Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 4 Released!

A great number of readers have written in to tell us that Mozilla has officially announced the final, official, Firefox 4.0. Congrats to all the developers who have code in the build. If you want some neat eye candy, you can watch a sweet visualization showing where the downloaders are.

554 comments

  1. Awsome! by viodlos · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Mozilla is doing good job improving Firefox. They hunted down and patched thousands of bugs from Firefox 3. Not only that, they took the succesful look that Opera has and made Firefox look as good as Opera. I wish they would make the interface a little bit snappier, but it's ok! They're also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights! And I hope Mozilla makes the next version as secure as IE9 with its sandboxing and all the extra security features Microsoft has build on Windows 7.

    Good job mozilla!

    1. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope Mozilla makes the next version as secure as IE9

      What a horrible thing to say

    2. Re:Awsome! by tuppe666 · · Score: 0

      Its also an unsubstantiated thing to say, and beyond the scope of most people to prove. Although if you say it enough i5t becomes a truth. What is 100% true is Microsoft are happy to leave 60% of their customers using their old insecure browsers. Some of whom only bought there OS last year.

    3. Re:Awsome! by Desler · · Score: 2

      They're also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights!

      Chrome still supports H.264 as of current versions. Youtube still uses H.264. The Youtube App for Android and iOS still supports H.264 streaming. Google Video still supports H.264. So what rights are they fighting? All I see is Google using VP8 to get all sorts of deals with entertainment companies and hardware manufacturers to make themselves more money.

    4. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hunted down and patched thousands of bugs from Firefox 3.

      Gee, when FF 3 was released wasn't it the greatest thing since sliced bread? Now they tell us...

    5. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Check the timestamp of the newspost and the timestamp of the comment. It's another of Microsoft's poorly-planned astroturfing squad, with a paragraph of text including thinly-veiled praise of their Redmond masters ready to roll the very minute the newspost was made.

      No, not "a few minutes afterward", the amount of time it would take to actually type all that. And not "a one-line response", the amount of text you'd expect to get out between noticing the post and responding. Numerous sentences of text, the same minute of the post. All this BEFORE the usual tool-assisted first post crowd comes in. It's a shill.

      I've heard many times before that Microsoft itself is largely cloistered from the rest of the world, engineers, marketeers, and management alike. They actually DO think this is the best way to spread the gospel of Microsoft, and they actually DO think nobody will notice it.

    6. Re:Awsome! by tomp · · Score: 2

      Have they dumped the awesome bar yet? It makes my browsing more difficult nearly every day.

      What are they going to do next? Replace the menubar with a start button? Oh, wait...

    7. Re:Awsome! by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you know subscribers can see articles in the future?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    8. Re:Awsome! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      According to the download page, the new version includes "even more awesomeness". No word on whether or not the level of suck has decreased.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who was buying XP in 2010? I didn't think you could still buy XP, and anyone who did deserves what's coming to them.

      Yes, Vista was bloated and slow, but 7 has been shipping since October of '09. Windows 7 is objectively better than XP, XP is no longer being sold retail, and so I have no sympathy for people who assume that a 10 year old OS should be as secure as a new one.

    10. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. The awesome bar is NOT awesome.

    11. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are (7) sentences in the parent post, and (0) said anything of significance. Chances that Slashdot was mistaken for a blog by the above poster: extremely high.

    12. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, the tin foil hat he's wearing probably blocked that information out.

    13. Re:Awsome! by melikamp · · Score: 1

      someones have to fight for our rights!

      ??? I fend for myself, and it is remarkably easy. I contribute to software development only if it is FLOSS, and I use non-Free software only if I am absolutely positively sure that it won't bite me in the ass. I don't miss Flash: all you get through proprietary tech is dancing Jesus, cat playing keyboard, and idiotic games that belong back in early 1990-ies. Richard Stallman is onto something when he says: don't use proprietary software. This passive attitude accounts for some 90% of "fighting for our rights".

    14. Re:Awsome! by PNutts · · Score: 2

      What is 100% true is Microsoft are happy to leave 60% of their customers using their old insecure browsers. Some of whom only bought there OS last year.

      Microsoft doesn't want people using their old browsers so their site to persuade people to change must be a decoy? http://www.ie6countdown.com./ And pushing their new browsers via Windows Update unless you take steps to prevent it must be smoke and mirrors?

      Speaking of unsubstantiated, citation please for people who only bought "there" OS last year and are on old insecure browsers?

      And when you talk about moving off IE6, you should start with the app developers... But don't let that get in the way of the fun.

    15. Re:Awsome! by magarity · · Score: 2

      Mozilla is doing good job improving Firefox

      It's OK so far, I guess, but it doesn't have an OMGPonies plugin yet.

    16. Re:Awsome! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Flamebait? Okay, let's try this exercise: I'm going to take his post and change the names of those involved:

      Microsoft is doing good job improving Internet Explorer. They hunted down and patched thousands of bugs from Internet Explorer 8. Not only that, they took the succesful look that Opera has and made Internet Explorer look as good as Opera. I wish they would make the interface a little bit snappier, but it's ok! They're also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights! And I hope Microsoft makes the next version as secure as Firefox with its sandboxing and all the extra security features Mozilla has build on FireFox.

      Please explain to me how this post wouldnt' be considered paid-for-and-bought.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    17. Re:Awsome! by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      I use the awesomebar all the time. Its excellent are finding sites that I have found useful and not thought worth bookmarking. Its a feature I use.

    18. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Firefox (no sandbox) and Chrome (with a sandbox) were the only two browsers that didn't fall during the pwn2own contest this year. That means that Firefox (pre-release version) is more secure than IE9 (release version, with "extra security features").

    19. Re:Awsome! by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Mozilla? Really? Look at the high, freshly registered UID and the weird way he got to praising products that aren't really related to the discussion at all.

      And I hope Mozilla makes the next version as secure as IE9 with its sandboxing and all the extra security features Microsoft has build on Windows 7.

      See divxo et al for more info. Still, it's good that the shills are learning. They are at least trying to emulate what they perceive to be a typical slashdotter's speech. Not that it's working just yet, but they are making some efforts. There are a lot of inconsistencies that they must iron out, though, so they should lurk moar. That's mostly for 4chan, not /., if you're taking notes (which I recommend you do).

      also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights!

      Whle there are some weird people out there, most people who are averse to corporations and patents refrain from phrasing their opinions as if they were five-year-olds. "Evil H.264" just don't cut it as believable material. But it's ok, at least it's an effort. I must point out, though, that if you're against the "big guys", you probably won't gratuitously draw attention to their product being so superior.

      the succesful look that Opera has and made Firefox look as good as Opera

      This was an understandable mistake. But most of us, if we really care enough to keep voicing our opinions about browsers, will pick one or two. I'm yet to see someone describing with such (poorly worded) passion all browsers. If Chrome, Opera, Firefox and IE9 are all so cool and good, I'd expect a "meh, all browsers are pretty competent nowadays", not "hey, Firefox is great, it's now as great as Opera is great, and Google rules because it defies "bad the big guys" and IE9 is so secure WOW so glad to b here guys!". To get a little more believable, how about choosing one browser to focus on as a favorite? Tell us why you use it etc. Make up some stories. It's cool, a lot of people here are doing it right now. Some are even becoming lawyers or war veterans, so retroactively using a software for a couple of days seems comparatively easy. I really wish for the shills to get better. They can still defend a product to their employer's heart's content, but doing so believably would be better for al of us. Not that quality is always necessary to blend in, since the standards aren't that high, but avoiding glaring oversights is, otherwise they'll only blend in with the trolls.

    20. Re:Awsome! by MrHanky · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're stupid.

    21. Re:Awsome! by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      I actually love the awesome bar. I don't bookmark anything anymore.

    22. Re:Awsome! by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      New bugs are better than old bugs.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    23. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome still supports H.264 as of current versions.

      It's planned to be dropped soon but it hasn't yet been.

      Youtube still uses H.264.

      YouTube will likely offer H.264 even after Chrome until most browsers support WebM -- which is perhaps never when recognizing mobile phones.

      The Youtube App for Android

      Android is an operating system so most likely H.264 will never be removed from it. If apps could provide hardware-accelerated decoding (they can't) then the result might be different.

    24. Re:Awsome! by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2

      I didn't say you were paranoid, you must have imagined that.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    25. Re:Awsome! by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

      The original post is actually microsoft astroturfing with a mozilla wrapper. Notice how the comment ends with Microsoft...Windows 7.

      An AC pointed out the timestamp issue, was *corrected*, and others have pointed out this type of behaviour from various posters with IDs in the same general range as the OP.

      Tinfoil hats? I dunno, but the fact that MobileTatsu-NJG's post was modded *Flamebait*, by anyone (though it's certain to be corrected, since it's become OBVIOUS that it's not even remotely fb....) speaks volumes.

      cheers,

    26. Re:Awsome! by tepples · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I contribute to software development only if it is FLOSS [...] I don't miss Flash: all you get through proprietary tech is [...] idiotic games that belong back in early 1990-ies.

      What well-known FLOSS games can you think of that aren't stuck in the Super NES era of game design? Can you think of any that were FLOSS from day one, or whose data files are also free, or both?

    27. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista isn't any more bloated or slow than 7. I've done direct comparisons of the two operating systems and see little performance difference.

      Both are, however, much faster and responsive than XP.

    28. Re:Awsome! by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      OMG! Someone said something positive on /.! It must be a paid shill! Just assume the complement made to IE9 was done as a cover-up and we can continue to be hateful basement-dwellers.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    29. Re:Awsome! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      OMG! Someone said something positive on /.! It must be a paid shill!

      Take a good look at the accusations of 'shill' lately.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    30. Re:Awsome! by Desler · · Score: 1

      So did you have some point to this post? The point is that despite supposedly "fighting for freedom" Google still widely uses H.264. VP8 seems to be nothing more than Google's way to make more money by pushing a video format into home entertainment devices and by being able to more easily monetize WebM videos. It's funny how so many people buy this bogus shit about "freedom" from a corporation who uses little crumbs thrown at the FOSS community in order to placate them whilst bringing in more fists full of money.

    31. Re:Awsome! by compro01 · · Score: 1

      You can change it back to a normal menu bar with 2 clicks. Same applies to the annoying tabs-on-top thing.

      I initially hated the awesome bar, though I've rather grown to like it. I use it as a search function for my bookmarks.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    32. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it may be unsubstantiated just due to IE9 being new, it is true that adding an additional layer of protection to a browser will make that browser more secure. If Mozilla were to undertake the work to use protected mode like the IE team did with IE 7 + and the Google Chrome team did awhile back (I don't know which version)

      How can future Firefox be more secure than current Firefox? One way is to use protected mode. Heck, even Adobe finally did it with Reader X and guess what? No critical security vulnerability in the current crop of bulletins for Reader X. Reader 9 and Flash have a critical vulnerability.

    33. Re:Awsome! by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Who was buying XP in 2010?

      Big financial corporations, like Smith Barney, and Chase Manhattan. In 2010, these companies upgraded a lot of their desktops from old XP desktops, to new XP desktops.

    34. Re:Awsome! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I actually love the awesome bar. I don't bookmark anything anymore.

      What the hell is an awesome bar?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    35. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I think your comment is without merit (Firefox codebase is somewhat more secure than IE codebase) but that is without significance when plugins are not sandboxed. DOM-related bugs aren't exploited nearly so much as plugins are, and NPAPI-Flash is hilariously insecure.

      Firefox on Linux with SELinux/AppArmor is at least as secure as Windows' MIC sandboxing - but the problem here is Firefox on Windows.

      Firefox should just abandon Windows imo - it's too much trouble - but whatever.

    36. Re:Awsome! by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yep, because Microsoft makes a mint off of spending all their time patching old vulnerabilities in software that was paid for 10 years ago. They have no incentive whatsoever to get people to upgrade.

    37. Re:Awsome! by Shikaku · · Score: 0

      Except the FPer isn't a subscriber.

      (But it only takes 1 person if there's an astroturfing campaign anyway)

    38. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the FPer isn't a subscriber.

      Subscribers can choose to hide the asterisk next to their name.

    39. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. "Freedom" (whatever the fuck that means -- thanks for the FUD) < usefulness.

      When Chrome drops H.264 it will hardly impact Chrome users. Only a few websites (YouTube, Vimeo, etc) support H.264; and YouTube is the only website with large viewer numbers.

      YouTube drops H.264 and suddenly it's broken for all IE and Safari viewers, and 99% of mobile viewers.

      Android drops H.264 and suddenly it's broken as an app platform, web platform, and as a home video platform.

      If Google cared foremost about 'freedom' they would drop Flash. Apparently, they care more about how useful their browser is. So instead they are slowly manipulating the future of the web, for better or for worse.

    40. Re:Awsome! by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      But they're all still using IE6! *rollyeyes*

    41. Re:Awsome! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      I initially hated the awesome bar, though I've rather grown to like it. I use it as a search function for my bookmarks.

      Agreed. It's faster for me to hit CTRL+L, then type 'mess' --> Enter, than to go click my slashdot messages link.

      Plus it's great for those articles you read but never bookmark. A couple of keywords later, and you've found it again.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    42. Re:Awsome! by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2

      Subscribers were already mentioned, but the Firehose also shows stories currently in the queue..

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    43. Re:Awsome! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2

      I used to when I was a subscriber. But I've lapsed subscriptions ever since they insisted on Paypal to pay for it. They should go back to credit cards. That said, there's something weird with viodlos. I don't think he's an MS shill simply because I can't believe they'd be so inept. He keeps grabbing first posts and adding in Microsoft references. I think he's just trying to troll or false-flag by pretending to be an MS shill. Though genuine obsessed independent is possible I suppose. It's counter-productive to MS, whatever the reason.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    44. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Chrome drops H.264 it will hardly impact Chrome users. Only a few websites (YouTube, Vimeo, etc) support H.264; and YouTube is the only website with large viewer numbers.

      In case it wasn't obvious (I'm sure someone will point this out) I meant websites supporting H.264 through HTML5 <video>. Many many many more websites do H.264 through Flash.

    45. Re:Awsome! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      What the hell is an awesome bar?

      A ridiculously over the top name for the fact that the Firefox address bar throws in bookmarks as part of it's autocomplete as well as doing some bizarre attempt at predicting what URL you are typing and putting what it thinks is most likely near the top. In my experience, it gets it all wrong and is irritating as Hell.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    46. Re:Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MobileTatsu-NJG might be a sniveling little faggot, but in this case he's right.

    47. Re:Awsome! by melikamp · · Score: 2

      Gee I don't know. I was going to say Warsow, but it actually comes with non-Free art. Anyway, this is exactly my point: the only quality non-Free content is pure entertainment. Its value is entirely subjective. My cat it just as entertaining to me as the best PC game I ever played. We all know people whose idea of ultimate fun time involves running 3 miles per day in an urban environment. Even though we may have to pay monopoly prices for some kinds of entertainment, we are not shut out of any area with actual utility. No one is holding a gun to our head: the very best and the most useful parts of Internet render just fine with Free software.

    48. Re:Awsome! by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Every day, Federal scientists are looking for new ways to kill bugs.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    49. Re:Awsome! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      No one bought Windows XP netbooks in early 2010?

    50. Re:Awsome! by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, the prediction is based on what you actually go for after writing something, so if you write "s" and keep selecting slashdot, you will get slashdot as the first suggestion. I like the awesome bar. It is awesome. (well, actually it's just very good, but close enough). I don't really care about the bookmark suggestions (and I rarely get them), but the matches from history are useful.

      --
      It is what it is.
    51. Re:Awsome! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      What the guy is probably talking about is low rights mode, which is why I'm starting to move my customers AWAY from Firefox to Chromium based Comodo Dragon. I mean for the love of Pete the tech has been out since 2007 and FF STILL doesn't support it? WTH? It didn't seem to take the webkit based any time at all to add support, so what's up?

      And I'm sorry, despite what some of those here say right now it is more dangerous to use FF than IE 9 because without low rights mode FF is running with the same privileges as the user whereas IE 9 is running at the MUCH lower guest privileges. Look at it this way: Everyone made fun of XP because of running as admin, right? And we ALL agree that least privileges for the task are the most secure way, yes? So why would you want the browser which runs untested third party code off the web and is the closest to "bare metal" with the wild and dangerous web, running with higher privileges than necessary?

      So I hope they have added supported for low rights mode, surely after 4 years it should be finished. I also hope they fixed the memory leak issues I've been having on older office machines where FF uses memory when you watch videos and never seems to give it back so after half a day of use it has sucked up ALL the RAM and you have to close and restart. I really hope FF 4 is all that and a bag of chips. Because frankly after all the trouble I've been having with the 3.6.x branch, along with the risk of giving FF to anyone on a modern OS, I've been switching my customers over and so far they are happy.

      I'd rather stick with FF but it is my job to keep them safe, and right now FF doesn't do that and sadly the other poster is right, right now IE 9 is MUCH safer thanks to lower privileges than FF, although I'd rather avoid IE all together and just switch them over to Chromium.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    52. Re:Awsome! by Ares · · Score: 1

      you could still buy windows xp based netbooks as late as q4 2010.

    53. Re:Awsome! by PNutts · · Score: 1

      No argument here, but until about a week ago IE8 was Microsoft's current browser which is compatible with XP. I have to admit I tried a netbook with XP, then one with Vista, and then one with Windows 7 and to use a word: "yikes". So I can't personally verify that those newer netbooks will run IE8 so if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but at some point you have to cut a 10.5 year old OS loose.

      I did sound crabby but I didn't like his tone and I'm still bitter for using XP and IE6/7 for so long because of a couple corporate business critical apps that I didn't use. Deep breaths... Deep breaths...

    54. Re:Awsome! by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      I contribute to software development only if it is FLOSS [...] I don't miss Flash: all you get through proprietary tech is [...] idiotic games that belong back in early 1990-ies.

      What well-known FLOSS games can you think of that aren't stuck in the Super NES era of game design? Can you think of any that were FLOSS from day one, or whose data files are also free, or both?

      I love this post. There are very few games stuck in the Super NES era, although it had some incredible 2D games the like of which we will never see again, but trying to paint FLOSS gaming 2D; 512 × 478 resolution with a maximum 32768 colors is a lie. The Irony is Commercial gaming on a PS has become a poor relation to its console counterpart often limited by what a console can so :). Lets be honest FLOSS gaming is 3D 32bit any resolution. The game I play most at the moment is SuperTuxKart http://supertuxkart.sourceforge.net/ and its my pick simply because its a great genre, and it is a project that is moving and shaking at the moment.

    55. Re:Awsome! by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      What is 100% true is Microsoft are happy to leave 60% of their customers using their old insecure browsers. Some of whom only bought there OS last year.

      Microsoft doesn't want people using their old browsers so their site to persuade people to change must be a decoy? http://www.ie6countdown.com./ And pushing their new browsers via Windows Update unless you take steps to prevent it must be smoke and mirrors?

      Speaking of unsubstantiated, citation please for people who only bought "there" OS last year and are on old insecure browsers?

      And when you talk about moving off IE6, you should start with the app developers... But don't let that get in the way of the fun.

      I'm taking about IE6/IE7/IE8 and will soon be taking IE9. The way you could tell is that I referring to the 60% market share it has currently. Do you really need a citation when you have market figures. Most people have there computers for five years, most of those 60% will be machines bought in those past five years. I don't talk about IE6 ever being a problem. I might talk about bundling a browser and making inseparable from the OS, or being dependent on Microsoft technology instead of Open Standards. I clicked a button and have Firefox installed...and can remove and replace it with a couple of clicks. XP users can't do that.

    56. Re:Awsome! by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      It's OK so far, I guess, but it doesn't have an OMGPonies plugin yet.

      But it does have a Side Saddle plugin. Is that close enough?

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    57. Re:Awsome! by smash · · Score: 1

      Why abandon the dominant desktop OS when it provides sandboxing features that other apps can and do make use of?

      I mean if you want to marginalise your browser and kill your market share, fine - but otherwise that idea would be stupid.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    58. Re:Awsome! by arose · · Score: 1

      I don't really have a problem with non-free game art. If the source code is available you will be able to play the game as long as there is someone to adjust things for newer systems, and playability is the main utility of a game. Furthermore, additions generally get a free pass, so even a game with non-free assets can evolve.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    59. Re:Awsome! by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Hell, I don't even have a problem with non-free game code, as long as I run it on a dedicated piece of hardware (like a console), completely isolated from any computing that actually matters. It's only a toy.

    60. Re:Awsome! by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you're flaming because you find the new Firefox good and are pointing out some stuff. Oh, Slashdot...

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  2. Slow! by avij · · Score: 2

    I just downloaded and installed FF4, and unlike what I had expected from the new version, FF4 is actually noticeably slower on most websites, including Slashdot :-/

    --

    Follow your Euro bills at EBT
    1. Re:Slow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just downloaded and installed FF4, and unlike what I had expected from the new version, FF4 is actually noticeably slower on most websites, including Slashdot :-/

      Performance: Firefox is up to six times faster than the previous release. With improved start-up and page load times, speedy Web app performance and hardware accelerated graphics, Firefox is optimized for rich, interactive websites.

      I think I see the problem here..

    2. Re:Slow! by Raxxon · · Score: 2

      Compared to 3.6.15 I'm not seeing any slowness... Everything appears to be working ok speed-wise so far....

    3. Re:Slow! by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's a feature.

      Everyone and their mother is coming out with faster web browsers. IE9 boasts increased performance. Chrome has been blowing away the competition with its blazing fast Javascript engine.

      No one is coming out with a browser that takes its time. Until now. FF4 takes the concept of performance and turns it on its head.

      Aren't you tired of websites that instantly display? Don't you like reading your favorite site leisurely? What if you could have that plus random crashes and uncontrollable memory leaks?

      What would you pay for something like that? Would you pay $100 for software of that quality? What if I told you that you could have all this and more for the low, low price of $59.95?

      That's right! A slow browser, massive memory leaks, and random crashes in your computer today for only $59.95!

      If you act now, I'll throw in a set of plug-ins that will turn your modern day CPU into the legacy system of yesteryear!

      Firefox 4! Bring computing back to the speed of life.

      Call now. Operators are standing by.

    4. Re:Slow! by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

      I saw improvements on my Vista-Firefox4 install when I updated that not long ago. The Mac version feels generally better as well, and I've been using this one since mid beta as FF3 was starting to hog down. Obviously YMMV but at the moment it feels fairly smooth for me.

    5. Re:Slow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hah you actually paid 59.95 for yours? I got my memory leaks and crashes free from Microsoft.

    6. Re:Slow! by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      Wow. I noticed the opposite, and it seems to be the opposite of every benchmark posted everywhere on the net. In fact the major gain I have seen is not so much downloading sites is the the smooth scrolling at least on Linux. If you want to download speeds. I would suggest using the Auto Pager plug-in which aggregates sites split over several pages into one.

    7. Re:Slow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> noticeably slower on most websites

      Firefox Four

      FFF

      FFFFFFFffffffffuuuuuuu!!!!

    8. Re:Slow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's time to upgrade your old Cyrix 6x86.

    9. Re:Slow! by magarity · · Score: 1

      Firefox is optimized for rich, interactive websites.

      Like this one?
      http://www.wenxuecity.com/

    10. Re:Slow! by idealego · · Score: 1

      Try it with a fresh profile.

      If that fixes it then it obviously has something do with your extensions or something else in the profile.

      If that does not fix it then try turning off hardware acceleration and see if that helps (options->advanced->general). I'm not sure what else to suggest right now, as I just started playing with it. It's certainly quicker on my system, and all the reviews indicate that it should be significantly faster.

    11. Re:Slow! by arth1 · · Score: 2

      FF4 in Fedora x64 here. Scrolling is jerky, ajax elements take forever to update and sometimes bug out because they're out of order (I know, the web devs should make no assumptions that a script at the top of the page gets to execute before the last element is loaded, but I don't control all web developers world wide), and it gobbles up memory like crazy. 2 GB out of my 8? Wot? I'd rather use that for disk cache than web cache, thank you.

      I'm going back to 3.6.15, because this was an absolute letdown, and a knee-jerk release triggered by yesterday's IE9 release (in which case the browser actually IS leaner and faster).

    12. Re:Slow! by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      up to != at least

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    13. Re:Slow! by avij · · Score: 1

      Yes, I just noticed that disabling hardware acceleration helped significantly. I picked a random Slashdot news article and scrolled from top to bottom, keeping the down arrow pressed down. With hardware "acceleration" enabled, it took 22 seconds. Without it, 9 seconds. A very unscientific benchmark for sure, but it reflects the impression I got. Without the hardware acceleration the speed seems to be about the same as with older FF3.

      After getting disappointed by FF4, I installed Chrome. It seems even a bit snappier than any of the FF versions I've used.

      I'm using a Nokia Booklet 3G laptop with Win7. Granted, it's not a particularly fast computer, but it has been sufficient for my web browsing needs with FF3. My main gripe with FF4 is that if the browser is indeed slower with hardware acceleration enabled, FF4 shouldn't enable it by default. Yes, technically enabled folks can tweak the settings to make the browser faster, but tweaking the settings SHOULDN'T be necessary for the average user.

      --

      Follow your Euro bills at EBT
    14. Re:Slow! by jorgevillalobos · · Score: 2

      I'm going back to 3.6.15, because this was an absolute letdown, and a knee-jerk release triggered by yesterday's IE9 release (in which case the browser actually IS leaner and faster).

      Actually, the release date was planned well ahead of today, and it was released because there were no more blocker bugs.

    15. Re:Slow! by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      Okay, but might that have something to do with the fact that once it's cached, it's a mite quicker to load the next time?

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    16. Re:Slow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you try IE9 on your rinky-dinky little Fedora?

    17. Re:Slow! by avij · · Score: 1

      No, it's not related to caching. I actually tried this multiple times and the results were repeatable.

      --

      Follow your Euro bills at EBT
    18. Re:Slow! by _xeno_ · · Score: 2

      No kidding. Firefox 3.6.15 was using 160MB and 10% CPU to display a set of tabs and just sit there otherwise doing nothing.

      Update to Firefox 4.0, and it's now using 280MB and 6% CPU to display the exact same tabs and just sit there otherwise doing nothing.

      That's a step in a direction, I guess - it's nice it takes less CPU time to do nothing than before, but...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    19. Re:Slow! by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I'm running it right now (in order to access an internal site).
      VMware + Windows 7 + IE9 uses less memory than a native FF4 which has been running for a few hours. That's rather sad.

    20. Re:Slow! by guanxi · · Score: 1

      I've been using the beta for awhile, and from the moment I installed it it seemed significantly faster to me, and to most people:
      http://input.mozilla.com/en-US/release/

      And there is plenty of data to support it:
      http://arewefastyet.com/?a=b&view=breakdown

    21. Re:Slow! by Xest · · Score: 1

      I've been critical of FF for becoming less stable, slower and more of a memory hog getting worse with each release since FF1.5 / FF2.0.

      Whilst I can't talk of stability because, well, I've only just installed it, and can't talk of memory usage yet for the same reason, it is certainly noticably faster.

      Maybe it's the hardware accelleration, I'm not sure, but my god, at least it's fast now and not the painful slow piece of crap it's become in recent years.

      The default UI was horrendous to look at, but you can de-bastardise it thank god, now I've found the options for that it gets a big thumbs up from me so far. They finally seem to have improved the browser noticably, rather than continued it's decline.

    22. Re:Slow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I found load time to be a little faster, and once loaded it's definitely as good at most tasks and a lot faster at rendering.

      The biggest problem I can see is that they have gone live with the font rendering issue. As I understand it, this is actually a problem with rendering fonts using DirectX acceleration in Windows (suprise) and there isn't much they can do about it. Unfortunately I can see a lot of criticism headed their way for people who immediately upgrade :.

    23. Re:Slow! by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2

      I think you'll find they own your soul. You did _read_ the EULA right?

    24. Re:Slow! by Teun · · Score: 1
      I notice that the latest Minefield 4.0b13pre is notably quicker than Firefox 4.0, in the last scrolling is very jerky.

      That's on Kubuntu 32bit.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    25. Re:Slow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. I can't speak for the competitiveness of FF4 to other browsers, but I noticed it was much faster as soon as I installed the beta. Memory usage seems more or less unaffected as far as I can tell.
      Page rendering is much faster. I can now run complex javascript apps in it (lemmings!!). Not only that, but the browser components seem much faster than before. Closing tabs or opening them are noticeable, and moving tabs to a completely new window is leagues faster than with firefox 3.6

      I have no clue what everyone else in this thread is complaining about. I have it installed on two computers, one is XP with 1GB of RAM and another is Vista with 2GB of RAM.

    26. Re:Slow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also skanky in that a lot of features are removed. Tool bars are missing tabs don't work right, none of my add ons work, plugins act psychotic.

    27. Re:Slow! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Just because they came preinstalled on your computer, doesn't mean they were free.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    28. Re:Slow! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Damn skippy.

      I got time to core my apple with my pen-knife, now.

      Used to go starving til half-past quittin' time afore.

      And I shaved today! H'ain't done that since IE6 was all I had.

      I wonder what my lawn looks like...

    29. Re:Slow! by JustinRLynn · · Score: 1

      Does it come with Reversi? Also, can it be downloaded from Nebraska?

    30. Re:Slow! by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that FF4 is using over a gig of RAM (what my Win7 + IE9 VM uses).

    31. Re:Slow! by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Failure is not an option, it comes bundles with your Microsoft product.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    32. Re:Slow! by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

      This has been discussed and well documented. Firefox will gobble RAM when it has a chance, but it also does a good job of freeing up that RAM in tight environments. If you've got 4 gigs of RAM free, it's going to use it. Why shouldn't it. I've never understood while people get mad when programs use the RAM they paid for :D.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    33. Re:Slow! by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      And because Firefox does that, I can't use it and anything else at the same time. I'm stuck either running Firefox, or using the computer as a multitasking computer.

      Now I will admit that the computer in question is almost three years old, an antique in computing terms, but come on. It has 2GB of RAM, and that's simply not enough to use Firefox in. So I use Chrome instead, which doesn't eat up all my free memory.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    34. Re:Slow! by gullevek · · Score: 1

      And when is this magic memory free up happening? Is it normal that FF uses 1.6GB of ram after 9 hours of ustream? And not clean this up after you close the tab? FF memory usage is the worst of them all, right after Safari.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    35. Re:Slow! by pclminion · · Score: 1

      This has been discussed and well documented. Firefox will gobble RAM when it has a chance, but it also does a good job of freeing up that RAM in tight environments. If you've got 4 gigs of RAM free, it's going to use it. Why shouldn't it.

      Let's distinguish here between RAM and address space. There's nothing wrong with filling most of your address space with cached data -- the OS will just swap out any rarely-used pages if it has to. But actively using all available RAM is not being a good citizen on a multitasking machine. So long as you're not always touching pages that you don't need to be touching, the OS can do its job and swap out pages on an LRU basis. But if you're needlessly hitting those pages and freshening them, the OS will prioritize your pages over the pages of other processes, even if you don't really need that RAM as badly as somebody else might.

      It's possible that Firefox does something that's reasonable, but that's something I'm going to study empirically rather than give hand-waving arguments, now that it's officially out.

    36. Re:Slow! by smash · · Score: 1

      I've been critical of FF for becoming less stable, slower and more of a memory hog getting worse with each release since FF1.5 / FF2.0.

      Here here! I'm not sure what happened between 2.0 (the last released I found to be preferable to the alternatives of the day) and now, but its been going backwards in stability, and UI responsiveness at a vast rate of knots in my subjective experience. or maybe I'm simply becoming less tolerant and the opposition is getting better.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    37. Re:Slow! by Xest · · Score: 1

      I think it's the former rather than the latter. I have an old XP PC in my spare room I only ever use for web browsing now and then. The only thing that's changed over the years is that I've updated Firefox each time a new update has come out, and pre-FF4, it has slowly become completely unusuable to the point around 3.5 I just gave up and stuck Chrome on which works fine. No extensions were even installed.

    38. Re:Slow! by jace_d · · Score: 1

      Sir, I do believe you're talking out of your ass. it runs very well alongside other programs on my laptop which has 1GB Ram.

    39. Re:Slow! by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If you've got 4 gigs of RAM free, it's going to use it. Why shouldn't it.

      Because the system already puts free RAM to use as file system cache. Which is far more important to me than web cache.
      Using any memory you see as "free" because it's there is only going to be a good thing in a single-user single-tasking environment.

    40. Re:Slow! by alexo · · Score: 1

      I have to restart FF every couple of days with memory usage above 1GB (on WinXP) since when it reaches 1.5GB it locks completely.

  3. Re:not the only release of the day! by HermMunster · · Score: 0

    I have a friend like you. Way overboard when it comes to politics and religion, unreasonable, outspoken, nonsensical most of the time, and extreme. Just have to keep him out of political and religious discussions.

    On most other topics he's a pretty good guy.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  4. Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Sadly, delicious has become indispensible to my online life and their add-on is only compatible with Firefox 3.0 - 4.0b3pre

    I guess the latest UI changes in the later 4betas threw them for a loop. If anyone knows the status of that add-on
    maybe give an update. Is there still a team working on it, given the shake-up a while back?

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by noahm · · Score: 2

      The latest rumors are that delicious is being sold, possibly to StumbledUpon. Unfortunately, given the lack of support that delicious gets internally at yahoo and the amount of time it takes for sales like this to happen, I suspect that third-party add-ons will come before anything official. It's unfortunate, because delicious is a really useful service and hard to live without. I've made myself do so with firefox 4, largely due to the uncertainty about its future.

    2. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by cixelsyd · · Score: 1

      Delicious works if you install the Add-on Compatibility Reporter and enable it there.
      I am currently using it on the release version and have been using it on RC1 and RC2 for some time. I haven't noticed any glitches yet.

      --
      Take a dollar, divide it by 100, take two and call me in the morning.
    3. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      The reason why delicious add-ons are not available is not because of Firefox, but because of Yahoo! they have announced that delicious is closing so developers are unsurprisingly are not updating there plug-ins. I suggest you look at the vast array of add-ons for sites that are not closing down that offer similar functionality.

    4. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by noahm · · Score: 1

      Yahoo, although they thoroughly mis-managed all sorts of stuff related to delicious, never announced that delicious is getting shut down. They have, however, laid off a bunch of employees from the project and are apparently looking to sell it. While the future is uncertain, there's plenty of reason to expect that delicious will survive, and hopefully thrive, under somebody else's umbrella.

    5. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by izblah · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you tried creating a new bool in Firefox's "about:config" ? - Navigate to the following page: about:config - Tell Firefox you'll be careful - Right click in empty white-space and select New -> Boolean from the context menu - Enter the following for the new value: extensions.checkCompatibility.4.0 - Set it to False - Restart Firefox... All of my extensions have worked no prob using this work-around. Until the add-on devs update their wares, this should suffice...

    6. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 0

      >>>It's unfortunate, because delicious is a really useful service and hard to live without

      Since we're discussing addons, anyone know where I can find a Youtube-to-MP3 converter? The one I had no longer functions, and I haven't been able to find a replacement.

      --
      FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    7. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by Avuserow · · Score: 1

      I use youtube-dl and ffmpeg. (Sadly, youtube-dl is shared by many projects. I found this one in the Fedora repos and it works well for my use.)

    8. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because simple declaring that something is compatible, makes it so.

    9. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only I had read the man page...

    10. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      Just like declaring it incompatible makes it so. The Firefox add-on compatibility scheme leaves much to be desired. I remembering maintaining an add-on that worked fine on Firefox 2+ (including the Firefox 4 alphas) but each time Mozilla released a new version we had to update the XML to add the latest version.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    11. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, delicious has become indispensible to my online life and their add-on is only compatible with Firefox 3.0 - 4.0b3pre

      I guess the latest UI changes in the later 4betas threw them for a loop. If anyone knows the status of that add-on
      maybe give an update. Is there still a team working on it, given the shake-up a while back?

      Try scuttle.

    12. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by ikirudennis · · Score: 1

      I've been using the betas for a little while and tried to use the delicious add-on while disabling the compatibility check. It would work for a while and then start dumping lots of messages to syslog, jamming up the firefox process so that nothing would load. I posted to the delicious add-on's forum about this issue but have had no response from support yet. You're correct, changing the setting in about config should suffice, but in this case it does not.

    13. Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works by izblah · · Score: 1

      Almost correct, Mr. Douche... But you must realize, not "simply declaring that something is compatible ,makes it so", but rather - declaring it so makes it work until the devs update their wares...

  5. Just becasue my Karma is BAD does not mean by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

    That I will agree with you. The last update from 3.xx broke stuff that was not broken.
    End of story.

  6. Still got issues.... by Raxxon · · Score: 2

    RC1 had an issue with Menu Display. Seemed to be constrained to the application being open on the secondary monitor.

    Release has the same bug, toned down a bit. At least now I can see the menu a bit before it vanishes.... But it's still an annoying bug.

    1. Re:Still got issues.... by bartok · · Score: 1

      I had some GUI issues when I used it with my FF3.6 profile. I created a new profile and imported the old one's bookmarks and everything worked.

      To create a new profile, run it from the command line like this:

      C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe -profilemanager

    2. Re:Still got issues.... by Raxxon · · Score: 1

      That appears to have cleared it up, of course I've now lost a few years of profile data as a result. ;)

      Ah well. I guess this will finally teach me to use bookmarks "like everyone else" instead of relying on the history functions to pull up my common websites by partial name..... Crap. Now I get to start the folders that I escaped from back in '99 again. ;)

    3. Re:Still got issues.... by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      That data can be copied in to a new profile. I'm pretty sure.

      http://kb.mozillazine.org/Transferring_data_to_a_new_profile_-_Firefox

      That is for FF3, but may still hold true. Worth a try, anyway.

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    4. Re:Still got issues.... by Raxxon · · Score: 1

      Not that it matters much. 15 minutes after I thought the problem had been fixed, it was back. Why it worked for 15 minutes I'm not sure, but that's more experimentation for later on..... :|

    5. Re:Still got issues.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have they fixed the memory leaks, yet? That fucking program leaks like a sieve.

  7. Yes download now for all the latest security holes by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Which will take them 6 months to fix as they concentrate on pleasing the Oooh shiny! crowd with ever more useless bells and whistles.

    Cynic? Moi?

  8. Thanks Mozilla! by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

    You support my intranet worse than Firefox 3! Good work!

    1. Re:Thanks Mozilla! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Troll

      My understanding was that the browser's job was to render code as required by standards, and the sites responsibility was to not suck and implement those standards.

      Guess where the failure here is?

    2. Re:Thanks Mozilla! by tepples · · Score: 2

      How well does your intranet do on the HTML and CSS validators?

    3. Re:Thanks Mozilla! by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, VMware remote console plugin was disabled by ff4, with no way to enable it, which means I can't do my work.
      Not an option.

    4. Re:Thanks Mozilla! by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      See upthread: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2049060&cid=35576354

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    5. Re:Thanks Mozilla! by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Want to give the Add-on compatibility report a try?

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    6. Re:Thanks Mozilla! by smash · · Score: 1

      Back in real life, people want a browser to render the content they require to get shit done. If it can't do that, then it fails - irrespective of shiny support for new unused standard X.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    7. Re:Thanks Mozilla! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It takes some nerve to have a browser that works with 99% of the world, comes to your poorly implemented site and fails, and then say "its the browsers fault".

      I wonder if the website coder has tried telling his boss that thats why a portion of internet users cant use their site? Think he would buy it?

  9. This is good news! by aBaldrich · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The visualization at http://glow.mozilla.org/ is really nice, and I like the fact that there are over 120 downloads every second!
    By the way, my firefox updated automatically, does anybody know if it counted as a download?

    --
    In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    1. Re:This is good news! by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

      Oh that's rather pretty, and neat too.

    2. Re:This is good news! by psyclone · · Score: 1

      Click the [?] button at the top of the link you just posted.

      TL;DR : Yes, upgrades / auto-updates count as downloads.

    3. Re:This is good news! by kaychoro · · Score: 1
      On my laptop:
      • IE9 renders the dots on the world map smoother than Firefox 4, but messes up the map it's all stretched and funny looking.
      • Chrome renders the dots smoother than Firefox 4, but has semi-transparent artifacts remaining over the spiral graph image and slows down significantly when you hover over the bar graph.
      • I'd prefer to avoid Opera and Safari altogether.

      How's that for new browser standards compliance?

      --
      //TODO: create a signature
    4. Re:This is good news! by the_womble · · Score: 0

      If its WIndows using FF's own update mechanism, probably yes.

      If its Linux from a repo, probably not.

      The fact that I got the update before Firefox reported it tells me all I want to know about:

      1) How fast the PCLinuxOS packagers get stuff done.
      2) How long it takes Slashdot editors to get a paragraph on to a website,

    5. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it presumed that a person = an ip or does each computer that gets updated count?

    6. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine got upgraded via the package in my distro. Wonder if and when that info will make its way back to the red dinosaur.

    7. Re:This is good news! by hufter · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that glow is something incredibly cool. Kind of shows where the world's computers are. I think I'll look at it for a while again after writing this reply, Congrats Mozilla folks too!

    8. Re:This is good news! by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 1

      >>>I'd prefer to avoid Opera and Safari altogether.

      Ooo a challenge. (loads opera). Opera 11 rendered the map perfectly. It looked identical to Firefox, but with the added bonus of being able to "erase this site's cookies" after I was done. (And only load cached images to speed browsing on slow connections.)

      Seamonkey 2.1 also rendered the map perfectly.

      Safari browser is on my Mac and will just have to wait 'til I get home.

      --
      FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    9. Re:This is good news! by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 0

      P.S.

      I found it interesting that people were downloading Firefox in Russia's Siberia and Canada's northwest territories. I didn't think they had internet reaching-out to those distant (cold) isolated regions. Maybe they're using satellite or dialup.

      I also thought it surprising that Japan shows very few downloads. I would expect tech-saavy japanese to be grabbing the new "toy" as quickly as possible.

         

      --
      FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    10. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also thought it surprising that Japan shows very few downloads. I would expect tech-saavy japanese to be grabbing the new "toy" as quickly as possible.

      Give it some time, it's between 3 and 4 in the morning there.

    11. Re:This is good news! by psyclone · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure they're only counting updates (each computer, virtual machine, usb run FF instance, etc.) not humans.

    12. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That counter is bogus. Hit refresh and notice the number goes down.

    13. Re:This is good news! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      What's more amazing is that if you stare at it there are two very small islands to the south of either side of Hawaii. I think the right one is Christmas Island.

      Christmas Island is flashing about twice a minute if you stare at it. It only has around 1500 people last time I checked. Apparently they all use Firefox.

      I also saw a download in the Amazon too.

      A part of me is a little skeptical about that display with Christmas Island flashing nearly twice a minute.

    14. Re:This is good news! by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      I also thought it surprising that Japan shows very few downloads. I would expect tech-saavy japanese to be grabbing the new "toy" as quickly as possible.

      Yeah, I'm sure all those nuclear plant workers were dying (no pun intended) to download the latest web browser as soon as possible.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    15. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some unexpected data as well. Second largest downloader in Europe is Russia, and Alfred, New York (population ~10k) has over 125,000 downloads. (!?)

    16. Re:This is good news! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Updated automatically? Are you saying Mozilla forced you without asking? What the frak?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    17. Re:This is good news! by dstyle5 · · Score: 1

      Pretty neat how you can drill down in each territory to see how many downloads came from each town, city, etc. Even tiny towns in Saskatchewan show up. Makes it easier for the IE police to find you in a small town though.

    18. Re:This is good news! by metalgamer84 · · Score: 1

      Really dude? Pretty sure they have other things on their minds right now.

    19. Re:This is good news! by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Bah. In 1994 they had freaking cannon shots for each download: www.jwz.org/gruntle/nscpdorm.html (scroll down to the last entry).

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    20. Re:This is good news! by dominious · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of activity in Europe right now (it is about 11pm). Many people must be opening their browser for their regular porn...

      Just sayin

    21. Re:This is good news! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      By the way, my firefox updated automatically, does anybody know if it counted as a download?

      Well, the little ping appeared over your house on the map, so I assume it did.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    22. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure all those nuclear plant workers were dying (no pun intended) to download the latest web browser as soon as possible.

      Yes, a story will run on the news networks in a few months, according to my future self's time machine:

      "In other news, forensic investigators located several dozen emergency plant workers' bodies piled in front of a now-dead, dusty CRT monitor that kept running weeks after their deaths and broken down before their next of kin and the government could mount a rescue operation for their now-radioactive remains. Monitor burn-in has left a ghostly glimpse of the last browser screen their PC loaded moments before the surrounding nuclear radiation absorption surpased lethal amounts.

      Our journalists reached the forensic team and found the contents: a popular search engine listing the keywords how-to radiation cures. Just an hour ago, they discovered a weaker, secondary image chemically imprinted on the same screens due to burn-in. Experts have reasoned that plant workers were frantically switching --unsuccessfully-- between the Google search page and a mysterious error message.

      Mozilla foundation download timestamps and hard drive forensic analysts are confirming that the unfortunate plant workers did download the newly released 4th version of the firefox browser in their last hours of life. The secondary burn-in is an error considered a staple of Firefox versions newer than 2.0 that the dead plant workers hoped were rolled back. It wasn't, so they could not complete their web search to save their lives. For the technically inclined, the text reads 'The certificate is not trusted because it is self signed'. "

    23. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm watching the downloads in Internet Explorer, lol

    24. Re:This is good news! by MidoriKid · · Score: 1

      Click on the little question mark. You get the following:

      glow.mozilla.org tracks downloads for Firefox 4. When someone clicks the download button on mozilla.com or asks for an upgrade from inside Firefox, we approximate their location based on IP address and store anonymous aggregate location information in our database.

    25. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to http://glow.mozilla.org/, it does count:

      glow.mozilla.org tracks downloads for Firefox 4. When someone clicks the download button on mozilla.com or asks for an upgrade from inside Firefox, we approximate their location based on IP address and store anonymous aggregate location information in our database.

    26. Re:This is good news! by smash · · Score: 1

      Your geography fails - christmas island is in the indian ocean.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    27. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to glow.mozilla.org a update does count.

    28. Re:This is good news! by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      i like watching for dots that go off in remote locations. So far i've seen the canary islands, hawaii, siberia and greenland. No antartica yet.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  10. extensions? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    Have they caught up yet? A few weeks ago half my extensions didn't work so I reverted.

    Also, have they dropped the pretence of being a Foundation yet?

    1. Re:extensions? by dreemernj · · Score: 1

      There is no pretence. Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization. It owns Mozilla Corporation, which is a for-profit corporation.

      It is not unusual for non-profits to own for-profits. The important thing is that the money that goes to the for-profit goes towards fundraising for the non-profit and/or working towards the underlying goals of the non-profit.

      If you look at the stated goals of the Mozilla Foundation, Mozilla Corp is clearly working towards them.

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    2. Re:extensions? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      It makes no ethical sense (except in the eyes of the tax avoiders) for a non-profit to have a profit-making subsidiary. If there are no stakeholders who stand to gain personally then your whole organisation is non-profit, and you have no need for a profit-making subsidiary.

      You can't ethically argue ringfencing off some activity and saying "well, all the money's being reinvested right here so it's a non-profit part". Otherwise Microsoft Research could just become the non-profit Microsoft Foundation, bringing in the rest of Microsoft as a subsidiary. The non-profit arm is used to "fundraise" and market Microsoft products (for the good of the world!), while the profit-making arm engages in regular business activities and piles money into the non-profit.

    3. Re:extensions? by jorgevillalobos · · Score: 2

      Have they caught up yet? A few weeks ago half my extensions didn't work so I reverted.

      Most popular extensions have caught up. The Compatibility Dashboard has more details. However, we can't force all developers to update and inevitably some add-ons will lag behind or be abandoned.

    4. Re:extensions? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Of course, the Mozilla Corporation has to pay taxes, it can't use the Foundation as a shelter.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:extensions? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      So the marketing work the Foundation does for the Corporation is taxable?

    6. Re:extensions? by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'm just pointing out that you have drawn your fences in the wrong places, the tax status of the foundation won't have much impact for the corporation.

      As far as I can see, the corporation pays taxes on income because that is less hassle than doing the accounting that would be required to recognize the income with the foundation. Notice how that doesn't actually avoid any taxes, it just keeps the income at arms reach from the foundation, which probably keeps their accounting simpler.

      No doubt, the people that talked AOL into creating a foundation have done very nicely for themselves, but it isn't real clear that they are messing around trying to avoid corporate taxes, or whatever.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:extensions? by dreemernj · · Score: 1

      What marketing does the Foundation do for the Corporation? Keep in mind what the corporation is. It is the arm that produces and markets Firefox and the other software. Firefox.com is operated by the Corporation. All of the marketing I've seen regarding any of the pieces of software the corporation produces has been from the corporation as far as I have been able to tell.

      The Foundation focuses on the overarching mission. And it does so with a relatively small team. I believe there are fewer than 20 employees of Mozilla Foundation. There is a board of directors that cannot benefit financially from their position with it (well they can but they then have to pay an excise tax I think). The rest of Mozilla is for-profit. And it has to pay taxes like any other corporation. Last I checked, the staff of the foundation are split pretty evenly between maintainers of the Mozilla Foundation website, standard non-profit fundraising positions, and managers of the Drumbeat program.

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    8. Re:extensions? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      It makes no ethical sense (except in the eyes of the tax avoiders) for a non-profit to have a profit-making subsidiary. If there are no stakeholders who stand to gain personally then your whole organisation is non-profit, and you have no need for a profit-making subsidiary.

      As others have responded, likely this is not a tax avoidance...the for profit section pays taxes.

      But really, you seem to imply that tax avoidance, or as I like to call it, "taking advantage of the legal ways to keep your own hard earned money"...is somehow unethical or bad???

      If that is the case, I'm sure that on your personal taxes, you don't bother to take the standard deduction, or if a home owner, you don't take the tax deductions for interest on mortgage payments, deductions for children you have at home...etc. I mean, that would be avoiding taxes, right?

      Seriously, doesn't matter if your a person, or a business owner, there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of ever legal method there is to keep as much of your hard earned cash for yourself as you can. It is YOUR money first..not the governments.

      If you don't like loopholes, or deductions, or whatever...the lobby hard to get the congress-critters to do away with the current tax code that is so filled with deductions and shelters...and do a simple, and fair tax code. Something along the Fair Tax route works for me....or some sort of modified flat tax...or maybe no income tax at all and just do a VAT tax....

      That way, you make $X...you pay Y% of it and there you have it..simple, and everyone contributes equally. No deductions at all for homes, children (never understood this one...people with kids use MORE resources..and it isn't like people were on the fence about kids and figured with the tax deduction, they'd go ahead and fuck without a rubber and have one...).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:extensions? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      What marketing does the Foundation do for the Corporation? Keep in mind what the corporation is. It is the arm that produces and markets Firefox and the other software

      Really?

    10. Re:extensions? by dreemernj · · Score: 1

      Your response isn't clear. Are you saying that listing those projects constitutes some sort of nefarious marketing that they should be getting taxed for? Or are you suggesting the corporation doesn't make Firefox and other programs?

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
  11. Slashdot news already after 1M downloads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I managed to grab a small video of the moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKMelYofnc

  12. Re:not the only release of the day! by presidenteloco · · Score: 0

    I didn't know they let 4 year olds on the internet unsupervised.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  13. 15.5 MB on Windows by 89cents · · Score: 2

    Back then I remember hearing about this Phoenix web browser referred to as Mozilla Lite that was just a few MB and I loved it. Now I have watched as Firefox has grown, but the bloat has as well. Well at least 15 MB is still nothing these days.

    1. Re:15.5 MB on Windows by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Well that awesome APNG support doesn't come for free, you know.

    2. Re:15.5 MB on Windows by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      Good lord. Size/features != bloat.

      Supporting HTML5 video, modern CSS, web fonts and other standards can't be added without increasing the size of the application.

    3. Re:15.5 MB on Windows by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      They ditched MNG because it was too big. And I can understand that. Last time I looked, the code was very redundant. Made a good case for an old programming technique known as multiple entry points. And if that redundancy wasn't bad enough, there was considerable duplicated functionality between the MPG and PNG libraries. They thought about dumping libpng and using MNG on PNG images.

      We're still using animated GIFs. Even in the browser itself, the throbber was one. Will we ever be able to retire those? At the least move that functionality to an add on?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    4. Re:15.5 MB on Windows by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      I thought the throbber GIF was the first image to be replaced with an APNG. (Probably the last too, considering not even Gimp supports the format.)

      The MNG debacle was fascinating to watch at the time, but it left me with a clear message: there are people in Mozilla that are all too happy to kill off a format just because they don't like it personally. When the impossible technical requirements they imposed became dangerously close to actually happening, they went and threw a format over the wall in a hurry to rid themselves once and for all of the few annoying do-gooders that actually believed them.

      It's a moot point now anyway, my main browser supports WebP which is a far more useful image format, and one that Mozilla will hopefully add support for in their next major release a year or two from now. :)

  14. Hardware Acceleration by jazman_777 · · Score: 1

    Blew up my video driver when I hit a mostly-text site. Lucky for me Windows 7 restarts it gracefully, but while the screen was black I was Waiting for BSOD.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:Hardware Acceleration by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      ATI/AMD card? I've had the video driver crash a few times, always thought it was a BSOD and was surprised the machine actually recovered and stated it was the driver.

    2. Re:Hardware Acceleration by Brian+Feldman · · Score: 1

      You should upgrade your video driver to something moderately recent, probably, or Deal With It.

      --
      Brian Fundakowski Feldman
    3. Re:Hardware Acceleration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a BSOD. Newer versions of windows just reboot when they hit them. There is an option in the control panel to turn them back on. (Chances are the issue is your video driver though. This version has 3D acceleration.)

    4. Re:Hardware Acceleration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If applications with no elevated privileges can crash your video card, it's a bug in the OS, driver, or hardware, not in the application. Preventing applications from crashing the whole computer is one of the main points of modern operating systems...

    5. Re:Hardware Acceleration by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      That was a BSOD. Newer versions of windows just reboot when they hit them.

      Kind of true, but what he experienced wasn't a BSOD. Vista and Windows 7 can (most of the time) restart video drivers without affecting the stability of the rest of the system.

      In a real BSOD, your screen goes blank and then a few seconds later you see the Windows boot screen, and a fresh log-on screen. When the video driver reboots, the screen goes blank, sometimes flickers the desktop image once or twice, then shows the desktop image normally again with a notification on the taskbar saying your video driver was restarted.

      So you're technically correct, Mr. Anonymous Coward, but also being very misleading. If you don't know how Vista and Windows 7 handle video driver crashes, maybe you should read up on it before commenting here. I'm guessing by "newer windows" what you actually mean is "XP."

    6. Re:Hardware Acceleration by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Or just go back to the web browser that was working fine with everything else you have.

  15. Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Went to Chrome... Not looking back without a good reason...

    1. Re:Do not want by tokul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      without a good reason...

      Privacy and avoiding data miner look like pretty good reasons for me.

    2. Re:Do not want by DrXym · · Score: 4, Informative

      Went to Chrome... Not looking back without a good reason...

      Print Preview

    3. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who can't stand using Chrome because Ctrl-Tab doesn't cycle in most recently used order?

    4. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live bookmarks (RSS bookmarks)

    5. Re:Do not want by compro01 · · Score: 1

      There's an extension for that, but it can't use the usual ctrl+tab shortcut due to limitations.

      https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/kmnkpiehgjcaglobbfkejlkffdibncda

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Print preview can be enabled in about:flags.

    7. Re:Do not want by rylin · · Score: 1

      Command-P, Preview.
      Isn't it nice when you have a sane printing method in your OS? How about "Save as PDF?" or "Save as PostScript"?

    8. Re:Do not want by antdude · · Score: 1

      Who prints to papers these days? J/K. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    9. Re:Do not want by sootman · · Score: 1
      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    10. Re:Do not want by Clsid · · Score: 1

      Same here, went back to Chrome, especially because of font rendering and speed. I did download the so called font tweaker for Firefox and it reminds me a lot of the font issues in Linux. You still get crappy output no matter the setting.

    11. Re:Do not want by BZ · · Score: 1

      Anyone who wants to get on a plane? ;)

    12. Re:Do not want by antdude · · Score: 1

      I don't get your joke. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    13. Re:Do not want by BZ · · Score: 1

      The thing I see people printing most often is boarding passes.

    14. Re:Do not want by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ah. I haven't been in airports for years nor flew since August of 1993. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    15. Re:Do not want by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Virtually every booking these days is over the net. Sometimes you can get away with reference nrs. Other times you need to print out vouchers, bar codes or whatnot. Often the important bits are enclosed by several pages of dense legalese that you don't need. Sometimes the content you need can be tweaked to fit on a single page instead of two by scaling it slightly. You need print preview, especially with ink jet printers to save paper & ink.

  16. When is 3d support going into Linux? by HermMunster · · Score: 2

    The interface is somewhat streamlined. It is noticeably faster. The support for open standards is better and that's great. They certainly worked hard to ensure they had a solid product--a long time in coming. But, I use Linux most of the time. I'd like to have the features supported in other OSes available to me in my primary OS. Any ideas as to when/if they will have full support for 3d acceleration? I would also like the interface to be identical. I know the Google Chrome guys complained about making their product identical to the Windows version. They ultimately succeeded. I can only wonder when they will for the Linux community.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    1. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by royallthefourth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      According to something I think I read on Phoronix a couple weeks back, it support the binary Nvidia driver already. They say that trying acceleration with any other Linux driver crashes way too often to be shipped enabled.

      You're waiting on the driver vendors to fix their shit, not Firefox.

    2. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Any ideas as to when/if they will have full support for 3d acceleration?

      Works on my nVidia GT240...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the Linux version did support 3d? The beta I tried a few weeks ago supported WebGL, at least (granted, noticably slower than Chromium, but still usable).

    4. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      I believe there is a setting to force enable the hardware acceleration, but i forget what its called...
      My linux box with an nvidia card and binary drivers seems to run the mozilla hardware acceleration stress test very quickly, while osx running firefox 4 is extremely slow (4fps)... Is it not using hardware acceleration on osx? (i couldnt get decent performance out of any other browser on osx either, not safari, chrome etc).

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by mr+pixie · · Score: 1

      If you mean WebGL, it can be enabled (even with black-listed cards) by setting MOZ_GLX_IGNORE_BLACKLIST=1. It works very well with the proprietary fglrx driver, but also some free drivers. Fun test: Quake 3 in WebGL: http://media.tojicode.com/q3bsp/

    6. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      I believe there is a setting to force enable the hardware acceleration, but i forget what its called...

      The prefs for hardware acceleration are layers.acceleration.disabled (whether it is enabled at all) and layers.acceleration.force-enabled (whether to enable it even if the system graphics drivers are not known to be stable enough).

      So, enabling the first is enough if your drivers are good, and if you want to run it even with potentially problematic drivers, then both.

    7. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      The interface is somewhat streamlined.

      If by 'streamlined' you mean 'tiny icons with all the colour sucked out of them, apparently so they could copy Chrome/Safari/IE9', then yeah. :-)

      Personally I much prefer the larger 24x24 colourful icons you could have with the earlier Firefox versions. Luckily there's a theme that reverts the toolbar look and feel to that of Firefox 3. If anyone's interested; it's here:
      Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4

    8. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by BZ · · Score: 1

      To oversimplify, there are two kinds of hardware acceleration that Firefox implements. There's acceleration of drawing ("2d" acceleration) and acceleration of compositing ("3d" acceleration).

      On Windows Vista and Windows 7, both are implemented. On WinXP, Win2k, and Mac OS 10.6, 3d acceleration is implemented, but 2d is not. On Linux, 3d acceleration is supported with the binary nvidia driver, and 2d acceleration happens "for free" if your driver's XRender implementation is good. This last part also worked on Linux in Firefox 3.6, I believe.

      If you're testing on http://demos.hacks.mozilla.org/openweb/HWACCEL/ then you're gated on the speed of drawImage, which is 2d acceleration. Hence you'll get fast performance on Windows 7/Vista and on Linux with a good Xrender, but not elsewhere.

    9. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by snemarch · · Score: 1

      I believe there is a setting to force enable the hardware acceleration, but i forget what its called...

      Which is probably a bad idea if you don't have stable drivers :)

      --
      Coffee-driven development.
    10. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by zodmaner · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with the interface on Linux? I've found it to be almost identical to the one on WIndows. All the buttons, menus placement are the same. The only different I can see is that it uses native toolkit (gtk2) to render its widgets, which, IMHO, is a very good thing as it makes Firefox looks like a native app.

    11. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      That demo thing is funz :D

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    12. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're waiting on the driver vendors to fix their shit, not Firefox.

      Everything works great in Chrome though...

    13. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by smash · · Score: 1

      I've been waiting for proper 3d support in Linux since about 1997 when I got my Nvidia TNT. I gave up waiting in about 2004.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    14. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That explains why the performance on that page is so pitiful under OSX, and so much faster under Linux on the same hardware. Is there any ETA on when 2d acceleration will be implemented for OSX?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    15. Re:When is 3d support going into Linux? by BZ · · Score: 1

      Not an ETA yet; just a plan.

      The problem is that there is no system API for low-level accelerated 2d graphics on OS X. So the only way to do it is to roll your own. The plan is to do just that on top of OpenGL, but that's a big project.

      https://wiki.mozilla.org/Gecko:2DGraphicsSketch has some details.

  17. Damn you Adobe! by cranil · · Score: 1

    it's pretty neat but I can't get it to run Flash on Ubuntu 64-bit :( damn Adobe

    1. Re:Damn you Adobe! by xMrFishx · · Score: 2

      That's okay, you're not missing much. It may even be seen as an undocumented feature instead.

    2. Re:Damn you Adobe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try gnash, the GNU Flash movie player (http://www.gnu.org/s/gnash/). The latest version (0.8.9) works great with youtube, and it have no problem with firefox 4 on a 64bit only system.

    3. Re:Damn you Adobe! by noahm · · Score: 1

      The browser you get from mozilla.com is a 32 bit binary. Try installing the 32 bit flash. It worked well for me on Debian squeeze.

    4. Re:Damn you Adobe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, try harder if you really want Flash, as it definitely works...
      go here : http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/flashplayer10_2_p3_64bit_linux_111710.tar.gz
      and you should be able to have a 64bits flash player on linux.

    5. Re:Damn you Adobe! by i-linux123 · · Score: 1

      In fedora at least, I had to put the flash plugin in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins instead of /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugisn

    6. Re:Damn you Adobe! by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Funny, the browser I get from mozilla.org is 64 bit

    7. Re:Damn you Adobe! by noahm · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I know the release manager and talked to him yesterday about it. While 64 bit linux firefox is built, and is not distributed via the download button on firefox.com, mozilla.com, etc. You'd need to go directly to the ftp site or one of the mirrors to get it.

    8. Re:Damn you Adobe! by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >Are you sure?
      >mozilla.org
      >https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2011-03-24-03-mozilla-central/

      yes

    9. Re:Damn you Adobe! by noahm · · Score: 1

      :) Fair enough. IMO, if you really need flash, the 32 bit version is worth running. On a Debian-ish box, you need ia32-libs, but otherwise it's straightforward enough.

  18. Porn made easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Start Private Browsing" is the second menu option. Guess they know their audience :)

    1. Re:Porn made easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The image rendering library isn't named libpr0n for nothing.

    2. Re:Porn made easy by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Honestly it's the only reason I still use Firefox. Not for private browsing necessarily (I'm a very socially sex positive person, and luckily so is my wife) since I have long since given up living in denial or shame (try it, it's great). I use Chrome for everything but pr0n, but Firefox has so many extensions for downloading galleries and flash videos that Chrome's design precludes that I can't let it go. However if Chrome ever supports DownloadHelper or similar with full functionality, I'll gladly dump ol' Firefox.

      (I know there are several download managers for Chrome that *claim* to have similar features, but they don't work as advertised.)

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  19. Re:not the only release of the day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't know people still fed the trolls.

  20. True traffic analysis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the graphic include only mozilla.org, or does it include mirrors? True traffic analysis would be much more complicated. Still, over a million shortly after the word, "Go!" is impressive.

    Regarding traffic analysis, Firefox is packaged for specific Linux distributions. I see that Slackware (current) is right out in front on the leading/bleeding edge. They have a 4.0 firefox binary up already. Don't tell me Slackware users are slackers!

    1. Re:True traffic analysis? by maswan · · Score: 1

      IAAMMA[1]: Downloads go through a central bouncer that issues http-redirects to mirrors. The stats come from the bouncer.

      1: I Am A Mozilla Mirror Admin :)

  21. Does it still have the AwfulBar? by gumpish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does it still have the AwfulBar?

    Not interested.

    1. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does it still have the AwfulBar?

      Not interested.

      Do a quick comparison between FF's location bar and Chrome's. Try to get to multiple book marked URLs that are on the same domain. What I find is that FF has a very rich and useful built in search/regex matching function in it's location bar, where as chrome has a very basic auto-complete.

      I can easily type in multiple partial words into the location bar, (even just a couple letters) and easily find bookmarks that I use for work. With Chrome I have to type out the full url, or if a partial match is found, I have to still edit the URL to get where I want to go.

      It also _learns_ and remembers the most hit URLs for partial words.

      It seems Google doesn't want you searching your bookmarks at all, especially not from your browser locally. It seems like it wants to make you use their online services for something this basic.

      -anon

    2. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disable it then?

    3. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't want to search my bookmarks through my url bar. I already have my bookmarks sorted by category.

      Seriously, more and more apps are enabling users to be absolute slobs with their data and try to "help." Those of us who already organized our data get these unhelpful, resource hogging "features" that we can't disable.

      My bookmarks/files/etc are perfectly organized already! I don't need Firefox/iTunes/etc reorganizing my stuff for me, or helping me to find it!

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    4. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      First of all, I love the "AwfulBar". It works a lot better than the older bar to me. If you, for some reason, absolutely cannot use the new location bar, you do know that an Add-on to fix it is only a quick search away, right?

      Presentation only: OldBar
      Presentation and features: (not marked compatible with Firefox 4, though you can force add-on compatability) Old Location Bar

      I don't see how the new location bar is so bad. I love it! Yeah it takes up more space, but that's what scrolling is for ;)

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    5. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      OCD much?

    6. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they removed the option of a dumb bar (it was removed in a FF 3 beta IIRC) which a lot of users on older hardware like myself preferred for the speed and stupidity. How much more code does it take to go from searching '%text%' in urls and titles to 'text%' in urls alone? The suggested workaround is to disable autocomplete in the address bar entirely. I've adjusted, but it is the reason I try out chrome and IE every now and then to see if they're usable yet. Before awesomebar, I didn't consider them.

    7. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those of us who already organized our data get these unhelpful, resource hogging "features" that we can't disable.

      Except, of course, for the fact that you can disable the Awesome Bar. Options -> Privacy -> Locations Bar -> "When using the location bar suggest": Options are History, Bookmarks, Bookmarks and History, and Nothing. Personally, I hate getting bombarded with every site that I've visited in the past 6 months when I type something into the location bar, so I have mine set to bookmarks only. But hey, you obviously disagree with that sentiment, so you could set it to just history or nothing if you prefer.

    8. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how the address bar is any worse than any other browser out there. Care to give concrete reasons why you dislike it? Or have you never even tried it?

    9. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by tomp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Disabling the awesome bar solves part of the problem. However, it doesn't restore the functionality the location bar had before it was replaced by the awesome bar.

      It's not just the the awesome sucks. It's that mozilla removed something that worked and replaced it with something that doesn't. Turning off the part that doesn't work is insufficient to solve the problem.

    10. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but it also doesn't have a status bar.

    11. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you can turn it off.

      I haven't worked out how to stop IE9 searching through the history on the new bar.
      I wouldn't mind, but having the history appear makes it harder to tab to a search provider (IE9 this is)

    12. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go shove IE9 up your asshole then.

    13. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like the "awfulbar" just search for "oldbar" and install it. It makes FF act the way it used to before the introduction of the awesomebar or whatever it is really called. Whenever I set up FF on a new PC the first thing I do is install the oldbar extension.

    14. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it still have the AwfulBar?

      Not interested.

      about:config
      browser.urlbar.maxRichResults = 0

      problem solved

    15. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Hooya · · Score: 1

      Great! use something else. Good thing there is a choice.

      The rest of us (or, at least the ones using FF) do like it and think it's an improvement.

    16. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just click your bookmarks, and type in other addresses. If you are concerned about resource-hogging, then I would advise not trying to run an operating system on 256 MB of RAM.

    17. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by indros13 · · Score: 1

      I'll bite - please tell me what is so awful about the Awesome Bar. When used for search, it will quickly identify sites I've already bookmarked/tagged with the terms I'm searching for. It ranks my bookmarks higher than just my history, so I almost always see those historic sites first. Plus, I can use keywords to quickly load pages I use frequently. I no longer waste time sorting my bookmarks into hierarchical folders because that requires a lot of wasted mouse clicks when I can just start typing terms/tags/keywords into the bar. And this is bad because?

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    18. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I find you people fascinating.

      I am a known luddite at one gaming community and post constantly about changing things back how they belong. Tabs on top? Please- status bar in the url bar? No thanks. Windows Explorer? Classic view only please

      However, how people can NOT like the awesome bar is utterly beyond me, it's fascinating. It singlehandedly makes firefox 'know' what I want to do. It really does, I can type the shortest of strings, the most partial of urls and it knows, then hit down arrow enter and done. I genuinely don't see what there isn't to like. I mean, I guess you're welcome to your opinion, of course. I can't exactly criticize someone for disliking new stuff when I do so often but.... but... I only criticize stupid things which are poorly designed, for the laymen and don't make things easier for nerds, quick on the keyboard.
      How can people not like this bar? I am being serious - it single handedly took Firefox 3 from being a kind of cool browser to being utterly perfect. I can not browse without it, it's genuinely awesome.

    19. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      I don't want to search my bookmarks through my url bar. I already have my bookmarks sorted by category.

      Simple fix:
      1. Preferences
      2. Privacy
      3. Location Bar
      4. Select "History"
      5. Install this Add-on (optional)
      6. ???
      7. Profit!

      Ahh, preference menus! What would we ever do without them? ;)

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    20. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seriously, more and more apps are enabling users to be absolute slobs with their data and try to "help." Those of us who already organized our data get these unhelpful, resource hogging "features" that we can't disable.

      I hear you on "can't be disabled", but "resource hogging"? Come on. In these days of TBs of HD space and GBs of RAM, do you honestly think that the improved location bar is gonna have any noticeable effect on your browsing? Please.

      My bookmarks/files/etc are perfectly organized already! I don't need Firefox/iTunes/etc reorganizing my stuff for me, or helping me to find it!

      It's great that you organize things so neatly, but most people don't. Firefox caters to the 99.99% first and foremost, not the 0.01%.

      What's more, the improved location bar is for more than automatic bookmark organization. I use both Firefox and Opera, and I always find it extremely irritating when I'm trying to find an article or website I looked at in the past again and can't easily do so because I viewed it in Opera and only remember the title or perhaps part of the URL, not the domain name.

      Maybe this doesn't happen often for you, but it happens quite often for me. Suppose that in three months, I'd want to go back to this story. In Firefox, I can just type in "slashdot firefox 4 release", and the right article will pop up instantly (along with "Firefox 4 RC1 Released", "Firefox 4 the Last Big Release From Mozilla", "Firefox 4 Beta 12 Released Fixes Over 650 Bugs" and others).

      In Opera? I'd be at a loss: I'd have to use Slashdot's search function, or an external site like Google. Not so bad, perhaps, but still inconvenient, and it DOES break down for sites that a) have a sucky or non-existent search and b) aren't indexed by Google. This happens quite often for web forums of all kinds, BTW, especially those that require you to sign up before you can view (most) boards.

      TL;DR - yes, it should be configurable, but it's also useful. And it's been part of Firefox since 3.0, so if you still think it's going away, dream on (or alternatively fork Firefox).

    21. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great for you. However, for the rest of the world who is too busy doing stuff to give a toss, the awesome bar is... well... awesome :-)

    22. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of us (or, at least the ones using FF) do like it and think it's an improvement.

      Don't speak for all of us. The OP isn't alone in his hatred of the embarrassingly-named awesomebar. Yes, it can be mostly disabled, but the original functionality can't be restored. I suspect that even when the setting is set to disable the bar, it's still sending out spurious database queries, just not displaying them.

      There is a great advantage in having ui elements behave predictably. Having a textbox offer up suggestions while you type based on what you've previously typed into that text-box is a generically useful addition; it can be used for every textbox in the browser. The awesomebar breaks all consistency, using special and non-obvious matching algorithms against data stored in special and hardcoded locations, and will proffer up options that you've never typed into the field, and never would.

    23. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you can disable it. Options -> Privacy -> Location Bar (at the bottom). Just change it to nothing or history.

    24. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like this (which I don't either), then open the options and turn it off...

    25. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It seems Google doesn't want you searching your bookmarks at all, especially not from your browser locally. It seems like it wants to make you use their online services for something this basic.

      Der. They sell search placements. It's in their best interest for users to search for a site, even if they already have the site bookmarked or already know the domain name.

      And believe me, they don't lower their rates for the users who type "yourcompanyname.com" into the search box, you pay just as much in fees. It's "do no evil" Google's biggest scam running... and inflates search rates something like 30-40%.

    26. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DON'T let it suggest your bookmarks in the location bar. See the Options dialog box, Privacy tab.

      Honestly, I get a cent for every idiot out there who screams bloody murder for every feature they don't like, when the developers are providing a solution ...

    27. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Took a little getting used to, but the AwesomeBar is pretty damn awesome. If you really hate change for the better, you can download an addon that gives you the old one.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    28. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      I have my bookmarks sorted into folders too. Despite this, I use the awesome bar because typing a few letters then pressing down arrow, enter is way quicker than navigating through two or three levels of menus.

    29. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by juice13 · · Score: 1

      You sound like a mean old man: Get of my lawn, dang kids and their fancy bars. I don't have my bookmarks perfectly organized, and frankly, most people I know are worse. Firefox 'awsome' bar makes my life a lot easier. This does not make me a slob, but it does makes my browsing more enjoyable. And if you hate it _that_ much, why don't you just take a pick at another browser? There's ... well a couple more fish in the sea.

    30. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unhelpful, resource hogging "features" that we can't disable.

      But you can disable the Awesome Bar, quickly and easily: preferences/options -> privacy -> location bar -> 'When using the location bar, suggest:' (select 'Nothing')
      So quit yer moaning.,

    31. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Yeah for me it's the best thing about FF. Type a few keystrokes from the name of the page you want (from anywhere in its URL) and you're generally most of the way there. I never really had well organised bookmarks but now I don't have them and also don't miss them.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    32. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by trawg · · Score: 1

      I don't want to search my bookmarks through my url bar. I already have my bookmarks sorted by category.

      That's great, if you don't mind using the mouse to navigate through your bookmarks. But in the middle of typing this post, if I think of something else interesting I want to look up, I can simply hit CTRL-t to open a new tab, CTRL-l to set focus to location bar, and then quickly type a few letters from various parts of the bookmark or previous URL and bam, the AwesomeBar will find it for me, then I can hit enter and I'm there.

      If you're a keyboard/command line junkie it really has no comparison to using bookmarks. I still use bookmarks but they're much less of a high priority for me these days in terms of my day-to-day browser use.

      The best part for me is on some of the sites we develop - for example, we'll have a URL like www.ausgamers.com/videos/view.php/57594 with a page title of something like "AusGamers videos - Batman Arkham City Gameplay Trailer". I can't remember the video ID (57594) and in my history I'll have a stack of these. But I can remember that it was a Batman video, so I can simply type "ausg vid bat" - and it will instantly look up exactly the page I want.

      Once you get used to this style of navigation you'll wonder how you ever did without it. It takes a while - you need to remember to do it and then learn some basic muscle-memory stuff for your frequently used sites. But for my day to day browsing it has been a life changer - even though I initially hated it as well.

    33. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't have OCD, I have CDO. It's like OCD, but in alphabetical order!

    34. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by shovas · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it the "awesome bar", myself, but I have to say the quickest way for me to get to a website I've already visited is to type it (even a few letters) in the URL bar, press down, press enter. I haven't seen Firefox's equal in any other browser as far as the URL bar is concerned. I even find Chrome's URL bar slow even while everything else about Chrome is faster.

      --
      Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
    35. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Bing is any different? Shill.

    36. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Not that you care, but yes. Yes Bing is different.

      But even if they weren't, it doesn't change the fact that it's seedy as hell, and Google only gets away with it because very few people realize what they're doing. (Or, alternatively, they realize that Google does it, but don't realize how many of those searches occur.)

    37. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't you just disable the feature?
      Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy
      Location bar: Nothing

    38. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it still have the AwfulBar?

      Not interested.

      Unfortunately, yes.

    39. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Trifthen · · Score: 1

      I hear you on "can't be disabled", but "resource hogging"? Come on. In these days of TBs of HD space and GBs of RAM, do you honestly think that the improved location bar is gonna have any noticeable effect on your browsing? Please.

      Owners of netbooks will say "yes." I stopped using Firefox three years ago because the XUL rendering causes all the menus to be hilariously slow. I can wave my mouse up and down my bookmarks in Firefox and drive my CPU up to 100%. Opera and Chrome absolutely obliterate Firefox on slow hardware.

      Considering the Phoenix project was started back in the stone age to remove all the Mozilla bloat and make a speedy browser, I think they failed miserably. Every time a major new version comes out, I try it again, and end up going back to Opera and Chrome. I really want to love Firefox. It represents one of the most major successes in open source. But I chose to use minimal portable hardware and not have a huge desktop or giant laptop anymore, and that means I have to make sacrifices.

      But just throwing memory or CPU at something is pure laziness. I shouldn't need a quad-core Intel i7 and the latest Nvidia card to browse the web. My puny netbook can handle Compiz just fine, but Firefox beats it with a crowbar. Go figure.

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    40. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Sorry, what functionality was removed in the old location bar that isn't in awesome bar? Seriously, I am trying to remember but I don't remember anything going missing.

    41. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Surely even if you have your bookmarks sorted by category, it is generally easier to type a few letters of one and hit enter than search through your categorised bookmarks folders?

    42. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by tomp · · Score: 1

      What's so awful about the Awesome Bar is that it has partially repurposed the location bar, causing the UI to be inconsistent.

      In all cases before the awesome bar, the location bar was used for URL's. After the awesome bar, the location bar is almost always used for URL's, but during text entry it is used to search both URL's and web page titles.

      An inconsistent UI us a bad UI. The awesome bar introduces inconsistency into the firefox UI. It's bad.

    43. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The AwesomeBar is too aggressive. If I type "http://g" I don't want suggestions that include "http://www.g" and almost everything else that includes the letter g. The list is too long, takes too long to scroll through. Good idea, mediocre implementation.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    44. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you on "can't be disabled", but "resource hogging"? Come on. In these days of TBs of HD space and GBs of RAM, do you honestly think that the improved location bar is gonna have any noticeable effect on your browsing? Please.

      What does hard drive space or RAM have to do with I/O-bound activity like processing a database after every keystroke? Scanning a 20MB+ SQLite database every time you type a single character in a URL does tend to have a noticeable effect on the experience. It's like saying people complain about Google's Instant Search because of the extra KB of JavaScript it adds. No, they complain because it causes lag, latency, ignored keystrokes, and both removes the Prev/Next from the top of the page and changes the Back button semantics (it's done by JavaScript instead of changing the URLs, so it's all one "site"), which makes searching take longer than not having it (for the "awesome" benefit of "not having to press Enter").

      If you've ever tried a Remote Desktop, you would want to shoot yourself after combining the "AwesomeBar" with Google Instant Search while you wait 4 seconds for each character to slowly appear on the screen. Of course, the mouse doesn't have the same latency so clicks are usually activated before all text has entered. However, pre-"AwesomeBar" Firefox and Internet Explorer don't have that problem, and Google Search without "Instant" enabled makes keystrokes visible almost immediately.

    45. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox allows you to change it back exactly the way it was in version 2, just adjust the following in about:config

      Change browser.urlbar.matchBehavior to 3
      Change browser.urlbar.default.behavior to 17
      Change the values of both browser.urlbar.match.url and
      browser.urlbar.restrict.typed to empty strings

    46. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

      The location bar has accepted search terms since forever. Not providing search autocomplete in a search field is bad UI. On the other hand, typing in URLs is bad UI. But if the browser happens to receive a URL from the user, going there is definitely good UI behavior.

    47. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that Chrome doesn't even _have_ a location bar? If you are going to be consistent, you should complain about that as well.

      Maybe you should read all the horrible mish-mash that happens to the location bar in other browsers. (egads, it's also a progress bar, detects web feeds, is a widget engine, displays favicons, shows security status...)

      Entering any text that is a not a URL and press enter, the "location bar" submits a search to your default search engine.

      How is it that the only inconsistency with "location bar" you can come up with is that the auto-complete has too many features?

    48. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

      Why are you typing "http://"? It's just a time-wasting obsessive compulsive habit. Second, if the suggestions are useless, just keep typing. They don't get in the way of text entry, and the first moment the right suggestion pops up, you're done. That moment will come sooner and sooner with each time you visit the site, because it learns what sites you're likely to visit based on what you type. And finally, if I type 'g', I get a damn useful suggested website that I visit all the time. What do you get?

    49. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by FlyveHest · · Score: 1

      AMEN!

    50. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      The AwesomeBar is too aggressive. If I type "http://g" I don't want suggestions that include "http://www.g" and almost everything else that includes the letter g.

      And you don't get them. You get URLs that contain "http://www.g". You're complaining about behaviour that doesn't exist. What's more, if you're using the awesomebar, why are you typing "http://www.g"? Why not type something that's actually related to what you want?

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    51. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by tomp · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure which 'forever' you're thinking of. If the location bar was for searching, there wouldn't be a need for that little search box to the right of it.

      Before the awesome bar, the closest thing to search in the location bar was automatically adding 'www.' and '.com' to bare names. Even that went away for many years due to the whitehouse.com brouhaha.

      I'll let the 'typing in URLs is bad' pass. We all know that's silly.

    52. Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's an improvement.

  22. Re:Yes download now for all the latest security ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which will take them 6 months to fix as they concentrate on pleasing the Oooh shiny! crowd with ever more useless bells and whistles.

    Cynic? Moi?

    Yup, as everyone knows, new = insecure and old = secure. That's why I stick with good ol' IE 6: It's been out so long, I know all the holes have been patched.

  23. Less buggy? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Is it less buggy? Please, somebody tell me that some of the random crashing, failed renderings, and memory leaks are fixed. While Adblock is great, it's not going to keep me from reverting my whole company back to IE forever...

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Less buggy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't do any of those things!

      But then FF3 never did for me either...

    2. Re:Less buggy? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The betas have been pretty stable for me...
      That said, if you're sick of firefox there are much better choices than saddling yourself with ie, chrome is pretty good or build chromium if you don't like google.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:Less buggy? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone is an MS Windows user with too many crap extensions in their profile

  24. How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Right click on the blank gray space next to the tabs and uncheck the "Tabs on Top" property. That will put the tabs back below the location bar, where they belong.

    1. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by egladil · · Score: 1

      And to get the statusbar back you can install status-4-evar.

    2. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by surveyork · · Score: 1

      On Windows, to get the statusbar back install Pale Moon: http://www.palemoon.org/ Pale Moon 4 will probably be available a few days from now.

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    3. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's where they belong for you. Don't speak for everybody.

    4. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Globe199 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was the first thing I did. If I want to use Chrome, I'll use Chrome.

      Change for change's sake.

    5. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by psyclone · · Score: 1

      No, use TabKit and put tabs on the side (grouped, colored, and nested) where they belong.

      Unfortunately, it doesn't work with FF4, but the next best thing seems to be either: Tree Style Tab or: Vertical Tabs.

    6. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      And you can disable the new tab animation by setting "browser.tabs.animate" to false in "about:config".

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    7. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by JynxMe · · Score: 1

      And to restore tabs automatically after closing firefox:
      about:config
      set 'browser.showQuitWarning' to true

    8. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for this tip! I also put the home button in the correct place too..

    9. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      Tools->Options->advanced->disable tabs

      Thats what I have a task bar for.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    10. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by anethema · · Score: 1

      You would make millions happy if you found something like this for chrome. Its the main reason I haven't switched. That and the fake adblock.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    11. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by supersloshy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand why people don't like their tabs on top. I like it, and there's quite a few good reasons for them to be on top (such as how the buttons like back and forward only modify what's on the current tab, making the buttons appear to be directly connected to the tab). The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for keeping the tabs on the bottom is just a resistance to change or not being used to the new behavior, which I completely understand. Insisting that it's "where they belong", though, is just nonsense.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    12. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. That and the statusbar4evar thing make it usable.

    13. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really the new tab position, it takes formally wasted space and puts stuff in it. Its like getting a larger monitor for free. Madness.

    14. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 1

      I actually prefer the chrome way of handling tabs. It frees up about half an inch of vertical space that would otherwise be wasted.

      --
      And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    15. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you're one of those emacs users:P
      The tabs switch web pages and the navigation bar is not a part of a web page. Therefore tabs correctly belong below the navigation bar and anything else is nonsense!

    16. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the first thing I did. If I want to use Chrome, I'll use Chrome.

      Change for change's sake.

      Or just learn what Fitts' law is so you won't have misguided thoughts such as these.

    17. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by he-sk · · Score: 0

      Word.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    18. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logically it seems that the location bar should be below the tab. When the location bar is above the tab it implies that the location bar is separate from the tab (ie. changing the tab should not affect the address bar). However, this is not the case (the location bar changes based on the selected tab). This seems to make more sense in a way...

    19. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by trawg · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Would love to know how they reached that decision - thinking about how I use it, I certainly click more regularly on tabs to switch between them than I do my quick bookmarks bar, so it seems like that should be the "first layer" of interface elements. I would love to see if they actually did some usability testing that showed the majority of users don't actually use it like that (using click-based heatmaps or something) - or if this was just a random decision by a group of developers who decided that "this is how it should work".

      However, props for giving us the option to easily change back to the original style.

    20. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by MidoriKid · · Score: 1

      Task bar!? I have a different X server for each web page.

    21. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      I use tree style tab to get my tabs to the right, that are invisible until I move my mouse to the left of the browser, or hold ctrl.

      Which looks like this: http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/2443/firefox4.png

    22. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Osty · · Score: 1

      Or just learn what Fitts' law is so you won't have misguided thoughts such as these.

      That only applies if you run your browser maximized. If you run it windowed, the tabs do not extend to the top of the window in Firefox or Chrome. Running a browser maximized at 1920x1080 is not only a waste of screen space but also a subpar browsing experience since most websites are still focused on 1024x768-optimized layouts.

      IMHO, while I prefer tabs on top, I also prefer to use F6 to focus the address bar. This does not work with tabs on top in FF4 because Firefox treats F6 as "frame focus" and not specifically "address bar focus". It works in tabs on bottom because the address bar is the first focusable item in that frame.

    23. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by gullevek · · Score: 1

      Actually the freeded up space is much less and you loose the complete html title. Without the title it is very often a guessing game on which slashdot article I am right now (or any other web page).

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    24. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by aaron552 · · Score: 1

      You can get vertical tabs in Chrome (albeit without the nice tree effect) via about:flags

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
    25. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know of some people who switched fro IE to Firefox because they hate the IE7+ look and prefer the traditional browser look that everyone's used since the first Netscape/IE/Mosaic. I used Opera for a while when Firefox was having constant crashing problems, but switched back to Firefox because their new UI was so ugly. I'll never use Chrome simply because I dislike the look, not because of technical inferiorities.

    26. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The changed spot of the tabs actually makes a lot more sense. The location bar and buttons are part of the tab and need to be ordered under the tab.

      Im quite sure that some old IE-dev pointed this out and there was a article about it here on slashdot some years back.

    27. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, there's good reason for having the tabs above.

      http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2010/06/24/why-tabs-are-on-top-in-firefox-4/

    28. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I want to use firefox, but have the tabs on top?

    29. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right click on the blank gray space next to the tabs and uncheck the "Tabs on Top" property. That will put the tabs back below the location bar, where they belong.

      This was the first thing I did. If I want to use Chrome, I'll use Chrome.
      Change for change's sake.

      You might be comfortable with the way tabs have been traditionally handled, but Chrome's (and now FF4's) tab scheme is actually closer to visualizing the functionality. Your location bar and buttons affect the tab which you have open at the time, so placing them within the tab is contextually more revealing.

    30. Re:How to restore the older tabs look: by anethema · · Score: 1

      The organization is the important part, not the location of the tabs.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  25. So Far So Good by BigFire · · Score: 1

    The only indispensable extension that I use NoScript, XMark have been 4.x compatible already. The one other must have extension is All-In-One Mouse Gesture have a hackable version that I can live with for now. Two of my infrequently use extension haven't been updated yet, but they don't have too much development activities, and I'm not too worry.

  26. Compare and Contrast by cobrausn · · Score: 1

    This tone of this article summary versus the tone of the summary when IE9 was released.

    Mention of new features? Reviews? None of that. Apparently unnecessary - only congratulations are in order.

    --
    How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    1. Re:Compare and Contrast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't congratulate on a funeral.

    2. Re:Compare and Contrast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla doesn't have over a decades' worth of negative rep to overcome...

    3. Re:Compare and Contrast by vivin · · Score: 1

      FF has a better history of adhering to standards than IE. IE also came from a company that went out of its way to try and dominate the web with its proprietary technology and almost succeeded. Some (if not much) cynicism is warranted.

      --
      Vivin Suresh Paliath
      http://vivin.net

      I like
    4. Re:Compare and Contrast by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      Some (if not much) cynicism is warranted.

      Not at the cost of objectivity, IMHO.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    5. Re:Compare and Contrast by vivin · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Personally I think IE9 is pretty good. But people in general are happier about an FF release and skeptical/cynical about an IE9 release. It's because MS has more to prove.

      --
      Vivin Suresh Paliath
      http://vivin.net

      I like
  27. Pleased so far by Inda · · Score: 1

    Pleased so far. All my dozen add-ons worked, although eBay's sidebar update has failed to download an icon, which I would have removed anyway.

    Was shocked to see the tab positions. Lucky "Hide Caption T. Plus" had an option to put them back where they belong. Dunno why they've moved the home button either - all buttons belong together devs!

    Now to try some of this newfangled HTML5 I've been reading about, heh. :)

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    1. Re:Pleased so far by slapys · · Score: 1

      Was shocked to see the tab positions. Lucky "Hide Caption T. Plus" had an option to put them back where they belong

      Right-click on any chrome at the top of the window > Tabs on top

    2. Re:Pleased so far by natehoy · · Score: 1

      In addition to the "Tabs on Top" change mentioned in the other reply to your post, you can easily move the buttons around to your liking. Right-click on any of the buttons, click "Customize", and drag buttons around to your heart's content. I have mine set up as Back/Forward, Home, Reload, Shortcuts, Stop, URL/AwesomeBar, Google Search, then the buttons for AdblockPlus and NoScript, and finally Feedback. Took me a lot less time to change them than it took me to list them in this post. ;)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  28. Chrome 11 beats all by kvvbassboy · · Score: 1

    On every benchmark test I took online (HTML5 and javascript) Chrome 11 far, far outperformed Firefox 4, which in turn is comparable to IE9. I only have an integrated graphics chipset so that might have something to do with it.

    1. Re:Chrome 11 beats all by SirMasterboy · · Score: 1

      Chrome 11? Where have you been? Chrome 12 has been out for several days already!

  29. FF 4 by Globe199 · · Score: 2

    Tabs STILL are not in their own processes like Chrome has done since day one. It does look like closing tabs reallocates memory though. So at least that seems to be fixed (it's been promised since, what, version 2?).

    And this time it only took me one add-on (Status-4-Evar) to regain lost functionality.

    1. Re:FF 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla has been working on that for a while now; it's hard. It was originally planned for 3.7 as I recall. Hopefully it will make it into Firefox 5 later this year.

    2. Re:FF 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First thing I did was change everything back so it looks like how it was. Then Status-4-Evar....

    3. Re:FF 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tabs not in their own processes is a good thing. There's a reason why Opera hasn't done it either: It scales terribly.

      Try opening 400 tabs on Opera. There's a guy in the SA forums who runs daily with 400+ tabs. Now try it on Chrome. Yup, good luck.

    4. Re:FF 4 by chammy · · Score: 1

      Tabs STILL are not in their own processes like Chrome has done since day one

      I'm not so sure this is a feature I want in Firefox. In Chrome if I have a certain number of tabs open Windows basically explodes and I have to kill Chrome. In FF4 I can have my unmanageable, huge number of tabs and it runs just fine.

    5. Re:FF 4 by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      And why optimize for the common case when you can optimize for "a guy in the SA forums" ?

    6. Re:FF 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tabs STILL are not in their own processes like Chrome has done since day one.

      That's probably for the next release. Firefox 4.0 for Mobile is already using it ...

    7. Re:FF 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll need https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/rss-icon/ too.

    8. Re:FF 4 by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >Tabs STILL are not in their own processes like Chrome
      Thank goodness

    9. Re:FF 4 by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      No, it still seems to be leaking memory here; closing tabs does reclaim much of the memory, but not all of it.

      Firefox 3 recently had a major bugfix that seems to have fixed that for me though; hopefully it will get propagated into Firefox 4 as well.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    10. Re:FF 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear that 4.1 will include separate process-per-tab... seems like a close enough milestone that it's reasonably likely they'll actually hit it.

  30. Oh good! by DarthBart · · Score: 0

    I had an extra 4GB of free memory I wasn't using. FF4 will expand to fill that quite nicely. Sorta like expanding foam plugging up leaks. I wouldn't want any information leaking out.

    1. Re:Oh good! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Nice to see that the trolls about the fictitious memory leaks aren't deterred by the problem having been fixed quite a few revisions ago. I've never seen Firefox 4.0 use more than 400mb ever, and even then it was due to an extension with a memory leak. As soon as I got rid of that the memory usage maxed out at a respectable 250mb.

    2. Re:Oh good! by DarthBart · · Score: 1

      I'm running 3.6.15 extensionless and quite often it balloons up to 1.5GB RSIZE with 7 or 8 tabs open. So, I'll crawl back under the bridge now.

    3. Re:Oh good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is peculiar because, I, for one, have never had that problem on my 2GB memory system. This is despite the fact that I only restart firefox when I restart windows and I only restart windows when microsoft updates force me to (which is pretty rare these days).
      I tend to open many tabs (one for every BBC news story, slashdot story, and google result that sounds promising) and leave a fair amount open for extended periods (slashdot homepage, facebook, hotmail, gmail, my own website, etc).

      I even watch youtube videos occasionally and have no problems with 5 add-ons installed. Considering my tab use, the 400mb average size of my firefox instance is far superior to the 50mb per tab memory usage of google chrome, and now, with firefox 4, the javascript is fast enough that facebook chat is no longer a painful experience. (Though, I haven't used it in a year on firefox 3.6, and considering facebook itself had sped up over the year, I am not sure if the chat is as bad as it used to be.)

      Basically, what I am trying to say with this horribly written post, is that I have experiences quite contrary to your own and am wondering if perhaps there is something else wrong?

    4. Re:Oh good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to see the apologists can still tell us that our non-fictitious memory leaks* are merely a figment of our imagination. It's not a bug, it's a feature!

      * Some will of course quibble over the precise terminology. In one currently known bug, allocated memory gets freed, but that freed memory is never reused, nor released to the OS, creating an effect that is functionally the same as a 'true' memory leak.

    5. Re:Oh good! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Firefox routinely hits between one and two gigs with a half-dozen to a dozen tabs open for me, as well- give it 9-12 hours, and it's unmanageable.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
  31. memory hacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    memory hacks yeah

  32. Visualization by zrbyte · · Score: 1

    The visualization looks like some virus outbreak :))
    If this is so, Europe got a Firefox epidemic on its hands :D

  33. 97 on Acid 3 by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

    Why would they even bother releasing before passing the acid test?

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    1. Re:97 on Acid 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please read this. Basically, that remaining 3% (SVG fonts) is irrelevant.

    2. Re:97 on Acid 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what those remaining 3% are?
      Part of this is to fix a privacy leak in CSS specs, it will never score 100%

    3. Re:97 on Acid 3 by surveyork · · Score: 1

      Apparently, they are satisfied with 97/100: http://limi.net/articles/firefox-acid3/

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    4. Re:97 on Acid 3 by surveyork · · Score: 1

      Bug 119490 - Implement SVG fonts: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490 There has been some movement on that bug lately.

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    5. Re:97 on Acid 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because it doesn't matter.

    6. Re:97 on Acid 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The politics of standards, mostly. The worst part is that they've essentially legitimized IE doing the same.

    7. Re:97 on Acid 3 by Dakman · · Score: 1

      Just because a browser doesn't pass the acid test 100% doesn't make it a bad browser. The acid tests (especially acid 3) are designed to test for odd edge cases to make sure the spec is implemented properly. It'd be pretty rare to actually run into any of these cases on your standard website. It's also worth mentioning that some of the tests perform differently based on your computers speed (test 26 for example). Even though it passes that particular test, it may have not done it in the recommended time frame.

    8. Re:97 on Acid 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The features in Acid 3 that it doesn't pass are SVG related. Is that really that big of a deal?

    9. Re:97 on Acid 3 by jazman_777 · · Score: 0

      I just tried Opera: 100/100. Firefox 4: 97/100. IE9: 13/100? Hard to tell, it was so jumbled.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    10. Re:97 on Acid 3 by BZ · · Score: 1

      Are you testing IE9 in forced-compat mode or something? It does a lot better than that on Acid3 normally.

    11. Re:97 on Acid 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parts of the acid3 test that they don't pass were proposed standards that have been deprecated in favour of a newer standard. WOFF from memory.
      So they pass all of acid3 that is actually still relevant.

  34. OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mac
    Operating Systems

            * Mac OS X 10.5
            * Mac OS X 10.6

    So, I can't use it. Using OS X 10.4.11 or whatever it is. They support Windows 2000, but not OS X 10.4 :/

    1. Re:OS X by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2

      So, I can't use it. Using OS X 10.4.11 or whatever it is. They support Windows 2000, but not OS X 10.4 :/

      Windows 2000 will still run on modern PCs. OSX 10.4 won't, because the desktop versions of it only ran on PPC, whereas modern Macs run Intel chips now.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re:OS X by linebackn · · Score: 1

      > So, I can't use it. Using OS X 10.4.11 or whatever it is. They support Windows 2000, but not OS X 10.4 :/

      The nice thing about open source is if one group doesn't want to support it, then someone else can. What you want now is TenFourFox located here: http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/

      Restores the ability to run on OS X 10.4 PPC and 10.5 PPC, and has extra PPC model specific optimizations as well.

    3. Re:OS X by BZ · · Score: 1

      The thing with Mac OS X is that apple sort of goes out of their way to make it hard to support multiple versions at once. For a simple example, there is no text measurement API that works on both 10.4 and 10.6: if you want to support both in an app that needs to measure text (something a browser sort of has to do), you need two different codepaths.

      So the options were to support only 10.4 and 10.5, support only 10.5 or 10.6, or do lots more work (way more than needed to support Win2k/XP while also supporting Vista/7) to support all three. Given the fraction of the user base, even just the Mac user base, on 10.4, it was decided to not support it.

      Note that all the discussion about this is publicly archived (and happened on public mailing lists in the first place) if you care to read it...

    4. Re:OS X by phek · · Score: 1

      i have a 10.4 install on my intel based mac mini.

    5. Re:OS X by RebelWebmaster · · Score: 1

      Also note that Win2K support will be going away once the switch is made to start compiling with MSVC 2010 instead of 2005. Win2K support in Fx4 is more by accident than by design at this point.

    6. Re:OS X by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that the only version of 10.4 released for Intel was OSX Server 10.4.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  35. FF 4.0 noisier than usual by v1 · · Score: 1

    OK so I browse to the eye candy page showing downloads. Not much going on there. *shrug* Going to guess it only works on firefox or is tripping my annoying flash banner blocker.

    So download 4 and install. Browse there again. OK there it is. I'll admit it's sorta nifty Though we've all seen those fake counters on web pages before that have no base in reality so it makes me somewhat suspect how realistic it is. I'll give them benefit of the doubt though but it'd be nice if it said somewhere.

    Why are my fans revving up? (looks at processor usage) OK wow. Open activity monitor. Imagine that, Firefox process is consuming 100% of one of my cores. Is that really necessary to draw some numbers and animate a few pips on a map? I'd need to be playing COD or something to get that out of an app usually. Let me guess, flash? And people can't understand why Apple wants it to go away.

    But then again I'd bet it's more a problem of poor flash programming than anything else. Thanks Mozilla for making your new shiney look like a processor hog while you're trying to show it off.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:FF 4.0 noisier than usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like Canvas (HTML5) to me. I.e., the Flash killer.

    2. Re:FF 4.0 noisier than usual by noahm · · Score: 1

      Strange, I've had glow.mozilla.org up for a couple hours now (along with a pile of tabs split across several windows) and it's really impressively lightweight. It's typically around 3-10% of CPU time and its memory footprint is 400 MB (~850 virtual)

    3. Re:FF 4.0 noisier than usual by slapys · · Score: 1

      I just did all the things you mentioned and I couldn't get my CPU usage to go over 8% on my 3.0 GHz core2duo box. For your problems, I blame: cosmic rays.

      I likes me some tab opening-closing animations.

    4. Re:FF 4.0 noisier than usual by surveyork · · Score: 1

      HTML5/Javascript-intensive pages can bring Firefox to its knees. Even Firefox 4.

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    5. Re:FF 4.0 noisier than usual by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      It uses 100% of a core if the window has focus. If not, FF lowers the frame rate considerably and CPU usage drops to around 20-30%.

    6. Re:FF 4.0 noisier than usual by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It only cranks up the processor use when firefox is the active window and that tab is active. It hits about 75% of one core on my box.

      If it's in the background, it ticks along at about 2% of same core.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    7. Re:FF 4.0 noisier than usual by sfcat · · Score: 2
      I work for the company that created the back-end for that visualization, SQLStream. Disclaimer: I didn't work on this project, I work on our product team and I don't speak for my employer.

      Its real. The apache logs are read by our streaming SQL backend, transfered to HBase and then used to generate the AJAX web front end. We make a streaming database which is architected much like a traditional DBMS with the additional capability of streams which act like tables but instead of being a destination for relational tuples on disk, they instead are conduits through which data flows. Think JMS with a standards based SQL control (publish is an insert, subscribe is a select). This allows for SQL queries to support streaming and windowed aggregation (think querying on a tuple's timestamp in addition to its data). I'm trying not to make this a cheap marketing ploy so if you want to know more, just go to our website: www.sqlstream.com

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    8. Re:FF 4.0 noisier than usual by v1 · · Score: 1

      Please then forward to the appropriate department that it's not polite to take over an entire core of processing power just because it will insure smooth animation.

      100% may have been a good idea if they're running a crappy slow old machine, but it doesn't do us any good here to see that animation in 300fps instead of 40.

      Surely they have a way of checking their frame rate and doing some form of idle/yield in the loop if the animation is well-above goal framerate.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  36. Addon compatibility? by vlm · · Score: 1

    Hows the add on compatibility?

    I will not use a browser unless it has the following installed:

    adblock plus
    firebug
    flashblock
    ghostery
    noscript
    remove it permanently
    xmarks

    Hows rollback support, in case 4.0 doesn't work with adblock plus can I trivially roll back to my working 3.6.15 install? I know you can't expect modern windoze software to work as well as a .deb package from 1993 but I'm hoping for something better than "reformat, and reinstall"

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Addon compatibility? by basotl · · Score: 1

      remove it permanently is the only one I see not compatible. All the others I use and they work fine. I can't say how well it will rollback on Windows. Linux works fine for me here.

      --
      HTC EVO 4G LTE w/ CM 10.2 | NookColor w/ CM 10.2 | Samsung Epic 4G w/ CM 10.1
    2. Re:Addon compatibility? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's my FF4 upgrade plan:

      1. Use FEBE to create a backup of my entire user profile
      2. Bookmark All Tabs to preserve as much of my running session as possible.
      3. Upgrade to FF4.0
      4. Note any incompatible extensions, decide whether or not to roll back.

      If I decide to roll back:

      1. Remove FF4
      2. Reinstall 3.6.15
      3. Install FEBE
      4. Restore FEBE backup
      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    3. Re:Addon compatibility? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      There's an add-on called "is it compatible" that shows what Firefox versions your add-ons are compatible with. I haven't installed it, but it is supposed to list compatibility right in the add-ons page so you can look for things that don't go "up to 4".

      AdBlock Plus, Ghostery, and NoScript are three add-ons I won't run Firefox without, and they've all been compatible since the early days of the beta.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:Addon compatibility? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      All except remove it permanently show as updated for FF4.

      remove it permanently is not updated yet and seems to cause a nasty error on start up, but after clicking through that, it seems to work fine afterwards.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    5. Re:Addon compatibility? by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      Or you could just backup the %AppData%\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\[random characters].default folder.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  37. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are you using Windows XP? I find that FF4 is slower than FF3.6 on my work computer (winXP) but faster on my home computer (vista). The new version renders using Direct2D on Vista and Win7, but uses software rendering on anything older. I'm sure you lose a lot in that mode of operation.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  38. Time to fix security bugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that 4.0 is out the door, I wonder if mozllia.org will have time to review the security bug ticket I posted back in September...

  39. Wargames by rjejr · · Score: 1

    The download stats page looks like the movie Wargames. Or real life if you just want to focus on the middle east portion.

  40. I love the AwesomeBar by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have numerous dev/test sites with similar addresses that change name/config almost weekly. With Firefox/awesomebar, I can just type the differentiator directly into the browser instead of making a bookmark (which in a week or two will be out of date anyway).

    As a web engineer, Firefox has no peer yet. Chrome/Safari are nice, and do offer features and speed that FF doesn't (at least on OSX), but Firefox (thanks to awesomebar) keeps me productive in a very dynamic work environment.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:I love the AwesomeBar by trawg · · Score: 2

      Seconded. Once you get used to the AwesomeBar it is easily one of the most useful things about Firefox. I went to Chrome for a while for the speed but found the Omnibar utterly bewildering and counter-intuitive; I could never get the hang of it even after trying it for a month to give it a fair go. I moved back to Firefox almost exclusively for the AwesomeBar because I found it really boosted my productivity (I'm a typing junkie and prefer to avoid using the mouse wherever possible so being able to hit ctrl-l and type in keywords is heaps more efficient for me than using the mouse to click nested folders to find a bookmark).

    2. Re:I love the AwesomeBar by jovius · · Score: 1

      I also like AwesomeBar. All I need to do is to type in the chick's name and there she is!

  41. seo by orangecity · · Score: 0

    I know the firefox launched 4th version. It is very nice & like as google chrome. http://www.shareseo.blogspot.com/

  42. Don't like the UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't like the UI?
    Just install Pentadactyl. Much better...

  43. All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by guidryp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I first fired it up, my first thought was: "Yuk, What happened to the fonts?"

    Some searching revealed this is the MS Win7 DirectWrite Font rendering(IE 9 does the same thing).

    Disable HW acceleration and all is well with my fonts.

    Why does DirectWrite font rendering look so awful? Do other people actually prefer this (fonts are thicker and closer to together).

    1. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by IB4Student · · Score: 1

      It all depends on how your windows install is set up. Try doing the ClearType config thing. Or just turn off Windows' crappy DirectX stuff. There's also an option to switch to openGL. Or just don't use Windows for web browsing :)

    2. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bug on some systems. It happens to me on my laptop, and it makes some text (small, light text on a dark background) practically unreadable; but, on other systems I've seen, it looks great.

    3. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by testerus · · Score: 4, Informative
    4. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by guidryp · · Score: 1

      As I already indicated. I already disabled the HW acceleration and the solves the problem. But it would be nice to have HW acceleration.

      Playing with CT doesn't as this is a separate system and one major issue is the change in Kerning which has nothing to do with CT either.

      I am just curious if this is supposed to be an improvement to most eyes, it certainly isn't for me, and if we can expect improvements in DirectWrite font rendering.

    5. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by guidryp · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I already did. That deals with the fat fonts, but it doesn't fix the kerning, which I suspect is supposed to be more paper typeface like, but running letters together on an LCD isn't pretty and is still irritating enough to disable HW Acceleration for.

    6. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      No, as far as I'm concerned this is a serious regression and not an improvement. The fonts look really ugly and the font rendering in Firefox make it stand out as a non-native app (it looks distinct and different from any other Windows app).

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    7. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by Skuto · · Score: 1

      No, as far as I'm concerned this is a serious regression and not an improvement. The fonts look really ugly and the font rendering in Firefox make it stand out as a non-native app (it looks distinct and different from any other Windows app).

      The "good" news is that this is now the recommended way of doing things on Windows to utilize the HW acceleration in the GPU and IE9 is doing it as well, with more apps likely to follow.

      No really, I hope that a better solution than just turning off HW acceleration turns up.

    8. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by therealmorris · · Score: 1

      This post might explain some of the issues? I know I did have problems in some of the early IE9 betas but I later used the cleartype tuner and haven't had any problems with IE9 or Firefox 4 since, fonts look great.

    9. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by diegocg · · Score: 1

      Try updating your graphic driver, it can fix it.

    10. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with the previous poster. Fonts in IE9 and Firefox 4 look awful. Direct2D is a good piece of technology but the default rendering method in DirectWrite is moronic at best. The effect you are seeing is because they are doing horizontal and vertical antialiasing, which ends up being too blurry. I was developing a quick picture viewer using the technology and it also has some other limitations based on hardware. For instance, most images are scaled using bicubic or Lanczos filtering these days but Direct2D only supports bilinear filtering, which sadly is what Firefox had while Chrome had Lanczos. If you want to use your own filtering then you kind of lose some speed in the process.

      In general I would say Direct2D is the way forward and Microsoft still has to reach OS X quality in this regard with their CoreImage API. Linux is going to have a real fight in its hands trying to implement this reliable on non-nVidia video cards. I just wish somebody would just have a bunch of human beings sit in front of a computer and test if they like what they see before releasing this ugly antialiased text rendering method to the masses, even if the "science" behind it says otherwise.

    11. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      that may be recommended way to do hardware acceleration, but I don't think it's the recommended way to render text :D. Open a page in Firefox 4 and Internet Explorer 9 side by side and notice huge difference in text rendering. IE 9 also respects my clear type tuning preferences.

      Not that I would use IE9 as my primary browser ever, but I think Mozilla is doing itself harm by showing initial experience that will be perceived as a problem by average user (remember the Safari for Windows saga when people complained about blurry fonts because Apple chose to render fonts as they do in OS X? They changed their mind soon after).

      On unrelated note, Firefox 4 look amazingly well in OS X (with hardware acceleration), and they fixed some long standing annoyances (you could not middle click a link to open it in a new tab, and full screen would mess up your browser window preferred size etc). It looks like they now fine tuned it for Mac OS X more than for any other platform :D.

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    12. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an option to force GDI compatible character spacing, so if you reconfigure DirectWrite to use GDI-compatible font rendering for sharper/bolder text, the character spacing is all messed up. I think there is an option for this in DirectWrite since it's what Visual Studio 2010 / WPF 4 uses so that its text doesn't have the same problem, but I might be wrong.

    13. Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Basically, DirectWrite does it this way because Microsoft has recently been infiltrated by the _artiste_ crowd. Up until now, Windows ClearType has used the sensible philosophy of snapping fonts to the screen's pixel grid, even if this means the font doesn't quite match what the designer intended. The philosophy was that readability was more important than absolute fidelity to the font's design, and this was best achieved by keeping it within the grid. MacOS did it the other way (as does Safari for Windows, which is why it looks like blurry crap). Unfortunately, someone apparently convinced MS that the Apple way was better, which it isn't.
      http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html
      http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/font-rendering-respecting-the-pixel-grid.html

  44. Nicer performance, but... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    I like quite a few things about Firefox 4. Its Javascript performance is clearly improved. The one thing I'm not a big fan of is the new minimalist GUI. The icons are too small, they have all the colour sucked out of them, and there are no 24x24 icons on Windows/OSX anymore. It does seem a lot like copying Chrome for copying's sake.

    Luckily there's a theme that gets back all the Firefox 3 colourful toolbar goodness (and includes its larger icons), if anyone's interested. It's here:
    Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4

    1. Re:Nicer performance, but... by IB4Student · · Score: 1

      lol, colours sucked out? getpersonas.com Or use one of the many themes, as you've realized. And, no, it's not copying Chrome. Most of the influence is actually from Microsoft (the Fx button, the tabs, etc.) and Strata 40 (the theme) has been out since 2009. Minimalism is actually a lot better for productivity. And it's great for netbooks--having no statusbar and everything else in the title bar gives you a lot of screen real estate without having to shut everything else off (F11)

    2. Re:Nicer performance, but... by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      The minimalist approach is good for small screens, but otherwise it's terrible for usability, and is completely inconsistent with the rest of the system. This must be the worst thing in this field since MS-Office's ribbon. Too bad the Interface Hall of Shame hasn't been updated in ages, they'd have a field day with the current generation of browsers!

    3. Re:Nicer performance, but... by Spewns · · Score: 1

      The one thing I'm not a big fan of is the new minimalist GUI.

      That's what I like most out of this new release. They didn't copy Chrome for copying sake - they copied Chrome because it has a smart and unobtrusive UI. Now Firefox thankfully does as well. If you want the clunky toolbars and Fitts'-law-violating tabs-on-bottom back, you can change them in View -> Toolbars. I'm not sure if you can reenable the horrendous, obtrusive persistent status bar of old though.

    4. Re:Nicer performance, but... by IB4Student · · Score: 1

      It's great as a default, since on a smaller screen customizing is more of a hastle. It really doesn't take that long to make it look exactly like Fx 3.6, or anything in between. And it's not as bad as Chrome or IE9.

  45. nonsense by doug · · Score: 2

    MS doesn't want to leave any of its customers using old, insecure browsers. In fact, it is just the opposite. They want to sell them an upgrade. And if they get two upgrades in one (browser and OS) then they are <charliesheen>winning!</charliesheen>.

    - doug

    1. Re:nonsense by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      "And if they get two upgrades in one (browser and OS) then they are winning!."

      Actually, that was the perfect time to say "they are BI-winning!"

  46. Download animation by return+42 · · Score: 1

    Was thinking it was really sad to see how few downloads there are in Japan, until I checked the time - it's 3am.

    OTOH it's not very late in Africa, and there are even fewer downloads there. Ah, Africa! Birthplace of our species, now the most impoverished continent on Earth. Ye have been well screwed over, Africa.

  47. This is hot by slapys · · Score: 1

    I'm using Centos 5.3 in a university lab. The outdated nature of this Linux has been pretty frustrating - it's almost impossible to install anything new. I couldn't put Google Chrome on here, for example, or a recent version of The Gimp.

    I just put Firefox 4 on here and it's damn sexy. It performs great, it was easy to install on the Linux box, the graphics are much nicer than FF 3, it gives RAM back to the system when I close tabs. There's less chrome so I get more browsing space on my monitor, without sacrificing any functionality at all. Bravo, Firefox team.

  48. The Germans! by xMrFishx · · Score: 0

    They're all over it...(Currently winning the $nDownloads race in Europe)

    1. Re:The Germans! by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      What's up with Alfred, NY?

    2. Re:The Germans! by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, who is that guy?!

    3. Re:The Germans! by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      It's a college town, with both a state and private university, but both are pretty small. It's also got (at least did 15 years ago) a decent comp-something program, although nothing near the scale of RIT. Its biggest claim to fame is the fact that it's a college out in the middle of nowhere.

      Somehow I doubt they've downloaded more copies in Alfred than all of California and Texas combined.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  49. Firefox ... bit fansy by Kanishkablack · · Score: 1

    i have been using firefox beta since its realease there is not much difference in linux ... what so ever they call... speed is improved that it no hardware accleration for linux nothing much more .............

  50. Old Mac users: save yourself a download by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They may be using the "Universal Binary" icon, but that seems to mean something else these days (the binaries contain i386 and amd64 architectures, no ppc).

  51. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by avij · · Score: 1

    I'm using a Nokia Booklet 3G laptop with Windows 7. Sadly it appears that hardware "accelerated" rendering is actually slower on this laptop than the traditional rendering method. After disabling the acceleration from FF4's settings the browser's speed is again adequate.

    --

    Follow your Euro bills at EBT
  52. FF4! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /yawn

  53. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 1

    >>>new version renders using Direct2D on Vista and Win7, but uses software rendering on anything older

    +1 informative.
    Looks like I'll be using 3.6 for a long, long time since I have no plans to move my laptop or desktop from XP (unless they die, of course).

    --
    FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
  54. Not the browser that I'm used to... by euyis · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm gettting nostalgic... but I really can't get comfortable with the new layout. Is there an addon bringing back the entire pre-4.0 UI of Firefox? Or most of it if not everything.

    Perhaps the UI designers would say that this shiny new thing is more efficient at browsing pages or whatever... However I just don't like it.

    Also: I get Bing in my search bar after the upgrade. Removed, but what's that doing there? Did Mozilla get paid to put it here?

    1. Re:Not the browser that I'm used to... by surveyork · · Score: 1

      You can get most of the old GUI back without any add-on with just a few clicks. For the status bar, Status4evar https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/status-4-evar/ or wait for Pale Moon 4 to be released in a few days.

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
  55. Who's downloading it in the sea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you watch it for 10 seconds, you will see the big light flashes off India/Sri Lanka (south west) and off Madagascar (east). Now, who is downloading Firefox 4 heavily in the middle of the ocean??!

    Sailors/Navy always struck me as the IE6 types.

  56. Firefox 4 "What's New" page by sootman · · Score: 1
    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Firefox 4 "What's New" page by BZ · · Score: 2

      Looks like the main issue is the use of -moz-linear-gradient without a corresponding -webkit version, and the use of -moz-calc.

      Which is sort of unfortunate... on the other hand, this page is basically part of the browser UI on first run; it's not a general page that you'd want to link someone to.

    2. Re:Firefox 4 "What's New" page by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Thats only because you have the "Whats new in Firefox 4" addon installed. The page actually looks like crap in all browsers.

    3. Re:Firefox 4 "What's New" page by mqduck · · Score: 1

      What problem am I supposed to be seeing?

      --
      Property is theft.
  57. Stop the tab bar animating? by mccalli · · Score: 1

    Is there any way to stop the tabs in the tab bar from animating and sliding around? Prefer the old way if possible.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:Stop the tab bar animating? by mccalli · · Score: 3, Informative

      To answer my own question: yes, there is..

      Cheers,
      Ian

  58. Visualization details by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

    Some details on how the download visualization works: http://blog.mozilla.com/data/2011/03/22/how-glow-mozilla-org-gets-its-data/

  59. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by jjbenz · · Score: 1

    I just installed it on a crappy old Dell 260 (P4 2.0ghz) with 768mb ram and it launched and brought up websites way faster than 3.6.15 did.

  60. Are Live Bookmarks fixed? by gman003 · · Score: 1

    There's been a known bug for all of Firefox 3 where all Live Bookmarks were refreshed on start. As this was done in the foreground process, this meant that if you have too many live bookmarks, it can take a while for Firefox to actually start up. I have over 120 live bookmarks, and Firefox 3 takes about five minutes to be usable. Which was entirely responsible for me switching my main browsing to Chrome, keeping Firefox only for checking my RSS feeds once a day.

    Is this bug finally fixed, or is it STILL an issue?

  61. Still a memory hog? by hilldog · · Score: 1

    Running FF4 om XP at work and notice it is sucking up 120,424k of memory making it the largest user of system memory by far. Chrome on the other hand is only 29,496k and I can't say what IE uses as I don't use that for anything. Yeah yeah memory is cheap and I have plenty but still a browser imho should not be the number one resource hog on your system.

  62. Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition 4.0 Released by CritterNYC · · Score: 3

    As always, we posted the portable version within a few hours over at PortableApps.com. As we did an extended test of version 4.0 portably following the whole 4.0 beta and RC process, it's turned out to be a nice, stable release. It's great for running from your flash drive, DropBox or just trying out a new firefox install without affecting your local one.

    Release Announcement | Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition 4.0 homepage

  63. hurrah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks Mozilla for this very fine release!

    (PS: please fix the ugly fonts issue on linux)

  64. firefox 4 does not work with logmein by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    If you're a logmein user, be cognizant that the plugin doesn't yet work with Firefox 4. Won't even install.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  65. hiding the home button by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I didn't like this in IE7 and now I don't like it in FF 4. I customize my home page and use the home button to get to it quickly. Having the button be a little tiny thing on the far right of the screen is annoying.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:hiding the home button by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Alt-Home is easier and quicker.

    2. Re:hiding the home button by kaychoro · · Score: 1

      Right-click somewhere in the blank area by the address bar, hit customize, then simply drag the home button to wherever you'd like it.

      --
      //TODO: create a signature
    3. Re:hiding the home button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh. Nice!

    4. Re:hiding the home button by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Fixed now. Thanks.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  66. Re:Yes download now for all the latest security ho by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 1

    Your sarcasm is funny, but it's well known that new releases often have more "holes" than the older releases that have been around for a few years and extensively debugged by users.

    As example: I recently upgraded to the latest SeaMonkey browser, and inexplicably the "undo closed tab" function no longer works. It worked just fine in Beta 1, so why would it be broke in Beta 2? According to YOU that should not happen (newer is better), but obviously something went "a little ka-ka* and so I reverted back down.

    *
    * Quantum Leap reference.

    --
    FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
  67. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by bartok · · Score: 1

    This is not true. FF4 uses DirectX9 on XP to accelerate the compositing / rendering of web content.

    The only time when it uses software rendering is when your graphics drivers are not recent enough, and that's true for both XP and Win Vista / 7. the one thing Vista and 7 have over XP is support DirectWrite, which is part of DirectX 10 so of course, doesn't work on XP.

  68. The tracker is so damn cool. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    It's ALL Javascript and HTML5.

    no flash.

    Only if I didn't have to target IE7 at work...

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  69. Pipelining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When is Firefox going to start enabling pipelining by default? The network.http.pipelining.firstrequest config option has been a revelation in performance for me.

  70. Still No 64-bit Release for Windows by Monkey · · Score: 1

    There's a Linux 64-bit version, why has there never been a 64-bit release for Windows?

    1. Re:Still No 64-bit Release for Windows by nzac · · Score: 1

      There is if you want to compile it for your self (this will be more work on windows than Linux though).

      Mozilla only release 32-bit binaries. 64-bit Linux distros compile it and then add it to repositories for you (this is one advantage of having the source). There probably is a third party site who will compile and package it for windows then drop the flash player plug-in into the plugins folder.

    2. Re:Still No 64-bit Release for Windows by i-linux123 · · Score: 1

      64-bit linux version is also gone with the wind now at the release of firefox 4. (It is still available on nightly builds).

  71. I will probably upgrade in a month or so by Compuser · · Score: 1

    Right now, many key extensions (NoUn buttons, verttabbar, Reload_on_DoubleClick and a few others) are not ported yet. I have one test machine set up and I am adding extensions as they become available. Once the UI gets usable again I will upgrade all machines.

  72. Thanks Intranet! by Dakman · · Score: 1

    You employ web standards terribly! Good work!

    1. Re:Thanks Intranet! by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the developers! Also the managers, so the developers can have a budget to do this!

    2. Re:Thanks Intranet! by Dakman · · Score: 1

      I'll need a list of office phones that I can dial. Thanks.

  73. Aha. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a lot of light bulbs turning on.

  74. Toronto Seems to be the heaviest of downloaders by cdpage · · Score: 1

    for the last 3 hrs, i have been glancing back at this map, refreshing it to see how well it works and if i can catch anything.

    the counter seems to be modest, in that when refreshing there are actually more DLrs than predicted.

    aside from the occasional blip out in the middle of the pacific (NOT Hawaii) the only blip that stands out seem to be Toronto. it blips so frequently that it never turns off.

    I'd like to see the City's ranking list after the first 24hs or 48hr to see how this all went down.

    perhaps even a flow cart of the wave going across earth as time zones alter the download rates.

  75. Bloated by jbssm · · Score: 1

    I just wish that for one major iteration Mozzilla would stop adding half baked new stuff and concentrate in eliminating all the bugs, all this crazy memory and processor peaks that come from nowhere (no, it's not my system, it happens both in my iMac and my MacBook pro) and reworked the plugin system to work correctly (if Safari and Chrome can install and update plugins witouth restarting, so can you). I've been using the Firefox 4 RC since beta 4 and these nasty bugs remain there.

    Really, I started with Firefox in my Windows days, because it was much lighter on the resources and less bloated than IE ... but look at what it became?

    If it wasn't for the tab scrolling feature that Safari still doesn't have, I wouldn't think twice in ditching Firefox.

    1. Re:Bloated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found on FF3 and OSX, a number of sites have poor JavaScripts that will kick in and make FF3 start grabbing processor time, even in the background. I used the Developer Toolbar to disable all JavaScript, and these stupid spikes stopped immediately.

      I'm normally not one to start disabling essential Web things (except for Flash, which is hardly essential :p), but this solved my problems. I'd take a stab at also guessing that these runaway JavaScripts don't exactly help with memory leaks either.

  76. Re:not the only release of the day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure some of my friends have goatse-sized shits, but it's not something we usually talk about.

  77. Rendering regression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else think that fonts are being rendered less nicely with the new Firefox 4? I'm on windows 7 and to me they just seem blurry or fuzzy and somehow less clean than in Firefox 3.6. Some characters seem very bold compared to others and some look, distorted, for lack of a better term.

    Reminds me of the way other browsers render actually.

  78. Complaining about defaults? by indros13 · · Score: 1

    I'm rather surprised that so many Slashdot users complain about the default settings in FF4. Yes, they changed the toolbar, statusbar, tab location etc.... But every single one of those things can be changed with in-browser settings or extensions. In my mind, those aren't problems - that's exactly what makes Firefox a great browser. Isn't this a site for nerds?

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    1. Re:Complaining about defaults? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It isn't a productivity boost to spend multiple hours searching the internet to find out how to unscrew the new firefox to make it work like it used to. I shouldn't have to install an extension just so I can have a statusbar that doesn't work as well as the old one.

      The new firefox is a delight. So many nifty things, so many things that work now that didn't work previously. And so many senseless changes that have to be worked around.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  79. App tabs are brilliant by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1

    I really do find the notion of "app tabs" to be very useful. It's a small tab designed for frequently accessed pages such as your webmail (or slash dot), just showing the icon instead of the web page title. My only hope is that they provide some persistence for these tabs. I'd love if the first firefox window I opened contained my saved app tabs.

  80. Re:Yes download now for all the latest security ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your sarcasm is funny, but it's well known that new releases often have more "holes" than the older releases that have been around for a few years and extensively debugged by users.

    As example: I recently upgraded to the latest SeaMonkey browser, and inexplicably the "undo closed tab" function no longer works. It worked just fine in Beta 1, so why would it be broke in Beta 2? According to YOU that should not happen (newer is better), but obviously something went "a little ka-ka* and so I reverted back down.

    *
    * Quantum Leap reference.

    You're conflating general usability/stability bugs and security vulnerabilities.

    In theory, security vulnerabilities are just like any other bug, but in practice, security vulnerabilities seem to be found more often in legacy code that was written before proper bounds checking was recognized as a major issue. Moreover, older code may not have support for newer OS or kernel-level security features (eg. ASLR) or may escape them by running in a riskier compatibility mode.

  81. Fixed memory usage? I wish by tuxicle · · Score: 1

    I've been using FF4 betas since Beta 9, and memory usage has shot up from 3.x (on WinXP). I figured, hey, it's a beta, they'll fix it in release, it probably has a bunch of debug stuff in it. So today I got my spanking new workstation, put Win7 on it, and here's the memory usage as reported by Windows Task Manager (top 2 lines):

    SLDWORKS.exe - 364,348k
    firefox.exe *32 - 327,484k

    Solidworks, for those who don't know, is a rather large 3D CAD program, it has a relatively small assembly with about 100 parts loaded. FF has been running for about 2 hours, on a mix of websites, with a total of 7 tabs open across 3 windows. Fresh install, with Firefox Sync as the only add-in. What in the world is FF doing with all that memory?

    *sigh*

  82. Multi threaded, faster faster faster by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    Some of you may have noticed me complain about the UI implemented in chrome recently or crop up in many firefox threads over the years.

    Essentially, Firefox 3 is all I need in a browser (with about 4 plugins) it does everything I could possibly want. The only thing I want is speed. I don't care how much computing resources it takes, I want the option to turn on as much caching and multi threading as possible and just have ridiculous fast browsing (ludicrous speed infact)

    I believe FF4 is actually faster, despite the ghastly copying of Chromes UI, at least you can disable the tabs up top option, although the status bar change requires a plugin to put it back where it belongs IIRC. However when is the multi threaded or process per tab stuff coming? I've been browsing the web since lynx and that was the only time I recall web pages being fast enough.
    I installed a package called "easy DNS" under XP once which handled DNS caching very well, it definitely improved browsing response times, I'd like to see better caching of entire pages with firefox, regardless of memory use. I have 4 cores, 8 threads, 6gb of ram and an SSD - please make the web absoloutely as fast as possible.

    Heres to hoping firefox 5 works on speed and not copying features from the competition.

  83. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

    Can you at least turn off Cleartype in FF4? IE9 forces it on for any page in any application rendered by mshtml.dll and it looks like crapola.

  84. Never liked it; is 4.0 gonna be any better? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

    I've NEVER liked Firefox. I've used a lot of different browsers over the years. About 6 different versions of Opera, several versions of Safari, a handful of Chrome. All of them have been better than Firefox in some way. IE was more compatible than FF, Opera was faster and had more interesting, innovative features. That speed-dial feature? It was in Opera first. Tabs, too.

    Safari was great for a while. Excellent rendering engine, highly compatible, nice layout, SIMPLE. Chrome did it one or two or three better, and generally has a better interface and more speed than anything else.

    Firefox was good for a time because it was the LEAST BAD option. It was never the BEST option, as near as I can reckon. I try it on and off, just to see if it's gotten any better or is worth switching to, and it NEVER IS. The plugins have never interested me, since the better browsers always seem to have functionality built in that FF needs to plugin. The stuff that isn't good enough to be built into the browser, by and large, doesn't need to exist at all. :/

    Is 4.0 going to be better? Can I compare it to Chrome and objectively find reasons that it's worth the (admittedly minimal) effort of re-importing my bookmarks? Or is it more of the same mediocrity that I've come to expect?

  85. Repositories? by Eggbloke · · Score: 0

    When can we expect FF4 to appear in the Ubuntu repositories?

    --
    I care not for your karma and your mod points.
  86. no Antarctica downloaders? by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    Not while I was watching, anyway.

    Are you people too busy transferring scientific data, supply orders for the coming winter, and personal messages to SOs thousands of miles away to burn your precious link bandwidth getting the latest, coolest, most Mozilla-ish browser available?

    1. Re:no Antarctica downloaders? by dokebi · · Score: 1

      Not while I was watching, anyway.

      Are you people too busy transferring scientific data, supply orders for the coming winter, and personal messages to SOs thousands of miles away to burn your precious link bandwidth getting the latest, coolest, most Mozilla-ish browser available?

      Speakig as one of the thousands of people on Antarctica with fast internet connections, I was tempted to download it while you were watching, but I think I'll wait until "tomorrow".

      --
      In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
    2. Re:no Antarctica downloaders? by Dishwasha · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately their downloads were frozen.

  87. Firefox 4? No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I want the old statusbar back. This new thing is lot less informative, not to mention clunky-looking with a close button permanently etched on it.

    But that's not all, what is with this Google Chrome envy? Sheesh. Not funny or impressive.

    As one could expect, half of plugins ceased to function and there are no updates available. Gee, how am I not surprised? And Mozilla really plans to push through 3-4 Major Revisions during 2011? Get outta here.

    Overall, having "experienced" Firefox 4.x, I decided to stick to Firefox 3.6.x. I never moved beyond Thunderbird 2.x either, having witnessed the disaster known as Thunderbird 3.x. I think Firefox 4.x was the decisive moment, when Firefox became useless/obsolete.

    1. Re:Firefox 4? No thanks. by Skuto · · Score: 1

      Look at the status-4-evar extension.

    2. Re:Firefox 4? No thanks. by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      This is why I don't use Firefox. Its a tweaker/developer toy (which is fine), but its not a web browser to browse the web. Its what I call perpetually broken software because every time you start it up, it says "I'm broken. Please download updates".

      Thinking back to browser history, I thought of my first tabbed browser. I started using it in 2001 or 2002. It was called galeon, here is an embarrassing screenshot: http://galeon.sourceforge.net/graphics/shots/fonts.png That is from 2003, the same year I switched to Macs and Safari web browser. That screenshot looks like MSWord6 from 1994 or so, back when toolbars and buttons took preference over your documents. Also when there was only 600-800 vertical rows of pixels on most displays. FF currently uses 10-15 more vertical pixels for its tabs and whatnot at the top when compared to Safari or Chrome. In the netbook era, this seems a bit wasteful.

      The good news is that FF 8 is due out next week!

  88. I will pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox is the new IE, Chrome is the new FireFox.

  89. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, you run Vista on your home computer?

    Just asking...

  90. Customizing your userChrome.css by Skuto · · Score: 1

    It can really pay off to do some optimizing of your userChrome.css file. For example, one thing that annoyed me greatly was that the tabs don't move next to the menu, losing precious vertical screen estate. And most of the context menu entries just get in the way. All of this is fixable without any plugins or whatever. There are many examples of annotated userChromes around, if you're anything beyond a casual user it pays off to have a quick look.

  91. Don't you know what that means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mozilla crew conquered time travel!

    The only way to make a browser slower than Firefox 3.6 is to be able to go back in time.

  92. i like the webtrends spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hidden and embedded in the page,
    i guess sending your data to a scumbag 3rd party is the norm now ? i mean nobody has access to their server logs so they are needed right ?

    fuckers

  93. Alternatives? by ludomancer · · Score: 2

    Can anyone recommend alternatives to all the new "whiz-bang" bullshit that's put in browsers today?

    Now that Firefox has truly gone the way of Netscape and IE with the bloat, I'd really like to get back to a bare-bones browser that simply provides the openness for the plugins I need, and GTFO with everything else.

    I'm weary of Chrome, and Firefox is just worthless to me now (crashes, slow, etc).

    Yeah this is a biased comment, but I figured the people with the same requirements as I have will probably understand and respond. I hope!

    1. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your free to use an old version of firefox.

    2. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera is probably worth giving a try. A bit bloated, but nowhere near that of firefox.

    3. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lynx

    4. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just build your LFS, then compile X and Openbox. That way, you could start using Uzbl, and use only 20MB of ram (on your 4GB) and 0.01% of your i7.

      Hipster.

    5. Re:Alternatives? by Draconix · · Score: 1

      Why are you wary of Chrome? I used Firefox for years (before that I used Camino) and I caved in and tried Chrome a couple of months ago. Before long, I realized I was beginning to like Chrome an awful lot better. The UI is cleaner and more intuitive, the ability to see what resources each individual extension is using is awesome, and it rarely even shows up in the top 5 RAM users on my system. (iTunes! Argh!) I've found equivalent extensions to the ones I used in Firefox (AdBlock, NotScripts, RedditEnhancementSuite, etc.) that work just as well or better, and I don't have to install a fucking 3rd party extension (which the Firefox devs keep breaking; I think the guy who makes the extension may have given up at this point) to use my Keychain Access passwords in it! Also, it hasn't crashed a single time yet. Not once. Firefox would crash at least a couple of times a day, I'd just learned to get used to it.

      My only complaints about Chrome are pretty minor. I miss the ability to turn bookmark folders into a bookmark that opens the folder's contents with a simple click (my Logitech Performance MX is a pain to middle click with) and I'm bummed that it's not FOSS, but I can live with proprietary software that's actually good.

      And I'm pretty sure Google isn't secretly using Chrome to track people's every move. :P At worst, I think Chrome is a fiendish ploy to get people to like and trust Google by giving away something awesome, which is fine by me, because although Google isn't perfect (they're still a corporation, and do stupid shit for the bottom line from time to time) I generally like what they do.

      --
      By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
    6. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safari 5 (seriously), or K-Meleon if you want Gecko.

    7. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not Firefox that's slow/crashes, it's all the crappy Firefox plugins you have activated.

      This is akin to hating on windows for being slow when the installation has a ton of bloat/spy/crap ware added to it.

    8. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Lynx for less "whiz-bang" bullshit

    9. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without lacking the must-have tabs, Seamonkey does the job under Linux (classic Netscape 4 look and feel). Beyond that, typing browser in your [universe-enabled] distro package managers suggests many unstable others that don't attract me at all. Those are clones of Webkit (Midori, for example) or crippled forks of firefox. On the higher-polish side, distros have opera and chromium, but they are all about the bells-and-whistles you and I dislike

      I haven't found any non-big-5 for Windows or cared to do a search for Seamonkey win32 binaries, but by OSS convention there should be one out there.

    10. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wget, lynx, links, links2 or just make your own OS like James Gosling did!

    11. Re:Alternatives? by gollito · · Score: 1

      Chrome is about as joe basic as you can get. Small'ish download and it starts fast (as well as renders fast) and has plenty of support for plugins if you so desire. What is there to be "weary" about? Maybe look at Opera?

    12. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The browser you describe *is* Chrome. You are weary of it? What does that mean?

    13. Re:Alternatives? by Clsid · · Score: 1

      Don't be weary of Chrome then because that's your only option at the moment.

    14. Re:Alternatives? by BZ · · Score: 1

      Chrome is a smallish download?

      On Mac: Chrome 10: 35MB
                                    Firefox 4: 28MB

      On Linux: Chrome 10 32-bit rpm: 30MB
                                        Firefox 4 32-bit package: 13MB

      On Windows, Chrome's numbers are hard to measure because they use a 500KB installer that then downloads the actual browser. But according to http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20045776-264.html Chrome 10 on Windows is 26MB. Firefox 4 is 12MB.

    15. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Links, tiny and awesome. Who needs a frame buffer?

    16. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not satisfied with any of the current browsers. Nearly all of them have a "feature" that I consider to be a deal killer. Chrome would be the best (in my opinion), but it refuses to just let me download mp3 files. Good luck right-clicking "Save As" in a flash app. You have to create your own html file with a link to the mp3, then open that html file and right-click your own link (just to download an mp3 file).

      As a result, I put up with Firefox.

      All I would need to be convinced to switch is for someone to demonstrate a browser other than Firefox is actually the lesser of all the evils.

    17. Re:Alternatives? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >Firefox is just worthless to me now (crashes, slow, etc).
      Every time I see this, it seem to turn out to be a PEBKAC error

      Anyway, I suggest you switch to links2

    18. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome is full of memory leaks...with uptimes of couple of days, it will leak to 2GB of ram. Just go search google issues and you will find tonnes of bugs in chrome memory management and no resolution in sight. I will take firefox any day compared to unstable and memory hog chrome.

  94. Still no 64 bit! by markdavis · · Score: 1

    I am surprised they still offer no 64 bit build download options for Linux and other OS's. I doubt it would make much difference, but it seems odd now that it is 2011...

    1. Re:Still no 64 bit! by Draconix · · Score: 1

      They offer it for OS X, at least, or did back in beta. It's not a good idea, though, because in order to run 32 bit plugins (like Silverlight) they'd need to create an additional emulation layer like Safari has. The 64 bit version of FF4 is neat, but it not being able to watch Netflix streaming in it is kind of a bummer.

      --
      By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
    2. Re:Still no 64 bit! by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Well, can't watch it under Linux anyway, since no Silverlight... so nothing is lost there.

      Guess I have to wait for a distro recompile of FF 4.

    3. Re:Still no 64 bit! by BZ · · Score: 1

      On OS X 10.6 Firefox 4 runs 64-bit by default. The download includes both the 64-bit and 32-bit binaries on Mac.

      On Linux, the builds are there but not officially supported, apparently. See http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0/linux-x86_64/

    4. Re:Still no 64 bit! by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link!

    5. Re:Still no 64 bit! by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      The assumption for linux these days is that the distributions will take the source and provide a distribution/version/architecture specific offering.

      For ubuntu there is a PPA and therefore an install process. I would assume that it's multi-architecture.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  95. Youtube Downloader by kcbnac · · Score: 1

    http://youtubedownload.altervista.org/ (Windows-based tool only)

    Works great.

    Provide download URL, downloads file (you pick quality level, I just leave it at "best quality available")

    Then as a separate action, you can convert a file you've downloaded. Convert to MP3, or various video formats (for mobile devices, for example) are available.

    Free (not GPL free), works great. What I use for making HLSS clips for my Source games...(then have to convert the MP3 to the proper audio format for Source, but that's Audacity's job)

  96. Updates coming tomorrow and the next day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay! FF4 is finally released. And now tomorrow there will be the updates and fixes and then the day after that some more. And then Monday morning next week some important security updates. And then Monday afternoon some serious bug fixes. We'll have 4.0.25 in a week.

  97. "It's a feature" by springbox · · Score: 1

    I am really disappointed by their changes to "streamline" the session manager. You can nuke the previous state by opening the browser, closing it (accidents can happen), and opening it again. All because they didn't want to automatically restore it when Firefox starts.

    1. Re:"It's a feature" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There's a Session Manager extension that works well.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  98. How many downloads in the first 24 hours? by Tigger's+Pet · · Score: 1

    What was it that Microsoft claimed? 2.4 million in the first 24 hours? Nice to see that Firefox is up at 2.8 million and counting. Obviously many more fools out there like me who run Linux and want new, shiny toys but refuse point blank to ever let IE onto our system.
    Seriously though, I quite like the new FF - seems fairly minimal to me, the add-ons I want work (Ad-Block is all I find I need), and no problems with memory so far on my old 1.5GHz, 512MB RAM Laptop.

  99. Chrome about:flags Omnibar matching feature by Sits · · Score: 1

    There is a feature in my version of Chromium on the about:flags page that says:

    Enable better omnibox history matching
    Enables substring and multi-fragment matching within URLs from history.

    This seems to let me type a piece of bookmark name and then match the bookmark in the fashion you described but its certainly not on by default.

  100. Re:Yes download now for all the latest security ho by lennier · · Score: 1

    in practice, security vulnerabilities seem to be found more often in legacy code that was written before proper bounds checking was recognized as a major issue.

    If array bounds checking was ever "not recognised as a major issue" then I fear for the programming industry.

    Programming is an exact precision discipline based on mathematics and yet we can't even guarantee to get simple 'X+1=Y' maths right? Ouch.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  101. When Linux gets its graphics shit together by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The problem is that 3D on Linux can be charitably described as a complete fucking mess. It is a bunch of standards, many outdated, that result in drivers that don't work well.

    So the binary nVidia drivers work great. They do that by more ore less replacing all the stuff with their own implementation. Fine, but that only applies to a subset of the population. You have to have an nVidia card and you have to be one of the people who is ok with closed source.

    The rest? Well they have really bad problems, like X totally blows up and every thing crashes problems, when you try and make use of hardware acceleration as FF needs. Hence it gets disabled.

    Basically Linux needs a better model for graphics drivers, and then needs drivers that are properly coded to that and bug free. Then hardware acceleration will work.

    1. Re:When Linux gets its graphics shit together by Clsid · · Score: 1

      It would need open source hardware for that too, or at least open source specs. There is way too many issues to make that happen, from hardware vendors wanting to protect their intellectual property and a hostile community to anything closed source. From the programming standpoint this is the kernel developers official stand: http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.37/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt , or let me put it another way, we don't want your stupid driver cause we have a so much better architecture, so you either include it with our kernel or begone. Funny enough, most companies have chosen the second option. Typical Linux mentality that keeps the desktop system from going forward cause you need to be l33t. Sorry if my post offends a lot of Linux developers but try to take it as constructive criticism to leave politics aside and just provide an alternative to something that works without having to suffer a vendor lock-in (namely nVidia).

  102. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by Skuto · · Score: 1

    There's an Anti-Aliasing Tuner plugin.

  103. How does it work by paxcoder · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how that works. There are a lot of blinks on the map, and very little coord-like data returned from the server in JSON format (and almost no other data besides that).

  104. Try Opera 11.x then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ It's very fast, very feature laden, and is secure and in my experience, never crashes.

  105. Re:Yes download now for all the latest security ho by blair1q · · Score: 1

    They've been running that trope for about the last 6 months with over a dozen iterations of 4.0 beta.

    And it's not been pretty all the way through.

  106. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by mmj638 · · Score: 1

    You're not losing anything.

    Remember that there is no such thing as Direct2D on Windows XP, so no version of Firefox (or any other browser) has had or will have Direct2D acceleration on Windows XP.

    Firefox 4 does however add Direct3D compositing acceleration on certain video adapters - which is used at a higher level such as when elements overlay other elements.

    The suggestion that Firefox 4 uses less acceleration than previous, or other, browsers on XP is mythical.

  107. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by mmj638 · · Score: 1

    Why is this a reason to use Firefox 3.6? 3.6 used software-only rendering on all platforms.

    What's new here is Firefox 4's Direct2D acceleration on Vista and above, and Direct3D or OpenGL acceleration on all other systems. Remember that there is no such thing as Direct2D on Windows XP.

  108. I like it. by soupbowl · · Score: 0

    I installed version 4 on my windows 7 desktop and arch linux labtop and I really like it. It is defently an upgrade from 3.6 not having any of the issues others are crying about.

  109. Even in 3D, production values vary by tepples · · Score: 1

    Lets be honest FLOSS gaming is 3D 32bit any resolution.

    But how close do the production values, such as level of mesh/texture/shader detail and the length of campaigns, in games released as free software from day one come to those of commercial Xbox 360 games?

  110. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by Clsid · · Score: 1

    I do, works fine over here, especially after you tweak it by disabling UAC. It's my computer and I have a good antivirus and if worse comes to worse, I'll just reinstall the machine and restore data from backups, which to this date hasn't been necessary. Pretty stable system for me even if it sounds surprising to you.

  111. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by i-linux123 · · Score: 1

    Linux doesn't accelerate the ff windows either, you can see it in about:support at the bottom.

  112. Where did Ctrl+E focus search box go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to a snafu near the end of the release of Firefox 4, the "universal" (OK, in Windows-land) search hotkey Ctrl+E got unmapped. For those of you missing this feature, let Mozilla know! One way to do this, and ease your pain at the same time, is to install and comment on this addon:

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/change-search-shortcut/

    Which restores the Ctlr+E hotkey mapping.

  113. why did they change this? by blackpacu · · Score: 1

    I just went to right click on a link to open it in a new tab out of habit and found it in a new window. why did they swap the position of open in new tab and open in new window on the right click? This is going to be a old habit to break if I can't change them back Other than that it seems pretty good

    1. Re:why did they change this? by neminem · · Score: 1

      You can. Assuming you haven't already, just google it. Or I could do it for you, because I don't feel like doing work :p. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1954619&start=15

      Of the handful of annoyances when I decided to try the beta a few months ago, that was one of the easiest to find a solution for.

  114. re: by cpulsa · · Score: 1

    I am glad to hear this news.but I have not felt the need to upgrade my mozilla into the new version

  115. Glow seems dubious...Japan? by Boawk · · Score: 1

    There are an awful lot of glowing blips from all over Japan. Is that plausible?

  116. gopher support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alas gopher support is gone of this release :(

    It was interesting viewing gopher sites with FireFox 3.6

  117. Tour... by creativeHavoc · · Score: 1

    I just upgraded, and I can't for the life of me figure out how to take the tour. I click on everything and nothing actually does anything. Then I looked through the javascript and found out the link to enter the tour, eventually got to a page that loaded, but then none of the tour steps on that page worked. Also, loading up that "welcome to ff 4, what's new" page looks like garbage in every other browser. The exact same, but garbage. I know it doesn't NEED to support anything besides FF4, but why doesn't it? What is so unique to FF 4 that it cant at least display in chrome or opera?

    --
    insight through the mind
  118. Well this sucks! by Eclipse-now · · Score: 1

    Just downloaded it to discover it doesn't support my old G5 Mac. Boo hoo!

  119. A bit better but still SLOWEST to startup by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    Ok, I installed FF4 on Windows XP - from launch to display of the iGoogle home page was about 4 seconds - not great, but better than FF3.6...

    Then again, IE8 does it in about 2.5 seconds, and Chrome in barely 1.5 seconds.

    Firefox still has a long way to go to remove all that bloat it's built up over the last few years...

  120. vertically compact! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Ok I've used it for a day or so, and one thing I can say about Firefox 4 is that I'm glad to get my vertical desktop space back. Browsers seemed to be getting more and more verbose and colorful and gimmicky (not helped by every free software package wanting to add another toolbar) and on a small screen (netbook, slate) you ended up with a huge chunk of wasted real-estate and a little space on the bottom that had the actual content. (Well, I don't mean "you" literally, as geeks can figure out how to turn most of that off, but geeze, ever see my mother-in-law's browser?)

    So far, I'm having a little trouble navigating the smaller, simpler interface, but I'm 100% for the philosophy behind it. And I think my usage will improve with time.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  121. fix for bold fonts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If most of the fonts are bold then try disabling hardware acceleration in the advanced options. Worked for me.

  122. Re:Yes download now for all the latest security ho by arth1 · · Score: 1

    In theory, security vulnerabilities are just like any other bug, but in practice, security vulnerabilities seem to be found more often in legacy code that was written before proper bounds checking was recognized as a major issue

    Nah, with quite a few exploits behind me, I can debunk this. It's simply that older code is always less bloated, which makes exploits easier.

    Find on older software, then check to see whether it also works on new software. Often it does. If not, publish anyhow.

  123. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've found that most people who criticise Vista do so because of they read some negative comments made by someone else and not because they've actually used it themselves. Vista SP1 and later are pretty much just like Windows 7, except for the taskbar. The uptimes on my Vista SP2 PC measure in months and only because I need to reboot due to driver updates, etc.

  124. 4:20 milestone by hovelander · · Score: 1

    10,000,000 downloads at 4:20pm on 23 March, 2011.

    Surely someone was celebrating that milestone correctly.

  125. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by smash · · Score: 1

    Can't say i've experienced any difference in text rendering with IE9 compared to IE8. Video driver issues perhaps? I run cleartype on everything...

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  126. Re:Slow! -- XP user? by smash · · Score: 1

    Ditto here. I ran vista and quite happily between 2007 and 2010.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  127. HwAcel Breaking layouts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really disappointed that they shipped with hwacel turned on by default. Depending on your hardware, some fonts render slightly larger than with it off and in cases where there is minimal spare pixels in dom object that contains text (especially bold text) the height/width of the container is actually increased which in some cases breaks layouts.

    As a web developer this is pissing me off to no end.

    I wish there was a meta tag or something I could use to tell FF4 to not use DirectWrite on my sites... at least until this gets fixed...

    PS - Even though IE9 uses DW as well, I do not see this problem happen. The issue seems to be isolated to FF4 and not MS Dw.