Mozilla Firefox 2 RC2 Released

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?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Have these new features added additional bloat to the once-lean Firefox? I mean the anti-phishing thing and spellchecker are both cool, but why not leave these two things (particularly the spellchecker) as extensions?

Re:Bloat?

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

Heck, we didn't all buy 2gb of ram for nuthin!

The ultimate future of firefox: http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive/PBF036AD-Hugbot.j pg [pbfcomics.com]

Re:

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

It's not the "bloat" that bothers me, I'm a "kitchen sink" guy. It's the memory management issues. It's a pig. I'm still using it, but I've been looking very hard at Opera.

Good for the goose not good for the gander.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

Well with the OS it's different than when an application RAM-hogs.

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:Bloat?

[init100 (915886)]

I keep being amazed by these people who advocate Mozilla by naming stuff Opera had 5 years ago. Accept it, it's the better browser. But apparently people prefer using Netscape...

Maybe, just maybe, because Opera is closed-source.

Re:Bloat?

[RonnyJ (651856)]

I like the Opera implementation - it will use GNU Aspell if it's available (or the system spellchecker on Mac OS X).

http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spell check/ [opera.com]

Re:Two Versions plus

[SeaFox (739806)]

FireFox
FireFox Lite
plus optional extension pack that includes all extensions in FireFox

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.

Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RAM.

[by Anonymous Coward]

I have been using the x86 Linux release all day today. And unfortunately, it still feels slower than Opera. From my quick measurements, it also seems to use more RAM.

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

[Denyer (717613)]

What extensions are you using, and do you experience the same memory chewing without them?

Re: Memory leaks in extensions

[bunratty (545641)]

Does it matter? Stock Firefox needs at least half a dozen extensions just to get the basic functionality it should come with by default.

Yes, it does matter. Certain extensions [mozillazine.org] have severe memory leaks. If you simply stay away from the few bad extensions, you shouldn't see outrageous memory use. If you do, please report the steps you can follow to see the problem [dbaron.org] so it can be fixed.

Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA

[Fnkmaster (89084)]

On the Windows build, the exact opposite seems to be true. The 2.0RC1 build seems to eat up far less RAM in intense browsing sessions than the 1.5.x series did. Much, much, less. Especially on very image intensive sites, that used to cause Firefox to gobble up memory until it usually died after a short period of time (uhhh, I won't explain what kind of "image intensive sites" I'm talking about here, you can figure it out I'm sure). :)

Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA

[bunratty (545641)]

My Firefox 2 RC2 process from early this afternoon ended up hitting about 650 MB of RAM

If you can find steps to reliably reproduce any memory problem in Firefox 2 RC2, please go to MozillaZine and give them the information about how to see the problem. Someone will make sure the bug is reported in the bug database so it can be fixed.

Re:

[bunratty (545641)]

And yet whenever I ask how to reproduce "this memory issue" no one can tell me how to see it. Frankly, lots of us have no idea what you're referring to when you say you're having problems with memory usage in Firefox. Please, explain to us what the problem is, in enough detail that we can finally see it.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

> 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?
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:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA

[enrevanche (953125)]

I have no extensions installed and only the flash plugin. FF has been open for 4 hours and is using 408 MB. I guess I need to install these extensions/plugins in order to reduce my memory usage.

Re:Opera still feels more responsive, uses less RA

[cortana (588495)]

Firefox: open source, free license

Unless you want to keep using the Firefox name.

Re:

[cortana (588495)]

Debian's Firefox package is 99% Mozilla's product; it just has a few patches that make it run better on the Debian operating system. Debian have never claimed otherwise; and mozilla.org never had a problem with the practice.

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

[eebra82 (907996)]

I've been running FireFox 2 since its first release, but I haven't noticed any changes to the UI as advertised. What's new compared to the older release candidate?

Re:Tweaked UI

[Matt Perry (793115)]

I've been running FireFox 2 since its first release, but I haven't noticed any changes to the UI as advertised.

The UI has changed compared to FF 1.5 not FF 2.0 RC1.

Re:Tweaked UI

[R.Mo_Robert (737913)]

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

[macadamia_harold (947445)]

Resuming your browsing session: The Session Restore feature restores windows, tabs, text typed in forms, and in-progress downloads from the last user session.

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:

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

I dunno, I'm really looking forward to this. I usually get home from work and pop up a bunch of message boards to catch up. It'd be alot easier to save this to check back tomorrow instead of making a half-dozen bookmarks every night. It would also help when I'm just plain lost in ebay pages when it's time to hit the sack and want to pick up where I left off the next day.

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:

[The MAZZTer (911996)]

In this scenario, when you run Firefox next it'll ask you if you want to restore the last session or not. Then you just click "no".

Re:

[arun_s (877518)]

Yeah, like I need my last open browser window coming back up on my screen.

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

[buswolley (591500)]

The only new feature I'd like to turn off is the change in how tabs are displayed after 13 tabs have been opened. I don't like having to scroll. I like them to be all in front of me.

Re:least favorite feature..the arrows on the tab b

[Trogre (513942)]

The tabs might not need to scroll if they had more display space, say the amount wasted by an extra Close button on every single tab.

Re:

[Trogre (513942)]

Of course if you're browsing pornography at work you've got bigger problems than browser history.

Firefox is hemorrhaging users.

[by Anonymous Coward]

From what I can tell, Firefox is losing users at an astounding rate.

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:

[bunratty (545641)]

From what I can tell, Firefox is losing users at an astounding rate.

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.

Re:Firefox is hemorrhaging users.

[aiken_d (127097)]

I have a stock firefox install with no extensions, and it routinely consumes up to 2GB of memory (on a 4GB system) before I notice things grinding to a halt, and I kill the process and start a new browser. A day or two later, it's back up to 2GB of memory usage, with maybe 4-6 tabs going.

But I suppose my experience isn't valid, since I'm just "trying to make firefox look bad" because I've got nothing better to do with my time, eh?

Thing is, one of the reasons I (like so many other people) was so anxious to switch off of IE was Microsoft's arrogance and disdain for their users. Unfortunately for all of us, the "you become what you fight" principle seems to be in effect here. I still use firefox because it's the best overall browser, when it works. But the fanboys who engage in personal attacks on anyone who runs into difficulty sure don't help the browser's image.

-b

Re:

[pembo13 (770295)]

Rihgttt....you had to install Firefox for him, but hhe knows how much memory it's taking up. Go back to doing drugs.

Re:Firefox is hemorrhaging users.

[kruhft (323362)]

I almost gave up on firefox, but I gave it one last shot and attempted to build my own from CVS. After upgrading to gcc4 to eliminate the link errors that occure with previous versions, the build went smoothly with the following ~/.mozconfig:

. ~/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.

And still ...

[isometrick (817436)]

... no correct ACID2, and no support for SVG images in CSS [mozilla.org].

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 ...

[Matt Perry (793115)]

... no correct ACID2

It's already known that Acid 2 support won't be in the Gecko 1.8 (Firefox 2) branch [squarefree.com] because of large changes that need to be made. It's supported in Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3). Get a trunk build if you're interested.

Screw Perl 6; Make Mine Javascript

[joe_n_bloe (244407)]

{Java/ECMA}Script keeps getting better and better. I'll be happy to bet that by the time Perl 6 is actually "released," and "working" (in the sense that Perl 5.6.1 was working and Perl 5.6.0 was not), JavaScript will be cooler, faster, and more useful.

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 ... read/write local files, and so on.

Re:

[novus ordo (843883)]

I noticed that 2.0 has a lot better Ajax support. I'm surprised nobody mentioned it since /. has some Ajax support and the "floating thingy" has been bothering me for a while when scrolling down. Also the spelling is nice and I'm sure it will become as annoying as well. On a side note, I have discovered that I have been spelling surprised wrong for years and that thingy is not a word. Yay!(also not a word)

Re:

[joe_n_bloe (244407)]

Try both in this MSX emulation in javascript and see the difference:
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:

[bunratty (545641)]

You're looking at startup time, not script execution speed. Please be careful to read the posts to see what we're discussing before jumping in with an irrelevant observation.

Still missing?

[NoMaster (142776)]

So, still no roaming profiles, or even bookmarks sharing?

(No, the bookmark sync extensions don't cut it...)

Any chance they've fixed

[rsilvergun (571051)]

the vlc client plugin crashing FF every chance it gets? I think this might be one of those finger pointed issues (i.e. Mozilla saying it's a vlc problem and the vlc team saying it's a FF problem). I'd just like to see it fixed :(.

Re:

[spacefrog (313816)]

YMMV, I'm still running 2.0b2 on Ubuntu Edgy. A majority of my ffx crashing with the VLC plugin went away with the latest and greatest VLC packages. Seems like the VLC packages were getting updated every day for a while, and it got worse a few times before it got better, but it seems quite stable now.

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

[CritterNYC (190163)]

Firefox Portable 2.0 RC 2 has been released [portableapps.com]. For the unfamiliar, Firefox Portable is Firefox packaged with a PortableApps.com launcher so it can be run from a USB flash drive, iPod, portable hard drive, CD, etc and used on any computer. It can also be run from a local hard drive (even your desktop) making it a great way to test out another version of Firefox without impacting your installed version. Grab it from the Firefox Portable 2.0 RC2 Homepage [portableapps.com].

First Firefox release that leaves me Blah

[PingXao (153057)]

I love Firefox and have used it exclusively (and Mozilla before that and Netscape before that) for over a decade. This 2.0 release of Firefox is leaving me very un-blown away.

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?

[Trogre (513942)]

I'm a little disappointed that there isn't yet a "detach" option in the context menu for each tab.

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:

[Che Guevarra (85906)]

This was meant to be a flame/troll.... Tell me what's better...

Re:

[zullnero (833754)]

You're kidding, right? Mozilla incorporated a long time ago. It helps to fund the ongoing development and maintenance of its products by selling merchandise. It has been doing so for years now. Someone mod this guy up for funny.

Re:

[joe_n_bloe (244407)]

The good old free ride. Takes me back to the days when domain registration was free and UUNET was a non-profit. (Does anyone remember UUNET?)

Re:

[MrNaz (730548)]

You must be American. How else can your unwillingness to stick to core values be explained? *cough* what constitution? *cough*

Re:The real question...

[julesh (229690)]

Heh. That's a good one. Bugs reported for RC1 implemented in RC2.

There are bugs still in there that were first reported in 1999.

Re:

[cortana (588495)]

It lets Google see his IP address! As you know, such broadcasting of one's IP address can be dangerous. Only this morning I recieved a helpful popup message about it.