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."

12 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Firefox - Too little, too late by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Firefox - Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  3. Re:Firefox - Too little, too late by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Funny

    And RockMeIt has much better astroturfing !

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  4. Re:Firefox - Too little, too late by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. "If you switched away from Firefox to IE..." by biscuitlover · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...then you're probably still dealing with the fallout from that time when you switched your brain for a sponge

  6. Re:Just because of speed? by Lennie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually 3.6 currently still gets security updates, but don't count on that remaining true for long.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  7. Making version numbers more relevant by revealingheart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Memory leaks? by revealingheart · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Firefox - Too little, too late by FooBarWidget · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:"firefox 9 released" No it isn't by ojintoad · · Score: 5, Informative

    Parent is almost exactly right.

    When you have the headline "Firefox 9 Released" it is implied that the release is official and current. You expect that if you try to update your software through the normal update process, it will work. So they are right to expect the update to work.

    The fact is that Firefox is getting released today and yesterday was an unofficial release, and as of me trying at 8:25AM Eastern Time is not available through normal update channels (i.e. help > about). The linked Extremetech article was in fact titled Firefox 9 unofficially released and states:

    Ahead of an official release tomorrow, Firefox 9 has winged its way to various mirrors across the web and is now available to download from the official Firefox website — no messing around with a hammered Nightly FTP server this time, oh no!

    The fact that the summary writer neglected the word "unofficial" or this very important detail that it is rolling out isn't the fault of anyone reading the article and speaks to the grand tradition of poor summary writing that Slashdot readers have grown to love/hate.

  11. Re:Firefox - Too little, too late by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Firefox - Too little, too late by cp.tar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.