Firefox 2.0 Beta Delayed
Posted by Steven Parker on 09 August 2006 - 21:09 · 55 comments & 22519 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(7 replies)
#1 Posted by RealFduch on 09 Aug 2006 - 21:20
- Cool! they want to give us realy good and tested product.
Unlike MS who always delay their bloat to suck money from people. -
#1.1 Posted by Imaginos on 09 Aug 2006 - 21:42
- Hi, I'm new to this argument. Would you mind supporting these statements?
Odd that the release date didn't change to reflect any 'realy good' additional testing. -
#1.2 Posted by virtorio on 09 Aug 2006 - 23:03
- Quote -Unlike MS who always delay their bloat to suck money from people.
I swear, it seems that as the Firefox version number goes up, intelligence goes down. -
#1.3 Posted by Arkle on 09 Aug 2006 - 23:16
- OMG! MICRO$$$OFT ARE EVIL LOLOLOLOL!
ATLEAST THE FIREF0X PPL R GIVIN US SUMFIN GOOD!
Have to agree with virtorio unfortunately.
When was the last time you paid for an IE update then RealFduch? I mean, if it's not too hard a question. -
#1.4 Posted by blx on 10 Aug 2006 - 05:50
- Quote - RealFduch said @ #1Cool! they want to give us realy good and tested product.
Unlike MS who always delay their bloat to suck money from people.
I think this is one of the most hilarious comments I've read here
-
#1.6 Posted by Lare2 on 10 Aug 2006 - 23:10
- Quote - RealFduch said @ #1Cool! they want to give us realy good and tested product.
Unlike MS who always delay their bloat to suck money from people.
/me imagines the future
"There you have it kids, that's a fanboy at its best .... these type of creatures were popular arround the web 2.0 era" -
#1.7 Posted by outofcoffee on 12 Aug 2006 - 01:15
- Quote - Imaginos said @ #1.1Odd that the release date didn't change to reflect any 'realy good' additional testing.
Hi, most good project managers will build-in slack time into a final release date, so betas etc. can slip if they need additional testing. Nice sarc, though. Bravo.
-
(3 replies)
#2 Posted by ALUOp on 09 Aug 2006 - 21:27
- Have they fixed the memory leak problem lately?
Yes, I know there are "solutions" to the problem, but I have tried them all and they don't work.
It still consumes a lot of memory (>150MB) even when no themes and extensions are installed. -
#2.1 Posted by Mad_Griffith on 09 Aug 2006 - 23:18
- People who were trying the first beta assure the program has been improved on that side.
-
#2.2 Posted by Jugalator on 10 Aug 2006 - 00:00
- "Have they fixed the memory leak problem lately?"
You can read about memory usage in Firefox here:
http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/faqs/memusage.html
It tries to explain memory rising and when it is leaks, and when it's not, and what one can do. -
#2.3 Posted by Julius Caro on 10 Aug 2006 - 13:01
- I think firefox memory usage depends on all the memory available. It's not like it will eat up all the resources.
-
#3 Posted by EduardValencia on 09 Aug 2006 - 21:41
- oh,oops
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by drygnfyre on 09 Aug 2006 - 21:47
- Beta 1 is quite stable for me, so I'm expecting Beta 2 to be a nice release, as well.
-
#4.1 Posted by cork1958 on 11 Aug 2006 - 10:46
- There has been nothing stable about Firefox on any of my systems when ever I've tried it. I've had it crash the very first time opening it after installation a few times even wheter installed in a Winblows environment or on Linux. I do think it runs better in Linux though.
Firefox is even buggier than IE, IMO. Don't use it and never will. Strctly an Opera/Epiphany web browser user here.
-
#5 Posted by RX78GP02A on 09 Aug 2006 - 22:52
- the nightly builds are quite stable... a bit less than beta 1, but still good
-
#6 Posted by Orange on 09 Aug 2006 - 23:11
- O wait USA HOMELAND said download firefox not ie lol
-
(8 replies)
#7 Posted by rIaHc3 on 09 Aug 2006 - 23:15
- It's funny....Vista is delayed (again) everyone attacks Microsoft
Firefox 2.0 Beta is delayed (and I BELIEVE this isnt the first time) and noone attacks Mozilla. -
#7.1 Posted by Arkle on 09 Aug 2006 - 23:18
- Because 'Micro$oft' are the evil ones obviously. Mozilla and Google were sent from the heavens.
-
#7.2 Posted by dagamer34 on 09 Aug 2006 - 23:57
- Umm... only the beta has been delayed by a week. The official release date of Firefox 2 is still the same as it says in the newspost: September 26th.
You can wait a week. -
#7.3 Posted by Jugalator on 10 Aug 2006 - 00:02
- Vista has in total been delayed several years. A kind of lacking comparison to me.
-
#7.4 Posted by ozzy76 on 10 Aug 2006 - 01:29
- Quote - Jugalator said @ #7.3Vista has in total been delayed several years. A kind of lacking comparison to me.
Vista = full-fledged operating system
Firefox = browser
"A kind of lacking comparison to me." -
#7.5 Posted by Kirkburn on 10 Aug 2006 - 01:41
- Quote - ozzy76 said @ #7.4Quote - Jugalator said @ #7.3Vista has in total been delayed several years. A kind of lacking comparison to me.
Vista = full-fledged operating system
Firefox = browser
"A kind of lacking comparison to me."
Oooh, burn!
-
#7.6 Posted by Gibwar on 11 Aug 2006 - 02:31
- Quote - ozzy76 said @ #7.4Quote - Jugalator said @ #7.3Vista has in total been delayed several years. A kind of lacking comparison to me.
Vista = full-fledged operating system
Firefox = browser
"A kind of lacking comparison to me."
heheheh -
#7.7 Posted by lbmouse on 11 Aug 2006 - 15:51
- Quote - ozzy76 said @ #7.4Quote - Jugalator said @ #7.3Vista has in total been delayed several years. A kind of lacking comparison to me.
Vista = full-fledged operating system
Firefox = browser
"A kind of lacking comparison to me."
Microsoft = One of the largest corps on Earth searching for ways to make profit
Mozilla = A community of volunteers searching for ways to promote FOSS
"A kind of lacking comparison to me." -
#7.8 Posted by em_te on 11 Aug 2006 - 18:10
- Quote - lbmouse said @ #7.7Microsoft = One of the largest corps on Earth searching for ways to make profit
Mozilla = A community of volunteers searching for ways to promote FOSS
"A kind of lacking comparison to me."
From this URL and this URL:
- Mozilla Corporation made $XXm last year and is on target to have 120 employees this year
- Christopher Blizzard... said in March that the earnings figure of $72m (£41m) was incorrect "though not off by an order of magnitude"
- Mozilla got "tens of millions" of dollars in revenue last year from paid relationships with search companies such as Google and Yahoo
- Coverity's Prevent has been licensed to scan source code for flaws before release (hence not promoting FOSS)
-
#8 Posted by ambiance on 10 Aug 2006 - 00:09
- I didn't even know beta 2 was coming out. I can wait a week, beta 1 is working beautifully for me with the exception of tabbrowser preferences.
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by hardgiant on 10 Aug 2006 - 02:27
- Vista still has HUGE bugs and can completely go bad on you. Firefox beta 1 has been stable and reliable.
They are two separate products though and they do different things. It would better to compare Firefox 2.0 to IE 7.0.
PS: I love Office 2007.....sometimes Microsoft gets it right. -
#9.1 Posted by Lare2 on 10 Aug 2006 - 23:13
- Quote - hardgiant said @ #9Vista still has HUGE bugs and can completely go bad on you. Firefox beta 1 has been stable ..........PS: I love Office 2007.....sometimes Microsoft gets it right.
Indeed, just like the OneNote program wich was a rare product done right in the first place by MS
-
#10 Posted by D.V on 10 Aug 2006 - 03:57
- This will be interesting for Windows users. I will def put it on my winbox.
But for mac, Camino is better. I finally stopped using FF Mac because it just wasn't as fast, smooth, etc in comparison to the windows version.
-
(3 replies)
#11 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 10 Aug 2006 - 04:38
- Quote -According to web analytics firms the Firefox browser has over 10% of the browser market, with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer on around 85%
Steven, I know you like to post news, it's something you live for every day....but dude, you have got to learn that posting only partial information leaves you open to flame bait. This site might claim "Where unprofessional journalism looks better", but "posting incorrect, or misleading information is just unprofessional" is more like it here.
That statement only reflects the U.S. side of Firefox's use...and last I heard it was up to 12%. Other countries hold the title for the most user percentage at this point. It just looks bad that you forget to reflect upon that. -
#11.1 Posted by Mathiasdm on 10 Aug 2006 - 07:28
- Quote - xMorpheousx416 said @ #11Quote -According to web analytics firms the Firefox browser has over 10% of the browser market, with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer on around 85%
Steven, I know you like to post news, it's something you live for every day....but dude, you have got to learn that posting only partial information leaves you open to flame bait. This site might claim "Where unprofessional journalism looks better", but "posting incorrect, or misleading information is just unprofessional" is more like it here.
That statement only reflects the U.S. side of Firefox's use...and last I heard it was up to 12%. Other countries hold the title for the most user percentage at this point. It just looks bad that you forget to reflect upon that.
'OVER 10%'
What's wrong with that?
Yes, Firefox has a much larger market share in Europe, but his data is not incorrect. Don't be a fanboy please.
Source for European market share: http://www.xitimonitor.com/etudes/equipement18.asp -
#11.2 Posted by Corwin2 on 10 Aug 2006 - 16:12
- Quote - Mathiasdm said @ #11.1Quote - xMorpheousx416 said @ #11Quote -According to web analytics firms the Firefox browser has over 10% of the browser market, with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer on around 85%
Steven, I know you like to post news, it's something you live for every day....but dude, you have got to learn that posting only partial information leaves you open to flame bait. This site might claim "Where unprofessional journalism looks better", but "posting incorrect, or misleading information is just unprofessional" is more like it here.
That statement only reflects the U.S. side of Firefox's use...and last I heard it was up to 12%. Other countries hold the title for the most user percentage at this point. It just looks bad that you forget to reflect upon that.
'OVER 10%'
What's wrong with that?
Yes, Firefox has a much larger market share in Europe, but his data is not incorrect. Don't be a fanboy please.
Source for European market share: http://www.xitimonitor.com/etudes/equipement18.asp
So, if I say that Internet Explorer has over 60% market share and not 85% (which is true in several European countries), you have no problem with this claim ? -
#11.3 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 10 Aug 2006 - 21:01
- Quote - Corwin2 said @ #11.2Quote - Mathiasdm said @ #11.1Quote - xMorpheousx416 said @ #11Quote -According to web analytics firms the Firefox browser has over 10% of the browser market, with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer on around 85%
Steven, I know you like to post news, it's something you live for every day....but dude, you have got to learn that posting only partial information leaves you open to flame bait. This site might claim "Where unprofessional journalism looks better", but "posting incorrect, or misleading information is just unprofessional" is more like it here.
That statement only reflects the U.S. side of Firefox's use...and last I heard it was up to 12%. Other countries hold the title for the most user percentage at this point. It just looks bad that you forget to reflect upon that.
'OVER 10%'
What's wrong with that?
Yes, Firefox has a much larger market share in Europe, but his data is not incorrect. Don't be a fanboy please.
Source for European market share: http://www.xitimonitor.com/etudes/equipement18.asp
So, if I say that Internet Explorer has over 60% market share and not 85% (which is true in several European countries), you have no problem with this claim ?
I don't know why I bother explaining myself, but since my post went right over your head and underneath your shoulders....I guess I'll humor myself.Quote -Don't be a fanboy please
You can take your fanboy claim and stick it. I use the right tool for the right job regardless if it's closed or open source. I like to see facts presented in news stories....so forgive me. My nose doesn't belong up anyone else's rear-end, so I will say what I want in fear of no one.Quote -So, if I say that Internet Explorer has over 60% market share and not 85% (which is true in several European countries), you have no problem with this claim ?
I have no problem when the news is complete.
-
#12 Posted by renio on 10 Aug 2006 - 06:50
- whahahaha Firefox delayed?! Again?! What a bunch of n00bs at Firefox!
*goes reading the article*
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by Cryton on 10 Aug 2006 - 10:35
- Quote -Firefox 2.0 Beta 2 was set to appear this week, but it will now make an appearance on 15 August. The new browser will offer users improved security features and greater functionality. Firefox 2.0 Beta 1 was unveiled last month.
Heh, the article is out of date already. Firefox Beta 2 did slip from Aug 8 to Aug 15, but now it's slipped further to Aug 23.
Whilst I'm sure some ppl will flame mozilla for this decision, please bear in mind that only a tiny proportion of firefox users are actually aware of such Firefox 2 betas, and most won't care. The Firefox project isn't going to hit an arbitrary release date if it means it firefox 2 will suffer, so such slippages are to be expected really. The new theme landing has introduced a lot of niggles and of course Mozilla want all such problems totally fixed before unleashing the Beta 2 onto the masses.
The release date of Firefox 2.0 Final is still targeted at Sept 26th, as it was before both these Beta 2 slippages. But please remember all dates are targets, not written law, and if something else should crop up that warrants another delay, expect another slip.
Having said that, there is some buffer in the projected time-lines for release dates, since three RCs are planned for but of course not all three might be used.
Some more info at developers.mozilla.org.
Last edited by Cryton on 10 Aug 2006 - 10:45 -
#13.1 Posted by Napalm Frog on 10 Aug 2006 - 13:57
- Interesting... Well, the sooner that they release it, the sooner I *may* be pulled back into using FF again.
-
#14 Posted by randomnut on 10 Aug 2006 - 13:39
- The difference is that when Mozilla delays something, it is because there is additional testing needed, more time needed to fix holes, etc. They want to put out something worthy of the 'Beta 2' label and not have people screaming 'this should be alpha! OMG LOLZ' or simaler.
When MS delays something, it is because of really bad management, mis communication and bad direction. They delay things and still try and push something out the door thats not worthy of its label. Look at what theyre trying to do for RC1. Vista NEEDS a beta 3, what will come out won't be a RELEASE CANDIDATE at all. They're just trying to appear to hit targets, regardless of quality.
-
(7 replies)
#15 Posted by C_Guy on 10 Aug 2006 - 14:34
- What the crap is so special about FireFox anyway? On PC, IE7 beats it, hands-down in terms of features and speed. (If someone can name me one feature FF actually has over IE, I'd like to hear it) And on Mac, Opera runs so much faster.
(And "it's not Microsoft" is not a feature) -
#15.1 Posted by Cryton on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:06
- There's nothing special about firefox.
Apart from being free, built with security in mind, not being embedded into the OS so any security issues that are found aren't magnified, not running activex (so not being vulnerable to drive-by silent installations), being extensible and customizable with themes and extensions, being open source so hackers can get at the source code to find security issues and earn themselves $500 a time (rather currently unknown flaws are found sooner rather than later; I'd like to see MS open up the IE source and offer half a grand for any security issues found!, having an open project structure that anyone can examine, criticize and contribute to (blogs, forums, irc, wiki, newsgroups, mailing lists, etc), being portable on keyfobs, having updates that don't require a windows reboot, having a faster turnaround when problems are found, having a simple UI, working on many OSs, great RSS support, following web standards much better than IE, having great support for tabbed browsing, built in dictionary, being developed by motivated devs with their eyes on the ball, having a thriving enthusiast community who constantly come up with new and amazing ideas, lighting a fire under bill gates' lazy ass and getting IE updated a little, pushing new technologies that will make the web a better place (svg, canvas, xforms, etc) and about a hundred other reasons. -
#15.2 Posted by C_Guy on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:21
- Just so people know and don't start a flame-war, this is not a fanboi war it's a real discussion. I'm looking for one good reason to use FF. I installed it, tried it, and hoestly, hated it. Just looking for one reason why people would pick it over IE.
Here's my response to your points:
-IE has always been free
-IE7's primary focus is security
-Being embedded in Windows has more advantages than disadvantages
-Nothing wrong with Active-X if you know what you are doing
-I will give you themes & extensions but you can also download add-ons for IE if you really want to mess up your browser
-"Open source" is not necessarily an advantage its just a different way of developing software. Instead of offering it to hackers, Microsoft offers IE to consumers as BETAs to get feedback. Same idea, different approaches.
-Customers can (and do) give Microsoft feedback on their IE software.
-Like any other piece of software, IE is also portable.
-I will give you updates that don't require a reboot
-FireFox's UI is no more "simple" than IE's.
-I will give you multiple OS support although most *NIX users detest Microsoft for whatever reason so I doubt there would be much of a market.
-RSS is also fully supported in IE7.
-I don't know about web standards but I know FF has more problems displaying webpages than IE ever did.
-IE7 has the best tabbed browsing
-I will give you no dictionary
-IE7 is also devleoped by motivated people
-IE7 was built with custoemr's ideas and feedback at the forefront
-If you think Bill Gate sis lazy then you have no idea who he is or what he has done for Microsoft or through his charity.
Let's hear the other 100 because browser skins and a dictionary really aren't enough motivation, in my opinion, to make someone want to switch browsers. -
#15.3 Posted by Cryton on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:46
- Of course, no flamewar here. Honestly, if other people want to use other browsers that's A-OK by me! Variety is the spice of life and all that
- IE is not really free since it comes with the OS and you have to buy the OS right? But really, this is a semantic arguement so let's not go there.
- I don't see any advantages of having a web-browser internet integrated so closely to the OS. Only disadvantages. Of course, I am glad to be corrected with any examples.
- Offering compiled software for security testing is no where as thorough as offering the whole source package and letting other coders see how the innards work. Mozilla is putting its money where their mouth is. To do that if they were only distributing compiled programs would be encouraging. To do it with the source-code is outstanding, and shouldn't be underrated.
- How is IE portable? i wasn't aware you could contain all its executable and dependent libs on a keychain and carry it about with you. Mind you, there's really no need for this to be possible with IE since it's on every windows machine you go to, so I guess it's a bit of a moot point anyway. My bad.
- FF's problems in displaying webpages stems mostly from years of spec abuse imposed on people by IE. Now that the proper specs are actually getting implemented by people other than MS and other websites are having to follow the specs, websites that use non-standard (IE) ways are of course going to be broken on firefox. Firefox isn't in the game of complying with whatever corruption of the specs MS has implemented.
- "IE7 has the best tabbed browsing" is surely subjective, so let's leave that.
- Bill Gates' lazyness, in this context, only extends to having gained a monopoly over web-browsing and then disbanded the IE team because it wasn't worth him making a better product or implementing new technologies and spec updates. Now that firefox and other browsers are gaining market share he's suddenly become interested in this arena again and got a team together for IE7. His charity work is outstanding and something I'd not berate him for.
As much as you dislike firefox or don't like what it offers, you must give it a little nod of respect for kick-starting the browser wars again and being partly responsible for IE7's conception. If IE wasn't loosing market-share i'm sure IE6 would have remained stagnant like it had for so many years before it, which would only have been detrimental to all users of the internet.
As I said before, I'm not going to try and argue you into liking firefox. If you install it and like it, great. If you don't like it, that's fine too! Perhaps when Firefox 2.0 Final is out you will give it another go for a week and your opinion might change.
Peace. -
#15.4 Posted by randomnut on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:49
- What you fail to understand is that MS is playing catch up. They werent going to bring out a new version of IE until they saw the impact firefox was having. FF was first to market with all the above features. MS just looked at it, saw what better features it has and copied them and made a half assed job of implementing them (such as all their stolen ideas and technology).
Due to Firefox community involvement, you get updates faster, and the features that the community actually want faster. For every version of FF that comes out, wait 6 months and the iE team will have attempted to copy it and botch it together into IE7. So, yes, granted after a while IE7 does have alot of the features FF does, but I would much rather be using the one that wasn't copied and is implemented the way it should be. I would rather my Web browser is just that, a web browser, and not locked into the system bloating it down. I would rather be using software from a company that embrases and involves the community to provide us with software with the features we want, not just what they think we want. -
#15.5 Posted by em_te on 10 Aug 2006 - 16:04
- Apart from being free
You have to buy a computer and pay for electricity to get Firefox, so it's not free. With IE it's different because you can own a Mac and still run IE on it (albeit an older version).
built with security in mind
Are you telling me IE doesn't respect the same-origin policy, doesn't limit the size of cookies, doesn't support SSL, doesn't allow you to disable Javascript/Java/ActiveX, etc.?
not being embedded into the OS so any security issues that are found aren't magnified
So IE shares a few dlls with Windows. What wrong with that? Do you think Firefox bundles it's own TCP/IP stack, GDI libraries, NTFS, device drivers, etc. so that it can remain isolated? Code and library sharing has it's technical merits.
not running activex (so not being vulnerable to drive-by silent installations)
But Firefox runs extensions which have been known to cause drive-by silent installations in the past.
having updates that don't require a windows reboot
Does Firefox?
The rest of your points are fair game. Firefox is way better than IE. -
#15.6 Posted by C_Guy on 10 Aug 2006 - 16:46
- Cryton: Thanks, it's very refreshing to have a mature discussion on Neowin for once!
-Given that IE is (now) only available for Windows I suppose you could argue that it's "cost" is included in Windows. However, you can also look at it this way: Windows XP has been out for years and yet, for no extra fee, you can download whole new versions of programs for free which add great value to your initial investment in Windows.
-In my own experience (others will differ I am sure), having IE more integrated with Windows means it will load faster and work faster. In previous Windows versions, this allowed you to have "active" desktop content. In addition, many third-party applications (Symantec's come to mind) require IE to be installed for proper application functionality, although you do not see this as much today as the past few years. I am guessing because they depended on that functionality being present in the operating system.
-I'm really not a fan of open-source because I prefer the 'traditional' way of creating software but I can see the advantages of having it tested this way.
-If you are telling me you can run the FF executable on portable media then you're right that's a great advantage. I thought, like most programs, it had to be installed. (Hence why I said IE is portable, there's jsut one setup file )
-I do not agree that website designers "must" follow certain specifications. If people want to design a webpage for IE then that's their choice. But you're right, that's not a good argument since FF shouldn't be responsible for that.
-Never mind about tabbed browsing, I checked again, it's about the same.
I think that, without FF, Microsoft would have eventually re-done IE but you're right FF deserves some credit here.
Thanks for the discussion, maybe I will give Beta 2 a shot on my PC-Wannabe (iMac)
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by dagamer34 on 10 Aug 2006 - 14:45
- Would anyone recommend switching from FF 1.5 to FF 2.0 Beta 1?
-
#16.1 Posted by Corwin2 on 10 Aug 2006 - 16:21
- It depends on your technical skills and reasons for that.
* Many extensions won't work yet with the beta version (although you can make them work easily)
* although very stable (I had only a couple of crashed in 3 weeks, using it 12h a day) It's not as stable yet as 1.5
But if you want to help squeeze bugs, have a taste of what the final version will be or really need a specific 2.0 feature, you may give it a try on a secundary profile.
-
#17 Posted by acies on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:36
- maybe you just wasnted to hate it?? if IE7 is doing it for you then don't change.
Last edited by acies on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:45
-
#18 Posted by xpgeek on 10 Aug 2006 - 16:38
- Pushed back more too;Quote -Just a headsup. The Mozilla Developer's Calendar shows that Beta 2 has been pushed back again, from Aug 15 to Aug 23. A bit more info at developer.mozilla.org and Google Groups.
From
-
#19 Posted by i3iz on 10 Aug 2006 - 18:03
- Rumor has it that FireFox 2 Beta will be called Shorthorn.
-
#20 Posted by bid1 on 10 Aug 2006 - 19:56
- BIGhorn? or BIGTHorn?
-
#21 Posted by PsykX on 11 Aug 2006 - 14:06
- Bah... a few days won't make a difference for me. If firefox 2 beta can be better or less buggy, then go for it...
-
#22 Posted by yukycg on 15 Aug 2006 - 05:40
- now it is push back to Aug.23rd
http://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index...refox-2-beta-2/
Firefox 2.0 Beta 2 was set to appear this week, but it will now make an appearance on 15 August. The new browser will offer users improved security features and greater functionality. Firefox 2.0 Beta 1 was unveiled last month.
Despite the delay, Firefox 2.0 is still expected to appear on 26 September, its original release date. Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X editions of Firefox 2.0 Beta 1 are available from the Mozilla website.
According to web analytics firms the Firefox browser has over 10% of the browser market, with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer on around 85%.