Mozilla Delays 3.1 Release, Adds Another Beta to Schedule

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Thankful, Feb 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
  2. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    Well, hopefully beta 3 will be faster then 3.0 and it will be stable enough.
     
  3. raakii

    raakii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Unless Mozilla is as fast as opera , it will cannot be called as the best. Developers should note this fact while updating it.
     
  4. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    That's opinion. Why would the devs need to note anything? Opera is barely on the radar of people outside of Europe, and even there it isn't a dominating force such as IE was. Opera has more going against it than for it, including lack of users, options that supposedly make Firefox extensions not needed, but in reality don't come close to the usability of the good extensions and, to boot, are deep within Operas preference settings, which doesn't make for "average joe" ease of use.
     
  5. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
  6. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Something doesn't have to be "the best" to be useful or desirable. Often there are many things which are good for different reasons. An obsession with "the best" isn't always the answer....
     
  7. ThunderZ

    ThunderZ Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,459
    Location:
    North central Ohio, U.S.A.

    Very well said.

    With all the differing opinions and needs of the individual it should come down to what is best for you. Not what usage statistics say.

    To be in a constant search for "the best" would leave one in a constant state of change. Not necessarily a bad thing. But not for everyone....myself included.
     
  8. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    A number of off-topic posts removed.

    Folks - time to grow up.

    Blue
     
  9. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I will upgrade to Firefox 3.1 when it goes GA and when the add-ons I utilize are compatible. Unless all the add-ons are compatible first, then I may install a beta or RC version. I tried an earlier beta, but did not keep it installed.

    In the meantime, Firefox 3.0.7 is due out March 4th and Firefox 3.0.8 on April 14th.
     
  10. raakii

    raakii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593

    Speed is wat stands between Mozilla being a good browser and a great browser.No browser can match its addons in the near future.Opera or chrome does not come equal to firefox.But for simple browsing opera is better and faster.

    So many updates I and many others find mozilla is slow this is a hard truth.Mozilla even without a single addon , will take lots of memory and huge cold boot time.Its "obsession " of addons has made it compromise on speed.

    IF devsdont take care of this issue , Chrome will beat all these browsers IMHO sooner than later.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  11. yashau

    yashau Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Posts:
    151
    Erm,

    http://www.oxymoronical.com/web/firefox/nightly

    ;)
     
  12. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    From a cold start, Firefox may not be as fast as other browsers. However, this doesn't really matter that much since the difference is not that significant (~1s vs ~4s). Of course, I keep my computer in top shape, so that could be a deciding factor. With regards to the memory used, the amount Firefox consumes in a given session varies depending on how many addons are installed/loaded and the type of websites a user visits. However, the new garbage collector is pretty efficient at cleaning up the mess that is left behind after an extended browsing session.

    Chrome is far from overtaking Firefox (and other browsers). It's not very flexible and still has lots of bugs that are yet to be fixed. I know that the developers are working hard to polish Chrome as much as possible, but it'll take a while before they get a reasonable share of the browser market.
     
  13. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Posts:
    4,186
    Location:
    USA
    FF really has to address the long cold boot time. Mine is about 17 seconds. If I run FF sandboxed, it's about 27 seconds. Once it's loaded, it's as fast as you can blink. I have disabled the 6 extensions I'm using, with no change. I've cleared the cache, and the accumulated cookies with no change. I'm not going to switch to Opera or Chrome, just to get a shorter cold boot time, but if they can do it why can't FF? :(
     
  14. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
  15. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I just timed Firefox 3.0.6 on my Windows Vista Home Premium (SP1) PC. From a click on the Windows Toolbar icon until fully up and functional: 4 seconds.

    This is with 18 add-on extensions, 6 add-on plug-ins (including the default plug-in and counting the 2 Java plug-ins separately), and 4 themes (including the default theme).

    Seems perfectly OK to me. :D
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  16. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I just installed Opera 9.63 (standard install) for a comparison timing. From a click on the Windows Toolbar icon until fully up and functional: 3 seconds.

    This, of course, was bare bones; without any gadgets or customizations.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  17. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    That is an unusually long time for a cold start (I'd say, not normal). Mine, on average, takes around 4 seconds. You might want to reevaluate your system to see if there are potential conflicts.
     
  18. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Yeah, I agree, I'd say there's something else going on there...
     
  19. yashau

    yashau Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Posts:
    151
    You misunderstood what I was trying to tell you. It's an addon called Nightly Tester Tools which overrides addon compatibilty + some other useful features for the beta/nightly testers. I use Firefox 3.1b2 myself with almost 30 addons with some of them that wont install on 3.0.0 as they're so old. :)
     
  20. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Not at all. I understood. If I were actually testing I would go ahead and force add-on compatibility; however, I am not testing: I am using Firefox as a production tool.
     
  21. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,214
    I also think it is too long to be considered normal. My Firefox starts cold in 4 seconds in shadow mode, still very slow compared to Google Chrome, less than 1/4 of a second cold, almost instantaneous after that.
     
  22. raakii

    raakii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    For any other bowser to match Firefox it will obviously take time because of the standards it has set.I think chrome has the ability bcos of its google dev support.

    I am using opera for nomal browsing and Mozilla too if i need addons or in case opera doesnt load it porperly.

    Cold boot time and heavy weightness , this is inherent problem of firefox.In case we use firefox sandboxed , it takes so long that , we forget when we clicked the firefox icon .:shifty:

    I like oper more than chrome bcos it has many buily in features , like block content, wand , imglikeopera,fastdial.I still dont know why still ad-block plus is an addon for Mozilla , as i expect it to be inbuilt.
    Another issue is firefox slow tab restore on crash when compared to opera.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
  23. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    Hello raakii,
    theere is a reason ad-block plus isnt bultin to firefox.
    just think if you have a website that makes money from adverts and someone uses a browser that has a bultin adblocker you will lose alot of money.
    so if firefox did that webmaster would simply block firefox from accessing their website.

    thats why opera was very careful when inplementing the content blocker.
     
  24. raakii

    raakii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    But chrome has a excellent builtin adblocker:blink:
     
  25. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Posts:
    4,186
    Location:
    USA
    I just found the problem. If I click EXIT Sandboxie in the system tray menu, before I attempt to load Firefox, then click the FF icon to access it, it takes 4 seconds every time. Then if I access FF sandboxed it takes 27 seconds, and as long as Sandboxie is active, even accessing FF unsandboxed takes 17 seconds.
    I informed the SBie forum, but haven't received a response as yet. :(
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.