Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 9 Released, JavaScript Performance Greatly Improved
MrSeb writes "Firefox 9 is now available — but unlike its previous rapid release forebears where not a lot changed, a huge feature has landed with the new version: the JavaScript engine now has type inference enabled. This simple switch has resulted in a 20-30% JS execution speed increase (PDF), putting JaegerMonkey back in line with Chrome's V8 engine, and even pulling ahead in some cases. If you switched away from Firefox to IE or Chrome for improved JS performance, now is probably the time to give Firefox another shot."
Firefox - Too little, too late?
Too little: Doesn't sound like it, given the writeup of this release.
Too late: An install of pretty much any software is one click away. No software is too late - a later version can fix the problems of earlier versions. Most users don't have any problems with memory usage, don't care about how the footprint compares with this or that version of chrome etc.
Speed was only half the issue that drove people away, the actual rapid releases and incompatibilities with add-ons with these releases among other things.
RockMelt [techcrunch.com] now. Especially RockMelt is an interesting browser - it completely abandons geeky stuff like NoScript or Adblock but instead caters to casual, normal people and how they use the internet. RockMelt has online Facebook friends directly on the site, along with recent news and updates from all social networks. It lets you easily add social bookmarks to sites like Reddit and Digg, along with sharing to Facebook and Twitter. Most people have been saying how wonderful it is compared to Firefox. It's an browser that actual people want.
I thought that sponsored "Ask Slashdot" was a bit much but now we have sponsored first posts?
And RockMeIt has much better astroturfing !
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
it completely abandons geeky stuff like NoScript or Adblock
Oh boy, now I can enjoy adverts featuring rotten teeth and modal popups that insist I "like" them on Facebook again!
Seriously, if I wanted to put up with this crap I'd go back to using IE.
Summation 2
...then you're probably still dealing with the fallout from that time when you switched your brain for a sponge
Who are these "most people"? I heard about RockMelt a year or two ago. I think it was Windows only which wasn't a good start, especially given that I think it was based on Firefox. It's "interesting", but I thought it was long dead. Most sites where you'd want to share something already have share buttons for social networking sites.
Adblock isn't geeky. Nobody likes ads. Apart from you perhaps, since you work in marketing.
which is totally what she said
Actually the last 3 releases all had some improvements in the memory department (I think 8 had the most improvements) and it looks to me like, there is more to come.
New things are always on the horizon
Is JS really that bad?
No JS is not that bad, it's just that sites are making more and more demands from it. Where once upon a time a site might have some simple functions and a few onclick handlers, now it's executing humoungous blocks of JS often tied to DOM calls. Look at apps like Emscripten for example or GWT which spew out a mass of JS code. The JS engine suddenly finds that the time it takes to parse, compile, garbage collect, execute and interact with the DOM suddenly makes a big deal of difference in performance when previously it might not have mattered so much.
The situation is bound to get even worse when tools appear which convert flash into HTML and HTML based animations with bloated JS runtimes of their own become increasingly common features on websites.
Looks like its actually just a Beta for Firefox 9?
I don't think it's as bad as you make out. I get the impression that version numbers were to be depreceated and replaced with the terms Beta; Aurora and Nightly. Features would be mentioned as landing on Nightly/Aurora, appearing in users' browsers in so many weeks time. Releases themselves (every 6 weeks) aren't news in themselves. If Firefox developers communicate this clearly to reporters, then perhaps perceptions will change.
If users would still benefit from version numbers (e.g. for tech support), then I have a suggestion to make:
Next year, Firefox will be releasing version 12. On that version, there's the option of transitioning to a date-based system, with major versions following the year, and minor versions being incremented every 6 weeks. After version 11, the 1st release with this format would be 12.1; the 2nd release, 12.2; and so on. Here's how it looks like in practice:
* 10.0 January 31, 2012
* 11.0 March 13, 2012
* 12.1 April 24, 2012
* 12.2 June 5, 2012
* 12.3 July 17, 2012
* 12.4 August 28, 2012
* 12.5 October 9, 2012
* 12.6 November 20, 2012
* 13.1 January 1, 2013
Switching to a date-based system has the advantage that users will know what the current version is without having to report it, as the year corresponds to the version. Firefox in 2012 would be referred to as version 12. Reporters would focus on new and upcoming features in Firefox primarily, so that stories have a talking point and posters' comments are pertinent, primarily focused on features and improvements.
An example of an open source group who uses a similar format is Ubuntu (who base the version on the year, and the minor version on a 6 month schedule). Versions matter with this format; but there's still a sense of progression. We know what the version will be in 3 years time - even if we don't know what the features will be. Now try to imagine what Firefox's version would be with the new system, compared with the old one.
Consider that this is an issue that would involve a minor change; would benefit users and reporters (reducing confusion); and improve the quality of comments (on Firefox itself), then I think that Firefox developers will be pleasantly surprised with the results.
If they do want to focus more on development than on numbers, they would benefit by switching to a date system. I hope that some of the Firefox developers read this, as the value of changing merits the effort involved.
Firefox > help > about> "firefox 8.0 checking for updates... firefox is up to date"
www.getfirefox.com
good news your firefox is up to date
tfa
Firefox Beta Release Notes
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
This particular behaviour at least is configurable: set image.mem.discardable to false. (Or, if you decide you prefer a trade-off, lengthen image.mem.min_discard_timeout_ms.)
Too late: An install of pretty much any software is one click away. No software is too late - a later version can fix the problems of earlier versions
That's only true if some other software didn't already fix their problems first. A significant number of users have already switched from Firefox, only being as good as Chrome isn't enough to get anyone to switch back.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Most people which install Chrome just install it because Google is a known brandname to them. And Google pretty much is the Internet to them, so they might as well install the Google sanctioned browser.
New things are always on the horizon
That's because of the memshrink project (earlier report on /.). You can read a weekly status report on Nicholas Nethercote's blog.
Another project that's recently started is called 'Snappy', which aims to increase the responsiveness of users' interactions with Firefox. There's a thread on Mozillazine tracking updates on Snappy.
All the people I know installed Chrome for one entirely different reason: Speed.
Chrome is so much faster than Firefox and doesn't use nearly as many resources.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Yep. IE9 with the tracking protection / privacy filter lists from AdBlockPlus, and it works nearly as well as on Firefox (a little harder to configure, though still easy to turn on or off for a given site).
The fact that people are willing to put up with severely ad-laden sites always amazes me.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I agree that Chrome is more responsive that Firefox. (Note that I didn't say "faster"...) But to say that it uses less resources is bollocks. Chrome consumes vastly more memory than Firefox and I have less than 10 tabs open. Go ahead, browse for a day and measure it; the total memory usage of Chrome tops Firefox by quite a bit. The UI responsiveness is the only reason why I use Chrome over Firefox.
If he is in marketing don't discount the "just an idiot" angle.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
I don't use windows so it probably isn't available to me
I don't get what you mean here. Firefox is most certainly not a "Windows-only" product.
but Nightly is broken
It breaks often. That's why there's an Aurora and Beta in between before you even get to a release.
Sure, then leave it open overnight. Firefox leaks like a sieve.
I never close firefox on my living room computer. It's been up for two weeks since I last did a reboot, and it's currently using up 256.6 mb of RAM. Doesn't seem like it's leaking.
I am seeing that it spawned 26 threads, which looks excessive. I assume it's a thread pool for when they actually need it, and that they're not really active right now.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
This is why I love Tree Style Tabs. You get the tab bar on the left (or wherever else you like it), tabs structured hierarchically, collapsible trees and all that fancy stuff, including vertical screen estate.
Ignore this signature. By order.