Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 2.0 RC3 Released

midkay writes "Firefox 2.0 RC3 has just been released. The release notes cover all the changes since the first release candidate, but RC3 appears to have a new Windows installer and more security in the extensions aspect, among a few other things."

46 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Ungrateful Bitching by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    After reading this list, I must say that there are more than a few features I don't care about. That's not to say other people don't need them, it's just that I'm not going to benefit from any of these yet. In fact, the only reason I'll upgrade is because it's so easy.

    That said, I wish they would take care of these problems at some point. I know on the current Firefox, you can take measures to restrict its size but I think it starts to thrash when I go to a largely intensive Flash site. I would rather it not steadily accrue memory as I use it through the day and visit sites that use Flash extensively. I know that Flash is a plug-in and this is one of the leading causes of memory problems in Firefox. But it's the only extension/plug-in I use and it's so I can see average websites, I don't do anything special or extraordinary with it. You'll probably be able to convince me that this is Flash's fault yet I don't quite see the same effects in IE. Conspiracy? Well, I'm all ears and happy if it is.

    Maybe it's the fact that I have between 5 and 10 tabs open at a time. Although I'm good at closing them, sometimes the memory doesn't seem to be freed up. Maybe that's not Firefox's fault and it's these shady sites (like Slashdot) that allocate resources that can't be freed? Maybe this is an unavoidable problem and IE 7 will experience the same problems--I'm not sure but we'll see I guess. What should worry Firefox proliferation advocates is that I'm willing to try out IE 7 when Windows forces it on my machine just to see if I can use it all day without having it blow up a couple times due to memory leaks.

    So this features list has some intriguing points but the one that would make me squeal like a giddy school girl would be:
    • Large Amount of Memory Issues Fixed.
    It's not a feature but it means the world to me.

    So, in the end, I hope that the development efforts of Firefox 2 are spent implementing better memory management and control instead of introducing more features. More features are probably a lot more fun to develop and I know I get this for free so I'm not in any position to bitch. But if you want to make me an I'm-going-marry-Firefox fanboy, fix the memory leaks that plague the occasional user--I'm not saying all of them, just the ones that large percentages of your users probably experience.

    Does anyone else experience memory issues with Firefox? Does anybody know if development efforts for Firefox 2 have included memory management? I can't seem to find any record of that online.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'm just waiting for drag-and-drop tabs so I can reorder my tab order.
      I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if there's a red circle with an arrow in the upper right of your Firefox window, click it and update. My Firefox allows me to drag and drop tabs to reorder them. I think I've been able to do that since version 1.5. What I'm using:
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7
      Unless you're joking, I think this feature has already been implemented.
      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by guacamolefoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tab reordering is nice (I'm at 1.5.0.7). Something I'd like to see is the ability to drag and drop folders in my bookmarks. The links themselves can be moved, but I can't seem to be able to move folders around. That sort of sucks.

    3. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dozens of memory leaks have been fixed in Firefox 2. A memory benchmark shows Firefox 2 consumes less memory than IE 7 or Opera 9.

      If you're still seeing a memory problem in Firefox 2, what you should do is describe steps to reproduce the problem so the bug can be reported and fixed.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    4. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by masklinn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, it's also available in 1.5 and I'm pretty sure it was in 1.0. It's just not doable in the menu itself.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    5. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by Ekarderif · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My Opera runs at a constant 40 MB footprint. Until Firefox stops chewing up more and more over time, I'm not switching back.

    6. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by hunterkll · · Score: 4, Funny

      you're 0.0.0.2 behind. Update. =]

    7. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by hahiss · · Score: 2, Informative


      http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
    8. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by bunratty · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I can't help but take this information with a grain of salt considering the website that this forum thread originates from.
      Better yet, run the benchmark yourself and see what numbers you get. There's no reason to take anyone's word that Firefox uses so little memory. See for yourself.
      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    9. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by roger6106 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you hold shift you can drag folders. I don't know why they decided on that idea.

    10. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by fprintf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because if I want to run a memory intensive application alongside a web page I have open in Firefox I don't feel like copying the URL, restarting Firefox and pasting the URL back in. Not everyone has 2GB of memory now, my machine has 1GB on XP and Firefox at 500MB seriously curtails the other programs I want to run (at least on XP -- it gets very slow if it has to page anything)

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    11. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by tigerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I simply cannot use firefox 2.0. The thing with little arrows to get to the last of your tabs, when you got to many, sux so bad. I hate it when my tabs disapear, and I have to go and get them. Just stay on the old track, and who cares about the reordering?!? I want FF 1.6 instead of this new "u cant handle the tabs" shit. Dammit

    12. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by slocan · · Score: 2, Informative
      [...] Does anybody know if development efforts for Firefox 2 have included memory management? I can't seem to find any record of that online.

      Maybe this MozillaZine Knowledge Base article about memory problems in Firefox holds the answer:

      Memory leaks can cause Firefox not to release memory that it is no longer using, especially with older versions. There has been a lot of effort to reduce the leaks in recent versions, and Mozilla developers have have created tools to detect them. [4] [5] To minimize leaks, you should upgrade to the most recent version. The most common memory leaks appear to be fixed in Firefox 2. [6]
    13. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by lbrandy · · Score: 5, Funny

      After reading this list, I must say that there are more than a few features I don't care about.

      I jsut upgarded adn for smoe resaon firrefox uednerlines everyhting in red! WROST FAETURE EVAR!

    14. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by jdavidb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just a small correction: in general, Flash is not used to view average websites, but subaverage websites.

    15. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's some serious moderator crack there. 4 comments in a row posted at exactly the same time, saying the same thing, moderated as redundant.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201111&cid=164 66713
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201111&cid=164 66717
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201111&cid=164 66721
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201111&cid=164 66725

      And another 1 whole minute later:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201111&cid=164 66745

      Apparently these guys posted during some sort of amnesty:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201111&cid=164 66747
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201111&cid=164 66755

      But this guy was clearly redundant:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201111&cid=164 66809

      Modding up is better than pointlessly modding down.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm currently running Firefox 1.5.0.7 w/21 extensions. I have 20 tabs open, many with memory-intensive pages with large amounts of content and/or scripting. Windows XP Task Manager reports 90MB for firefox.exe (which I consider to be perfectly normal). I close 16 tabs and memory usage is down to 56MB.

      Since there seems to be a fairly small, tech-oriented group who routinely complain about Firefox's memory usage I'm inclined to believe it may be the result of an extension or non-standard configuration. I have used the browser since it was called Phoenix and have never experienced these memory issues.

    17. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by bunratty · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've had over a month of uptime with Opera hanging out at 40 MB.
      That's amazing that memory use is so low for you in Opera. When I tried opening the same six sites in six tabs that I did in a post father down the page, Opera used 99 MB of memory, and went down to 56 MB when I closed all but the first tab. That's about the same amount of memory Firefox 2 uses with the same sites.
      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    18. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by Lagged2Death · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How are people gauging Windows memory consumption for these different applications? I don't think Task Manager is really telling the whole story.

      If you want to see a neat memory trick with Opera 9, try browsing for a while, opening a bunch of tabs, etc. Open up Task Manager and note what it reports Opera is using, probably in the 30 to 70 MB range. Leaving all the Opera tabs open, click on Opera's "minimize window" button. Watch as Task Manager decides Opera's memory consumption has fallen into the single-digit MB range. Open Opera's window up from the taskbar again, and note that its memory consumption rises, but only to a fraction of its previous high.

      I have no idea what this means. The most important thing I know about Windows' memory management is that it's so crazy-complicated that it's beyond my understanding.

    19. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by bunratty · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's happening is that Opera 9 is swapping out memory from RAM to disk when you minimize the Opera window. To see the total memory usage (both in RAM and on disk) look at the VM Size column in the Windows Task Manager.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    20. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by Lagged2Death · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah, I see. The VM Size column isn't one that appears in a default install of Windows, one must turn it on under View | Select Columns.

      Still, it's pretty clear that 50MB worth of data is not getting shuttled back and forth from the disk when I minimize and re-open Opera. It's far too fast and quiet for that. That memory is just getting marked as page-out-able, or something.

    21. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by Osiris+Ani · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Also lately I can hardly make it go higher than 70.0 MB, and I use flash to watch youtube and play games.

      My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence. I'm using Firefox 2.0 RC3 (with Adblock 0.5.3.043, Talkback 2.0, Flash, and Adobe Reader; I don't keep it loaded down) on WinXP Pro to create this particular post, it's only been running for approximately three hours with intermittent use, and it's already up to 99,756KB of system memory. What's worse, browser.cache.memory.capacity is still hard-coded to 16384.

      I only really resent it passing 250MB when it's time to wake this laptop from hibernation, so I routinely shut Firefox down before putting this computer down for the night. Yes, I had that same problem with 1.5.x and even 2.0 RC2, as recently as last night.

    22. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by friedmud · · Score: 2, Informative

      I too have switched to del.icio.us for all of my bookmarking needs... I personally use Foxylicious ( http://dietrich.ganx4.com/foxylicious/ ) for syncing my del.icio.us bookmarks into a folder in my Personal Bookmark Toolbar in Firefox... works beautifully.

      I originally switched because I use so many different computers throughout the day and wanted to have the same bookmarks on all of them and have all of them synced automatically... which foxylicious allows. I've been running this way for over a year now and love it.

      Friedmud

    23. Re:Ungrateful Bitching by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I got the name slightly wrong: it's del.icio.us direc.tor. Hope you enjoy it, it's really raised del.icio.us to whole new levels of usefulness. At least for me :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Why... by sH4RD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is this on Slashdot? This is almost like reporting on a nightly build. Remind me when it actually goes final.

    --
    WASTE - The Secure P2P
  3. Not "new" in RC3 by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a bit obvious from the number of major additions described, but the "phishing protection" and "new Windows Installer" are just new features of 2.0, which were already in earlier release candidates. Compare the announcements of RC3 and RC2 on the developer blog.

    The release notes page itself seems a bit misleading, since they specifically talk about "Firefox 2 RC3" even in places where they mean Firefox 2 - perhaps someone saved time with a search & replace.

    --

    So while this announcement probably means they fixed bugs and are another step closer to the final release, the major features aren't news.

  4. Re:What about extensions? by linuxci · · Score: 2, Informative

    Give it a few weeks, this is a release candidate and hopefully this one will be ready for release. Unlike Microsoft, the Mozilla project usually mean the release candidates can true candidates for release therefore most extension developers can work on testing their extensions against this release knowing that it's unlikely to break in the final.

    Last year 1.5 had 3 release candidates and 1.5 final was identical to RC3. So hopefully this year they get it right on the third attempt too.

    Anyway, give it a few weeks and your extensions will most likely be working and tested. There's no one forcing you to upgrade and the 1.5 branch will be supported for a while yet.

  5. Biggest problem with firefox... by slib · · Score: 3, Informative
    Memory consumption, for one. I've had situations where, upon running the app FRESH, it's shit all over 70 megs of my memory - on RC3. And on /. alone. Opera in the same environment only uses ~30, and even IE, heaven forbid, uses less. Although RC3 does look mighty swanky, I'll take Opera's modular approach to aesthetics any day - let's just hope the gents from Norway get those compatibility problems taken care of (infinitely expanding pages, anyone?).

    Some nice new features (no, I didn't RTFA):

    -auto spellcheck (GREAT idea, especially for your typical slashdotter)

    -session saving (although Opera beat it to the punch like, well, everything else(aww snap -1 troll))

    -security updates... ?

  6. Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? by sH4RD · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because what they really mean is "someone thought it would be fun to re-write the installer", despite the fact that I've never heard anyone complain about the installer breaking ever. And I live around a lot of people who complain a lot.

    --
    WASTE - The Secure P2P
  7. Re:Still a memory hog? by endemoniada · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not a bug, it's a feature :)

    --
    Blog -
  8. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your boat has a hole in it.

  9. Finding the 2.0 Compatible Extensions by coldcanofbeer · · Score: 5, Informative
    A guy has created a handy searchable list of the extensions / Add-ons that are compatible with Firefox 2.0:

    Here is the link: Bill's Big List of Firefox 2.0 Compatible Extensions

  10. Re:Firefox 3 too by linuxci · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is not an alpha of Firefox 3, that has not been released yet. It's just the trunk is listed as version 3.0a1 that'll eventually be 3.0a1 but it is not there yet and won't be for a while

  11. Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 2, Informative


    An MSI would be nice for deployment in large network, yes. However, deploying firefox for us
    on our large network would be a piece of cake when bundled with the scripting application we
    use (WinBatch). Winbatch makes deploying apps like FireFox a piece of cake.

    I would love to see FF start supporting group policies. When the day comes that FF supports
    MSI deployment and Group Policies, that will be the day (for me) when FF is ready to be taken
    seriously for corporate deployment.

    I long for the day when FF steps up to the plate are makes itself more attactive to the
    corporate world. I'm not talking about just basic FF either. For me, basic FF sucks. FF only
    begins to shine after you add a few extentions to is. Nothing would make me happier than if a
    mandate came out that all FF extentions had to support MSI deployement and GP integration as
    well.

  12. Re:WHy a new installer for Windows? by Compholio · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Why they went to the trouble of a new installer and don't create a msi installer for Windows I don't know.
    Making proper MSI packages, at least with Microsoft's Orca tool, is a pain in the butt. Nullsoft installers are much easier to create and much easier to deploy as silent installations on large networks, unless of course the tool you're using doesn't support executables and only supports MSI packages.
  13. Tab close buttons... by pugdk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and each tab will now have a close tab button.and each tab will now have a close tab button.

    I seriously hope they have changed the preferences this time so that is easy to change back to the pre 2.0 behavior (its doable but its quite a hassle - using about::config to enter a new option that does not exist is not really that user friendly).

    God, having to move your mouse to close a multitude of windows just UBER sucks.. the last beta I couldn't even change the behavior to full pre 2.0 behavior - when I had less windows than what filled the horisontal screensize, the closing button would be at the right end of the tabs, not at the right end of the entire firefox window.. talk about sucky inconsistent user interface.

    -pug

    1. Re:Tab close buttons... by Sepodati · · Score: 2, Informative

      If all of the tabs you want to close are in a row, then yeah, a single button in the same location is great. For myself, though, it's usually a couple of tabs scattered throughout the ones I have open that I want to close. Having the button on each tab makes this easier overall, although I'll admit it took a few days to get used to.

      If you use a mouse with a middle button (I'm on a laptop w/o a mouse), then middle-clicking anywhere on the tab will close it. That's the easiest overall. I wish my laptop had a middle button instead of just a scroll button. :)

      ---John Holmes...

    2. Re:Tab close buttons... by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > If all of the tabs you want to close are in a row, then yeah, a single button in the same location is great.

      99% of the time, that's my use case.

      Pop open 20 or 30 tabs from various boards, one discussion thread per tab, and read 'em in sequence. One mouse click, and no mouse movement, per tab-closing.

      Having to move the mouse to each tab would be a dealbreaker.

      If, as the release notes suggest, "Power users who open more tabs than can fit in a single window will see arrows on the left and right side of the tab strip that let them scroll back and forth between their tabs", there'd fucking well better be a "close current tab" button. Because the misfeature of a single close button per tab just cut the number of tabs I can fit on a single window by half.

      The open source model's greatest flaw is that it's incapable of doing usability testing.

  14. 2.0rc3 is 2.0 under cover by mennucc1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just told my Firefox 2.0rc2 to autoupgrade ; now when I ask "about Mozilla Firefox", it says "Firefox 2.0" - whereas 2.0rc2 said "2.0rc2" . So this , under the hood, is already 2.0 ; IMHO the dev team thinks that, most probably, there will not be a 2.0rc4, so they are betting on this to really be 2.0.

  15. Re:FLASH - saved the universe! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And why does IE not have this issue? Will someone please help me? Mozilla? Linus? CmdrTaco?

    How about Adobe?

    You do realize the Flash plugin is a 3rd-party piece of closed-source software, correct? And that the IE Flash plugin is different from the Netscape/Mozilla Flash plugin?

  16. Why I personally like Firefox 2 by code65536 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been using the release candidates for nearly a month now, starting with the first candidate of RC1 (yes, they do release release candidates of release candidates ;)). There were some things that took a bit of getting used to, but within an hour, I was loving it.

    1/ It seems faster. It also has a MUCH better memory footprint.
    2/ Session-saving and undo close tabs is now built-in. This is great, because I used to get this from an extension, and that extension was a horrible memory leaker (this might contribute to #1).
    3/ New tab management. I often have lots of tabs open, and it's nice to be able to scroll the tab bar now or to get a drop-down of all the open tabs. The close button on each tab is annoying (that's what middle-click is for) and the wider minimum tab width is wasteful, but both of those settings can be changed in about:config.
    4/ Speaking of about:config, there is a new hidden setting that lets you disable compatibility checking for extensions. Oftentimes, an extension marked for 1.5 will work just fine for 2.0, but the author hadn't updated the extension's manifest to say that, so FF2 would refuse that extension. Not anymore. :) No more need for NTT or for manually bumping up the maxVersion of such extensions.
    5/ Button to restart Firefox after installing an add-on. And the new session saving kicks in to restore all your tabs and even what you have filled into forms after the restart. Makes installing stuff much less painful.
    6/ Spell check! No more copying-and-pasting into word to check for typos.
    7/ Better RSS management
    8/ Better password auto-fill
    9/ I personally love the look of the new theme. The old tabs looked rather ugly on Windows Classic. Now combined with ClassicFox, Firefox looks stunning on Windows Classic. But that's a matter of personal taste.

    Personally, I didn't care much for the other features like anti-phishing (I have it disabled 'cuz I think I can protect myself, but it's good for Joe Sixpack), live titles, or the search suggest (which I also have disabled). Anyway, at the risk of sounding like some sappy endorsement, I really love Firefox 2. Once I got used to it and tweaked the settings, I can't believe how I ever managed to get along with 1.5.

  17. "un-fix" tabbed browsing? by cetan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone have an extension or a way to "un-fix" the tabbed browsing changes? I actually prefer the original method of tabs getting smaller.

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    1. Re:"un-fix" tabbed browsing? by slashkitty · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Mod this up.

      This is the single reason I will NOT be using this browser. They completely screw up tabbed browsing. In the release notes, it says "Improved tabbed browsing" what a joke. Power users who like to look at many tabs and close many tabs quickly will find this new version very difficult to use.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    2. Re:"un-fix" tabbed browsing? by code65536 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes!

      http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_:_FAQs_:_About:c onfig_Entries

      Specifically, look at:
      browser.tabs.closeButtons
      browser.tabs.tabMinWidth

    3. Re:"un-fix" tabbed browsing? by hritcu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can still configure it to make it the way you like. But yes, tabs are A LOT harder to use for me too then they were before. And it has nothing to do with the learning curve or anything. It is just about having 50+ tabs open and still be able to use them efficiently.

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
  18. Wikipedia Support for FF2.0 Added by yurik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I recently enabled support for the new Firefox 2.0 auto-suggest search engine feature on all Wikimedia servers.
    Wikipedia will provide suggestions to your search as you type in the search box. To enable, visit any Wiki-site (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/ ), and click the Engine Selector button (to the left of the search box). Click "Add Wikipedia". Afterwards, when you start typing in the search box while having Wikipedia engine selected, titles will automatically appear. Sometimes a FF restart is needed for the feature to begin to work. If you have any questions or suggestions, leave me a comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yurik . At some point more relevant search will be implemented as well.