updates Meet the browser: Firefox Next

[Orry Verducci]

How is Adobe Reader "bloated"? Be constructive plz, else your post will be considered as fud.

Also, when reading PDF from the file explorer, why would it open Chrome? Yes you need a whole separate application for opening PDF. The Windows 8 reader is almost perfect, it just needs to be opened multiple times at once and per pages printing option (although this one is related to WinRT, not the reader), I don't see why I'd need another PDF reader.

Strictly speaking it won't be another PDF reader, I'm not sure how Chome works but I believe the intention is to still keep PDFs associated with Adobe Reader or whatever application it is you have installed, just if you open a PDF on the internet rather than loading a plugin it can display it in the browser natively.

Given how common PDFs are now, it makes sense to include PDF rendering support in much the same way the browsers support other common formats like images and video. It also means Mozilla can optimize it to work in Firefox as efficiently as possible, and fix security issues immediately as part of the usual updates to Firefox, rather than waiting on 3rd party developers to 'fix their plugins'.

It also has the immediate benefit that you can view PDFs straight away without having to download Adobe Reader, which may not be a big deal for us, but you'd be surprised how many times I've been asked by friends and family "why won't it open PDFs" when they get new computers not realising they have to go to the Adobe site and download the reader.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

It will take one heck of allot of CSS to fix this FUGLY mess.

[PGHammer]

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.

Obviously, you have NOT run the x64 version of Office 2010.

What keeps the majority of folks using x32 versions of Office (and especially on x64 operating systems) is add-in/plug-in support/issues from third parties.

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.

Obviously, you have NOT run the x64 version of Office 2010.

What keeps the majority of folks using x32 versions of Office (and especially on x64 operating systems) is add-in/plug-in support/issues from third parties.

[ArialBlue]

IE is being the leader in HWA and non-legacy CPU support.

[bogas04]

I might be a little off topic, buy why would anyone wants another PDF reader ?

The best behavior IMO is to open PDF files with the default application installed on your OS. Adobe reader is blasing fast to start since a while. This also causes less security issue and Mozilla is wasting a lot of time into such things.

its not another PDF reader , its in built one. Just like why you need HTML5 videos when flash/divx/quicktime etc can play videos? Its a feature not new PDF reader in market

PS : Having pdf opened in one tab and neowin in other is cooler than having PDF in separate window and Neowin in separate :)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I tried clearing my cache, and yes disk cache is enabled (I have all my cache settings at the defaults). This behavior is on two totally different installs too, one is on my windows 7 desktop which has been running aurora for some time, and the other is my laptop running ubuntu 12.04, and its a fresh install of aurora. The new tab page's thumbnails are quite unreliable on both.

Gmail for example consistently never creates a thumbnail.

Firefox doesn't generate thumbnails for HTTPS pages because of the possible information leakage (That's assuming that HTTPS is supposed to be private, most of the time it's just used for encryption)

You couldn't want Firefox to save a thumbnail of your bank details, but saving a thumbnail of a login page for a forum isn't bad, etc. it just errs on the side of caution.

And the thumbnails are stored in the cache as normal, if something resets the cache (like a crash) then they're lost.

Edit: Oh yeah, Lion fullscreen support.

[Kyang]

Okay, I activated the pdf viewer. Tried it. Now how do I remove it from my addon list?

[bogas04]

Okay, I activated the pdf viewer. Tried it. Now how do I remove it from my addon list?

how did u activate it ?

[Kyang]

In today's update, a tab opened that asked me if I wanted to allow this pdf viewer from mozilla to install. I allowed it and tried it. Now it's just sitting in my addon list, and there's no button to uninstall it.

[bogas04]

In today's update, a tab opened that asked me if I wanted to allow this pdf viewer from mozilla to install. I allowed it and tried it. Now it's just sitting in my addon list, and there's no button to uninstall it.

alright had to reset firefox (cool feature , see about:support) . Man a reset + sync to get your addons back etc = Super fast way to make firefox faster without thinking of restoring passwords managing passwords etc! If only they make syncing as easy as that of Chrome (just id and pass no key)

Actually its built inside firefox and is not supposed to work as addon , they are working over its settings UI etc...

Coz its BUILT inside firefox , you can't remove it , you can disable it or enable it just like any feature of firefox (ahem)

[Anthonyd]

its not another PDF reader , its in built one. Just like why you need HTML5 videos when flash/divx/quicktime etc can play videos? Its a feature not new PDF reader in market

PS : Having pdf opened in one tab and neowin in other is cooler than having PDF in separate window and Neowin in separate :)

But I don't want to have HTLM5 videos. Not having embedded video player would have stopped the codec war for web browsers since a while.

[Kirkburn]

But I don't want to have HTLM5 videos. Not having embedded video player would have stopped the codec war for web browsers since a while.

No it wouldn't, the war would just have been via plugins instead. Certainly, leaving the decision up to Adobe (which it would have been, given Flash's position), would have just been silly and na?ve.

Why on earth don't you want HTML5 video anyway? You prefer having to install plugins to view something as simple as video in a browser?

With regards PDF, I think this is a bit different. PDF is somewhat more specific and niche, though still widespread. Philosophically it feels a bit like halfway between something obvious like html5 video and something crazy like implementing the ability to read Word documents.

I think, however, the argument for it wins in my eyes because PDF is widely used, and thus is an opportunity to remove another ubiquitous, risky plugin from necessary circulation.

[Anthonyd]

No it wouldn't, the war would just have been via plugins instead. Certainly, leaving the decision up to Adobe (which it would have been, given Flash's position), would have just been silly and na?ve.

Why on earth don't you want HTML5 video anyway? You prefer having to install plugins to view something as simple as video in a browser?

With regards PDF, I think this is a bit different. PDF is somewhat more specific and niche, though still widespread. Philosophically it feels a bit like halfway between something obvious like html5 video and something crazy like implementing the ability to read Word documents.

I think, however, the argument for it wins in my eyes because PDF is widely used, and thus is an opportunity to remove another ubiquitous, risky plugin from necessary circulation.

PDF is a standard, not only Adobe can do a PDF reader. They don't have full control of their format. Also PDF isn't a niche, it's a standard and the best way to share documents. Your philosophy is completly wrong if you think that few people are using PDF.

HTML5 videos are a mess because each web browser supports its own codecs (who can't be brought via plugins). Using the default OS player (hence OS codecs) would have made things a lot more easier. Not all web browser makers want to pay for royalties. Anbody can install its own codecs instead, without paying for royalites.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

HTML5 videos are a mess because a few companies (Apple/Microsoft) are pushing a format that can never be a part of the spec. Couple that with Googles failings and you have the "perfect" situation where the only option for open web videos, isn't the one you can realistically use.

[+Heartripper Subscriber¹]

We're starting to see the light with in-content preferences! There's a tryserver and soon it'll be in UX. atm it doesn't replace preferences dialog, you can reach it by typing about:preferences in urlbar.

it's still bugged but it's a big step forward!

infos: http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/msu-cse-capstone-update-323/

tryserver: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/try-builds/jon.rietveld@gmail.com-00c6313989d0/

[bogas04]

HTML5 videos are a mess because a few companies (Apple/Microsoft) are pushing a format that can never be a part of the spec. Couple that with Googles failings and you have the "perfect" situation where the only option for open web videos, isn't the one you can realistically use.

i haz firefox and HTML5 enabled on youtube , most of them work good under WebM. Now if Mozilla decides to bring h.246 to Firefox (desktop) , it would be even better... But still HTML5 videos on youtube work good :) But apparently one format would be decided anyhow

We're starting to see the light with in-content preferences! There's a tryserver and soon it'll be in UX. atm it doesn't replace preferences dialog, you can reach it by typing about:preferences in urlbar.

it's still bugged but it's a big step forward!

infos: http://msujaws.wordp...one-update-323/

tryserver: http://ftp.mozilla.o...m-00c6313989d0/

*Some Sexy Pics*

Yeah! Also the plan is to land them in 4 weeks ie for Firefox 14. Right now polishing and a lil bug with advanced settings is to be fixed and its good to go! However Firefox implementation is idk way too different than from Chrome's. Chrome looks very metro and seeing Windows 8 , i think this UI though looks good , is not native :| Anyways finally something from Firefox 4's mockups is landing after over a year :p

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

i haz firefox and HTML5 enabled on youtube , most of them work good under WebM. Now if Mozilla decides to bring h.246 to Firefox (desktop) , it would be even better... But still HTML5 videos on youtube work good :) But apparently one format would be decided anyhow

...

According to some numbers, Google have apparently only transcoded about 50% of the videos to WebM, and if there's any ads it uses the Flash player anyway (Which is becoming more common as Google lower the bar, my account can use ads and I've only got like 600 views total)

It's not strange that there's no codec specified (There's no image formats specified either, it's just that everybody supports JPEG/PNG/GIF/BMP), but it is a shame the large companies wouldn't play along.

[ViperAFK]

How is Adobe Reader "bloated"? Be constructive plz, else your post will be considered as fud.

Also, when reading PDF from the file explorer, why would it open Chrome? Yes you need a whole separate application for opening PDF. The Windows 8 reader is almost perfect, it just needs to be opened multiple times at once and per pages printing option (although this one is related to WinRT, not the reader), I don't see why I'd need another PDF reader.

It takes a ridiculously huge amount of space for a pdf reader. It only starts fast because it adds a startup item at boot.

[Kirkburn]

PDF is a standard, not only Adobe can do a PDF reader. They don't have full control of their format. Also PDF isn't a niche, it's a standard and the best way to share documents. Your philosophy is completly wrong if you think that few people are using PDF.

At no point did I say few people are using PDF. I said it's more niche and specific than video, which it is. Almost everyone watches YouTube, relatively far far more often than anyone shares documents.

[Anthonyd]

It takes a ridiculously huge amount of space for a pdf reader. It only starts fast because it adds a startup item at boot.

Who cares about how many MB of RAM it takes? We all have a lot of free memory that needs to be used. And did you check how much MB the Firefox PDF reader takes?

And it's starting fast because Windows is caching it, even if you remove the automated started application.

And finally, Windows 8 reader blows up Adobe Reader, I don't feel like I need Firefox to build a PDF reader. They only did it because Chrome does it too.

At no point did I say few people are using PDF. I said it's more niche and specific than video, which it is. Almost everyone watches YouTube, relatively far far more often than anyone shares documents.

Right.

[ArialBlue]

The grayness of the new start page is very reminiscent of Macness. It feels alien on a Windows system.

HTML5 videos are a mess because a few companies (Apple/Microsoft) are pushing a format that can never be a part of the spec. Couple that with Googles failings and you have the "perfect" situation where the only option for open web videos, isn't the one you can realistically use.

For Microsoft / Apple / Android Users (Microsoft, Apple, and Android provide h264 support for all users),

- h264 is a hardware accelerated, super-high performing, super-high compression, free codec.

For users of legacy OS that have acquired FFDShow / LAV / Adobe Flash Player (no difficult!!),

- h264 is a hardware accelerated (some cases), super-high performing, super-high compression, free codec.

The above details are factual. This leaves essentially no one without the ability play h264.

So now lets compare,

(+) h264 is free, as established above.

(+) h264 is hardware accelerated. Starting from, I think, some minimal support in the NVIDIA 6800 series and 7xxx series (although hard to use, almost no codec supports the pre-8xxx series) and ATi/AMD HD series.

(+) Out of spec 8-bit h264 video are supported by the three major GPU manufacturers - not just AVC / base profile.

(+) With new GPUs, 4K h264 video is supported.

(-) WebM has a very, very, tiny set of hardware that it is supported on.

(-) Support on hardware, doesn't mean the OS supports it.

(-) This is all new hardware as well; no WebM HWA on your NV 8xxx series; enjoy your decreased battery life

(-) WebM doesn't compete with non-base-profile h264; bandwidth limited devices will not benefit from WebM

(+) h264 has a variety of software accelerated codecs, some of which are very optimized

(-) WebM is a joke when it comes to non-GPU playback; it does not compete with h264 codecs (put it in other words, choose between playing HD h264 on a netbook or SD WebM)

(-) It makes more sense in terms of space (2 videos instead of one), time (transcoding), and money (space and time is money) for provide h264 video in HTML5 and provide Flash fallback options for other people.

I could go on, but I am bored. There is a discussion on Mozilla about supporting h264 - it is essentially this (arguments such as how expensive WebM is, etc...), except more biased toward WebM.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

I do not have an issue with HTML5. Just because Google is failing does not mean that it is doomed. I can care less about Google.

[ViperAFK]

Who cares about how many MB of RAM it takes? We all have a lot of free memory that needs to be used. And did you check how much MB the Firefox PDF reader takes?

And it's starting fast because Windows is caching it, even if you remove the automated started application.

And finally, Windows 8 reader blows up Adobe Reader, I don't feel like I need Firefox to build a PDF reader. They only did it because Chrome does it too.

Right.

So? It still makes sense for it to be in the browser, I can't understand why anyone would be against it, and I hate the "omg they copied x" argument :p.

When most users encounter pdf files, its on the Internet. Its convenient and integrated if it opens right in the browser instead of a separate program.

[Kirkburn]

And finally, Windows 8 reader blows up Adobe Reader, I don't feel like I need Firefox to build a PDF reader.

Not everyone uses Windows 8.

[Anthonyd]

So? It still makes sense for it to be in the browser, I can't understand why anyone would be against it, and I hate the "omg they copied x" argument :p.

When most users encounter pdf files, its on the Internet. Its convenient and integrated if it opens right in the browser instead of a separate program.

Read the conversation again.

Not everyone uses Windows 8.

I was just pointing out that reading PDF with external software will be easier & more common in the near future :)