Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 3.6 Alpha 1 Released

Posted by timothy on from the waiting-in-the-wings dept.

An anonymous reader writes with word of the release of the first alpha of Firefox 3.6, "intended for developers and testers only." "As with Firefox 3.5, there are improvements to the performance; pages render faster, and pages with JavaScript code run much faster with the new Tracemonkey engine. Although this Firefox version carries the code name 'Namoroka' Alpha 1, it is also currently referred to as Firefox.next. And like other Firefox Alphas, it does not bear the Firefox logo. This release uses the Gecko 1.9.2 engine and will likely include several interface improvements in later versions, such as new graphical tab-switching behavior, which was removed from 3.5 with Beta 2." Update: 08/09 03:54 GMT by T : Read more at InaTux.com.

36 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. No link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What? Is it me or there is really no link just a teaser?

    1. Re:No link by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here.

    2. Re:No link by lastomega7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now with extra clickability: https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2009/08/07/firefox-3-6-alpha-1-now-available-for-download/

  2. OK... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Funny

    And like other Firefox Alphas, it does not bear the Firefox logo.

    Um... yay?

    1. Re:OK... by Jurily · · Score: 3, Funny

      Manbearfox.

  3. Missing links by Shin-LaC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Downloads

    Wiki page on Namoroka

    1. Re:Missing links by Shin-LaC · · Score: 4, Informative
      I downloaded and tried out the Mac build. Two things I noticed:
      • build alpha 2 is already available, only a day after alpha 1
      • the wiki lists the single most important feature missing from Firefox (imho, of course), namely OSX Keychain integration, as one of the requirements for "Firefox.next". Hooray! It's not in this build, though.
    2. Re:Missing links by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative

      build alpha 2 is already available, only a day after alpha 1

      Hm.. You mean pre-alpha 2? That would at least be started pretty much immediately after alpha 1 release. But it also contains very few changes compared to alpha 1, and are the typical incremental nightly builds until the final alpha 2 is releaed.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Missing links by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hooray! It's not in this build, though.

      No, and perhaps not even in the final Firefox 3.6 either. Perhaps the release afterwards. "Firefox.next" is the codename for a forthcoming "major" Firefox release (4.0?) and not 3.6.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Missing links by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Keychain integration"

      They are offering a Firefox keyfob now? Cool, I want one!! Can we get them with early logos, like FF 0.5a ? That would be REALLY COOL!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  4. Missing Link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2009/08/07/firefox-3-6-alpha-1-now-available-for-download/

  5. Too much too fast by apankrat · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was reinstalling the laptop the other day and installed FF 3.5. Used it for an hour, uninstalled and replaced with 3.0. A fresh install of 3.5 on a faster hard drive was noticeably slower than a well used 3.0 on an older hardware. Not just the start-up, but a regular use too. To me, personally, no amount of new features can justify that. So unless 3.6 comes with a performance fixes - thanks, but no.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
    1. Re:Too much too fast by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I find 3.5 to be significantly faster than 3.0. As well as general optimisations, the history database backend has been improved so it puts less strain on your machine when doing lookups for things like the address bar suggestions. The new Javascript core is also a lot faster.

      One major irritation with 3.5 is the new way tabs work. You used to be able to set it so that all links opened in the same tab, regardless of any target="_blank" rubbish. I.e., you have control over the browser, not the web developer. At the same time, there was a separate preference for links opened by external programs (e.g. you click a "go to product's homepage" link in a program, or a link in your email client) which allowed you to have them open in a new tab every time. Unfortunately the latter option has disappeared in 3.5, so now you can either have external links destroy your current tab or suffer endless new tabs being opened by badly behaving webmasters.

      I wish the Moz devs would consult users on these sorts of major functionality changes before just doing them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Too much too fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can still do this, although it takes a visit to about:config.

      1. Go to about:config
      2. Ensure browser.link.open_newwindow is set to 3 (should be default in current firefox)
      3. Set browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction to 0 (default is 2)

      You can follow the links to see all the possible values.
      Hope it helps!

      Err. I made a mistake.

      Step 2 should be:
      2. Set browser.link.open_newwindow to 1 in order to open in the same tab.

      Somehow I read it as open in same window. Sorry about that.

  6. Re:Gotta Love Slashdot Linking by bcmm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Getting the code right to link to something on Slashdot is so hard

    In comments, it's

    <a href="URL">linky</a>

    Standard HTML. You DO know HTML, right?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  7. For me on the same machine 3.5 is much faster by ZP-Blight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For me on the same machine 3.5 is much faster.

    It's possible it might be taking more ram and on your old hardware with less ram it's using swapped memory, which is very very slow.

    --
    Zoom Player Lead Dev.
    1. Re:For me on the same machine 3.5 is much faster by psyclone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      3.5 performs better than 3.0 for me too (x86_64). What I have noticed the most is memory usage. I have the same extensions installed with 3.5, and I open the same number of tabs, and browse for a "normal" amount of time, say 3 days, and resident memory seems to peak at 250-350 MB. Whereas with 3.0, my resident memory is never less than 500-750MB over the same period of time.

      My heaviest extensions are TabKit (yay groups of tabs on the side!) and NoScript.

      I used to have to restart 3.0 every 5-7 days or so when resident memory would exceed 1GB. I can leave 3.5 running for 2+ weeks.

  8. I am on OS X 10.5.7. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Firefox 3.5 was terrible. Every few seconds, no matter what I did, it would pause, and I would have to watch a beachball spin. Really bad.

    Further, tabs should be attached to the pages they represent, not floating around at the top, in limbo. That was the worst design decision I have seen in ages.

    And finally, at least on the Mac, the "close this tab" button should be on the left of the tab, for consistency with everything else. Not on the right.

    1. Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Further, tabs should be attached to the pages they represent, not floating around at the top, in limbo. That was the worst design decision I have seen in ages.

      In my FF3.5, tabs are 'attached to the pages they represent'... unless I'm misunderstanding you. Care to provide us with a screenshot of what you're talking about?

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    2. Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. by caerwyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's rather odd- I use Firefox 3.5 regularly on 10.5.7 with no such issues. The only slowness I've found is when quitting the app- it clearly does a lot of cleanup when you shut it down, and that process takes a ridiculously long time. Nothing with regular browsing, though.

      --
      The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
    3. Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And finally, at least on the Mac, the "close this tab" button should be on the left of the tab, for consistency with everything else. Not on the right.

      Uh, what? Everything on OS X has the close button on the right of the right. iTerm, Textmate, etc all have their 'X' on the right of the tab, not left.

    4. Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole concept of tabs, in the first place, was that of a tabbed folder, like a 3-ring binder with those little plastic tabs so you can find your place. That was the visual "metaphor" that was being followed. By visually detaching the tabs from the pages they control, the metaphor is broken, and the eye does not follow as naturally from the page to the tab, or vice versa.

    5. Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. by pizzach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole concept of tabs, in the first place, was that of a tabbed folder, like a 3-ring binder with those little plastic tabs so you can find your place. That was the visual "metaphor" that was being followed. By visually detaching the tabs from the pages they control, the metaphor is broken, and the eye does not follow as naturally from the page to the tab, or vice versa.

      Please remember that there are reasons for both ways and that you are debating which is less wrong. Not which is right. The tabs attaching to the toolbar is supposed to show that the buttons effect that particular tab which is also a very important thing to represent in the gui. Ideally, the tabs should be on the very top of the window like Opera and now Chrome.

      Or alternatively you can use abstract PC for the tab connecting to both effect so no one is happy. :)

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    6. Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's using it on OS X. I guess they copy Safari there, which would explain the tab appearance. Well, blame Apple for that - they set UI standards on Mac, others can either follow, or be flamed by Apple users for not doing so...

    7. Re:I am on OS X 10.5.7. by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to confirm, I had to search pretty hard for a screenshot, but it looks like this only applies to FF on MacOSX. On Windows + Linux, it doesn't. So, as another poster said, flame Apple not Mozilla. Though, I think Mozilla should still keep the look & feel closer between different OS ports... the MacOSX version looks so differently skinned it feels rather different. Leave that to Camino.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
  9. Random number bug by manweekdayz · · Score: 2, Informative

    when will they fix that random number generation issue that makes the program take 3 mins to launch? Firefox has been a POS lately because of it.

    1. Re:Random number bug by Threni · · Score: 4, Informative

      In 3.5.1.

  10. Re:"pages render faster" by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you know, not everyone has a new computer and frankly I am glad that at least some developers don't make the same assumption you just did. This is especially important considering the rising popularity of smaller notebooks that even bare Windows XP has trouble booting.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  11. Re:"pages render faster" by Killer+Orca · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you know, not everyone has a new computer and frankly I am glad that at least some developers don't make the same assumption you just did. This is especially important considering the rising popularity of smaller notebooks that even bare Windows XP has trouble booting.

    How old are these machines that some people are running? My families oldest computer is from 1997 and runs Windows 95, should people expect that to be supported? If you slimmed down an XP install to run on older hardware and it can't handle a modern web browser is that the creators' fault? I can understand your grievance about netbooks, some are just plain underpowered for 3 tasks at once and you need to use the applications that it can handle, but how long is hardware supposed to be supported by software? 10, 20, 30 years?

  12. Awesomebar really is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Honestly, I could never go back to using any browser that doesn't have something similar.

    Let's say that I've visited a wikipedia article about Houston recently (as I have) and want to go back. With awesomebar I can just write "Hous" and it suggests me the right page. "wiki/ho" if I would have visited a lot of sites about Houston. In the Pre-Awesomebar times I would have had to write "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ho" or something like that before it would have suggested the right page.

    And more often than not I remember that I have visited something about which I remember only part of the name. It might have been a political comic strip with huxley in it's name but I don't remember where did I see it. So I only write "hux" to the bar and it takes me where I want to be. Or I might have watched some hot clip about gothic femdom but not remember which of the numerous porn sites I visit hosted it. If I remember even part of the url, title (usually both of them mention a clip's name) or anything like that, I can just type it to the bar and I am back at watching gothic femdom.

    Pre-Awesomebar? Searching through the history, etc... It was slow and sucked.

    A lot of people prefer the old approach. For some it is just resisting change, some might even have some good reasons... So I agree that they should perhaps have left a radio button somewhere to let you choose to revert back... But honestly, it is pretty awesome feature and extremely useful.

  13. Re:"pages render faster" by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the mentality of devs is that the hardware can take the bloat just give it some time and as far as I am concerned it's a cancer slowly eroding away at what software should be. quick, clean and efficient. BUt really, why shouldn't software be capable of running on hardware for over a decade- we've got a 12 year old compaq sitting in the basement that has less hard drive space than my ram is and yet it can surf the net just fine... The problem comes when devs start to think that they shouldn't be tasked with improving code efficiency because they aren't coding for older hardware. Well all I can say is maybe they should. If an old geezer compaq can hack it just fine on the internet today why can't newer versions of software that do the same basic things cope as well?

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  14. Only one feature is really NEEDED by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A plugin like Flash should not be ABLE to lock up the browser. No, that's not the fault of Flash, it's the fault of the browser that _allows_ it to happen. The browser should be in control of the plugin, not the other way around.

    1. Re:Only one feature is really NEEDED by kbrosnan · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is very much in the works but won't make 3.6. Content Processes

      --
      These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
  15. Re:Holy shit by Spewns · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Firefox 3.0 was released in June '08. Firefox 3.5 (the first following major release) was released in June '09. A year later. Update fatigue? What in the world are you on about? Plus, this is an alpha release. The actual release won't be for another (approximately, at this time) 2-3 months. How does one get update fatigue from upgrading your browser twice in about a year and a half? Actually, I don't see how you can't be excited, assuming you use your browser as much as most people, that your browser is developing so fast in important ways. (HTML5, performance, etc.) Have fun "not bothering" with that, I guess.

  16. Re:The programmers aren't doing well, either. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about his problem, but I can say that I had to switch my dialup customers back to the 3.0.x branch because the 3.5.x branch sucked ass on dialup. If I had to hazard a guess i would say it is that new JavaScript engine, as I didn't notice the problem on my portable Firefox but it has Noscript. I hope they have the bugs worked out by January, otherwise when they pull the plug on the 3.0.x branch I'll have to switch my dialup customers to Kmeleon or Opera.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  17. Re:Gotta Love Slashdot Linking by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It says HTML Formatted (by default, if you're logged in) right under the input box.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.