Firefox 4 Beta 9 Out, Now With IndexedDB and Tabs On Titlebar

surveyork writes "''Mozilla today officially released Firefox 4 Beta 9 and it's a big improvement over previous betas and a parsec beyond the Firefox 3.6.x experience. At this stage, after months of development, Mozilla developers are clearly nearing the end of this development marathon.' After Firefox beta 9, a beta 10 and a single RC are scheduled (this road map can change, of course). The main features of Firefox beta 9 are IndexedDB and tabs on titlebar (just like Chrome and Opera). IndexedDB allows sites to store data on your computer (with your prior authorization). Tabs on titlebar is self-explanatory. Old-schoolers can always turn on the 'show menu bar' to get their familiar GUI back. Oh, and Fx beta 9 is fast and starts fast. Firefox beta 9 available here and in lots of official mirrors."

Comments

Status Bar???

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it have a status bar at the bottom?

If not, then it's still EPIC FAIL.

Re:Status Bar???

[Anonymous Coward]

Browsers are going the way of minimizing the amount of space taken up by the user interface and maximizing what's available to the actual content. I think it's a good thing, especially as web pages transition from something like a post board full of stickies to having their OWN user interfaces that look odd next to the browser's. I don't see what's bad about not having a status bar.

Re:Status Bar???

[IB4Student]

Yes, although it's moved to a more logical spot (the URL bar)

Re:Status Bar???

[TigerTime]

So when i mouseover a link, it displays the url it points to in the URL bar and overwrites the current URL? And i have several plugins that display icons in the bottom status bar currently: ForecastFox, Firebug, Greasemonkey, IETab, Delicious, Echofon, Stylish. Where would those be displayed in Firefox 4?

Re:Status Bar???

[siddesu]

Nope, even worse. It shows the current URL, a > and a part of the new one.

There is an "addon bar" for addon stuff, though, you can enable it from the toolbars menu.

Re:Status Bar???

[rudy_wayne]

Does it have a status bar at the bottom?

If not, then it's still EPIC FAIL.

The status bar is gone for good. Why? Because the developers said so, and like many other decisions, they couldn't care less what the users think and apparently have so much free time on their hands that they constantly look for ways to fix things that don't need fixing. Fortunately there's an extension that adds the status bar back in. Of course it's horrendously stupid that you now have to resort to extensions in order to get back things, like the status bar, that have existed in every browser ever made since the beginning of time. The issue here is not resistance to change. The issue here is removing functionality and actually making things less useful.

Fortunately the stupid and pointless "Tabs on Top" and equally stupid and useless big orange Firefox button in place of the normal menu bar are both optional. However, I have a bad feeling about this, given all the other stupid changes they've made, and I wonder how long it be be until they are forced on us and we will have to rely on yet more extensions in order to have a decent browser.

Re:Status Bar???

[Nemyst]

Additional advantage is that it squeezes even more space out of the UI, thus giving you more screen space for what really matters: the website.

Re:Status Bar???

[Wallslide]

Yes, although it's moved to a more logical spot (the URL bar)

When I hover over a link, there's a few things I'm expecting to see. I want to see the protocol, the domain, and finally the end of the link that would have the actual page/file that the link is pointing to. When the status bar is at the top next to the URL, there isn't enough space to display all of those things. I much prefer the status information at the bottom because the available horizontal space is much larger, and there's a better chance I'll be able to see all the info I need. In that sense, I believe locating the status information at the bottom is much more logical.

Re:Status Bar???

[shadowthunder]

I've actually found the lack of the status bar quite nice. I only ever used it to see the target link and change NoScript settings. I'm liking the former being done in the remainder of the location bar, and NoScript is handled well through the context menu.

Re:Status Bar???

[Anonymous Coward]

The status bar is gone for good. Why? Because the developers said so, and like many other decisions, they couldn't care less what the users think and apparently have so much free time on their hands that they constantly look for ways to fix things that don't need fixing.

I am a Firefox dev, and I see what you mean about the status bar - it's definitely controversial. But we definitely do care what users think. If this was a mistake, then it was a mistake made in good intentions, because we thought it would be useful to our users. We're not making a browser for ourselves, but for many millions of people.

Again, I'm not defending this particular decision, of the status bar removal - I am personally not in favor of it.

Overall, though, I truly believe that the features for 4.0 are ones Firefox users like - speed, HTML5 support, stability.

Re:Status Bar???

[digitalchinky]

If LCD manufacturers would actually stop making 1900x600 screens then we wouldn't be having a lack of space for the status bar. (1900x600 was a random resolution plucked from my backside that highlights the stupidity of current low to mid range displays currently available)

Re:Status Bar???

[gfody]

there's already an extension to add the status bar functionality back

Re:Status Bar???

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ignoring the millions of cheap laptops sold each year with 1366x768 resolution. It's a stupid trend but we're in a period where vertical res is shrinking not growing. Even most LCD monitors aren't truly 1080p, an underdeveloped standard.

Re:Status Bar???

[igreaterthanu]

Yes.

Right click the panel in which the address bar sits, Customize, then drag whatever you want (such as Activity Indicator) to the Status Bar, then press OK.

Personally I find the status bar to be annoying and like the new design, however.

Re:Status Bar???

[houghi]

In general it is a good thing. But why not go a bit further. I have the line File/Edit/.../Help and there is a LOT of place right there after that. Perhaps a good place to have the status bar icons from right to left.

Or make it possible to use it for other things. Now it is just a big blank useless emptiness.

Re:Status Bar???

[Soukosa]

If you guys care so much then why not leave in an option to have everything that previous versions had to remain there as they were before? Not just the status bar but also the split home and refresh buttons and non-transparent menu and tab bars. The interface was just fine how it was before. If you want something different yourself then sure, go ahead and add options for it but don't assume your users want the same and force it on to them as well. We should have to be forced to use add-ons for this stuff either, especially considering how many times it been said that too many add-ons are the reason for the slowness and memory bloat problems the browser has.

Re:Status Bar???

[nine-times]

Because the developers said so, and like many other decisions, they couldn't care less what the users think

Or maybe they do care what users think, but not all users agree with you...?

If your complaint were simply, "I don't like the design," then I think I'd say, "fair enough." But you seem to be complaining that the developers are making design decisions about the project, as though it's somehow improper. Like they're supposed to just take a vote on everything, and literally design by committee? But it's not even that, it's more like you think the developers should cede their own tastes and judgement and do things the way you would personally like them to, and if they don't, then they're committing some abusive act.

Developers need to make decisions, and no, sometimes those decisions won't adhere exactly to your personal tastes. If you don't like the decisions, maybe you could get more involved? Or you could help to create a fork somehow? If all the users are really being alienated by these changes, then it should be possible to get a fork going. A lot of people didn't like it when Mozilla dropped the old suite, and so Seamonkey development has been going on this whole time.

Re:Status Bar???

[IB4Student]

My netbook is 1024x600, and having a statusbar blocks crucial links on my homepage. I'd have to scroll down (not as fun when you don't have a scrollwheel)

Re:Status Bar???

[PReDiToR]

Like this?

Menu is TinyMenu, Back/Forward appear and disappear depending on where in the tab's history you are, the "B" is bookmarks. User agent, ABP and a few other useful plugins make FF 3.6 a firm favourite of mine for the foreseeable future.

Re:Status Bar???

[vlueboy]

You were correct until GUI standards changed. Everyone before IE7 has designed a shorter URL bar than the expected status bar's size of near-window-width. We're getting short-changed.

URL bars now give up valuable room for back, refresh, home, our obligatory search bar. It gets worse with site icons, add-to-favorites stars, RSS indicators, down arrows for history, "GO" buttons, Firefox's domain confirmation in green for HTTPS sites... and more importantly uselessly long links like: "http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/15/0238253/Firefox-4-Beta-9-Out-Now-With-IndexedDB-and-Tabs-On-Titlebar" that are made NOT to fit on the URL bar without H-scrolling, let alone on 4:3 screens.

Rarely is a link you're following going to be short enough for this new "logical spot" that is underprepared to handle the job of the original statusbar. I won't complain that much... we got back some vertical space that we lost on widescreens.

Re:Status Bar???

[jjohnson]

Wrong. I'm quite happy to have the status bar gone/relocated.

Re:Status Bar???

[gstoddart]

there's already an extension to add the status bar functionality back

But, why remove it in the first place? For a decade or more, the status bas has been useful to check what that link you are about to click on actually points to. Removing it just opens people up to all sorts of things.

To me, that is kinda like having a mod to my car to add back the rear view mirror. I just don't see why removing it in the first place is 'progress' ... I am beginning to fear Firefox may have jumped the shark.

Which is annoying, because IE still sucks, Safari is annoying, and I can't even begin to care about Chrome.

The last cool innovation in a web browser that I actually found useful was tabs. Quite sad, really.

Re:Status Bar???

[microbee]

Some extensions I installed use the status bar to display, you guessed it, their status.

Could anyone inform me how the hell would that work if the bar is gone???

Re:Status Bar???

[Bill Dog]

I figure after home 3D flops, next they'll introduce home simulated IMAX wrap-around TV, with a 16:1 aspect ratio. Look for 1280 x 80 netbooks.

Re:Status Bar???

[nabsltd]

It appears if you want all the other FF 4 goodness (faster Javascript, etc.), you have to live with some questionable changes to the UI.

Would it have been so hard for the Mozilla developers to just add a config option to pick where the status bar display goes? Pretty much everybody would be happy then.

This is a repeat of the FF 3 "Awesome Bar" disaster, which also could have been averted with a choice for the user in the form of an easy-to-find config option.

Re:Status Bar???

[nabsltd]

Wrong. I'm quite happy to have the status bar gone/relocated.

But, if they left the status bar in place, or gave the user an option for where the status bar should be, that would make you unhappy?

See, the problem is that Firefox has always been the browser that was easiest for the user to configure for "their way", but more and more it's becoming like IE, where the developers make descisions that remove end user choice.

Re:Status Bar???

[devent]

Yes, I miss the status bar. Now it's always something changing at the top and it's really distracting and annoying. I think they have even a little animation in the URL bar, which will get more distracting and annoying.

Why it have to be always with animation? It's only distracting and annoying.

Re:Status Bar???

[Fluffy Bunnies]

I've had my bookmarks toolbar in that big blank emptiness since Firefox 1.X. The UI for doing that change is kind of unintuitive though: first you go to the edit toolbars mode, drag the bookmarks toolbar into the right place, close the edit more, and then deselect the bookmarks toolbar from the View menu (to hide the now empty bar where the bookmarks used to be). But once you do it, it's kind of neat to have your most commonly used bookmarks just one click away.

Re:Status Bar???

[mqduck]

Browsers are going the way of minimizing the amount of space taken up by the user interface and maximizing what's available to the actual content.

When web browsers were new and screen real estate was limited, that might have been a good idea. What the hell is the point of removing functionality to save a dozen or two vertical pixels today?

Re:Status Bar???

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

In general it is a good thing. But why not go a bit further. I have the line File/Edit/.../Help and there is a LOT of place right there after that. Perhaps a good place to have the status bar icons from right to left.

I put the search bar and a couple of plugin icons (adblock, noscript, requestpolicy, cookiesafe) there - just right-click on the empty space, choose customize from the menu and drag the search bar and any other icons up there.

Re:Status Bar???

[adolf]

This is a repeat of the FF 3 "Awesome Bar" disaster, which also could have been averted with a choice for the user in the form of an easy-to-find config option.

Forget easy.

I, for one, would be perfectly pleased if having a functional status bar could be enabled with a difficult-to-find option: Bury it in about:config (using "status" as part of the description, so it can be found with a search), and I'd be pleased as punch.

Call me old and set in my ways, but until the recent Firefox builds I'd been using browsers with the status bar across the bottom for more than 1.5 decades. Even in 1993, when I would borrow a local university VAX dialup account just to use rlogin to connect to a far-away FreeBSD machine where I could run Lynx with my MS-DOS machine running Telemate, I had status at the bottom of the screen, taking up one entire line of screen real estate out of 25.

Rearranging things like this is like rearranging the pedals in a car.

Re:Status Bar???

[Stormtrooper42]

I think this is still a good idea. http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/10/06/1522206/Why-Are-We-Losing-Vertical-Pixels
For example, a few years ago, mid-end 15' laptops screens had 1280x800 pixels, now they're all 1366x768, so saving vertical pixels makes sense.

Re:Status Bar???

[Soul-Burn666]

The link you are about to click on is now written on the right side of the status-bar, which is usually left unused.
Therefore, this functionality is still there.

And if you want to continue the car analogy, it's like removing the rear view mirror and replacing it with a small CCTV like done in many sports cars and trucks.

Re:Status Bar???

[nospam007]

If I need more viewing space, I just press F11.

Re:Status Bar???

[Joce640k]

1) You can hide it with two mouse clicks in the current version.

2) It's impossible to get in the new version.

Which of those options makes any sense to you...?

Re:Status Bar???

[smash]

Then do what safari does and have a fucking tickbox to turn it on/off.

Re:Status Bar???

[Winckle]

Handily you can also do cmd+/ to toggle it.

Re:Status Bar???

[Haeleth]

This is a repeat of the FF 3 "Awesome Bar" disaster, which also could have been averted with a choice for the user in the form of an easy-to-find config option.

The FF3 Awesome Bar "disaster" consisted of a bunch of people who hate change whining about a change. Then after a month or so they got used to it, and after a few more months all but the most hardcore haters were wondering how they ever got by without it.

I know because I was one of them. I may even have complained about it here and demanded a config option. Now I rely on the feature every day. If the Awesome Bar taught me one thing, it is to reserve judgement until I've had a chance to try a feature out properly for myself.

Re:Status Bar???

[Renstar]

The issue with the awesome bar was never the functionality, it was the interface. Without the oldbar plugin, the awesome bar takes up way too much vertical screen space to be useful. The extra whitespace surrounding the URLs in the list was completely unnecessary, ugly, and a pain in the ass. Also, awesome bar was (and still is) a stupid name.

People wouldn't have rebelled as much against a slight change in functionality (as you said, it proved to be useful). But massive UI changes for no real reason are going to cause fits for people as anal retentive as most /. readers.

Re:Status Bar???

[Haeleth]

This COULD have been fixed with a simple config option though. Why that wasn't made available is beyond me.

Translation: "I think the Firefox source code should be made even more bloated, just so that a handful of change haters don't have to install a simple extension."

Really, you think that makes sense?

Re:Status Bar???

[adolf]

Want a better car analogy?

I'm an American. I drove American cars until I picked up a used E36 BMW a few years ago.

Everything is different. The pedals are still in the right order, of course, but from the window switches to the door locks, to the windshield wiper controls, to even the location of the reverse gear on the manual gearbox, it's all different from anything produced in modern America.

But those changes all make sense.

The window switches are located centrally next to the gearshift, which saves on wiring and switches, while also allowing the passenger to operate the four windows, whereas the typical American car has a weird cluster of them on the driver's side door. There is no separate control for power door locks, because one simply isn't needed: You want the doors locked? Just push down on the lock plunger. The wiper controls are simple, located on a stalk to the right of the wheel, and don't require one to remove their hand from the wheel to operate it (just loosen the grip a bit) -- just shove it in the appropriate direction with one's fingers. The reverse gear on the shift pattern is hard left and up, next to first, so you'll never find it by accident when traveling at speed.

The gas filler door locks. The modern American version I'm familiar with involves a cable assembly, which is often finicky, is usually hard to reach, and never in the same spot on different cars. On the BMW, it's simple: If the doors are locked, so is the filler door. If the doors are unlocked, then it is not*. And the filler itself is on the passenger side of the car, so if I were to happen to run out of gas somewhere, I wouldn't be standing with my back to the road as I poured more gas into it, whereas American cars have them wherever they feel like...

These changes are all purposeful, and make operating the car simpler (safer) than the alternatives that I've used.

Moving the status bar to the top? I'm not sure what is gained by doing so.

You're right: I am perfectly capable of adjusting, but only if the changes make sense.

(*: There's a few variations on this depending on whether the doors are double-locked or single-locked, and those variations also make sense, but this post is already quite long enough for a car analogy that nobody will ever read.)

Re:Status Bar???

[A beautiful mind]

Flexibility to different needs and desires is not bloat.

Chrome...

[xTantrum]

I just switched to Chrome from using firefox for the last what 4, 5 years? I gotta say chrome just seems to make sense. not trying to troll just saying.

Re:Chrome...

[Soukosa]

Same here. Was using Firefox since it was Phoenix 0.x and all of these idiotic changes like the removal of the status bar disgusted me so much that it finally pushed me to try another browser. I might be called out as a troll on this too but what's wrong with sharing thoughts on a browser that I used to love to death? It saddens me that the devs feel they have to do things like this rather than fix the much more serious issues the browser has...

Granted on the plus side I can finally use a browser that properly frees up memory after closing a shit load (80+ tabs) at once. So I guess I could thank the thoughtless devs for that! [/troll]

Re:Chrome...

[Johann Lau]

Go back to start and try again when they have a good firebug alternative and an adblocking plugin (not special themes and javascript hacks)

1. Dragonfly (now *you* find me an FF extension that is even just half as good as that one...!)

2. Right click the page, select "block content", click the staff you want blocked and/or enter wildcard patterns for that. I don't get the bit about "special themes", but I sure hope you are aware that firefox add-ons are nothing more than "javascript hacks"? And now Opera has those too by the way ("extensions"). Not that I care, because while I do surf a lot, I simply don't visit sites that are plastered with ads... so the whole "oh ad-blocking is such a must" strikes me as odd. Unless you're into warez or porn of course.

3. Don't even get me started on all the stuff Firefox sucks (or even is a joke) at, which Opera mastered like 5 years ago... not even a contest. "Go back to start" haha? Get a clue...

... in lots of official mirrors

[jackdub]

http://mirror3.mirrors.tds.net/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0b9 hasn't been hammered yet...

I thought the final would be out now.

[harmonise]

I really thought the final release would be out by now. Remember last year when Mozilla said they were moving away from big releases and adopting a fast release cycle with mixed bug fixes and new features? Whatever happened to that plan?

Re:I thought the final would be out now.

[asa]

The plan you're talking about is Mozilla's post Firefox 4 plan.

Re:I thought the final would be out now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember last year when Mozilla said they were moving away from big releases and adopting a fast release cycle with mixed bug fixes and new features? Whatever happened to that plan?

The plan is to do that after 4.0. 4.0 was always planned to be a *big* release, with tons of new features. Post-4.0, they will switch to the model you mentioned, of more rapid and incremental releases, sort of like Chrome.

Tabs on Titlebar Issues

[shadowthunder]

Why is this touted as a feature/benefit? In Windows (7, specifically) when the window is maximized, the tabs are so flush with the top of the screen that it makes Firefox almost unusable for snapping (left, right, or down from top). I understand that pushing the tabs up save pixels - a scarce asset in netbooks - but are five or ten pixels so valuable that it's worth rendering one of the best features of Windows useless?

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues

[asa]

The trade-off is between using Aero Snap, something users do only rarely, and not repeatedly during a browser session, and benefiting from Fitts's Law as you switch between tabs, something users do all the time. The current thinking is that it's better to optimize features for the overwhelmingly common case at the expense of the exceedingly rare case.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues

[hedwards]

You do realize that they let you disable it, right? Probably the easiest way is to right click on the menu bar and uncheck the option for tabs on top. Personally, it isn't something that seems to have changed, but that might just be an XP thing.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues

[arose]

Yeah, just look at awesomebar, people hated it, people still hate it.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues

[shadowthunder]

I do spy the "@mozilla.com" address, so I'll take what you're saying with a grain of salt. I would expect that among Windows 7 users (admittedly, not anywhere near a majority of Firefox users), Aero Snap usage - essential for multitasking, especially with multiple monitors - is quite high. Though I do see your point, Fitt's Law only mentions the width of the target. My issue with using Fitt's Law in support of this change is that you're not going to push then let your mouse glide in a general direction and hope it lands on the target tab; I just don't think it's applicable for that aspect of this situation. Wouldn't it be easier from a user's standpoint to go to the edge of the screen where, instead of landing on a tab, it lands on the small, 5 px space above them, then move the mouse pointer back down a little? According to W3 Schools, the most common resolutions are between 1200 and 1400 pixels wide. With the tabs up against the top of the window (maximized), it takes five tabs open before the entire title bar is filled, leaving no more than five (okay, no measurement was taken, but I'm having a hard time finding _anywhere_) consecutive pixels (horizontally) by which to grab the title bar. Fitt's Law says that you have completely alienated Windows power users (that is, to say Windows 7 users who have a fair number of tabs open) who use one of 7's best features. As time progresses, more people will upgrade to Windows 7 and have increasing numbers of tabs open. When I use Chrome (which, coincidentally, isn't often exactly because of this gripe), I waste more time hunting for slivers of free space in the title bar to drag the window around than I spend in Firefox clicking tabs. As I see it, this change makes it _impossible_ to us one feature under some conditions in order to make it _slightly_ more efficient to perform a standard action. I don't think that's a fair trade-off.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues

[aliquis]

Awesomebar rules. Except when someone else is watching and it puts up all sorts of weird crap which I've visited frequently.

Re:Tabs on Titlebar Issues

[aitan]

Correction: some people hated and still hate it. For the rest is a godsend.

The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to use

[barrkel]

The more it copies Chrome, the less reason there is to use it, and more motivation to switch to Chrome instead.

I don't even use tabs at the top; I use tree-style tabs. Hopefully they'll still work.

In other news, I do like the status bar being visible. The primary reasons I don't use Chrome are the missing menu and status bars.

Confused by Tabs on Top

[harmonise]

One thing that confuses me about tabs on top is that it implies that everything below the tab is associated with that tab. Ok, I get that part. I watched the video by Alex Faaborg and it makes sense.

But I therefore expect that if I rearrange any items below the tab, such as customizing the layout by adding or removing buttons or moving the home button to the right side, or resizing the size of the address bar versus the search bar, that those changes would be limited only to that tab and be sticky for that tab. That doesn't happen and visually it's confusing. All of those elements are grouped underneath the tab and when I switch tabs, the changes are there too. Huh? It's completely counter to what I was expecting and doesn't make sense. The only thing that changes from tab to tab is the text in the address bar.

I would think this would be very important due to the ability to save app tabs. I might want to save an app tab to a specific site and have the navigation toolbar customized a certain way just for that tab.

Note: I'm using beta8 and haven't upgraded yet so maybe this bug has been fixed.

Re:Confused by Tabs on Top

[shadowthunder]

I'll choose to not be an ass in my response, unlike the other two. I think that if I changed the layout of buttons and bars in one tab, then changed tabs and everything moved around again (back to however the new tab had things configured), it would be more confusing. This might make a little more sense for session-persistent app-tabs (I still wouldn't like it, but it would make a little more sense), but it would confuse the hell out of me when I'm switching tabs during a regular session. Also, how often do need to change your tried-and-true, personalized button layout for one site? What would make you do that?

Re:Still busted

[rudy_wayne]

Now up to Firefox 4.0b9 and STILL you can't watch Flash videos with 64-bit Flash on 64-bit Firefox on Mac OS X. It's been two or three betas now since they broke this, and they just refuse to fix it..

In November 2010 they fixed a bug that was originally submitted in November 2000. That's Not a typo. 10 years ago. So just get in line and wait your turn.

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u

[jfengel]

As long as Chrome lacks NoScript, there will continue to be a reason for Firefox. Fix that dealbreaker, and all of the rest is negotiable.

Firefox Portable 4.0 Beta 9 - Easy Way To Try It

[CritterNYC]

As always, we've packaged it for portable use (USB, cloud drive, etc) which also lets you try it out right on your desktop without installing it and impacting your local Firefox install at all.
http://portableapps.com/news/2011-01-14_-_firefox_portable_4.0_beta_9

And it really is noticeably faster than previous released.

Why the need to become other browsers?

[KarlIsNotMyName]

I'm using Firefox because I prefer it over Chrome and such. I don't want the layout changed every major release.

Re:What about those that don't USE titlebars?

[EvanED]

Changing the default behavior is always bad. Always.

If that were true then you'd turn on the computer and get "C:\>" (or "$" as appropriate). Clearly absolutes are not so absolute.

Tabs in the title bar are a disgrace.

[AbRASiON]

What a complete and utter disconnection between summary and data, who the hell made this UI decision?

Seriously now, try to imagine a proper filing cabinet with the files containing the data, only the labels per file are 4" higher than each file, with stuff inbetween obfuscating and disconnecting the information?
Thank christ this stupid, stupid option is able to be disabled.
Furthermore, the status bar being on the address bar - ok I tried to like it, I tried not to be 'backwards' and old fasioned (as I am with classic UI in Windows) but I just can't do it, I like to see a huge, giant URL down the bottom - I want to see the full thing incase it contains something dodgy. I'm a tech, I need to know what I'm clicking - I find it an utterly stupid design decision.

Furthermore the performance is better but hardly sufficient, the performance is the only thing chrome has going for it in my opinion, sorry but I'm not going to bow down and love it just because it's googles product. Firefox has and continues to serve all I need in a browser, even then with a couple of addons ("tabs menu" - "tab mix plus" etc)
I will continue to adjust FF4, FF5, FF6 to look like FF3. (Oh and I'm not too old fasioned, the awesome bar is bloody incredible)

ALL firefox needs, the ONLY thing it needs in my opinion is speed, I have a quad core 64bit machine with 6gb of ram, I browse between 3 and 18 hours a day,.. I absoloutely don't care how much resources my browser takes, I just want the best performance possible, period.
Fuck copying Chrome, ugh - don't latch on to fads which are stupid but popular (see: white plugs on everything after the ipod, see: fucking glossy screens on laptops)

Re:Tabs in the title bar are a disgrace.

[Nemyst]

You're the perfect example of the minority who appears to dislike the new changes. Let me guess, you also hate the Office 2007+ UI, assuming you've ever used it?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but really, the Firefox devs are going by the majority here. I love the new changes - give me as much space as possible for the website, let the browser get the hell out of the way. Tabs on top and no status bar shave off pixels that can be used for the website, the actual content. If they could find a way to combine the search bar without breaking functionality, I'd be happy with that too. You see, in my view it's streamlining the interface as much as possible. Having tabs on top is in fact a more logical layout since it encompasses the URL bar too, which is related to the tab you're on. I'm not even trying to make an analogy because sometimes, guess what, a UI doesn't have to reflect a real-world thing. It can just be the optimal solution to the problem.

The status bar, I don't really see the problem. Unless your URL is some sort of behemoth, you'll see it entirely. If it is in fact THAT long, then it'll cut off the middle section, giving you the really important information anyways: the site's domain and the page you're going to. It's also not there when there's nothing to be shown, which is good - less clutter is good. If you want to see more of the URL, just remove stuff in your main bar. I have the previous button auto-minimize when it's unavailable, I've moved the Home button to the tabs bar, I have the very minimum number of buttons and my search bar is very small, so my URL bar is basically maximized, thus allowing me to see all but the most cumbersome of URLs.

And that's the thing, really: I like the changes. I'm sure I'm not alone. It's probably even that there's an overwhelming majority of people who like the changes. I'm sorry that you don't like the changes, but thankfully the developers are fully aware that there will always be people to whine on any and all change and they make sure an extension can always be built to address this. You can say they could build the extension themselves or incorporate it in the actual build, but I say they have better things to do than to cater to a minority and that building the option in would probably just cause more bloat. Ironically enough, those who complain of the changes also often complain of bloat.

Re:Still busted

[Bueller_007]

64-bit Flash ~is~ better than 32-bit because it's also the only build that's optimized to use the GPU rather than the CPU as part of the "Square" pre-release. But don't let your ignorance prevent you from commenting. Fucknugget.

Kids today don't know how good a res they got

[TheABomb]

You're ignoring the fact that it wasn't all that long ago when 480 pixels was the vertical standard. Hell, I'm not even 30 and I can remember CGA in all its 640×200 glory. So what if the resolution bubble burst and we're finally finding a happy medium? There's still plenty of reason to make an intelligent use of space.

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u

[macshit]

Not really true. There are tons of little detail differences that favor FF over chrome.

It's a good thing that they're copying each others' best ideas; they're both still vastly different implementations, produced by very different teams, with different priorities, and will always have many differences.

Did they fix Firefox's memory gobbling problem?

[Futurepower(R)]

"It saddens me that the devs feel they have to do things like this rather than fix the much more serious issues the browser has..."

Such as... "Granted on the plus side I can finally use a browser that properly frees up memory after closing a shit load (80+ tabs) at once."

Are the memory gobbling instabilities of Firefox fixed in version 4? I have 12 tabs open in 5 windows now in Firefox 3.6.13, and Process Explorer tells me that Firefox is slowly demanding more and more memory, even when I am only watching Process Explorer, and nothing is happening in Firefox.

Eventually, the memory gobbling of Firefox reaches a limit, and Windows XP SP3 becomes very unstable.

I've filed bug several reports about that particular instability of Firefox over about 9 years, but the problem has not been fixed.

Those of use who need to do research on the internet often have many windows and tabs open. That makes the instability in Firefox much worse.

Re:Did they fix Firefox's memory gobbling problem?

[smash]

How about fixing the DHCP proxy auto-detection that even had a patch submitted in 2006?

F.ck Tab Bar API

[Furkan]

So this means that i won't open a new tab with mouse "middle" click by default. Cheers and goodbye.

Re:Tabs on titlebar

[surveyork]

http://userstyles.org/styles/42402 This Stylish style implements tabs on titlebar when window is NOT maximized. I think there's some talk amongst Fx developers about implementing this feature (tabs always on titlebar). Apparently, they worry about leaving some space for dragging the window, that's why they don't put tabs on the titlebar when not maximized. Might be relevant: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572160

Re:Still busted

[surveyork]

The oldest bugs in Mozilla are ~12 years-old (from Netscape times). There are quite a few 11, 10, 9, 8... years-old bugs. A curious case: There was a 2002 or 2003 bug about implementing 'Paste & go' functionality. That bug was abandoned for years, well, with lots of discussion going back and forth. Finally, the bug was closed as won't fix or invalid. Then, the GUI team asked in Reddit about what the users wanted. Paste & go was one of the things they wanted. A few months later, Paste & go was implemented. Now I want to see the faces of all those who argued for years that this feature was not needed/too complicated/etc. Of course, there was at least one extension that added paste and go to Firefox. Thank $DEITY!

Re:Best Feature Not Mentioned

[surveyork]

I mainly use Firefox, but I prefer Opera's tab stacking to Panorama. As parent says, Panorama makes you leave the main browsing interface. I think it's a bolted-on feature and the bugs at bugzilla seem to confirm that suspicion.

It's already easy to hide the status...

[Joce640k]

The status bar can be hidden with two mouse clicks. Were people really having so much trouble with the "View->Status bar" option that the devs needed to take matters into their own hands?

Worse, they knew it was controversial and was going to piss off a lot of people but they did it anyway.

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u

[suv4x4]

As long as Chrome lacks NoScript, there will continue to be a reason for Firefox. Fix that dealbreaker, and all of the rest is negotiable.

It does have a functionality that works EXACTLY like NoScript. Are you guys even trying?

Menu > Options > Under the Hood > Content Settings > JavaScript > Do not allow any site to run JavaScript

Now when you visit a site that needs JS, you have a "JS is needed" little icon right on the address bar. Click it, and you can whitelist that site for now, or for the future as well.

Under the same options dialog above you can do the same for plugins as well, like Flash.

Disagree

[bcore]

I disagree.

Turn your argument on its head: If the controls are above the tabs, that seems to imply that they apply to all tabs. Does that mean that if I click "reload", all tabs should be reloaded? If I enter a new URL, should all tabs go there, since the URL bar is outside the tabs as well?

I would argue that actually interacting with controls is far more important than rearranging them, so their placement should agree with the latter, not the former.

Re:Waste of space

[Renstar]

So the seven of you with a netbook can have an extension or a FF version that optimizes the UI for netbooks. There are more real computers than netbooks; things should be optimized for real computers, and then people can waste their time making extensions to make it usable for netbooks.

Re:The end of Firefox

[Ash-Fox]

If Cairo cannot use Direct2D, it should be extended, rather than modifying Firefox itself to support Direct2D.

Cairo isn't controlled by Firefox developers.

Why was that delayed?

Different priorities, a lot was done.

They're still not using it in Firefox, which makes it the ONLY modern web browser lacking a Javascript JIT engine.

Firefox has had a JIT for a few years now.

What's up with HTML5?

It's a draft and w3c urges against standardizing against the draft. The gap between HTML5 draft support and other browsers isn't really that significant from my observations.

Re:The more it copies Chrome, the less reason to u

[yakumo.unr]

There is a reasonable bit more to NoScript than simply javascript yes/no per domain.

java, flash, silverlight, can be blocked
audio/video, iframe, frame, font-face tags can be blocked
then there is clickjacking prevention and the Application Boundaries Enforcer

(Though some may not be necessary on Chrome I admit I don't know the ins and outs of it's in build security features)