Mozilla Firefox 3.0 Alpha 2

[shockz]

Yes but you are using Firebird on that screenshot (why ain't it called FireFox on yours?) and I was on about FF 2.0 final. and Even if you can get that skin for FF 2.0, it still doesn't look half as good as the deafult IE 7 look in Vista:

Just look at the transparency on the uploaded image and the brilliant icons in the toolbar:

I sure hope it isn't firebird... thats an old beta/alpha of firefox.

[P!P]

I sure hope it isn't firebird... thats an old beta/alpha of firefox.

Firebird! 2004 all the way!

[xxdesmus]

If Mozilla really wanted to impress me they could have an option to extend glass into the UI like Maxathon has managed...because Maxathon looks damn sexy on Vista with the glass enabled. :yes:

[primexx]

If Mozilla really wanted to impress me they could have an option to extend glass into the UI like Maxathon has managed...because Maxathon looks damn sexy on Vista with the glass enabled. :yes:

good idea. how do we suggest that to moz?

[xxdesmus]

You've seen Maxathon on Vista right? It looks damn sexy.

Also, I guess the more precise term I meant earlier was extend glass into the client area, not just the UI. It's already in the UI (glass border), just not in the client area.

[primexx]

You've seen Maxathon on Vista right? It looks damn sexy.

I like IE7's glass the most (NOT the rest of the UI). I'm not a fan of Maxthon's non-native elements. Oh and no whitish glow behind the title! But it's an improvement over no-glass for sure.

edit: oh wait, you're using a different windows skin. nm then.

[xpgeek]

I don't like the sound of that memory leak. I'll stick with final releases for now.

[CoolCatBad]

See the funny warning when you enter about:config?

browser.send_pings is a bit of a worry

browser.preferences.instantApply is built-in but must be toggled

[kaiwai]

Really? I don't think so.

It's skinnable for a reason...

Dear god that looks ugly - I suppose if one were using the original skin and didn't have the bookmarks bar showing, it wouldn't look half bad.

[Calum Veteran]

I am running the same skin in FF2.0. Do some research sometime. No, it is not as nice looking as IE but it still offers me more functionality.

What do you mean when you say it offers more functionality? I don't see much difference of the features between IE 7 and FF 2. Sure FF has more extensions than IE has add-ons, but that doesn't matter; most of them are pointless! Also FF does provide the option to have different skins. Well you don't need this in IE 7, 'cause the default skin is just so sexy in Vista! So what do you mean when you say more fuinctionality? Unless I'm forgetting some of FireFox's features? (Who, might I add, copied IE 7 on individual 'X' buttons on each tab and still haven't got the "QuickTabs" function like IE 7 :D)

If Mozilla really wanted to impress me they could have an option to extend glass into the UI like Maxathon has managed...because Maxathon looks damn sexy on Vista with the glass enabled. :yes:

That's what I meant in the first place when I said "look good in Vista" lol. A glass effect on FireFox might make it at least a lil bearable for me. :D

[Ayepecks]

Best Firefox skin on Vista:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/44508564/

[xxdesmus]

Dear god that looks ugly - I suppose if one were using the original skin and didn't have the bookmarks bar showing, it wouldn't look half bad.

I agree. I don't think I'd be using Firefox if it looked that ugly. :whistle:

Personally, I don't want my Firefox to look like IE7. I don't like the look of IE7, it's really quite ugly.

[Timan Veteran]

Best Firefox skin on Vista:

http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs14/i/2007/027/...solidfilter.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/44508564/

Yep, skin works perfect in vista, then all you need to do is download the extension that lets you hide the menu bar.

[azz0r_wugg]

The blue gradient and white speckles around the icons ruined it for me.

[soumyasch]

How are Gran Paradiso and Minefield different?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

release notes: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.0a2/releasenotes/

Gecko 1.9 Alpha 2 introduces several new features which can be tested by using Gran Paradiso Alpha 2:

* Core layout code affecting the calculation of widths in tables, floats, and absolutely positioned elements has been rewritten. The code for handling incremental layout of pages (as data arrives over the network, as images load, or as dynamic changes are made) has also been changed extensively. (See the Reflow-Refactoring wiki page for more information.

* Resolved remaining issues with ACID2 test compliance.

* Support for the Web Apps 1.0 API for changing stylesheets.

* The inline-block and inline-table values of CSS 2.1's display property are now implemented.

* XML documents can now be rendered as they're downloaded instead of only after the full document has been loaded.

* Greatly improved Mac widgets support since Alpha 1.

* Improvements in the Cairo graphics layer.

...

I'm pretty happy with everything on that list (yay for incremental rendering of XML documents)

[iconoclast]

• The browser may consume excessive amounts of memory after prolonged browsing.
  

Just like v1.x and 2.x :p

[rado354]

LOL iconoclast :rofl:

Firefox 2.0.0.1 is consuming 30-60MB RAM when not bloated with many extensions.

[anguilla1980]

Is Firefox 3 going to be released in a full x64 bit version for Vista x64 and OSX 10.5 x64?

[Pink Floyd Veteran]

Just like v1.x and 2.x :p

Nice useless comment iconoclast. ?I'm a fan of opera even if opera takes more memoey compared to ie and firefox 2 on my computer. ?With the amount of ram users have these years, memory useage shouldn't be important to make a decision what app to use.

Hey Bibble uses more than 600mb of ram while processing a picture and I use it anyway!

[kaiwai]

Just like v1.x and 2.x :p

But according to the 'great developers', this isn't a bug, but a feature to 'boost retrival of cache sites'!

Oh well, IE7 is good enough for me, I'd like to give Firefox ago but I'm sick and tired of the same excuses over and over again for bloated bug ridden code.

[arrrgh]

But according to the 'great developers', this isn't a bug, but a feature to 'boost retrival of cache sites'!

Oh well, IE7 is good enough for me, I'd like to give Firefox ago but I'm sick and tired of the same excuses over and over again for bloated bug ridden code.

Well, just to get a few things straight.

The new caching features were suggested as one possible explanation for increased memory use by one developer (who isn't involved with Firefox development anymore). One problem devs have with this massive memory leak is that noone can reproduce it consistenly. There are numerous small memory leaks but nothing that could leak several hundred MBs. The only Firefox version leaks that kind of amounts of memory for me are the recent trunk builds, but that is a known issue.

Like any other program Firefox definitely has bugs, but to say that Firefox/Gecko code is more bloated and bug ridden than other browsers is ridiculous. I bet that on average popular open source programs have higher code quality than closed source programs, simply because more eyes on the code = more bugs found. (This doesn't mean that open source programs are better by default).

[MediaSoldier]

I went to open about:config and this pops up :p

lol..

[ZonoBurk]

I went to open about:config and this pops up :p

lol..

Haha! :rofl:

[ToneKnee]

Well, just to get a few things straight.

The new caching features were suggested as one possible explanation for increased memory use by one developer (who isn't involved with Firefox development anymore). One problem devs have with this massive memory leak is that noone can reproduce it consistenly. There are numerous small memory leaks but nothing that could leak several hundred MBs. The only Firefox version leaks that kind of amounts of memory for me are the recent trunk builds, but that is a known issue.

Like any other program Firefox definitely has bugs, but to say that Firefox/Gecko code is more bloated and bug ridden than other browsers is ridiculous. I bet that on average popular open source programs have higher code quality than closed source programs, simply because more eyes on the code = more bugs found. (This doesn't mean that open source programs are better by default).

You should be allowed to turn this special cache feature off, users like myself who run their own proxy/cache server can maintain the data and can fetch it when it's needed.