Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet

Firefox 1.5 Beta 2 Released 267

Posted by Zonk
from the download-and-help-out dept.
Anonymous Cow writes "Almost a month after the release of Firefox 1.5 beta 1, the second beta of Firefox 1.5 has been released. Firefox 1.5b2 can be downloaded from Mozilla.org. A changelog outlining the changes in this release is also available. The official announcement is over at MozillaZine." From the announcement: " This release does not contain any major new features since Beta 1. Improvements to automated update system, Web site rendering and performance, along with several security fixes are included in this release. Beta 1 users that want to help test software update, should wait for the automatic update to be triggered sometime in the next few days. The incremental update from Beta 1 to Beta 2 is 700K bytes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 1.5 Beta 2 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Nice. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by illtron (722358) on Friday October 07, 2005 @08:23AM (#13738408) Homepage Journal
    Can anybody remind me what the name of the extension is that lets you use your other extensions? I can't stand that it won't let you use them by default until they've been updated.
  • Copy & Paste sorted? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Friday October 07, 2005 @08:29AM (#13738440) Homepage Journal
    1.5 suffers from some serious C&P bug in windows where it won't let me use the clipboard under various circumstances.

    anyone know if its been rectified?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Yes, noticed the fix with the first b-2 code that appeared on the nightly branch builds a few days ago.
  • So what's new (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cardinal Biggles (6685) on Friday October 07, 2005 @08:30AM (#13738446)
    Forgive my ignorance. I have not yet looked into what Firefox 1.5 is all about.

    Why no 1.1 - 1.4 ? What's the major-but-not-major-enough-for-a-2.0 newness in this?

    The changelog only lists the changes from Beta 1 to Beta 2 which is not very informative.
    • Re:So what's new (Score:3, Informative)

      by Cally (10873)
      Personally speaking, I find the automatic updates rocks like a Japanese death metal group doing a Peel session. The beta checks for updates daily, and picks up a new nightly build every day as far as I can see... my Firefox install is never more than 24 hours old. Suck it up, Microsoft ;)
      • Re:So what's new (Score:3, Informative)

        by salimma (115327)
        You're on the nightly build, not the beta. I was on beta1 for a few days, never noticed any update, so I replaced it with the latest nightly build from branch (not trunk).

        The beta release only updates to other beta releases, I think.
    • The biggest thing I noticed versus 1.0.7 is its no longer a steaming pile of crap. 1.0.6 worked beautifully, but .7 constantly crashed, bogged down badly on large pages, and was sluggish in general.

      1.5 is snappy, is using less memory and miracle of miracles, I've got almost an hour without it crashing.

      I'm sure there are actual feature differences, but thats enough of a reason for me to be happy with the upgrade.
      • That's certainly not my experience. I use 1.5 beta 1 at home, and 1.0.7 in the office, and I haven't really noticed much difference. I sometimes run the same copy of firefox for days and don't suffer crashes.
        • Never had a crash?

          I'm using 1.0.7 at home on Windows and I crash every time I visit this url from adobe.

          http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/main.h tml [adobe.com]

          Anyone have this problem? I haven't done much to my copy, except for the usual extensions.
          • No, I don't remember a crash with recent versions that's not down to a fault with the mplayer plugin.

            That URL looks fine using 1.0.7 linux, apart from the presumably flash menu looking a little odd. I've just tested it on 1.0.6 win2k and it was fine, and the menu looked fine.
          • That URI works fine in 1.0.7 under both GNU/Linux and win32 - I suspect the problem is related to an extension you have installed (much like the conflict between LiveHTTPHeaders and SessionSaver which makes all file uploads crash Fx).
      • Yeah, I have been noticing that too with 1.0.7. I have been getting lots of crashes lately. This was never a problem with 1.0.6 or earlier. It's almost like I am running IE or something.
    • Re:So what's new (Score:5, Informative)

      by richwklein (767820) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:50AM (#13738921) Homepage
      Originally this was suppose to be a 1.1 release, but since there had been almost a year worth of development on the Gecko rendering engine between 1.0 and this release, they decided to bump the version to 1.5. They've also included a lot more features than originally planned for. Such as the new software update.
    • Re:So what's new (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dehumanizer (31435)
      From my [dehumanizer.com] experience [dehumanizer.com], the 1.5 betas are at least as stable, if not more stable, than the 1.0.x versions.

      I've been using only 1.5b1 since it was out (and 1.5b2 since today), and they've been great - stable, visibly faster, and (few people talk about this one, but I love it) you can reorder open tabs by dragging them. :)
  • Flash fixed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NineNine (235196) on Friday October 07, 2005 @08:34AM (#13738459)
    Could anybody using this please tell me if they've fixed the (currently non-working) ability to disable all Flash? In IE, I just uninstall the Active X control. In Firefox, you can disable it, but it doesn't work. I certainly hope that they're fixing bugs before adding more features...
    • Re:Flash fixed? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Xabraxas (654195) on Friday October 07, 2005 @08:39AM (#13738484)
      You're looking for Flashblock [mozdev.org].
      • You know, an extension system that can fix it isn't an excuse for a feature not working properly.
      • Once you go *Block you will never go bock. :-)

        Flashblock, AdblockPlus (with Filterset.g and updater), Foxylicous, etc make it THE browser for me. The only thing I really miss from Opera is "paste and go".
        • Paste and Go - Firefox Extension
          https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=65 [mozilla.org]
          • thanks to the quick responses. I had not looked for the Paste N Go thingy for a bit.

            I got one more Opera nice to have for ya ... let me choose at startup if I want to

            * Start with a home page
            * Start with a blank page
            * Start where i left off last time (Tabbrowser Extensions does this for me now)
        • The only thing I really miss from Opera is "paste and go".

          While not exactly identical, here are a couple of suggestions for Firefox:

          1) Control-L will select the address in the location bar. Just paste to replace it, then push Enter or Go.

          2) Install the Diggler extension. It adds a button for the toolbar which you can use to quickly erase it. This way you can rely more on the mouse.

          3) In Linux, if you activate middlemouse.contentLoadURL and middlemouse.paste in about:config, you can simply select an URL (a l
    • Firefox plugins (not Addins..) are the hidden automatic way to handle extra file extensions, and are similar to ActiveX plugins for IE.
      You can remove the flash plugin fully without resorting to letting the Flash load and then hiding it from the DOM model (as flashblock does - i hate the "flash" flicker it does and would rather a broken box appeared instead, i never ever want or need flash...)

      Plugins are listed in firefox by browsing to about:plugins
      (a very nice report actually)

      If you open about:config and c
    • Can`t you just remove the plugin from firefox?
      It seems to work fine on a system where there is no flash plugin atall too.
    • That's why you have 1.0.x releases, so they can fix bugs.
      I don't hope they fix bugs before adding more features. I like the current model. They add features when they feel like it, and fix bugs when they need to be fixed.
      You could always do your part, search bugzilla for your bug, and file a report if your bug is not reported yet. That would be very helpful fixing your bug for 1.0.8 or 1.0.9 , but shouldn't bother the guys implementing new features like automatic updates. When they have the next release rea
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Beta 3 should be out with the security fixes in just a couple of hours.
  • Killing Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoubleDangerClub (855480) on Friday October 07, 2005 @08:38AM (#13738476) Homepage
    I have a topic to debate, Standards.
    If Firefox does get "Standards" in place, what really makes them good at all? This point is not made out of ignorance, but true question.
    Firefox proposes that everyone adhere to the Standards of the W3, but say Safari and IE decide, "Ok, let's do it." Then what really sets any of them apart (other than Safari being Mac only)?
    Because if it just comes down to a secure and fast browser, MS has much more money and resources to make this come true than FF, I believe, let me know where I'm wrong.
    And furthermore, not even FF adheres only to the standards, as outlined in the paragraph that speaks of the w3 (do a find for 'w3') ---> Standards? [mozilla.org]

    My favorite quote on there is: "Keep in mind that this is not yet part of any W3C or other official standard. At this time it is necessary to bend the rules in order to have full keyboard accessibility."
    But isn't this what MS did long ago to make the better browser experience over NS?

    Anyway, I don't mean to trash on FF at all, but I just wonder, who really wants the Standards implemented (I actually do), and then what happens after that? How do we get better dev tools and code to use in our web-apps (the w3 doesn't seem on top of new tech)?
    • by MightyYar (622222)
      Users (at least of Windows) are not so concerned about standards - web developers are. The fewer differences between browsers, the less work they have to do and the more "advanced" parts of the specs they can use. Web developers write the standards, not users, so they obviously would stand to benefit the most.

      Personally, I think users were best off in the Netscape 4.x days when there was healthy competition in the browsers, and none of this fancy flash/pop-up/floating box crap. The web was all about content

    • by X_Bones (93097) <danorz13@@@yahoo...com> on Friday October 07, 2005 @08:51AM (#13738537) Homepage Journal
      The "Web standards" you're talking about would allow any (standards-compliant) browser to render any page in the exact same way. No more JavaScript hacks, no more broken CSS implementations. It's more for Web developers than actual end users, though of course end-users would benefit from not having to use a certain browser for a certain site.

      What would then differentiate Web browsers from one another would be their interface and feature set; e.g., some would have tabbed browsing while some wouldn't, some would offer BitTorrent integration, some wouldn't, etc.
      • What "web standards" do popular AJAX applications use? I don't recall ever running GMail or Google Maps through a JavaScript validator. They're all JavaScript hacks, and people love them.
        • ECMA-262 [ecma-international.org] (ECMAScript Language Specification).

          The XMLHttpRequest [w3schools.com] class that fashionable web applications use is not a standard, but it is pretty simple; it looks like the only difference between using it in IE and Mozilla/KHTML is how you create an instance of it.

      • Don't forget SVG (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bigpat (158134)
        Yes, most of us have been getting along with Flash just fine for many years, but the open standard for Scalable Vector Graphics promises some really good graphical and animation capabilities without being under macromedia's control and offering an easier ways to integrate dynamic database driven content.

        Firefox 1.5 will offer integrated support for at least a subset of the SVG standard. So, no longer will you have to download a plugin to see svg content and it will be viewable inline with html content on a
    • Re:Killing Karma... (Score:3, Informative)

      by csirac (574795)

      Because if it just comes down to a secure and fast browser, MS has much more money and resources to make this come true than FF, I believe, let me know where I'm wrong.

      "money and resources" aren't everything. MS can't afford to make radical changes in IE, in fact they've absolutely struggled to make _ANY_ changes at all compared to FF which has ejoyed a fairly nimble development process so far. I will speculate that the reasons include: a crusty code-base which hasn't seen much work since the Netscape war (

    • Re:Killing Karma... (Score:3, Informative)

      by esme (17526)

      Because if it just comes down to a secure and fast browser, MS has much more money and resources to make this come true than FF, I believe, let me know where I'm wrong.

      IE is insecure mostly because of Microsoft's philosophy, not because of development resources. Public statements and publicity stunts to the contrary, Microsoft is more interested in building and maintaining their monopoly, adding new features, etc. than providing a secure browser (or OS, for that matter).

      And furthermore, not even FF a

    • Here's how the Standards issue can work for FF whether everyone adheres to them or not (in my opinion anyway):

      True, FF isn't a truly standards compliant browser, but it's damn close compared to the alternatives at the time that it was really popularized. At the time Firefox was booming, Opera was still a commercial product, and Safari still is (with the price tag of a mac computer: ouch!), IE was/is hideously broken, and FF was the closest thing most users could get to standards compliance for free. Not to
    • by i23098 (723616) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:20AM (#13738714)

      If Firefox does get "Standards" in place, what really makes them good at all?

      If televison makers could adhere to a standard so one could see any thing broadcasted in any tv then what's the point of having several tv makers?

    • My favorite quote on there is: "Keep in mind that this is not yet part of any W3C or other official standard. At this time it is necessary to bend the rules in order to have full keyboard accessibility." But isn't this what MS did long ago to make the better browser experience over NS?

      Implementing something that isn't in any standard is one thing - an analogous thing with IE would perhaps be introducing activex (which is rightly trashed for the security holes it creates, but no one blames MS for its non-s

    • The standards are always expanding. New approved and proposed features and technologies are being proposed to the standards committees. A browser like Firefox, which is under constant development and unafraid to test new features, will always be a better, more advanced web platform for developers and tech-savvy users. The dynamic, open attitude of Apple's Safari team also results in that app being a cutting edge browser. The two are different, though; Safari is more focused on the best possible user experie
      • "We will never reach a point with any browser where we have all the web standards implemented and there's nothing more to be done."

        Which I think is sad, but also true. It would be a dev dream come true.
    • If every browser adheres to the standards then it benefits web developers and end users..

      It becomes much easier to develop a website, you can develop a single site according to standards and it will display in any browser, if a browser cannot display a standards compliant page then the browser is broken and a responsible browser vendor would fix it.. It is not the responsibility of web designers to modify their page to be compatible with buggy browsers..

      End users have a choice as to what browser they use, y
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07, 2005 @08:40AM (#13738487)
  • by tritonic (801760) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:12AM (#13738651)
    I'm looking forward to the new version as much as anyone, but I do have some concerns about the amount of unfixed bugs in the codebase. How does a bug like Bug 115174 get overlooked for three and a half years? A quote from the comments:

    ...the form may be being sumbitted again when "Save Page As, HTML Only" is selected. What really concerns me about this is that, on a less smart web page, a user's payment may be submitted twice, when all the user wanted to do was save a copy of the payment receipt. This is more than just annoyance, it could cause people's checks to bounce unexpectedly.


    I know this has happened to several people (me included - luckily I managed to cancel the transaction in time). Surely the mozilla guys have a responsibility to fix this one...?
  • Memory hog? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Antifuse (651387) <slashdot@NoSPam.ryanwaddell.com> on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:17AM (#13738695) Homepage
    Have they at least fixed the problem where if you use Windows FF in a "one window" mode (tabbed browsing, all new windows in new tabs instead) and leave it open for a couple days, the memory never seems to get released? That's my only real quibble with Firefox (and it doesn't prevent me from using it, I just have to shut down FFox every morning when I get to work and restart it). It's kinda concerning to have one tab open, look into process explorer and see the FF is using 180mb of RAM.
    • by green pizza (159161) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:00AM (#13739015) Homepage
      The memory issue seems to be improved, but not fixed. I upgraded from 1.0.2 to the nightly builds and most recently to 1.5b1. I use FF on Mac, Win, Linux, and Solaris. Performance of 1.5b1 is a bit better than 1.0.2 and memory usage is a bit better as well. With 1.0.2, leaving FF running with several tabs as you describe will easilly eat hundreds of MB after a few days of running. With 1.5b1 it's down to about 100 MB. Still too much, but slightly better.

      I know it's a pipe dream, but I am hoping 2.0 will once and for all make the memory and CPU usage a good 33% lighter.
    • Strange, doesn`t do this for me... I`ve had it running on my machine for nearly a month now.
    • by fool36 (864682)
      I would love to see this cleared up. I am told that people don't normally leave a browser open for any extended period of time, but i do - and have to restart FF every 3 days or so.

      I blame Microsoft for creating an OS that is now stable for days and even weeks at a time.
    • about:config

      key "browser.cache.memory.capacity"

      value "16000"
  • newsreader? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by timeOday (582209) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:28AM (#13738763)
    Is Mozilla's usnet news reader being updated at all? I'm still using the "suite." They still have it on their website, but I can't tell if the browser is kept up to date with firefox, and if the newsreader is updated at all.
    • Re:newsreader? (Score:3, Informative)

      by twbecker (315312)
      If you mean the newsreader functionality in Thunderbird then no, not really. TB is a great mail client but the newsreader functionality is still pretty much an exact copy from the suite. The devs don't seem to place a lot of emphasis on enhancing it =/
    • The newsreader is now in Thunderbird, which combines email, newsgroups and RSS/Atom feeds -- and I mean a real feed reader, not the LiveBookmarks half-implementation that Firefox has.

      That said, I have no idea what work has been done on it, since I haven't used a regular news reader in years.
  • I just now tried to force a manual update (using Beta 1 now), and it won't update. Why would waiting for the incrimental automatic update to kick in work in a few days, if asking manually right now will not?

    Maybe they don't have the Beta 2 on the server that autoupdate looks at, or something. Probably to avoid congestion?
  • by dmccarty (152630) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:46AM (#13738883)
    Does anyone know what this bug means or what it solves?

    New extension developer features: 310976 - Treat 1.5.* as 1.5.infinity.

    (In this case, "inifinity" is 2,147,483,647 ;-)

    Also, my favorite bug:

    Linux-specific bugs: 287523 - [GTK] Insensitive (disabled) check/radio buttons can't be distinguished in some GTK themes.

    I DON'T USE RADIO BUTTONS YOU INSENSITIVE, uh, oh wait nevermind.

  • One of the things that's appealed to me the most about 1.5 is the ability to update itself automatically. Until now, one would have to download a whole new installer for every release.

    Well, I'm running 1.5b1. Where's my icon to offer me a b2 update? Have I misunderstood this function?

    • RFA!

      “Beta 1 users that want to help test software update, should wait for the automatic update to be triggered sometime in the next few days. The incremental update from Beta 1 to Beta 2 is 700K bytes.”

  • I'm still using Firefox 1.07, but for those testing, i have this question (for Windows users):

    Does Firefox 1.5 solve the Flash 99% CPU usage problem? Everytime I browse slashdot, the Flash(TM) banners pump up the CPU to 99%. If I'm playing some videogame, even if i set the firefox process to "low priority", my game or processing application gets REALLY slow. I have to adblock the flash banners to return to normal.

    Any ideas?
  • An Autopackage of 1.5-b2 has been created and is available at http://wildgardenseed.com/Taj/autopackage/firefox - 1.5-b2.x86.package [wildgardenseed.com].

    This package will overwrite your existing Firefox install unless you install it into a different location. To install into a different location, run this command:

    ./firefox-1.5-b2.x86.package --prefix /opt/firefox

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...