Firefox 4 Beta 12 Lands; Next stop RC

Mozilla have released Beta 12 of Firefox 4 to their website late last night, and confirmed that it will be the last beta before a Release Candidate is released sometime in March. Mozilla had originally planned to ship Beta 12 earlier this week, and the Release Candidate on the 25th but "hardblocker bugs" had come in the way of those plans.

Mozilla appears to have decided to weigh in on the joke, launching a (presumably) tongue-in-cheek website that counts down the number of bugs standing in the way of a final Firefox 4 release. At the time of writing, there are still 9 ''hard-blockers'', of which 3 require a patch.

Sr. Director of Engineering at Mozilla Corporation, Damon Sicore, posted on Google Groups ahead of the public release: "Yesterday we killed the blocker list, and we're down to 12 remaining bugs open, and only four remain without a patch.  We set a goal last week to be done with all of these blockers and to try to be RC ready by today.  Due to everyone's hard work, we're there.  We've accelerated beta 12 to ship today, and the next step is to squash these few remaining bugs.  After this, we're in RC mode, constantly watching the nomination queues for incoming bugs from this last beta."

Of the 686 bugs fixed in Beta 12, the following improvements among others can be viewed below:

Increased performance while viewing Flash content;
Improved plugin compatibility with hardware acceleration enabled;
Hovering over links now displays the URL at the bottom of the window rather than in the location bar; and
General stability, performance, and compatibility improvements.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Did Android 2.3.3 make your Nexus S look yellow? Google explains why

Next Story

Microsoft Research reveal new Kinect avatar technology

94 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

jasonon said,
i've never heard of a company being in beta stage so long

google and gmail? anyway, dicresingly impressed with firefox. it's completely useless on my ubuntu netbook.

"Hovering over links now displays the URL at the bottom of the window rather than in the location bar"

If it's anything as distracting as how urls pop up in the lower-left on hover in IE9 RC, even with the status bar turned off, I will be looking to disable that "feature". Thank god for userchrome.css and about:config.

Oooh look they haven't fixed Hotmail refresh loop, makes me hate Firefox even more! I've used Firefox for so long I don't even rem but now starting to HATE IT!

FF 4.0 b11 kicked ass. For me.

If you are a web dev, you can easily see the differences in quality, employing some CSS3: rotations for example.

IE9 still has none. Webkit is just AWFUL at it. Opera in near awful.

IE9 and webkit are having too much extra nonsense with them: too much JS for everything, too much "we do it like this, like it or not". That's what was wrong with IE in the first place. It seems Google Chrome is trying to become the new problem UA.

Google Chrome is fast and for that it does a ****ty job with the web standards and redering. IE9 is one step closer to becoming a reliable UA, except it gets side tracked by video, audio, 3D etcetera.

Firefox remains constant in providing a BETTER support for web dev. And for that it gets a 10+.

i still prefer chrome dev 11, firefox is so slow compared to chrome, but in terms of memory management FF4 beats chrome, but in terms of speed chrome is far much faster! in any case competion is good, in the end the consumers are the winners!

I enjoy using Firefox 85% of the time. I use Opera on gallery websites, as it does not timeout like IE does, Firefox takes longer to timeout, Opera hammers those sites until that last image has downloaded. Then I use IE for the other remaining 2% of those hard a..ed websites that refuse to support any other web browser.

butterfly68za said,
I enjoy using Firefox 85% of the time. I use Opera on gallery websites, as it does not timeout like IE does, Firefox takes longer to timeout, Opera hammers those sites until that last image has downloaded. Then I use IE for the other remaining 2% of those hard a..ed websites that refuse to support any other web browser.

how did u calculate 85% so precisely

Hovering over links now displays the URL at the bottom of the window rather than in the location bar

I thought this was actually a cool feature. Looked cool and quite unique. Any way to re-enable it?

I for one am happy with the amount of betas. At least they are working hard to iron out all the bugs and give us the best possible/most stable product on general release.

I do like Chrome for it's speed, however, for some reason I constantly find myself returning to Firefox. Mainly due to some of the brilliant extensions that are available such as Tab Mix Plus and Download Statusbar. Plus, Chrome still lacks official support for things that I use a lot like LogMeIn.

Gutierrez said,
they are joking right?. This piece of **** is just a browser, NOTHING MORE!!.

Ye Mozilla is to new to the browser market they havent learned that yet, give it a few more months

Shadowzz said,

Ye Mozilla is to new to the browser market they havent learned that yet, give it a few more months

Mozilla was the creator of Netscape back in the 90s...

ipodman715 said,

Other way around. Also pretty sure sarcasm implied.

haha
btw FF is Mozilla Browser, Mozilla browser is Netscape just gone through 2 rebrandings.
And the beast shall come forth surrounded by a roiling cloud of vengeance. The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be scorched to the earth. Their tags shall blink until the end of days.

If you look at the source of that page they actually pull the numbers dynamically from the bugtracker. That's a nice touch.

dancsi said,
Pre-beta 13 is available for download. What does that mean?

There won't be any Beta 13, these are just trunk builds designed for testing

Just installed beta 12 and it seems quick enough for me. I really don't understand the quest for ultimate speed in a browser, for myself i find functionality more important than a slight difference in speed which most people would not notice.

Aj_uk said,
Just installed beta 12 and it seems quick enough for me. I really don't understand the quest for ultimate speed in a browser, for myself i find functionality more important than a slight difference in speed which most people would not notice.

To each their own. My most precious resource is time.

Breach said,

To each their own. My most precious resource is time.


gotta love that chrome is saving you a whopping 0.000001second per pageload !!!!
comming to (depending on your internet usage) to 1-5minutes of time saving per year!

thats the spirit \o/

Shadowzz said,

gotta love that chrome is saving you a whopping 0.000001second per pageload !!!!
comming to (depending on your internet usage) to 1-5minutes of time saving per year!

thats the spirit \o/

I think the difference is bit more perceptible than that, otherwise I'd still be using FF ;-)

Aj_uk said,
for myself i find functionality more important than a slight difference in speed which most people would not notice.

I completely agree. because while 'on paper' Chrome is better than Firefox i find Firefox to be overall smoother experience in the real world.

Strike X said,
Give me 1 reason why is it Significantly better than 3.6?

cause there's been 12 betas and still haven't quite nailed it yet

It's better than 3.6 by a huge margin, but it's still not enough to convince me to leave Chrome. I really want to like Firefox, but I think its time has passed.

narshornsyst said,
Seems very reactive and fast page loading. 97/100 on acid3 test, hey ... waiting for the real thing

Speaking as a web developer, don't consider Acid3 when judging a browser. The only way that Fx can pass the Acid3 test is by supporting SVG fonts, which will be depreciated in SVG2.

We don't want to use SVG fonts, and there are very few people who do.

Meph said,

Speaking as a web developer, don't consider Acid3 when judging a browser. The only way that Fx can pass the Acid3 test is by supporting SVG fonts, which will be depreciated in SVG2.

We don't want to use SVG fonts, and there are very few people who do.


Ah then you must be proud that IE8 gets a 6 out of 100 on ACID3 test
oh wait in IE8 directly it goes up to 20, altho takes a minute
webkit gets a 100, but webkit has little bugs that can ruine quite some websites >.> (good thing i can switch renderers without losing cookies and what not <3)

narshornsyst said,
Seems very reactive and fast page loading. 97/100 on acid3 test, hey ... waiting for the real thing

Let go of Acid3 already. All major browsers currently pass the tests that actually matter in Acid3. The last few features that IE and Firefox fail on are going to be replaced or reworked in the near future.

Oddly not what I feel. I can't stand Chrome. Love my extensions from FF! Show me Tab Mix Plus and Downthemall! in Chrome and maybe I'll rethink. But right now I have Chrome installed for testing the wife's website and that's all.

Salgoth said,
Oddly not what I feel. I can't stand Chrome. Love my extensions from FF! Show me Tab Mix Plus and Downthemall! in Chrome and maybe I'll rethink. But right now I have Chrome installed for testing the wife's website and that's all.

Personally,
Don't care much for Firefox and DEFINITELY can't stand Chrome, but the Mozilla team is definitely taking their time on releasing Firefox 4.

What's the deal with Mozilla having not fixed memory issues in it yet? That's been an issue since day one.

cork1958 said,

Personally,
Don't care much for Firefox and DEFINITELY can't stand Chrome, but the Mozilla team is definitely taking their time on releasing Firefox 4.

What's the deal with Mozilla having not fixed memory issues in it yet? That's been an issue since day one.


Most memory issues are caused by plugins or the plugin-container. Mostly not the browser itself, thats been fixed ages ago.

And all browsers use sh*tload of RAM nowadays actually, IE averages at 50-70mb per page, chrome for me hoovers a bit higher, 70-100mb per page and FF just grabs and eats any memory it can find over the time.

still wonder how websites that are <1mb take up 50-100 times as much in resources and it barely does any more then browsers did 15 years ago when you just had a few spare mb.

I LOVE FIREFOX. Yeah, you guys can go on about IE9 (Which is great, I know) and Chrome (Feh.) but I love FX4!

Trolls? Fanboys?

Ishanx said,
I LOVE FIREFOX. Yeah, you guys can go on about IE9 (Which is great, I know) and Chrome (Feh.) but I love FX4!

Trolls? Fanboys?

Firefox User here. I am trying to avoid Chrome as much as possible. I won't fall for another Google anti-privacy scam.

Used it, and it's so slow compared to Chrome Dev 11... Sucks I really wanted to use FF again, but Chrome just makes it look really slow. Also it's still hogging all the resources on my PC. Bye bye forever Firefox.

NeoDecay said,
Used it, and it's so slow compared to Chrome Dev 11... Sucks I really wanted to use FF again, but Chrome just makes it look really slow. Also it's still hogging all the resources on my PC. Bye bye forever Firefox.

I'm of the same opinion. Except I think there's still hope for firefox but the devs will have to work like crazy to truly catch up.

NeoDecay said,
Used it, and it's so slow compared to Chrome Dev 11... Sucks I really wanted to use FF again, but Chrome just makes it look really slow. Also it's still hogging all the resources on my PC. Bye bye forever Firefox.

Try doing a clean install for beta 12 (no left overs of previous beta's) or wait till RC becomes available which will have more memory fixes. beta 12 memory usage has been great for me.

Sub_Zero_Alchemist said,

Try doing a clean install for beta 12 (no left overs of previous beta's) or wait till RC becomes available which will have more memory fixes. beta 12 memory usage has been great for me.

Did a clean install. Still uses more than Chrome. Still hoping for the best when RC hits, I'd love to use FF side by side with Chrome... for now I've been using IE9 with it, but I might switch to RockMelt.

NeoDecay said,
Used it, and it's so slow compared to Chrome Dev 11... Sucks I really wanted to use FF again, but Chrome just makes it look really slow. Also it's still hogging all the resources on my PC. Bye bye forever Firefox.

I went back to Firefox recently as had an issue with chrome corrupting my downloads folder and forgetting about CSS when loading pages. But Firefox was so clunky and buggy. I'm sure it wasnt this bad before?

NeoDecay said,

Did a clean install. Still uses more than Chrome. Still hoping for the best when RC hits, I'd love to use FF side by side with Chrome... for now I've been using IE9 with it, but I might switch to RockMelt.


oh boo freaking hoo that it uses more memory.
They why arent you using IE8? it has a lower footprint since forever (altho im not using Chrome DEV)
and if you want less, use Maxthon... which is a IE/Safari(chrome) combo. got it on for days now, anywhere between 5 and 30 tabs and its still hoovering at ~130mb in total. And the (usable) speed differences with loading pages is completely irrelevent.

Still think you should safe up 10 bucks and buy an extra stick of 512GB ram

Shadowzz said,

oh boo freaking hoo that it uses more memory.
They why arent you using IE8? it has a lower footprint since forever (altho im not using Chrome DEV)
and if you want less, use Maxthon... which is a IE/Safari(chrome) combo. got it on for days now, anywhere between 5 and 30 tabs and its still hoovering at ~130mb in total. And the (usable) speed differences with loading pages is completely irrelevent.

Still think you should safe up 10 bucks and buy an extra stick of 512GB ram

What the? I hardly made any sense out of your response. Maxthon sucks imo. I have enough ram, I just don't see any reason any browser should use 200 mb+ half the time when I only have 1-4 tabs open ever. IE 8 also sucks. The trident rendering engine has proven to be slow.

I will try Maxthon again, but last I remember it was utter garbage with a semi-decent design.

NeoDecay said,

Did a clean install. Still uses more than Chrome. Still hoping for the best when RC hits, I'd love to use FF side by side with Chrome... for now I've been using IE9 with it, but I might switch to RockMelt.


In my testing FF uses more memory than Chrome with only one tab open. However, when you have several tabs open (say 10 or more) FF uses less memory. I have tested FF, Chrome and Opera in parallel several times with different versions of these browsers and with many tabs open FF has always been the one requiring less memory.

Shadowzz said,

oh boo freaking hoo that it uses more memory.
They why arent you using IE8? it has a lower footprint since forever (altho im not using Chrome DEV)
and if you want less, use Maxthon... which is a IE/Safari(chrome) combo. got it on for days now, anywhere between 5 and 30 tabs and its still hoovering at ~130mb in total. And the (usable) speed differences with loading pages is completely irrelevent.

Still think you should safe up 10 bucks and buy an extra stick of 512GB ram


Where can I buy one stick of 512GB of ram? ;D

NeoDecay said,
Used it, and it's so slow compared to Chrome Dev 11... Sucks I really wanted to use FF again, but Chrome just makes it look really slow. Also it's still hogging all the resources on my PC. Bye bye forever Firefox.

Try a clean install with no Add-Ons. You'll notice the speed of Firefox.

This is another reason why Firefox should include a way to see which AddOn consumes a lot of memory and CPU time.

NeoDecay said,

What the? I hardly made any sense out of your response. Maxthon sucks imo. I have enough ram, I just don't see any reason any browser should use 200 mb+ half the time when I only have 1-4 tabs open ever. IE 8 also sucks. The trident rendering engine has proven to be slow.

I will try Maxthon again, but last I remember it was utter garbage with a semi-decent design.


heh my english can be messed up at times, its not my native language so i tend to write retarded

MX2 is buttugly (default). MX3's own new style looks a bit like chrome/safari. altho it also comes default with a style thats exactly like IE

And the Trident engine might be slow in statistics, but for the end-user on the average websites, IE is just about as fast as chrome with loading pages. Starting new tabs or w/e is noticeably slower tho. Altho its less in the 64bit of IE8. And there are quite some sites that just look messed up in the Webkit render. (not saying this is webkits fault)

thatguyandrew1992 said,

Where can I buy one stick of 512GB of ram? ;D

heh, just stating that RAM is cheap as hell nowadays, that a few 100mb usage shouldnt be considered a problem

Shadowzz said,

heh my english can be messed up at times, its not my native language so i tend to write retarded

MX2 is buttugly (default). MX3's own new style looks a bit like chrome/safari. altho it also comes default with a style thats exactly like IE

And the Trident engine might be slow in statistics, but for the end-user on the average websites, IE is just about as fast as chrome with loading pages. Starting new tabs or w/e is noticeably slower tho. Altho its less in the 64bit of IE8. And there are quite some sites that just look messed up in the Webkit render. (not saying this is webkits fault)

heh, just stating that RAM is cheap as hell nowadays, that a few 100mb usage shouldnt be considered a problem


lol i was messin with ya cause you said 512*GB* not 512MB

Shadowzz said,

heh my english can be messed up at times, its not my native language so i tend to write retarded

MX2 is buttugly (default). MX3's own new style looks a bit like chrome/safari. altho it also comes default with a style thats exactly like IE

And the Trident engine might be slow in statistics, but for the end-user on the average websites, IE is just about as fast as chrome with loading pages. Starting new tabs or w/e is noticeably slower tho. Altho its less in the 64bit of IE8. And there are quite some sites that just look messed up in the Webkit render. (not saying this is webkits fault)

Never ran across a website that rendered bad in Webkit. Just saying. I am using Maxthon 3 now and actually made my own theme for it; it's still a work in progress though: http://decaytion.deviantart.co...t/Mx3-Evolve-v1-5-199158151
Maxthon 3 is definitely a big step up from Mx2 and I hope more people start to use it, especially with my theme for it making it look 100000x even better.

Sub_Zero_Alchemist said,

I wouldn't be too sure of that, March 14 release date for ie 9 is just a rumor.

True, but it's very likely that they'll release on March 14, since they have an IE event that day.
However, IE8 was in RC for nearly two months. So, who knows.

floopy said,
Looks like it won't beat IE9 to release as they're desperately trying to do.

They are? I have rarely seen a more relaxed development schedule than that of Firefox 4. We're now at beta 12, and they aren't afraid of saying "this and that release will only be out once all blockers are fixed".

floopy said,
Looks like it won't beat IE9 to release as they're desperately trying to do.

Honestly, why does that matter? I think people want a stable product, and if FF 4 is not ready than so be it. I am sure when it is people will download it.

Northgrove said,

They are? I have rarely seen a more relaxed development schedule than that of Firefox 4. We're now at beta 12, and they aren't afraid of saying "this and that release will only be out once all blockers are fixed".

Really? Rushing a product which is basically at alpha quality to beta is relaxed development? 12 beta versions is pretty much unheard of. I remember the first beta to use hardware acceleration was hacked togheter just weeks after the IE team announced it's HW acceleration features.
Even though I've always been an IE user I've always respected Mozilla and their work. But not since the horrible mess of a development of Firefox 4, and their recent arrogant attitude and petty mudslinging towards Microsoft.

jasonon said,
yep, hopefully they can get that issue ironed out by the final release

They've had TWELVE beta's to fix things like that. If it isn't fixed now, it never will be.

Living4Christ said,
I'll skip and stick with Internet Explorer 9 thank you.

You're very welcome, because we wouldn't want you to think this browser was being shoved down your throat, right?

LiquidSolstice said,

You're very welcome, because we wouldn't want you to think this browser was being shoved down your throat, right?

Yeah I don't get it either. It's as if they're rebelling against a piece of information.

Majesticmerc said,

Yeah I don't get it either. It's as if they're rebelling against a piece of information.

And by the way, still I can't find who asked him which browser is he going to stick with...

Living4Christ said,
I'll skip and stick with Internet Explorer 9 thank you.

Most people use another browser out of personal choice and taste. But this post is about Firefox. And I don't even use Firefox. But I don't get why you're posting something silly like this and it even doesn't have any relation relating to the topic. No need to offend btw.

Deo Domuique said,

And by the way, still I can't find who asked him which browser is he going to stick with...


No-one asked you for your opinion either, didn't stop you from giving it.

TCLN Ryster said,

No-one asked you for your opinion either, didn't stop you from giving it.

You must be mad if you see me expressing an opinion... Was just a question about an entirely off topic opinion/statement. So if you try to be smart-ass, try somewhere else, certainly not to me.

yowan said,
Great it uses less memory than any previous beta!

i am not sure on that personally... because right now it's @ 348MB and i got 9 tabs open and it seems to keep climbing the longer it's running especially if you keep viewing random sites etc.

but ill keep a eye on it and see if it gets 400MB+ because the browser should never really get more than around 250MB or so with 10-ish tabs open.

the memory usage is hands down my #1 complaint about Firefox 4 in general.

Well to further add to my post above...

after using Beta 12 some more i do have to agree with you as even though RAM use can get fairly high it does not seem to go through the roof like it used to in previous BETA's. because my browser has been open since i posted my previous message about 22 hours ago and BETA 12 is currently using 335MB with 8 tabs open. so while it can start using quite a bit of ram (i seen it peak around 400MB) it seems to be able to adjust it's ram to a semi-reasonable level now as i seems to float between 250MB minimum and usually no more than around 350MB but i have seen it get to damn near 400MB.

conclusion... it definitely has improved from previous BETA's as those just seemed to climb higher and higher the longer the browser was open as you loaded more and more sites.

Edited by ThaCrip, Feb 28 2011, 1:15am :