Mozilla Firefox 2 RC2 Released 349
Shining Celebi writes "According to the Mozilla Developer Center, Firefox 2 Release Candidate 2 is available for download. This looks like it could be the final release candidate, and offers a tweaked UI and improved stability over RC1, plus, of course, all the new in Firefox 2.0 features."
Bloat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bloat? (Score:4, Funny)
The ultimate future of firefox: http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive/PBF036AD-Hugbot.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for the goose not good for the gander. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like (at least on most desktop, non-mainframe systems) like the OS is really competing for memory with any other OS. It's not shared. The OS knows who's trying to use the memory and how much is "extra" at any given time, thus it can just use whatever's left over at the moment for cache.
With an application, it shouldn't ever request more memory than it actually needs to operate, because it doesn't have the "god perspective" that the OS does, to determine how much is underutilized and ought to be taken up by stuff that's less-than-critical.
If every application did what you're describing Firefox doing, we'd be in a lot of trouble; the OS would never get to do any of those cute "spare" memory tricks that it does, because the apps would be trying to use way more memory than they actually needed to perform their core functions.
Applications should only take what they need to survive; there's only room for one bloated thing that hogs memory, and it has to be at the top of the food chain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bloat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, because Opera is closed-source.
Re: (Score:2)
Because most people are too stupid to install extensions, so if the browser doesn't come with X feature out-of-the-box, they assume it doesn't exist at all and say "Look! I.E. has it so it's better!"
Even if you point out it can be added they still say it's worse because you have to go and download it separately. "Ugh! So much WORK!"
Two Versions plus (Score:2)
FireFox Lite
plus optional extension pack that includes all extensions in FireFox
Personally, I'd take FireFox Lite and the extension pack. So I get minimal bloat and features that I actually use.
Re:Two Versions plus (Score:4, Interesting)
That solution has been suggested more than once, but keeps getting rejected. I think it's a good idea but the powers at Mozilla think it will cause confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bloat? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spell check/ [opera.com]
Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RAM. (Score:5, Interesting)
I had been hoping that Firefox 2 would be able to better compete with Opera. I was hoping that it would render faster, while also consuming far less memory. My Firefox 2 RC2 process from early this afternoon ended up hitting about 650 MB of RAM (measured with top) before I had to kill the process. And that was only after about three hours of use, in total. I didn't have any non-default extensions installed, so they aren't to blame.
My computer only has 512 MB of RAM, and I'm not in a position to purchase more. If Firefox 2 leads to my system thrashing after only several hours, then I don't think I'll be able to use it. Opera, on the other hand, only ever seems to ever consume 80 MB or so. I can't recall ever seeing it above 100 MB.
I really like the extensions of Firefox, many of which Opera does not offer. But Firefox suffers from some pretty severe memory management issues. Those in turn may lead to degraded system performance, even on computers with 512 MB of RAM, running Slackware 11. Unless Firefox deals with this excessive memory usage, I don't think I'll be able to use it on my system. Meanwhile, Opera functions without such problems, so I'll continue to use it until things improve with Firefox.
Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He answered your question in his post:
Re: Memory leaks in extensions (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Memory leaks in extensions - NOT! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First cry about having FF loaded with extra features, which could be extensions. Then cry about FF not having enough features so that you have to install 6 extensions.
Why don't you just ask FF, and the team might just take their pants off for ya?
Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA (Score:5, Informative)
News story sites also cause this problem (Score:2)
I normally read news by looking through the index pages and opening up all the stories I'm interested in in tabs - either Google/BBC/NYTimes if I want serious news, or Fark if I want silly news with snide remarks - and I get the same kind of explosive memory growth there too. Unlike image browsing, the problem with diverse-source news material is that lots of it has Javascript, often badly written for IE, and it often has ad ba
Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well what exactly do you expect people to do? Record every web site they visit, every key they press, every mouse movement they make, so that when the browser's memory usage eventually gets too high there is a clear record of what has happened? Its not like there is a secret key everyone (except apparently you, since you are one of the few people I know to claim to have never seen memory problems in Firefox) is pressing that magically causes the browser to hog ram. At least whenever I have seen it, it ap
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, if you really want the bug fixed that much then you need to go the extra distance to help the developers reproduce it.
> I hate to break it to you, but not every software bug can be easily reproduced (especially when you are dealing with performance relate
Re: (Score:2)
If you can leak memory in JavaScript and it isn't reclaimed when you navigate to a new page, it's a bug in the JavaScript implementation, not the web dev's code. Of course, it is the developer's responsibility to *work around* bugs in browsers (where possible), but you can't expect them to be aware of them all. A polite e-mail to webmaster@... would be useful in many cases.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be easier for someone to write an extension that logs each page viewed by the user, along with the images, plugins, embedded objects and scripts encountered, the amount of reserved/resident/private dirty memory allocated to the firefox process, and a list of
Re: (Score:2)
The plugins I have installed are the totem movie player, Java 1.5.0_08-b03, and Flash 9.0 r68. I use the CSS rules at http://www.floppymoose.com/ [floppymoose.com] to block Flash until I click on it. Do you block Flash movies?
Re: (Score:2)
1) The browser has been open for several days (this isn't always necessary, but it seems to make the problem more obvious); and
2) I run memory intensive apps on my computer -- eg edit a 100 MB image in the GIMP or run an apt-get upgrade.
If I do these things, FF slows to an unbearable crawl. Shutting it down and refiring fixes all. (BTW I'm running Debian Sid, 256 MB Ram and a Gig or so of swap.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA (Score:2, Informative)
My Firefox on WinXP has been open about 8 hours and is using only 129 MB so far. I have 16 extensions loaded right now.
Generated: Sat Oct 07 2006 00:57:46 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061004 BonEcho/2.0
Build ID: 2006100403
Enabled Extensions: [16]
- All-in-One Sidebar 0.7 RC 4: http://firefox.exxile.net/aios/ [exxile.net]
- ChatZilla 0.9.75: http://chatzilla.hacksrus.com/ [hacksrus.com]
- CoLT 2.2.1: http://www.borngeek.com/firefox/ [borngeek.com]
Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats on your troll (and probably, I am following you).
But whatever you said is right, switched to opera (to see why every troll on a FF story is masturbating on it) , and back to FF (and now, V2.0 RC2). Its not a memory pig for me (because I do not open 255 tabs just to see how far it can go, and I don't install every freaking extension out there). And on a dual core with 1.5G or RAM, I don't really give a fuck about 100mb more than when it used to be Phoenix.
And an in-built a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish mozilla.com would allocate some more resources to maintaining the 'Linux' port of Firefox (and their other programs) so that Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu and othes wouldn't have to apply so many patches themselves in the first place! But sadly, it appears that mozilla.com would rather p
Tweaked UI (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tweaked UI (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Tweaked UI (Score:4, Informative)
Unless I'm mistaken, I belive the interface was tweaked a bit (the Go button and stupid "drop down arrow" hover effects on the Back/Forward buttons seem a bit darker) on the Mac version (wouldn't surprise me if the Windows/Linux versions didn't change--RC 1 was at least decent for them), though it still looks terrible for a Mac app. For example, the toolbar icons increase in saturation when you hover over them. Note to theme devs: Mac icons don't do that; this isn't Windows XP. Plus, the whole toolbar is now this light gray instead of the OS X pinstripe background. It seriously looks like a poorly ported KDE app.
That being said, for Mac users who want a theme that actually looks decent, they should try the Gerich/Holander update of the original Pinstripe theme which they created for Firefox 1. Not only is it updated for Firefox 2, but it's been tweaked a bit and looks "20% more Macintosh" according to them--though more like 200% if you ask me: http://kmgerich.com/2006/09/27/pinstripe-for-firef ox-now-with-20-more-macintosh/ [kmgerich.com]
It's also available for Windows and Linux and will make Firefox look more or less like the 1.x theme.
pr0n protection (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, like I need my last open browser window coming back up on my screen. I "accidentally" kill the power strip when my boss walks in my cube for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're worried about a nosy boss/kid/significant other, just power off/log off and use password protection. That be a significant eno
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, its not very convenient if it automatically restores tabs from the last session, but if its anything like the SessionSaver [mozilla.org] extension, I'm all for it. Its incredibly useful in that it allows you to reopen closed tabs while browsing. Also, if you're researching a particular topic and have a dozen related tabs open that you'll need again in the future, you can save the entire session under a name.
Its nice to see the Firefox guys tak
least favorite feature..the arrows on the tab bar (Score:2)
Re:least favorite feature..the arrows on the tab b (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Firefox is hemorrhaging users. (Score:3, Interesting)
Many people have stopped using it due to it's bloat and slowness. I installed in on my uncle's new desktop computer several months back. He asked if there was an alternative he could use, because he found it was consuming all of the physical memory in his system, and then some.
At the college where I work, a number of researchers, professors, and students had switched to Firefox over the past few years. I know at least ten who have switched to browsers like Opera, Konqueror, and some even back to Internet Explorer, unfortunately. Of the people I have directly inquired with, they basically said it wasn't comparable, in terms of speed or memory usage, with other browsers.
I know of several open source developers who have stopped using it because of the recent Debian nonsense. Debates aside, their handling of the situation had a very negative impact. Many developers have gained a dislike for the Mozilla project, and others have switched. Those developers I know are now using Konqueror. One of them is using Opera on Windows.
Myself, I have stopped using Firefox for the aforementioned reasons. Konqueror has proven to be a better browser. It works perfectly fine with all of the sites I visit, and doesn't use excessive amounts of memory. I use KDE, so it integrates with my desktop far better than Firefox did.
You may think that it's only 20 or so people I'm talking about here, and that we're not that important. I'd beg to differ. Each one of us has recommended the use of Firefox to our relatives, friends, colleagues, and other acquaintances. Many of them have stopped suggesting it. I personally don't recommend its use. I suggest Konqueror or Opera for Linux users, and Opera for Windows users. Mac OS X users these days seem to go straight to Safari. At least five of the people I know are now making similar recommendations to people they know.
The Mozilla project will need to put forth much in the way of effort to stop this. We'll need to see rapid technological improvements, as well as changes in the way the project is run. I don't know if we'll ever see such things happen, but at least we have alternative browsers to move to if things continue to get worse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, Firefox is still gaining usage share at the rate of several percentage points per year [wikipedia.org].
What has gone up dramatically has been the amount of bad news people are making up about Firefox. Sorry, trying to make Firefox look bad hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I wasn't engaging in "personal attacks on anyone who runs into difficulty." I pointed out the poster was fabricating an obviously untrue report about the number of Firefox users decreasing. I have noticed many other people fabricating other bad news about Firefox (such as the recent hoax about security problems), and often the "bad news" can easily be proven untrue.
As for your genuine memory problem, I'm sorry to head about it. I use Firefox for days at a time, and memory use stays at around 100 MB
Re: (Score:2)
I keep reading about Firefox memory consumption, but I've never seen it on any of the computers I use or support (a mix of Linux flavours and XP). My main computer's a dual boot laptop with 512MB, at the moment running XP. Firefox is using about 58MB after about three days of use, including several Fark visits and Photoshop comps.
Is there something about your install of XP or Firefox that's non-standard?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Internet Explorer. Opera. Konqueror. None of these have similar issues, in my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
I leave Outlook 2007 (beta version) open for days and/or weeks at a time and don't run into problems as severe as what he is describing. Also, since when is a web browser a benchmark for complexity?
Of *course* I leave it up for days at a time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, I've also switched to Opera after being a fan of Firefox
Firefox may still be gaining a lot of users (from IE I imagine), but I suspect that it is also starting to lose a number of its old users to Opera. Becasue the IE user base is much larger than that of Firefox, it has a larger affect on the numbers when a percentage of IE users move to Firefox than it does when a percentage of Firefox users move to Opera.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Firefox is hemorrhaging users. (Score:5, Interesting)
. ~/data/mozilla/browser/config/mozconfig
ac_add_options --prefix=/usr/local/stow/firefox-cvs
ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-march=pentium4 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -mmmx -msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse,387 -pipe -funsafe-math-optimizations"
ac_add_options --disable-debug
ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=gtk2
ac_add_options --enable-xft
ac_add_options --enable-freetype
ac_add_options --disable-postscript
ac_add_options --disable-gnomevfs
ac_add_options --disable-gnomeui
ac_add_options --with-pthreads
ac_add_options --disable-ldap
ac_add_options --disable-xprint
This config made a world of difference in the usability of firefox, and I'm sure the main speedups are from using the native gtk2 toolkit rather than chrome/xul. For those that aree unhappy with the slowness of the default builds, I suggest trying something like this; it makes a world of difference.
Re: (Score:2)
What, no -funroll-loops?
You cannot really get rid of XUL in Firefox. It's written in XUL. What you did was to tell it to use GTK2 widgets (GTK1 is another option), which is what it usually does anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
And still ... (Score:4, Informative)
Everybody else (besides IE, of course) supports the first, and I'd love Firefox to be the first to support the second.
Just my $0.02, I'm sure everybody's got their own pet RFEs and bugs.
Re:And still ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
See http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/ni
Screw Perl 6; Make Mine Javascript (Score:5, Insightful)
I want JavaScript + a Mozilla-like UI that will let me write full-featured locally-hosted GUI apps that can do all the things other local languages can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HTA has been able to do that forever.
I think maybe firefox has XUL but it's a pain?
I sorely wish there was something like HTA for firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
http://jsmsxdemo.googlepages.com/jsmsx.html [googlepages.com]
The "emulating ancient computer hardware" JavaScript benchmark is exactly the one I'm interested in.
(Not.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
He probably means like IE's HTA ( which has been stagnant for years and years and years).
It's a sore sore missing feature in Mozilla. There is XUL but seems be a major pain to run it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Stop spewing bullshit. It already exists. [wikipedia.org]
Firefox uses JavaScript to work with local files and devices. Do you not want Firefox? XUL files can be loaded in the browser that have just as much power as Firefox, and all they require is for the user
Re: (Score:2)
Still missing? (Score:2)
(No, the bookmark sync extensions don't cut it...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but it aint. There are bookmark sync extensions (e.g. Bookmark Sync & Sort [mozilla.org]), but they're (a) flakey, and (b) only share bookmarks, not other profile information.
Portable Firefox isn't really a solution - I have 2 machines here, a Mac and a PC, with a browser running on both pretty much constantly. I also occasionally use a laptop out and about. I want to be able to share bookmarks between these three, seamlessly and concurrently. Sharing o
Any chance they've fixed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Stable enough that I can watch CNN pipeline and switch streams with impunity. Prior to about five or six days ago, switching streams seemed to bomb ffx about 1 out of 5 times. It still happens now, but it's
Firefox Portable 2.0 RC2: Test Without Installing (Score:5, Informative)
/. rendering champ... (Score:2, Funny)
Real World Browser Usage Stats (Score:2)
IE6.x - 89.06%
Firefox 1.x - 5.29%
IE5.x - 2.05%
IE7.x - 1.51%
Safari 4.x - 0.92%
Safari 3.x - 0.37%
Mozilla 1.x - 0.12%
Opera 9.x - 0.12%
Firefox was up slightly from 5.22% in July. It surprised me how low it was, considering I keep reading stories of how FF is up
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the stats for a site my company runs; again, no IT-related content, primarily UK visitors, etc., in fact bias is probably towards people who have little interest in IT. Figures are aggregate for last 3 months, because I can't be bothered to run a direct comparison with yours.
Internet Explorer 6.x 80.91%
Firefox 6.05%
Yes, I think 15% is an exaggeration. I suspect the real value (for UK users) might be as hi
Re: (Score:2)
ping attribute (Score:2)
(On a related note: What other RMS-type "free" alternative do you work on, use or recommend? I'll probably switch to Konqueror as soon as FF2 goes through the update
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First Firefox release that leaves me Blah (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Visual Refresh - so what?
2. Phishing protection - Good for "ordinary users", does nothing for me.
3. Enhanced search - I can already search pretty well across the internet, so this is bloat.
4. Tabbed browsing - each tab has its own 'x' close button? I call that a step backwards.
5. Resume brosing session - who cares?
6. Web feeds - the ONLY feature I might find useful
7. Inline spell chacking - Many people will benefit from this obviously, but not me, so it's nothing but bloat as far as I'm concerned.
There's more, but you get the idea. I am unimpressed by the new features of Firefox 2.0.
Detach Tab option? (Score:3, Insightful)
I like to use one window per topic I'm working on and if one tab leads to another topic I want to look at in more detail it would be nice to just detach that tab to a separate window rather that copy the URL, hit CTRL-N and middle-click in the new window.
I notice that both Konqueror and Konsole have had this functionality for some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The real question... (Score:4, Informative)
There are bugs still in there that were first reported in 1999.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally! (Score:2)