Feeds

back to article Firefox 3.6 beta promises speed injection

Mozilla pushed out a first beta version of Firefox 3.6 on Friday, ahead of a planned release by the end of the year. The delayed release promises improved JavaScript performance and faster load-up, addressing a sluggish start problem that has become an issue with recent builds of the open source browser. Firefox 3.6 will also be …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Linux

Aero preview

I tested a build the other day and it seemed to support the Aero preview feature of Windows 7. Not just the current tab of course but every tab could be previewed from the icon in the task bar, just like IE8 currently works, If this is implemented it will be just one more reason I keep coming back to Firefox after I have a fling with other browsers (Opera, Chrome, Safari etc.)

0
0

I like the advertising

Where can I buy it.

Also, you forgot to mention, for 6 months, the first 300000 patches for buffer overflows,memory leaks, and general malfunction etc,etc,etc are free.

After that of course, you have to upgrade to another version, or alternatively use another browser, or alternativelly, disconnect from the internet, get a life and meet some real friggin' people for once.

0
0
Grenade

Firefox is for sheep who follow blindly

Still wont beat Opera and Internet Explorer because Firefox is optimised for Linux unlike Opera & IE which are optimised for Windows

0
1
Silver badge

Add-ons

Sometimes all that's needed to upgrade an add-on is to extract the contents, alter the version numbers allowed and put it all back together again. Obviously this isn't 100%, but some orphan add-ons worked quite well using this trick so far. If FF3.6 significantly changes its way of doing things then I'll have to wait for the authors to update their code instead of updating the version compatibility.

0
0
Troll

@Defiant

I tried really hard to find the words to describe you, but I couldn't find any which would get past moderation.

Instead, I've found a picture of you.

0
0
Pint

@defiant

Why won't it beat Opera and IE? I browse on Linux, so it's definitely a win for me.. Runs fine on Windows too..

Anyway, it's not all about outright winning, it's about keeping a heterogenous pool of applications that'll compete and improve, giving end users a better experience over time.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@ windywoo

There's an app for that! (sorry couldn't resist).

Its a firefox plugin that's been around for a long time called Tabscope, works well too.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Defiant

"Still wont beat Opera and Internet Explorer because Firefox is optimised for Linux unlike Opera & IE which are optimised for Windows"

For a sweeping statement like that, I'm sure you can provide some documentary evidence to convince me that what you say is not unmitigated balderdash...

0
0
Thumb Up

FF vs IE

FF is still quicker then IE now.

0
0

Drag and drop files

The drag and drop files from Windows Explorer to the browser is a nice feature. Google wave does this using Google gears but having it built natively into the browser is nice. It's just a pity it couldn't be done in a web standard (such as HTML 5) instead of in a non-standard way. No developer can write code just for Firefox that doesn't work in IE. The numbers don't support it.

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Optimized for Linux?

Wait...is this because it's "Open Source" and Linux is "Open Source" so they are actually the same thing? Is that how your mind works Defiant?

0
0
Silver badge

How to speed up FF now

install Noscript. Funny how much faster plain html runs. And you don't get hacked.

And kill flash while you're there.

0
0

Re. Firefox is for sheep who follow blindly

>>Still wont beat Opera and Internet Explorer because Firefox is optimised for Linux unlike Opera & IE which are optimised for Windows

So Mr Defiant, have you actually carried out any performance tests at all before making such a daft reactionary statement? Luckily others have.

0
0
Grenade

@defiant

FF unlike IE will not take down your beloved windows box, however partial agreement on Opera though, good browser.

0
0

Faster yes, but won't load google (on linux)

For me anyway.

Everything seems good.

0
0
Pirate

I definitely hope

That it's less memory hog than previous versions, I have been using Firefox (and ilk) since day one but lately have had to use others - current Firefox just eats too much memory when I'm working, not just browsing. Safari, Chrome, Opera, Konqueror, Chrome, even (horror) IE have smaller memory print after a while. If all you do is browsing or a little other work, it's great but.

About "Open Source", yes, if I just would have time, maybe in next couple of months. Memory management isn't difficult but changing it in an existing system can be a huge task, especially today when the memory is not really managed but the task is left for languages and libraries.

Anyhow, I'm positive, not yet tested this version, that sooner or later we once again have the mean and lean browser, and maybe it is next Firefox - one of them.

0
0
Bronze badge

@Defiant re: FF vs. IE vs. Opera

Sorry, man, but I just can't get behind that. As other commenters here have asked -- show me your test results. Huh, didn't think so.

I still keep a copy of the last version of IE released for MacOS -- v5.2.3 -- around, for those few sites left out there that insist on doing historical re-enactments of the late '90s ("this site works best with Internet Explorer"). I haven't touched it in nearly five years.

I ran screaming from IE as soon as the first stable version of the original Mozilla browser appeared (pre-FF), and haven't gone back. In fact, I still keep a copy of the most recent version of Mozilla (before they went to FF) around on both my G4 tower and my G4 iBook for those rare occasions where FF has issues with a site. What the hell; it's old, but it's good.

I tried Opera once -- admittedly, back in the old ad-supported freeware days -- and it ran like a goddamn' glacier, that is, slow and freezing. I haven't bothered with it since.

I gave Safari a quick try when I first got my G4 tower with OSX pre-installed, and quickly dumped it after discovering its inability to import bookmarks from other browsers (what were they thinking?).

That brings me to Firefox. As I mentioned in a couple of other discussions, I'm still sticking with 2.0.0.20 because 3.x ran unacceptably slow, not to mention that I couldn't shut off the site icons that loaded next to site names in the Bookmarks menu, and which slowed FF waaa-aaay down, to the point where I could actually watch the menu popdown being drawn on the screen -- that is, when it didn't cause Firefox 3.x to do its Challenger imitation (kaboom, crash). Btw, FF _still_ doesn't give me a Preference that allows me to turn the damn' icons off in the Bookmarks menu so that FF runs at something resembling acceptable speed. FF 2.x also has the thumbnail icons in the Bookmarks menu, but somehow doesn't have the same slow-loading/crashing issue that 3.x does. I know I'm not the only one having this problem, and I wish to hell they'd frickin' _fix_ it, already.

As far as being optimized for any particular OS, I can say from my own experience that Firefox -- up to 2.0.0.20, at least -- runs quite snappily on both of my G4 systems, especially with the judicious use of NoScript and FlashBlock.

0
0
FAIL

@Defiant

Actually, FireFox didn't work too well on my Linux based netbook (too sluggish and choppy) so am using Opera 10 instead..

Firefox on my Windoze box is unusable. Even after the last bug-fix it still doesn't render pages properly if at all, and takes too long to start up. Opera is slightly better but can take a long time to render certain web pages. Using Chrome at the minute - the fastest of the three and ALL pages render correctly and quickly.

If they can get my beloved FF to run properly and as quickly as Chrome, I'll go back to using it.

0
0
Go

Mozilla thinking of pushing this as a security update?

The thinking being its a small "safe" update...

Hmm not sure I buy that but will watch with interest.

As I am on Karmic 9.10 this would actually be better for me IF the Ubuntu packagers play ball...

If not then I probably wont bother with 3.6.

FF3.5 and "Vacuum Places Improved 1" is good enough and rock solid.

Oh re the obligatory memory whinger...

1. Memory management is good in FF3.5 running in 268MB atm so no probs.

2. I have 8GB so... IDFAF :)

0
0
FAIL

i wish the old sidebar would return

i hate the current side-bar, where users must go to the View tab to see available side bars and toggle between them.

i wish they would bring back the multiple side-bar displaying at the same time and then allow users to click the sidebar title and expand the sidebar window (al-la old mozilla browsers.)

the current sidebar has stunk tremendously for several years now.

0
0
Alert

Gulp! "current plan is to drop the older add-on technology with Firefox 4."

uh oh “Danger, Will Robinson!”

Firefox's future features: 3.6, 3.7, and 4.0

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10378604-264.html

Quote:

Firefox 4 will introduce a new add-on framework under development today called Jetpack that, like Chrome's, uses Web-based technologies for add-on construction. Today's Firefox uses a foundation called XUL.

Among the other perks besides compatibility, as Mozilla sees it, Jetpack extensions are easier to write and share, and they can be updated as the browser runs without a restart. Still, it will mean a big discontinuity for programmers.

"We want for developers to want to get onto Jetpack and the Jetpack application programming interface," Shaver said, and the current plan is to drop the older add-on technology with Firefox 4.

0
0

@Mike Flugennock

You can disable firefox's site icons using about:config

browser.chrome.favicons set to false.

I have tried other browsers, but FF is the way and the light.. Having the competition around forces constant innovation, so I think we should keep them, but I will only be using FF.

0
0
Silver badge

whot?

"Firefox 4.0 introduces a different approach to add-ons that will make such compatibility problems less of a problem in future."

I'm sure they said that of V3 when Iwas running V2

0
0

I'd rather

I'd rather that they fix it so Greasemonkey works again. I had to roll back to an earlier build. Ah well that's alpha/beta software for you.

0
0
FAIL

@Defiant -- Firefox is for sheep who follow blindly #

Defiant Posted Monday 2nd November 2009 12:14 GMT --- Still wont beat Opera and Internet Explorer because Firefox is optimised for Linux unlike Opera & IE which are optimised for Windows

ummm... having worked with applications programmed under native X windows, which were cross-compiled into windows libraries, I can tell you that the windows applications ran UNBELIEVABLY FAST - much faster than natively programmed windows applications.

The reason for this - X Windows is an object oriented protocol with network layer to allow for communication between the application and the display. When this is built efficiently and there is no network layer (i.e. windows api) - a snappy application in X is blindingly fast under Windows due to the removal of intermediate network layer.

Defiant's claim is patently false, devoid of reality, demonstrating a level of ignorance unsurpassed by any subsequent poster that I have read post his statement and pre this statement.

That being said, all the http network browsers that I have used fairly heavy GUI widgets, and none of them are terribly optimized for X under Linux, Unix, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, IRIX, or any other flavor of open operating system.

0
0
CC
Thumb Down

Still a dog

Compared to Chrome, Firefox is still a dog where speed is concerned but with this latest addition, at least they a looking more like Chrome.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.