Computer Hope
Software => Internet browsers => Topic started by: 2x3i5x on February 28, 2011, 03:03:23 PM
-
How good has firefox 4 become through it's long road of betas? I see firefox 4 beta 12 (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/beta/) already out and probably the last beta for FF4.
-
Looking at screenshots it looks like now looking like chrome is apparently a good thing.
Guess I may as well toss out all my GUI design books then.
-
I've been using FF 4 since beta 5, or 6 on my laptop and I had no problems whatsoever.
-
its pretty good. i like the new one but the only down side is u can't save your page or u have to turn it on. (i mean like when you close with more the one tab open not book marking)
-
They seem to be taking following in some of Opera's footsteps. Opera introduced tab stacking in their latest version. I see Firefox 4 has tab grouping, which is similar to, but somewhat different from, Opera's tab stacking.
-
seems like IE, chrome and firefox and starting to copy each other's looks and leeching features from one another.
not that it's all bad, but....
-
i thought the same but the lay out is rather nice in my view, i like it better then chrome, it doesn't run as slow for me
-
i thought the same but the lay out is rather nice in my view, i like it better then chrome, it doesn't run as slow for me
does the browser engine even matter anymore, except for the odd pages that are blocking Safari/Google's webkit or Opera's Presto engines and the fact that trident is kinda still slow despite ie9's improvement on it?
-
When it comes to browser speed i personally would like to know what everyone is gonna do with all those milliseconds...
-
I've been always wondering very same thing.
Like I click on a browser icon and it has to open under 3 seconds, or I'll die.
-
When it comes to browser speed i personally would like to know what everyone is gonna do with all those milliseconds...
+1
Right up there with how long it takes a computer to boot....
-
I usually power up...walk away and grab coffee...
I can honestly say i haven't actually watched my machine boot in over 2 years.
-
I have to say that my machine boots very long.....there you have it :)
I like to have loaded everything, I'm about to use :)
-
One particularly ridiculous "argument" for browser speed is the silly notion that if a browser loads a page a millisecond faster, that through some set of speculations somehow that makes you have a year of free time. That's utter nonsense since We don't actually get that "extra millisecond" every time; Nobody opens a web page and the moment anything is loaded start working or reading it, it takes a second or so to "adjust" to the layout; identify the content, etc.
If a Program procedure runs a millisecond faster, then that program will have a perceptive gain in "free time" after it's run as opposed to a slower version of the same; but people don't work like that. Time saved in a program loop is time that is then used on the next iteration, and so on. Time saved on a person's actions less then about 5 seconds or so never add up unless done repetively and one after the other. You don't constantly load the same page or different pages over and over; you are trying to get at the content, the content and the reading of said content is your "task" the computers task is to render that content. If the rendering takes a few milliseconds more or less, that doesn't translate into saved time on the part of the user.
I think I repeated myself twice there. That of course extends to other things. After all, with the boot time, if it takes three minutes, it's only three minutes "wasted" if you let it be; after all, you can do any number of other things while it boots in that three minutes. What is so bloody important that you have to sit there and wait for it to boot, and why was it not important enough for you to have prepared and had the machine ready "in time"?
-
so-so,doesn't worthy having a try.
-
so-so,doesn't worthy having a try.
Sure...i agree 100%
-
I have to say that my machine boots very long.....there you have it :)
I like to have loaded everything, I'm about to use :)
Same here.
-
...and my Firefox startup time must be close to 1 minute....I love add-ons :)
-
I've found that when I'm reporting large numbers of newsgroups spam posts mostly from Google Groups, switching from one browser to another often persuades their software to let me report more of them after deciding that I'm reporting them too fast to be a human.
Back to Firefox 4 beta - where can I find a way to install it on the same computer as Firefox 3.6.*, without having one of them interfere with the other?
-
Back to Firefox 4 beta - where can I find a way to install it on the same computer as Firefox 3.6.*, without having one of them interfere with the other?
http://superuser.com/questions/160986/install-firefox-4-beta-alongside-firefox-3-6
I'm going to try this over the next few days
-
Portable version (4.0 beta 12 at time of posting)
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable/test
-
I installed Firefox 4 beta in Ubuntu running as a virtual machine. In Ubuntu, this browser is named Minefield. So, it seems much like Firefox 3.6.xx. I still have Firefox 3.6.14 in Ubuntu.
-
In Ubuntu, this browser is named Minefield.
no. Minefield is the name for the 64-bit build. It's also on other platforms.
The only "rebranded" version of Firefox I know of is "iceweasel" for stupid reasons.
-
In Ubuntu, this browser is named Minefield. So, it seems much like Firefox 3.6.xx. I still have Firefox 3.6.14 in Ubuntu.
I believe Minefield is always the bleeding-edge (alpha) version. At the moment 4.0.12 is the stable beta, 4.0.13 is the Minefield alpha release, described by Mozilla as potentially buggy and slow.
-
no. Minefield is the name for the 64-bit build. It's also on other platforms.
The only "rebranded" version of Firefox I know of is "iceweasel" for stupid reasons.
Isn't Seamonkey also a rebranded FF? And isn't Minefield the bleeding-edge alpha? I'm confused.
-
RC is available already: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/4.0rc1-candidates/build1/win32/en-US/
-
I believe Minefield is always the bleeding-edge (alpha) version. At the moment 4.0.12 is the stable beta, 4.0.13 is the Minefield alpha release, described by Mozilla as potentially buggy and slow.
Isn't Seamonkey also a rebranded FF? And isn't Minefield the bleeding-edge alpha? I'm confused.
It all starts with the netscape source release.
that source became Seamonkey; firefox was the result of turning seamonkey into a web browser rather then an integrated package (like netscape with all it's various bells and whistles). As far as I know Minefield is the 64-bit build of Firefox... anyway, Firefox and Seaweasel are certainly times of the same fork.
Quick google reveals that minefield also has 32-bit versions, and looks more like it is in fact a alpha of firefox, why they wouldn't just call it "Firefox Alpha Version whatever" is beyond me.
Also, why is it that they make 64-bit builds of prerelease code but ones it is in firefox they sort of push it aside and never actually build 64-bit? I mean, that just confuses people like me who like to pretend to know things.
-
I believe Minefield is always the bleeding-edge (alpha) version. At the moment 4.0.12 is the stable beta, 4.0.13 is the Minefield alpha release, described by Mozilla as potentially buggy and slow.
Yeah, I believe you're correct. I wasn't paying close enough attention to what I was downloading. Indeed, I do have 4.0.13.