Is Firefox 2.0 a dud?

[honvetops]

Is Firefox 2.0 a dud? Are users better avoiding it and waiting until a future build? Are too many of the new features buggy and incomplete and is the browser overall more unstable that previous versions? What about Firefox on Vista?
The future for Firefox has to be that it (and Opera) must all run in protected mode, but for now Firefox doesn't Having used Firefox 2.0 for a few days I believe that some of these claims are quite justified, while others are highly exaggerated or based on user preferences. But if someone tells you that it's a bad idea to use Firefox on Windows Vista, do yourself a favor and listen to them because they are telling the truth.

Firefox 2.0 has been out for a week and the download counter is already well past 2 million. But a vocal group of Firefox users have generated quite a long list of gripes and grievances regarding this latest release. Some are even saying that upgrading to 2.0 might not be a good idea.
So what's behind all this? Here's a quick short list of the most popular Firefox 2.0 gripes:
[ch61623] Random freezes
[ch61623] Poor antiphishing technology
[ch61623] Confused Options dialog box
[ch61623] Bulky, inconsistent theme
[ch61623] Incompatibility with extensions
[ch61623] Memory leaks
[ch61623] CSS issues
[ch61623] Buggy history bar

I have to admit that I wasn't all that jazzed about Firefox 2.0 when it was released. IE7 had just been released and that was such a huge evolutionary step for Internet Explorer that it almost completely filled my requirements for what a browser should be. However, that didn't stop me downloading Firefox 2.0 and taking a look.
Some of these gripes come down to a matter of taste. Personally, I don't think that the new Firefox theme is all that bad but then I'm not all that fussed about how my browser looks - it's a window onto the Internet, not a piece of art. If people don't like the default shipped theme, there are plenty of others to choose from. I can't see how the Mozilla team is going to be able to please everyone all the time. I also don't find the Options dialog box too bad, although it is suffering from the developers trying to cram too much in. Despite this, it remains quite usable. As far as CSS goes, I think the problem people are seeing are sites built for Internet Explorer that aren't happy being displayed in Firefox.
I've not noticed a problem with the history bar, but it's possible that I've simply not looked closely enough.
However, some of the complaints are very valid indeed. The random freeze issue is apparent to me on two systems (both where Firefox 1.5 had previously been installed and behaved well). Session restore helps to save the day, but that's no excuse. The crashing is such a problem that it's just easier for me to use IE7.
Memory leaks are also present, and actually seem worse under Firefox 2.0 than under 1.x. I was hoping to find these fixed and I'm disappointed to find they aren't.
On a more serious note, complaints that the antiphishing filter is weak seem justified. I've thrown a number of dodgy phishing sites at Firefox 2.0 and its detect rate is appallingly low. Some people claim that any antiphishing filter is better than no antiphishing filter, but I disagree - at best this feature seems to offer users little more than false hope and at worst a false sense of security. By comparison, the antiphishing filter in IE7 seems a lot better and was able to flag as suspicious all the phishing sites I tested it with.
The claim that Firefox 2.0 is incompatible with a lot of popular extensions also seems true, though it has to be remembered that the Mozilla team have nothing to do with most of the extensions out there. They are third-party applications and require the developer to offer support for newer versions. However, extensions are one of Firefox's most compelling features and seeing a whole raft of disabled extensions, especially those that are well-used and loved, is going to put off a lot of existing users from upgrading.
Do I believe that current Firefox users should not upgrade to the latest version? No way. If you stick with 1.5.x then you're going to be at risk from unpatched vulnerabilities. The only way to go is up to 2.0 and keep downloading updates as they become available.
So what's my issue with running Firefox on Windows Vista? It's that it runs in standard user mode and has full access to the system. Internet Explorer 7 on the other hand runs in protected mode. Under this mode, Internet Explorer, along with ActiveX controls and add-ons such as toolbars, have only limited access to the file system and the registry and it's very difficult for a code to leverage a vulnerability and allow takeover of the system. Compare this to a vulnerability in Firefox which would give an attacker full access to the system. The future for Firefox has to be that it (and Opera) must all run in protected mode, but for now Firefox doesn't, and that represents a serious risk to users who use Windows Vista.
I can't help but feel that Firefox is a victim of its own success. The more users they have, the more masters they have to satisfy. More and more Firefox users see it as just another browser and feel that they are owed something. Too many of them don't see the work that goes into the product behind the scenes and instead choose to nitpick and exaggerate each small issue.    :-?

[soybean]

honvetops, thanks for your post.  This is the kind of objective, detailed assessment that can be very helpful to anyone wondering whether to upgrade to Firefox 2.0 from a previous version.  I not concerned yet about whether it will work well with Windows Vista because Vista hasn't been released yet and, even if it were, I probably won't be getting it for quite some time after it's official release.  

I confess I used IE exlusively until only about a month ago when I downloaded Firefox 1.5.  Since then, I've used Firefox 1.5 a lot and I like it.  I also downloaded IE7 right after it's release and like the improvements in it.  I think I'll hold off for awhile on Firefox 2.0.

[Calum]

I have used Firefox 2 since it was released
Personally, I think it is a vast improvement over Firefox 1.5 (not that Firefox 1.5 was at all bad, again just in my opinion), it's much faster and seems to leak less memory
I didn't like the new theme though, so I got a classic theme to make it look like 1.5
The close buttons on all the tabs annoyed me too, I much prefer to just have one close button on the right (again, like 1.5)
However, once I'd sorted these annoyances out I was off
I do think it's a bit cheeky how they seem to have stolen some of the best extensions made for Firefox previosuly and incorporated them into the browser, but I must admit it's useful to have the functionality "out of the box" rather than downloading quite so many extensions
Still, I think it's fantastic, although I do have a thing about IE (I hate it)
Then again, that's just me

[Raptor]

Firefox 2 works quite well here and I like the changes they added. They weren't necessary at all, since it was a great browser before and it is an even greater browser now, but they're a welcome addition.

The only odd thing I ran into was when I tried to open a word document from the Internet, it just shut down my browser and did nothing at all. Several retries resulted in the same behaviour. However, this wasn't done on my PC and I haven't tried other word documents on the Internet.

IE7 had just been released and that was such a huge evolutionary step for Internet

Uhm, since when is lagging behind an 'evolutionary' step? Everything featured in IE 7 was allready featured in many other browsers way before..

How do you all know it leaks memory? What the *censored*? Is everyone suddenly a programmer? Just what the *censored* is a memory leak and can you describe to me how Firefox 'leaks' memory?

I can't help but feel that Firefox is a victim of its own success. The more users they have, the more masters they have to satisfy. More and more Firefox users see it as just another browser and feel that they are owed something. Too many of them don't see the work that goes into the product behind the scenes and instead choose to nitpick and

It's just a friggin' upgrade, they added some features and removed some people didn't need. It's not a whole new browser..

I do think it's a bit cheeky how they seem to have stolen some of the best extensions made for Firefox previosuly and incorporated them into the browser, but I must admit it's useful to have the functionality "out of the box" rather than downloading quite so many extensions

How can you 'steal' open source software? The authors of all those extensions would probably love to see their extensions incorporated, that tells 'm they had good ideas and I am very certain that is why they made those extensions.

The claim that Firefox 2.0 is incompatible with a lot of popular extensions also seems true, though it has to be remembered that the Mozilla team have nothing to do with most of the extensions out there. They are third-party applications and require the developer to offer support for newer versions. However, extensions are one of Firefox's most compelling features and seeing a whole raft of disabled extensions, especially those that are well-used and loved, is going to put off a lot of existing users from upgrading.
Do I believe that current Firefox users should not upgrade to the latest version? No way. If you stick with 1.5.x then you're going to be at risk from unpatched vulnerabilities. The only way to go is up to 2.0 and keep downloading updates as they become available.  

What a load of unproven crap, all my extensions worked fine and when I downloaded the browser a day after the release updates were immediatly available. I use popular extensions and less popular extensions. Including, but not limited to, Noscript, Mouse Gestures, DictionarySearch, Tab preferences and Flashblock.

The theme is fine, it's a bit more flashy than it used to be, but not much has changed. Besides, who the *censored* gives a *censored* about the theme anyway? Only hippies do. And you are sounding like one to me right now! The theme has had some minor changes, nothing big. It still functions the same it just looks different. Big deal. Does that make it a bad browser? Shallow thinking.

However, some of the complaints are very valid indeed. The random freeze issue is apparent to me on two systems (both where Firefox 1.5 had previously been installed and behaved well). Session restore helps to save the day, but that's no excuse. The crashing is such a problem that it's just easier for me to use IE7.

I had a random freeze or two, but it resolved it self real soon and I'm still not sure whether that was due to Firefox or due to my Windows XP installation having screwed up all my TCP/IP settings for no obvious reason.

I also like session restore, even when you keep the browser open and restart the PC it gently puts back everything. Tabbed history is BRILLIANT and I was looking for such a feature.

Anyhow, all in all, I've had some random freezes, but like I said, don't know whether this was due to Windows screwing up as I was experimenting with my router/modem and I noticed that it just shut down when I tried to open a word document on a PC, however, that could also be Windows screwing up as that PC is never in use by me.

So, anymore IE fan boys that need proving wrong or are we all going to become real masculine in the next few seconds?

By the way, the added spell-checker is another excellent innovative feature..

[Calum]

How can you 'steal' open source software? The authors of all those extensions would probably love to see their extensions incorporated, that tells 'm they had good ideas and I am very certain that is why they made those extensions.

Perhaps stealing wasn't the right word, what I meant was that the extensions have been incorporated
I didn't mean to give the impression I thought it was bad or wrong, only that FF2 now has several useful features that were previously only available via extensions
Re-reading my post, I agree it doesn't really say what I wanted it to say, sorry
Hopefully this clarifies my meaning a bit

[Rob Pomeroy]

Calum, my child, you have seen the light.  You are spared ten years in purgatory.

[chriscool9]

You i have to say, i do prefer the one i had before 2.0. I also find that wit the 2.0 version it has to end it self alot, it comes acorss 'errors' and has to be shut down.
Also can i ask what a memory leak is, i never have asked but its something i see a fair bit.
Thanks


Chris

[Rob Pomeroy]

Memory leak is typically used to indicate that a process is gobbling up memory indiscriminately.  Firefox does sometimes seem to go through RAM like there's no tomorrow.

[Neil]

[highlight]Elephants.[/highlight]

[Dilbert]

OK, I've got a lot of extensions. Let's see how many make it across. Will edit this post in a minute... \

EDIT:

The following extensions were not compatible (with the versions I had):

Modern Pinball (Theme)
SpiderZilla
Smiley Xtra
ImageBot
HTML Validator
Page Title Eraser
CSS Validator

The following could be updated for 2.0: All of them, though I had to manually reinstall my theme. I know what Raptor said about themes, but I like my theme.

[chriscool9]

Ahhhh ok, thanks for that Rob.


Chris

[Neil]

Memory leak is typically used to indicate that a process is gobbling up memory indiscriminately.  Firefox does sometimes seem to go through RAM like there's no tomorrow.

Not true. Well I guess it's true that the term is used to indicate that, but not quite what the term should mean.

[highlight]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_leak[/highlight]

Programs request memory from the system to store their junk, then they have to release the memory once it has finished using it (not necessarily only at program end). A memory leak occurs when the program "forgets" to release memory when it is no longer needed. (pun - sorry couldn't resist). The Wikipedia article shows a good simpe example of a memory leak.

Here's a simple, bit more relevent example I made up. (OK disclaimer, I'm not  a browser programmer so don't complain if this isn't right - it's for example purposes only!)

You tell your browser to view a webpage. The browser requests enough memory from the operating system to display the page. Now you click a link for a new page. But the browser was poorly programmed and does not free up the memory already used by the old page, but forgets it is there. So basically the old webpage is stilled loaded in your memory, but it can no longer be used! The program has lost its references to it, so it can no longer access it anymore, and the operating system cannot reallocate the memory to another program or indeed the browser because it is still marked as in use. If you were to close the browser, assuming that was the only program running, your available memory would be less afterwards than before. On the other hand, the amount of free memory you had before running a program should be the exact same after closing down the program. (Of course this seldom happens on modern computers because of all the junk running in the background).

If you continue looking through websites, the amount of claimed but no longer usable memory will increase. If you go back to a previously visited website, then the browser will simple store again that website in memory again! If you frequent that page regularly, you'll basically end up with lots of clones in your memory. Eventually the computer will run out of memory and crash. Boom.

The important concept is to realise memory [highlight]inefficiency[/highlight] is not the same as memory [highlight]leaks[/highlight]. I could, for example, make a program that requests 1024MB of memory from the computer, and doesn't do anything with it. As long as my program keeps track of the memory, and frees it after the program has ended for reusage by the system, then this is not considered a memory leak. It's considered a stupid waste of memory, but not a leak!

When people hear memory leak, they often think "that program uses up too much memory", or to reword it more technically, they could think "that program requests too much memory from the system". In reality the oppersite is true! The correct thing to think is in fact: "that program does not free all of its memory back to the system after usage." So memory leaks are to do with memory freeing, not requesting

Whether or not Firefox 2 has memory leaks I have no idea. But the point is simply using a lot of memory inefficiently is not in itself a memory leak. Bad programming, but not memory leak As long as Firefox 2 frees up all of its requested memory after it has finished with it, then it lives in Leak-Free-Ville. (Not to be confused with Leek-Free-Ville).

Phew. My wrists deserve a rest.

PS. Elephants.

[Rob Pomeroy]

Memory leak is typically used to indicate that a process is gobbling up memory indiscriminately.  Firefox does sometimes seem to go through RAM like there's no tomorrow.

Not true.

Bite me, whippersnapper.  

I tend to choose my words quite carefully.  

[Neil]

Memory leak is typically used to indicate that a process is gobbling up memory indiscriminately.  Firefox does sometimes seem to go through RAM like there's no tomorrow.

Not true. [highlight]Well I guess it's true that the term is used to indicate that, but not quite what the term should mean.[/highlight]

 

[Rob Pomeroy]

Did you somehow think that "gobbling up memory indiscriminately" was intended to be a precise technical definition?

That said, I still fail to see which part of my statement is "not true"...

But, whatever...