updates Meet the browser: Firefox Next

[bogas04]

Thread discussing feature landings and bugs etc in Pre-Release Builds of Firefox

Rapid release Calendar

Development Status Related Sites :

Delivery Meetings

Meeting Notes

Features Priority List

Are We Fast Yet

Are We Pretty Yet

Are We Native Yet

Are We Slim Yet

Other Firefox Threads :

Meet Firefox 5.0

Meet Firefox 4.0

Downloads :

Firefox Current Release

Firefox Aurora/Beta Channel

Nightly Builds

Hourly Builds

UX Nightly

[Frylock86]

Are we slim yet? No, once you drop legacy support and build for the future and not the past, then you will be slim.

[bogas04]

  On 13/04/2011 at 09:54, Frylock86 said:

Are we slim yet? No, once you drop legacy support and build for the future and not the past, then you will be slim.

Its for tracking memory usage , and dropping support for Xp (which aint legacy , it is still in use) would come in "are we modern yet" rather :p

[bogas04]

Hell Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://arewefastyet.com/?a=b&view=regress

[Frylock86]

  On 13/04/2011 at 09:58, bogas04 said:

Its for tracking memory usage , and dropping support for Xp (which aint legacy , it is still in use) would come in "are we modern yet" rather :p

XP is all but. Look what dropping support for XP did to IE ;)

[bogas04]

  On 13/04/2011 at 10:33, Frylock86 said:

XP is all but. Look what dropping support for XP did to IE ;)

and what did it do to IE ... ?

[Frylock86]

A fast, slim browser. :)

[SakuraKira]

A thread for 6.0... Isn't this getting a bit carried away?

[Grinch]

  On 13/04/2011 at 10:49, SakuraKira said:

A thread for 6.0... Isn't this getting a bit carried away?

I would agree if there wasn't already a build for 6.0 on Mozilla's FTP.

[DeadEndAccount]

Nice to see that once again Firefox is becoming primarily a Windows browser with Mac and Linux users supported by accident rather than actually deliberately designing for the platform. Promises of OpenGL accelerated layers in Firefox 5.0 and low and behold they've failed to deliver - why aren't I surprised.

[Samurizer]

  On 13/04/2011 at 09:54, Frylock86 said:

Are we slim yet? No, once you drop legacy support and build for the future and not the past, then you will be slim.

Feel free to name ONE aspect of IE9 that is slimmer than Fx4.

  On 13/04/2011 at 11:02, Mr Nom Nom said:

Nice to see that once again Firefox is becoming primarily a Windows browser with Mac and Linux users supported by accident rather than actually deliberately designing for the platform. Promises of OpenGL accelerated layers in Firefox 5.0 and low and behold they've failed to deliver - why aren't I surprised.

I don't know about OS X, but to be honest, it's hard to deliberately design GPU acceleration for a platform (Linux) with such a high level of fragmentation and crappy graphics drivers.

[bogas04]

  On 13/04/2011 at 10:42, Frylock86 said:

A fast, slim browser. :)

erm , yeah ie9 is faster coz of dropping support for xp and not coz of some chakra (or dead code elimination :shiftyninja: ) , so yeah xp is the one to blame :)

Some new stuff regrading the branches :D

[bogas04]

  On 13/04/2011 at 10:16, bogas04 said:

Hell Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://arewefastyet.com/?a=b&view=regress

Well m sorry , thats just an accidental increment

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=649376#c3

[alisalem]

Firefox is coming to getcha, Chrome! :D

[DeadEndAccount]

  On 13/04/2011 at 11:05, Samurizer said:

I don't know about OS X, but to be honest, it's hard to deliberately design GPU acceleration for a platform (Linux) with such a high level of fragmentation and crappy graphics drivers.

True, but there is no excuse when it comes to Mac OS X - a single OpenGL library to target at and even then they (Firefox developers) couldn't do it right.

[amon91]

  On 13/04/2011 at 11:22, bogas04 said:

erm , yeah ie9 is faster coz of dropping support for xp and not coz of some chakra (or dead code elimination :shiftyninja: ) , so yeah xp is the one to blame :)

Some new stuff regrading the branches :D

They even made the nightly/beta builds look good. :wub: Does it work with channels now, just like Chrome?

[vajlent]

  On 13/04/2011 at 12:22, amon91 said:

They even made the nightly/beta builds look good. :wub: Does it work with channels now, just like Chrome?

Mine haven't changed like that yet? :s

[bogas04]

  On 13/04/2011 at 12:25, vajlent said:

Mine haven't changed like that yet? :s

those are just mockups posted by stephen in bug 649480

clearly it has new navbar buttons , and different navbar background colours , and new site identification labels.

[Frylock86]

  On 13/04/2011 at 11:22, bogas04 said:

erm , yeah ie9 is faster coz of dropping support for xp and not coz of some chakra (or dead code elimination :shiftyninja: ) , so yeah xp is the one to blame :)

Maybe not XP so much, but supporting 2K is silly. There's dead code right there. XP won't be far behind.

But te new builds look nice :D

[Samurizer]

  On 13/04/2011 at 12:06, Sir Ali said:

Firefox is coming to getcha, Chrome! :D

Until they offer extensions updates for non-stable releases and fix their terrible project management at AMO, no.

[bogas04]

  On 13/04/2011 at 12:54, Frylock86 said:

Maybe not XP so much, but supporting 2K is silly. There's dead code right there. XP won't be far behind.

But te new builds look nice :D

yeah they do! :D

but , 2k is legacy , i agree :p but not xp , people with 512mb ram are still out there , even i was 2 years back i guess, xp does need a faster browser , which microsoft fails to provide , not even that , 64bit versions of windows too need a fast browser which again microsoft fails to provide , i find them really incompetent , they created a browser for mere 2 versions of windows :|

  On 13/04/2011 at 12:58, Samurizer said:

Until they offer extensions updates for non-stable releases and fix their terrible project management at AMO, no.

extension compatibility will be bumped automatically with newer releases UNLESS they are found incompatible with certain feature , thats what i heard , so i dont think that will be a problem , and give addon makers some time, firefox 4.0 isn't even 1 month old

btw i have filed this bug , anyone interested to help me voice it to developers?

[Frylock86]

True, but x64 browsers ATM, aren't ready for primetime yet. They're kinda like Office x64, nice to have, but not really needed by 99.9% of users.

That said, I hope IE10 x64 has the new JS engine IE9 x86 has.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

  On 13/04/2011 at 11:02, Mr Nom Nom said:

Nice to see that once again Firefox is becoming primarily a Windows browser with Mac and Linux users supported by accident rather than actually deliberately designing for the platform. Promises of OpenGL accelerated layers in Firefox 5.0 and low and behold they've failed to deliver - why aren't I surprised.

As I said in the last thread, Firefox supports OpenGL layers on OS X and has since last year (it's enabled by default in Firefox 4 and 5!)

They explicitly don't support it on 10.5 due to bugs in the underlying OS, those bugs have been fixed with 10.6(.2) though.

[Samurizer]

  On 13/04/2011 at 12:59, bogas04 said:

extension compatibility will be bumped automatically with newer releases UNLESS they are found incompatible with certain feature , thats what i heard , so i dont think that will be a problem

Right, so instead of a month for good add-ons to get approved, it'll take a month for bugged add-ons that crash the browser and break features to get blacklisted.

Personally I don't see that as an improvement, but meh.

  On 13/04/2011 at 12:59, bogas04 said:

and give addon makers some time, firefox 4.0 isn't even 1 month old

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in empathizing with Mozilla and/or add-on developers. If it can't be ensured that the extensions I want be ready to use when the browser goes stable, that counts as a black mark against the product as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, the current problem isn't with add-on devs, it's mostly with Mozilla's horrible project management. Four weeks (and more) for an add-on to make it through the review queue? That's bloody ridiculous.

In the case of non-stable builds: again, no automatic extension updates unless specifically marked as compatible with Nightly/Aurora/Beta/whatever, which most extensions aren't. Until this changes, Firefox pre-release channels aren't for me.

[OuchOfDeath]

  On 13/04/2011 at 10:42, Frylock86 said:

A fast, slim browser. :)

Dropping XP support had nothing to do with making it fast or slim. The only reason why IE9 is good now is because Microsoft coded it properly. Microsoft could have easily released a version of the browser for XP, (though it wouldn't use the specific GPU accell APIs Microsoft touts since they're not there in XP), and it would be just as slim and fast as it is on Vista/7. Your code does not magically become better when you "remove support" for an earlier OS version. Good code is good code no matter where it runs, and XP is very well capable of running any program out there.