Firefox 22 to include OdinMonkey, cookie blocking delayed & more

Mozilla has released a brand new beta for Firefox 22, the next version of Firefox scheduled for release in the week of June 24, which brings some changes and new features to the table. First up is support for WebRTC - a real-time communication component that allows for plugin-free voice calls, video chats and file sharing across the web - which is now completely enabled by default in Firefox 22.

OdinMonkey, Mozilla's asm.js optimization module for Firefox's JavaScript engine, is also included in the beta build. The module significantly improves the gaming capabilities of the browser without needing extra plugins, and allows engines such as Epic's Unreal Engine 3 to work in the browser, as seen in the video above. Also included in Firefox 22 is HiDPI support for Windows machines with high resolution displays, the Web Notification API for simple web app notifications, and the Font Inspector.

Previously we heard that Firefox 22 would block third-party cookies by default, however this feature has been postponed as Mozilla wants to "collect and analyze data on the effect of blocking some third-party cookies." The team is also looking at preventing false-positives associated with the change, saying that overall the patch "needs more work".

While Firefox 22 is hitting the Beta channel now, Firefox 21 was released earlier this week and can be downloaded now for those that prefer to stay on a stable browser.

Source: Mozilla, PCWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Yahoo holding special event on Monday amid Tumblr acquisition rumours

Next Story

More next Xbox teases from Microsoft exec; hints at holiday 2013 launch

45 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

ozzy76 said,
Gotta love Neowin. Every new version of Firefox is met with a new batch of whiners.

Exactly, see above two post above you as prime example. If chrome was doing this they would of be praised for it, but when Firefox does it they get rip for it.

Yeah, I especially love the trolls crying bloody murder over firefox simply adding support for an open protocol. No matter what firefox does these people will keep crying.

Haha Mozilla. Firefox is not a browser to 'bring the web forward' so to speak.
With their support for outdated inferior protocols, and forcing their choices over others. Using non-standard methods and Firefox ONLY features.

Way to go Mozilla! Go be purchased by MS already and combine the strong points from IE and FX into 1.

Shadowzz said,
Haha Mozilla. Firefox is not a browser to 'bring the web forward' so to speak.
With their support for outdated inferior protocols, and forcing their choices over others. Using non-standard methods and Firefox ONLY features.

Way to go Mozilla! Go be purchased by MS already and combine the strong points from IE and FX into 1.


Firefox isn't the browser it once was, but glad that we still have other browser choices. I hope palemoon won't go the way Firefox is.

webRTC is the standard W3C has been working on, and all the sudden MS came up with their own alternative out of nowhere, I don't understand all the hate fore firefox implementing support for the existing w3c draft standard for this.

How are their 'forcing' anything on you? I'm rather sick of trollish comments like these in every browser related thread.

'Mozilla wants to "collect and analyze data on the effect of blocking some third-party cookies." The team is also looking at preventing false-positives associated with the change, saying that overall the patch "needs more work".'
So will they be asking the user if they consent for it this time or just forcing the user to consent and not letting them opt-out or making it very hard to find out how to opt-out?

n_K said,
'Mozilla wants to "collect and analyze data on the effect of blocking some third-party cookies." The team is also looking at preventing false-positives associated with the change, saying that overall the patch "needs more work".'
So will they be asking the user if they consent for it this time or just forcing the user to consent and not letting them opt-out or making it very hard to find out how to opt-out?

What are you talking about? They're changing a default setting to another setting. But before they change the default, they're looking to see that the new default works as intended.

What the heck is the HiDPI support supposed to be? Wasn't there an internal firefox setting (in about:config) to enable Firefox DPI scaling?

francescob said,
What the heck is the HiDPI support supposed to be? Wasn't there an internal firefox setting (in about:config) to enable Firefox DPI scaling?

It's probably exposed without needing to change the config directly. There are CSS features hidden behind the config also. They move them public when they are happy with performance.

They might have vectored / made more versions of the icons etc... or just carried out further testing so the coverage is better.

It's support for high res displays. In the same way Macbook Pro Retina displays need support from 3rd party software. It's for thing like the Surface Pro where you have to increase the Windows desktop DPI because the res is high yet the screen is small. I'm happy to see this as so many 3rd party programs don't and look like **** on my Asus Taichi that has 11" 1080p screens and 150% DPI scaling.

lunamonkey said,

They might have vectored / made more versions of the icons etc... or just carried out further testing so the coverage is better.

Nope. If you try the beta now, you'll find the chrome icons blurry if you've set the DPI of Windows any higher than 96.

spinning_quirK said,

Nope. If you try the beta now, you'll find the chrome icons blurry if you've set the DPI of Windows any higher than 96.

So they don't support it then? I wonder what they have changed and claimed then.

W32.Backdoor.KillAV.E said,
It's support for high res displays. In the same way Macbook Pro Retina displays need support from 3rd party software. It's for thing like the Surface Pro where you have to increase the Windows desktop DPI because the res is high yet the screen is small. I'm happy to see this as so many 3rd party programs don't and look like **** on my Asus Taichi that has 11" 1080p screens and 150% DPI scaling.

Windows doesn't need that, the scaling is somewhat bad but not nearly as bad as OS X's. OS X scaling is so bad Apple had to rely on running applications at lower resolution on retina displays, the 'HiDpi' support on OS X is basically a flag the application has that tells OS X to let the app run at full resolution. On Windows you can set DPIs to 200% for your retina display and you're done.

Crimson Rain said,
Yay! Go ahead and force inferior WebRTC down everyone's throat.

They are just supporting a new technology. Not forcing it down anyone's throat.

thatguyandrew1992 said,

They are just supporting a new technology. Not forcing it down anyone's throat.

No, they are (trying to) forcing down an inferior technology (WebRTC) instead of the superior one (CU-RTC-Web).

Crimson Rain said,

No, they are (trying to) forcing down an inferior technology (WebRTC) instead of the superior one (CU-RTC-Web).

I thought CU-RTC-Web was just different because MS was mad at Google.

Sartoris said,

I thought CU-RTC-Web was just different because MS was mad at Google.


No, it is actually a more open, flexible, interoperable and future-proof spec.

These web features fell more like gimmicks to me. You want games? Your pc/console can manage that, you want free voice calls? Many voip apps for that.

The web is, mainly, for gather and sharing information (data), it's evolution should focus on better ways to do that. And no, a plugin-less (hardcoded) way to make calls does not make data sharing any easier, we can already do that using other dedicated apps.

sanctified said,
These web features fell more like gimmicks to me. You want games? Your pc/console can manage that, you want free voice calls? Many voip apps for that.

The web is, mainly, for gather and sharing information (data), it's evolution should focus on better ways to do that. And no, a plugin-less (hardcoded) way to make calls does not make data sharing any easier, we can already do that using other dedicated apps.

Remember when phones were used to just make calls? All these things with smartphones are gimmicks.

sanctified said,
These web features fell more like gimmicks to me. You want games? Your pc/console can manage that, you want free voice calls? Many voip apps for that.

The web is, mainly, for gather and sharing information (data), it's evolution should focus on better ways to do that. And no, a plugin-less (hardcoded) way to make calls does not make data sharing any easier, we can already do that using other dedicated apps.

Sorry no, you have misunderstood everything completely. Games is just one thing you can do with this technology.

A lot of things in the software world is written i C/C++ and by enabling a way to compile your software to the Web you have in an instance increased the potential of news apps by thousands and most important its reach to number of users.

And remember there a lot of users out there that does not have access to a computer, but they have access to a browsers. In the rich world we have a tendency to forget the rest of the world,

You want a plugin in free web? Just compile this existing h264 decoder from C to JavaScript. Run in any browser, smartphone, tablet game console.

Image manipulation? Just compile something like ImageMagick to the browser.

Sound processing for handling phone calls? Oh we already have this proved implementation written in C, now compile it for the browser instead.

Voice and images is also data.

so, since theres no 'stop' button anymore, what happened if you press 'ESC' key in this 'game'?

- (potentialy dangerous) scripts still continues?
- scirpt would stop like older version of browser?

sanctified said,
These web features fell more like gimmicks to me. You want games? Your pc/console can manage that, you want free voice calls? Many voip apps for that.

The web is, mainly, for gather and sharing information (data), it's evolution should focus on better ways to do that. And no, a plugin-less (hardcoded) way to make calls does not make data sharing any easier, we can already do that using other dedicated apps.

I actually agree with this. I think there are plenty of ways we can improve website browsing before we adopt this notion that "everything has to be in the browser". I worry that some devs will be like "oh yeah can't be screwed to make a native code app- will just write some dodgass web site". I don't want software to become some sort of browser based crap. Makes me wonder if this is a greater plan my Google and Mozilla as they know that there will never be mass amounts of applications built for their chrome and firefox OSes...

Billa said,

Remember when phones were used to just make calls? All these things with smartphones are gimmicks.

And I tend to agree. It's the simplicity principle: Do one thing WELL.

fetbaffe said,

And remember there a lot of users out there that does not have access to a computer, but they have access to a browsers. In the rich world we have a tendency to forget the rest of the world,

And how they access a browser without a computer?

The browser should be installed on a reasonably fast computer to run this plugin adequately, so still no advantage for very poor countries.

sanctified said,

And how they access a browser without a computer?

Internet cafés, libraries, mobile phones, borrowed computers, shared computers etc.


A modern browser is faster than an old browser, even old hardware.

asm.js is about a factor two slower than native C. That is truly amazing for a technology that has the potential of being used on any device out there.

The browser *is* the new Operating System.

sanctified said,

And I tend to agree. It's the simplicity principle: Do one thing WELL.


Would you rather carry a phone, gps, laptop, camera, mp3 player, and a handheld console around?

thatguyandrew1992 said,

Would you rather carry a phone, gps, laptop, camera, mp3 player, and a handheld console around?

In fact yes. I carry everyday multiple tools that do their function well. I pefer that to carry just one with multiple mediocre functions.

fetbaffe said,

Internet cafés, libraries, mobile phones, borrowed computers, shared computers etc.

Have you seen internet cafes in third world countries? I have, I live in one, they dont even run Firefox 10.

fetbaffe said,

The browser *is* the new Operating System.

And I found that worrisome.

sanctified said,
Remember when a browser was used to just browse the web?

then advertisers started hijacking your experience and "adblock" and cookie blocking was required.

dvb2000 said,

then advertisers started hijacking your experience and "adblock" and cookie blocking was required.

However these are required to optimize the natural functionality of the web. Games and voip plugins are not.

sanctified said,
Remember when a browser was used to just browse the web?

Remember when we could not browse the web at all?

sanctified said,

Have you seen internet cafes in third world countries? I have, I live in one, they dont even run Firefox 10.

And? So a few internet cafés does not run the latest software and therefore we should not giving them the possibility to use new revolutionizing?

fetbaffe said,

And? So a few internet cafés does not run the latest software and therefore we should not giving them the possibility to use new revolutionizing?

Please, tell me how playing games in a browser is revolutionizing.

sanctified said,

Please, tell me how playing games in a browser is revolutionizing.

Please, reread my first reply to you where I explain that this is so much more.

sanctified said,
Remember when a browser was used to just browse the web?

Yup. Horrible times. We had to use plugins like Flash and Java to get powerful web services interfacing with the actual computer hardware. HTML5 and assorted related technlogies is the best thing that has happened to the web. Platform agnosticism can't be underestimated in how it brings computing forward.

There are already thousands (millions?) of games in browsers, probably far too many of them still Flash based.
You won't stop people writing games for browsers, or people from playing them.

This will help wipe out Flash however.