Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Firefox 2 RC2 Released

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the popular-day-for-rc2s dept.

Shining Celebi writes "According to the Mozilla Developer Center, Firefox 2 Release Candidate 2 is available for download. This looks like it could be the final release candidate, and offers a tweaked UI and improved stability over RC1, plus, of course, all the new in Firefox 2.0 features."

10 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. And still ... by isometrick · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... no correct ACID2, and no support for SVG images in CSS.

    Everybody else (besides IE, of course) supports the first, and I'd love Firefox to be the first to support the second.

    Just my $0.02, I'm sure everybody's got their own pet RFEs and bugs.

    1. Re:And still ... by Matt+Perry · · Score: 3, Informative
      ... no correct ACID2
      It's already known that Acid 2 support won't be in the Gecko 1.8 (Firefox 2) branch because of large changes that need to be made. It's supported in Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3). Get a trunk build if you're interested.
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  2. Re:Tweaked UI by Matt+Perry · · Score: 3, Informative
    I've been running FireFox 2 since its first release, but I haven't noticed any changes to the UI as advertised.
    The UI has changed compared to FF 1.5 not FF 2.0 RC1.
    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  3. Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Informative

    On the Windows build, the exact opposite seems to be true. The 2.0RC1 build seems to eat up far less RAM in intense browsing sessions than the 1.5.x series did. Much, much, less. Especially on very image intensive sites, that used to cause Firefox to gobble up memory until it usually died after a short period of time (uhhh, I won't explain what kind of "image intensive sites" I'm talking about here, you can figure it out I'm sure). :)

  4. Re: Memory leaks in extensions by bunratty · · Score: 4, Informative
    Does it matter? Stock Firefox needs at least half a dozen extensions just to get the basic functionality it should come with by default.
    Yes, it does matter. Certain extensions have severe memory leaks. If you simply stay away from the few bad extensions, you shouldn't see outrageous memory use. If you do, please report the steps you can follow to see the problem so it can be fixed.
    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  5. Firefox Portable 2.0 RC2: Test Without Installing by CritterNYC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Firefox Portable 2.0 RC 2 has been released. For the unfamiliar, Firefox Portable is Firefox packaged with a PortableApps.com launcher so it can be run from a USB flash drive, iPod, portable hard drive, CD, etc and used on any computer. It can also be run from a local hard drive (even your desktop) making it a great way to test out another version of Firefox without impacting your installed version. Grab it from the Firefox Portable 2.0 RC2 Homepage.

    --
    Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
  6. Re:The real question... by julesh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Heh. That's a good one. Bugs reported for RC1 implemented in RC2.

    There are bugs still in there that were first reported in 1999.

  7. Re:Bloat? by RonnyJ · · Score: 4, Informative
    I like the Opera implementation - it will use GNU Aspell if it's available (or the system spellchecker on Mac OS X).

    http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spell check/

  8. Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA by cortana · · Score: 4, Informative
    Firefox: open source, free license
    Unless you want to keep using the Firefox name.
  9. Re:Tweaked UI by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless I'm mistaken, I belive the interface was tweaked a bit (the Go button and stupid "drop down arrow" hover effects on the Back/Forward buttons seem a bit darker) on the Mac version (wouldn't surprise me if the Windows/Linux versions didn't change--RC 1 was at least decent for them), though it still looks terrible for a Mac app. For example, the toolbar icons increase in saturation when you hover over them. Note to theme devs: Mac icons don't do that; this isn't Windows XP. Plus, the whole toolbar is now this light gray instead of the OS X pinstripe background. It seriously looks like a poorly ported KDE app.

    That being said, for Mac users who want a theme that actually looks decent, they should try the Gerich/Holander update of the original Pinstripe theme which they created for Firefox 1. Not only is it updated for Firefox 2, but it's been tweaked a bit and looks "20% more Macintosh" according to them--though more like 200% if you ask me: http://kmgerich.com/2006/09/27/pinstripe-for-firef ox-now-with-20-more-macintosh/

    It's also available for Windows and Linux and will make Firefox look more or less like the 1.x theme.

    --
    R.Mo