Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 2.0 RC2 Review

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new dept.

segphault writes "Ars Technica has a comprehensive review of Firefox 2.0 RC2. It includes screenshot comparisons that illuminate the user interface changes that have transpired since the second beta, and it examines the similarities between the browser tab implementation from Internet Explorer 7 and the new tab management features in RC2. From the article: 'If RC2 is any indication, Firefox 2.0 is an incremental improvement of the 1.5.x series with performance improvements and a handful of relatively useful features. Based on my own experience, I consider it stable enough for regular use, but I endorse caution for users that rely on a lot of extensions, as most extensions aren't yet compatible with Firefox 2.0.'"

17 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All but one of my ~dozen installed extensions (largely developer oriented) currently work, with the exception being TBE. Firefox 2 seems pretty good, but it would've been fairer for this to have been v1.5.

    1. Re:Extensions by kwanbis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you know about the many changes on the rendering engine, right? And how about the incredible reduction of memory leaks?

    2. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Considering that the rendering engine has only gone from 1.8.0.x to 1.8.1, I wouldn't really consider that much of a change. Memory leaks are important, but not a full version increment worthy.

    3. Re:Extensions by samkass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Loved the "tab remember" feature where you can close the browser and it will remember all the pages you had open in the previous session.

      This was one of my favorite features from Opera 4-5 years ago. Glad to see the idea finally spreading.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    4. Re:Extensions by HeroreV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know what I love? Open source. Glad to see the idea spreading. Too bad Opera hasn't been receptive to it.

  2. Deliverance touches by Eric+Pierce · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What's up with the dirty old house?

    Eric

  3. Why ActiveX? by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful
    (that, and a glaring lack of ActiveX)

    ActiveX is a Microsoft technology. Even Microsoft is trying to get away for the security holes they've created with that.

    Sometimes, security means not implementing something if it cannot be implemented securely.
    1. Re:Why ActiveX? by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Active X is INCREDIBLY useful for applications"

      Yes, it has full access to your machine including the ability to read and write to hard drives, reboot your machine, muck with your registry etc.

      "t's much more advanced than AJAX, and it was there 5-8 years ago. "

      Yes. It was Microsoft's answer to the applet. Applets were first of course. Too bad Sun never could make them work because they were much safer then activex.

      "Java never cut it (buggy, bloated, and hard to relatively hard to develop)."

      Bloated maybe, buggy no, hard to develop? Nonsense. Much easier to develop java applets then activex components.

      "AJAX is just another Javascript kludge. "

      Yes.

      "Active X is pretty damn useful when done correctly. I have a bunch of Active X apps that I use via IE."

      Great if you are willing to use IE and windows.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Why ActiveX? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The biggest problem with ActiveX is that it is, essentially, native executable code from an untrusted source executing on your computer. In contrast, Java applets are sandboxed on bytecode level.

  4. New Obligatory Question by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it available for Debian?
    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archi ve=no&bug=354622

  5. Re:Close button in the active tab. Argh ! by Kelson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Blame it on conflicting usability studies -- or maybe conflicting usability goals.

    Close buttons on the tabs are good from a discoverability standpoint.
    A close button on the end is good from a clicking-in-the-right-place standpoint.

    Firefox has traditionally given discoverability a high priority.

  6. Tab changes rock! by jdbartlett · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mike, I disagree. I can see where you're coming from, but I for one like having the ability to close a tab without first selecting it.

  7. Re:Close button in the active tab. Argh ! by nithinsujir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree. I love this feature because I can close unwanted tabs without first focusing the tab. yeah, i know you can use middle click, but i prefer this way.

  8. Never change UI on upgrades by iabervon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems like nobody likes any of the UI changes, which is entirely what I'd expect, because every change to a UI is a major hit to usability. This isn't to say that the new UI might not be more usable for new users. But experienced users will continue to try to use the UI the way that worked before, and it will cause problems for them. This is especially true if the improvement is in discoverability, because experienced users will only benefit in that, when the stupid computer refuses to work like it's supposed to, it's not quite as difficult to figure out what you have to do instead of the natural thing as it might be.

    Of course, it's also good to offer improvements to the UI for users who decide to retrain themselves or for new users. But this should be done by adding configuration options (ideally with UI-driven configuration methods, like the Customize Toolbars dialog), and making the upgrade process configure these options based on what used to happen, not based on the current defaults. (Of course, if you're importing settings from a different program, set the options to match the default or configured behavior of that program, not the local defaults.) The ideal is that, when the user gets a new version of the program, everything looks the same as it did before, but new behavior is available when the user decides that it is desireable.

    1. Re:Never change UI on upgrades by Vexorian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I really dislike are aesthetics not really the functionality. Bon Echo Alpha had mostly the same functionality but was really beautiful for me, I can't understand what made them chose such an ugly default theme. Seriously.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  9. Re:Improvements for developers, too by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, Bad stuff. Are these new features part of the ECMAScript standard? If not, then wtf are they doing in the browser?

    When Microsoft "extends" the web without asking the standards committee, they get vilified (and rightly so). Mozilla shouldn't get a by on it just because they're cool. "Embrace and extend" is bad, no matter who's doing it.

    Gah, just get me a standard that I can bloody use consistently!

    --

    --GrouchoMarx
    Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

  10. System themes no longer apply by jiawen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From TFA:

    Although the new tab theme looks very attractive, it isn't consistent with the computer's default system theme. Visual integration is one of the factors that contributed to Firefox's initial success over the original Mozilla browser suite.

    Opera is looking better and better every day... System themes also don't apply in Opera, but at least I get superior speed.