Mozilla To Release Firefox 4 Next Month

Neil writes "Damon Sicore, Senior Director of Platform Engineering at Mozilla, has announced that the company is almost ready to ship Firefox 4. On its mailing list, Mozilla has revealed it has around 160 hard blockers to fix, before proceeding to Release Candidate stage. Both the RC and the final version would arrive in February, according to Sicore. Mozilla was originally planning on having Firefox 4 out by the end of last year, but it had to delay the release till 2011. Last month, Firefox 4 Beta 8 was released for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux 32-bit/64-bit, with support for 57 languages. Mozilla's roadmap says it still wants to release a Beta 9, a Beta 10, and at least one Release Candidate build before the final version."

Comments

I sure hope...

[TrisexualPuppy]

I hope that FF4 isn't going to be the jump out of the ether and into the mucky tar that the FF2 to FF3 transition was. FF2 was quite the sleek browser, but once they got a good market share and user appreciation, it became bloatware. Perhaps this is a chance to step back to the old "model?"

Re:I sure hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

FF2 was quite the sleek browser, but once they got a good market share and user appreciation, it became bloatware. Perhaps this is a chance to step back to the old "model?"

Perhaps you didn't notice all the bloat that snuck in with the 1.x to 2 transition. My expectations were so thoroughly killed, the 2 to 3 change was barley even a bump in the road.

Re:I sure hope...

[Jugalator]

With "Panorama" aka "Tab Candy" aka "Bolted on tab management feature that only power users need", I'm not so sure. :-(

Re:I sure hope...

[Frosty Piss]

but once they got a good market share and user appreciation, it became bloatware.

Some people call it "bloat", other people call it features that they asked for and find useful.

Seriously, if you want a stripped down / light-weight browser, there are other options.

Re:I sure hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer a better add on model - makes it difficult to lock down a desktop - for kids or for corporate.

Re:I sure hope...

[GNious]

Well, the latest Beta runs a lot worse, slower, unstable than the latest 3.6.13, so unless things change quickly .....

Re:I sure hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

But when the browser was created, it was designed specifically to be anti-bloat. Firefox was suppose to be the anti-Seamonkey model.

Re:I sure hope...

[gparent]

Just use Lynx if that's what you want. Meanwhile, the rest of us will appreciate most features that Mozilla put into their browsers because most of the time they are useful.

Re:I sure hope...

[tuppe666]

For "Feature Bloat". I agree but only because I have a similar feature built into my desktop twinned with "Open All in Tabs" from bookmarks. I have finally just taken it off the toolbar having never used it, but for the life of me I cannot think of anything else that I would call bloat.

Re:I sure hope...

[drunkennewfiemidget]

WORKSFORME.

I run ff4b8, and I find it quicker, more stable, and generally snappier than previous stable releases.

And I use a lot of addons.

Re:I sure hope...

[LordLimecat]

Its NOT the seamonkey model; unlike opera, mozilla, seamonkey etc, it doesnt have built in mail, torrent, ftp (at least not worth mentioning), an HTTP server (opera...), newsreader, etc.

Its JUST a browser, like its always been.

And I raise a motion that all complaining that 3.0 is too slow and bloaty, should be forced to use version 1.0 or 1.5 or 2.0, and see just how slow they really are when used with modern expectations of heavy duty JS, 30 some tabs, and zillions of extensions. I seem to recall an AWFUL lot of complaining from days of yore about 1.0 and 1.5's memory usage and bloat.

What is it they say, "the grass is always greener..."?

Re:I sure hope...

[LordLimecat]

Addons cant really do anything that some clever JS cant do, unless im mistaken. Addons dont really compromise security that much, unless theyre plugin-style addons.

Re:I sure hope...

[LordLimecat]

Its a Beta. Its also much much much faster when its not crashing; Ive been on minefield for several months and its easily every bit as speedy as chrome dev.

Re:I sure hope...

[alexam]

I just want a browser that starts up when I ask it to.

I don't want to start up a browser only to see a popup box asking me to update my extensions. And only after installing them, to start up.

Of course, this has been a thing with Firefox for a while if I recall. I migrated to Chrome almost by accident. It was never a conscious decision, I just got tired of that.

I never understood why Firefox extensions can't update in a different and more invisible way. Either completely invisibly (as Chrome updates are), or completely manually.

Re:I sure hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you didn't notice all the bloat that snuck in with the 0.6 to 0.9 transition. My expectations were so thoroughly killed, the 1 to 2 change was barley even a bump in the road.

Re:I sure hope...

[HamburglerJones]

What is it they say, "the grass is always greener..."?

The grass is always greener before seamonkeys and firefoxes eat it all.

Re:I sure hope...

[StuartHankins]

Ummm... just uncheck the "update add-ons automatically" checkbox in Preferences (Advanced... Update). Then you can do your manual updates as you wish.

Re:I sure hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that FF4 developers have learned about the free() function.

Re:I sure hope...

[alexam]

Oops, thanks.

Apparently it's not the Firefox developers that are stupid, it's me. Should have occurred to me earlier!

Re:I sure hope...

[kimvette]

If you want a stripped down/light-weight browser, FireFox out of the box is just fine. Just don't install any skins or extensions.

HTH!

The extensions I use in order of most-used to least-used:

AdBlock Plus (the auto-playing video ads finally prompted me to start using it - until then I was willing to put up with ads in exchange for "free" content)
Tab Mix Plus
Google Toolbar
QuickRestart (on Windows only, for dealing with firefox sucking 100% CPU when flash or other plugins go awry)
Web Developer
Firebug
Cooliris
QuickJava

None of it is anything I would consider bloat; I use all of those toolbars. If I couldn't use extensions (which some of you would call bloat) then I would probably use Chrome instead. Extensions make Firefox the most useful browser for my purposes.

Re:I sure hope...

[hairyfeet]

I didn't think it became bloated, as a matter of fact they seemed to fix the memory leak that had been plaguing the 2.x series which was a real improvement. What I do hope they fix is the ability to run FireFox in low rights mode on the OSes that support it. Right now ALL the webkit based browsers seem to support it OOTB as does IE. The only work around I've seen is basically crippling low rights mode to deal with the fact that FF demands higher rights and on previous forums the developers seem to have had a "not cross platform = don't care" which is just stupid and ignorant. I mean if Linux or OSX came out with a great new security feature would they ignore it because Windows didn't have it?

So while I'll be happy to try it and really do hope they add low rights mode until they do having the browser punch a needless hole in the OS security is kinda a deal breaker for me. I have too many customers and family that depend on me to make sure their PC is as safe as it can possibly be and with the browser being the one app that everyone uses that is so close to being "bare metal" against the wild and risky Internet it just seems irresponsible not to use the new security features built into Vista and 7. So I'm typing this on Comodo Dragon and have managed to find replacements for my most important extensions like ABP and ForecastFox. While I would have preferred to keep handing out and recommending FF until they fix their being unable to use modern security features it is just too risky. The Dragon handles low rights mode OOTB, and the extra security features like the optional secure DNS that protects the user from cache poisoning is a nice touch.

So come on FF Devs, I've been using your browser since the old days and would really hate to give up NoScript, even if it is too complex for my customers. But with low rights mode isolating the browser in a sandbox where it simply doesn't have access to anything important NoScript isn't really needed and ABP and ForecastFox work fine. But I miss the FF way of doing things, so c'mon devs make FF 4 more secure!

Re:I sure hope...

[harmonise]

Some people call it "bloat", other people call it features that they asked for and find useful.

Then why not implement these features as add-ons? That way users can uninstall them, do choose the custom install options and not install them at all. The awesomebar would have been better implemented as a core add-on as would have these fancy tab management ideas.

Re:I sure hope...

[blair1q]

No. If FF4 as of beta 8 is any indication, they broke parts of it entirely. Bits of it are slicker, but it has mechanical issues and memory leaks.

Otherwise, it's not really that much different from a GUI standpoint. The guts are no doubt rearranged, but outside of a few code freaks not many people will really know.

Re:I sure hope...

[BitZtream]

Yep, that option was called 'Firefox' for a long time. The fact that its no longer 'Firefox' is what the complaint is.

Remember Firefox started life as the clean browser only component of the Seamonkey package.

Seamonkey went away, Firefox took its place and doesn't look like its too far away from being Seamonkey again, just waitting for Thunderbird to turn into a firefox plugin ... oh wait ... nevermind.

Re:I sure hope...

[blair1q]

I was forced to use 2.0 on certain machines until a few months ago, and frankly it can't handle the modern Internet.

Re:I sure hope...

[Frosty Piss]

No. If FF4 as of beta 8 is any indication, they broke parts of it entirely. Bits of it are slicker, but it has mechanical issues and memory leaks.

Sir, what version of FF have you been using? As far as I know, it has ALWAYS had "mechanical issues and memory leaks", that's not a new feature in FF4.

Re:I sure hope...

[blair1q]

I thought FF3 was a lot better in terms of ergonomics.

The status bar and toolbar-button screwups in FF4 are a step backwards.

And FF3 didn't ramp my memory usage up over 70%, ever. FF4 gets there after a couple of tabs are open, and grows.

Re:I sure hope...

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I kinda like Tab Candy. I use it at work to keep work related and other browsing activities cleanly seperated. What I don't like is the lack of statusbar: I have been looking in the statusbar to look where a link leads since the nineties and now they move it to the addressbar of all places. That addressbar is now a jumble of functions: showing the address, page load indicator, status area, etc. They even moved the reload button in there. It's a mess.

Re:I sure hope...

[Frosty Piss]

FF4 gets there after a couple of tabs are open, and grows.

It's still "beta"...

Re:I sure hope...

[blair1q]

Not any more, from the sound of it.

The 4.0 release will get them mass-market answers on their choices to ignore complaints in the nominal beta intervals, making it the real beta.

4.1 will probably have those answers acted upon, or see market share shift as people decide that if FF is going to start acting crippled like IE does, it's time to experiment with Chrome or Opera or Safari.

FF4 beta still doesn't do 100% on the Acid3 test, btw. Chrome and Safari nail it.

Re:I sure hope...

[sconeu]

You're not using "Noscript"?

Re:I sure hope...

[kimvette]

Nope. Two of the extensions I listed allow me to disable javascript when I need it disabled.

Re:I sure hope...

[icebraining]

FF4 beta still doesn't do 100% on the Acid3 test, btw. Chrome and Safari nail it.

Nor it will, because Acid3 is an arbitrary goal, and the part that Firefox doesn't implement (SVG fonts) are largely irrelevant if you have WOFF support.

Re:I sure hope...

[Draek]

A beta with memory leaks? oh, the horror! what shall we have next, missing features in alphas? nightly builds that don't compile? cats and dogs living together!?

God damn you, video game industry, your habit of naming playable demos "beta", and your players that carry such expectations to the rest of the software industry.

Re:I sure hope...

[icebraining]

Actually, Firefox addons can use XPCOM components which can be used to access directly the filesystem, for example, and you can even create and include your components written in C or C++ which can basically do anything Firefox can.

And in FF4, you can even use JS C-types to call native C and C++ library functions from Javascript.

Re:I sure hope...

[Lord Byron II]

Perhaps you didn't notice all of the bloat that was added between the time the Firefox source code was:

int main(void) return 0;

and version 0.5.

Re:I sure hope...

[kripkenstein]

I kinda like Tab Candy. I use it at work to keep work related and other browsing activities cleanly seperated. What I don't like is the lack of statusbar: I have been looking in the statusbar to look where a link leads since the nineties and now they move it to the addressbar of all places.

Well, the reason it's there does make logical sense: The current URL is there, and when you hover over a link, the next URL is shown after it. So you can see which URL is going to which.

But I am not sure it makes practical sense. It's a little confusing for me right now. I'm not sure whether I'll get used to it and love it (like the awesomebar), or whether it will just remain 'odd'. I'm giving it a chance though.

Re:I sure hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean those features that were *supposed* to be left out of the main browser into "extensions" in order to prevent a bloated piece of shit like Netscape Communicator?

Thanks, but no thanks.

I am very happy with my TreeStyleTab. I have tried using the Dissappear-My-Tabs-with-a-cheesy-effect new feature and don't like it... unfortunately it sucks to be me in this case... so I'll just move to Chrome (more and more I'm doing that) or stay in 3.x

Re:I sure hope...

[TangoMargarine]

I don't want to start up a browser only to see a popup box asking me to update my extensions. And only after installing them, to start up.

You would prefer to start the browser, update the extensions, and then restart it?

Re:I sure hope...

[Seumas]

I'd argue that bookmarks are far more of a waste to have bolted on than Panorama. Once you use it, I don't see how you can go back to plain old tabs. Saying that's a bolted on waste is like five years ago, when everyone said tabs were a bolted on waste, because you could just open forty browser windows.

I might even say that Panorama is better than vertical nested tree bookmark tabs.

The lack of the Panorama (or even vertical nested tree tabs) is the primary reason I don't use Chrome.

An ideal solution would be that if they took a certain number of functions and made them something you could add/remove during or after installation. Not just "go to our repository and search out of thousands of extensions", but part of the actual installation that said "these are official components of the browser as we deliver it to you, but feel free to remove them right here and they will not be installed".

Anyway, I've been using FF4 for months on several platforms (*nix, OSX, Windows) and it has been pretty great. My only complaint would be that flash crashes about 80% of the time. Seriously, if you load up youtube, there's an 80% chance that it'll crash before you can play a video. There's a 100% chance that it'll crash if you do much to the playing interface (play, pause, play, forward, select another featured video, etc). And there's about an 80% chance that the GMAIL flash interface will do the same. Constantly see the "flash plugin has crashed on this page - please click here to reload the page".

Re:I sure hope...

[drinkypoo]

Hopefully they will come around on this. They are deprecating the value of SVG.

Re:I sure hope...

[BitZtream]

Anyone with 30 tabs open is an idiot, mark me as a troll if you want, you're probably right but there is no way you can possible analyze and utilize what results from having 30 tabs open so I stand by my statement, you don't need 30 tabs, your an idiot who proposed a completely ludacris sitatuation as a reason why it doesn't suck.

Lets also note: 30 tabs in 1.5 will not be anything like 30 tabs in 3.0, regardless of hardware involved. I'm afraid that you'll find that viewing HTML is not noticably different and that for all the buggy memory leaking that 1.5 did, it was still better than 3 or 4 and seems to be able to render THE EXACT SAME PAGES.

It hasn't been just a browser for years, its an application platform that supports browsing by default, pretending that its a web browser with advanced features is retarded. Firefox is an application platform that happens to support the web well.
1.5 and 2 were nothing like 3.x, you don't need to comment on how well they perform if you can't tell the difference. Again, mark me as a troll if you want, but you're trying to pretend the current mess that is known as firefox is anything like 2 versions back.

Mozilla has 0 direction and it shows in what they produce. They stopped caring about what the set out to produce and now its turned into anarchy where every retarded feature makes it in.

You make a new version because you have something to offer, not because a new version will give you a marketing campaign. Firefox seems to have forgotten the point in writing software and are more or less pulling a Microsoft.

Time to revoke some of the ridiculous salaries of Mozilla's leadership since it seems to have turned them into morons.

I was heavily invested in Gecko, had it implemented as a core component of the next 5-6 years of our companies software development. Their direction and lack of ability to provide a stable platform resulted in my department completely ripping gecko out of our products and replacing it with alternatives. We found that it was easier to maintain native ports for GUI work than to track firefox. Now we just use native GUI code for the gui and webkit for the display of HTML.

Please explain to me the difference in BROWSING between 1.5 and 3.0. Don't tell me about all the crap thrown in that the browser does, tell me about what you REALLY CAN NOTICE is DIFFERENT in the rendering between 1.5 and 3.x or hell, 4.0.

Sorry if I don't wait around while you look.

Re:I sure hope...

[B4light]

NoScript pretty much breaks the entire Internet and AdBlock Plus already blocks the ads, so I don't see why you need it.

Re:I sure hope...

[kangsterizer]

click Firefox=>Options=>menu bar and you're back to the 3.6 interface (except for the status bar..)

Re:I sure hope...

[LordLimecat]

, tell me about what you REALLY CAN NOTICE is DIFFERENT in the rendering between 1.5 and 3.x or hell, 4.0.

Apparently you dont realize that one of the biggest features of 3.6 was its massively improved JS rendering? Or that 4.0s big name features include such things as separated processes for plugins (easier to manage bloat and memory usage, plus stability), massively imroved javascript, hardware accelerated page rendering, hardware accelerated videos, HTML5 (for a speedier multimedia experience), and a handful of other performance optimizations?

Listen, Ive been using firefox since the .9 days, and I live on the bleeding edge. Firefox has progressively gotten faster, and a lot of that "bloat" (fixing the retarded options menu of yore; adding a "new tab" button; improving the download manager; a plugins manager) were all blamed for bloat at one time or another, but they filled roles that were done quite a lot by extensions, with the result that the "complete package" (browser + addons) was a slow, buggy mess.

Firefox 3.0 I can MAYBE accept that you feel it was slower than 2.x, but 2.0 was generally better and smoother than 1.5, which was better than 1.0, etc. 3.6 is NOTICABLY faster (go to chrome experiments on 1.5, see how it croaks) than all of its predecessors, and 4.0 blows them all out of the water.

Anyone who remarks on "can you notice a difference between 1.5 and 4.0" -- no less, on a site as heavy in JS as slashdot-- really doesnt have a clue.

Re:I sure hope...

[perryizgr8]

i thought 3 turned out to be much faster and better than 2. its a matter of opinion.

Re:I sure hope...

[perryizgr8]

if you move to chrome, you won't even have the OPTION to have tree-style tabs. i don't think chrome allows extensions to alter the chrome (unintended pun).

Re:I sure hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded redundant for posting the same crap in every story on browser security, and for not understand how WIC works. Just because Firefox does not use WIC does NOT mean it is punching a hole in OS security. Stop spreading FUD.

Re:I sure hope...

[hairyfeet]

HI MR AC, or may I call you coward? Apparently I know more than you do coward, or you wouldn't think 1+1=3. Allow me to explain in a way you may be able to understand. You have three browsers on Linux, we'll call them Web 1 2 and 3. Now Web 1 and 2 run as a normal user with normal user rights, whereas web 3 demands root to run and the ONLY work around offered is to make root look like a normal user would you HONESTLY use web 3 over web 1 and 2?

Because that is EXACTLY what you are advocating cow, because both IE and webkit are running and much lower permissions which thus minimize ANY possible damage that could be caused by any drive by malware when compared to Firefox. Since you obviously don't know anything about the subject, allow me to point you towards some reading material on the subject.

As for everyone else, please don't be as uneducated as cow here. Running an application directly exposed to the Internet while having to run third party code like a browser does everyday in a higher level of permissions than necessary is an EXTREMELY BAD idea and yes it IS punching a hole when you have a choice of running in low permissions or high permissions and choose high, because you are purposely exposing yourself to needless risk. If you really don't think that is the case cow, then why don't you explain to us here at /. why running as root is a good idea, hmmm?

Re:I sure hope...

[CSMoran]

At least it started to compile, though.

Re:I sure hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, now you got troll, for your needlessly insulting and condescending reply.

I had to post as AC because I thought you deserved an explanation for why I modded you redundant, not to hide. In case you don't realize, replying as my normal account would undo modpoints.

In any event, your analogy is false. There is no browser that requires root rights whatsoever, and trying to equate a hypothetical browser that for some reason would need root rights to existing browsers that don't is fallacious.

Yes, Browsers that make use of WIC are more secure and are a great advantage, however as I said, not making use of WIC is not punching a hole in the OS security. It's simply not making use of WIC.

WIC is simple part of defense in depth, it is not the be all and end all as you seem to think it is. If you run as a normal user, keep patches up to date and don't install shit, then you will be reasonably secure for the most part.

I really suggest you read up on WIC instead of blindly thinking it is some sort of ultimate solution as you keep on ignorantly advocating. Support for WIC while significant, is still just one part of the overall security picture.

Re:I sure hope...

[ncc74656]

I tried beta 8 earlier this week, as I noticed Firefox 3.6.whatever was getting awfully slow at loading /.. It crashed the VirtualBox VM in which it was running. I'm using Chrome right now; /. works OK, but the Flash plugin tends to crash. Fortunately, YouTube can be set to offer up HTML 5 video (but it won't use HTML 5 for embedded video; you have to let Flash load up, then click through to get HTML 5 video in a new tab).

Re:I sure hope...

[DMUTPeregrine]

Firefox started as a lightweight browser because Seamonkey was bloated. The addons system was designed so that new functionality could be added. They then added new functionality to the base system, instead of using on-by-default addons. The system should have been kept as minimal as possible, and just shipped with a bunch of default addons.

Re:I sure hope...

[hairyfeet]

Well by your logic then running as root isn't "punching a hole in your security" and therefor FUD because you aren't doing anything dangerous, you just aren't being as careful as you could be. NOW do you see the problem in your logic? And one shouldn't complain about being pissy when one whips out their Johnson. Your first post claimed FUD without anything to back it up whereas I provided links backing up my position..

Either running with high permissions is GOOD or it is BAD there is NO in between with these concepts. Considering what Vista and more importantly 7 use is a UAC administered "hybrid user" which has some of the powers of Admin and some of a regular user combined this is why low rights mode exists in the first place. This is especially true of Windows 7 because of the irritation caused by legacy apps and UAC on Vista which caused many to just kill it.

And can we both agree the browser is the closest one gets to the bare Internetbarring running your own email server? Because after all ALL drive by malware, JavaScript hijacks, malicious downloads, they ALL start in the same place...in the browser.

So your entire argument boils down to having the most risky piece of software on your system running in a hybrid admin mode is good because...why? You were quick to yell FUD yet I see now real explanation about why running in a higher mode is better for the system just that you don't see a harm in it.

Re:I sure hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

So your entire argument boils down to having the most risky piece of software on your system running in a hybrid admin mode is good because...why?

This generally makes no sense, and certainly doesn't apply to Firefox.

I don't mean to be rude, but you are actually showing your own ignorance while accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about.

You continue to equate lack of support for WIC (and please start referring to Windows Integrity Controls as what they are called if you want to be taken seriously) with running as root. This is false, and you know it.

Running a relatively simple user application as a low powered user is in no way equivalent to someone getting root.

An attacker can still install software and do damage to the users files, but not to the system as you suggest, or at least quite rarely.

WIC help quite a lot, but you should never be running a browser with high permissions in the first place. Do all your stuff as a lowly normal user as you should anyway, then you will see the difference logically is not as great as you try to make it out to be.

how

[Anonymous Coward]

how do I make it display me the links I hover over in the status bar, and how do I make it show me the title of the currently active tab in the title of the ff window?

Re:how

[Mr. Spontaneous]

You'll have to get addons for both. They want to phase out the status bar, and they figured not providing that functionality was for the best. The titlebar is part of an ongoing WONTFIX, because they think Tabs on Top deserves more love. Thankfully, tired of people's complaints, they whipped together this addon that does the trick: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/221514/ (Vista+)

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also get the title to be in the title bar if you enable the menu bar. To do it without an addon.

Re:how

[Shikaku]

How about they just admit they're trying to copy Chrome and just make it an option instead of forcing it on people?

Thanks Mozilla.

Re:how

[Hatta]

They want to phase out the status bar, and they figured not providing that functionality was for the best

Wow, that's simply awful. The status bar is there for a reason. Do they really want people following links with even less information than they have now? If my browser is stalling out trying to load a page, how will I know what domain to block?

Looks like Mozilla is continuing to dumb down its user interface. Is there a browser around that targets the geek market? One for those of us who want more information and more control?

Re:how

[LordLimecat]

Providing 2 UIs sounds like a worse option than either copying chrome or rolling their own; you really want them making firefox MORE complex?

This is what themes and addons are for.

Re:how

[Tubal-Cain]

Chrome at least shows a link's target url at the bottom of the screen when the mouse hovers over it, status bar or no.

Re:how

[Tubal-Cain]

And before anyone brings it up, yes I know the URL now appears in the address bar. It's not long enough.

Re:how

[Aoet_325]

and just make it an option instead of forcing it on people

This is exactly what Mozilla needs to lean to start doing. I don't even care if they bury those options in about:config but major changes to basic things like address bars, title bars, status bars, tabs, etc should all be 100% optional not need yet another add-on. I prefer using add-ons to extend the browser, not restore functionality. Far too many of the add-ons I have already installed were only added to bring back some feature that was taken out of the browser or changed.

Re:how

[TheRealGrogan]

I hate that... I rely on the status bar all the time. I disable the javascript setting that lets sites change the status bar text, so I see only what I'm supposed to. (and I run my browser maximized)

In Firefox 4.x, when you hover over URLs it DOES show part of it up top, near the address bar but it's truncated. You can see the domain you are about to connect to, but often not much more than that. It's important to see the entire URL.

That's a show stopper for me. I also dislike the new user interface.

I'm currently using Minefield in my Windows 7 install, just because it's a convenient 64 bit Firefox binary that is able to update itself. (official rather than third party). I don't care as much, because Windows is just for games, and the only browsing I do is to download new video drivers and such, and check a few of my forums.

Also, I can excuse this right now because it's "beta" quality, but when I first start Minefield in Windows (for the first time in a session) there's a lengthy, hard disk gyrating delay before it opens. I don't know what the Hell it's doing, but after that it's fine (and quick enough at page rendering)

But when we get to the point where Firefox 3.x.x is no longer maintained, I'll be changing browsers in Linux, which is my work environment and the browser is a very important application.

I'm not sure what that is going to be, because I like Firefox (and like to do my own custom builds of it), hate Chrome, hate Konqueror and I have never been very fond of Opera (Though it's quite usable). Maybe Seamonkey, if they don't mess that up too.

I can't see Firefox 3.x going away any time soon though, so I'm probably OK for a while.

Re:how

[splict]

Do they really want people following links with even less information than they have now?

It still shows the url on hover, however now it does it in the address bar. Takes a bit of cramming to fit it up there though, so it isn't ideal.

Re:how

[psyklopz]

Tabs on top are fun, but work better in chrome.

I tried the RC, and the tabs aren't truly on top. So, if the window is maximized, I can't just toss my mouse cursor to the top of the screen and have it sitting amongst all the tabs.

Instead, they put a little 'Firefox' dropdown at the top. The dropdown should be somewhere else-- the tabs need to be on top so they are a 'million pixels high'.

Re:how

[StuartHankins]

This one works too: Status-4-Evar. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/235283/

Re:how

[bkaul01]

The functionality still exists; it's just been relocated. The hover-over URL preview of a link is now overlaid over the right portion of the address bar. There's some logic to showing the URL in the same place you'd type one in ...

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a browser around that targets the geek market? One for those of us who want more information and more control?

That's what the add-ons or libgtkmozembed are for.
Incidentally, firefox "fennec" for mobile phones which is in beta is coming along quite well. I can even view animated .gifs now that you can't with google's browser.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Mozilla is continuing to dumb down its user interface. Is there a browser around that targets the geek market? One for those of us who want more information and more control?

I thought exactly the same. For me, FF3 was already a step backwards. For example, the Download window doesn't even show the URL of the download anymore. The "awesome bar" is awful. I don't know about you, but I have a ton of Bookmarks, and I bookmark sites that I want to read later, and not just sites that I happen to visit everyday. It's really annoying when all those bookmarks pop up every time I enter an URL (yeah I know you can turn this off, but it that has never really worked for me).

I haven't tried the FF4 beta yet, but from what I read here on /., it has to be awful. No status bar - WTF? No SSL info - WTF? Static window title - WTF? Sure some of it can be recovered by using addons. However, IMHO most of this should be core functionality - and using addons to provide this functionality is cumbersome and makes the browser unnecessary slow. Moreover, it's difficult to know which addons are trustworthy and which not (remember the NoScript case). Having to many addons is also a pain, because every addon has to make updates, and some even contain ads and/or open their website on every update (NoScript).

I really wish there was a good "expert" browser. Maybe it could even regularly copy some of the FF code (like GNU IceCat and Debians IceWeasel do), since many of the issues only affect the user interface.

Re:how

[RebelWebmaster]

Tabs on Top is optional. They have default settings depending on the host OS, but it can be enabled/disabled by clicking on the Firefox Button > Options > Tabs on Top.

Re:how

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Mozilla, like all market centric organisations, does not care about technical features, usefulness, usability or technical competence. Like all such companies, they care about only one thing--the latest fad. They will follow this fad, be it graphical, academic, ergonomic and they will follow it regardless of its effect, positive or negative, on their overall product.

Mostly, these fads are graphical: Moving menus and status bars, button redesign, interface overhaul, theme redesign and countless other features that are of use or interest only to the 0.1% of users who are even remotely interested in design or aesthetics. The rest of us simply have to put up with them, confusing and unhelpful as they are.

Often, the fad is ergonomic. The latest brain fart from an inexperienced school of 20-something UI "experts" simply _must_ be implemented, because it is the latest "best practice" or "modern interface". The MS Office Ribbon is the pinnacle of this kind of fad, and shows how destructive and unhelpful following it can be. No doubt the status bar offended the creed of the latest generation of UI prodigies and had to be done away with. The same with tabs on top. Most people are in reality confused, perturbed and frustrated by these kinds of unhelpful changes, but organisations implement them anyway. I suspect largely to keep their otherwise useless UI design teams in employment.

Sometimes, the fads are academic. The self signed cert debacle being the primary example. Users were deprived of convenient working encryption because encryption without authentication was declared worse than unencrypted connections by fiat. Some useless academic process had not been followed because of the myth in the middle.

Basically, the development of Firefox is not done with the interests of users in mind. It is done with the interests of experts too many opinions on how things should be done, and not enough willingness to compromise or listen to feedback. Mercifully however, we still have extensions, so the worst meddling can be successfully undone. Pity the users of Chrome then.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Mozilla is continuing to dumb down its user interface. Is there a browser around that targets the geek market? One for those of us who want more information and more control?

real geeks just use netcat.

Re:how

[beardz]

That's a show stopper for me.

Same here for quite a while - fortunately Status-4-Evar plugin showed up to remedy that particular ill.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

"One for those of us who want more information and more control?"

Firefox 4 + addons

Meanwhile I like these changes the last time I needed to check exactly what site was loading was never.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

Status bar is now a part of the address bar, you can see the links when you hover the mouse over it.

Re:how

[RebelWebmaster]

Tabs in the title bar was recently landed on the trunk. If it's not enabled for beta 9, it will be in beta 10.

Re:how

[BenoitRen]

Is there a browser around that targets the geek market?

Yes, it's called SeaMonkey. However, it's slowly turning into the project of the SeaMonkey Council leader instead of the community's.

Re:how

[starsky51]

I had the same problem. I use the 'Hide Caption Titlebar Plus' addon to ensure the tabs are flush with the top of the screen. I love the layout of Chrome but I don't like its Yeti-like footprint.

Re:how

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That's the one I'm using too. Though I also had to download a theme (Strata reloaded) that put a clear separator between the bottom of the page and the top of the "Add-on bar" (yuck) or else it looks like ass.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a browser around that targets the geek market? One for those of us who want more information and more control?

telnet still works.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you continue with your "dumbing down" routine have some time to check the actual preview version.

You get the url of link on right side of the your top url bar. Which is actually neater once you get used to it.
Also now it tells you whenever it's connecting or downloading to/from the server on the actual tab so it's actually more informative.
That leaves status bar pretty much redundant.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you create your own super status bar plugin for Firefox. That's what a REAL geek would do. Otherwise, quit whining and use another browser.

Re:how

[icebraining]

Firefox + Vimperator is still my favorite, but uzbl is very much a geek browser.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to phase out the status bar, and they figured not providing that functionality was for the best.

No status bar, no ability to prevent oneself from an inadvertent Goatse. Fuck them, and fuck everyone who browses like them.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

They just moved the status bar to the area where you enter/show a URL, it hasn't been removed, just moved to some unused space. It actually works pretty well. This is just like people complaining about a website changing their layout for the first 2 weeks then they get used to it and it's fine.

Re:how

[Teun]

Yes you can see the link in the address bar, but only when working full screen on a 2500+ pixel one.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

It does show the link you are hovering over, on the right side of the address bar.

Re:how

[Hatta]

You get the url of link on right side of the your top url bar.

I'm already using the right side of my top URL bar. Why not leave the status bar where it is? It's not hurting anything. I have plenty of vertical resolution for it. What about my noscript icon, and the SSL icon?

If they really want to save some vertical space, they should get rid of the find bar. Bring back the find window from 2.x.

Also now it tells you whenever it's connecting or downloading to/from the server on the actual tab so it's actually more informative.

How do you fit an entire URL on the tab? My current tab has the following visible "Mozill...". That's barely enough characters to fit 'slashdot', let alone linux.slashdot.org

Besides, if it tells me what site it is connecting to on the tab itself, where am I supposed to read the page title?

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

The statusbar hasn't been removed so much as moved into the Address field. The info shows up there when you hover on links.

Re:how

[syousef]

That's a show stopper for me.

Same here for quite a while - fortunately Status-4-Evar plugin showed up to remedy that particular ill.

Yeah what's the bet the motherfuckers start blocking extensions when people decide they are standard? Ever since they took away the option to revert from Awfulbar and it started requiring an extension, I don't trust them. They've gone off the rails!

Re:how

[caitsith01]

They want to phase out the status bar, and they figured not providing that functionality was for the best

Wow, that's simply awful. The status bar is there for a reason. Do they really want people following links with even less information than they have now? If my browser is stalling out trying to load a page, how will I know what domain to block?

Looks like Mozilla is continuing to dumb down its user interface. Is there a browser around that targets the geek market? One for those of us who want more information and more control?

More to the point, even if they think this is a good idea, how hard would it be to include an OPTION to turn it back on. Just like they could easily include an option to turn back on the old address bar.

Simplifying the interface for some users might be a good idea. But removing choices from power users is a terrible idea, and will drive people into the arms of Google/Opera.

It is ridiculous that to get decent functionality back one must install a series of add ons that do little more than restore features.

Re:how

[TheRealGrogan]

Thank you, I'm going to try that extension tonight when I boot to Windows for some death and destruction.

Re:how

[chammy]

You've obviously never tried it. It shows the link you're hovering on in the URL bar now. As for blocking a slow domain, I don't think the average user is going to care about that. Install adblock and 90% of the laggy ad sites go away.

And as for targeting the geek market, I'm pretty sure the thousands of addons let you customize Firefox into your perfect idea of what a browser should be.

Re:how

[Mr.No]

I have been using The beta since it started and I was wondering where the status bar went. it's only two weeks ago that I noticed the url in the address bar.

Re:how

[kripkenstein]

Mozilla, like all market centric organisations, does not care about technical features, usefulness, usability or technical competence. Like all such companies, they care about only one thing--the latest fad. They will follow this fad, be it graphical, academic, ergonomic and they will follow it regardless of its effect, positive or negative, on their overall product.

I'm a Firefox dev, and I have no idea how you came to this opinion of Mozilla's development practices.

Anyhow, all of our development is in the open - you can look at weekly meeting notes on our wiki, read debate on our mailing lists, details of decision making on IRC and bugzilla. So you can see exactly how we make the decisions that we make. I honestly don't see how you can read all that stuff, and say that we are 'market centric'.

You can argue with particular decisions that are made - often after a lot of debate (again, see our mailing lists and bugs). No body is perfect. I personally don't agree with all of them. But to say they are made due to 'following fads' - that's pretty funny :)

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, it shows a small section of the URL... which is complete crap if you go from link www.example.com/some/long/url/index.htm to www.example.com/some/long/url/goatse.htm because you would only see www.example.com/some/long/.., for both.

Re:how

[TheRealGrogan]

Cripes... I now have to retract some of what I said.

First of all, the status bar 4ever extension works acceptably as a status bar.

It seems, with the update I got last night (I presume it was the Minefield update... I also got Windows updates last night as well, some of which were "recommended" reliability/compatibility updates), Minefield no longer does that delay with hard disk dance when first starting it up. I rebooted Windows 7 three times to test that and it wasn't just a fluke.

I pretty much have most of the yuck factor sorted as best as I can now too (Things like showing the menu bar and tabs underneath address bar I had already done, but I solved my last niggle... I realized I could move the home button, which was way over to the far side of my wide screen display. Duh!)

I might start to experiment with Firefox 4.x in Linux now.

I just hope that status bar extension isn't going to be too fragile against new firefox 4 versions when the time comes. I've tended to shun extensions in the past, because of the pile of feces people go through at upgrade time.

Re:how

[bkaul01]

It shows around 80 characters of the URL here, and includes both the beginning (before the first /) and the end (.html), ellipting the middle. I don't necessarily like that when compared to the greater width that was available in the status bar, but it's still not entirely useless.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting a bit annoyed at the dumbing down lately. With that said, there is a place for minimalist interfaces. It is what makes Chrome great on a netbook. But when I have the real estate, I want a rich UI--or at least the option for it. One of the reasons software developers are doing this, of course, is to meet the "software as an appliance" criteria required by the growing numbers of non-technical users today who are primarily data consumers, rather than "software as a tool", which it was when a larger chunk of users were more technical. This I don't like, but it seems to be the state of the world right now. For better or worse, mobile phone users who are used to their spartan interfaces now expect the same on their PCs. They may not know what they're missing, but many don't care either. To be fair, under casual use conditions I like uncluttered, elegant, "dumb user" modes and advocate them greatly; especially if it makes them more friendly on my multitouch PCs. But on those occasions where I need (or want) to be a "power user", please don't alienate me. This is why I use Firefox at work and why I will leave Firefox if it no longer fulfills my power-user/programmer side.

Re:how

[Anonymous Coward]

SeaMonkey is not getting Firefox's new features fast enough for him (KaiRo) though and it looks like he may back away from it. I appreciate his work pushing to keep SeaMonkey relevant but sometimes he wants things his way or no way which is how some Firefox features got screwed up imho. Personally, I like to see Firefox features come into Seamonkey but without all the UI and option and information hiding that makes Firefox unpalatable to me.

Is this important yet?

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

Wake me up when the final build comes out.

Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

I already transitioned to Chrome. They need to give a reason to go back. Being just as good as Chrome isn't a reason either.

Re:Too late

[DanTheStone]

Master password? Depends on your computer's living situation, of course.

Re:Too late

[assantisz]

Ditto. Fed up with Firefox causing the beach ball on my Mac too many times (I am very sure this was caused by Flash, though) and other weird things like Javascript stopped working until I restarted the browser and page print outs that were cut-off I tried out Chrome. Once I installed similar extensions like the ones I loved on Firefox I don't think I'll ever switch back.

Re:Too late

[ifiwereasculptor]

I just went back to FF from Chrome. Reasons: significant closing of the performance gap and about:config. I really, really like about:config.

Re:Too late

[Darkness404]

If Chrome had as much customization as Firefox did, I'd switch to Chrome, but seriously, Chrome doesn't even have basic history controls that even IE does. I'd like to have a happy medium between searching your history when it comes up in the URL bar and having completely private, cookie-free browsing, and that is just the start of the lack of customization on Chrome. Really, my web browser is the most (manually) accessed program on my computer, I'd like to customize it to fit my own tastes.

Re:Too late

[Reapman]

With all the talk about NoScript like functionality being in Chrome, when I reformated my system I decided to make the switch to Chrome. However after searching the internet for about an hour the best I came up with is either it doesn't actually work (still executes JavaScript just hides it) or is a cludge at best.

Been running FF4 ever since, it's fast and does everything i want. I guess I'll switch to Chrome when they give me a reason, being almost as good isn't a reason.

If someone can prove me wrong on the NoScript I'd be willing to give it a go again.

Re:Too late

[bgibby9]

My GOD yes. Still use Chrome but come on, if it's something we want as a feature, just bloody add it!

meh

[sortadan]

Been using the beta. No real complaints, seems a bit snappier, but on the whole no big whoop. If anyone knows how to get the status bar back that would be nice. And for some reason they always put find at the bottom of the page, which is totally not intuitive since users enter info at the top with the search and address bars...

Re:meh

[just_another_sean]

And for some reason they always put find at the bottom of the page ...

I always looked at that as a nod to vi. In addition to putting the "search this page" on the
bottom you can activate it by hitting the / key, just like doing a find in a vi buffer. As a
long time vi user I actually appreciate this and find myself missing it now that I use Chrome
more often.

For really hard core vi users their is also this for FireFox: Vimperator.
For me it was a little too hard core and I never got used to it but never the less I
appreciate the effort put into it!

Re:meh

[ColdWetDog]

I always looked at that as a nod to vi. In addition to putting the "search this page" on the bottom you can activate it by hitting the / key, just like doing a find in a vi buffer.

Didn't realize that. What a cute little feature. Thanks.

Slashdot - even better than Man pages!

Re:meh

[EvanED]

Opera puts the find at top, and I dislike it. Why? It's not a fixed part of the UI. Which means that when you hit ctrl-F, the page shifts down so that the find bar doesn't cover the top. When you hit esc, the page shifts back up. I prefer the FF approach. (It's a similar reason to why I dislike the Mac "change the size of the window when you change tabs" dialogs.)

Re:meh

[DrgnDancer]

I never knew about the "/" shortcut. This is really quite nice to know, thanks.

Re:meh

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Vimperator is what keeps me on firefox. I know there are vim-like extensions for chrome, but none of them have lived up to my expectations thus far. I keep going back to give them a try every now and again, though.

That, and no middle-click-to-paste ftl.

Re:meh

[h4rr4r]

Vimperator is the only way to use a browser. Learn vim first though.

Re:meh

[blair1q]

Yup. They've screwed the pooch with the status-bar move. 99% of webpages that you want to preview the URI on you can't tell anything significant because it no longer has its own space and has to fit in address-bar space your current page's URI isn't using.

There's also the issue of buttons that appear and disappear, generally buttons you configured onto the toolbar for a reason.

Re:meh

[it5complicated]

There's an addon to reappear the status bar!

Re:meh

[blair1q]

I never use the /. I mean the '/'. I use /. like a filipino houseboy.

Mixing vi into a context where most commands are windows-normal just causes mechanical dysfunction in the part of my brain that's been trained to non-think in vi when using an xterm. If I hit that /, I expect that esc, hjkl, etc. will also work, and I can make painful errors when they don't. There are edit windows that permanently delete the text you entered when you hit esc. I really don't want to accidentally train myself to do that more often. (Yes, ^Z works on some of them. Only some. And not if you've done esc-tab-submit...)

Same reason I avoid gvim. Don't cross the streams.

Re:meh

[blair1q]

ooh, crap. that looks neat. i'm going to try it, and probably fuck my brain up for a month.

Re:meh

[petsounds]

Although the lack of status bar is a real irritant (if that's Mozilla's idea of innovation, they need some new thinking caps), the extreme memory leaks in the betas of FF4 on OS X are troubling. I'll often leave FF4 open overnight and come back to find it's taken up another 500MB of real memory. If they don't fix this, I may have to finally migrate away. A bloated, leaky browser at this point is just unacceptable. I do like the history-search-in-url-field feature though; that's quite useful. But taking away the status bar just seems like hubris in the face of a perfectly acceptable convention, and what used to feel like a lean, mean browsing machine now feels like a...Microsoft product.

Re:meh

[spinkham]

The JavaScript on 64 bit Linux never got the tracing interpreter everyone else got in 3.5. They went from the 3.0 javascript engine straight to method JIT/tracing JIT in this release.

That's a change from "OMG slow" to "Zing!" on my platform of choice...

Since Firefox and it's extensions are also written in JavaScript, it's quite an improvement..

Re:meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Find at the bottom has an an advantage over top placement in that the whole page doesn't shift to make space when Find opens. Try Opera to see what that's like.

They're largely identical right now (Opera was using a dialog box over top of your page -- no, really), both responding to ctl-f and /, although with Firefox the / gives you a lesser 'quick search' function for an advantage I haven't figured out yet.

Opera's 'new' Firefox-like search also highlights all matches the moment you start typing. With large book-sized documents a slower machine sags and stops for several seconds while the damn thing highlights all the 'the', making you late for the 'theatre' you wanted. Perhaps that makes the visual jar of seeing the whole page shift seem even clunkier.

Re:meh

[Teun]

FF4.x has a really serious problem with memory leaks in the Linux version I use.

Try to download photo's via right-click and see what it does to the memory, the photos are just added and never purged from memory.

That and the move of the status bar are real hindrances, otherwise it' s a nice and stable browser- .

Re:meh

[mrmeval]

What has google done that makes their search page grind on javascript but if I turn it off it's very fast but almost unusable?

Re:meh

[cyfer2000]

You don't really need "/", just type what you want to search, as long as the cursor is not in some sort of input thingy.

Re:meh

[jln]

If anyone knows how to get the status bar back that would be nice.

Check out status-4-evah.

Re:meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't be upgrading. I hate the new UI.

Re:meh

[martin-boundary]

If you use an addon like firemacs there's a lot more keys that work "properly", including j,k for scrolling (*).

(*) except on the Google homepage, which insists on grabbing the keyboard focus with javascript. So when you want to scroll down the list of results, all you get is "jjjjj" and then the stupid instant search server replaces the results with garbage...

Re:meh

[spiralx]

Page preview images when you mouse-over links and instant update of results as you type I'd imagine.

This didn't release yet?

[Admodieus]

Wasn't this supposed to be the answer to Chrome - yet Chrome has shipped several iterations in the time it took them to get from 3 to 4? I think Firefox is on beta 10 or whatever. For a while, I maintained that I would switch back to Firefox once it matched the speed and minimalist interface that Chrome had, as I didn't like using a browser from Google. Now? Not so sure anymore - I'm so used to Chrome and it fits my workflow so well. It will take a lot to get me back.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Monkeedude1212]

For a while, I maintained that I would switch back to Firefox once it matched the speed and minimalist interface that Chrome had, as I didn't like using a browser from Google.

You know there ARE more than 2 choices, right?

Did you consider Opera?

Re:This didn't release yet?

[paintballer1087]

I think Firefox is on beta 10 or whatever.

I know we don't RTFA, but how about RTFS?

From TFS:

Last month, Firefox 4 Beta 8 was released for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux 32-bit/64-bit, with support for 57 languages. Mozilla's roadmap says it still wants to release a Beta 9, a Beta 10, and at least one Release Candidate build before the final version.

I agree with you about Chrome though. I didn't like it when it was first released (missed my adblock too much), but about 6 months ago I decided to give it another shot. I think I've used Firefox maybe 5 or 6 times since then, and only for checking browser compatibility with a site I'm working on.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, and neither did anyone else. Move on, already.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Sonny Yatsen]

I liked using Chrome, but I still stick with Firefox. I'm always rather wary about how seriously a company whose revenue stream comes from mining your activities for advertising will take your privacy.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Admodieus]

Sorry, I was on a Firefox forum the other day and saw Beta 10 tossed around frequently and just dove right into my post.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't this supposed to be the answer to Chrome - yet Chrome has shipped several iterations in the time it took them to get from 3 to 4?

Chrome's "major version" releases would be considered minor version releases by anybody else. The differences between Chrome 4 and 8 are probably smaller than the differences between Firefox 3 and 4.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Haedrian]

I don't think Firefox was ever meant to be 'minimalist'. I always saw Firefox as the add-on and feature platform.

Sure the line is getting blurry now... but I don't use FF because it opens 15 seconds faster. Just because it has features I find useful. Like the synch, and panorama and stuff...

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way of thinking, MacOS has been stuck in version X, while Windows have moved at least two versions. Therefore, Windows should be way better than MacOS. And of course, Ubuntu caught up with MacOS on version X so I would assume the next iteration of Ubuntu would be way better than Windows and MacOS.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[supersloshy]

Wasn't this supposed to be the answer to Chrome - yet Chrome has shipped several iterations in the time it took them to get from 3 to 4?

Version numbers mean absolutely nothing; they only determine important milestones... or, in Chrome's case, pure marketing by making several "releases" painted as milestones, when in reality they're all quite minor updates. Firefox has a much more stable (and less confusing) version numbering system.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[couchslug]

"You know there ARE more than 2 choices, right?"

That, and they can all run at once. I run Epiphany (meh, but it's fast), Opera, Firefox (my main browser because of the add-ons), and Chrome on my Ubuntu box. Try em all. Disk space and memory are stoopid cheap.

I run a 32-bit kernel with PAE, and like the fact that limits Firefox runaway to only 4GB RAM. :)

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you consider Opera?

Not parent poster here.

I find Opera's javascript somewhat buggy on javascipt-laden sites (like stickam), as compared to FF.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Monkeedude1212]

No, but if thats your only qualification, I might point you towards

http://code.google.com/p/arora/

or

http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/

over Firefox or Chrome. I personally don't like Firefox because of the bloat, and like the OP, I get a little wary of Google gaining full vertical control of my web browsing. First a search engine, then a Web Browser, next an OS, and they're starting their own ISP. Its a little scary.

Anyways, maybe check those guys out.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[wondafucka]

For a while, I maintained that I would switch back to Firefox once it matched the speed and minimalist interface that Chrome had, as I didn't like using a browser from Google.

You know there ARE more than 2 choices, right?

Did you consider Opera?

Don't forget Internet Explorer 6!

Re:This didn't release yet?

[wamatt]

I switched back to Firefox today from Chrome.

The two dealbreakers for me on Chrome where:

1) Inability to fix resolution scaling. Chrome is broken as a browser on my MediaTV with large DPI settings.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=679

2) The removal of "Quick search/keyword" functionality of bookmarks that Firefox has. For example I like to type "imdb [moviename]" or "ud [urban dictionary term]" in the URL bar, and the browser then looks stuff up for me without having to navigate a landing page.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Chrome still has "quick search". Click Preferences and the Manage button for search engines. I have "i [moviename]" for imdb searches for example. It's really easy to add custom ones.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should check your history. Firefox (Phoenix) started as a minimalist gecko wrapper. At the time, Mozilla was a bloated mess and not particularly popular.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Korin43]

I run a 32-bit kernel with PAE, and like the fact that limits Firefox runaway to only 4GB RAM. :)

How do you get it to do that -- a million tabs? The most memory I've ever seen my computer use without playing an MMO is ~700 MB (64 bit Arch).

Re:This didn't release yet?

[marcosdumay]

I'm even looking into WineTools just so I don't miss the Internet Explorer 6 experience while at home!

Re:This didn't release yet?

[sourcerror]

And this is the reason I use both FF and Chrome. However copy-paste doesn't always work with Chrome, especially with Slashdot.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[blair1q]

I use Opera on my Nexus One, because the default browser just doesn't fucking listen sometimes.

But Opera's rendering is incomplete, and sometimes just plain bizarro.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[blair1q]

I have FF, Safari, Opera, Chrome, and IE on my desktop. If something doesn't open or operate right in one, it will often just be a matter of changing to another and voila! the page looks just like the dev intended (the fucking dolt).

Re:This didn't release yet?

[hairyfeet]

Have you tried Comodo Dragon yet? Based on Chromium so any Chrome extensions you like work fine, has all the Google "phone home" crap cut out, and is designed around security, such as better Domain Validation and optional access to the Comodo secure DNS which helps protect against DNS cache poisoning.

Since FF has so far refused to support low rights mode which means FF is a LOT less secure than webkit based browsers or even the latest IE I have been running the Dragon pretty much 24/7 testing it to see if it is right for my customers and I have to say I'm impressed. No crashes, solid as a rock, seems to catch hinky certs quicker and better than FF, runs ABP and ForecastFox perfectly, REALLY fast, it is just a damn good browser.

So until FF starts supporting modern security features I've switched to the Dragon and have started handing it out to customers, even those still on XP (so I don't have to support dual browsers) and so far not a single complaint. If you want the speed of Chrome without all the "phone home" junk and would like a little extra security conscious browser, try it. Its free and will happily copy your FF bookmarks over so switching is easy peasy.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Lord Ender]

FireFox was created to be the "lighweight" version of Mozilla, a browser which had a built-in email, IRC and News client.

But in ANY case, if your apps are taking 15 seconds to load, you need to buy an SSD STAT!! Disk IO on mechanical disks is pitiful. I can't imagine having to go back to waiting on apps to start.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[hkmwbz]

I find Opera's javascript somewhat buggy on javascipt-laden sites (like stickam), as compared to FF.

Sounds like browser sniffing to me. In other words, it's got nothing to do with bugginess in Opera.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[musikit]

i use opera as my primary browser. you dont like it. its ok. but it is a really good speedy browser.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera's a piece of crap.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you think we ended up with more than 2 choices in the first place? By blindly refusing to ever try anything new, refusing to think for ourselves and simply following the crowd? (Not.)

Re:This didn't release yet?

[kangsterizer]

well if you judge a browser by the number of versions it releases, by all means keep Chrome.

If you think a little bit more, you'll see that FF4 features and changes is approximately as big as all the Chrome features changed between like 4 versions.

I find that Firefox 4 is actually a pretty good browser right now. The only place it loses to chrome is the application startup speed. Mozilla knows this and its what make users think it's slow *most* of the time.

But hey Chrome is a decent browser too. In fact even IE is not that bad anymore, thanks to Firefox competition mostly.

Re:This didn't release yet?

[coolmadsi]

2) The removal of "Quick search/keyword" functionality of bookmarks that Firefox has. For example I like to type "imdb [moviename]" or "ud [urban dictionary term]" in the URL bar, and the browser then looks stuff up for me without having to navigate a landing page.

I have imdb set up as an extra search engine in Chrome. I type in imdb into the address bar and press enter and it takes me to the search results page of imdb.com, for my search terms (not doing the standard Google seach). Is this what you mean? You mentioned seaching bookmarks, do you have a lot of imdb bookmarks in that case?

Re:This didn't release yet?

[wamatt]

Yeah the keyword feature though works for *any* site. You don't have to set it up as a search engine.

For example goto www.urbandictionary.com in Firefox. You can right click on the input box ad say "Add keyword for this search". Any input box on the web works. That is the beauty of it.

Then all I need to do is type "ud [and my search term]" and it searches urbandictionary.

Not sure why Chrome took this feature away. It was available in Chromium at one point in the past.

Dumbed down

[MrL0G1C]

I've never reverted a version before, always liked the new one, but with FF 4 and it's lack of status bar and lack of SSL related security notices and missing right-click menu options, I've got to ask what the hell are they doing? Mozilla seem to be trying to dumb down FF and are removing useful features in the process. Double click blank space for a new tab is gone, right-click -> new tab is gone.

It's slower to use now because quick options and quick information have been removed. Also, hovering over URLs now squeezes the URL to be visited into the URL box with the current URL, unreadable light coloured fonts have been chosen and for most URLs you can barely read a fraction of the URL - It's dreadful. Plus right-click -> block image has been removed.

What next? Quit trying to copy Chrome and IE if I wanted to use those corporate straitjackets I would be.

Re:Dumbed down

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of SSL-related security notices? What are you referring to? SSL information is displayed in the address bar as always, and SSL errors appear the same as they used to.

Double click blank space for a new tab still works for me on beta 8.

Right click -> block image was removed because one of their most common support requests was from people who accidentally blocked something without realizing they'd hit the menu item, then complained because Firefox was breaking websites. Use AdBlock to get the functionality back.

Although I do agree that the link hover in the address bar sucks. I want to see where I'm going, and truncated URLs don't help. Fortunately there already exist addons to get it back.

Re:Dumbed down

[Anonymous Coward]

What were you using? I'm using Firefox 4.0 beta 8 right now, and I tried all the stuff that "doesn't work" as I read your post - and it's all there. Except the status bar/URL thing, but that's a change that, once I got used to it, I kind of like. Right click->new tab? Works. Double click blank space for new tab? Works. Right click->block image? Works.

Re:Dumbed down

[MrL0G1C]

Looks likes a the tab related stuff was fixed / my system only. I still don't like the status Info going missing, there should be an option to turn the status bar on in the view menu.

And how do you know if a page is partially or badly encrypted without clicking something and digging deep and being a SSL expert? - seriously, who wants to have to manually check every time - a notice should stand out if a page is not encrypted right.

Re:Dumbed down

[tuppe666]

Double click blank space for a new tab is gone, right-click -> new tab is gone

middle mouse button is friend. using it on a link will bring it up in a new tab; using it on the blank space will bring up a new tab; using it on a tab removes that tab. Almost the same functionality only better.

hovering over URLs now squeezes the URL to be visited into the URL box with the current URL, unreadable light coloured fonts have been chosen and for most URLs you can barely read a fraction of the URL - It's dreadful

Its a lovely feature, but they do need to sort out the colours.

I am a little sick of accusations of copying when in reality I think they are moving in the same direction. Internet Explorer is looking more like Firefox daily. Firefox's interface changes very little over 3 major versions. have a look through the history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Firefox

Re:Dumbed down

[MrL0G1C]

Trying to cram the status bar info in to the url box with the url is not a 'lovely feature' it's fugly and useless, I like to have an idea of how long a page is taking to load and where the link I'm looking at is going.

Re:Dumbed down

[tuppe666]

I like to have an idea of how long a page is taking to load and where the link I'm looking at is going.

The earlier betas had thin guage along the top of the tab/url box. I really liked it not sure where it has gone or whether it will come back. Although not having it I did not notice until I saw your reply

Re:Dumbed down

[Anonymous Coward]

If the page is only partially encrypted, the blue/green security icon thingy doesn't light up. It's just that easy.

On sites with valid certificates, there's the blue "identity indicator" that states the site name and provides cert info if you click on it. If the site is partially encrypted, that goes away.

Re:Dumbed down

[Anonymous Coward]

Status Bar Forever
Link Target Display
RSS Icon

Re:Dumbed down

[kangsterizer]

I never understood the removal of the status bar to replace it with this crap either. I've read their bug report and how they say "its like that live with it".
But I'm pretty sure it'll change in FF 4.1, 4.5 or 5 or 6 or whatever. Because it SUCKS.

You can see anything when you over a link unless your window is 4000 pixels wide (and that's not sarcasm, it *needs* 4000 pixels).

At *least* they could have made the link take the whole url bar when you go above it. It would even actually make sense as it shows the "next URL if you click".

As for SSL, you still get the box, simply it prefetch the certificate for you. That's fine in my book - in fact, that's better. Previous one was boring.

Re:Dumbed down

[NightFears]

Lack of the status bar is definitely my "favorite" omission. I understand their desire to extend the vertical space. But it isn't even relevant for users who want to see various extension-supplied icons: firebug, gmail watcher, noscript, etc. So now I have this "add-on bar" occupying the same vertical space status bar used to occupy, but without the status bar functionality. Brilliant!

Re:Dumbed down

[Anonymous Coward]

Right click -> block image was removed because one of their most common support requests was from people who accidentally blocked something without realizing they'd hit the menu item, then complained because Firefox was breaking websites.

I would have solved it by adding a right click menu item "Unblock image..." that offered a list of images blocked on the current site. It need only show up on pages with links to blocked images. The popup text for blocked images could be modified for the case when people accidentally block an image.... something like "Image blocked. Right click to unblock." That would solve the support problem without removing a useful feature. Of course I use SeaMonkey so I guess you know where I stand on Gumping the UI.

Re:Huh? Firefox 4?

[paintballer1087]

I see what you did there...

FF hangs on startup

[nutshell42]

For a while my FF (first beta7 now beta8) has hanged on/before startup. After I click the FF icon it takes about half a minute until the Windows appear. It does happen with a new profile for a different user and safe mode doesn't change anything.

Re:FF hangs on startup

[Mr. Spontaneous]

No clue what's causing it, but see what plugins are being loaded? HP added a bunch of crap to my installation that brought it to a crawl.

If that doesn't work, may I suggest bugzilla?

Re:FF hangs on startup

[nutshell42]

Thx for the reply. I thought safe mode was meant to disable those plugins?

And it's only Flash, Silverlight, Java and Acrobat. MS and Adobe certainly are capable of craptastic programming, but you'd think if some of those essential plugins produced something like this it would get noticed.

I tried bugzilla a couple of times and never had a good experience with them. With a lot of OSS software (SMplayer had a similar problem) I'd just hit the logs, but FF subscribes to the "It just works or you're fucked" creed.

Re:FF hangs on startup

[BLKMGK]

Try Chrome. Seriously. I had the same sort of issue. I run MANY windows and when I would start it up it would hang forever. Chroime meanwhile pops content on there so fast it's stunning. I do not miss FF much...

Re:FF hangs on startup

[StuartHankins]

I assume that you're starting with a single simple page that is accessible -- starting with a page that's not accessible (think work site when you're not connected via VPN) takes a few seconds to fail. Opening a complex page as your start page will slow you down. Opening many pages at once takes a few seconds to process. It's also possible that the auto-update is slowing you down.

Re:FF hangs on startup

[RebelWebmaster]

Are you on Vista or Win7 by chance? There is a known bug with DirectWrite that can cause hangs on startup due to font enumeration. It's one of the hard blockers mentioned in TFA that has to fixed before release.

Re:FF hangs on startup

[nutshell42]

I don't think that's the issue because it's not limited to cold startups. Launching Firefox repeatedly brings no improvement. It's also not the profile or the session because it also happens with a new profile for a new user.

Again, wouldn't it be nice if Firefox had a log file? Nothing fancy just the major steps? Yeah, I could get a debug version and run a trace and whatever but I don't see why I should jump through all those hoops. Instead, I'm gonna wait till full release and just switch to Chrome if it still persists.

Missing menu bar?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Does the new Firefox have its menu bar missing just like Chrome and IE8 do? 'cuz I'm a Firefox user and I really want to have all of the browser's configuration and management features jammed into some weird little button in the corner like my Chrome and IE8 using friends do. It's so awesome when the File, Edit, etc. menus that are present in every other application on your desktop go missing in your browser, and I want Firefox to suck that way too!

Re:Missing menu bar?

[supersloshy]

By default on Windows, it's replaced by the Firefox Menu. Just right-click anywhere on the UI (besides the page) and turn the menu bar back on. You can also do this from the preferences menu inside the Firefox Menu itself.

Re:Missing menu bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the menu bar is there, but its placement is underneath the tab bar, though that is reversible. What is missing is the status bar. Now if you want to restore status bar functionality, you have install a freaking extension. The argument for removing it is weak (we need to recover 20 pixels!), and disingenuous (nobody uses it!). It's a stupid decision on the Mozilla developers part, and one that already is facing a backlash from users.

Re:Missing menu bar?

[eko3]

I think your desire is in the minority. Most people don't want to play around under the hood of their browser. Most people could care less. Most people want to see more facebook, foursquare, linkedin, twitter (ad naseum).... and that's exactly what they are getting with these new revs. Welcome to Web 2.0... 3.0... eh... whatever...

Re:Missing menu bar?

[Your.Master]

Honestly, I don't see how that argument is either weak or disingenuous. I mean, you can disagree with it, but that doesn't make it deceitful. I don't -- I disable the status bar on all my browsers to recover those pixels because...I don't use that. Except for prospective URLs, which browsers do in a different way now anyway.

Re:Missing menu bar?

[striker64]

you realize that pressing Alt brings the full menu back into view right? and you can easily make it stay there permanently if you wanted to. I see no reason to keep it in the default view to take up screen real estate when most people use it so rarely.

Re:Missing menu bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution that I've ended up using is to hide the menubar, then press alt whenever I need it. That way, I get both maximum space and the menu.

Re:Missing menu bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

.... Most people could care less.....

couldn't care less.
If you could care less it means you care at least somewhat.
If you couldn't care less, then you don't care at all.

Good grief

Re:Missing menu bar?

[tendays]

It seems fashionable to remove all functionality from browsers and then put them back into websites. Now website designers have to add (necessarily non-standard) buttons in the web pages themselves to do things like "print", "go back", "change font size", "search in the page", "close", etc, that are all also provided by the browser, but that people no longer (know how to?) use...

Re:Missing menu bar?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

No, the menu bar is there, but its placement is underneath the tab bar, though that is reversible. What is missing is the status bar. Now if you want to restore status bar functionality, you have install a freaking extension. The argument for removing it is weak (we need to recover 20 pixels!), and disingenuous (nobody uses it!). It's a stupid decision on the Mozilla developers part, and one that already is facing a backlash from users.

Exactly. I've been looking in the statusbar for hoover-over information and the like since Netscape 3. If you change a user element that's remained unchanged for >15 years you'd better damn well have a good reason for it. How f'ing difficult is it to just make it optional ?

Re:Missing menu bar?

[vlueboy]

Apparently users love it when 30+ years of interface design (DOS-era menus, not pine or BASIC.exe's bottom-laying ones) is removed without giving mainstream users a single "did you know?" pop-up on how to use the new system or revert it. To Whom do we owe the pleasure of this arbitrary feature? Believe it or not, to MS Office 2007's orb menu. Forums show people think the menu disappearance is a bug and not a feature (File/print and Edit/copy and paste is used by millions of non-savvy users who never click on buttons and never right-click.) They're in for a surprise again.

Oh, add Opera to your list. All major browsers in the EU browser ballot are or will soon be menu-less out of the box, except for Safari.

Re:Missing menu bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get it back as said in other comments.
You can also display it only when needed by pressing the alt key.
Unlike chrome, the features are only hidden, it's not gone forever.

Re:Missing menu bar?

[DocSavage64109]

It's my understanding that the phrases are interchangeable right now as they both get the point across, however the "could care less" version is definitely slang.

From http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

There’s a close link between the stress pattern of I could care less and the kind that appears in certain sarcastic or self-deprecatory phrases that are associated with the Yiddish heritage and (especially) New York Jewish speech. Perhaps the best known is I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often “I have no hope of being so lucky”, a closely similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning. There’s no evidence to suggest that I could care less came directly from Yiddish, but the similarity is suggestive. There are other American expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means “Don’t tell me about it, because I know all about it already”. These may come from similar sources.

Re:meh - Status Bar

[jd142]

There are a couple of status bar add-ons you can pick up, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/235283/ worked for me.

Awesome Bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to get a flamewar going, but did they include options to disable the Awesomebar? If not, does the oldbar add-in still work? If both of those are no, I'll never upgrade.

Re:Awesome Bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect like on the current version you can go to tools/options/privacy and set 'when using the location bar suggest...' to 'nothing'.

"release candidate" means...

[FuckingNickName]

"Release candidate" means "release this version if it's good enough, otherwise produce another RC", not "something random to put out before a deadline".

It's enough to make me miss IE5. Sleek, simple, didn't have any notion of the unnecessary Web2.0 shit. Optimising the browsing of a web of information was always a lofty goal for a web browser, I guess.

Re:"release candidate" means...

[tuppe666]

I don't think I could miss any version of Internet Explorer. Although Firefox as was interface got so much right that little has changed.

No Status Bar = FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you can get an add-on to replace it.

But that requires each and every user to look for and install something that should already be there!

For the developers to take the status bar completely out... that's just ridiculous.

At the very least, put a little check box in the options page to turn it back on.

Re:No Status Bar = FAIL

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Not really a fail. What they've done is split the functionality of the existing status bar in two. One part displays the URL you hover over; that has been moved to the URL bar instead. The other part is the add-on icons, and that's been moved to a distinct add-on toolbar, which can be shown or hidden easily as the user prefers. Each and every user will not be installing a status bar extension, because each and every user doesn't want or need a dedicated status bar. IMHO they've implemented the needed functionality in a better way.

The whole point of FF is it will look like and behave like whatever you want it to, more or less. Changing the way it works by default doesn't change that.

If you want to help....

[gQuigs]

I made a big blog post about using Firefox 4 and a bunch of other things you can do to help make it better. Most of you in this crowd can skip to Item 3, I wrote it for users who are not technical.
http://bryanquigley.com/uncategorized/try-the-new-firefox-beta

Or in just one sentence, turn on the surveys to automatically submit, and install/run Grafx Bot - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/200733/.

And in related news, I also would love to see Duck Duck Go be included as one of the search engines...
http://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla/topics/include_duck_duck_go_as_option_by_default_in_search_box

Using minefield (nightly firefox 4) looking good

[macpacheco]

I'm using minefield for all day-to-day stuff. Only issue seems to be related to 64-bit java (stuff that doesn't work with 64-bit java even on firefox 3.6.13).
Downloading daily upgrades is just a matter of Help->About Minefield->Check for upgrades. Upgrades use 1 to 2MB of download. Very easy to surf the updates.

Looking Forward to This

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I've been running Chrome for about a year now (maybe less) as my primary browser. It's small and snappy enough that it suits my older hardware better than FF 3 does. I use FF when my primary concern is security, rather than speed and convenience. Unfortunately, I've been getting a bit frustrated at Chrome lately too. Google keeps releasing patches and updates, which is fine for security. But it seems like the last few iterations of Chrome have made my Adblocking, Flashblocking, and javascript settings nearly useless. Sure, some of the more obnoxious ads are getting blocked, but even with my AdBlock extensions and a few good, reliable blocklist subscriptions, I am finding more and more ads in Chrome than I do on the same pages in FF with AB+ installed.

To top it off, the most recent Chrome update seems to have gummed up Flash in my browser somehow. I am not sure how. I will probably just need to reconfigure something (though I have no idea what yet). But many flash applications seem to have buttons disabled, or some other such thing. I liked Chrome because it was simple, quick, and convenient. But with AdBlocking becoming increasingly useless, I'd much prefer to switchback to FF. Here's hoping FF 4 is sleek enough to not lag out my 6 year old hardware.

Been using it for some time

[Anonymous Coward]

Works great. Love the pin as app tab option!!

This version removes Gopher support

[ickleberry]

In a 'pre-emptive removal of unknown exploits' similar to what Microsoft did when they released IE6.

Fortunately the overbite addon exists, but does not seem compatible with recent Beta versions.

Re:This version removes Gopher support

[fajmoh]

In a 'pre-emptive removal of unknown exploits' similar to what Microsoft did when they released IE6. Fortunately the overbite addon exists, but does not seem compatible with recent Beta versions.

Overbite works fine on Firefox 4 Beta 8.

Re:This version removes Gopher support

[Fineliner]

gopher.. where can you still find that, man thats pretty old, move forward

Re:This version removes Gopher support

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Gopher is still around? I can't remember the last time I used it, but it's probably been around 15 years. That's some seriously obscure backwards compatibility you want.

Re:This version removes Gopher support

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck uses Gopher? It was outdated even when I first started using the Internet and that was almost 20 years ago.

Re:This version removes Gopher support

[Penguin Follower]

Well I know of one example... the Synchronet BBS software package uses gopher for it's "web interface".

Re:This version removes Gopher support

[kbrosnan]

There have been recent issues with gopher causing security problems. http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2010/mfsa2010-68.html

Re:This version removes Gopher support

[yuhong]

And FYI, here is the IE security bulletin that patched and disabled by default Gopher support:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms02-047.mspx

FF was meant to be like that... with extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I've understood, the FF philosophy was to create a stabile and light-weight browser that could then be easily extended. So the core would be just slim, fast browser and then everyone could use extensions to customize just the kind of browser that suits their needs.

I'm never one to argue against features but I would much prefer a slim and stabile browser to which I could easily add the features I need when compared to a browser that tries to have everything that anyone might need and becomes slow and cubersome when trying to do that. So, I'm quite willing to label it as bloat.

Anyways, I've already switched to Chrome. I still have to use FF occasionally because Chrome doesn't seem to have an extension comparable to the Live HTTP Extensions (None of the chrome HTTP header extensions appear to show redirects correctly.They just show the headers of the final page itself.). I would love to give FF4 another chance but I seriously doubt it is able to catch up.

Re:FF was meant to be like that... with extensions

[PhrstBrn]

The only reason I keep FF around is for the HTTP Live Headers extension. And for the reason you mentioned. At least I don't feel alone when saying that now.

Re:FF was meant to be like that... with extensions

[Seumas]

I gave Chrome a chance, but the lack of decent tab handling sent me packing. I couldn't even find a decent solution among the available extensions (something like the Vertical Tree View extension on FF or even Panorama/Tab Candy). There are some solutions - they're just all kind of clumsy.

Status bar

[bazmail]

Bring back the god damn status bar. Change for change's sake is never a good idea.

Re:Status bar

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Bring back the god damn status bar. Change for change's sake is never a good idea.

Have you looked at how they've implemented the status bar functionality yet? They didn't just get rid of the status bar without implementing the functions it provides. I think they did a good job with it.

Re:Status bar

[Soukosa]

You mean putting what you're looking for in a completely different place than you've been used to for years all the while making it blend into something and shortening it down so it'll fit in such a horrible design? There's also the complete lack of saying what the browser's doing. When it sits there twiddling its thumbs it'd be nice to know what's holding it up but nope, they seem to feel they we don't care about such a thing!

Sorry FF, I gave up!

[BLKMGK]

Multiple crashes a day, error reporting that seldom worked, and it turns out really slow which I realized when I switched to Chrome. I tried, I really really did, to stick with it. But when it took forever to restart and would just keep happening I finally gave Chrome a shot at the urging of a friend. I have something like 25 windows and 100+ tabs open in Chrome and not a single crash. It's been running well over a week now with no issues. My crash logs for FF showed daily crashes, sometimes hourly, and when I got the "there was a problem reporting..." message I just weeped. A new version? Good for you! However I'm currently pretty happy with my much faster browser and will stick with it until it gives me reason to change - like you did!

Re:Sorry FF, I gave up!

[StuartHankins]

If you have 100 tabs open you're doing it wrong. Seriously. I can't think of a single reason you'd want to do something like that. Especially if any of the pages auto-refresh.

Re:Sorry FF, I gave up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I commonly browse with 300 to 400 tabs. Firefox crashes at 100 to 130 tabs most often. When will firefox fix the threading issues? Don't make us use Opera.

Re:Sorry FF, I gave up!

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you focus on 10% of that stuff? Do you just open a new tab for every link you click and never close them? There's these things called browser history and bookmarks...

Re:Sorry FF, I gave up!

[BLKMGK]

No, I'm doing it differently than you - that's not necessarily wrong.

I am interested in MANY things. I have a single normal page with all of the news, email, and tech sites I read to include status of eBay auctions and NetFlix queue. This stays open always. When I research an interest be it HTPC topics, storage solutions, or odd stuff found on sites like Slashdot I often open a new window. Each tab in that new window - often starting with Google, is a different site. If i get pulled away or it';s something I want to research over an extended period I leave the window and it's tabs open to return to as I'm able. I currently on this machine have 60 windows open including this one which I'll close when I'm done responding. :-)

I don't do the whole click on Google, follow a thread of sites to a dead-end, Google again, rinse and repeat thing. I Google, find likely sites, and follow each of those in it's own tab or couple of tabs if I need to. I close tabs and windows when I'm satisfied they're dead ends or I've learned or printed what I want.

To answer a question below - I don't focus on all of it at once. In fact my focus changes often and that's part of the reason why I have so much open. I bounce all over and I swap between things as needed either for my intellect or my job. Lots of hobbies and I work in the computer field too so the 'net is essential...

Re:Sorry FF, I gave up!

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I commonly browse with 300 to 400 tabs. Firefox crashes at 100 to 130 tabs most often. When will firefox fix the threading issues? Don't make us use Opera.

Fix an issue for users needed hundreds of tabs? Possibly never.

Re:Sorry FF, I gave up!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have 100 tabs open you're doing it wrong. Seriously. I can't think of a single reason you'd want to do something like that. Especially if any of the pages auto-refresh.

From his user id you can guess that he's too old to have enough sex drive to be looking at hundreds of tabs of porn. What remains then is some kind of a 'hoarding' pathos.

So you can see that not selecting 'restore my previous session' is like telling him he has to clean out his house full of cat litter and adult diapers and other trash, take it all to the dump, and move into a clean, empty new house... the same pages that crashed the browser before crash it again, just like his toilet filled up with dirty clothes and the corpse of a bird that flew in and died can't flush no matter how many times he presses the lever. It's just not possible without mood stabilizing drugs and a psychologist to select 'start a new session'.

It's going to be a terrible scene when he finds out that when Chrome crashes he's going to randomly lose 1/10th of the open tabs with no good option to restore them. It'll be like when the health department shows up and tells him he needs to get rid of at least a dozen of his 60+ cats or they'll have to condemn the house.

Re:Sorry FF, I gave up!

[BitZtream]

blah blah blah I'm doing it right!

No, you aren't. You can not possibly find and store useful information with 100 tabs open at once, the human mind simply doesn't work that way and no matter how many times your mommy told you were special it won't change that fact.

If you have more than a handful of tabs, you're doing it wrong for MANY reasons.

Feel free to ignore me and tell me how I'm wrong but real science and research has shown you simply aren't capable of processing that much information in a useful manner.

Also, again, 'bouncing all over' is not product, as has been shown many times by many studies around the world. Your lack of focus is not a benefit, no matter how many times or ways you try to tell people it is.

Re:Sorry FF, I gave up!

[BLKMGK]

I can find info easily, I highlight the stack n my left monitor, it pops up a synopsis of all windows, I go down the list to the one I need right now, it comes to the forefront. I'm sorry if I'm able to navigate this and you find you can't. But do please cite some real science about this, I'd love to see it. A study on efficient browser usage - this should be amusing. Hint: not everyone works the way you do lol

I'm sorry if you cannot understand that I do multiple research tasks at once and that I have multiple demands for topics placed upon me - especially at work. Whine that this just can't work all you want because it doesn't work for you but umm it does work for me - daily. It likely works for many others too. I know, amazing huh?

Firefox release != Chrome release

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't this supposed to be the answer to Chrome - yet Chrome has shipped several iterations in the time it took them to get from 3 to 4

Chrome shipped several small incremental versions. They bump the version number each time, which can give an illusion of progress, but Chrome themselves say the version number means nothing. They ship a 'release' every 6 weeks, with whatever features are ready or not - and generally no major features are ready, it's just bugfixes. Whereas Mozilla ships a new version of Firefox more like most software ships - when the planned features are ready.

So, it means nothing that Chrome bumped their version number faster. The real question is, what features has each browser added over a span of time.

In terms of actual features added to Chrome and Firefox over the last year, Firefox added more. I use both browsers and Chrome seems to have hardly changed, while FF4 beta is miles ahead of FF3. However, a substantial amount of Firefox's work was catching up to Chrome. When Firefox 4 comes out, they will be close to equal in terms of features and performance. So really the competition will get interesting only later this year, after that point.

Mozilla to Users: You're Dumber than a 7 Year Old

[bill_mcgonigle]

, and disingenuous (nobody uses it!).

Oh, for Pete's sake - just yesterday my daughter (age 7) was wondering why pbskids.org was taking so long to come up, and I showed her how to read the status bar. So now she does and doesn't ask me that question anymore.

Finally

[tungudeep]

I am happy to see it finally having a release date, I like the beta and look forward to the final release.

still beta ??

[Fineliner]

I'm surprised is it still called Beta, i never have problems with firefox 4
It seams a lot faster also, although some old plugins didnt work (well i had to much of them anyway).
I like the new design and speed.

I wonder will it become possible to upgrade a portable FF 3 to 4 ?

Status of the status bar

[MrEricSir]

Strange how so many comments here say the same thing:
* Where's the status bar?!
* Eh, I'm switching to Chrome

And yet Chrome also lacks a status bar!

Re:Status of the status bar

[ampathee]

Chrome lacks a status bar only when the status bar would be empty. As soon as there is something to put in it, it appears.

Mouse-over a link, and it shows you the target. Click a link, and it tells you what the progress is, until it's finished. Then the status bar disappears again.

Re:Status of the status bar

[MrEricSir]

Not sure what OS you're using, but Chrome for Windows never has a status bar. Instead, hovered links cause a URL to be drawn at the bottom of the window, more or less where the status bar would be. But there's no "bar" that appears, just the text.

Re:Status of the status bar

[BitZtream]

You should probably upgrade because Chrome has had a status bar (its auto-hide when not active/empty) since I started using it god knows how long ago.

Re:Status of the status bar

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Chrome lacks a status bar only when the status bar would be empty. As soon as there is something to put in it, it appears.

Mouse-over a link, and it shows you the target. Click a link, and it tells you what the progress is, until it's finished. Then the status bar disappears again.

Firefox has implemented it differently, but that's basically what they've done as well.

Re:Status of the status bar

[ampathee]

Oh, ok. Then I don't know what the fuss is about.

Re:Status of the status bar

[kangsterizer]

i often have this status bar over actually text i wanna read, especially when theres javascript activity. It's better than FF4 but.. i prefered the FF3 status bar. Or that status goes into the url completely (not just partially like FF4)

Re:Status of the status bar

[Soukosa]

Except its now in a bad spot, doesn't show as much of the URL as it could, blends in too much with the real address bar and most importantly... it doesn't show actual page statuses!

Where's the bloody status bar?

[TheOddOne]

For the love of all that is holy... why are we no longer allowed to know what we are hovering and what we are loading?
What a lovely "addition" and quite "progressive"... i'm all for progress, but come on people....

--ToO

Mac App Store

[tomaasz]

It would be nice to see it in the Mac App Store. The unified update system is quite relaxing, as opposed to dozens of random Sparkle & other custom update notifications.

Insightful?

[Gordo_1]

Tell me this, what would you remove from FF3 that you consider to be bloated -- or did you just want to get a comment in early so you could be modded up?

I dare any of you who modded the parent Insightful to benchmark FF2 versus the current build of FF3.6 versus FF4 beta9 in startup speed, memory usage, page loading time and javascript. I'll let you in an a little secret: it's gotten progressively faster across the board over time.

Re:Insightful?

[sourcerror]

Agree. FF2 was really terribly slow. FF3 was big improvement.

Why is this news?

[gambino21]

They didn't release an RC and there have been several beta releases already. I don't see any real new information here. Announcing that there will be a release announcement sometime in the future seems like they are just trying to get publicity. Seriously, they didn't even commit to a release date. It makes me so annoyed, I don't even want to discuss it. Oh wait, ooops.

I like

[tkprit]

ABP and greasemonkey Better Privacy (kills LSOs) and Flashblock are nice too I used memoryfox (afom?) for a while but now it's offline now. I hadn't updated it for a while; heard it actually caused problems? But the older versions tended to keep mem usage Lazurus (recovers text forms) is nice (but latest update has caused a few fails on page loads; nothing terrible, I just stop the script).

Please fix the memory consumption

[lappy512]

I love my firefox, I really do. I've been using Firefox 4 Beta for the last 4 months or so! But frequently I look into my task manager and see Firefox consuming 700-1500MB of memory! It is okay on my computer with 8GB of ram, but still very unacceptable! When will Firefox become more memory efficient?

Senior Director of Platform Engineering? WTF?

[misio413]

Job title bloat follows code bloat? Firefox has been too fat and lazy to compete with Opera or Chrome for quite a while now. Word up to senior managing executive directors of making coffee.

Re:Senior Director of Platform Engineering? WTF?

[kangsterizer]

Actually FF4 has been extremely well worked on. There are issues but in general its a huge step forward, especially the performance. It's a whole different animal in that regard, they did a good job.

What Mozilla needs to do

[walllaby]

There are only a very few things Firefox needs to do to take the mantle of King Browser from Chrome.

• Be Faster, or at least as fast as Chrome. Having used the Beta sparingly, just on "feel" and appearance alone, it appears to have accomplished this. Javascript runs fast, and images don't have any of the problems that Chrome seems to have (especially animated gifs).
• Be idiot-proof enough to continue taking users away from IE, yet remain moddable enough for power users and their extensions. Needless additions like Panorama tend to ruin this perception.
• Support HTML5. The beta doesn't test as well as Chrome currently, but it remains to be seen whether that matters. Both are using WebM now, so video support is a wash. http://html5test.com/
• Have a nice, streamlined interface. Fails so far due to: Awkward tabs (unnecessary repetition of Page title in Menu bar and Tab bar) and terrible placement of url hover. I don't mind the removal of the status bar, but it's been established that URL previews should be at the bottom-left of the screen, where we've become accustomed to seeing them with status bars and Safari/Chrome. That being said, Tab management with lots of tabs in Firefox (having the scroll-function) is superior to Chrome's "make every tab tiny so they all fit in the same window" approach.

Honestly it doesn't have to be a perfect browser, as I'm getting ready to ditch Chrome just on the basis of poor image support and the fact that Firefox is FOSS, through-and-through. Scrolling in Firefox is also much nicer than in Chrome. It's all in the details, and since Firefox is nigh-endlessly customizable through extensions, most of those details can be taken care of. It's just a matter of how soon all those extensions get updated for Firefox 4, and how much drag they're going to put on the browser once everything is just the way you want it.

I sure hope...

[mr_bigmouth_502]

...that the release version of Firefox 4 doesn't have the same shitty interface that the betas did. If it does, I'm going to stick with 3.6.

News?

[AmigaHeretic]

A news story about an announcement that itself is an announcement basically announcing they will be announcing the release of FF4 in a month?
wow

Mod parent

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I could see modding parent "Informative" or just ignoring it, but "Troll?"

Master password on session restore

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it still ask to the master password in x windows at the same time when recovering from a crash?
X = number of pages you had open that requires authentication.