

Firefox 4 Beta 8 has been released - ahalam
https://www.mozilla.com/firefox/4.0b8/releasenotes/
Has the JägerMonkey, hardware accelerated rendering, HSTS protocol support, better web font support, etc.
======
rdoherty
Even more impressive is their HTML5, WebGL, audio and video demo linked to in
the post:

[http://videos-cdn.mozilla.net/serv/mozhacks/flight-of-the-
na...](http://videos-cdn.mozilla.net/serv/mozhacks/flight-of-the-navigator/)

~~~
natmaster
View this demo in Firefox 4, then view IE9's demo in IE9:
[http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/Galactic/Defau...](http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/Galactic/Default.html)

These demos really demonstrates the difference between Firefox 4 and IE9.

~~~
code_duck
Great test. I don't have IE9 (since I need IE8 for testing, and MS still
hasn't figured out how/conjured the will to make IE work like a normal
application), but it's interesting to compare FF4 and Chrome. The performance
looked about equivalent between the 2. Neither reports a framerate, so not
sure about the exact numbers.

~~~
Athtar
Just a FYI - You can uninstall IE9 from your computer. It's not listed in the
Add/Remove Programs list but you can find it under the "Installed Updates"
list.

~~~
code_duck
And everything truly reverts to the same as it was before, Vista with IE7
upgraded to IE8? I'm (understandably in my opinion) a bit wary. I need to test
websites on a normal installation of IE8. IE often has odd little details that
make one machine act different from another once you start changing things.

------
there
the thing that keeps me using firefox, yet prevents me from using the new beta
releases, is extensions.

i have a lot of extensions that i use on a daily basis and yet only about half
of them work with firefox 4 so far. some probably don't even require any code
changes other than bumping up the version marker that lets firefox install it
on a new version, but a lot of extension developers seem to wait until
releases are stable before testing and updating.

~~~
patrickaljord
[http://dotnetwizard.net/soft-
apps/firefox-3-beta-4-disabling...](http://dotnetwizard.net/soft-
apps/firefox-3-beta-4-disabling-extension-compatibility-check/)

~~~
cookiecaper
The correct way to do this is to install Mozilla's Add-on Compatibility
Reporter. It lets you selectively disable and report those add-ons that aren't
working correctly on new versions.

~~~
rdoherty
Link to Add-on Compatibility Reporter: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/15003>

------
mberning
Terrible usability issues on Win7. Almost all of the menus have a problem with
flickering and/or disappearing elements.

~~~
sid0
Are your graphics drivers up-to-date?

edit: to add, I'm on 64-bit Win7 too -- I've been using nightlies for over a
year and haven't seen anything of this sort.

~~~
p0nce
It's not always safer to be up-to-date with graphics drivers.

------
latif
Firefox 4 is a memory hog compared to Firefox 3.6. Worse, it leaks memory like
a sieve. After a bit of browsing, it is using 350 MB with just a single tab
open. Firefox 3.6 uses half that much memory on the same machine.

~~~
thristian
The other day, I discovered a Firefox nightly using a gig and a half of memory
after some light browsing; after some investigation it turned out that had a
few hundred meg allocated immediately after startup (having loaded only
about:mozilla) and it allocated a few hundred more when I opened and
immediately closed the bookmarks and history menus.

Turns out, in Safe Mode it was perfectly well behaved, and after hitting the
'reset all preferences to defaults' button, Firefox not only takes less
memory, but is snappier too.

------
fletchowns
Installed Firefox 4 Beta 8 on my Windows 7 32 bit machine. Went to the demo
page, waited for it to load, hit the start button, and my machine immediately
crashed (black screen, no hdd activity, not responsive). Rebooted, tried to
load random page from my bookmarks, crashed again. Fortunately that time it
didn't take my whole computer with it. Guess I'll try again in a few weeks?

~~~
kinetik
Try updating your video drivers, that sounds like a crash caused by exercising
hardware acceleration.

------
danielrm26
I don't mean to be "that guy", but how is anyone seriously enthused about
Firefox anymore when Chrome is on the scene?

I love and respect Firefox for showing the world there was a better way. But
they are the Freud to a much more mature approach at this point.

I can't use Firefox without wanting to injure myself within five minutes. It
is dead to me.

~~~
sid0
Chrome is a closed-source browser with a rigid failure of a UI and a sync
feature that hands over all my bookmarks and history to Google. I can't even
move the buttons around -- what a joke. How any privacy-conscious person can
use Chrome is beyond me.

~~~
mootothemax
_I can't even move the buttons around_

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Firefox won't let you separate the
back and forwards buttons, is that also a "rigid failure" in UI design?

~~~
sid0
I want to move the refresh button to the right of the address bar, since
that's what I'm used to. I can't.

Back/forward together makes sense. Refresh next to back/forward isn't any
better or worse than refresh to the right of the address bar, so it comes down
to personal taste -- Chrome imposes its own taste upon me, while Firefox is
happy to let me decide.

------
freyrs3
The beta does not play well with XMonad, seems to have quite a few focus
issues.

~~~
code_duck
Unfortunately I've had that problem with a lot of cross-platform software on
Linux lately. Chrome, for instance, doesn't seem to be made with the idea in
mind that people might use window managers other than Gnome, or might have
settings other than the default chosen for certain behaviors. For instance,
double clicking the title bar maximizes the Chrome window - though I have that
set to a shade action. There are a few other issues, too, so it's not
surprising to me that there are problems with a WM they've probably never
tested such as xmonad.

~~~
thristian
That sounds like fun with Chrome's window-manager emulation. It behaves a lot
more respectably when you go Settings → Personal Stuff → Appearance and choose
"Use system title bar and borders".

~~~
code_duck
I've tried that too earlier, but it seemed to trigger a couple of other bugs -
getting the mouse 'stuck' on the title area, for one. This was many months
ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's totally fixed by now.

------
rorrr
Beta 8 was released a week ago. Beta 9 is available now:

[http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/lates...](http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-
trunk/)

I tested beta 8 a few days ago, it was still twice as slow as Chrome 8
(Sunspider benchmark).

~~~
sayrer
(I work on Firefox)

Beta 9 is not available. You are linking to nightly builds that will
eventually become Beta 9.

That SunSpider score vs Chrome is nigh impossible in the default
configuration. Maybe you have Firebug turned on? I'd expect the Firefox
SunSpider score vs. Chrome to be very close, with the winner varying depending
on the machine, OS, and release channel.

------
ezy
Flash video crashes constantly and it still doesn't work with netflix. Who
cares about crappy 90's style GL demos? SOmehow, it seems priorities aren't
quite right at mozilla, IMO.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of software development.

There is a stable version of Firefox (version 3.6), you can download it at
<http://www.mozilla.org/firefox/>. Mozilla is also adding new features to
Firefox in an effort to enable web developers to do new things in new ways.
Development and stabilization of these new features is ongoing, which is why
it's restricted to a _beta_ program in the _next_ version.

What would you prefer? That Mozilla abandon innovation completely and
concentrate utterly on stability? That you not be allowed to participate in
beta testing the next version of the browser? If you don't want to _test_
Firefox's new features in the _unstable_ version then perhaps you can avoid
running the beta and just stick with the older version.

~~~
ezy
This made me laugh, WTF does "purpose of software development" actually mean?
That phrase is itself a misunderstanding waiting to happen. :-)

Yeah... Ok, I probably deserved a bit of a snarky reply -- I missed the 32-bit
requirement for silverlight in the release notes (apparently their sandboxing
for 64bit is broken). Just for that oversight, I'll take my lumps.

I do think, however, that you're thinking in a binary way about this. It's
possible to add new features and fix bugs at the same time, ya know. It's
possible to prioritize stuff even in a beta... you don't just pile on the
shiny new because you slapped a "beta" sticker on it.

It's a beta release, not an alpha, and the _eighth_ beta release. Right on the
durn frontpage is says it should be stable enough for normal use in most
cases. I would classify _youtube_ as one of those cases.

As soon as the 7th release came out, it was broken in an obvious way vis a vis
youtube video on some platforms. They had months to fix it. Mozilla obviously
decided that WebGL bling was more important...

...and that's fine, they can do what they want and yes, it's a beta release
and webgl is cool, but I still think their priorities are screwed up.

~~~
code_duck
Okay, so it sounds like you misunderstand the _process_ of software
development.

You can't completely rewrite various subsystems for performance and fix bugs
at the same time. There is more going on than just 'adding new features'. New
software is bound to be unstable while it is in development. If you have a
problem with this, do not download beta versions.

Personally, I haven't had any issues at all with stability or compatibility on
Beta 6 or 7 (on Linux).

~~~
ezy
(Since I don't particularly care about my karma at the moment, I guess I'll
continue beating this dead horse :-))

And here's my snarky rejoinder: Hey look! There are bug fixes _and_ new
features in the latest beta. How did they do that? Perhaps they misunderstand
the software development process!

What you have described is some ideal model of the development process based
on something you think should happen. It doesn't exist, and it doesn't happen
that way.

No one is reading what I wrote: their _priority_ is messed up (in my opinion).
Software development is very much about priorities.

You can decide that youtube functionality might be important for mac users for
them to _even continue testing the beta_ (e.g. no they(I) aren't(am not) going
to keep launching another browser for every you tube video when they could
just use safari). Or you can decide WebGL and audio (audio? really?) bling
which a precious few will be using even in a year, is somehow more important.

~~~
eitally
I think their priority right now is to not fall so far behind Chrome that
catching up becomes a serious challenge.

