Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 3.5 Hits Release Candidate Milestone

Posted by timothy on from the veritable-buffet-these-days dept.

macupdate writes "Firefox 3.5rc1 has started trickling to users (mirrors and appropriate pages should all be updated soon). You can read the release notes. RC1 still scores a 93/100 on the Acid3 test."

14 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Beta "99" by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's the old preview build. This is the RC link.

  2. 93/100... by mejogid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I still don't understand the obsession with Acid tests - they measure performance in incredibly obscure areas and have a comparatively small bearing on real world performance. Webkit and Opera in particular have designed to the test to an extent, resulting in good scores but not necessarily comparable general compliance. I'm also slightly confused by the use of the word "still" - none of these bugs are severe enough to risk breakage leading up to a release candidate. I believe far more relevant are performance, bug fixes, features and HTML5/CSS3 support (which make far more of a contribution to moving the web on that Acid Test scores do) - areas in which Firefox 3.5 has improved dramatically. Talk about focusing on the negatives...

    1. Re:93/100... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      No. You're wrong and an ignoramus. I only visit websites which use those obscure areas of compliance, and I visit them ALL THE TIME, and the more I visit them, the more I can brag about how much better MY browser is than YOURS. Do you see how useful this is now?

    2. Re:93/100... by glop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why don't I have mod points today?
      The parent is so right. The video tag means that youtube and all the web streaming websites can work without Flash. And since Firefox users update quickly, this means 20% of Internet users will be able to do that within 6 months. That's pretty big when you think some people try to make us believe that HTML5 is 10 years away...

    3. Re:93/100... by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Acid tests are designed to highlight rendering bugs in current browsers, giving browser developers a chance to easily see where something is going wrong. All major browsers currently pass Acid2, which means if you create a web page that only uses the kind of code that Acid2 tests for, you can be sure it will render precisely the same way in current versions of Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, Opera, Chrome, etc. This is a huge step forward; ten years ago, it wasn't uncommon for a page to work correctly in one browser but be completely unusable in another.

      Now that all the major browsers pass Acid2, we need to find other ways in which web pages can display differently between different browsers. Since there is an official standard that defines what the correct behavior should be, we have something to test against; this is what Acid3 does. You're absolutely correct that passing Acid3 should not be the top priority, and failure to pass Acid3 is not a good reason for a user not to choose Firefox. However, the remaining things that prevent Firefox from passing Acid3 are indeed bugs, and eventually, they do need to be fixed. There are also other bugs in Firefox, that also need to be fixed, and many of these are more important than the bugs that cause Acid3 to fail.

      I agree that HTML5 and CSS3 are awesome, but if browsers can't render them correctly, they're not much good. Acid tests are an incredibly useful tool for browser developers to ensure that this happens. Acid4 is already being planned, and will help to find bugs in the way browsers handle HTML5 and CSS3 and SVG and other stuff, taking into account some of the lessons learned from problems with the Acid3 test (for example, Acid3 tests rendering speed; Acid4 will not).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:93/100... by Millennium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing about Acid tests is that specs are ambiguous: there are often multiple possible meanings to a given section, and inevitable different people will implement them in different ways. Some of those will be incompatible, yet both can claim compliance, so this helps no one. Tests, on the other hand, are unambiguous: either you pass or you do not.

      This is why Web platforms of the future will not be based on specifications, but on the test suites. Acid tests are not perfect at this, but they are light-years better than previous practice. If Mozilla wants to be seen as taking standards seriously again, they are going to have to start taking these tests seriously, and that means 100% as soon as possible.

      They've improved over Acid2, at least, when even iCab -a browser developed by one person- beat them to full compliance by months. But they still have a long way to go. When major tests like this are developed, 100% needs to be a dealbreaker goal for the next major release, not something put off until 2-3 big releases in the future. Opera gets this, and the WebKit folks get this. Mozilla used to, back in the days of the first CSS Acid Test. But somewhere along the way, they lost sight of it, and they need to be reminded.

  3. Still the slowest browser. by Nightspirit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, even slower than IE8. From start up times to rendering pages firefox is by far the slowest. If you don't believe me download IE8, use it for a week, and you'll see for yourself. IE8 sucks for other reasons (crashes more, no plugins, forgets log-ins), and firefox is my main browser, but it is seriously falling behind. It's speed, private browsing, and I would argue even security (no sandbox/protected mode) are subpar compared to the competition. And they really need to fix private browsing, it's pretty sad when an IE feature works better than the open source alternative. As repeated ad-nauseum here firefox is still my main browser due to plugins, but everytime the browser freezes because one tab decides it wants to do something I re-evaluate this decision.

    1. Re:Still the slowest browser. by mejogid · · Score: 5, Informative

      CNet show firefox being substantially faster as of March in terms of browser performance. Admittedly firefox is a dog to start up, but that's one of the major goals for 3.6 last I checked. Having used the betas for a while, it's been a long time since I've felt I'm waiting on my browser as I did in versions 3 and particularly 2. I don't think anyone with a decent PC is going to be frustrated by the performance on 3.5, and with additional improvements already underway in trunk I don't think firefox is in any way falling behind. Oh, and how is private browsing broken in 3.5?

  4. Re:A little anti clamantic... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yet don't work 100% in real world webpages. Standards compliant be damned if you can't render real pages.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  5. v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows by denis-The-menace · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wish Mozilla would make up their minds: are they going to target the Corps or not?

    Even if you can get an MSI from Frontmotion (http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/download_firefox.htm), the corps will never go for it unless it comes off the Mozilla servers and is on the same web page as the current XPI installers. It's a "warm and fuzzy" thing that they need.

    If Mozilla could somehow sanction those MSIs from Frontmotion then the corps would be more comfortable with it. Even a link from here (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html) would give FrontMotion's MSI package credibility.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pardon my ignorance, but this is a serious question; what would be the difference in downloading an MSI package versus an .exe if they both achieve the same thing?

      Because they don't in fact achieve the same thing. Deployment of software across hundreds of machines in an Active Directory environment relies on Group Policy objects that reference .msi packages.

  6. Have they improved the memory leaks? by superyanthrax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know it's a tired topic, but it's a legitimate one, and not one that can be explained away by saying "extension writers suck".

  7. Re:A little anti clamantic... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    4.2.something. The only problem I have is that /. changed their CSS in the last couple of days so that now the message header sometimes fills the whole screen and pushes the message text against the far right edge.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  8. Re:H.264 or Theora? by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    H264 is industry standard since the day it was proposed/accepted. Industry standards aren't defined by nerds, they are defined by industry, huge boards of professionals and several computing specialists. There are billions (if not trillion) worth of broadcasting equipment, workflows, applications trusting to MPEG standards. Near all HD broadcasts are h264 and you should be thankful that TV industry didn't buy Microsoft's "but VC1 is documented too!" tricks.

    They sit, argue, propose and after years, MPEG standards appear. H264, being part of MPEG 4 is more standard than anything you can imagine. It is result of 300 Experts discussions, several universities, companies and even governments.

    Of course, it would be wise to wonder around saying "evil patents and mpeg la" but reality is a bit different. Even the reasons of patents are different than you may think.