PDA

View Full Version : Gearing up for Firefox 3



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

stevesmithx
06-16-2008, 04:24 AM
The world's most widely used browser is going to launch its next version on June 17th.
Firefox sure is going to beat its previous download record with already 1 million pledges on
its site.
So gear up for the next level of surfing the net.

Elysia
06-16-2008, 04:33 AM
No worries there, I'm already running FF3, ever since beta 4.

maxorator
06-16-2008, 04:38 AM
No worries there, I'm already running FF3, ever since beta 4.
Ditto.

QuantumPete
06-16-2008, 05:08 AM
1 million pledges.

Pledges? Is Firefox turning into a fraternity? Is there a prize for promising to download FF3?

QuantumPete

stevesmithx
06-16-2008, 05:30 AM
Pledges? Is Firefox turning into a fraternity? Is there a prize for promising to download FF3?

QuantumPete

lol :)
See Maxorator's signature for more info .

Mario F.
06-16-2008, 06:17 AM
The world's most widely used browser

Not really, no.

Yarin
06-16-2008, 07:01 AM
I'd say that half of these pledges are really just "pledges" made by people checking out the browser.

zacs7
06-16-2008, 07:08 AM
Don't use FF so it doesn't mean a thing :)

The internet won't change, only the browser does. Nothing 'next level' about that.

DavidP
06-16-2008, 07:42 AM
Tomorrow is the big day.



The internet won't change, only the browser does. Nothing 'next level' about that.


But browser changes sure are nice every once in awhile. I loath IE7 because of its UI. Whoever designed the user interface for IE7 needs to be fired.

nvoigt
06-16-2008, 08:54 AM
The world's most widely used browser is going to launch its next version on June 17th.

IE8 is coming tomorrow? Oh, ........, everybody DUCK AND COVER!

Seriously, I like FF, but it's just a browser, it doesn't save whales or something. I have to use IE7 at work and it's just as good. It renders a page. Period.

Edit: And how much of a user interface does a browser need ? A "Back" button, a textbox for your favorite search engine. Tabs are nice sugar coating but you could as well just open new windows instead of tabs. An address bar. Maybe reload. Maybe cancel. That's it.

Thantos
06-16-2008, 08:56 AM
Opera > FF now and forever!

Damn FF Fanbois.

psychopath
06-16-2008, 09:33 AM
Opera > FF now and forever!

Damn FF Fanbois.

Agreed. Although I'm fine with any browser, I find to Opera to be faster than FF.

DavidP
06-16-2008, 09:39 AM
how much of a user interface does a browser need ?


It's not a factor of "how much" but more a factor of "how well designed" and "how usable".

Take a look at the following UIs of various web browsers:

8211

As you can see, out of 5 web browsers (IE6, IE7, Firefox 2, Opera 9.5, and Safari 3), four of them use the interface of having a menu at the top and all the buttons (back, forward, refresh, stop, and home) in one place (all in the top left).

IE7 takes the approach of deviating and puts buttons in 4 different locations. One of those sets of buttons includes the obscure file menu which is easy to find in all 4 other web browsers, but difficult to find in IE7.

Simple fact: IE7 was extremely poorly designed. I don't care how well it might render web pages. My user experience with the browser was terrible, and the UI designer should be fired.

Elysia
06-16-2008, 10:02 AM
Not really, no.
Not today, but soon :p


Don't use FF so it doesn't mean a thing :)
The internet won't change, only the browser does. Nothing 'next level' about that.

Seriously, I like FF, but it's just a browser, it doesn't save whales or something. I have to use IE7 at work and it's just as good. It renders a page. Period.

Edit: And how much of a user interface does a browser need ? A "Back" button, a textbox for your favorite search engine. Tabs are nice sugar coating but you could as well just open new windows instead of tabs. An address bar. Maybe reload. Maybe cancel. That's it.
Oh, but the internet will change when IE8 lands. Hopefully anyway.
What we get is more standards compliant web pages!
And while the Internet may not change - our perspective of it will change with FF3.

And you'd be surprised with how much a web browser can do or must do.
Render pages, store your history and all that.
But rendering a page correctly, pretty and as it should be isn't easy. FF3 is making it all the more better.


But browser changes sure are nice every once in awhile. I loath IE7 because of its UI. Whoever designed the user interface for IE7 needs to be fired.


Opera > FF now and forever!
Damn FF Fanbois.
Not that I have anything against it, but FF3 is now taking the lead in functionality and all. At least from what I've read.


Agreed. Although I'm fine with any browser, I find to Opera to be faster than FF.
A fact that has now been disproved. FF3 is faster than Opera.

And for the curious. Here is a link - guide to FF3 which contains a lot of the improvements to the browser. It should show us how much work has been put into FF3 and what benefits we reap.
http://www.dria.org/wordpress/archives/2008/06/12/655/

Mario F.
06-16-2008, 11:58 AM
But rendering a page correctly, pretty and as it should be isn't easy.

Depends on what you mean. For me or you? Yes, it won't be easy, just like it won't be easy to write a complex parser and rendering engine. For them, the browser makers? It's pretty darn easy considering they already built the foundations. They just need to adhere to the standards which have been unchanged for so many years. I can only tag as total irresponsibility the fact a browser still comes out these days without FULL standards compliance.

And that goes or ALL browsers. Amaya included.

Elysia
06-16-2008, 12:14 PM
Depends on what you mean. For me or you?
For the developers of the page, for example?


They just need to adhere to the standards which have been unchanged for so many years. I can only tag as total irresponsibility the fact a browser still comes out these days without FULL standards compliance.
But there's so much more on today's web than standards...
Displaying images, for example, supporting proper fonts, and so on.
And the standards themselves, as many as they are, are big and complex and difficult to implement.
No browser today has 100% standards compliance.
It doesn't really matter that much, though, as long as the developers strive hard to achieve it.

But then there's the question of speed and memory usage - things important to many people. A browser shouldn't eat too much memory (*cough* IE7 *cough*) or be too slow (*cough* IE7 *cough*).
And I think the devs at Mozilla has done a great job with FF3.
I hope they keep it up!

Neo1
06-16-2008, 12:43 PM
A browser shouldn't eat too much memory (*cough* IE7 *cough*) or be too slow (*cough* IE7 *cough*).

Haven't used IE very often since Firefox 1.0 came out, so i don't know how much memory it uses, but i find FF to be very consuming. Atm, it's just sitting here, with 2 pages open, using 110 mb, and i have 1 addon, i think that is a bit too much?

Elysia
06-16-2008, 01:05 PM
Haven't used IE very often since Firefox 1.0 came out, so i don't know how much memory it uses, but i find FF to be very consuming. Atm, it's just sitting here, with 2 pages open, using 110 mb, and i have 1 addon, i think that is a bit too much?

IE7 uses about 7x as much memory ;)
FF3 fixes the memory allocation a bit, though.

Daved
06-16-2008, 01:45 PM
>> Tabs are nice sugar coating but you could as well just open new windows instead of tabs.
No, you couldn't. Web browsing was made wonderful with the invention of tabs.

GanglyLamb
06-16-2008, 02:10 PM
But there's so much more on today's web than standards...
Displaying images, for example, supporting proper fonts, and so on.
And the standards themselves, as many as they are, are big and complex and difficult to implement.
No browser today has 100% standards compliance.
It doesn't really matter that much, though, as long as the developers strive hard to achieve it.


That must be the most ridiculous pov on webstandards ive heard so far.

Imagine you are writing c code, but you are using all kind of funky spicy bits of code so that your code only compiles on machine A with Operating system B and preferable with some funky extra libraries needed to compile...

If browsers would comply with the standards then webdevelopment would be tremendously easier. Ask yourself this question, if even the person who implements the browser does not have sufficient knowledge of the standards, then how in earth is someone as a webdeveloper supposed to know everything...
With this im just stating that if webdevelopers even know the standards, and on top of that know all the quirks that happen with the different browsers (in order to create a website that is rendered correctly on every browser)... then either A: browserdevelopers are either blind or not competent enough
B: browserdevelopers like to create their own mash up of non standard things which ultimately could be turned into a standard after a long period of evaluation etc ... (Because thats exactly what it is right now, if im writing html and css I know exactly how my page should be rendered according to the standards while writing, but then again when hitting f5 there might always be another non conforming item of a webbrowser that lets me write new rules etc just for this one browser only.)

Im guessing they are going for option B. Nothing wrong with that since that way you keep improving the web and leave room for new improved standards and possibilities. But how hard can it be to have some kind of tag that determines that the enclosed html is a non-standard waiting for standardisation. Of course browserdevelopers should then have the sense of agreeing how this tag should look like so that it is the same for every browser.

This way you would create the opportunity to continue improving the way the web is experienced, without bothering the end users and most of all the webdevelopers.

abachler
06-16-2008, 02:15 PM
>> Tabs are nice sugar coating but you could as well just open new windows instead of tabs.
No, you couldn't. Web browsing was made wonderful with the invention of tabs.

Tabs are a must have for me, I usualyl have up to 10 pages open at once. I hated the old days when I had to have 10 copies f IE open at once.

Elysia
06-16-2008, 02:15 PM
Yeah, you go write a web browser and see how enthusiastic you are later :rolleyes:
Perhaps we should compare the web standards to C++ standards. Yes, go write a compiler. Think you can create a perfectly standards compatible compiler?
I'd love to see you try.

Today's web is huge with lots of standards, lots of code, lots of complexities. It isn't black and white and it certainly isn't easy.
And a browser is more than just standards.
You wouldn't use a compiler if it's unfriendly, would you? It doesn't matter if it 100% standards compliant or not.

Give them some slack. Put the blame on Microsoft and their Internet Explorer crap. It was Microsoft who broke the standards in the first place and put the web in this whole mess.

GanglyLamb
06-16-2008, 02:21 PM
Im not trying to point fingers, but using an excuse like the standards are complex is just ridiculous. Most of the browser conform to most standards, but sometimes the interpretation of the standards is just plain wrong (referring for instance to the box problem).

Im also not in the league of writing a compiler or a webbrowser, if I would be able I would happily contribute to a more standardised webbrowser.

Anyhow, I understand your pov, now you know mine I suggest we just leave it at that:).

Elysia
06-16-2008, 02:28 PM
I agree. Let's focus our wrath on Microsoft instead :D

maxorator
06-16-2008, 03:11 PM
The fact that makes me respect Firefox is that it is a "developed by the community for the community" project, which means it's a widely spread open-source project. Noone can steal that respect from them. They don't do anything for marketing reasons. For them it isn't the idiots who say "nonono, that's not good for marketing" (Dilbert cartoons ftw) who say what is going to be in the project and what must be left out. Everything is decided by the developers using the suggestions, hints and direct pieces of code from ordinary people.

Therefore, Firefox is not just a web browser, it's THE web browser. (Although I have to admit Opera isn't bad either.)

Mario F.
06-16-2008, 03:45 PM
Opera is indeed better :)
Only reason I don't use it much is... drums... less plugins.
Firefox web developer toolbar and Firebug are a must have for me.

brewbuck
06-16-2008, 04:43 PM
They don't do anything for marketing reasons.

What'cha say? They are signing up "download pledges!" If that's not marketing I don't know what the heck is.

whiteflags
06-16-2008, 07:22 PM
Frankly I find this whole comparison to be ridiculous since Elysia doesn't benchmark anything ever, and we don't know anything about the system he uses other than he has 2Gb of RAM.

My personal experience is totally different, but then my system is really middle-end if not low-end now:

Intel Pentium IV 2.6 GHz
504 MB RAM
Full specs listed here (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&cc=us&lang=en&docname=c00091508&product=407147&dlc=en&printable=yes&encodeUrl=true)

I guess everyone just has different needs and different browsers are important, which makes standards important. People deserve to see the same or incredibly similar pages.

I really think IE7 just works best with my computer being the way it is and I haven't been very happy with other browsers' behavior. Opera may be faster than Firefox, but not for me. I frequently had issues with it freezing if I refreshed a couple tabs. I was really upset about that because I wanted Opera to work really well. And you read all the propaganda about how well a third party browser works for groups of people, only to realize later that you're a sheeple for the commercial world.

My problem with Firefox too is that it wouldn't behave and that's a pain because I used to test web pages and scripts I wrote for people. I needed the testing environment. My problem with Firefox is that it attempted to take over my computer, messing with stuff like file associations. That I didn't much appreciate, though there are things to like about it. It also didn't work with FTP for some reason, back when I had it.

If anyone has any recommendations for me they are welcome to make them. Anyway, I keep my favorites exported now. And my own IE interface isn't so bad, but maybe I'm a minimalist. I use everything on there.

Mario F.
06-16-2008, 08:07 PM
If anyone has any recommendations for me they are welcome to make them.

Well, your specs are very similar to my late laptop with the only meaningful exception being my processor was a PIII 1Ghz. I had similar problems with IE7 and Opera being the only ones behaving minimally as far as resources are concerned. FF2 performance degrades quickly for no reason I could ever tell. Still it was my main browser and to that effect I would run it with just the absolute bare essentials, no cache and no history. It would still take me around 1 minute to load.

I didn't have your troubles with Opera though. And IE7 was blazing fast simply because I had nothing on it. I just use(d) it to test my work.

Safari is absolutely terrible. Both on Mac and Windows. On windows because it darn slow on machines with these specs. On Mac and windows because the engine fails to properly respect control inherent sizes, a feature I use often. As an example... the following simple page fails to render properly on Safari... it renders correctly on every other browser even on the infamous IE6; http://clientes.quiettech.co.uk. Note the code is already a mesh in an attempt to have the bloody thing show in Safari as it should.

I tried other alternatives. Most notably Kameleon. Problem is that it uses the Gecko engine and I fear many of the problems associated with FF resources degradation spur from the engine. This because Kameleon, while much lighter than FF, also starts to degrade after a while. It is still the best option if you just want to test out your wok against the Gecko engine.

Netscape... well, it too uses the Gecko engine. Never felt the need for this browser. I felt it is slightly less heavy than FF2. But I can't really tell with precision because I just used it a few times out of curiosity.

I think the real problem here is those 512Mb we both used to share. Despite what the minimum specs say, fact is the concept of a minimum spec is so broaden today that it means different tings to different people. For those sittng on 512Mb Ram it means you should double what you read on the minimum specs.

Elysia
06-16-2008, 09:28 PM
Frankly I find this whole comparison to be ridiculous since Elysia doesn't benchmark anything ever, and we don't know anything about the system he uses other than he has 2Gb of RAM.
I'll give you something: Athlon 64 X2 3800+. That's the CPU.
And the fact is that I'm only repeating what is available on the web.
Proof? Here you go. (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1887)


Well, your specs are very similar to my late laptop with the only meaningful exception being my processor was a PIII 1Ghz. I had similar problems with IE7 and Opera being the only ones behaving minimally as far as resources are concerned. FF2 performance degrades quickly for no reason I could ever tell. Still it was my main browser and to that effect I would run it with just the absolute bare essentials, no cache and no history. It would still take me around 1 minute to load.
People! We must stop comparing FF2. It's old, it's buggy and FF3 is loads better, now that it's due out.
FF2 does not compare to the newest versions and has no place in today's browser market.


I didn't have your troubles with Opera though. And IE7 was blazing fast simply because I had nothing on it. I just use(d) it to test my work.
Funny, because all benchmarks I've seen states that IE7 is blazingly slow. And memory hungry and degrades performance terribly.


Safari is absolutely terrible. Both on Mac and Windows. On windows because it darn slow on machines with these specs. On Mac and windows because the engine fails to properly respect control inherent sizes, a feature I use often. As an example... the following simple page fails to render properly on Safari... it renders correctly on every other browser even on the infamous IE6; http://clientes.quiettech.co.uk. Note the code is already a mesh in an attempt to have the bloody thing show in Safari as it should.
And that seems weird, as well, because Safari and FF3 are in the lead with speed. Are you trying old versions, because these results doesn't seem to coincide with benchmarks at all.

robwhit
06-16-2008, 10:28 PM
I have 512MB of RAM and Firefox seems to have plenty of RAM.

whiteflags
06-16-2008, 11:29 PM
>> I'll give you something: Athlon 64 X2 3800+. That's the CPU.
>> Proof? Here you go.

Very nice. Unfortunately, I dug for the hardware specs and only found out that it was on Vista Ultimate 32-bit, which requires 1GB of memory, and while it isn't explicitly stated, probably tested on a dual core CPU like the one you have. This hardly reflects 2004. It's clear I need to run my own benchmark.

>> FF2 does not compare to the newest versions and has no place in today's browser market.

Mmm, I don't know about that. Firefox2 would have been a decent browser - what screwed from earlier, "lighter" counterparts was that Mozilla's development thinking changed from creating the bare-bones, extensible browser to a more feature rich (and unfortunately memory hungry) application that new-age Web hippies demanded. I wouldn't dismiss Firefox as "old" because it still rendered pages acceptably, but it's rather poorly designed. IE4 is old. The Mozilla suite is old.

Fortunately, statements (http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/05/firefox_bloat) from the company show that they have learned their lesson and would only integrate things that 90% of the clientele used. If Firefox3 is well done and passes my benchmark acceptably, I will use it. I will be keeping my eye on "known issues" as well.

Elysia
06-16-2008, 11:38 PM
Very nice. Unfortunately, I dug for the hardware specs and only found out that it was on Vista Ultimate 32-bit, which requires 1GB of memory, and while it isn't explicitly stated, probably tested on a dual core CPU like the one you have. This hardly reflects 2004. It's clear I need to run my own benchmark.
To my knowledge, FF is still single-threaded, so it doesn't really matter if it's dual core or not because I've never really seen cpu use rise above 50%.


Mmm, I don't know about that. Firefox2 would have been a decent browser - what screwed from earlier, "lighter" counterparts was that Mozilla's development thinking changed from creating the bare-bones, extensible browser to a more feature rich (and unfortunately memory hungry) application that new-age Web hippies demanded. I wouldn't dismiss Firefox as "old" because it still rendered pages acceptably, but it's rather poorly designed. IE4 is old. The Mozilla suite is old.
Oh sure, but now that FF3 is out (or will be soon), it's time to stop comparing FF2, because it's well... slow, compared to FF3. Comparing FF2 to newer IE, Opera or Safari won't do. It's too unfair.


Fortunately, statements (http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/05/firefox_bloat) from the company show that they have learned their lesson and would only integrate things that 90% of the clientele used. If Firefox3 is well done and passes my benchmark acceptably, I will use it. I will be keeping my eye on "known issues" as well.
I would love to see them integrate popular extensions into the browser itself since extensions don't play nice with each other and are typically memory hungry.

Mario F.
06-17-2008, 04:14 AM
Elysia, citizen and I are on a different world. As of today FF2 becomes old simply by virtue of the fact we understand FF2 users upgrade regularly. But yesterday FF2 was still the browser, not FF3. This has nothing to do with the fact FF3 beta was out back then. It's simply to do the fact we develop websites and we need to test according to browser typical usage. That and also the fact we both until recently shared similar specs. Specs you don't have.

Meanwhile contrary to FF, IE users don't upgrade regularly. Not because they are dumb, but because IE users include the bulk of companies who may not, don't know how, or cannot afford an upgrade. For a reason IE6 is still a widely spread browser. So, as many others that develop webpages, we feel that whereas FF and Opera is indeed tested against the latest versions, IE and Safari have to be tested against old versions too. But I repeat, until today we didn't give a damn about FF3 other than for testing purposes.

As for what you read and where, honestly I don't give a damn. What matters is what happens on my computer. So stop posting what you read. If you have a PIII or PIV 512Mb machine go ahead keep posting on this thread. Otherwise do shutup. Too much noise and you don't know what you are talking about.

Robwhit? Can you please elaborate a little more? I also had "plenty" of memory left when I was using FF2 on may late laptop. However, it still remained that FF2 consumed more memory 2 hours after being fired up than it did when it just started. Memory leaks were common yes. But the browser perfomance also degraded as you used it for a few days even with minimal installation. In fact, alongside Safari, FF was always the slowest browser to load.

Elysia
06-17-2008, 04:30 AM
As for what you read and where, honestly I don't give a damn. What matters is what happens on my computer. So stop posting what you read. If you have a PIII or PIV 512Mb machine go ahead keep posting on this thread. Otherwise do shutup. Too much noise and you don't know what you are talking about.

No, that is your flawed opinion. I have stated facts and evidence that FF3 is faster than FF2, Opera and Safari. It also uses less memory than IE7.
These are facts. Don't deny them.

FF3 will run better than FF2 on most machines. I will not comment on web developing, because it's not an area I'm in.

Mario F.
06-17-2008, 04:33 AM
You just can't avoid it, can you, you annoying little woman.

Did you read? We are talking of FF2, not FF3. Gawd! For pete's sake. Another thread I'm about to dump over you.

Until today FF2, not FF3 was our main concern. Simply because that's the browser most FF users had on their machines.

Elysia
06-17-2008, 04:46 AM
Yeah yeah, and the topic is about FF3. Why not keep it to the original discussion about embracing FF3?

CornedBee
06-17-2008, 04:49 AM
Why does the Mozilla page still show Firefox 2? Even the west coast is nearly 4 hours into launch day.

matsp
06-17-2008, 04:51 AM
Why does the Mozilla page still show Firefox 2? Even the west coast is nearly 4 hours into launch day.

I was just thinking the same... But perhaps it's starting the 24H at "morning in the US" to achieve the best possible chance of hitting the record number of downloads?

--
Mats

Mario F.
06-17-2008, 04:56 AM
Only plan to download in a few days anyways. Otherwise I will feel part of the crowd. Not my thing.

indigo0086
06-17-2008, 06:37 AM
I'm going to switch to the portable versions from now on, I just like having everything tied to the directory structure rather than my user folder and stuff. I am liking FF3's additions like the all seeing address bar and such. Makes it easier to organize and search my bookmarks. I'm pondering if I should forget about keeping a directory tree structure in my bookmarks folder or just tagging everything.

nvoigt
06-17-2008, 08:09 AM
>> Tabs are nice sugar coating but you could as well just open new windows instead of tabs.
No, you couldn't. Web browsing was made wonderful with the invention of tabs.

What do you mean ? I could browse the web with IE6 just as well as with IE7 or FF. Tabs are just another form of window grouping, it's not functionally different to group windows in one frame or in one taskbar. Sure, grouping them in one frame is nice, but not more. Just nice. Not a "function" in itself.

indigo0086
06-17-2008, 08:48 AM
Multiple-windows is silly. Download tab mix plus and you'll see why.

Mario F.
06-17-2008, 08:55 AM
It is silly now because we got used to tabs. It was silly before when we got to know tabs.

It wasn't silly before tabs because... well, we didn't feel we needed them. As a result, tabs are nice. But it's not that they came to save us from an unbrowsable web. I think nvoigt means just this.

CornedBee
06-17-2008, 09:02 AM
Apparently release date is 10:00 AM PST. Means 19:00 CET.

Daved
06-17-2008, 09:12 AM
>> Sure, grouping them in one frame is nice, but not more.
No, it's more. At least to me. I don't mind if it isn't to you.

When I first started using Firefox, I also used IE6. There was a huge difference between the two, and 95% of that difference was the tab feature. Perhaps I browse differently from you. An example of its use is browsing forums. I middle-click on 3-5 threads, then read through each one in its own tab. Without tabs you either have to read one, then go back and click another, or open each in a separate window. Then when you alt-tab between your browser and the other two applications you're running, you have to do it 5-7 times to get back around. Neither solution was acceptable for me (when compared with the tab solution).

indigo0086
06-17-2008, 09:16 AM
I always hated the Single Window nature of most programs before firefox and Opera

QuantumPete
06-17-2008, 10:18 AM
How gutted would they be, if they got their world record, only to get another for the most rolled-back versions, because of a subtle bug somewhere? :D

QuantumPete

indigo0086
06-17-2008, 10:44 AM
I've been using the RC3 and other than the battlestar galactica wiki crippling an old crappy computer I use at work, I've encountered no problems. I've only had one bug in the few weeks I've used it.

QuantumPete
06-17-2008, 10:45 AM
I've been using the RC3 and other than the battlestar galactica wiki crippling an old crappy computer I use at work, I've encountered no problems. I've only had one bug in the few weeks I've used it.

I wasn't being serious. Just as an entertaining thought...

QuantumPete