Firefox 4 Beta 1 candidate build released

Firefox 4 Beta 1 - WinXP

Conceivably Tech has noticed that Mozilla has quietly uploaded a Firefox 4 Beta 1 candidate build to its FTP server. No release notes or announcements have been made as of this post, but surely Mozilla will make the public aware of the final beta release when it's ready.

As discussed yesterday, Firefox 4 Beta 1 brings a whole new user interface to the browsers aging layout. Gone is the boring old grey (except in Windows XP, as seen above). Replacing it is an all new, modern, less intrusive, and glassier (Windows version) look. In the JavaScript department, the SunSpider benchmark shows solid improvement over Firefox 3.6.6. Oddly though, Firefox 4 still seems to lag far behind Chrome, IE9, Opera, and Safari.

Firefox 4 Beta 1 SunSpider Test

Keep in mind, this version is an early beta and should not be used as your primary browser. It's more stable than the alpha versions, but there's still plenty of work to be done before it's ready for mass consumption. Many add-ons that you probably use aren't yet compatible. According to a Mozilla developer, the team still plans to tweak their new JaegerMonkey JavaScript engine before release. Their goal is to hit at least 500 ms.

To see what's expected come the first Firefox 4 beta, visit Mozilla's FTP site, navigate to the appropriate OS version, and download the available file.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

iWork for iPhone spotted on Apple site

Next Story

Nexus One has latest Froyo, So will other recent HTC devices

79 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

A second candidate build of Firefox 4.0 beta 1 has just been posted (at least on Mozilla's FTP site):
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/4.0b1-candidates/build2/

when it come to broswer,i think no matter what kind of result with the speeed or benchmark

can't really feel who's winner but previous IE7-8 is too abvious that lack behind the era of modern browser.

I know Microsoft are working around the clock working on MSIE9 but at the end of the day it's who will grab the attention of the EU. personally I think the Mozilla Foundation will come out on top. Although we will have to see when they are released the Fall of 2010.

Bring back Commodore 64s and put a browser on that
See I can beat all u guys half of u probably don't even know what a Commodore 64 is!

Lower javascript times mean nothing to me: Firefox is still massively customisable and as clean or cluttered as you want it to be. I find Chrome's WYSIWYG approach to the web browser to be insufficient after using Firefox for so long.

It works really, really well ... and thankfully Firefox Sync 1.3.1 and Adblock Plus 1.2 are both supported, so that covers my two most important Add-ons. Is there any way to change the blue hue on the address bar though? I liked how StrataBuddy allowed it to be white as well as blue.

zedman said,
64bit mac version has no flash support !!

bummer dude. maybe when adobe actually releases a 64bit flash player for mac, the 64bit mac version of FF4 will finally support flash.

zedman said,
64bit mac version has no flash support !!

No 64-bit version of any web browser supports Flash on any operating system, since Adobe has not released a 64-bit flash plug-in for any browser on any operating system (well, they did for 64-bit linux at some point, but pulled that soon thereafter).

sabrex said,

No 64-bit version of any web browser supports Flash on any operating system, since Adobe has not released a 64-bit flash plug-in for any browser on any operating system (well, they did for 64-bit linux at some point, but pulled that soon thereafter).

64-bit browsers on Linux can still use the 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper.

looks like chrome? altho that was already known and bound to happen...
to bad tho, the refresh and home page are identical, just a small change to the back and forward buttons, and the search engine (which is useless as the address bar is partially a search engine.

we'll end up with chrome (or alikes), opera and IE... yay?

hope they wont use chrome's broken javascript engine.. so many sites with bugs in the java, which works perfectly fine in FF and IE

stopped using FF a while ago since its bloated and lack of memory management, hope FF4 will fix especially the resource usage issues.

Shadowzz said,
looks like chrome? altho that was already known and bound to happen...
to bad tho, the refresh and home page are identical, just a small change to the back and forward buttons, and the search engine (which is useless as the address bar is partially a search engine.

we'll end up with chrome (or alikes), opera and IE... yay?

hope they wont use chrome's broken javascript engine.. so many sites with bugs in the java, which works perfectly fine in FF and IE

stopped using FF a while ago since its bloated and lack of memory management, hope FF4 will fix especially the resource usage issues.

Everyone complained when Safari used top tabs, but if Chrome does it, then it's great and if Firefox does it then they are copying Chrome?

Epic0range said,
Everyone complained when Safari used top tabs, but if Chrome does it, then it's great and if Firefox does it then they are copying Chrome?
IIRC, Safari's tabs on top implementation just wasn't very good.

Epic0range said,

Everyone complained when Safari used top tabs, but if Chrome does it, then it's great and if Firefox does it then they are copying Chrome?

Don't even bother trying to understand these idiots and their cries of "omg they copied BAD BROWSER". Trust me, it's not worth it.

Nashy said,
So according to the benchmark.... it's still useless compared to everything else on the market?

Most of the JS improvements haven't landed yet.

I know many here may not care, but as a close follower of Mozilla's development for almost 8 years, it's nice to see Gecko finally hit 2.0 (beta) status!

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; en-US; rv:2.0b1) Gecko/20100628 Firefox/4.0b1

I don't know how much the ui is changing but I use to use the bookmarks in the menu bar a lot, more than the back or forward buttons. Now if the menu is on it looks stupid and the tabs are inbetween, their is a bookmark button at the right of the browser but why can't I move that next to the back and forward buttons atleast, their is another bookmarks button but it shows the sidebar which is ugly and is hard to use.

Gaffney said,
I don't know how much the ui is changing but I use to use the bookmarks in the menu bar a lot, more than the back or forward buttons. Now if the menu is on it looks stupid and the tabs are inbetween, their is a bookmark button at the right of the browser but why can't I move that next to the back and forward buttons atleast, their is another bookmarks button but it shows the sidebar which is ugly and is hard to use.

There are dosens of addons for bookmarks.
for example "context bookmark" it adds a menu of your bookmarks in the right click

Cool to see that they have a 64-bit version for Mac OSX. Just downloaded it and running it here for a quick spin. Gotta say that the browser did launch faster for me. I look forward to when it gets released for full use and fully supported like 3.x is now.

Jose_49 said,
YESSSSSSSS. Now Firefox won't have to overload when using Strata40. THANKS FOR THE POST.

Nah, I am just using it, but it is incredible, I like more the customizable Strata 40 than the actual theme of Firefox; I hope they make a migration, plus the Orbit bar + Strata Style makes the loading bar nice.

V8 = 966, Peacekeeper = 4187, Dromaeo = 217, CelticKane = 237, Sunspider = 779. Scores pretty much like like 3.6.x. so the new JS engine can't land soon enough.

Wheres the 64bit Windows version? i was under the impression with FF4 they were moving windows to full 64bit support... Was I wrong?

Conjor said,
Wheres the 64bit Windows version? i was under the impression with FF4 they were moving windows to full 64bit support... Was I wrong?

Nope, they have it sitting in their repository, I downloaded it the other day, just not worth it since there is no flash 64bit so you can't watch flash videos/things.

Lucas said,

Nope, they have it sitting in their repository, I downloaded it the other day, just not worth it since there is no flash 64bit so you can't watch flash videos/things.

So IE remains the only browser with proper 64bit support?

thats funny in a way.

Shadowzz said,

So IE remains the only browser with proper 64bit support?

thats funny in a way.


No, read again. i think you are referring to Adobe?

There's no point putting tabs on top if they're still going to waste all that perfectly good window space above it. Chrome has it right for minimal. I love Firefox, but I'm tiring of the bloat 1/2 way interfaces...trim it down or don't, stop trying to be other browsers.

thornz0 said,
There's no point putting tabs on top if they're still going to waste all that perfectly good window space above it. Chrome has it right for minimal. I love Firefox, but I'm tiring of the bloat 1/2 way interfaces...trim it down or don't, stop trying to be other browsers.

Not sure what your referring too, there's little to no space on top of the tabs once you hide the menubar which is going to be the default.

First, this is prebeta and not a final release. This is not the final UI. You can expect tweaks soon enough. Secondly, how else would someone move the window around if they had no where to click?

sharp65 said,

Not sure what your referring too, there's little to no space on top of the tabs once you hide the menubar which is going to be the default.

It's not just the menu bar, Chrome doesn't have the title bar either, the tabs are kept in line with the window controls. Firefox does not.

lordcanti86 said,
IE9pp3 is still faster than FF4b1? Wow

Who cares about IE9. Microsoft will still screw it up in the end. Since that's all they ever do is release half done stuff. IE for a long time was a stupid non-compliant browser. Until more browsers started being compliant. If other browsers weren't compliant, IE9 would still be a non-compliant browser. Screw Microsoft with their "Let's create our own f*cking stnadard and ignore the real one* "let's lock people in to Windows" "go us!!!!!!!!"

ZekeComa said,

Who cares about IE9. Microsoft will still screw it up in the end. Since that's all they ever do is release half done stuff. IE for a long time was a stupid non-compliant browser. Until more browsers started being compliant. If other browsers weren't compliant, IE9 would still be a non-compliant browser. Screw Microsoft with their "Let's create our own f*cking stnadard and ignore the real one* "let's lock people in to Windows" "go us!!!!!!!!"

Wow, an uninformed uneducated hater here. IE8 was standarts compliant FYI so your argument is total fail.

Other browsers incorporated NON-standarts, while Microsoft has always added only standarts which wasn't a bad idea IMO.

this coming from a webdeveloper.

kellykufeldt said,
Why is 4.0b2pre called Minefield, but 4.0b1 is still Firefox?

Never mind. I understand after reading the MozillaZine Forums about it!!

Wow, Mozilla are having a hard time tweaking their JS engine. Or maybe there is some other kind of problem, on e.g. a more organizational level. Of course, making JS engines run this fast isn't an easy task, but on the other hand, Mozilla has a long experience in developing browsers, along with a Javascript engine.

I don't think JS speeds matter *that* much at this level though. It could actually matter more to Firefox's publicity and marketing than actual perceived speed benefits over the competition. You just don't want to hide that it's the slowest browser on Javascript when writing marketing material.

But anyway... Tests may make it seem worse than it is. Other factors to count in is the DOM building speed and simply how clever it is when rendering web sites, taking shortcuts where it can, on an algorithm-level and also on a higher level.

I think with an as major difference as Chrome 6 vs Firefox 4 Beta 1, there could be a perceptible difference though, especially on JS-heavy sites like Facebook, Digg, Gmail, Google Wave (for those who use it ), etc.

how much does javascript speeds matter while browsing the web? is the main mainly based on it? like every website? n is it that wat causes a page to load fast or slow? or being on 4MBPS speeds shouldnt matter much to me?

ЀVÌ£ Ïñ Ðì§gû燎 said,
how much does javascript speeds matter while browsing the web? is the main mainly based on it? like every website? n is it that wat causes a page to load fast or slow? or being on 4MBPS speeds shouldnt matter much to me?

Your 4Mbps connection only determines how fast it will download it, not how fast your computer executes it, which is what the graph is about. Yes, slower javascript engines will cause a page to load slower, but it depends whether you spend more time downloading stuff on a site or evaluating javascript, particularly if the site is very heavy on javascript.

kjordan2001 said,

Your 4Mbps connection only determines how fast it will download it, not how fast your computer executes it, which is what the graph is about. Yes, slower javascript engines will cause a page to load slower, but it depends whether you spend more time downloading stuff on a site or evaluating javascript, particularly if the site is very heavy on javascript.


so are most websites based on javascript?

ЀVÌ£ Ïñ Ðì§gû燎 said,

so are most websites based on javascript?

More and more are. Not to mention that this will allow further development of Rich Internet Applications that are dependant on Javascript.

Kinda sad to see Firefox 4 still LAG behind in speed test etc. Oh well, but glad at the same time to see IE9 is giving it run for money.

Also running 4.0b2pre

The trunk code was frozen yesterday. They will need time for the localisation team to translate all new additions to the code. From my experience, this takes about a week, but it might not take as long as that.

Brando212 said,
why show a screenshot from xp where's the button isn't enabled?

The button isn't shown because the menu bar is present. When that is unchecked, the Firefox button appears.

Brando212 said,
why show a screenshot from xp where's the button isn't enabled?

Yes I agree. This is supposed to be news not olds... Windows XP is nearly a decade old. Sigh...

Electric Jolt said,

Yes I agree. This is supposed to be news not olds... Windows XP is nearly a decade old. Sigh...


Yea! Benjamin should have delayed the news of the leak until he could get home to a proper, modern os! *rolleyes* Give him a break, I'm sure the image will be updated.

chaos_disorder said,
The Mac OS X version doesn't have tabs on the top in Beta 1. Hopefully that feature will find its way into future releases.

View > Toolbars > Tabs on Top
At least I think that is how you enable it, looks like crap though, the tabs are literally just moved up, and it doesn't look good.

Hope it's not the Beta. Not good, I mean the New Aero Menu thing in 7 + Vista hardly has any options. You NEED to use Alt to get the full menu up to be able to update etc.

TechDudeGeorge said,
Hope it's not the Beta. Not good, I mean the New Aero Menu thing in 7 + Vista hardly has any options. You NEED to use Alt to get the full menu up to be able to update etc.

The UX isn't done yet. This beta is targeted more towards developers than end-users. You'll see a much better UI in beta 2.