I've seen superlative after superlative concerning the release of Firefox 3.0, and in all honesty, it is making my stomach ache. Yes, Firefox 3.0 is a great release. It has a slicker interface (the UI on Vista looks quite pretty) and the use of native widgets in Linux is a very, very welcome addition. On top of that, it actually delivers what I was craving for the most from my favourite Windows web browser: much improved performance. But does Firefox 3.0 change the web, or alter the way we use the intertubes?
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-05
I guess I must be the only person on earth who hasn't upgraded to Firefox 3.0 then. Firefox 2 works perfectly well for me, and so do all the extensions I use. It will be a while before all the extensions work as well on 3. It's only hype if you choose - choose - to get caught up in it all. Stay apart, run what you want how you want it. Then you keep a nice clear head. Yes, in a month or two I may upgrade, but there again, I may not. Besides, Opera 9.5 is pretty darn good and enough to be getting on with.
Member since:2005-07-06
I haven't upgraded either; I'm running Solaris, and Firefox 3.0 crashes with gmail if I have the flash plugin installed, it also crashes on numerous other websites. Opera, the whole browser freezes when I go to geekzone.co.nz forum - none of this is present on Firefox 2.0.14 (which I'm running now).
Until Adobe/Firefox fix their problems, and Opera fix the fact that a whole browser can be frozen because of a script on a website - I'll be stuck in 2.0 land for a while.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-12
Member since:2006-08-09
I'm going to have to disagree with this.
My experience is with OpenSolaris on a 650Mhz UltraSparc IIe laptop with 1GB of RAM. FF3 is slower to start, slower to render and much more sluggish to use than FF2. FF3 is actually pretty painful and frustrating. I uninstalled it 15 minutes after first loading it up and went back to FF2.
Member since:2005-10-13
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-09-06
I just checked my primary OS's repositories; no Firefox 3 package. Flash doesn't work with version 2 anyhow so who's to expect Adobe to have 64bit Flash plugins for version 3?
I'll upgrade when it is in the repositories and there is a compelling reason. I'm actually thinking of downgrading to 32bit FF just so Flash will work and it'll be the only thing that isn't compiled against 64bit libraries on this box.
Member since:2005-07-06
nspluginwrapper will do the trick for 64bit Firefox.
http://gwenole.beauchesne.info//en/projects/nspluginwrapper
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-12
I updated and noticed JavaScript is faster. Gmail loads quicker and the Google calendar interface is snappier. It also uses less memory than version 2 on Linux. Right now is using about 60 MB RAM.The native widget controls and the GTK theme pickup are very nice. It is what I always wanted Firefox to be be on Linux.
I still keep Seamonkey Mozilla around for checking mail but I think I keep it around for nostalgia. I rarely use the Seamonkey browser now that Firefox 3 runs so smoothly on Linux.
Edited 2008-06-20 23:44 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-08
Agreed it's evolution, but almost all changes are really good.
Especially zooming now also scale pictures (like Opera)
and bookmarks and history are a bit smarter.
But let's face it, it doesn't matter, FF still has the magic of extensions, you can make it into anything you like.
Member since:2005-11-13
Yeah... almost. Haven't upgraded to final yet, but in the last RC I tried, multiple select (the feature I was most excited about) was complete ass. Go to Amazon and try to use multiple select (holding down the CTRL key) on some of the customer reviews to see what I'm talking about.
Oh, and for even more fun, try multi selct while using the mouse's scroll wheel to scroll down the page.
Edited 2008-06-21 03:10 UTC
Member since:2006-06-24
Frankly I'm sick of the "it has extensions, it can do anything attidute". I only want mouse gestures, and Firefox doesn't have an extension that actually works all the time (which is the whole purpose of mouse gestures).
No, I don't want mouse gestures that use a ton of CPU, stops working in forms and stops working randomly.
Maybe the idea is good, but as long as the extensions aren't checked for quality, it's a bit annoying really.
And what "slick UI"? I can't see it. On Windows I only see:
- Fade in, but not out(!) on tab buttons.
- Menu items aren't the same size. Some are 17px, others are 20px.
- Moving the cursor quickly over a menu header makes it look hovered, enen when not until a timeout.
- If you open the menu with the keyboard while the cursor is over a menu item, you need to move the cursor 2 pixels to activate that menu. The correct is 1 pixel.
- They still can't draw dotted rectangles around active controls without getting two dots beside each other (there should always be a space in between).
- They can't draw the dotted rectangles in the correct size either. They should be around the text on checkbox controls, but they are much bigger. And mis-aligned.
- The menu is placed in a toolbar, and they forgot to remove the top border on the toolbar.
- Etc...
Only very small things, but when there are so many of them, the UI simply isn't polished or slick.
Member since:2006-10-24
No, I don't want mouse gestures that use a ton of CPU, stops working in forms and stops working randomly.
FireGestures 1.1.2 works here without a hiccup or any noticeable CPU usage..
The entire point of extensions is to give anyone the power to extend the browser; there is no central authority to guarantee uniform quality. However you can use the Mozilla website to give feedback and find a general rating for each extension.
...snipped list of issues...
I was unable to reproduce any of the above problems but i'm working on Linux so that may explain the difference.
Well your experience is very different from mine, but the real gauge should be how it stacks up against the alternatives. Personally I have a hard time getting very excited about a browser in the first place, but generally i find FF3 to exceed expectations and perform better than any other browser. I even like the Awesome bar ;o)
Cheers.
Member since:
2006-11-14
firefox 3 has native look in windows ..windows xp looks different from windows vista so it has two look in windows ..
on the linux side, most people either use kde or gnome(i personally prefer fluxbox windows manager but all apps are kde) .. anyway, in the linux world ..there are two toolkits(among others) and firefox looks native on gtk based systems like gnome desktop environment and there is no change on kde side(i havent seen any so far)
saying firefox3 looks native on linux is almost an insult to kde users ..
how long will we have to wait before we get kde integration on firefox?
Member since:2005-11-12
saying firefox3 looks native on linux is almost an insult to kde users ..
Time to lay off the coffee my friend. You seem stressed. I hear your pain though, since I used KDE way back when. I think the move by Fedora and Ubuntu to a more Gnome-centric focus gives Gnome a lot of weight.
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[2]: linux has more than one GUI
Member since:2008-06-02
Member since:2007-08-12
Oh, the drama.
It's not native to Gnome either (unless patched), it's native to GTK. Nitpicks aside, it mostly blends in well with the rest of a KDE desktop. The unification between several desktop standards is old news, and there are several ways to make GTK look exactly like Qt.
Of course, you may argue that it looks exactly like Qt, but doesn't feel exactly like Qt, and I agree, but it's a small price to pay. And you could also argue that it takes disk space, increases memory usage, blah, blah... The truth is, not enough people care, so it's not going to change any time soon, if ever.
A Webkit KPart for Konqueror is in the works, now that's gonna be nice.
Member since:2005-07-08
My argument would be that it looks like crap in KDE with the same settings that FF2 looked OK with. I don't really care much since I use firefox as a backup for when konqueror doesn't render a page correctly, but the FF3 UI definitely looks bad on both linux boxen I have it installed on. Looks fine on windows XP where FF is my browser of choice, though.
Member since:2005-11-11
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-02-17
on the linux side, most people either use kde or gnome(i personally prefer fluxbox windows manager but all apps are kde) .. anyway, in the linux world ..there are two toolkits(among others) and firefox looks native on gtk based systems like gnome desktop environment and there is no change on kde side(i havent seen any so far)
saying firefox3 looks native on linux is almost an insult to kde users ..
how long will we have to wait before we get kde integration on firefox?
Perhaps the best approach is to get gtk+ integration into KDE ...
http://jaysonrowe.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/tip-gtk-apps-under-kde-4...
I think the trick is to use something called 'qtcurve-gtk2'.
http://jaysonrowe.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/gtk.jpeg
Edited 2008-06-21 02:40 UTC
Member since:2005-10-13
Cross your fingers and hope something comes out of this:
http://blog.vlad1.com/2008/05/06/well-isnt-that-qt/
Member since:2006-02-05
Member since:2007-02-05
I think the reason Firefox choose to support GTK as native toolkit is because Firefox as a browser has a philosophy that more GNOME-like. (Keep it simple, and have more advanced extra functionality in plugins/extensions instead of built-in.) Not in the extreme degree that Epiphany does(it does very little out of the box) though.
I think Opera is a lot closer to the KDE-philosophy. It has tons of stuff out-of-the-box. And of course: also uses the Qt-toolkit. With the exception of being open source... =/
Personally I don't think KDE-people should complain too much about lacking stuff in their own toolkit, *alot* of commercial stuff is written in Qt. (Quite simple because Qt is probably a hell lot more effective to program in than GTK. Qt is more RAD-oriented, and it also have (good, no running in X11 or non-native widgets) mac support.) Skype for instance. (And Google Earth if my memory serves me right.)
In addition: how many DE uses Qt except KDE itself? (Correct me if I'm ignorant here!) Not alot fo my knowledge, but XFCE for instances uses GTK, and whenever I see a *box screenshot they're usually running GTK-apps.
That being said, Firefox is open source. Nothing's stopping anyone from creating a theme/extension/modification/whatever-it-takes to make Firefox have native KDE-widgets. That's the beauty of OSS. 
Member since:
2007-08-12
Member since:2007-02-05
Reminds me of this XKCD-comic.
http://xkcd.com/198/
Member since:
2007-11-18
Member since:2008-06-03
From what I've been told, it's probably the most used browser over there.... dunno for sure, though.
I'm still using the Beta-5 that came with the recent version of Ubuntu. So far, no problems. Only had one crash when I had Flash videos loading on 6 different tabs.
The default fonts on Linux suck, though.... always the first thing I change.
Member since:
2005-06-29
Well... if you remember... Firefox 3.0 was actually meant to be Firefox 2.0... but due marketing, well...
Visuals... native look... well, everything is important in the end. but for me, Firefox 3 is the end of a long waiting for a not so crash and leaky release... and its also much faster...
It does still leaks after sometime and several tabs open... and still has jerky flash playback when opened for some hours... but still, the different in performance AND stability is SO big that Firefox became finally usable again (I had ditched it for Opera for a long time before 3.0's betas.).
I'm very happy with the actual results (I mean, finally some real improvements), and I hope that FF3.1 mostly fixes these remaining leak issues and the jerk playback and interface freezes and slowing down after sometime opened. Also, the (very) high usage (and interference with other opened apps) of disk for the new DB system should be fixed too.
...In the end, WebKit "competition" is doing nice for gecko too...
Member since:
2008-02-17
The OSX skin looks *horrid*. The Windows skin looks good, but not as good as the old one IMO. Oh well.
The thing that stinks is, there's no skin that either 1) looks like FF2 or 2) looks like FF3 Windows, that works on OSX/FF3. Go figure.
I also thought the 'awesomebar' changes weren't so nice. At least provide an option to go back to the classic functionality!
I'm keeping FF2 until they discontinue support. Hopefully by then there'll be better skins and a good way to revert the new 'awesomebar' functionality.
Member since:2005-11-10
There are extensions to revert the awesome bar functionality.
Basically, I agree with the article. I'm not so much into Firefox 3, but I am into Gecko. This is a great Gecko release! Firefox 3 is, well, just another browser.
Member since:2005-06-29
Is it actually possible for you to write a post without being insulting? Just because someone doesn't like a certain new feature because it doesn't work right, it doesn't mean they're pathetic.
The Awesome Bar simply doesn't work right yet. It's gotten a lot better during the test releases, but still, many times it simply gives the wrong search returns where the previous, old fashioned url-only thing would've done just fine. That's a legitimate complaint I'm reading all over the web.
Member since:2006-06-02
kaiwai, with such deliberate use of rude and insulting language you are inexorably dumbing yourself down to the size of the apparent intellectual pygmies you are so readily keen to berate, if you'll give the following any credit, that is:
‘There is a prior cultural achievement of language; language is not a detachable instrument of thought and communication.’
In short, language is thought. Don't do yourself the disservice of using language that is not elevating, either of yourself or your audience.
Member since:2005-06-29
Where's the hyperbole in my post? I explained perfectly fine why I have issues with the awesome bar, and those issues are perfectly valid.
Instead of resorting to insults, you could've just asked "what are your issues with the awesome bar?" There's absolutely no reason to resort to insults, and the next time, I will act accordingly.
Member since:2005-12-09
Man, we're gonna get bolted by the Pygmies now, for sure. I for one admire what the vertically challenged aboriginal populaces have accomplished, given their stature.
Back on Topic: FF3 is nice, I use it every day (at home).
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:2006-07-16
You may want to check out Aronnax's GrApple themes on http://takebacktheweb.org/
I'm not a huge Safari fan, but I rather like the look of that GUI, when ported to a Firefox theme; you might find you like one of the 4 variants of it.
Member since:2006-03-10
4 variants? Maybe on that site alone, but Dear Jeebus, on addons.mozilla.org there are little else! I swear on that site the OS X-aping themes seem to outnumber all the others put together.
I guess it's a testament to the popularity of Apple's UI, but I wish some of these obviously talented themers would branch-out a bit, so we could see more *original* theme designs to choose from.
/rant
Member since:2007-05-15
Member since:
2005-06-29
Though I was disappointed to see that Mozilla Firefox's UI hasn't changed much (other than new icons).
Other than the new Back/Forward button which was borrowed from IE7, I wish they'd have borrowed some more of IE7's UI changes. Like hiding the MenuBar. It only ends up wasting precious vertical screen space. And putting more an emphasis on the SideBar for favourites/feeds/history. This addition to IE7 is dynamite. And the NewTab button right next to the actual tabs. Tab operations should stick close to the actual tabs. Unlike Konqueror which both Tab buttons (new/close) are stuck at each end of the browser's side which is annoying for widescreen users.
While feeling more like a under-the-hood release, Firefox 3.0 is a solid one. And I love the integrated cookie blocker. I just wish they'd go further and build an implementation like Konqueror were the user is asked to trust the site completely, only once or never.
Member since:2008-06-21
For hiding the menubar, I'd recommend the Hide Menubar extension, which replicates the alt-menu behaviour of IE7: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4762
Personally, I run that and the Stylish extension with a userstyle that hides the personal bookmark bar until it's mouse-overed, too; makes the whole thing take up a lot less space.
Member since:
2005-07-09
I haven't tried it, but isn't it possible to select firefox as the system wide mail client? Sure would be nice if that works.
Either way I think it's a nice feature since this has always been one of the drawbacks of using webmail.
Member since:
2006-06-11
Member since:
2007-04-05
Actually it feels like Mozilla guys are lost their programmers in favor of PR guys. They make great overhyped commercials and forget about browser itself. FF3 does not fill consistent, it is more like a bunch of features ripped from extensions and implemented as native code without thinking of how to make them live together in a nice way. And they don't go forward, just repeat steps of other browsers. When did you see some feature in FF that would blow your mind? I don't remember anything.
I think they should stop promoting browser and start working on it, start listening to users. And not only to FF users, but to users of other browsers. They should rethink what they do and how, sit down all together and think how to make a browser more usable, less relying on extensions and more powerfull for one thing - browsing!
Member since:2005-07-09
As far as I can tell the developers has worked very hard on FF3. It's much more optimized and has a smaller footprint. That in itself is a proof because such things require a lot of hard and (IMO) boring work.
It seems that you are expecting some kind of miracle, yet you have no idea of what that miracle is. You just want to get blown away. I wouldn't expect a browser that has to be backwards compatible and stick to the standards to blow anyone away.
I prefer that they keep working on the core and leave the innovation to the addon developers.
In order to create something new that will blow people away it would probably be better to start over from scratch. And even then, it's a hard thing to do.
Member since:2006-01-02
Perf work is usually pretty exciting in my opinion. You can often get great results through a series of small tweaks. Sometimes, though, you find that you need to just start from scratch and reimplement everything below a particular interface. This tradeoff makes things interesting.
Member since:2007-02-17
Contradiction in ideas there.
Mozilla has made the core browser better and faster.
The way that you make the browser more usable for the vast variety of users is ... to rely on extensions for the fancy UI bits. That way one user who might like it this way ... and another user who likes it some other (contradictory) way can both be satisfied.
Member since:
2008-03-25
I have not read the article at eweek but I guess the "revolution" was not in appearance or browsing, but in design of web application.
The revolution is in offline mode, Canvas to design pretty web interfaces or games, SQLite to store data locally and so one.
But to see the revolution you have to wait developpers have built applications that make profit of that. They can not do it before the browser - the platform - was in final version.
Member since:
2007-03-24
Member since:
2006-03-10
I've liked the upgrade for the most part: I'll get to the list in a minute, but first a query:
@Thom, I haven't tried it out (don't use webmail much) but surely if you set Firefox as your default mailto: handler, then external mail calls would end up in the webapp too? Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I'd expect...
Now, that list:
PRO
- Yes, it's a bit faster. This is a big boon for my gf on her Celeron-700MHz system where every little counts.
- The new bookmarks implementation is nice: not as painful a "paradigm shift" (shoot me) as the hype suggested, and the scope for external access to this data while the browser is running is much improved. I've already started knocking up a webapp to display the bookmarks on my web server 
- The filepicker is XUL once more, no more nasty GTK picker (see below)
CON
- Theme and extension upgrade is a bit of a minefield. No upgrade for Sage (RSS), now you need "Sage Too"? No DOM Inspector builtin, but standalone available? And at least one theme has been discontinued because of...
- The GTK integration. Yes this is a partisan argument, but there you are. I've tried, believe me I have, but I've yet to find a GTK theme that doesn't make my eyes bleed. The gtk-engines-qt solution would be great, but it's very unpolished at present and the results are usually a big mess. /rant
Revolution in browsing? Nope. But it has the feel of a solid major release, not just a cosmetic refresh timed to rob attention from IE. It'll do.
Member since:
2008-06-21
Member since:
2005-10-18
"Frankly I'm sick of the "it has extensions, it can do anything attidute". I only want mouse gestures, and Firefox doesn't have an extension that actually works all the time (which is the whole purpose of mouse gestures)."
That's what's keeping you from using FF? Have you ever heard of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Of course, you could always go back to using IE and it's extensions.
Member since:2006-12-05
Member since:
2006-12-07
Member since:2005-07-26
Member since:
2007-09-22
Member since:
2006-12-22
I will think the basic software we have now and if it revolutionize:
- Windows XP
- Mac OS X
- Firefox 3
Windows XP brings the power of the NT kernel in the hands of desktop user. Automatically the user will have almost following advantages over Windows 98:
- stable UI, not freezing one
- faster in network traffic, high computing applications (one application that freeze taking all CPU in Windows 98 will make Win