Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Firefox Mozilla Software Upgrades Technology News

Mozilla Unleashes JaegerMonkey Enabled Firefox 4 279

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has published the first Firefox 4 build that integrates a new JavaScript engine that aims to match the performance in IE9 and reduces the gap to Safari, Opera and Chrome. This is really the big news we have been waiting for all along with Firefox 4 and it appears that the JavaScript performance is pretty dramatic and seems to beat IE9 at least as far as ConceivablyTech shows. Good to see Mozilla back in the game." The Mozilla blog gives a good overview of the improvements this brings; Tom's Hardware also covers the release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Unleashes JaegerMonkey Enabled Firefox 4

Comments Filter:
  • by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @04:31PM (#33527066) Homepage Journal

    Ironically, the primary site for which I really need a faster Javascript engine is Slashdot. For a heavily-commented article I switch to Chrome.

  • In a Beta? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by reub2000 ( 705806 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @04:37PM (#33527120)
    My understanding of the term Beta is that all features are complete. Has something changed?
  • by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @04:42PM (#33527194) Journal


    Plain text slashdot is the way to go. And I use Mozilla/SeaMonkey which seems to operate faster than Firefox, and has built-in Usenet support.

  • Kinda Sad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DeionXxX ( 261398 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @04:43PM (#33527198)

    Anyone else kinda sad that now Firefox is playing catchup. When no one cared about JS performance, the Open Source crowd was king, then all of a sudden big corporate money was poured into JS performance and now FOSS is lagging behind.

    It seems that FOSS can't compete head to head with corporate backed projects, if the corporation actually cares. For example, MS didn't care about JS performance in IE6/IE7 and Firefox was king. Now, Microsoft is trying to compete in the browser space again and IE9 is catching up in features and exceeding Firefox in certain respects.

    This is coming from a very long time Firefox user, but I have definitely switched to Chrome for general web browsing. I stick with Firefox for development though because of the large amount of niche plugins specifically tailored for development.

  • by StuartHankins ( 1020819 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @04:53PM (#33527314)
    Slashdot is quite perky with the last couple of betas. But it's especially disheartening that the video "upgrades" in this most current release fall short on my platform. When viewing the demo page ( [] ), I get 1 fps. I get 6 fps when running the same demo on Firefox inside a Parallels Windows XP SP3 VM. The VM is significantly faster... which boggles the mind actually.

    So far as I remember, this was an Apple issue not necessarily a Mozilla issue, but still disappointing.
  • Are We Fast Yet? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theY4Kman ( 1519023 ) <> on Thursday September 09, 2010 @04:55PM (#33527332) Homepage

    Check out [] to see the speeds of several JavaScript engines compared to Mozilla's.

  • Re:Kinda Sad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @05:06PM (#33527462)

    Big corporation and FOSS aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I use Chromium on my Linux machines. It's open source, and it's blazing fast.

  • Re:Kinda Sad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Thursday September 09, 2010 @05:13PM (#33527522) Homepage

    Isn't Chrome open source? And isn't IE9 still unreleased?

    Look, there's nothing wrong with Firefox. Performance improvements are lagging a bit behind Chrome, but obviously they're working on it. It's still a great browser.

    Safari, Chrome, and Firefox are all great browsers, and they're all (at least to some extent) open source browsers. When a story comes out about how Firefox is preparing a new release with substantial performance improvements, I think you have to bend over backward to turn it into a sad anti-FOSS story.

  • Re:In a Beta? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @05:24PM (#33527660) Journal

    I'm going to drink JaegerMonkey all fokin night. I fokin shower in dat shit.

    That's a novel approach. Normally when *I* drink Jaeger all night, I end up shitting in the fucking shower in the morning.

    Seriously. That stuff is like using a brass-bristle brush on the inside of your bowels and then using clamps to pry your asshole open to give the residue unimpeded egress.

  • Re:Back in the game? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 09, 2010 @05:31PM (#33527746)

    They're getting pretty close to matching chrome and safari: ... and getting there without breaking backwards compatibility horribly like chrome and safari have.

  • Re:Are We Fast Yet? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by denis-The-menace ( 471988 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @05:35PM (#33527784)

    OMG, all the 32bit Browsers beat the 64bit browsers!

    Why did I bother for a 64Bit Windows 7 OS!

  • Re:Kinda Sad (Score:2, Interesting)

    by schlameel ( 1017070 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @05:53PM (#33527962)
    With few exceptions (modern Linux, early Firefox, your-favorite-here), when is FOSS not playing catchup? I'm a big believer, but it is my experience that most F/OSS projects are a response to some commercially available / big corporate solution. Often the FOSS project provides some some feature set or widget or level of access that is an improvement over the existing package, but, as a whole the F/OSS project often lags behind bad-guy-based software. And the more UI there is, the greater the disparity becomes between F/OSS and big corporate.

    Commercial software vendors would have a hard time staying in business (and plenty didn't) if they couldn't stay ahead of F/OSS.
  • Re:Compatibility (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Intron ( 870560 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @06:10PM (#33528072)

    Firefox lagged chrome mostly because firefox cares a LOT more about compatibility, and adding all this crazy JIT compiled JS stuff is hard when you're trying to support all the introspection features which people have been using in firefox.

    Firefox cares about compatibility []? Are you kidding me? Reported: 2000-03-28

    Doing a basic html element wrong for 10 years is not compatibility.

  • by kangsterizer ( 1698322 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @06:21PM (#33528200)

    The point is that multiprocess, except for plugins (which is already done) isn't a big advantage at all.
    They actually implemented it on Fennec, that's Firefox mobile if you prefer, because it would yield an advantage here.

    On regular desktops, not so much, in fact, it uses quite some memory. It's not because "others do it" that it's necessarily "teh future embrace or die!".

    It also encourage sloppy programming since it's more fault tolerant, chrome tabs crash all the damn time in comparison to firefox which barely ever crashes.
    Non-plugin code should _never_ crash, ideally.

  • Re:Compatibility (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BZ ( 40346 ) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:17AM (#33530876)

    What's interesting about conformance tests is that unless they're exhaustive the only thing you can tell from them is how much a browser cares about conformance... by looking at the score when the test is first published, before people go and fix just the issues that are tested for.

    As far as I know Opera is not "cheating" on its sputnik results but is in fact "cheating" (in the effect of implementing effectively bare-minimum functionality needed to pass) on some of the Acid3 bits. Precisely the ones Firefox is not passing, as it happens.

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey