be picking up theme information from GTK or even using some GTK routines to render but the terribly poor GUI performance when compared to other GTK apps would suggest that they are not using GTK the same way as other gnome apps.
Also on windows the menu rendering is slower than apps using normal windows menus, i can see the redraw and CPU suckage on this "slow" 500mhz laptop compared to normal windows apps that have menus that appear to draw instantly. Also it's picking up the wrong theme info from windows (I'm using XP with a 2k theme).
I can imagine why they don't map to the native gtk or windows menu system (easier cross-compatibility) but it does result in a noticeably less responsive GUI, on my 3ghz Athlon64 linux system it's particularly frustrating.
SessionSaver or TabMix Plus
by
ben+there...
·
· Score: 1
Both do the job with different implementations.
I like the rest of the features of TabMix, so that's the one for me.
I know I'm not alone here but...
by
ericdfields
·
· Score: 1
I use Firefox over Opera mainly because I live alongside the web developer toolbar. Not the optimal way to code in all situation but great for squashing formatting bugs.
http://chrispederick.com/work/webdeveloper/
Thank god they're putting in an automated spell check for multi-line text boxes. This site should become that much more bearable to read now.
Mozilla has the majority of users but 28% still use a browser without a spell check and the trolls will never let up until M$ runs out of money.
--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Re:Reality Check
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
the trolls will never let up until M$ runs out of money.
Um, what?
Spell: Firefox 2 and Vim 7 uses OpenOffice Dicts
by
herodiade42
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well in fact that's not many "differents wheels", rather the contrary !
Vim 7.0 uses the OpenOffice.org dictionnaries (and OOo algos to take the power of them). That's why we had 40 supported languages yet at the release.
And that's exactly what happened to FF 2: it took the well done work from OOo and based he speelcheck feature on that strong base (see http://dictionaries.mozdev.org/), again, that why he support yet 40 languages.
So the morality ?
I would like that reviewers put this common OOoDict heritage more in perspective, so people willing to contribute on a dictionnary could know where to start. There many more languages needed to be supported (so: any contribution will benefit at least OOo, vim 7 and firefox). Amen.
FLASH creates the snail experience
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it's the one with FLASH crap running has been my experience. Worst named product ever, it is 180 degrees away from being fast and it's not even close to being non-buggy. I have watched it take over an hour to clear itself up, left it running once after it froze the browser up just to see what would happen. An HOUR and change. Following a link, WHAM, it started downloading and locked that sucker up. Granted, I don't have the fastest machine, but I have a 1.3 ghz processor and half a gig of RAM, that should be sufficient to use a browser and have some tabs open one might think. Unfortunately, half (whatever, a boatload) the websites out there now use flash. Most of the time it is either ads or some lam attempt at "good content", soneones 6th grade level art project. Junk, crap. I just don't bother installing it anymore, problem solved. I don't get browser freezes now, nor does my memory get hosed and used up. I don't seem to miss the content either on the rare occassion I wanted to view it, turned out to be mostly crapola anyway, so I don't care. Just say NO to flash.
And no, I really honestly don't care to be installing a ton of vague weird extensions to attempt to do this or that or to selectively try to use Flash or any of that other strange stuff.. I thought the whole reason to have FF was to make it lean and mean and fast, well, it does NO GOOD AT ALL if you fill it up with weird extensions and plugins then. It's retarded, you got from beyond bloat into morbidly obese range, and every so called upgrade borks the plugins you have already, so it's double plus bad stoopid. I can view images, access text, and that is ALL I want to do with a browser. If I want to watch a video (rarely, I am on dialup so it's silly), I have players for that one click away and a copy paste for the URL.
You know, I have had a few swiss army knives and I really don't like them, same with those leatherman styled tools. I have a dedicated nice folding pocket knife that has a nice blade that cuts. I own needle nose pliers. One phillips and one standard screwdriver with real comfy handles work well. You can stick all of them in the same size little belt holster that a leatherman comes in, save a lot of money, and have the right tool for the job then. FF with plugins is a 98 blade swiss army knife leatherman type tool that has so much BS in it that it ceases to be anything practical beyond a Rube Goldberg curiosity. Every time you DON'T succumb to installing some weird plug in, you have eliminated a ton of potentially bad code weirdness. This is a good thing.
Re:FLASH creates the snail experience
by
toadlife
·
· Score: 2, Funny
"Just say NO to flash."
In FreeBSD flash says no to you.
-- I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
BZ
·
· Score: 1
> The longer this is put off, the harder I suspect it's going to be to > put it,
This argument would have made sense in 1998. At this point, we're in the "it's harder" part.
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
BZ
·
· Score: 1
You seem to have some fundamental misconceptions about what Darin's patch does. Please read up on it before making any more statements like this, ok?
Re:MY DONG YOUR TONGUE
by
TwoTailedFox
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Firefox is being simplified in order to appeal to the greater market. You know, the ones who make up 85% of the market
You completely misunderstand who makes up your 85% of the market for a new web browser. It is NOT the 85% of the end users. When 85% of the market uses one browser, it is because someone pre-installed it for them. Until now, it has been MSIE, installed with the OS, or re-installed in a customized way by network admins using various deployment tools.
So, to increase "market share", what needs to be done is to make installation, upgrades and maintenance administrator-friendly.
For Firefox, this would mean an easy and well-documented way to deploy an installation to 10, 100 or 1000 machines, including preferences, extensions, toolbar configuration and bookmarks.
And of course, it should not require complex MSI installer hacks and not rely on Active Directory. Our Samba servers don't have AD and shouldn't need to.
Ideally, I would install and configure it on my machine, and just copy the install to wherever I want it to be on the client machines. Adding an extension should be as easy as copying some files into the right places.
Opera has an option in their opera:config settings that lets you turn off the close button on the tabs. I know this because this is one of the first things I turned off when I tried out the opera 9.0 beta. One thing I like is that opera lets you middle-click any tab to close it -- I much prefer that over having a close-button wasting space on the tabs. I'll reserve judgement on the firefox implementation until after I try it -- it might be good enough to hide the button on the background tabs when space gets tight.
Perhaps the reason you are not remembering correctly is that you have a memory leak as well. Must be that backward, forward thing again.
Hope they fixed copying & pasting text...
by
JuliaNZ
·
· Score: 1
I've had to stop using FF as my main browser because I simply can't reliably copy and paste URL's from the address bar or, frequently, text from anywhere else in Firefox's UI. I've tried to find a place to report a bug or more likely add to an existing bug report, and I get stuck in a maze of twisty little bugs, all the same.
Apart from this supremely frustrating bug, Firefox is great and I look forward to 2.0. Until then, well, Opera is growing on me and it's really really fast.
Re:Hope they fixed copying & pasting text...
by
WiFiBro
·
· Score: 1
hm that's puzzling. For me it works patently in FF but Thunderbird has many bugs in C&P.
Almost didn't RTFA. Glad I did since it seems the Fission extension listed lower on the page is hopefully something I'd like. I always want as much screen space as possible. F11 always got rid of the status bar though which I use to see where a link goes. The progress is nice if the page is slow or not working. Generally, I only use 1 or 2 icons, the drop down favorites menu, address bar, and status bar. Does anyone have comments on the Fission or similar extension?
Turn off the address bar and convert your page bar into your new address bar, like this..
Thank you. It was pretty tedious and haphazardly counterintuitive to get this to work.
Re:Like this? (Correction!)
by
Dude+McDude
·
· Score: 1
Turn off the address bar and convert the 'Main' bar into the new address bar!
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
_xeno_
·
· Score: 1
A lot of Firefox's UI is written using JavaScript. Firefox's JavaScript runs in a single thread.
I've tried to make an extension that did some work in JavaScript in a background thread. All JavaScript runs in the UI thread, so it couldn't be done.
If I'm wrong, someone please, please, please post how to write multithreaded JavaScript extensions. I'm interested!
So, yeah, making the UI multithreaded would be a large task since anything done in JavaScript is single threaded, because the interprettor is single threaded. My attempt to run JavaScript in another thread only succeeded in crashing the browser.
-- You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:Questions . Features.
by
_xeno_
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Nope. XUL is rendered using the same rendering engine that renders the webpages.
Simplest way to prove this is to install the DOM inspector and poke around the various XUL elements and corresponding CSS rules. Another way is to note the differences between how Firefox widgets work on Windows XP and how actual Windows XP widgets work.
First off, Firefox menus do not fade in and out like Windows menus do. When you open a menu, it's supposed to fade in. Selecting a menu options should cause the menu to fade out, with the selected menu options fading out slower than the rest of the menu. Firefox menus just appear and then vanish.
Next off, on the Options screen, group labels in Firefox are black. They should be blue (in the default blue Windows XP theme). Drop-down menus should slide down when clicked, they don't.
Under GNOME when I used it, Firefox screwed up the menus in one theme, but none of the others.
Anyway, XUL is rendered with the exact same engine that renders webpages. Mozilla just implemented some non-standard CSS rules that indicate that certain CSS blocks should be drawn like native widgets. But they most certainly are not rendered using native widgets.
-- You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Amazon doesn't work well with Quick Searches
by
SeaFox
·
· Score: 1
I love the quicksearch function but have had difficulty getting a URL that worked for Amazon, most would stop working after a while and take me to a page suggesting there was a browser bug instead.
The Amazon one you have doesn't work on the U.S. (.com) site. Even if you bring up a plain search and then just substitute %s into the URL, Amazon just ignores what was put in when you try to use it afterwards.
I think I have found the search URL that works on the.com site
when installing this alpha release, not all your existing add-ons can do smooth migration. Stumbleupon works fine, but all the rest won't work, e.g. sessionsaver, downthemall, etc.
then you might end up in uninstalling Bon Echo, then reinstall the Firefox 1.5. But still, the extensions though installed, won't work. I found that you need to reinstall these add-ons too.
Oh, after all, it's all back.
Re:Questions . Features.
by
ToasterofDOOM
·
· Score: 1
Because GTK is fugly on windows and doesn't really work at all on OS X.
... I use spell-check and it doesn't help me at all, you insensitive cold!
-- $ touch.signature
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
AsparagusChallenge
·
· Score: 1
And to keep asking and doing nothing is exactly the kind of attitude that really makes FOSS seem a bunch of social parasites. So, well, deal with it, there's no way to win with some people.
Print It! works in Firefox 1.5
by
Michael+Wardle
·
· Score: 1
The download page ses that extension won't work in Firefox 1.5 or newer.
Print It! dus, and has an option to put Print Preview on the menu as well.
Re:Memory (question)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That looks like google autocomplete not an extension... unless some extension also has the same line of code.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor
Never attribute to bad hardware that which can be adequately explained by buggy software. - Motorola RAZR
-- John
Re:Memory-- collective? Contradictory?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, there are memory leaks in Firefox. However, they are generally so subtle that you don't notice them until you've had Firefox open continuously for a week.
Uh, do you still reboot every day, or something?
If my Firefox session isn't a week old, it's only because it crashed. (Yes, it happens.)
Any app as common as a web browser (is there any?) shouldn't leak significant memory over a week of usage.
If the bugs are not fixed, why roll out 2.0?
by
Wolfier
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Here are the important ones.
1. plugins should have their own thread priorities. Ever wonder why a lot of Flash applets can slow down Firefox but not IE? IE runs flash applets in a lower priority thread than the UI.
2. actions on file types should not have anything greyed out. people should be able to choose custom actions based on MIME type, extensions, or both, and there must be a text box to type the application path, plus its parameters.
3. cancelling a save of a file over something with the same name should take you back to the dialog to rename the file, not cancelling the action altogether.
4. Find toolbar closes on its own after a *hardcoded* 5 second timeout.
If you check the conversations on bugzilla, the developers don't seem to like to listen at all.
Re:If the bugs are not fixed, why roll out 2.0?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Since I _am_ a developer, I can comment with some authority on your point number 4.
The Find bar does *not* close after 5 seconds in Find mode (ctrl-f) -- it closes in FAYT mode (/ or '). In ctrl-f mode, it will not auto-close (ever). Furthermore, if you don't like the closing in / mode, you can go to about:config and either change accessibility.typeaheadfind.timeout from 5000 to a different number of milliseconds, or simply set accessibility.typeaheadfind.enabletimeout to false to disable the auto-dismiss altogether.
A hope for beta 1 is that we will make Find and FAYT modes more visually distinct, so this different behavior doesn't appear so much like a fickle bug.
Constructive discussion is welcome at many places where Firefox is concerned. One good place to discuss things is on some of the many Mozilla newsgroups. In bugzilla, we prefer that people file succinct descriptions of bugs, with good testcases to reproduce, and then avoid posturing and advocacy, which do not do anything to fix problems other than make the developers not wish to touch the bug ever again.
My firefox alredy restore the session after a crash, I'm using the version that comes with the latest ubuntu, I'm pretty shure is 1.5.x!
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
HaydnH
·
· Score: 1
You want a multi-threaded browser? Why?? It's hardly a cpu intensive application.
-- Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Javascripted popup links
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The only thing I hate about Firefox is middle clicking a link only to find I get a blank tab with an address beginning with javascript:load()! (Or to that effect)
If it could only load it in the new tab then it would save me having to close the tab, and find the previous tab I was on and then left click (Takes extra thought since I am so used to middle clicking) the link I wanted to see.
Finally, firefox will be as good as galeon
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you know Galeon, this Gnome browser ? (http://galeon.sourceforge.net/) Finally, Firefox will integrate 2 great features from Galeon :
* Tab restore after crash * Close button on each tab
These were the 2 reasons I regulary thought of switching back to galeon (especially when firefox is buggy and often crashes).
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
TeknoHog
·
· Score: 1
As for having to wait for FF3... *sigh* At least it's coming.
-- Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
That should've read: http://www.%s.com/
by
DRM_is_Stupid
·
· Score: 1
(see subject)
Slashdot gabled my last comment a bit. Will be more careful next itme.
Re:don't "F" with the big F
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Case in point, uberdweeb who marked me troll.
It's been proven that the Firefox has memory leaks that aren't extension related but you just keep sitting in your little dream world, sucking your thumb, chanting "It's better than IE".
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
Tumbleweed
·
· Score: 1
You want a multi-threaded browser? Why?? It's hardly a cpu intensive application.
Very often FF will stop entirely when a tab is loading something; it can be locked-up for quite some time.
Re:so I'll just keep asking...and getting no answe
by
Matt+Perry
·
· Score: 1
You want a multi-threaded browser? Why?? It's hardly a cpu intensive application.
Because the browser hangs when opening a tab that takes a while to finish loading. For example, opening gmail in a new tab makes the browser hang for several seconds.
-- Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:Memory-- collective? Contradictory?
by
Kelson
·
· Score: 1
Uh, do you still reboot every day, or something?
I don't know about the previous poster, but I have no reason to run Firefox when I'm asleep, or at work. Heck, I have no reason to run my computer when I'm asleep or at work, unless I'm downloading something or want to leave a session open.
Seriously, if I'm only going to use the computer 5 hours a day, why should I waste an extra 19 hours/day of electricity?
It should be allot or a lot.
See, the whole point of the joke was that spell checker isn't contextual nor grammatical, so it's not a huge benefit.
Alot will show up as an error in a spell checker. Miss steaks won't.
-- You better watch out, there may be dogs about . ..
You're absolutely correct. I'm officially blaming the lack of caffiene I'd had at the time I typed that comment. Actually, I need some more right about now...
--
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
MOD PARENT DOWN
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The parent is spewing complete bullshit and you idiots are modding him up just because he sounds right! Extensions can include binary code that is platform and system specific! Don't mod something informative without reading its child comments first!
MOD SIBLING DOWN
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Abcd1234 (188840) is a complete idiot who is just saying whatever sounds right in order to get modded positively! Extensions can have binary components (although that isn't the main cause of memory leaks in extensions)!
Slashdot Mirror
Crap! TFA says it'll have a winter release.
Anyone know if the memory problems that everyone was complaining about in v1.5 is fixed for 2.0?
Slightly off topic, but probably the best place to ask:
Is anyone having a problem with recent versions where the URI autocomplete sometimes doesn't work, even if it's an address you often go to (e.g. google.com).
Or when you click on a tab, it doesn't "release" fast enough, and start moving the tab around?
Still the best browser though.
Get your own free personal location tracker
but it will not filter postings that are the first ones automatically, will it?
This release must be renamed Firefox 8 to be better than IE
He concludes, " So overall, Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. However, it is still not as fast as Opera, and Opera also offers a high level of standards support, security and features. "
Wilton-Jones tested both version 1.0 and version 1.5 of Firefox. Does anyone have any thoughts on the performance of version 2.0?
http://mozillalinks.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/
Early versions of FF allowed me to Find text anywhere on a page, including inside textareas.
That's been broken for years now. I don't care about how it renders RSS, I want basic functions to unsuck.
Simply just adding new flare to help new, inexperienced users, while not generally fixing problems that us veterans have come across. Of all the issues right now, I never noticed having a "close" button on the individual tab itself as a high priority. Maybe that's just me.
Stoned4Life
gen = new Random
Okay, so now they placed the close tab button on the active tab itself. I've heard of that being planned. I, however, really don't like that myself. Does anyone know if it's possible to turn off? Because if not, I'm not switching.
There's no reason to not let the user be able to pick the old way of handling a UI functionality that a reasonable amount of people don't agree with.
1. Is there a way to make the 'goback' response as fast as opera's ? It could be a little faster.
2. Why does firefox need XUL gui ? Why not use gtk or something else ?
Updating the plain default gui would be cool.
..will 2.0 be released before 1.5 is marked stable for x86 in portage? Seriously, how's SVG support comming along? Last I checked they couldn't add SVG to the accept header because of issues with the rendering backends.
is a public download available?
Firefox dumbed down again, film at 11.
Seriously. It's fast becoming the XP Home of browsers. Too bad neither the fanboys nor the development team realizes this. It could've been a nice browser, smaller and faster than SeaMonkey. It lost its way around the time they renamed it "Firefox." Now it's just SeaMonkey with memory leaks (yeah yeah it's a feature) and an incomplete, annoying interface.
No, I don't care that I'll get modded down for criticizing Firefox.
Slashdot - where to disagree, is to be a troll
Although I vastly prefer Opera, anything that can help decrease market share of IE and its broken everything is good.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
A new spell-checking feature has been added. Text entered in multiline text boxes is automatically checked for mistypes words, for single line text boxes, you must ask for it (right-click, Spell check this field). Words not found in the dictionary are marked with a red underline.
It's about time they incorperated a spell checker! Vary nice.
"Or when you click on a tab, it doesn't "release" fast enough, and start moving the tab around?" - AAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey! I want FF to get more share, takes the heat off of IE7. The more popular the more it gets exploited! If you think you've had enough FF exploits, wait a while.
Don't believe the crap that the N.S.A. just collected phone numbers. Phone numbers are meaningless.
They were intercepting the CONTENT.
The content of the Bush-Cheney phone calls to Pakistan and Aghanistan will be very entertaining.
Call your senator and demand the arrest; trial, conviction: and sentencing of Al-Qaeda.
Thank you for your patriotism,
Kilgore Trout, M.D.
Fixfox and mozilla are unable to resume downloads across sessions. In other words if you have to reboot the PC for any reason, you will have to start that 300mb download from scratch.
This bug has been outstanding for several years.
There are numerous other missing features in the download manager, just compare to the download manager in Opera.
On my Linux machine, I recently ditched Firefox for Epiphany. It is much more responsive and less of a memory hog. I love some of Firefox's features, but until the developers polish up the interface and improve speed and memory usage, I'm sticking with Epiphany. For me, speed is much more important than extra features.
2. Why does firefox need XUL gui ? Why not use gtk or something else ?
There is no other toolkit besides XUL that works well cross-platform? XUL is very easy to write for new extension developers? XUL allows for more rapid development?
Opera for all the ideas, and the lesson in what users actually like in UI design
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Just about everything in the review is available now, and has been for quite awhile, through extensions?
It seems that future development of firefox should be on the core application and let the extension developers handle the pretty stuff.
load "linux",8,1
It appears that MSN Search, despite being one of the three most popular search engines, is still not offered as one of the default search options.
... and there's not a single feature in FF 2 that hasn't been in Opera for ages. The FF team is slacking - they're not innovating anymore. Not that they OWE me anything, of course. Just saying.
Global warming is a cube.
Combining the status and location bars is a great idea. Having read the article on a PDA, I only wish M$ had been as clever with Pocket IE... Could use the extra screen real estate.
This sig washed every five years whether it needs it or not!
As for there being no reason not to give both options, well there is plenty of reason. The two most significant, it ads complexity to the project to support yet another feature and it asks the user yet more question about how to configure the browser.
Personally? I like it the way opera does it. On the tab. More logical.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's a conspiracy between IBM and the Firefox team in their eventual move to completely replace Firefox with the Notes client.
how will I tell fake links from real when surfing porn? And speaking of which, when will the option for not allowing window.status to be used in JS be fixed?
like this one- aka-firefox-2-alpha-2-review.html
http://mozillalinks.blogspot.com/2006/05/bon-echo
if you want to link to an article of a blog and not just point to the main page...
Thank god they're putting in an automated spell check for multi-line text boxes. This site should become that much more bearable to read now.
Fucking dammit.
Why the hell are there buttons ('Move Up' and 'Move Down') for reordering the search plugins. They should be able to be dragged and dropped. It's not like the developers can't do this; the bookmarks can be. Why not this?
(It would also be nice for Firefox and Mozilla to understand URL files generated by IE. Safari seems to manage.)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
...when's it gonna pass the acid2 test?
Does this beta still use the same pathetic non-informative dog-slow downloads screen of 1.5?
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/bonecho/alpha2/
That was no daughter! That was a hydroxyl ion!
there is such a toolkit - wxwindows
Firefox has numerous serious focus problems that continue to be ignored.. I hope they fix them in version 2 but I don't hold out much hope given that they've been ignoring them for years. It seems the devs are mouse-only users. A lot of the problems occur when keystrokes are used to open windows, close windows, etc.
Firefox steals focus constantly under enlightenment. Older versions of Firefox (0.8) do not have the problem.
The FF Download Manager thing sucks the shit. It saves every image or minor file that you save, and it gets dog slow if the list gets long. And as you point out, it doesn't even manage downloads. Retarded.
How about going back to the old-style download dialogs? Those worked fine and didn't create a number of obvious problems. And stop stealing ideas from Microsoft IE/Mac. It was a shit browser.
So, does the 2.0 series allow XUL coding in Python instead of Javascript. I have heard about this for some time. However, I've not heard what 'live' Firefox version would start offering this sweet gem.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
XUL is a layer, allowing Firefox and its extensions create widgets. All the widgets that are requested from XUL are rendered with the appropriate toolkit: GTK on Linux, MFC (I think) on Windows and Cocoa (not sure) on OS X. This allows Firefox to use the native toolkit on all platforms and allows extension to be used on any platform without rewriting anything.
I know the Slashdot effect is powerful, but taking down Google's servers seems a tad overambitious.
if http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/tabextensions/index.h tml.en will be available for it.
It's the only extension I use with FF.
I've got a question: I installed that extension and I'm trying to figure out what caused the leak. For example, I get this when I go to google and close the tab: handleEvent function (e) { InstallAC(f, f.q, f.btnG, "search", "en); }
So, I have been using Deer Park Alpha 2 (or so it says), and when I load the latest version, none of my bookmarks tranfer. And, I can't get Deer Park Alpha 2 to export them. Ideas?
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
The parent was unfairly labelled a troll. I love the Firefox browser, and use it all the time. But it and Thunderbird have a lot of annoying, quick to fix problems that could have been fixed, and are often actively ignored. If you want a real list of stuff that is broken, we could start with the parent poster's list, which seems somewhat valid, and continue from there...
1. Under the XP home theme (reduced functionality without reason) - No "Block images from this server" in context menu - available in Mozilla forever, this prevents kids from seeing the constant AdultFriendFinder crap that comes up on some non-pornographic sites.
2. On my system, it does seem to be smaller and faster than Mozilla, though I am not sure about the new Seamonkey developments. I tried it when they first started, and their first task was apparently to introduce lots of bugs and change the icon to something they created in Microsoft Paint. Not impressed with their priorities.
3. Renamed to Firefox - Wow. This was a bad move. I get a questioning look almost every time I bring up the "better browser to use" argument to businesses. Plus, everyone ends up calling it Foxfire. There are too many "cool" names involved. Mozilla was hard enough to explain, but at least I could connect it to Netscape's mascot (since people still remember Netscape). But Firefox, Firebird, Phoenix, Thunderbird and SeaMonkey? Surely someone came up with something better, but it was turned down as too practical. Think about the words "Internet Explorer" or "Netscape". The title describes the function.
4. Memory leaks - Running latest Firefox Stable build for Win32, one window, no tabs, no extensions, haven't visited any sites with Java, one Live Bookmark (default BBC World News thing). Browsing around for a few hours, memory use creeps up by several megs. Even as I type this (watching Task manager, memory has gone from 37,??? to 39,132. Weird.
5. Incomplete, annoying interface - Well, I would call a "resume button that has not ever apparently worked an annoying interface feature. I would also say that losing favicons for no apparent reason is annoying. No built-in function for removing or re-ordering search engines (you shouldn't need an extension for this simple task.
6. Offtopic Thunderbird complaint - Signatures now have a stupid "--" in grey that cannot be turned off, and the signature is in grey too (no option to disable) which has annoyed countless customers. Some people don't feel like typing their own name 50 times a day. Email is not Newsgroups. Don't try to make it that way.
7. Memory usage is now up to 40,648. Eventually, Firefox will crash on me. Not a huge deal for me (I used Mozilla M9, M10, etc. all the time). But pretty lame for a browser that has had this much development time. No, it's not just this machine either. 40,860 now.
So stop modding people as troll, just because they didn't feel like they should have to type all this junk out, when the accusations hold water.
Vidar
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
"...automatically checked for mistypes words..."
Wow the mad modder strikes. This place gets stranger and stranger.
... Standards and Practices !
PenGun
Do What Now ???
Am I the only one who doesn't use the search engine feature? I much prefer to use the "Keywords" in bookmarks to make my own search-engine shortcuts, mainly because I don't want to devote more screen space to the search engine box. It's just as easy for me to type gg define:earsplittenloudenboomer in the Location box.
Wil
wiki
Multi-threaded UI yet? Anybody? Anybody?
Bueller?
The longer this is put off, the harder I suspect it's going to be to put it, due to a more complicated codebase.
Lay the foundation first, folks, PLEASE.
Hi, this is your national government. In the name of the proverbial children, as well as National Security, we'll be at your door shortly. Thank you.
Because they have to support the proprietary piece of shit Microsoft Windows system.
Lotus Notes has a separate close button for each "tab" and I wish it didn't; having a bunch of extra buttons clutters the screen.
If you have a scroll wheel instead of a middle button it acts the same way.
How can both of these be 5 and informative? One says there are no memory leaks, just a feature with intense memory consumption. The other says s/he used a tool and FOUND leaks when closing tabs. (Reminds me of someone who peed in bed, and when confronted, said "THAT'S NOT PEE! THAT'S NOT PEE! I SWEAT A **LOT**! But, pee or sweat, both have salt and ammonia and other byproducts from eating and breathing and being active life forms...)
Who's right? Do we fire Apollo? Do we fry Bacon's Bits?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I was hoping that there would be a way to open firefox and have it remember all the tabs you had open when you closed it. Or at least be able to have it open to a set number of addresses. So I could open it up and have my five favorite tabs appear.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Does Opera have Adblock? If so I'll consider it...
Penny - plain text accounting
Will it run Linux?
Here it is: RetroFind.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Going over the review on the blog, all I could make out was that many extensions are being incorporated into Firefox. Tab Mix Plus can introduce close buttons, Google toolbar already has Google suggest, Sage is a built in feed reader, Google toolbar does spell checking in text boxes, and so on, all in Firefox 1.5 only. Will the authors of these extensions be credited in Firefox 2.0?
Apart from Microsummaries, there appears nothing that is sparkling new. 'Places' could have been the one thing that would have pulled it up.
Don't get me wrong, I love the browser, but I guess the developers have spoilt everyone as they have been quite innovative in the past.
Where are all the mod points when you *really* need them??!!
Blah, it appears more like blatant Firefox propaganda to me.
I noticed it says Thunderbird and Firefox supported, but what about Mozilla and SeaMonkey?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Hold down Shift while you mouseover a link.
Oh wait, you want a way to do this with one hand. Err, can't help you there, I'm afraid.
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Firefox 2's key new features:
.. and various other minor features
:)?
;)
1. the close button was moved to each tab
2. you can spell check forms
I'm still excited about it and realistic regarding the fact that getting a product of that importance out the door ain't easy.
Something is missing though. When IE7 was announced, we had hordes of Slashdotters rant how the upgrade is totally trivial just adding tabs and skinning the interface, and how Microsoft is idiotic and IE7 will be just the same piece of shit.
Where are those hordes of Slashdotters now when FF2.0 doesn't seem to live up to what was initially announced, with major features delayed or cut forever?
Or is being objective too hard for most of you, immature ranting pests
Haha, hope some of you have their filter set at -1 to read this one
Ok, Ted Bundy. Back into your coffin you go!
Note to self: Weld coffin shut and fill the grave with concrete this time.
Have they fixed the disappearing URL problem yet? When you "open in a new tab" (and preferences are set so that focus is on new tab) the URL disappears from the location bar, then reappears after the page loads. If you "open in a new tab" and press the escape key to stop the page from loading, the page stops loading but the URL never reappears.
The suite is still the way to go.
Cmon Firefox devs, just because your marketshare and popularity have gone up doesn't mean that you don't have to fix some basic problems like:
1) the disappearing URL as noted above
2) find text anywhere on a page, including inside text areas
3) the I-didn't-mean-to-move-that-tab problem
amongst others.
You may also want to make the close button on each tab thing an option.
You're slacking and it shows.
So, write the code. Don't complain.
It's exactly that kind of attitude that really makes FOSS seem to arrogant and out of touch sometimes.
Darin Fisher did this on the trunk in bug 326273. The complexity of the repair, as you surmised, means that Firefox 3.0 will be the first consumer release to contain these changes.
7 3
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3262
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
I would personally like a friggin r-click option to print. I mean every other thing i use has a r-click option to print. Not just web browsers but regular applications have options to print or print preview. This is a pretty damn ignorant thing to do, this is supposed to be open source so that you can configure it "your way" and they refuse to add it. Bug 204519
What might be better though is an entire context menu options preferences page that allows you to select what options/dividers you want and where. They already have this for the bookmark toolbar folder and bookmarks in general. INASD (i'm not a Software Developer) so i wouldn't know the first thing about wrighting something like that, though i would if i could. I just think it would make a lot of people happier, hell they could even leave off the print option for a default install.
Well enough ranting, if your like me, they made an extension for printing from the r-click context menu here: Right Click Firefox Extension
- My uid ends in 69...
Direct download links, as requested: ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/b onecho/alpha1
Darin Fisher did this on the trunk in bug 326273. The complexity of the repair, as you surmised, means that Firefox 3.0 will be the first consumer release to contain these changes.
... *sigh* At least it's coming.
Darin Fisher is my new hero - he is a golden god!
As for having to wait for FF3
Thanks much for answering this burning question of mine.
Yes, there are memory leaks in Firefox. However, they are generally so subtle that you don't notice them until you've had Firefox open continuously for a week. The problems people are referring to as "Firefox memory leaks" are generally not memory leaks, or are leaks caused by extensions, not leaks that exists in Firefox itself.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Why then is the firefox GUI on Linux so much slower than native GTK apps/gnome apps?
They might be picking up theme information from GTK or even using some GTK routines to render but the terribly poor GUI performance when compared to other GTK apps would suggest that they are not using GTK the same way as other gnome apps.
Also on windows the menu rendering is slower than apps using normal windows menus, i can see the redraw and CPU suckage on this "slow" 500mhz laptop compared to normal windows apps that have menus that appear to draw instantly. Also it's picking up the wrong theme info from windows (I'm using XP with a 2k theme).
I can imagine why they don't map to the native gtk or windows menu system (easier cross-compatibility) but it does result in a noticeably less responsive GUI, on my 3ghz Athlon64 linux system it's particularly frustrating.
Both do the job with different implementations.
I like the rest of the features of TabMix, so that's the one for me.
I use Firefox over Opera mainly because I live alongside the web developer toolbar. Not the optimal way to code in all situation but great for squashing formatting bugs. http://chrispederick.com/work/webdeveloper/
eric http://www.ericdfields.com/
Mozilla has the majority of users but 28% still use a browser without a spell check and the trolls will never let up until M$ runs out of money.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Well in fact that's not many "differents wheels", rather the contrary !
Vim 7.0 uses the OpenOffice.org dictionnaries (and OOo algos to take the power of them).
That's why we had 40 supported languages yet at the release.
And that's exactly what happened to FF 2: it took the well done work from OOo and based he speelcheck feature on that strong base (see http://dictionaries.mozdev.org/), again, that why he support yet 40 languages.
So the morality ?
I would like that reviewers put this common OOoDict heritage more in perspective, so people willing to contribute on a dictionnary could know where to start. There many more languages needed to be supported (so: any contribution will benefit at least OOo, vim 7 and firefox).
Amen.
it's the one with FLASH crap running has been my experience. Worst named product ever, it is 180 degrees away from being fast and it's not even close to being non-buggy. I have watched it take over an hour to clear itself up, left it running once after it froze the browser up just to see what would happen. An HOUR and change. Following a link, WHAM, it started downloading and locked that sucker up. Granted, I don't have the fastest machine, but I have a 1.3 ghz processor and half a gig of RAM, that should be sufficient to use a browser and have some tabs open one might think. Unfortunately, half (whatever, a boatload) the websites out there now use flash. Most of the time it is either ads or some lam attempt at "good content", soneones 6th grade level art project. Junk, crap. I just don't bother installing it anymore, problem solved. I don't get browser freezes now, nor does my memory get hosed and used up. I don't seem to miss the content either on the rare occassion I wanted to view it, turned out to be mostly crapola anyway, so I don't care. Just say NO to flash.
And no, I really honestly don't care to be installing a ton of vague weird extensions to attempt to do this or that or to selectively try to use Flash or any of that other strange stuff.. I thought the whole reason to have FF was to make it lean and mean and fast, well, it does NO GOOD AT ALL if you fill it up with weird extensions and plugins then. It's retarded, you got from beyond bloat into morbidly obese range, and every so called upgrade borks the plugins you have already, so it's double plus bad stoopid. I can view images, access text, and that is ALL I want to do with a browser. If I want to watch a video (rarely, I am on dialup so it's silly), I have players for that one click away and a copy paste for the URL.
You know, I have had a few swiss army knives and I really don't like them, same with those leatherman styled tools. I have a dedicated nice folding pocket knife that has a nice blade that cuts. I own needle nose pliers. One phillips and one standard screwdriver with real comfy handles work well. You can stick all of them in the same size little belt holster that a leatherman comes in, save a lot of money, and have the right tool for the job then. FF with plugins is a 98 blade swiss army knife leatherman type tool that has so much BS in it that it ceases to be anything practical beyond a Rube Goldberg curiosity. Every time you DON'T succumb to installing some weird plug in, you have eliminated a ton of potentially bad code weirdness. This is a good thing.
> The longer this is put off, the harder I suspect it's going to be to
> put it,
This argument would have made sense in 1998. At this point, we're in the "it's harder" part.
You seem to have some fundamental misconceptions about what Darin's patch does. Please read up on it before making any more statements like this, ok?
I laughed at this, for some reason.
I am so going to hell when I die.
~The TwoTailedFox posts again....
Firefox is being simplified in order to appeal to the greater market. You know, the ones who make up 85% of the market
You completely misunderstand who makes up your 85% of the market for a new web browser. It is NOT the 85% of the end users. When 85% of the market uses one browser, it is because someone pre-installed it for them. Until now, it has been MSIE, installed with the OS, or re-installed in a customized way by network admins using various deployment tools.
So, to increase "market share", what needs to be done is to make installation, upgrades and maintenance administrator-friendly.
For Firefox, this would mean an easy and well-documented way to deploy an installation to 10, 100 or 1000 machines, including preferences, extensions, toolbar configuration and bookmarks.
And of course, it should not require complex MSI installer hacks and not rely on Active Directory. Our Samba servers don't have AD and shouldn't need to.
Ideally, I would install and configure it on my machine, and just copy the install to wherever I want it to be on the client machines. Adding an extension should be as easy as copying some files into the right places.
Opera has an option in their opera:config settings that lets you turn off the close button on the tabs. I know this because this is one of the first things I turned off when I tried out the opera 9.0 beta. One thing I like is that opera lets you middle-click any tab to close it -- I much prefer that over having a close-button wasting space on the tabs. I'll reserve judgement on the firefox implementation until after I try it -- it might be good enough to hide the button on the background tabs when space gets tight.
..wayne..
Should I be worried about myself? I laughed at this. Perhaps I should go join TwoTailedFox over in the crazy chamber?
Perhaps the reason you are not remembering correctly is that you have a memory leak as well. Must be that backward, forward thing again.
I've had to stop using FF as my main browser because I simply can't reliably copy and paste URL's from the address bar or, frequently, text from anywhere else in Firefox's UI. I've tried to find a place to report a bug or more likely add to an existing bug report, and I get stuck in a maze of twisty little bugs, all the same.
Apart from this supremely frustrating bug, Firefox is great and I look forward to 2.0. Until then, well, Opera is growing on me and it's really really fast.
Almost didn't RTFA. Glad I did since it seems the Fission extension listed lower on the page is hopefully something I'd like. I always want as much screen space as possible. F11 always got rid of the status bar though which I use to see where a link goes. The progress is nice if the page is slow or not working. Generally, I only use 1 or 2 icons, the drop down favorites menu, address bar, and status bar.
Does anyone have comments on the Fission or similar extension?
Any idea of a WebDav (WebFolders) capability? Then I would not need IE at all!
You want a signature? You can't handle a signature!!
Where are the major changes to warrant a full major version increment?
We've just had a massive jump from 1.1 to 1.5 with little improvement. Why aren't they calling this version 1.6?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Turn off the address bar and convert your page bar into your new address bar, like this... http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8710/untitled10 gg.jpg
Turn off the address bar and convert the 'Main' bar into the new address bar!
A lot of Firefox's UI is written using JavaScript. Firefox's JavaScript runs in a single thread.
I've tried to make an extension that did some work in JavaScript in a background thread. All JavaScript runs in the UI thread, so it couldn't be done.
If I'm wrong, someone please, please, please post how to write multithreaded JavaScript extensions. I'm interested!
So, yeah, making the UI multithreaded would be a large task since anything done in JavaScript is single threaded, because the interprettor is single threaded. My attempt to run JavaScript in another thread only succeeded in crashing the browser.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Nope. XUL is rendered using the same rendering engine that renders the webpages.
Simplest way to prove this is to install the DOM inspector and poke around the various XUL elements and corresponding CSS rules. Another way is to note the differences between how Firefox widgets work on Windows XP and how actual Windows XP widgets work.
First off, Firefox menus do not fade in and out like Windows menus do. When you open a menu, it's supposed to fade in. Selecting a menu options should cause the menu to fade out, with the selected menu options fading out slower than the rest of the menu. Firefox menus just appear and then vanish.
Next off, on the Options screen, group labels in Firefox are black. They should be blue (in the default blue Windows XP theme). Drop-down menus should slide down when clicked, they don't.
Under GNOME when I used it, Firefox screwed up the menus in one theme, but none of the others.
Anyway, XUL is rendered with the exact same engine that renders webpages. Mozilla just implemented some non-standard CSS rules that indicate that certain CSS blocks should be drawn like native widgets. But they most certainly are not rendered using native widgets.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I love the quicksearch function but have had difficulty getting a URL that worked for Amazon, most would stop working after a while and take me to a page suggesting there was a browser bug instead.
.com site
/ ?field-keywords=%s&mode=blended&tag=mozilla-20&sou rceid=Mozilla-search
The Amazon one you have doesn't work on the U.S. (.com) site. Even if you bring up a plain search and then just substitute %s into the URL, Amazon just ignores what was put in when you try to use it afterwards.
I think I have found the search URL that works on the
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search
It appears to be the one that the Amazon search on the Toolbar search field uses (it redirects fast somewhere else so getting it caught was tough).
when installing this alpha release, not all your existing add-ons can do smooth migration. Stumbleupon works fine, but all the rest won't work, e.g. sessionsaver, downthemall, etc. then you might end up in uninstalling Bon Echo, then reinstall the Firefox 1.5. But still, the extensions though installed, won't work. I found that you need to reinstall these add-ons too. Oh, after all, it's all back.
Because GTK is fugly on windows and doesn't really work at all on OS X.
I am Spartacus
... I use spell-check and it doesn't help me at all, you insensitive cold!
$ touch
And to keep asking and doing nothing is exactly the kind of attitude that really makes FOSS seem a bunch of social parasites. So, well, deal with it, there's no way to win with some people.
The download page ses that extension won't work in Firefox 1.5 or newer.
Print It! dus, and has an option to put Print Preview on the menu as well.
That looks like google autocomplete not an extension... unless some extension also has the same line of code.
Never attribute to bad hardware that which can be adequately explained by buggy software. - Motorola RAZR
John
Yes, there are memory leaks in Firefox. However, they are generally so subtle that you don't notice them until you've had Firefox open continuously for a week.
Uh, do you still reboot every day, or something?
If my Firefox session isn't a week old, it's only because it crashed. (Yes, it happens.)
Any app as common as a web browser (is there any?) shouldn't leak significant memory over a week of usage.
Here are the important ones.
1. plugins should have their own thread priorities. Ever wonder why a lot of Flash applets can slow down Firefox but not IE? IE runs flash applets in a lower priority thread than the UI.
2. actions on file types should not have anything greyed out. people should be able to choose custom actions based on MIME type, extensions, or both, and there must be a text box to type the application path, plus its parameters.
3. cancelling a save of a file over something with the same name should take you back to the dialog to rename the file, not cancelling the action altogether.
4. Find toolbar closes on its own after a *hardcoded* 5 second timeout.
If you check the conversations on bugzilla, the developers don't seem to like to listen at all.
Your right! It's hard to bare all the miss steaks people right on this sight, the new firefox will help a lot!
You missed one! Should be Its
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
My firefox alredy restore the session after a crash, I'm using the version that comes with the latest ubuntu, I'm pretty shure is 1.5.x!
You want a multi-threaded browser? Why?? It's hardly a cpu intensive application.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
The only thing I hate about Firefox is middle clicking a link only to find I get a blank tab with an address beginning with javascript:load()! (Or to that effect)
If it could only load it in the new tab then it would save me having to close the tab, and find the previous tab I was on and then left click (Takes extra thought since I am so used to middle clicking) the link I wanted to see.
Do you know Galeon, this Gnome browser ? (http://galeon.sourceforge.net/)
Finally, Firefox will integrate 2 great features from Galeon :
* Tab restore after crash
* Close button on each tab
These were the 2 reasons I regulary thought of switching back to galeon (especially when firefox is buggy and often crashes).
Been using FF3 alpha builds for some time now: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nig htly/latest-trunk/
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
(see subject)
Slashdot gabled my last comment a bit. Will be more careful next itme.
Case in point, uberdweeb who marked me troll.
It's been proven that the Firefox has memory leaks that aren't extension related but you just keep sitting in your little dream world, sucking your thumb, chanting "It's better than IE".
You want a multi-threaded browser? Why?? It's hardly a cpu intensive application.
Very often FF will stop entirely when a tab is loading something; it can be locked-up for quite some time.
"Now is the winter of our discontent. Or the summer of Australia's discontent. Either or. Take your pick."
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Uh, do you still reboot every day, or something?
I don't know about the previous poster, but I have no reason to run Firefox when I'm asleep, or at work. Heck, I have no reason to run my computer when I'm asleep or at work, unless I'm downloading something or want to leave a session open.
Seriously, if I'm only going to use the computer 5 hours a day, why should I waste an extra 19 hours/day of electricity?
It should be allot or a lot.
See, the whole point of the joke was that spell checker isn't contextual nor grammatical, so it's not a huge benefit.
Alot will show up as an error in a spell checker. Miss steaks won't.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
The parent is spewing complete bullshit and you idiots are modding him up just because he sounds right! Extensions can include binary code that is platform and system specific! Don't mod something informative without reading its child comments first!
Abcd1234 (188840) is a complete idiot who is just saying whatever sounds right in order to get modded positively! Extensions can have binary components (although that isn't the main cause of memory leaks in extensions)!
Sorry, that's:
Show Problem Dialog=0