Firefox 4 Beta 12 Released; Fixes Over 650 Bugs 181
darthcamaro writes "At last! Firefox 4 Beta 12 is now available. There are over 650 bug fixes in this massive update including a fix for a memory leak that kept Firefox consuming RAM even without opening new tabs. The other big thing that many users have asked for is that FINALLY, when you hover over a link, the URL is displayed in the status bar, instead of the location bar."
Congrats (Score:1)
Congratulations to the development team of the most widespread Open Source project out there. Some of the bugs fixed were frustrating to say the least and it's nice to see some forward momentum. Regardless of the plan for the Firefox release schedule this year, we're all better served by release early, release often like this.
memory leak (Score:1)
They finally fixed that memory leak! I was consistently using over 2gb ram by the time I got around to closing my FF windows.
Re: (Score:2)
They fixed one memory leak. I wouldn't be so sure it is the only one, and certainly not the last one. But it is a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
a fix for a memory leak that kept Firefox consuming RAM even without opening new tabs.
Which is why I switched to Chrome browser (which I haven't been all that satisfied with either because of slow rendering on pages with heavy Java usage)
So I'll download and try the beta and try Firefox again which had been my fave for more years than I care to count.
Status bar? (Score:2)
How can URLs be displayed in a non-existent status bar? Did they resurrect it? I didn't see anything about a "status bar" in the release notes...
Right now I'm using the "Status-4-evah" add-on to get the status bar back - and that plugin already takes care of displaying the URL in the "status bar".
Re:Status bar? (Score:4, Informative)
Replying to myself, since I just installed the update...
Basically as of Beta 12 they're imitating Chrome. If you hover over a link, a little pop-up displaying the link's URL appears at the bottom of the window.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's all fine and dandy. Still, it's nice having status icons for NoScript and ABP in the right-hand side of the status bar. Any word on what happens to those? It far less of a waste of space than it would be to put them near top of the window.
And I also like having the search box on the same line as the menu so it stretches across the whole window. That way you can read the full suggestions, whereas the suggestions get cutoff if they're on the same line as the address bar.
This new release is gonna
Re: (Score:2)
Still, it's nice having status icons for NoScript and ABP in the right-hand side of the status bar. Any word on what happens to those? It far less of a waste of space than it would be to put them near top of the window.
You can keep the Add-ons Bar down at the bottom, and put them there (that's the toolbar that "Status-4-Evah" used as a faux Status Bar.
What I've done for the moment with those sorts of buttons (ABP and Tor in my case) is move them up to the right end of the tabs bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What else is new? "Imitate Chrome" has been the mantra for the entire Firefox 4 project. Everything about it reeks of "we can't think of anything original, so let's just copy Chrome".
Chrome has a pretty nice UI, so that ain't that bad. While I agree the "new" design can be more fragile, it maximizes the screen estate for reading, which matters. I'm happy with a Chrome-like browser that doesn't send everything I do off to Google, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like that whole Panorama awesomeness they stole from Chrome. Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like that whole Panorama awesomeness they stole from Chrome. Oh, wait.
Wow, a place where my tabs can go to die in obscurity! Why the hell isn't Panorama an extension? I personally don't care about it, and will never use it; but when the whole project started wasn't the point to make a completely basic, fast, browser, and add all the other features as optional extensions?
Also, if they're trying to make more room from actual content by trimming the GUI, why did they make their little "Firefox" menu thing take up extra room instead of sticking it in some pre-existing area of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Like Chrome does. It just puts a little textbox showing the URL in the bottom.
Re:Status bar? (Score:4, Informative)
Like Chrome does. It just puts a little textbox showing the URL in the bottom.
It's a much better solution than what they were doing - I'm glad they changed it.
Re:Status bar? (Score:4, Insightful)
It took me a while to adapt to status bar at top, and now they have changed it back to bottom. Will these guys ever learn not to fuck with the UI.
Dude, you're using a beta product. This is where the developers test various UI changes. If you don't like this then maybe you shouldn't be running the beta edition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Alpha, beta, whatever. they are just fancy labels, they have no set meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought experiments were carried out during the alpha phase, and the beta phase was only supposed to be used to fix bugs...
You're probably right.
Whatever the case, I'm loving the status bar that is not a status bar being moved back to the bottom. I had a very hard time getting used to it on top.
Re: (Score:2)
While the sibling comment is correct that there are no set meanings, it's most common (compare Wikipedia) to define beta as the phase when the software is for the first time given to end users for testing. This of course requires UI changes based on their feedback.
Re: (Score:2)
Release Candidate is where you're only fixing bugs, no feature requests. Alpha is internal test dogfood; Beta is customer test.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's an incredibly long comment for saying something which just isn't true. In the real world, alpha and beta are defined more pragmatically. They're only labels for various stages of "not done yet"; some projects may adhere to your long-winded definitions, most others don't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's beta, not a final release version.
Re: (Score:2)
I quickly adjusted to it being up there, but it did always have the problem of obscuring the current url as well as shortening the link url. The reduced contrast also makes it harder to read.
Re: (Score:1)
How can URLs be displayed in a non-existent status bar? Did they resurrect it? I didn't see anything about a "status bar" in the release notes...
Right now I'm using the "Status-4-evah" add-on to get the status bar back - and that plugin already takes care of displaying the URL in the "status bar".
No, the status bar is still gone. Now it is like Chrome and IE9. You hover over the link and the URL is appears in the bottom left of the window.
Re: (Score:2)
Enabling the "Add-On Bar" in the View > Toolbars menu restores the traditional status bar it appears. At least I now have the icons for ForecastFox and NoScript at the bottom of the browser window again.
Re: (Score:2)
They readded the status bar as the "add-on bar" in b11 or b10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why there's FINALLY in caps. I actually liked the feature, and after getting used to it I'd probably say it just seems more reasonable. (addresses just belong to the address bar right?).
Hope they will have a switch to bring back the old behavior.
Memory leak? More like gaping hole (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be if you were logged in somewhere likeslashdot but you closed the browser, when you went back you were still logged in. Now it seems to be doing hourglass-stuff on close, and it is making me re-login. Is that the far side of fixing the "memory leak"?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's a safety feature.
Holy Smokes (Score:2)
Pet Peeve (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Tools, Options, Advanced, General, and uncheck "Use hardware acceleration when available."
Now fonts will be rendered using the Windows font rendering system and not whatever horrible piece of shit Firefox 4 uses for hardware acceleration.
Of course, you'll no longer be able to play those 1337 HTML 5 games, such as ...um..., but I think that's a small price to pay for being able to actually READ TEXT IN A FUCKING WEB BROWSER.
I mean, kick-ass 1337 SUPER 3D GRAPHICS, or legible text. It's a hard choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Now fonts will be rendered using the Windows font rendering system and not whatever horrible piece of shit Firefox 4 uses for hardware acceleration.
Not a Mozilla issue, but an issue with Microsoft's DirectWrite. IE9 looks the same.
Funny thing is I never had and/or have this issue with IE9 beta at all.....
Re: (Score:2)
fonts look nice in ie9. its firefox doing some sort of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Bugzilla link + vote (Score:2)
This is the relevant bug. The developers don't seem to think this is a serious issue. So feel free to upvote it.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635490 [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not only under Windows 7 (Vista here). And yes, it's really weird that they ship the browser with default settings that make webpages look like shit!
"At last!" ...Really? (Score:2)
We're now "at last!"-ing one of several beta releases? Can we at least save that for the final release? Please?
Re: (Score:2)
This is expected to be the last beta.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be "at last!"-ing when they hit 4.5. If there's one thing the Mozilla org sucks at, it's .0 releases. Thunderbird is still a clusterfuck. Mozilla 3.6 actually isn't too terrible, but everything up to it was pokey.
I frankly still don't understand what's so damned hard about building a browser, but I haven't tried to do that since HTML 3 was all the rage, so I'm not exactly in a position to point fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
> If there's one thing the Mozilla org sucks at, it's .0 releases.
That's true. Firefox 1.0 was only good because it was finally there. 2.0 was a mitigated disaster. 3.0 wasn't half bad, to be honest. 4.0 is certainly long awaited, but I am sure it will underwhelm as usual.
Re:"At last!"? Yeah, if it stops crashing! (Score:2)
I've been under the impression that memory leak problems were getting better the last few betas, but FF still does the "burn the whole CPU core" trick, and Beta11 has been crashing a couple of times a day on me. So, yeah, "at last"....
Yow! Apparently it still crashes! Ugly! (Score:2)
I just updated, and ran my usual browser reliability test on it - with my normal 10 or so windows and 100-200 tabs open, go to Fark.com, open the first 50-100 news articles in tabs, wait for it to stabilize, then read them. It burned a bit of CPU briefly, then froze hard - burned 1.5GB of RAM and I couldn't get it to respond to anything at all. Unlike in the past, the CPU was basically idle, but Firefox was frozen much harder than usual.
Reading efficiency (Score:2)
WIth a browser that behaves itself, no, it's much more efficient to start opening articles and then read them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I do miss setting them on fire :-) Back in the 80s, there were a couple of years where I could read Netnews by printing it all out on dead trees (double-sided 4-up using the big Xerox printer in the basement computer lab), and a bit later when I could still print out everything but net.singles, which was a fairly verbose newsgroup. It was much faster than reading it at 1200 baud, but eventually Netnews got too big to read the whole thing, and morphed into Usenet and later into Google Groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Firefox 4 was supposed to be released in November 2010, no, wait, scratch that, February 2011, no wait, who knows when -
Don't worry. Firefox 5, 6 and 7 will be released this year!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Considering that Firefox 4 was supposed to be released in November 2010
It was August 2010. And recently reaffirmed plans to release Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 in 2011. To an outsider like me that looks like an idiot is in charge (or a committee, which is effectively the same thing...).
But there's no status bar (Score:3, Interesting)
the URL is displayed in the status bar, instead of the location bar."
The URL is actually displayed at the bottom of the page in a "pseudo-status-bar" overlaying the page contents. And guess what happens if the background of the page at that area is dark or matching the URL font color.!
Do I see phishing attacks coming soon?
Re: (Score:3)
its still better than the in-the-address-bar approach, as that wasn't long enough to show the full url. At least with the "status-tooltip" they can fiddle with borders, highlights, shadows and suchlike until they get something that looks smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, but now a malicious page can probably display a fake destination just by using CSS and Javascript (just make up a pop-up at the bottom left corner of the window).
Re: (Score:2)
The FF popup will be on top of any page content. So the malicious website can try this, but it won't be visible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing fartistic things with it. I tried 4 for a few minutes, it looks and acts like IE8 but slower. I could not see anyway to reskin or adjust it to act like firefox 3 so I scraped that pablum off my system.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the text is inside a box, not floating on its own. Changing the background color of the page won't have any effect.
It'd be interesting to try to tack something to the left of the floating box. With the right alignment and styling it could be a cause for concern.
Opposite the current URL address? UNDO? (Score:1)
Anyway to get the hovered link's URL to appear in the URL bar instead of the bottom of the screen?
Like in the previous versions of Firefox Beta 4?
I'd rather keep such information clustered with related information, like the current URL address.
Mod Parent Not Troll Please? I agree with him (Score:2)
It took me a while to get used to having the hovered links' URLs displayed in the URL bar, but I've been deciding I kind of like it.
What's the point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In some ways this is more like the Minefield alpha channel, except they are calling them betas. I'm curious to see what 650 bug fixes solve!
Now that they are close, they can start to do harder tests having gotten the churn down.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious to see what 650 bug fixes solve!
Bug 355071 - Flash stops keyboard input in other FF windows (TSM doc problem)
originally submitted: 2006-10-01
Re: (Score:3)
From the bug itself:
Masayuki Nakano (Mozilla Japan) 2011-02-01 22:21:58 PST
Steven, why is this still open?
Steven Michaud 2011-02-02 08:59:21 PST ... so I'll do that now.
I probably just forgot to close it
Works for me, actually. (Score:2)
They might have just kept a user.
Every FF4 beta before this simply didn't work on Mac OS X either with my desktop or my MacBook Pro. Up until about b8, it would suck 100% CPU usage (both cores) and do absolutely nothing in exchange, and I'd have to go to the command line and issue a SIGKILL to get my machine back. With b9-b11, it worked in theory, but all window and UI updates weren't actually "drawn" on the screen, needing a refresh in order to appear. In practical terms, any change to window contents was
I take it back. (Score:2)
Now it appears to update/refresh fine as you work, but then suddenly stops at some random point an hour or two into your use session and you're back to I-have-to-drag-Firefox-1mm-to-the-right-or-left-each-time-I-want-an-update territory.
Would be nice if they could get basic functionality like drawing on the screen down once and for all.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I am ignorant in the ways of software releasing, but this release doesn't seem to have much of a purpose.</quote>
You must be new here then. I first heard it said sometime back in cpm days, what, 30 years ago, that
Re: (Score:2)
b12 was released when all the hard blockers that needed beta exposure (as in, could result in web compat issues and such) were fixed.
The remaining hard blockers are ones where the fix is expected to be very safe and extremely unlikely to cause compat or user-facing problems. So it's OK to go directly to RC after fixing them, instead of having yet more beta testing.
And you download it from where? (Score:3)
Firefox has always had the most frustrating UI for their info pages. They'll send you to pages and pages of info, but there's never a standard sidebar to actually download the available versions. The page this article links to has a link to the mobile beta of 4, which is exactly not the platform I'm browsing from. Fail.
Click the "Release Notes" (Score:2)
Yeah, there should be a big button, right on the release announcement page, labeled "Download" for the OS/Architecture of the browser you're currently running. But the download's not that far off. For those to tired or lazy to look, the link to the download page is right under the link for "Release Notes" [mozilla.com]. (This might be a case of deliberate obfuscation, since this is a beta that you don't want to mistake for a supported official release.)
I kind of like BTW the sci-fi theme of the page background, where yo
Re: (Score:3)
http://firefox.com/ [firefox.com] , and then look for "Try the new Firefox 4 Beta! Free download" under the big green download link.
Yeah, it's not the standard software website UI, but I'd not call it "the most frustrating".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-- posted from FireFox Beta 12
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to know where to download it, perhaps you should give us more information. I personally wanted to run dailies on Ubuntu so I googled "firefox ppa" and the first link was "https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa" which is precisely what I wanted. Add it and install firefox-4.0 and you get a minefield icon. Clicky clicky. But maybe you were using some inferior OS :) Note that the daily is on b13 right now...
still corrupts the screen (Score:2)
It still corrupts my desktop background and the Taskbar on my Windows7 laptop.
I have to change the size of the Taskbar to make my computer not look retarded after using FF.
Re: (Score:2)
Update your graphics card drivers or disable hardware acceleration. They could use a bug report with information you get from when you type about:support in the location bar, though. If it's as bad as you say that card/driver combo should be blacklisted
Memory leak in FF3 (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me but at some point in the last year FF3 started leaking tons of memory in long lived windows with a lot of activity. Has this issue been taken care of as well?
NoScript (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe it's just me but at some point in the last year FF3 started leaking tons of memory ...
I've been using FF since 1.0.4. The dam thing has _always_ leaked memory (you can easily trigger this when using multiple tabs containing videos.)
I leave the browser open for _weeks_ at a time. Once it hits the 1 GB ~ 1.5 GB usage, I kill it, re-open it, and memory is back down to 200 MB ~ 400 MB. IMHO their garbage collector is broken. If I've just closed a tab, the chances of me wanting to re-open it, are high
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell you if FF4 will fix your bug or not, but I *can* tell you that GC has been receiving a *lot* of attention from Moz, and there are more improvements planned not long after the ff4 release.
That said, the GC itself is not broken: the collector does release all unused resources (unlike the one in IE6 which can get fooled by circular references). However, this does not mean that memory is not incorrectly entrained, causing the growth you're seeing.
I've been using the betas for a few months and haven
Incorrect summary (Score:2)
when you hover over a link, the URL is displayed in the status bar, instead of the location bar
No, it is displayed at the bottom of the window. There is no status bar anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone explain this URL status bar issue? I'm reading this using Firefox 3 and the URL's are displayed at the bottom of the window, it seems to work just fine and as it allocates the entire width of the window for this I can't see how the new version improves things
Removing the status bar saved a little vertical space. With today's monitors being wider than taller, I see this as a good thing.
Thanks for the memory (leaks) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any of that and I'm using FireFox on OS X and Linux, with tons of extensions. So there.
Re: (Score:2)
Craziness. (Score:2)
I see a lot of complaining posts, but let's be real here:
If it wasn't for firefox we'd all be stuck on some crappy upgrade to IE 4. Not only that, it's free, open source, has an awesome plug in structure (I can't live without Adblock).
Firefox is STILL the best browser out and I use it every day. I would never settle for Chrome or another closed source option.
STFU already. YAY MOZILLA!
clapping.... (Score:2)
I am applauding their efforts, and hope they continue to make this amazing product even more so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My jesus, we have blogspam on Slashdot.
Welp, this site just jumped the shark.
Spammers Love christian louboutin shoes (Score:2)
You'd think with user IDs in the 7 digits that Slashdot would be a small tightly-knit community where nobody would be willing to risk their karma by doing something like that.... But nooooo, we've got spammers even here!
Oh, Snap! Chrome keeps failing for me! (Score:3)
I keep a lot of windows with a lot of tabs open most of the time, depending on what I'm working on or reading about at any time. Currently about half my tabs are in Chrome and about half in Firefox, with 8-10 windows each. Firefox has been crashing a lot the last couple of betas, so I've been moving the more stable stuff over to the Chrome windows, but there are some things that cause Chrome to fail badly.
Go to a news aggregator site, such as Fark or sometimes Google News. Open 50-100 links in new tabs,
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is wrong with people like you? Why do you do that? My ex-girlfriend did that, and it perplexed me to no end. Stop doing that. I bet you're the kind of person who drives 150 mph and then complains that it's hard to steer.
Re: (Score:2)
Although it usually numbers more in the 40-50 link range, I do it as well. Open a page, middle click every link that looks interesting and then read and close them one by one. Definitely seems like the most efficient use of tabs to me.
Re: (Score:2)
My experience with Chromium (I have not tried any Google-branded versions) is that it gets bogged down loading tabs in the background and stays unresponsive until the last tab has finished loading, where Firefox slows down but stays responsive. While Chromium might shine on multicore and/or multiprocessor machines in my experience it loses out to Firefox/Seamonkey on single-processor hardware. This has made me use Chromium for 'quick' browsing fixes - look up that address while no browser happens to be runn
Re: (Score:2)
And we thought that FF 3.x was underwhelming, with the awfulbar. If only we could have seen what was coming in the next release...
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the insufficient horizontal screen space to show two medium-length URLs end to end.
By the way, when I hover over a link, Chrome shows the URL in the lower left where other browsers have a status bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu, which moved the 3 window title buttons to the wrong location
Gah, I hate this! Is there an objectively right and wrong placement of windows controls? When did this happen, and how was it justified?
You don't like it, that doesn't make it right or wrong. I personally don't like them on the right, so... therefore... our opinions nullify the whole damn debate and people are free to stick there buttons where ever they like.
Its all about the options. Let users decide what they want if your defaults don't work for them. Before Ubuntu switched their buttons to the lef
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing "finding" and "fixing"...