2997 replies to this topic 23 votes

[amon91]

erm , yeah ie9 is faster coz of dropping support for xp and not coz of some chakra (or dead code elimination ) , so yeah xp is the one to blame



Some new stuff regrading the branches

They even made the nightly/beta builds look good. Does it work with channels now, just like Chrome?

[vajlent]

They even made the nightly/beta builds look good. Does it work with channels now, just like Chrome?

Mine haven't changed like that yet?

[bogas04]

Mine haven't changed like that yet?

those are just mockups posted by stephen in bug 649480

clearly it has new navbar buttons , and different navbar background colours , and new site identification labels.

[Frylock86]

erm , yeah ie9 is faster coz of dropping support for xp and not coz of some chakra (or dead code elimination ) , so yeah xp is the one to blame

Maybe not XP so much, but supporting 2K is silly. There's dead code right there. XP won't be far behind.

But te new builds look nice

[Samurizer]

Firefox is coming to getcha, Chrome!

Until they offer extensions updates for non-stable releases and fix their terrible project management at AMO, no.

[bogas04]

Maybe not XP so much, but supporting 2K is silly. There's dead code right there. XP won't be far behind.

But te new builds look nice

yeah they do!
but , 2k is legacy , i agree but not xp , people with 512mb ram are still out there , even i was 2 years back i guess, xp does need a faster browser , which microsoft fails to provide , not even that , 64bit versions of windows too need a fast browser which again microsoft fails to provide , i find them really incompetent , they created a browser for mere 2 versions of windows

Until they offer extensions updates for non-stable releases and fix their terrible project management at AMO, no.

extension compatibility will be bumped automatically with newer releases UNLESS they are found incompatible with certain feature , thats what i heard , so i dont think that will be a problem , and give addon makers some time, firefox 4.0 isn't even 1 month old


btw i have filed this bug , anyone interested to help me voice it to developers?

[Frylock86]

True, but x64 browsers ATM, aren't ready for primetime yet. They're kinda like Office x64, nice to have, but not really needed by 99.9% of users.

That said, I hope IE10 x64 has the new JS engine IE9 x86 has.

[The_Decryptor]

Nice to see that once again Firefox is becoming primarily a Windows browser with Mac and Linux users supported by accident rather than actually deliberately designing for the platform. Promises of OpenGL accelerated layers in Firefox 5.0 and low and behold they've failed to deliver - why aren't I surprised.

As I said in the last thread, Firefox supports OpenGL layers on OS X and has since last year (it's enabled by default in Firefox 4 and 5!)

They explicitly don't support it on 10.5 due to bugs in the underlying OS, those bugs have been fixed with 10.6(.2) though.

[Samurizer]

extension compatibility will be bumped automatically with newer releases UNLESS they are found incompatible with certain feature , thats what i heard , so i dont think that will be a problem

Right, so instead of a month for good add-ons to get approved, it'll take a month for bugged add-ons that crash the browser and break features to get blacklisted.

Personally I don't see that as an improvement, but meh.

and give addon makers some time, firefox 4.0 isn't even 1 month old

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in empathizing with Mozilla and/or add-on developers. If it can't be ensured that the extensions I want be ready to use when the browser goes stable, that counts as a black mark against the product as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, the current problem isn't with add-on devs, it's mostly with Mozilla's horrible project management. Four weeks (and more) for an add-on to make it through the review queue? That's bloody ridiculous.

In the case of non-stable builds: again, no automatic extension updates unless specifically marked as compatible with Nightly/Aurora/Beta/whatever, which most extensions aren't. Until this changes, Firefox pre-release channels aren't for me.

[OuchOfDeath]

A fast, slim browser.

Dropping XP support had nothing to do with making it fast or slim. The only reason why IE9 is good now is because Microsoft coded it properly. Microsoft could have easily released a version of the browser for XP, (though it wouldn't use the specific GPU accell APIs Microsoft touts since they're not there in XP), and it would be just as slim and fast as it is on Vista/7. Your code does not magically become better when you "remove support" for an earlier OS version. Good code is good code no matter where it runs, and XP is very well capable of running any program out there.

[Chasethebase]

erm , yeah ie9 is faster coz of dropping support for xp and not coz of some chakra (or dead code elimination ) , so yeah xp is the one to blame



Some new stuff regrading the branches

Which build has this rolled out to? Or has it not rolled out yet, Aurora's current build is not updated with this UI yet, and it looks more refined than current builds.

[bogas04]

Which build has this rolled out to? Or has it not rolled out yet, Aurora's current build is not updated with this UI yet, and it looks more refined than current builds.

it is JUST A MOCKUP , and tracking bug for it is : https://bugzilla.moz...g.cgi?id=649480

[Audioboxer]

Does this mean there is two sets of nightlies now, one set for Firefox 5.0 and one set for Firefox 6.0?

I'm getting a bit confused

[bogas04]

Does this mean there is two sets of nightlies now, one set for Firefox 5.0 and one set for Firefox 6.0?

I'm getting a bit confused

No . Nightly now = Firefox 6.0a1pre(dated 13 april) , Aurora = Firefox 5.0 , but yeah for time being we have 4.2(dated 12 april) in trunk folder

[Audioboxer]

No . Nightly now = Firefox 6.0a1pre(dated 13 april) , Aurora = Firefox 5.0 , but yeah for time being we have 4.2(dated 12 april) in trunk folder

Okay, thanks for clearing that up!