Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Android Mozilla The Internet

Firefox 24 Arrives: WebRTC Support and NFC Sharing On Android 152

Posted by Soulskill
from the onward-and-upward dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 24 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Improvements include a new option to mass close tabs 'to the right,' as well as WebRTC support and NFC sharing on Android. Firefox 24 has now been released over on Firefox.com and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play. Compared to Firefox 23, this isn’t a big release for the desktop. Mac users will notice a new scrollbar style on OS X 10.7 and users of the browsers social features will appreciate the ability to tear-off chat windows by just dragging (full release notes: desktop, mobile)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 24 Arrives: WebRTC Support and NFC Sharing On Android

Comments Filter:
  • Wait (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It can make my first post faster?

    • I wish they'd hurry up and standardize PITF over TCP/IP. There's a great case for adding a standard feature to HTML 5 that invokes it any time someone loads a page with a text box, types a text string along the lines of "first" and initiates an HTTP post action in less than 1.8 seconds.

      • by CODiNE (27417)

        That just rewards the slower typists with a successful first post while blocking those who deserve it.

        • I never said it would block the HTTP post action, that would just be censorship. Think of it as positive punishment to discourage future repetition but only in those serious enough to actually want to win the race.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @03:49PM (#44877467)

    What features did they now remove in the name of dumbing down the user interface for mentally challenged user group? Address bar? Right mouse button context menu? Bookmarks?

  • So my Chromecast will work now?
    sweet.
  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @04:01PM (#44877599)
    I think peer sharing via the browser is a wonderful idea. I've been waiting for something like this for a long time.
  • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @04:02PM (#44877607)

    Can't you morons just display the scrollbar in the normal default style the OS is giving you? That's what I hate about Firefox, it looks like an ugly Windows program on every OS.

    • Perhaps system-level controls have more overhead than application-drawn controls. Consider the "system resources" in Windows 3.1 and Windows 9x. All applications shared a single 65536 byte GDI heap and a single 65536 byte USER heap. Each system-level control, such as a window or a scrollbar, used up space in the GDI heap. One advantage of NetCaptor's tabbed browsing in the Windows 9x days was the ability to keep more pages open without taking up a whole window's worth of GDI heap space. Fortunately, this s

  • I just restarted Firefox, because after using 2 gigabytes on my 16-gigabyte system it started flashing black when switching windows in a way that predicts an imminent crash.

    Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

    Also, has the issue with switching to another window when a page using Flash is opened been fixed? I doubt that.

    • Linux x86_64, Linux, Netscape, Mozilla/5.0 X11; Linux x86_64; rv:26.0 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 ..

      Firefox Nightly 26.0a1 (64-bit) [downloadcrew.com]
    • no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore

      "No one" is strong language. Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM. Though netbooks are discontinued, some are still in operation, and several tablet PCs have similar specs. Besides:

      a page using Flash

      Do you expect to be able to use a 32-bit Flash Player inside a 64-bit browser? Furthermore, I limit Firefox's memory footprint on my machine by using Flashblock to control sites' access to Flash Player.

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM.

        Netbooks tendded to be 32-bit because the cheap Atoms used in netbooks were 32-bit only.

        • And those Atoms were 32bit only because Intel used that to artifically segregate between models and just disabled 64bit support from perfectly able 64bit silicon.

      • by ultranova (717540)

        "No one" is strong language. Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM. Though netbooks are discontinued, some are still in operation, and several tablet PCs have similar specs.

        Perhaps. But that's hardly a reason to not have a 64-bit version as the default for the desktops. After all, we're not talking about assembly code here.

        Besides, I can't help but notice that Chrome is somehow managing to keep working with 100+ open tabs day after day

        • Besides, I can't help but notice that Chrome is somehow managing to keep working with 100+ open tabs day after day

          That's because Chrome runs each tab in a separate process. It's far less likely for a single tab to top 1 GB than it is for all tabs put together to top 1 GB, reducing the need for a 64-bit binary. Firefox is working toward this model; search Bugzilla for "electrolysis" to find related bugs.

          in a freaking phone.

          I've noticed that if I have more than about three tabs open in Chrome or Firefox for Android, switching to another tab may cause the page to reload if it's been kicked out of memory. This "forgetting" interferes with the

      • by brentrad (1013501)

        Do you expect to be able to use a 32-bit Flash Player inside a 64-bit browser?

        There is a 64 bit version of Flash:

        http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/flash-player-64-bit-operating.html [adobe.com]

    • by sconeu (64226)

      [Raises hand].

      My PC at work is 32-bit.

      What they need to do is release both 32 and 64 bit versions.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

      They used to have a 64-bit build, but but dropped it for various reasons [slashdot.org], though they did bring back 64-bit nightlies [slashdot.org].

      Basically it was a buggier version, with fewer users and even fewer plugins that supported it.

      You'll find a lot of kinds of applications to be 32-bit only - even Microsoft puts 32-

    • by 0123456 (636235)

      Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

      If you were using a real operating system, you could have been running 64-bit Firefox for five years or more. It's only people running an old clunker like Windows who are mostly stuck running 32-bit apps on a 64-bit OS.

    • by David_W (35680)

      Also, has the issue with switching to another window when a page using Flash is opened been fixed? I doubt that.

      No. :( Just checked.

    • by sootman (158191)

      The most recent version of FF on OS X 10.6.8 (work computer) introduced a new behavior: with a few windows open, it'll suddenly use 100% of one core. I'll close every window (but leave the app running) and it STILL uses 100% of one core. I'll be interested to see if they fix that.

    • I do have a 64bit CPU and a 32bit OS (linux based), I'm contemplating whether upgrading the OS to a 64bit one or staying on 32bit. I have only 3GB RAM, and the 2GB process limit actually is a feature that prevents Firefox consuming all resources. When running on a 64 bit live USB, I had it eat all 3GB RAM + 1.9GB swap repeatedly which got the whole computer into a stand still till I managed to kill firefox or even just plugin-container from a VT-based terminal.

      BTW last year I used a computer from 1999 with

    • by teg (97890)

      Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

      Firefox is 64 bit on Mac, unlike Chrome which is still just 32 bit. The latter is fairly annoying, since that means you can't run java in Chrome on 64 bit. When using a credit card issued b a Norwegian bank, you frequently need java to handle credit card authorization [wikipedia.org] with an app and your security device.

  • I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0. Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.
    • by Arker (91948) on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @05:47PM (#44878711) Homepage

      "I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0. Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox."

      Oh man, as someone that hung onto 3.62 forever I can feel your pain, but Chrome? That thing is so creepy I couldnt keep it installed for a week.

      I have found that the Firefox ESR with a LOT of customisation, including downloading extensions to fix some of the breakage, is the best option out there for me. Firefox "17" with bugfixes but no feature additions seems reasonably stable and has no noticeable memory leaks for me. If they are happening on the order of hours the best solution may be the fast restart extension.

      Still eagerly awaiting a sane fork of firefox. I would be happy to pitch in some but I am far from capable of coding or funding it without lots of others onboard.

      • Thank you for some solace and good ideas, friend. Yes, Chrome is creepy too. I will explore your suggestions. Thank you and wishing you up mods!
    • by theweatherelectric (2007596) on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @07:02PM (#44879341)

      I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0.

      What memory leaks? If you've found new ones, have you reported them? Significant progress has been made in Firefox's memory usage in the last three years. Do you read the memshrink progress reports [mozilla.org]? If you don't, maybe you should.

      Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.

      Surely you realise that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox. Look at a comparison of browser memory usage with a single tab open [tomshardware.com] and multiple tabs open [tomshardware.com]. If you're happy with Chrome's memory usage, you'll be happy with any browser's memory usage.

      • Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0. I have been fully co-operative and helpful for months as they work to resolve it. I uploaded memory dumps of before and after. In the after state it was taking 2GB of RAM after TWO minutes. And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true! Chrome with its process-per-tab manages memory much better than FF does. As I said, this bug has been valid
        • Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0.

          Where's the bug? Link to it.

          And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true!

          Did you not look at the memory usage charts from Tom's Hardware? Chrome uses more memory than other browsers. This has been my consistent experience as well as Tom's Hardware's as well as most everyone's. Look at another memory usage chart [tomshardware.com] from Tom's. They use Chrome's memory usage tool to measure it. Even Google disagrees with you.

          • Here is the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016 [mozilla.org]
            https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016 [mozilla.org]
            Whether Chrome temporarily uses more RAM is not the point. I have never seen Chrome get into a runaway 2-3GB memory leak like so frequently happens to FF https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016 [mozilla.org]
  • Looks like several more important bugfixes.
  • But what about the flagrant memory usage? Before posting this I closed all windows and noted that Firefox was eating 1015 MB of RAM (and 36 threads, hopefully idle) to just sit there and do NOT ONE GOD DAMNED THING AT ALL.
  • I remember back in the day FF was a small footprint, fast browser, then it got bloated taking up huge amounts of memory, rendering slowly , and coming out with a ridiculous release cycle that killed any corporate backing it had. I cant think of any of my clients that use FF. Sorry but FF is going to have some major performance improvements to win the masses back.
    • by rklrkl (554527)

      Replace "FF" with "Google Chrome" and you'll see that Google beat Mozilla to the punch :-) Remember that Chrome is on version 29 (5 ahead of Firefox) and now uses more RAM than Firefox! You've also conveniently forgotten the Firefox ESR [mozilla.org] release (Chrome has *nothing* like it, so is a complete disaster for corporate use). Also, the performance gap has been gradually closing between Chrome and Firefox in the last year or so. For the first time in a couple of years, Firefox recent actually beat Chrome in Tom's

    • by Anonymous Coward

      No, Mozilla will NEVER be able to satisfy you. Stop kidding yourself. They've practically rewritten half the browser over the last 2 years, solved a huge amount of their nastiest bugs, caught up and even surpassed the other browsers in some important ways, and they're STILL not even competitive by your reckoning.

      I'd actually like to know what magical browser you're using that's so much better. You're also going to have to try harder to convince me that a rolling release schedule is the problem when virtuall

  • NFC is kinda pointless until the iPhone supports it. There isn't a single large company that'll move until then. I can't tell you the let down it was when the iPhone 5 didn't have it. As near as I can tell the problem is iPhone users have lots of money and they spend it, so they're a required demographic for any major push forward.
    • by mjwx (966435)

      NFC is kinda pointless until the iPhone supports it. There isn't a single large company that'll move until then. I can't tell you the let down it was when the iPhone 5 didn't have it. As near as I can tell the problem is iPhone users have lots of money and they spend it, so they're a required demographic for any major push forward.

      You're right, you do sound like a troll.

      With Android outselling Iphones 3 to 1, it really doesn't matter what Apple does. Android eclipsed Iphone long ago.

      You'll notice most Iphone features came out on Android first, WiFi and cable tethering, copy and paste, the "new" data usage meter in IOS 7 has been in Android since version 2.

      With features, the Android modding community is really the test bed, people who use community ROMS get the features first. The ones that are good get rolled into Android pr

  • It's very distressing to see Mozilla has added "social media" and chat code into Firefox. We're right back to Netscape Communicator again. Firefox was created to get away from all that bloat. There's no reason for a web browser to have a chat and social media clients grafted onto it. Speaking of bloat, I'm using Firefox 23 right now on OS X; I have one tab open and it's gobbled up half a gig of RAM. Half a gig.

    I think it's past time we nuke the thing from orbit and start over.

    • What's the "social media" stuff?, there's not any word about this, barring the summary describing chat as a social feature.

  • Did they fix Vine video playback without us resorting to hacking around in about:config or downgrading our systems to XP? Apparently it worked in v21 and earlier but then they changed something in how they interpreted the media tag or something. Vine's play in all other browsers just fine.
  • howdy y'all,

    i'm running ff23.0.1 and it's using 1/4 gig right now. i've been online for several hours, visited /., 9gag, reddit, mozillazine, bbc, etc. ... and still never more than an occasional blip up to a 1/2 gig. this is also a pretty tweaked profile with 50 [yes, really! [*grin*]] extensions.

    folks who are seeing huge chunks of ram being used by firefox "while not doing anything" are seeing a _very_ different experience from mine. i always think of doing tech support ... "no! i didn't install anything

  • A 2 year old "text inflation" bug (not really a bug, more like a horribly flawed feature) renders the Android version totally unusable for me. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707195 [mozilla.org]

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...