FireFox 4.0 Details

[macfan881]

Mozila gave some details on what 4.0 will suport

Few Key Features

64Bit support Finally!
HTML 5
CSS3

Beta Starts June

Full Release Holiday 2010

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/10/mozilla-shares-tentative-vision-for-firefox-4/

 

[maflynn]

I'll not deal with the beta, but the features look interesting.

I use FF on my work pc, and safari on my mac, so they're pretty quick with banging out firefox on windows.

 

[danielcox]

Opera still manages to be better though.

 

[Eraserhead]

H.264 support?

 

[Stella]

H.264 support?

Mozilla have already stated they won't support H.264 due to licensing $$$$.

 

[KingYaba]

I read somewhere that the reason they're making the interface more simple is the fact that it creates the impression that the browser is faster. I thought that was funny and sad at the same time. Don't get me wrong I like and use Firefox but mimicking Chrome's look is stupid. I hate how Chrome's drop-down menu is one button on the right-hand side and I want my File, Edit, View, History, and others to be visible. Tabs on the top is also not cool.

 

[steve2112]

How about fixing those memory leaks, Mozilla? You know, the ones you have been promising to fix since about v1.5 or so? I just checked my Powerbook and the Firefox session I have had open for a couple of days with 2 tabs is now using 375MB.

 

[TSE]

I remember the days when Firefox was king.

Chrome = Opera > Firefox > Safari > Internet Explorer

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I remember the days when Firefox was king.

Chrome = Opera > Firefox > Safari > Internet Explorer

I think Opera is better than Chrome simply because it isn't Google.

Firefox 4 looks great. I'm not big into beta browsers since I don't really need cutting edge features in something as simple as a browser. I'll check it out this holiday season.

 

[TSE]

Opera has a better UI, way easier shortcuts, better and more features, and it's supporting a smaller company that is extremely loyal to it's costumer base.

Chrome has more extensions and uses less system resources.

 

[clevin]

How about fixing those memory leaks, Mozilla? You know, the ones you have been promising to fix since about v1.5 or so? I just checked my Powerbook and the Firefox session I have had open for a couple of days with 2 tabs is now using 375MB.

the one that was promised have been installed and proved by millions of users since firefox 3.0 back in 2008.

Since then, Firefox has been using less memory for most people, than any other browser on the planet.

Firefox will not support H.264 due to license fees which, even if they pay, still doesn't cover the downstream packages in any linux distroes.

However, Since IE has come out supporting H.264, Mozilla will probably make a tweak and dispatch the task to the system built-in decoder to handle H.264. This would means that it won't do H.264 on every platform, especially old ones, but since thats how IE handles H.264 as well, it will be enough for mozilla.

Chrome has more extensions and uses less system resources.

false, and false.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

false, and false.

I believe he's speaking about Opera vs Chrome. I don't know which way is true, but I've always found Opera to be very light and I don't use Chrome.

 

[Scooterman1]

I read somewhere that the reason they're making the interface more simple is the fact that it creates the impression that the browser is faster. I thought that was funny and sad at the same time. Don't get me wrong I like and use Firefox but mimicking Chrome's look is stupid. I hate how Chrome's drop-down menu is one button on the right-hand side and I want my File, Edit, View, History, and others to be visible. Tabs on the top is also not cool.

I like the way Firefox is now, also. With the menu items. I DO NOT like Chrome, or Safari.

 

[roadbloc]

Oh dear... well, thats the final nail in the Firefox coffin. I cannot take them seriously with a blatant Chrome/Opera GUI ripp off.

 

[kresh]

I remember the days when Firefox was king.

Chrome = Opera > Firefox > Safari > Internet Explorer

I remember when Google was a search provider, not some out of control monster trampling on privacy and making the news regularly doing so.

iCab > Safari > Opera > Firefox > Camino > Chrome = I'd rather use two cans and a string.

 

[steve2112]

the one that was promised have been installed and proved by millions of users since firefox 3.0 back in 2008.

Since then, Firefox has been using less memory for most people, than any other browser on the planet.

Firefox will not support H.264 due to license fees which, even if they pay, still doesn't cover the downstream packages in any linux distroes.

However, Since IE has come out supporting H.264, Mozilla will probably make a tweak and dispatch the task to the system built-in decoder to handle H.264. This would means that it won't do H.264 on every platform, especially old ones, but since thats how IE handles H.264 as well, it will be enough for mozilla.

That's my point. I'm running the latest 3.6.x and it's still a huge memory hog. It is across all my machines. If it stays open for more than a couple of days, it will get huge.

I do think they will have issues if they don't support H.264. Everything seems to be headed that way.

 

[clevin]

That's my point. I'm running the latest 3.6.x and it's still a huge memory hog. It is across all my machines. If it stays open for more than a couple of days, it will get huge.

I do think they will have issues if they don't support H.264. Everything seems to be headed that way.

i can only say that the memory management of firefox for most users, including me, since 3.0 has been very good. Obviously nobody will be able to guarantee 100% cases.

Oh dear... well, thats the final nail in the Firefox coffin. I cannot take them seriously with a blatant Chrome/Opera GUI ripp off.

well, i didn't see you denounce chrome when it copied the tab on top from opera 8.

I dont know there is a rule that people should never learn from each other.

I also don't know copying code line by line from KHTML is not considered "copy".

I think you probably have problem with firefox with or without whatever you just stated.

In case you forgot, Netscape practically invented javascript, a backward button, a forward button, a stop button, a home button, a drop down history list, a bookmark function, a urlbar, a menu bar, a bookmark bar. Which browser is not copying them now?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

That's my point. I'm running the latest 3.6.x and it's still a huge memory hog. It is across all my machines. If it stays open for more than a couple of days, it will get huge.

I do think they will have issues if they don't support H.264. Everything seems to be headed that way.

yes everything seems to be heading that way and some huge red flags for me is 2 of the patent holders who are big players in the web are the ones pushing it.

Apple and Microsoft, 2 who get money off of h.264 refused to support the free alternative. Mozilla who is against those fees is not supporting h.264. Personally I think that their should be some red flags thrown up in what Microsoft and apple are doing.

 

[roadbloc]

well, i didn't see you denounce chrome when it copied the tab on top from opera 8.

That would be because I have no interest in Chrome of Opera. And soon I will have no interest in Firefox. This tellitubbies style browser plague is spreading. Hopefully it won't infect Safari.

 

[0098386]

I really don't like the look of that though I never was much a fan of Firefox. Best browser I've used for Windows though. But I've still had no reason to switch away from Safari on OSX.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I personally kind of like the look.

As for the browser I use I tend to use Firefox and my other browser is Chrome.

Firefox biggest issue I noticed is a nasty memory leak but at the same time I noticed that Chrome has something like it. I noticed it when I left chrome running on one web site for 2 days on my desktop. It sucked up a huge amount of system memory.

This leads me to believe that the memory leak is not in the browser so to speak but in some of the java coding that is leaking. I ran the same test on the same web site in other browsers and noticed that it does pile up in virtual memory.

The test computer was running XP and 1 gig of ram.

 

[MacNut]

Safari is not good at managing memory either.

 

[J the Ninja]

yes everything seems to be heading that way and some huge red flags for me is 2 of the patent holders who are big players in the web are the ones pushing it.

Apple and Microsoft, 2 who get money off of h.264 refused to support the free alternative. Mozilla who is against those fees is not supporting h.264. Personally I think that their should be some red flags thrown up in what Microsoft and apple are doing.

Microsoft pays out more in license fees than they get back. About twice as much, in fact. And they have 75 patents in the pool. Apple has 1. Somehow I doubt they are turning a profit there either.