Mozilla Shows Mock-up of Firefox 3.0's Places

Mozilla Corp. has posted mock-ups of Places, one of the most-awaited new features in the upcoming Firefox 3.0., on its Web site. As part of the weekly Firefox 3.0 status update that Mozilla posts to a wiki, the open-source developer included screenshots of Places Organizer, the interface users will see later this year or early next when the browser goes to its final release.

Places, the name given to the new unified history and bookmark manager, was originally scheduled to be included in Firefox 2.0, but it was yanked last year from that version because Mozilla decided it couldn't finish the feature in time. Unlike current browser bookmark tools, Places will use a database -- the SQLite database engine powers it -- so users can search for saved pages. Places will also support the use of tags, or user-defined labels that are applied to categorize bookmarks and make them easier to retrieve via searches.

View: The full story
News source: PCWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Samsung introduces 60nm-class processing for 2Gb DDR2

Next Story

Nvidia Scraps "Designed by Nvidia"


Commenting is disabled on this article.

This can turn out to be a GREAT tool. I don't find the current bookmarks useful. For some people, bookmarks are "frequently visited pages", but for me they are more like "things I might need sometime". A lot of college bookmarks actually. So yeah, bookmarks are great for things you visit frequently. But not for a "one-time" thing that you just saved because you wanted to have a look at it later that day. Maybe places can serve for both purposes...

nevermind lol

I really have no need to search through my bookmarks. It would be handy, however, to have a set of bookmarks that I could then direct a search engine such as Google to only return results from pages I have bookmarked.

I think that they would do better if they left this "Places" as an extension rather than part of the core to Firefox. I'm afraid that Firefox is starting to drift into bloatsville. They don't have to be pushing the version number to new heights and coming up with useless features to keep the users happy. Just stick with the original goals of the project: a fast web browser that is secure and easy to use.

Seriously, are there anything people on this board that don't whine or complain about a feature being added to a program? If you don't like it, don't use it.

It looks great in Vista I hope they can make it look cool in other UIs

Its also not terribly clear how to search for the contents of a page in history, which is what most users want by default.

Oh good, something else with tags... *yawn*

OK, tags I don't mind, but I just wonder what kind of performance hit this will entail. I imagine it will hinge on one thing: will the sqlite db be just accessed when needed (as would seem sensible), or loaded into memory like the current bookmarks file?

I always disliked the single-file-in-memory bookmarks system, because it means this resource isn't available to other apps to read or modify while Firefox is running. This is one area where IE did it better: Favorites were always intended to be available throughout the UI, so a file-hierarchy model was used, and this means it can be accessed and changed dynamically by any number of applications at once. At my work the Favorites collection gets synced across 2-3 desktops constantly, which wouldn't work with Firefox. (Except it sorta does, but only thanks to the PlainOldFavorites extension but anyway)

If Places syncs to disk on every access, then it could open it up to a lot of other apps that could benefit. That'd be good.

Looks like I may stick with 2.0 when 3 is released. Firefox won my affection for being a core which you could add to. FF2 kinda pushed it a bit, but some of the included features were nice. Places is just unnecessary.

Looks pretty stupid to me and sounds like a pretty stupid idea too. Can't you remember where you put things? Or, as everybody else is around here is always saying about most things, that gui sure is fugly!!

(zer0day said @ #3.1)
Looks a lot like Windows Media Player 11 :|

I think they're trying to appeal to the IE7 crowd a bit too much.

Julius Caro said,
and wmp11 resembles itunes in the way it sorts in the content. somehow, it's a trend.

except in this one, it does look REMARKABLY like WMP11, even the skin.