Firefox 3 Beta 5 Released 416
bunratty writes "Firefox 3 Beta 5 was released today. This last beta release sports performance-boosting improved connection parallelism. Not only has 'the memory leak' been fixed: Firefox now uses less memory than other browsers. This is not only according to Mozilla developers, but CyberNet and The Browser World as well. As for the Acid3 test, Firefox 3 Beta 5 scores only 71/100 compared to 75/100 for Safari 3.1 and 79/100 for the latest Opera 9.5 snapshot. The final release of Firefox 3 is expected in June."
Awesomebar? (Score:0, Insightful)
FIRST POST!111 (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost there (Score:4, Insightful)
Acid 3 Test (Score:5, Insightful)
What I care about (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, every time I uninstall firefox 3, I could no longer click links in outlook unless I reset default browser to IE and switch back. This is very irritating.
Re:Awesomebar? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, on OSX, Webkit nightly (Safari) is so much better than FF3B5 (Firefox). Faster, better render, better integration.
Only thing keeping me from Webkit completely is 1) Extensions (Adblock+, Google Gears, Firebug!) and 2) Awesomebar
It's that nice.
All you haters can use a theme that kicks it.
Re:Awesomebar? (Score:5, Insightful)
Beta/nightly vs. regular stable release (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're comparing a Firefox beta then we may as well look at a newer version of Safari, too. The latest nightly builds of WebKit get 100/100 on Acid3. http://webkit.org/blog/173/ [webkit.org]
Re:Who cares about Safari? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Almost there (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the PIN is the only thing you need to set up on a new computer, I don't think the data sent to google is encrypted (using a key unknown by google, ie more than https)?
I guess they don't really want my passwords, but the navigation and form history coupled to my search history... brrr... (I don't even want to imagine using gmail too)
Note: I'm not saying google is evil, I wouldn't trust anyone with that much data, and certainly not a US company with a history of complying to Chinese government demands...
How the mighty have fallen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yeah, those were numbers for non-production browsers, in-the-lab builds.
Re:Awesomebar? (Score:5, Insightful)
URLs are the key to http IMO - they're the ones to keep in memory as they're unique, unlike page titles and bookmarks. When I type "sla" in the address bar, I want slashdot.org, not some random blog post with the term 'slashdot' in the title I happened to pass by at some point.
At the end, what pisses me off the most about this whole deal is not being able to revert to the old behavior. That kind of forced nurturing is what I'd expect from Microsoft, not Mozilla.
Re:Awesomebar? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I have been using and testing Firefox 3 Betas pretty significantly. Personally, I'm very much enjoying the Awesomebar. I tend not to use bookmarks all that often - it's nicer to just start typing and, based on how I browse, the site I want to go to is usually at the very top of the list. The Awesomebar has also been helpful when I haven't been able to quite remember the site I want to go to. I start typing, and the site is usually listed somewhere near the top.
Either way, it would be cool if there was an option to shut off the Awesomebar (for those people who don't like it) - but a new way to do something does not necessarily make it hideous.
Re:Out of date comparison? (Score:2, Insightful)
Safari got 100/100 a day later, but in the process discovered a flaw in the Acid3 test that had to be fixed, making Opera's score 99/100. Safari is at least available in a nightly version. Apparently it also got pixel perfect placement and the animation was arguably smooth.
I don't personally think it counts until it's a full non-beta release.
Re:Awesomebar? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Connection parallelism (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all movement has been in the forward direction. Back them, most web traffic was totally static, even the HTML. These days, it's far more likely that the HTML is generated dynamically from something like mod_php. This, in turn, means that rather than tying up a slim process, a persistent connection ties up a "fat" process with a language runtime embedded in it. Three times as many simultaneous persistent connections means up to three times as much memory usage. Not as much of a problem if it's just a bog-standard 1999 static fileserver, but a big problem if you've got a 2008 dynamic interpreter built in.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that this is a bad change, I just think that it's got downsides as well as upsides. This will only further the adoption of lightweight reverse proxies like nginx, pound and varnish.
Re:Awesomebar? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why the awesomebar is going to be a big success in the Real World (outside of slashdot). You know, real people don't care about what a URL is, and I can't find a reason why they should.
I'm a geek, and I can't live without the awesomebar. You can remember a domain of a frequently visited page, but the whole URL? When I've to search an article I visited a week ago, I just have to type "slashdot" and some word from the title and the url appears. Typically I'd google to find it, now the awesomebar avoids me that. That alone makes the awesomebar worth of it. When I type "sla", the first item in the list is ALWAYS slashdot, because the awesomebar knows what pages you visit more frequently. Oh, and the favicons make easier to browse at the list of URLs than the old text list, because you can differenciate one domain from other.
Re:So obsessed with memory? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it has pretty much always been a big deal. Unless you have plenty of memory, memory is likely to be the limiting factor on the performance of your system. In extreme cases, memory shortage can cause programs to not work at all. Firefox has been a notorious memory hog. So I am _very_ glad to see this addressed. I might actually start using it again.
Re:Awesomebar? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Awesomebar? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Acid 3 Test (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for Opera. I publicly congratulated them for that work the day they hit 100%.
But what level of support are they shipping in 9.5 and at what cost of delay to the 9.5 release did they make those Opera 9.next or Opera 10 gains?
Are Opera users and web developers going to have to wait weeks or months longer to get a better Opera experience in 9.5 (which won't 100% on Acid3 but does have other major improvements, presumably usability, standards-support, security, etc.) so that Opera could win the race to 100% Acid3 in a product that users and web developers won't get to see for months or years?
Right now, the most important thing Mozilla can do to improve the Web for developers and for users is to get Firefox 3 shipped. Delaying that by splitting focus, mostly for marketing or fanboy pride reasons, doesn't seem like such a great idea to me.
- A
Re:Memory abuse = Poor responsiveness on XP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Awesomebar? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the other points are completely irrelevant as few people are going to plunk down hundreds of dollars to ditch a free web browser for a different one. Perhaps if somebody were completely split down the middle of Mac v., PC, this would make some sort of difference, but for the vast majority of people, it just isn't a realistic happening.