Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Mozilla The Internet

Firefox 1.1 Boasts New Features 479

Distro Jockey writes "The Fedora Core Blog gives a review of the features we can expect from Firefox 1.1. Many uses have been running the latest trunk builds and seeing dramatic improvements in page rendering, managing many tabs quickly, and the much-anticipated fix for the /. layout bug. From the article: 'One major new feature in Firefox 1.1 is the "Sanitize" feature. This enables secure browsing with much more ease. Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences).'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 1.1 Boasts New Features

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07, 2005 @06:54PM (#12464774)
    (1) Does it finally fix that bug where sometimes images from certain hosts will stop displaying until you restart Firefox?

    (2) Does it finally start to reverse the recent trend for firefox to become a huge RAM hog, or does it continue this trend?
    • by Guy LeDouche ( 713304 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @06:59PM (#12464799)
      I REALLY hope that something is done about resource usage. We are constantly told how much lighter, and faster Firefox is, yet it's still just as slow and bloated as Mozilla. Yesterday I was browsing with 4 tabs open and the RAM usage for Firefox was ~98MB This is not a good thing.
      • It isn't actually using that much ram. Minimise it then check the RAM usage. That worked for me. I think this bug has been reported.
        • by Ark42 ( 522144 ) <slashdot.morpheussoftware@net> on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:15PM (#12464890) Homepage

          While it's true that the "Mem Usage" in task manager can easily show much more memory than the program is actually using, an minimizing a program will make this number drop, the number it drops to is still not the accurate memory usage figure. You really want to go to View/Select Columns and look at VM Size, not Mem Usage.
          VM Size is the actual amount of memory the program thinks it has, between whats swapped out and what is actually being used. Mem Usage can be higher than VM Size if memory was freed but not yet flushed by the OS, or it can be lower than VM Size if some memory hasn't been touched in a while and is swapped out to disk. Minimizing an application just gives Windows a hint that it should flush freed memory and swap out pages that have not been touched recently, which is why the Mem Usage figure drops when you do that.
          • by Teja ( 826685 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:49PM (#12465075) Journal
            Firefox's memory usage is part reason why I ditched it and went Opera mostly full time. (Of course, Opera's innovative features are hard to beat so that is why I mainly switched). Being on a really old machine, Firefox would often use 112 MB of RAM with only around two-four tabs open, now with Opera at that many tabs, It'd only use around 25 MB of RAM with the same pages open. When Firefox is started up with no pages open, it'd be around 21 MB of RAM or so, with Opera, it is only around 13-14.
      • by Shook18 ( 878947 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:03PM (#12464827) Homepage
        I... have 6 tabs open right now and 29mb ram usage with the 1.1 release. Don't know if that is because the new release is so good, or yours is so bad, however.
        • I'm still using 1.0, so I don't know how much has changed with regard to resource management in the maintenence releases so far, if anything. It may also depend on how image intensive the pages are, but even then it shouldn't use so much.
        • The memory usage depends heavily on your browsing patterns (what you have open, what you had open, whether you use tabs vs. windows, etc).
          • I'm using the 1.0.3 for windows from getfirefox.com

            Two windows, each with 8 open tabs, basically I started on slashdot in one window and randomly hit links for tabs, and started on my homepage in another and did the same.

            So, 2 windows, a total of 16 tabs/pages, and task manager says I'm using 43M... Doesn't seem too bad to me...

            If I restart firefox, 1 window and 1 tab is 23M, so you can complain about that maybe.
      • by FuzzzyLogik ( 592766 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:08PM (#12464856) Homepage
        That's why i switched to Opera. the ram usage and responsiveness of the interface is great. it took a little getting used to, but i use Opera on my windows machine, safari on my mac, and firefox in linux. granted i got opera for $20 with the edu pricing.
      • People talks about a memory leak.
      • Yesterday I was browsing with 4 tabs open and the RAM usage for Firefox was ~98MB This is not a good thing.

        Mine is presently using 229MB. Of course, my X server is presently using 303MB, which, together is more than the amount of physical RAM that I have. Does Firefox map the video RAM into its address space?
        • Yes.

          X11 can use shared memory to accelerate communication between processes.

          I have no idea how it's counted on which implementations though. It might be reported twice, it might not.
      • That's why they make faster computers.
      • The most RAM I've seen Firefox use is 170MB. Of course, that was with Zombo [zombo.com] open in fourteen tabs simultaneously. Put your complaints in context- what was on those four tabs?
      • I complained about this in the last big Firefox thread, too. Let's see now. I've got two windows open and four tabs, two per window. One window is on a separate desktop, though I don't expect that to matter. Total memory use: 120MB! And this after having restarted Firefox only a couple of hours ago, and having used it fairly little since then.

        Honestly, the only reason I ever restart Firefox (now that my extension selection has stabilized) is to free up memory. After an average day of web development at wo

        • That's an interesting idea, that extensions could be causing the problem. Sounds like I'm having the same kind of problem as you (see just below your post). What extensions are you running?

          I've got:
          DOM Inspector 1.0
          Tabbrowser Preferences 1.2.4 (disabled)
          Sessionsaver .2
          Web Developer 0.9.3

      • I don't know if it's something weird about the Gentoo ebuild, but my Firefox RAM usage is always through the roof.

        Once or twice a day, I'll notice the system slow to a crawl and the hard drive thrashing. A quick check of top, and sure enough, Firefox has 250+MB RAM resident on my 512MB machine. Close Firefox, open it again, and things are fine... for a while.

    • Whenever I load a PDF in firefox it hangs somewhere during the initilization of Acrobat. It also hangs equally as long if I leave the pdf, and having firefox 1.0x shut down the acrobat engine.

      But if I launch Acrobat as a separate program and just have it sitting empty in the taskbar, Firefox goes through PDFs just fine.

      A strange bug. A frustrating one. One I hope they catch.
  • back/forward (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ark42 ( 522144 ) <slashdot.morpheussoftware@net> on Saturday May 07, 2005 @06:55PM (#12464785) Homepage

    And back/forward can cache the rendered layout instead of having to re-render everything: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6 567 [mozillazine.org]

    • Re:back/forward (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Saeger ( 456549 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [jllerraf]> on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:42PM (#12465036) Homepage
      back/forward can cache the rendered layout

      YES! Finally!

      Instantaneous back/forward (with mouse-rocker) navigation is one of the major killer features that has kept me using Opera as my main browser for years now. And if the tab switching and general snappiness of Firefox v1.1 has also improved to Opera's level, as some attest, then I can ditch Opera for good...

      ...well, as soon as Firefox gets the one last feature I can't live without: opera-like image AND text zooming (+/-), instead of just text scaling (Ctrl+/-).

      Yep. That's it. I can live without the rest of the kitchen sink.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07, 2005 @06:56PM (#12464787)
    ...it's called preview, not review.
    • If it's about what's in the nightlies, it's a review. With OSS, there's never much of a "preview" possible, since everything is available (Generally, though take ZSNES for example, occasionally pagefault keeps changes private for a bit, only letting some see, or only releasing binaries, etc. Example: Star Fox 2 build.).
  • by thundercatslair ( 809424 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @06:58PM (#12464794)
    So this will clear all my tracks automaticly when I, say look at the hardcore of porn?
  • by British ( 51765 ) <british1500@gmail.com> on Saturday May 07, 2005 @06:58PM (#12464797) Homepage Journal
    Try hovering over a link in fark. It seems the text to display it is so complex, it overhwelms Firefox.
    • Try hovering over a link in fark. It seems the text to display it is so complex, it overhwelms Firefox.

      An article link? A forum link? One of the links on the right or left sides? All of these seem to work for me (FF 1.03). Got a screenshot of what you're describing?

    • fark seems to use mouseover javascript on its links to articles. The following code is for one link:

      <a onmouseover="w('http://kevxml2a.infospace.com/info .ncbuy/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D89UAH480&qc at=entertain&ran=26804&passqi=0&feed=ap&more=1'); return true;" onmouseout="c(); return true;" href="http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=147 5616&amp;location=http%3A%2F%2Fkevxml2a.infospace. com%2Finfo.ncbuy%2Fapnws%2Fstory.htm%3Fkcfg%3Dapar t%26sin%3DD89UAH

    • by RotJ ( 771744 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @08:04PM (#12465143) Journal
      Try hovering over a link in fark. It seems the text to display it is so complex, it overhwelms Firefox.

      I wouldn't call it overwhelming Firefox (nor would I call it overhwelming Firefox). You probably have Firefox set to disable javascript from changing the status bar text. If you enable having javascript change the status bar text in options > web features > Javascript Advanced or if you completely disable javascript, the links show up fine in the status bar.

      Fark formats its links like this:
      <a onMouseOver="w('http://www.planetark.com/dailynews story.cfm/newsid/30692/story.htm'); return true;" onMouseOut="c(); return true;" href="http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=147 5780&amp;location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planetark.com%2 Fdailynewsstory.cfm%2Fnewsid%2F30692%2Fstory.htm" target=_blank>(Some Guy)</a>
      It uses onMouseOver to hide the click tracker from the status bar. The appropriate behavior for Firefox would be to show the actual url the link points to when you disable status bar text changing, so it's still broken.
  • by antizeus ( 47491 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:00PM (#12464806)
    I for one hope that the MacOS X version properly supports the middle mouse button (apparently the nightly builds have before the 1.0.3 release, but that release doesn't). Additionally, I hope it also uses Emacs key bindings.
    • by CTho9305 ( 264265 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:22PM (#12464928) Homepage
      The reason releases that come after a given nightly don't have the same features is branches. Before each release, a branch is made (usually at the beta) so that the code is stable, and rapid (dangerous) development can continue on the trunk. Firefox 1.0.x were released off the 1.0 branch - branches usually only get very important bugfixes and security fixes. The trunk is where the day-to-day stuff happens, but as a result it can often be in pretty bad sahpe.
    • I hope the Mac version uses the delete/backspace key to go back, like every other browser except the current version of Firefox. I hit backspace a lot while browsing on my Windows PC, it really annoys me that it doesn't work on my Mac, in the same program.
  • Funnyfox (Score:5, Funny)

    by anandpur ( 303114 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:00PM (#12464808)
    http://www.funnyfox.org/ [funnyfox.org]
  • Copy? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sammykrupa ( 828537 ) <sam@theplaceforitall.com> on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:00PM (#12464809) Homepage Journal
    From the article: 'One major new feature in Firefox 1.1 is the "Sanitize" feature. This enables secure browsing with much more ease. Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences).'

    Sounds something like the "Private Browsing" feature in Safari [apple.com].

    • Really "Private Browsing" and "Sanitize" should be renamed "Porno Privacy Browsing."

      I'm sure people will use these new features to protect sensitive data and whatnot... but come on... most folks will use this new browse mode to keep their filthy habits on the DL .
  • by Anti-Trend ( 857000 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:00PM (#12464811) Homepage Journal
    I'm glad Mozilla.org is keeping the pressure on the Redmond-based behemoth. The fact that IE7 will continue to ignore established web standard makes me sick at the very thought of it.

    My wife is an exclusively Linux user, and she does business with Candle-Lite. Unfortunately, their site is rife with IE-only garbage which makes it impossible for her to submit her orders online. If more people were using standards-compliant browsers, we really wouldn't have situations like this to begin with.


  • erm (Score:2, Interesting)

    But does it fix the memory leak? That's the biggest issue for me right now.
  • by BRock97 ( 17460 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:01PM (#12464819) Homepage
    So, how about that Firefox "feature" that keeps dynamically grabbing RAM as new images are displayed (at least that is where I am seeing it). Being a weather guy with my image looper adding new images every 5 minutes (and deleting the oldest one; the memory still isn't given up), I hate to see my browser using 500MB of RAM after a couple of hours. I was able to fix it with an entry in about:config called browser.cache.memory.capacity, but it would be nice to know if it is fixed by default since we will be rolling out Firefox on a bunch of desktops where I work in a few months.
    • by msimm ( 580077 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:19PM (#12464921) Homepage
      Did you report it along with your fix? Because not everyone uses the image looper quite that much and this could slip through the cracks without someone pointing it out.

      I'm sure they'd like to have as much working flawlessly as possible, so they'd probably really appreciate this kind of feedback. I'll assume you did report it (or at least verify someone else already had) and leave it at "this is the beauty of OSS" even the users have their part in the process (is IE displaying PNG's or CSS properly yet?).
  • I haven't confirmed it myself, but this report [frsirt.com] says that firefox V1.03 is vulnerable to remote arbit. code execution.
  • by konmaskisin ( 213498 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:05PM (#12464838) Journal
    The Tiger version of Safari truly does load faster than Firefox now (this must have been a priority for Apple!) ... not sure if it's preloaded like IE is but it is quick now. Generally though Firefox is jus a better and more convenient browser.

    There's only *one* area where Safari truly has a usabilty edge and that's RSS. The reader is *really* nice. Mozilla/Firefox could do something similar by improving Sage marginally (the article length slider is all that's missing it seems).

    Is better syndication support (rss atom etc) being considered?
  • Or is v1.7.x end of the line that I read a while ago due to lack of resources?
  • See http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2005-05-07 [sans.org] for info on the javascript bug in 1.0.3 that allows remote code execution.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences)

    Sounds like the "delete all private data" feature that Opera has had for several years.

    Going down! Since this is Slashdot, I'll be modded flamebait for making an honest observation.

  • Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)

    by GarfBond ( 565331 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:11PM (#12464873)
    This isn't really so much a review as a description of features currently in the nightly. Firefox 1.1 isn't expected until June at the earliest. The roadmap (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/roadmap.h tml [mozilla.org]) gives a rough overview of the timeframes involved right now, though it is not always accurate as it isn't updated frequently.

    Honestly, Firefox 1.1 isn't even in alpha-release yet. To take some highly unstable code and to "preview" it is a bit premature right now. I would call 1.1beta a better time to 'preview' things, as hopefully by then there will be a feature freeze and things will have stabilized a bit. I'm not kidding about the unstable bit either: up until a couple days ago themes and extensions wouldn't install in the nightly builds.

    In fact, an article like this does a disservice because it's misleading the /. crew. Yes, an incredibly fast back/forward feature has been checked in to the latest nightly builds, but what they won't tell you is at present this feature is DISABLED. While that doesn't mean it won't be enabled in the future and might be enabled for 1.1, as it stands this feature is off by default and only accessible through a custom pref, so in its current state it changes nothing for the average end-user.

    This forums post gives a better idea of the new features to be expected in 1.1 with one line sentences: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2577 66 [mozillazine.org]
  • "Sanitize" sounds like having the X extension [mozdev.org] preinstalled but requiring several more clicks.
  • /. Rendering (Score:3, Interesting)

    by leapis ( 89780 ) * on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:15PM (#12464893)
    I actually found a "fix" for the /. rendering problem. If you go to https://slashdot.org [slashdot.org], it never displays incorrectly. Curious that SSL should have any affect on what is displayed, but I've been using it for weeks with no ill effects.
  • Pornzilla (Score:3, Funny)

    by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:15PM (#12464895)
    Select the "Sanitize" option in the preferences and Firefox will scrub your profile of sensitive information (which you select in the preferences).

    Pornzilla lives!
  • by erikharrison ( 633719 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:16PM (#12464902)
    I think there are a few setbacks, UI wise, in the latest builds.

    The new preference dialog sucks. I suspect it's design is an attempt to match what OS X users expect, since Firefox devs have this (IMHO) crazy notion that the product should look as identical as possible across OSes.

    The whole thing looks much more cluttered, and it has the same bugs that the UI did in pre 1.0 where the text was rendered inside of windows all the time (Like in the toolbar customization pallete, or in the current prefs). Which makes me worry that actually it's an XUL problem. If text placement is a thing that's hard to get right in XUL, it makes me worry about it as a platform.

    However, performance did increase noticably for me, and the sanitize feature could be handy. I don't offhand find it much more useful that the "Clear All" button under privacy now. But it is nicely customizable, and not loosing my login cookies is kinda nice . . .
    • > I suspect it's design is an attempt to match what OS X users expect, since Firefox devs have this (IMHO) crazy notion that the product should look as identical as possible across OSes.

      And not just look but feel too.. unfortunately. They keybindings are so windowzy (or gnomy, but that's almost the same thing) as to make the program totally unusable. And it isn't even easily configured. You have to hunt for the proverbial needle in the haystack to find the poorly documented function to call and then wri
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:19PM (#12464916)

    wait for the spyware slags get hold of this one
    full remote execution of an exe with no user interaction
    http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/397747/2005 -05-05/2005-05-11/0 [securityfocus.com]

    catching up with MSIE
  • /. bug (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kinema ( 630983 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:23PM (#12464936)
    "the much-anticipated fix for the /. layout bug"
    I for one think this is great but is it really the job of the Mozilla devs to bring Slashdot into the modern times with a valid XHTML/CSS layout?
    • Re:/. bug (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shobadobs ( 264600 )
      There's nothing great about XHTML. Valid HTML works just fine.
    • Re:/. bug (Score:5, Informative)

      by CTho9305 ( 264265 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @10:11PM (#12465675) Homepage
      The validity of the HTML is irrelevant - the bug was a type of bug known as a "reflow bug". Reflow bugs are timing-dependant, in that they only occur when things happen in a certain order. This is a large part of why people with fast connections were less affected by the bug. You could likely construct a page with 100% valid XHTML which would demonstrate the same bug.
      • Re:/. bug (Score:3, Informative)

        by Shinglor ( 714132 )

        Actually that's not correct, the bug is only triggered when Gecko is in quirks mode. It is a browser bug but it can be avoided by using standard code.

  • by PocketPick ( 798123 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:30PM (#12464976)
    I really enjoy FireFox, but I still have two peeves:

    1.) If I hit the middle mouse button and use auto-scrolling for something like this slashdot page, Firefox will use 30 to 40 percent CPU. And I wouldn't classify my system as slow(Athlon64 3200+ w/512Mb of RAM). Hopefully the can do something about this.

    NOTE: Prior to making this post, I observed that IE holds at around 7 percent for the same action.

    2.) Unexpected browser closing in v1.01 and above that wasn't present in the pre-v1.0 releases, such as when I'm holding down several keys or typing something in the browser and then switch to another page with the mouse, causing the browser to close (or crash, though I don't get an error message).
  • I'm all for open source and competition to IE7. But Maxthon seems to take less resources, can save flash files, and have little usability tweaks for tabs (i.e. activate or deactivate tabs for new windows, etc., location of new windows relative to original tab, and so on). Is there any tweak to make Firefox look like Maxthon since its UI is very "meh". Tips anyone?
  • by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:30PM (#12464979) Journal
    Will it support ActiveX?
  • Will they finally fix the title-tag bug that has been an issue [mozilla.org] in the browser for five years?
  • by guacamole ( 24270 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:36PM (#12465009)
    Will we have this old mozilla feature back? I want the URLs to be sorted based on the time they were last typed in the address bar as opposed to whatever sorting scheme that's being used right now in Firefox 1.0.x.
  • I've bought Nigel McFarlane's Mozilla and Firefox books (swell tomes, both) but what I'd like to see is a worked example using Python to script Firefox on the client.
    Is it possible to do import the Firefox executable directly, or would you need to instantiate an HTTP server, and do everything against ?
    Firefox seems like an interesting angle on a lot of cross-platform development, or my name isn't Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus Caesar.
  • by Quattro Vezina ( 714892 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @07:41PM (#12465032) Journal
    The Good:

    - Back/Forward Cache: Yes! Yes! Yes! This brings Firefox one step closer to the way I feel caching should be done. Back/forward should always pull pages from the cache (ignoring meta expire), and clicking links should always load the page from the server.

    - Interface speedups: Great news. I love Firefox's rendering power, but the UI is slow as hell. This should help.

    - Rendering errors fixed: More good news. While I can count the amount the number of times I've seen the Slashdot bug on my hands, better rendering is always a good thing.

    - Focus follows mouse: One of the best changes. I've had so many issues with the focus not being where it's supposed to be. For example, I'll switch to another window or tab, but the focus is usually still in the old one. If this gets fixed, I'll jump for joy.

    - Sanitise: More privacy == A Good Thing.

    The Bad:

    - Preferences tabs at the top: I hate having tabs at the top--I'd prefer them on the bottom (the sole reason I installed TabBrowser Extensions was to get the browser tabs to appear on the bottom), but I don't mind them on the left side. But having them on top is just horrible. It looks prettier on the left too, especially with my theme, which places an image of a gecko in the background of the left pane. I'm also worried that my theme won't work with 1.1--I've been using an old version of the theme, as the author made a change a while back that uglified the icons, defeating the purpose of the theme (the version I use only uses two colours in the icons...). Officially, my theme only supports up to 0.9, but I've hacked it to allow 1.0 to install it--if 1.1 has any major UI changes like this one, it may cause my theme to choke.

    - Live preferences: I hate these things with a passion. I like to be able to dick around in the preferences and not have to worry about screwing something up. It pissed me off to no end back when I used Galeon, and it'll piss me off in Firefox too. But, hey, I can tell that the Firefox devs have an agenda to screw up the preferences dialog as much as possible. They already moved it to the Edit menu a while back (WTF?), they already flipped the OK and Cancel buttons, and now they're adding these shitty changes too. If I wanted to use a browser with Gnome's horrible HIG, I'd use Epiphany.
    • I like the tabs-at-the-top thing. And they're not really "tabs" -- it's really the same thing as the previous ms-office-style sidebar, but takes up less screen space.
    • by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @08:41PM (#12465277)
      Preferences tabs at the top: I hate having tabs at the top--I'd prefer them on the bottom

      Personally I agree with the hate, but not the placement - give them to me on the left or the right, and leave more vertical real estate. But see below.

      Live preferences: I hate these things with a passion... They already moved it to the Edit menu a while back (WTF?)

      I'd prefer no live prefs, too.

      But, the deal here is being consistent. They're trying to make the app work like other apps. So, the theory goes, even if they don't make your personal favorite UI choice, at least you know what it will do.

      The Edit->Preferences thing is a long standing Mac standard from the pre-OSX days. Back then, most apps followed it. The strength of the convention was most noticable when you used a Microsoft app, which hung them off of Tools->Options. If you haven't noticed, non-OSX MacOS is where a lot (but obviously not all) of Gnome's UI sensibilities come from.

      So, I generally agree with your behavioural preferences, and weirdos like you and me and always dick with the undisplayed options in the config file, fiddle with the chrome, etc.. Meanwhile, everyone else gets consistency. Which is a good thing.

    • Back/Forward Cache: Yes! Yes! Yes! This brings Firefox one step closer to the way I feel caching should be done. Back/forward should always pull pages from the cache (ignoring meta expire), and clicking links should always load the page from the server.

      While this may at first glance seem like a good idea, the browser absolutely must respect no-cache headers.

      A trivial example is if you go to an online bookshop say, and you order a book. If you hit the 'back' button, you may get very confused if you sta

  • x64 version too? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @09:04PM (#12465407) Homepage
    I certainly wouldnt mind an x64 win64 version. A proper one, not one that says "Gecko Browser" where extensions dont work, and plugins dont work (maybe it needs x64 plugins i which case I'm complaining about the lack thereof).

fortune: cannot execute. Out of cookies.