Brothersoft: Firefox 4 - a Refreshing New Breed

Finally, Mozilla Firefox 4 has been released for the Microsoft Windows, Mac and Linux systems and is available in 81 languages with the codename Tumucumaque, and has been confirmed as the last big release cycle Mozilla will do. The Mozilla team will instead opt for smaller and quicker releases as other browser vendors have been doing. The primary goals for this upgrade include improvements in performance, standards support, and the user interface.

Mozilla Firefox 4 includes many new features since version 3.6, and the first thing the users will see in their eyes, is a brand new user interface with a similar look as Chrome. New features include improved “doorhanger” notifications, Firefox Panorama, application tabs, a redesigned extension manager, Jetpack extensions support, integration with Firefox Sync, and support for multitouch displays. Many changes were made to the user interface. By default, tabs are now on the top of the window. The “stop” “refresh” and “go” buttons have been combined into a single button, placed on the right side of the address bar. The button dynamically changes based on the current state of the page. On Windows Vista and Windows 7, the menu bar is hidden by default with the most common actions moved to a new “Firefox” menu in the upper left hand corner of the browser (similar to the menu button found in Opera). Users can create persistent “app tabs”, and customize the tab bar, as well as the bookmark and navigation bars.

Firefox 4 has definitely learnt from the Chrome on at least two new features: There is a new add-ons manager. The usual add-ons window now opens a separate tab in the browser window which give more space to manage the various add-ons, themes and plugins. Firefox 4 also includes a simpler process for add-on developers. They can now develop add-ons that don’t require a restart when they are installed. There is also experimental support for the JetPack software development kit which makes it faster and easier to develop new add-ons.  Currently, more than 70 percent of its add-ons are now compatible with Firefox 4. As another important new feature for Firefox 4, Sync allows you to synchronize your settings, passwords, bookmarks, history, open tabs and other customizations across multiple devices so you can take Firefox with you wherever you go.

Firefox 4 also includes the new open source WebM multimedia format which includes the ability to play HD video natively in the browser. This is also part of the HTML5 video specification which means it is possible to embed video in a web page without needing Adobe’s Flash player. If you are a die-hard Firefox user, you may have found out that the browser has a very annoying method of handling crashes. For solving this problem, Firefox 4 features Crash Protection to deal with the growing popularity of web applications. This means that each open application, or tab, is run as a separate process. If one plugin or application freezes or crashes, that tab can be closed and the other open tabs are not affected. The updated browser also includes a “do not track” option. The “Advanced” screen in Firefox Options will now include a box that, when checked, tells Web sites that you want to opt-out of tracking used for behavioral advertising. Mozilla added the feature to a pre-build version of Firefox in January, and added it to the beta in February.

Aside from HTML5 support which will offer some performance improvements Firefox 4 also includes the JägerMonkey javascript engine which is starting to make some significant speed improvements. Firefox 4 contains huge performance enhancements, including brand new JägerMonkey JavaScript engine. JägerMonkey is a new JavaScript engine, designed to work alongside the TraceMonkey engine introduced with Firefox 3.5. It improves performance by compiling “non-traceable” JavaScript into machine language for faster execution. From faster start up times and graphics rendering to improved page load speed, you’ll notice the difference instantly. Firefox 4 has marked a major change in performance in comparison to former versions 3.6 and 3.5. The browser has made significant progress in Sunspider JavaScript tests as well as improvements in supporting HTML5. Since Firefox 4.0 Beta 5, hardware acceleration is enabled by default on Windows Vista and Windows 7 machines using Direct2D. Using hardware acceleration allows the browser to tap into the computer’s graphics processing unit, lifting the burden from the CPU. This allows pages to be rendered much faster.

These articles are brought to you in partnership with Brothersoft.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Netflix is currently offline [Update] it's back

Next Story

George lies about having a PSN account [Update]

80 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Totalaero said,
You all must Remember, Firefox 4 has Hardware Acceleration Turned On so it will always use more Memory Than the 3.6 Firefox

Hardware acceleration should have little bearing on memory usage, if any. They are using Direct2D in place of GDI for rendering directly to the DWM composer. This doesn't cost more memory.

I have 10 tabs opened, in minefield/FF4 64bit on windows 7 professional 64bit 8gb Ram AMD phenom II x6 and CPU usage is 2 and memory usage is 655,436k (655mb). Chrome Canary 12.x , with same tabs stand at about 295mb.

so we arn't alowed to say we think FF is behind chrome now? I don't know who keeps deleting my comments saying this but gawd, let us have our opinnion

neufuse said,
so we arn't alowed to say we think FF is behind chrome now? I don't know who keeps deleting my comments saying this but gawd, let us have our opinnion

dont worry, there is no chance that chrome will get bigger than firefox, they can be equal rivals, while the internet suxploder suffers from them, but chrome wont be bigger, i dont see how

neufuse said,
so we arn't alowed to say we think FF is behind chrome now? I don't know who keeps deleting my comments saying this but gawd, let us have our opinnion

I was having problems yesterday with my posts not showing up in IE9. I also thought they were being deleted but then I opened the page in Firefox and there they all were. I don't know if it's a forum issue or what.

neufuse said,
so we arn't alowed to say we think FF is behind chrome now? I don't know who keeps deleting my comments saying this but gawd, let us have our opinnion

Lol. Well, I see all your comments. Maybe it is time for a new web browser....

Firefox 4 has definitely learnt from the Chrome on at least two new features:

Which Chrome learnt from IE, where these originated.

I honestly wonder if some people build actual shrines to Chrome and Google in their yard. If you are going to stroke a product or company, you might want to do some fact checking.

thenetavenger said,

Which Chrome learnt from IE, where these originated.

I honestly wonder if some people build actual shrines to Chrome and Google in their yard. If you are going to stroke a product or company, you might want to do some fact checking.

exactly, firefox was the luke skywalker of browsers who first opposed ie, the darth vader of browsers and firefox has more users than chrome and now that 4 is out, they will get some users back from chrome and will get more from ie, while chrome can only get users from ie now, and the only good thing about chrome that i like is that it helps firefox defeat internet explorer, i wish ie could be brought to crawl... that would be the best

allwynd said,

exactly, firefox was the luke skywalker of browsers who first opposed ie, the darth vader of browsers and firefox has more users than chrome and now that 4 is out, they will get some users back from chrome and will get more from ie, while chrome can only get users from ie now, and the only good thing about chrome that i like is that it helps firefox defeat internet explorer, i wish ie could be brought to crawl... that would be the best

Firefox is moving in the right direction again. Their time licking up money from Google several years ago was a major mistake, and they need to recover. Google gave them a song and a dance and some cash, but it was not worth the Vampiric relationship where Google not only shoved the product in a different direction, but also used that time to suck a lot of information and braintrust so that they could pick up WebKit, slap on their name and cater to the minimalist users, all which collecting even more information on the users.

Firefox was smart to hit back by using Direct2D on Windows Vista and 7, where in the past they might have rejected the technology since it was very platform specific.

Now they need to move forward and keep focus on the Windows users, without harming their product on other OSes.

There is a lot more they can be doing with GPU assistance like the IE9 team is doing. IE9 also uses Direct2D, but this just speeds up rendering. IE9 also takes advantage of DX10 and DX11 specific technologies like DirectCompute, so not only are they using Direct2D for 3D assisted rendering, they are also shoving code through the GPU for general processing. IE9 is also more layered allowing it to shove code to the GPU/CPU and multi-CPU Cores/Processors by using Async mechanisms.

This is where you see some good products competing again. Sadly I see Google doing their own thing without regard to their users, or the internet ecosystem, let alone competing by shoving out legitimate new technologies or use of technologies.

i Just switched to Firefox 4.... I have no idea why..but i felt comfortable using it.. I don't seem to be having any memory issues.. atleast not yet.. lol ...nywys.. i'm really liking the new firefox.

alright, so I posted a couple comments about how this is too little to late compared to chrome's movement, and everyone got deleted, whats up with that?

I've been using FF4 since the RC came out and have had no problems whatsoever, Admittedly the beta's were very problematic but well that's the whole point in beta's? All the problems have been fixed i don't have any personal issues with font rendering. Don't understand why people complain about the new UI when you can customize it to how you like it. It seems slightly slower than chrome but its hardly noticeable, I'll be sticking with firefox i think mozilla has done a good job considering all the criticism it was getting by impatient people.

Just to give them something to count, I downloaded this thing twice yesterday. Forgot to install it on the first machine I downloaded it on.

Installed it on second machine and this thing is a total POS!! While I was typing a reply to one of the stories about this fantastic release in a different article here, the cursor was lagging so far behind what I was typing, I thought I was on a REAL bad acid trip!!

Maybe they should've released this thing a long time ago instead of doing so much testing?!

Uninstalled it from that one machine after typing that one message. Hopefully, Mozilla doesn't screw up my Seamonkey like they did Firefox. Of course, I NEVER have liked Firefox anyway, but am willing to give it a fair trial.

Not sure why people have so many problems with Firefox 4, but it's running like a champ on both my laptop 32-bit and desktop 64-bit. I can't but help give kudos to Mozilla for this browser. I have no problems going to websites, the speed, the layout, nothing... nothing at all to bitch about.

Amodin said,
Not sure why people have so many problems with Firefox 4, but it's running like a champ on both my laptop 32-bit and desktop 64-bit. I can't but help give kudos to Mozilla for this browser. I have no problems going to websites, the speed, the layout, nothing... nothing at all to bitch about.

agree... maybe only opera can give me the features, customization, and a better browser experience without sacrifices, without forced changes with UI and a good acceptable performance

Amodin said,
Not sure why people have so many problems with Firefox 4, but it's running like a champ on both my laptop 32-bit and desktop 64-bit. I can't but help give kudos to Mozilla for this browser. I have no problems going to websites, the speed, the layout, nothing... nothing at all to bitch about.

I can't login to neowin with FF4. The browser hangs on "Loading...."

I've been waiting a long time for this. Very happy with Firefox 4 on Mac. Performance increases with rendering are noticeable.

Firefox is awesome. So awesome that I am already using IE9.

The current state of FF simply isn't good compared to the other browsers.

KavazovAngel said,
Firefox is awesome. So awesome that I am already using IE9.

The current state of FF simply isn't good compared to the other browsers.

and how exactly did you reach that conclusion? even maxthon 3 is better than IE9

neufuse said,
seems like too little to late at this point, Chrome seems to of overtaken FF

That's funny, I was under the impression that 21% marketshare was BIGGER than 10%.

Silly me.

neufuse said,
seems like too little to late at this point, Chrome seems to of overtaken FF

I'll never use chrome while they continue to have bloatware and extra services install when you install the browser. I do not need an updater service and 2 processes running for chrome even when I'm not using chrome.

Tried chronium which does not have the bloatware and that blew up trying to import my bookmarks.

Chrome is not the end all be all I'd rather use opera than chrome.

kenboldt said,

That's funny, I was under the impression that 21% marketshare was BIGGER than 10%.

Silly me.

ugh I forgot to write in speed / codeing not market share, darn comments were deleted 5 times now I forgot to write that

very impressed...i'm on mac and it's really speedy...from cold start just opens instantaneously my default 4 tabs...and you can customize toolbars the way you want, so no problem with position of buttons or else. i think they should added speed dial.
i will test it more and maybe i'll ditch chrome

quirkatron said,
is there a way to hide favicons in the bookmarks under the address bar?

I don't know, but might I ask why you would want to do this? Personally, I go the opposite way, I have my bookmarks bar filled with favicons only with no text. My eyes can recognize a colour and shape much quicker than a full word or phrase, plus it is more space efficient so I can have more bookmarks on there.

ArsalanAly said,
well i like FF4.0 but i swap to IE 9 becoz of FF 4 startup time it's really matters to, it takes 5 sec... ehhhh

May I ask what you used before FF4 or IE9 were released? And how many tabs have you got open?
I have 44 tabs open now and FF4 launches the second after I click the icon, big improvement over 3.6 which could probably take half a minute or so.

ArsalanAly said,
well i like FF4.0 but i swap to IE 9 becoz of FF 4 startup time it's really matters to, it takes 5 sec... ehhhh

May I ask what you used before FF4 or IE9 were released? And how many tabs have you got open?
I have 44 tabs open now and FF4 launches the second after I click the icon, big improvement over 3.6 which could probably take half a minute or so.

I've switched from Chrome. Personally I like it. Chrome does still feel faster though. Rendering and for generally opening. I guess your talking milliseconds though.

Still, its good to be back on Firefox.

SK[ said,]I've switched from Chrome. Personally I like it. Chrome does still feel faster though. Rendering and for generally opening. I guess your talking milliseconds though.

Still, its good to be back on Firefox.

yeah, that's my general point about Chrome... it might be faster on paper but in real world it's negligible differences. even if it was 1/4th a second or so it's not enough to pull me away from Firefox 4 which i think feels overall smoother than Chrome and generally seems more memory efficient.

I really like it.

I use LogMeIn alot and its worth putting a congrats to the LogMeIn Team who have already released an updated extension just for FF4. (Fx4 for the no believers!)

I do have ONE gripe... from double clicking the firefox shortcut, it still takes around 4 seconds to open, just like 3.6 did. Its no faster, no my system anyway....

Firefox 4 also includes the JägerMonkey javascript engine which is starting to make some significant speed improvements. Firefox 4 contains huge performance enhancements, including brand new JägerMonkey JavaScript engine. JägerMonkey is a new JavaScript engine, designed to work alongside the TraceMonkey engine introduced with Firefox 3.5.

Ok, we get this JagerMonkey thing, no need to say it 3 times...

Does the memory usage being generally in the 150MB - 250MB really matter when most modern PCs have GBs of RAM? Memory usage at the moment with 4 tabs open and 8 add-ons installed is 180MB. My CPU usage for firefox.exe is very low still sitting at 2% whilst being used. (PC Spec - Intel Core2Quad Q6600 - 8GB RAM)

Zoom7000 said,
Does the memory usage being generally in the 150MB - 250MB really matter when most modern PCs have GBs of RAM? Memory usage at the moment with 4 tabs open and 8 add-ons installed is 180MB. My CPU usage for firefox.exe is very low still sitting at 2% whilst being used. (PC Spec - Intel Core2Quad Q6600 - 8GB RAM)

Yes it does matter. Not everyone has 8GB. Consider netbooks especially which usually have between 512 and 1Gb ram. Its a LOT.

mileshale said,

Yes it does matter. Not everyone has 8GB. Consider netbooks especially which usually have between 512 and 1Gb ram. Its a LOT.


Fair point. I didn't consider the netbook side of things.

Zoom7000 said,
Does the memory usage being generally in the 150MB - 250MB really matter when most modern PCs have GBs of RAM? Memory usage at the moment with 4 tabs open and 8 add-ons installed is 180MB. My CPU usage for firefox.exe is very low still sitting at 2% whilst being used. (PC Spec - Intel Core2Quad Q6600 - 8GB RAM)

yeah it matters because there is still a lot of fairly modern PC's, like mine, that only have 2GB of RAM. if you got 4GB or more i suspect it won't be a issue but i think 8GB is pretty much overkill nowadays as i suspect going over 4GB is pretty much a waste of money in most cases since once you hit the 4GB of RAM barrier there is probably almost no benefit to going higher.

but i think nowadays it's getting to the point where 1GB is sort of the minimum you would need for decent performance on a modern-ish PC in general.

mileshale said,

Yes it does matter. Not everyone has 8GB. Consider netbooks especially which usually have between 512 and 1Gb ram. Its a LOT.


ThaCrip said,

yeah it matters because there is still a lot of fairly modern PC's, like mine, that only have 2GB of RAM. if you got 4GB or more i suspect it won't be a issue but i think 8GB is pretty much overkill nowadays as i suspect going over 4GB is pretty much a waste of money in most cases since once you hit the 4GB of RAM barrier there is probably almost no benefit to going higher.

but i think nowadays it's getting to the point where 1GB is sort of the minimum you would need for decent performance on a modern-ish PC in general.


Yea, under those circumstances it won't be allocated as much memory. In the case of a computer with low ram windows wont give individual programs as much memory, not that it's a problem as netbooks with their low ram tend to have most programs not currently used swapped down to the hard drive and brought back to ram when needed. The more ram, the program you are using can use the faster it will be as it won't have to wait for things loading form the harddrive.
Most people complaining about ram usage of anything never seem know how the OS works with the ram and why it's there.

My mother runs Firefox 3.6 on a netbook with 1gb of ram no problems there, in my experience ff3.6 hogs up more memory and is slower either way...

Also, mileshale, there are netbooks with only 512mb of ram? as far as i recall all in the first generation used 1gb of ram, newer netbooks are using 1-2gb. I can see maybe one of those early eee machines that were made before anyone ever used the term netbook having that little ram, but noone expects to actually be able to do anything with those...

And in the end, if FF4 would be a problem, stick with FF3.6. Just because your computer aren't moving with the times doesn't mean programs shouldn't.

Leonick said,

Yea, under those circumstances it won't be allocated as much memory. In the case of a computer with low ram windows wont give individual programs as much memory, not that it's a problem as netbooks with their low ram tend to have most programs not currently used swapped down to the hard drive and brought back to ram when needed. The more ram, the program you are using can use the faster it will be as it won't have to wait for things loading form the harddrive.
Most people complaining about ram usage of anything never seem know how the OS works with the ram and why it's there.

My mother runs Firefox 3.6 on a netbook with 1gb of ram no problems there, in my experience ff3.6 hogs up more memory and is slower either way...

Also, mileshale, there are netbooks with only 512mb of ram? as far as i recall all in the first generation used 1gb of ram, newer netbooks are using 1-2gb. I can see maybe one of those early eee machines that were made before anyone ever used the term netbook having that little ram, but noone expects to actually be able to do anything with those...

And in the end, if FF4 would be a problem, stick with FF3.6. Just because your computer aren't moving with the times doesn't mean programs shouldn't.

There are some cheap-o no-name China makes which have 512 RAM. Saw some in a shop the other day.

Leonick said,

Yea, under those circumstances it won't be allocated as much memory. In the case of a computer with low ram windows wont give individual programs as much memory, not that it's a problem as netbooks with their low ram tend to have most programs not currently used swapped down to the hard drive and brought back to ram when needed. The more ram, the program you are using can use the faster it will be as it won't have to wait for things loading form the harddrive.
Most people complaining about ram usage of anything never seem know how the OS works with the ram and why it's there.

i agree with you as i been noticing that lately. like some of my lesser used programs are dead low on RAM use in task manager. (like less than 1MB of memory and many are under a half MB)

but it just sucks because when i have to load certain things everything takes noticeably longer than it usually does after a fresh boot up because then most of the programs are mostly loaded into ram.

p.s.it's just a shame a PC needs to do this when it's got 2GB of RAM as running a game it's understandable but basic programs should not need that much RAM to stay snappy.

i could upgrade my RAM but for what it costs it's probably not worth it since i got DDR 400Mhz type ram which is very expensive considering how old it is, it's like cheaper to get faster stuff which don't make sense.

SakuraKira said,
This is written by one of the editors from Brothersoft, a software download site, like CNET.

Ohh Okie....actually i did had an idea - but it wasn't mentioned anywhere inside the article itself - that's why i was wondering - though i remember brothersoft as the one which always listed lot of crapware - though i might be wrong.....

Mohitster said,

though i remember brothersoft as the one which always listed lot of crapware - though i might be wrong.....

Thought the same

i dont think i have memory problems with firefox 4, but the default theme is laggy for me, thats why i use Chrome and Maxthon theme, they are smaller, more of the page is displayed and the browser is more responsive

Bogdan Calapod said,

Not running over 250MB here, and usually I run with 10+ tabs open.

That will depend whether you are using flash, html5 content, or some strong system resource.

Now this let's me thinking... Will Opera, Safari, and IE take the same pace as them?

Article said,
“Firefox” menu in the upper left hand corner of the browser (similar to the menu button found in Opera).

By The Way, Firefox did start that trend, the problem was that it wasn't released before Opera 10 did.

Jose_49 said,
Now this let's me thinking... Will Opera, Safari, and IE take the same pace as them?


By The Way, Firefox did start that trend, the problem was that it wasn't released before Opera 10 did.

I was about to point this out myself. Firefox's Alex Faaborg had a mockup of the button on his blog about four months before the first Opera 10 beta was released.

The first thing I thought of when Firefox 4 loaded on Windows 7 how similar it felt to Opera. For a start there's no logic to the placing of Icons, extensions have placed icons randomly on the right or left, the home button is placed on the far right and the navigation buttons are placed on the far left.

The dedicated search bar needs to go. Do people actually use this? Chrome (followed by IE9) has already answered this.

In windows 7, the menu bar has some weird shading in the background, it just looks completely wrong.

In windows 7 all the space to the right of the menu and all the space to the right of the tabs is a dead area which doesn't respond to the mouse drag.

Overall the browser feels heavy and clunky, not nearly as badly as opera, but without care it could get there.

Deviate_X said,
The first thing I thought of when Firefox 4 loaded on Windows 7 how similar it felt to Opera. For a start there's no logic to the placing of Icons, extensions have placed icons randomly on the right or left, the home button is placed on the far right and the navigation buttons are placed on the far left.

The dedicated search bar needs to go. Do people actually use this? Chrome (followed by IE9) has already answered this.

In windows 7, the menu bar has some weird shading in the background, it just looks completely wrong.

In windows 7 all the space to the right of the menu and all the space to the right of the tabs is a dead area which doesn't respond to the mouse drag.

Overall the browser feels heavy and clunky, not nearly as badly as opera, but without care it could get there.

Just go into customize and move those addon butons around.

Deviate_X said,
The dedicated search bar needs to go. Do people actually use this?

I use it all the time. I have Google and Youtube, a dictionary, a few game sites, IMDb, and Amazon. Something comes up every single day where I need to search one of those sites. The bar also doubles as a shortcut since I can just click the magnifying glass with an empty field to just go to the site (something I also do occasionally). This all adds up to less junk adding clutter to my browser UI.

If you notice, the Firefox dev team tries to cater to the lowest common denominator when designing the default UI, and they said as much during the process. If you're the type of person who uses a software right out of the box without changing/customizing anything, they want it to feel nice to you. If you're the type of person who likes to customize your UI and who understands how to tweak it, they care less about you since you'll just make it look how you want anyway. They can't cater to every advanced user because everyone has different tastes and those people will just change it anyway, so they cater to the less advanced who aren't going to change anything.

Deviate_X said,

The dedicated search bar needs to go. Do people actually use this? Chrome (followed by IE9) has already answered this.

No, it doesn't need to go. I use it ALL the time. Leave it alone.

By the way, you can customize the look ANY way you want it.

Deviate_X said,
The first thing I thought of when Firefox 4 loaded on Windows 7 how similar it felt to Opera. For a start there's no logic to the placing of Icons, extensions have placed icons randomly on the right or left, the home button is placed on the far right and the navigation buttons are placed on the far left.

The dedicated search bar needs to go. Do people actually use this? Chrome (followed by IE9) has already answered this.

In windows 7, the menu bar has some weird shading in the background, it just looks completely wrong.

In windows 7 all the space to the right of the menu and all the space to the right of the tabs is a dead area which doesn't respond to the mouse drag.

Overall the browser feels heavy and clunky, not nearly as badly as opera, but without care it could get there.


The addon buttons are placed where the addon developer said the default position would be.

Mozilla have said that without having a separate location and searchbar they couldn't have all of the feature of the awesome bar (locationbar) in there, isnt true though, I use the addon Omnibar and have search and location bar in one and it still provides suggestions for history, bookmarks and tabs already open as well as searching. Doesn't really matter though, as long as it's not default there will be addons for it, if they make one bar default there will be addons to separate them, that's what make firefox great.

The shading behind the menu helps read it on the aero background, but really, who hasn't got the menu bar hidden anyway?

For some reason the decided to draw the tabs in the titlebar, this made the area completly unusable for the purpose it's there for, specially when maximized, moving the window, don't know why they would do that just to save a few pixels.
Either way, you can turn it of in about:config just set browser.tabs.drawInTitlebar to false, should be an option somewhere in the menus of firefox but i dont think there is...

Can't see how Firefox 4 is heavy and clunky...

Deviate_X said,
The first thing I thought of when Firefox 4 loaded on Windows 7 how similar it felt to Opera. For a start there's no logic to the placing of Icons, extensions have placed icons randomly on the right or left, the home button is placed on the far right and the navigation buttons are placed on the far left.

The dedicated search bar needs to go. Do people actually use this? Chrome (followed by IE9) has already answered this.

In windows 7, the menu bar has some weird shading in the background, it just looks completely wrong.

In windows 7 all the space to the right of the menu and all the space to the right of the tabs is a dead area which doesn't respond to the mouse drag.

Overall the browser feels heavy and clunky, not nearly as badly as opera, but without care it could get there.

Dragging works just fine for me in all the glass areas at the top.

Bogdan Calapod said,

Dragging works just fine for me in all the glass areas at the top.

I've noticed that it it doesn't work if the menu bar is showing.
So its probably a bug.

SakuraKira said,

I use it all the time. I have Google and Youtube, a dictionary, a few game sites, IMDb, and Amazon. Something comes up every single day where I need to search one of those sites. The bar also doubles as a shortcut since I can just click the magnifying glass with an empty field to just go to the site (something I also do occasionally). This all adds up to less junk adding clutter to my browser UI.

Ok, you do realize that in IE9, you get this exact functionality, since IE orginated the concept, and it is all done without the need for a dedicated search box.

I use Bing, Google, IMDB, Wikipedia, etc as well everyday, and the UI even uses the same magnifying glass will all my search providers in the dropdown list.

So I agree this type of access to various web site searches is essential, but disagree there is a need for two separate boxes when IE9 seems to do it effortlessly.

Yeah that uses memory like it's going out of fashion.

Physical Memory 2314 MB In use (Firefox 4 not loaded)
Physical Memory 2431 MB In use (Firefox 4 loaded with neowin.net as the main page loaded)

That's an increase of 117 MB WTF that is just insane 3.6 uses hardly any Physical memory compared with Firefox 4. Get the memory usage sorted and speed is an issue with some websites, although granted it could be their servers...

Jonessie said,
Yeah that uses memory like it's going out of fashion.

Physical Memory 2314 MB In use (Firefox 4 not loaded)
Physical Memory 2431 MB In use (Firefox 4 loaded with neowin.net as the main page loaded)

That's an increase of 117 MB WTF that is just insane 3.6 uses hardly any Physical memory compared with Firefox 4. Get the memory usage sorted and speed is an issue with some websites, although granted it could be their servers...

initially it's somewhat high but i notice if you use the browser and leave it open over time it seems to be better than Chrome etc as, atleast for me, it typically peaks around 350MB with 10-ish tabs open and browser used to load alot of random stuff. (it can go higher here and there if you got a really graphics heavy site open but in general it will usually float between 300-400MB after the browser has been open for a while without closing it and loading a lot of random sites)

so overall Firefox 4 is more memory efficient than Chrome if you ask me.

p.s. but i would like to see Firefox 5 get even more memory efficient.

Jonessie said,
Yeah that uses memory like it's going out of fashion.

Physical Memory 2314 MB In use (Firefox 4 not loaded)
Physical Memory 2431 MB In use (Firefox 4 loaded with neowin.net as the main page loaded)

That's an increase of 117 MB WTF that is just insane 3.6 uses hardly any Physical memory compared with Firefox 4. Get the memory usage sorted and speed is an issue with some websites, although granted it could be their servers...


Well I'd say for me FF4 have been more memory efficient since the first beta versions I usually have a lot of tabs open and the memory usage is most of the time beneath 1gb ram, 3.6 was never below that

Also, no offense but, 117 mb used ram by your browser which will probably be one of the main programs you use, I could maybe see a reason for complaints if you had say 512mb or maybe 1gb of ram but you obviously have a lot more so. I am sure it could use a lot less, but just as everything else it would operate a lot slower then.

Jonessie said,
Yeah that uses memory like it's going out of fashion.

Physical Memory 2314 MB In use (Firefox 4 not loaded)
Physical Memory 2431 MB In use (Firefox 4 loaded with neowin.net as the main page loaded)

That's an increase of 117 MB WTF that is just insane 3.6 uses hardly any Physical memory compared with Firefox 4. Get the memory usage sorted and speed is an issue with some websites, although granted it could be their servers...

Here goes a test I did with 6 tabs open, all at Neowin for FF, Chrome and Opera. And the memory they are using:

http://i.imgur.com/nECKO.png

ThaCrip said,

initially it's somewhat high but i notice if you use the browser and leave it open over time it seems to be better than Chrome etc as, atleast for me, it typically peaks around 350MB with 10-ish tabs open and browser used to load alot of random stuff. (it can go higher here and there if you got a really graphics heavy site open but in general it will usually float between 300-400MB after the browser has been open for a while without closing it and loading a lot of random sites)

so overall Firefox 4 is more memory efficient than Chrome if you ask me.

p.s. but i would like to see Firefox 5 get even more memory efficient.

thats right compared to chrome firefox will use less ram, what chrome do a better job its mantaining the browser very snappy something that firefox 4 its good compared to 3.6

Abhinav Kumar said,
Yes. Firefox seems to be most efficient among all modern browsers.

BTW Use a JPEG format file for image distribution on the web.

Says who? PNG was specifically designed as a replacement for GIF since Compuserve wanted royalties for it. PNG is a perfectly acceptable web format.

Abhinav Kumar said,
BTW Use a JPEG format file for image distribution on the web.
Use PNG for screenshots.

Iono what are these people testing ff4 with, but ff4 is taxing the cpu like a bitch compare to FF3.6,IE9,Chrome,Opera. JägerMonkey is not as efficient as they make it out to be. FF3.6 is least cpu heavy, I'll stick around to it until more stability improvement and addons support.

asusp5ld2 said,
they really need to work on that speed improvement.. maybe ff 5 will do that

There are already quite exciting work done on post-Firefox 4 builds with the new pre-alpha TypeInference engine! A major win in Kraken just yesterday, actually.

Check out the graphs here: http://www.arewefastyet.com/aw...mp;view=regress&runs=50

So JS speeds will keep improving, and no doubt be even better in Firefox 5.

I don't think JS speeds are too much of a problem in Firefox anymore, however. What I'd like to see more is memory optimizations. A Firefox that starts disk thrashing if you've recently worked in another app just because it uses so much RAM can give the impression that it's slow even if the problem is a memory problem.

Northgrove said,

There are already quite exciting work done on post-Firefox 4 builds with the new pre-alpha TypeInference engine! A major win in Kraken just yesterday, actually.

Check out the graphs here: http://www.arewefastyet.com/aw...mp;view=regress&runs=50

So JS speeds will keep improving, and no doubt be even better in Firefox 5.

I don't think JS speeds are too much of a problem in Firefox anymore, however. What I'd like to see more is memory optimizations. A Firefox that starts disk thrashing if you've recently worked in another app just because it uses so much RAM can give the impression that it's slow even if the problem is a memory problem.

But is Firefox 5 going to be released 2 years from now like Firefox 4 was? The Chrome way of smaller more incremental development is better than larger releases since showstopper bugs just means that a feature should be disabled by default.

The only company that has to do "big" releases is Microsoft, because testing a browser to make sure it doesn't break websites (especially in a corporate environment) means they don't want to be dealing with a new release every 6 weeks.

dagamer34 said,

But is Firefox 5 going to be released 2 years from now like Firefox 4 was? The Chrome way of smaller more incremental development is better than larger releases since showstopper bugs just means that a feature should be disabled by default.

The only company that has to do "big" releases is Microsoft, because testing a browser to make sure it doesn't break websites (especially in a corporate environment) means they don't want to be dealing with a new release every 6 weeks.

The next feature release is coming in next 16 weeks. They have started producing nightlies named 4.2a1pre.