FireFox version 4 Preview.

[deepsand]

Looks more like Chrome, presents users with fewer functions. :shock:

Mozilla's Firefox 4 has a Chrome tint to it - TechRepublic (http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=4345&tag=nl.e019)

___________________

[Clint1]

"Beltzner admitted that that means taking away user interface controls, and some users are going to scream about it, but it’s necessary to simplify and speed up Firefox."

:confused: That's ridiculous. You don't need to remove needed features on IE to speed it up, so why do it on FF???? But this comes as no surprise to me since most new versions of anything have fewer features, and people wonder why so many (such as myself) never "upgrade". Well because when an "upgrade" is usually a down-grade. No doubt Mozilla will try and "extort" those that have FF on their PC's into using the newest version. I hope they tank.

"User customization - “putting users in full control of their browser, data, and Web experience” "

Oh yeah, right......except what they removed. How's that for "full control". :rolleyes: The way you get more people to use your product is to give it more features, not remove features. You try and mimic that which is #1. If they had brains they'd give users the option of disabling features to allegedly speed things up.

That really sucks because I'm always looking forward to using a better version of FF, that would be as fast and as stable as IE, and with all of IE's features. Until they do that, they'll never be #1, and they'll never get those such as myself to use FF as the default browser.

[kgun]

Oh yeah, right......except what they removed. How's that for "full control". :rolleyes: The way you get more people to use your product is to give it more features, not remove features. You try and mimic that which is #1. If they had brains they'd give users the option of disabling features to allegedly speed things up.

Fully agree, like Opera turbo (http://www.opera.com/browser/turbo/).

[deepsand]

[I]"User customization - “putting users in full control of their browser, data, and Web experience” "

Oh yeah, right......except what they removed. How's that for "full control". :rolleyes: The way you get more people to use your product is to give it more features, not remove features. You try and mimic that which is #1. If they had brains they'd give users the option of disabling features to allegedly speed things up.
As I understand it, what they are planning on doing is having some features disabled by default, with enabling such being a user option. While not an unreasonable approach, given the push to make the browser the universal UI - an approach that I do not subscribe too - such approach would be to be counter-productive.

Having the browser be the see-all do-all UI unavoidably means having it be a major consumer of resources, for which the only materially viable solution is to have more resources. And, even in the absence of browser bloat, the seemingly unending growth in the sizes of on-line resources processed by browsers, as well as those of local client applications, will itself alone continue to require an ever increasing amount of local resources.

Given the forced march toward ever more powerful client platforms, to now believe that a minimalist approach to browser design, with users left to decide which optional features should be activated and how to do so, seems to be more than a little myopic.

[goldsteinmedia]

As I understand it, what they are planning on doing is having some features disabled by default, with enabling such being a user option. While not an unreasonable approach, given the push to make the browser the universal UI - an approach that I do not subscribe too - such approach would be to be counter-productive.

If they let us add features it easily then I don't see a problem at all. if they don't i'm going to go ape sh!t!

[deepsand]

If they let us add features it easily then I don't see a problem at all. if they don't i'm going to go ape sh!t!
I quite concur.

However, I am unconvinced that a typical user will be up to the task, as evidenced by much time spent observing end users over the course of many decades.

[goldsteinmedia]

I quite concur.

However, I am unconvinced that a typical user will be up to the task, as evidenced by much time spent observing end users over the course of many decades.

But most users won't need the features that we want. If they never go past the defaults that's fine. I just want Firefox to stop stalling on me and being crappy.

[deepsand]

But most users won't need the features that we want
Are you saying that most users do not need a menu bar?

[goldsteinmedia]

They don't need one on Chrome and chrome works well. Welcome to the future.

[deepsand]

They don't need one on Chrome and chrome works well. Welcome to the future.
I'm speaking of the universe of users, not those of Chrome, who are not representative of the whole.

Fact: Most living users are not, and will not become, accomplished touch typists, and are not going to memorize and efficiently use keyboard shortcuts.

The whole purpose of a mouse is so that users can keep their eyes on the screen, with as little need for the keyboard as possible.

[Clint1]

They don't need one on Chrome and chrome works well. Welcome to the future.
Which is probably why Chrome only has ~5% of the market. I can't do without any menu bar......on anything.

[kgun]

They don't need one on Chrome and chrome works well. Welcome to the future.
How secure is that open source browser (http://code.google.com/chromium/)?

Do you think Opera have studied that code?

An open source code browser will never get a link on this http://www.redcarpetrank.com/ site.

Security is my main concern. And it should be the main concern for the surfer and online shopper.

You don't secure your home and tell the whole world how it is done.

[Clint1]

As I understand it, what they are planning on doing is having some features disabled by default, with enabling such being a user option.
Hopefully that is the case.



Given the forced march toward ever more powerful client platforms, to now believe that a minimalist approach to browser design, with users left to decide which optional features should be activated and how to do so, seems to be more than a little myopic.
Myopia seems to be an affliction experienced by all-too-many in the software field. :confused: But if they are not totally removing features and letting the end-user decide, that's a bit less myopic that removing them altogether.

[goldsteinmedia]

I mean you can always choose to stay on 3.6. Yea I know that's not the best idea. We'll really just have to wait and see how thing are with FF 4

[goldsteinmedia]

Which is probably why Chrome only has ~5% of the market. I can't do without any menu bar......on anything.

Yea neither can I, but we're the exception. Most users don't need everything enabled. As long as they let us enable features and hopefully easily I'll be happy.

[Clint1]

Yea neither can I, but we're the exception. Most users don't need everything enabled. As long as they let us enable features and hopefully easily I'll be happy.
As would I. But unfortunately that doesn't seem like that's going to be the case according that quote in my post #2:

"Beltzner admitted that that means taking away user interface controls, and some users are going to scream about it, but it’s necessary to simplify and speed up Firefox."

Note he said "taking away", and not something like "hiding" or "disabling by default with the option to enable", etc.

[morestar]

Looks more like Chrome, presents users with fewer functions. :shock:

Mozilla's Firefox 4 has a Chrome tint to it - TechRepublic (http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=4345&tag=nl.e019)

Sweet. Now I'm excited for this release. The cleaner they present it to me the easier it'll seem it will be easier to adapt to. I just hope it's a bit faster than usual although Firefox has been nicely loading etc. for the past little while for me.

Thanks for the link and the heads-up deepsand...

[deepsand]

Sweet. Now I'm excited for this release. The cleaner they present it to me the easier it'll seem it will be easier to adapt to.
Cleaner?

Well, if it's "clean" that you want, how about nothing but an Address Bar; can't get much cleaner than that! :mrgreen:

It's time to once more repeat : Form follows Function.

Precisely what about FF's UI is "unclean?"

Take note of the fact that the stated goal of Mozilla is not "clean," but "lean," so as to reduce FF's footprint. And, as I've above noted, that involves trade-offs. You cannot have "lean" without a commensurate loss of functionality.

[goldsteinmedia]

But if you can reimplement the features then what's the problem.

[deepsand]

But if you can reimplement the features then what's the problem.
There's the operative word - "if."

"Beltzner admitted that that means taking away user interface controls, and some users are going to scream about it, but it’s necessary to simplify and speed up Firefox."

[goldsteinmedia]

Yea well that would be a problem. Having it so you can reimpliment and hence slow down the browser would be a good thing. Otherwise all hell will break loose

[deepsand]

And, as I earlier said :

I am unconvinced that a typical user will be up to the task, as evidenced by much time spent observing end users over the course of many decades.

[goldsteinmedia]

Honestly only time will tell. But honestly Chrome isn't too hard to use. Ppl just have to be willing to figure it out. There in lies the problem.

[deepsand]

Honestly only time will tell. But honestly Chrome isn't too hard to use. Ppl just have to be willing to figure it out. There in lies the problem.
It is illogical to expect that users will be willing to learn anything that does not offer a visible and tangible reward within a reasonably short amount of time.

It is the burden of the developer to first serve the user.

[goldsteinmedia]

It is illogical to expect that users will be willing to learn anything that does not offer a visible and tangible reward within a reasonably short amount of time.

It is the burden of the developer to first serve the user.

That is true.

[deepsand]

All hail Firefox, the best browser there is, no questions about it. huh
Well, IE6 still runs like the Energizer Bunny. That FF caught on so fast owes, at least in part, to the fact that it copied IE6's UI, making the transition quite easy for users.

[Zolesz]

I like it very much and I think I will won't update right after it is released because I don't think that my favorite plugins will be updated right after the release. ;)

[deepsand]

I like it very much ...
Have you actually tried it?

If so, specifically what do you "like very much?"

If not, how can you rationally "like it very much?"

[wige]

I have been reading up on FF4, what little information is available, as well as starting to play with the beta. I am curious, what are the features that you say have been removed?

For the record, Clint, I don't think this statement means what you think: "Beltzner admitted that that means taking away user interface controls, and some users are going to scream about it, but it’s necessary to simplify and speed up Firefox."

This statement does not refer to the removal of any feature. A "control" is any UI element that users can manipulate. In FF4, these have been removed from the title bar and put into a single button. What they have done is reworked the UI - essentially, they took the menu bar (File, Edit, View, etc) and combined it into a single pulldown that is now in the title, and the information that used to be in the title bar is now only found in the tab for the current page. This frees up some space at the top of the screen to either give you a larger viewing area for the web page, or allows you to have a larger address and navigation bar without giving up space for the page. Granted, this does have a small cost, in that you have one more click to access any menu option, but the menus have themselves been reworked, so that extra click could be balanced out.

Granted, I do miss having a close button.

[Martinscholes]

I like it very much and I think I will won't update right after it is released because I don't think that my favorite plugins will be updated right after the release. ;)

Or they might disable the plug-ins that we like to use...

[deepsand]

Or they might disable the plug-ins that we like to use...
For what possible reason? :confused:

[Clint1]

I have been reading up on FF4, what little information is available, as well as starting to play with the beta. I am curious, what are the features that you say have been removed?

For the record, Clint, I don't think this statement means what you think: "Beltzner admitted that that means taking away user interface controls, and some users are going to scream about it, but it’s necessary to simplify and speed up Firefox."

This statement does not refer to the removal of any feature.
I wouldn't know how else to take that. ;) "User interface controls", a control/feature that the user users to interact with the program or software. ?? (I don't remember about any other features, it's been while since I was at this thread and I'd have to read it again).



A "control" is any UI element that users can manipulate. In FF4, these have been removed from the title bar and put into a single button. What they have done is reworked the UI - essentially, they took the menu bar (File, Edit, View, etc) and combined it into a single pulldown that is now in the title, and the information that used to be in the title bar is now only found in the tab for the current page.
Ok I see what you're saying, they didn't remove it, they moved it, to another location.



This frees up some space at the top of the screen to either give you a larger viewing area for the web page, or allows you to have a larger address and navigation bar without giving up space for the page. Granted, this does have a small cost, in that you have one more click to access any menu option.....
Well that doesn't sound good. Do you know if there are any screenshots of FF4?



Granted, I do miss having a close button.
Is there no "X" at upper right, or do you mean "Close" was removed from "File" menu?

[Clint1]

For what possible reason? :confused:
He may mean that the plug-ins are not compatible with FF4, they stop working the way they usually stop working with every update. I'm curious if the .xpi hack will still work with FF4. Recently I tried it with a much needed extension (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/156/), (and homepage (http://jumplink.mozdev.org/)), and it worked on 3.5-3.6, (but that context menu is not there, it wasn't even there on FF v1.5-1.6! :confused:)

[deepsand]

He may mean that the plug-ins are not compatible with FF4, ...
Doubtful, as the issue re. compatibility was addressed in the post quoted.

[wige]

Ok I see what you're saying, they didn't remove it, they moved it, to another location.

Microsoft did the same thing with Office, when they moved to 2007 by adding the ribbon. Features are easier to get to, and the learning curve was greatly reduced. For new users. Experienced office users, however, now had an increased loading time because the menus they were familiar with were gone.



Well that doesn't sound good. Do you know if there are any screenshots of FF4?
There are some shots in this article: http://mashable.com/2009/07/27/firefox-40/
However, they do not look like the Beta I have. I'll look for new shots, or make some if I can't find any.



Is there no "X" at upper right, or do you mean "Close" was removed from "File" menu?
No X at the upper right. You have to go to the menu.

[deepsand]

No X at the upper right. You have to go to the menu.
Still haven't had time to install the Beta.

In re. the absence the "X" close button, what of the resizing buttons in same corner?

And, does <ALT><F4> function per usual?

[Clint1]

There are some shots in this article: http://mashable.com/2009/07/27/firefox-40/
However, they do not look like the Beta I have. I'll look for new shots, or make some if I can't find any.

No X at the upper right. You have to go to the menu.
(Interesting the page won't load in IE! "Operation aborted". :twisted:) I see the X @ upper right in all those screenshots, but the total lack of any toolbar is an absolute deal breaker for millions of users, including me. :twisted: :confused:

[deepsand]

(Interesting the page won't load in IE! "Operation aborted". :twisted:)
Works fine for me on IE6; a bit slow, but gets there.

[Clint1]

Works fine for me on IE6; a bit slow, but gets there.
I was wondering about that since I remember you used it too. I just disabled KIS and now it loads. I enabled it again and it won't load. Yet another freakin' reason to trash this POS KIS. :mad:

[Clint1]

I was wondering about that since I remember you used it too. I just disabled KIS and now it loads. I enabled it again and it won't load. Yet another freakin' reason to trash this POS KIS. :mad:
"Internet Explorer cannot open the internet site"
"Operation aborted"
As always, the "fix" is a bad link. :mad:
http://www.nirmaltv.com/2007/08/08/how-to-fix-internet-explorer-cannot-open-the-internet-site-operation-aborted-error/
Looks like the claim is (and from what I've found so far), it's due to the webpage's coding! But that's obviously not the case since it's not happening with you and KIS is causing it in my case.

[wige]

"Internet Explorer cannot open the internet site"
"Operation aborted"
As always, the "fix" is a bad link. :mad:
http://www.nirmaltv.com/2007/08/08/how-to-fix-internet-explorer-cannot-open-the-internet-site-operation-aborted-error/
Looks like the claim is (and from what I've found so far), it's due to the webpage's coding! But that's obviously not the case since it's not happening with you and KIS is causing it in my case.

Interesting. Works on my system (tested with IE8 on Win7 with KIS9).

Making some screenshots now...

[wige]

Still haven't had time to install the Beta.

In re. the absence the "X" close button, what of the resizing buttons in same corner?

And, does <ALT><F4> function per usual?
The resizing buttons are gone too. <alt><f4> does work. EDIT: Looking through a lot of these screenshot sites, I don't see other screenshots with the buttons missing. I am thinking this may be a bug on my end. I am looking into that more.

This site: http://mashable.com/2010/07/06/firefox-4-beta-1-released/ (ok, new article on the same site) has updated screenshots, which shows the new orange menu at top left and the buttons (which are missing on mine) at top right. However, the article does not mention that a right click on the navigation bar opens a small menu that allows you to click a checkbox that brings back the file menu, essentially reverting the UI to something similar to 3.5.

Also, I would add that just like in Office, you can turn the file bar back on temporarily simply by pressing <alt>.

[Clint1]

Interesting. Works on my system (tested with IE8 on Win7 with KIS9).

Making some screenshots now...
But DS and I are using IE6. Could be it only happens with KIS and IE6. I've had nothing but problems with KIS (I also use KIS9 or v2010). I thought I got the problem fixed yesterday by unchecking "Block dangerous scripts in IE" (under Web AntiVirus), because doing that got rid of the problem. But now today, it's not only back at that site but some other sites as well! But the one thing that's for certain is that it is KIS that causing it.

(The anti-banner also refuses to block ads/images from s0.2mdn.net).

[Clint1]

The resizing buttons are gone too. <alt><f4> does work. EDIT: Looking through a lot of these screenshot sites, I don't see other screenshots with the buttons missing. I am thinking this may be a bug on my end. I am looking into that more.

This site: http://mashable.com/2010/07/06/firefox-4-beta-1-released/ (ok, new article on the same site) has updated screenshots, which shows the new orange menu at top left and the buttons (which are missing on mine) at top right. However, the article does not mention that a right click on the navigation bar opens a small menu that allows you to click a checkbox that brings back the file menu, essentially reverting the UI to something similar to 3.5.
The new screenshot also still has the "X" at upper right. Since yours is missing that, that also may be bug on your install.



Also, I would add that just like in Office, you can turn the file bar back on temporarily simply by pressing <alt>.
By "temporarily" do you mean each time you start FF you have to recheck that option??

Is there any way to get the toolbar back?

[wige]

Checking the option is permanent, or at least, lasts until you uncheck the option. In fact, you have the exact same option in FF 3.6, but it is enabled by default, and in 3.6 you don't have the orange menu to replace it.

The temporary option of pressing ALT is basically for when you have the menu bar set to off, but need to use the menu bar "on demand". Again, the same thing works in 3.6 - turn off the menu bar, and you can bring it back whenever you need to use it by pressing ALT.

[deepsand]

<ALT><what>?

In FF 3.x, the ALT key alone is equivalent to clicking on the "File" button but without the drop-down menu being displayed.

[wige]

Yes, but with the side effect of unhiding the menu bar if you have it turned off.

[deepsand]

Mea culpa.

I'd misread your previous post to mean that <ALT> toggled the display/non-display of the Menu Bar.

[deepsand]

Beta 7 is out; and, the GUI looks very much like the one of previous versions, which was modeled after IE6.

While I've a few quibbles about the GUI, some noted at Things I hate about Mozilla Firefox 4.0 (http://www.askvg.com/things-i-hate-about-mozilla-firefox-4-0/), the most noticeable change is the speed - this puppy is fast - owing to the new JägerMonkey JavaScript engine.

[Clint1]

Beta 7 is out; and, the GUI looks very much like the one of previous versions, which was modeled after IE6.
Beta 7 of FF?? What happened to v5-5.x, and 6-6.x? I assume all those "break" the existing add-ons?

[deepsand]

Beta 7 of FF?? What happened to v5-5.x, and 6-6.x?
FF 4.0 Beta 7.


I assume all those "break" the existing add-ons?
The Beta attempts to validate all extensions installed on the current installed version of FF, if present. Some, but not all, do work.

[alphaomega]

Interesting to see that some of you here talk about something you haven't actually experienced. How can anyone seriously make a critique on FF4 without having it installed on computer? Seriously guys, get real.

[Clint1]

Interesting to see that some of you here talk about something you haven't actually experienced. How can anyone seriously make a critique on FF4 without having it installed on computer? Seriously guys, get real.
What makes you say that? Apparently DS has it installed or else he would not have known this (http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/threads/101253-FireFox-version-4-Preview.?p=538309&viewfull=1#post538309).

[alphaomega]

My apologies if I misunderstood.

[deepsand]

My apologies if I misunderstood.
No problem.

Coffee's on me.

[alphaomega]

When you show up in Down Under I buy you a beer or two. Thanks.

[deepsand]

Coffee?
Was up unusually early this morning; and, quaffing my necessary jump-start dosage of caffeine at the time.

Scotch comes later in the day.

[Clint1]

When you show up in Down Under I buy you a beer or two. Thanks.
Foster's? ;)

[alphaomega]

four XXXX in Queensland.

[alphaomega]

Now seriously; I have been using FF for a very long time, simply because I never liked IE for it's poor security. I am of two minds about the FF4 Betta 7. It works, seems to be fast, but then is slow also. Had quite a few crashes with it. Like to know who copied whom. IE9 Betta and FF4 looks soooo much alike in the UI. I must run IE to access Microsoft Partners website. No luck with any other browser there. It is IE specific. Don't have too much info yet on IE9 from the forums. Everyone seems to be rather careful in publishing what they think. God forbid we upset MS. I hope the final version of FF4 is better. Not quite there yet so far. Needs work to be done on it yet. Some of the extensions which were fine on FF3.0 aren't working on FF4 yeat, which is a bummer. Don't like to run two versions of a browser at one time. Security is also one large "unknown" yet. We have assurances from Mozilla people that it is the most safe and stable browser on the internet, but don't they all say this? We will see in time how good FF4 will be. FF does have a large part of the public, that is for sure.
So here, I just wanted to share my experience with the betta.

[deepsand]

Given that FF's GUI was, and, through and including FF4 Beta 7 still is, very closely modeled after that of IE6, seems that Mozilla is the copy-cat.

As for extensions, it is the developers, not Mozilla, who stipulate what versions of FF their product(s) work with. Most developers are likely to wait until FF4 has a Release Candidate before putting efforts into determining what, if anything, they need do in order to ensure compatibility between FF4 and their works. So, even though an extension may now work with FF4 Beat 7, FF4 will not use it unless and until the developer so tags it.

Crashes and/or slow-downs? Have yet to experience any at all. Do those that you've observed correlate with any particular sites and/or applications?

[Clint1]

Remember, that usually extensions can be made to work with any FF version with the hack, it's just a PITA. That can EASILY be done by the extension creator in a second! Yet they refuse to do it. (This forum's new stupid search can't find my posts about that).

[Clint1]

This may be the post, or at least one of them: http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/threads/88133-Google-Chrome-is-3rd-Most-Used-Brower?p=463315&viewfull=1#post463315

[alphaomega]

Crashes and/or slow-downs? Have yet to experience any at all. Do those that you've observed correlate with any particular sites and/or applications?
Crashes happened and slow downs as well, when I have ten or more tabs open. I would suggest this is memory problem. Once the browser reaches certain amount of memory, it crashes. I am sure they will have figured this out by now. I am submitting all of this to Mozilla.
I am aware that the developers don't update until the Beta program is over. I mentioned this only for those who want to run FF4 exclusively. Overall the experience is positive.

[Clint1]

Crashes happened and slow downs as well, when I have ten or more tabs open. I would suggest this is memory problem. Once the browser reaches certain amount of memory, it crashes. I am sure they will have figured this out by now. I am submitting all of this to Mozilla.
I am aware that the developers don't update until the Beta program is over. I mentioned this only for those who want to run FF$ exclusively. Overall the experience is positive.
That's one of the reasons I can't use FF; memory and resource hog. In IE I can have 30+ browser windows open with no problem. In FF, anything more than 5 starts a slowdown and more than 10 becomes unusable. (3.4ghz and 2gb, plus PageFile tweaks). That's been a FF undoing since day one, and it seems to have gotten worse with each release. Is this still a problem with 4?

[deepsand]

Crashes happened and slow downs as well, when I have ten or more tabs open. I would suggest this is memory problem. Once the browser reaches certain amount of memory, it crashes. I am sure they will have figured this out by now. I am submitting all of this to Mozilla..
At the moment, in addition to one instance of IE6, and three instances of WE, I've 11 FF4 windows, with a total of 41 tabs, open with no problem.

Of 2 GB RAM, 20% remains free; another logged in user owns about 120 MB.

FF4 itself is using approx. 640 MB.

[Clint1]

FF4 itself is using approx. 640 MB.
OMG. :shock: Does that drop with only a few FF windows open?

[deepsand]

It is highly dependent on the content of the tabs themselves.

Over the past 5 days, it's been as high as 728 MB; at the moment, still with 11 FF windows, but now 49 tabs (8 more tabs than at my previous post), the total is down to 410 MB.

FWIW, I use FreeRAM XP Pro to dynamically manage memory availability.

[deepsand]

Fortunately, the GUI of Beta 7 looks very much like that of previous versions; so much so, in fact, that one familiar with either IE 6 or earlier versions of FF should experience absolutely no dashboard shock. Gone is that Fisher Price look of the initial preview.

Speed and stability are outstanding. I've yet to experience either a hang or a crash; and, no instances of stalled scripts.

Currently, with 74 Tabs open within 11 Windows, total memory usage is 1 GB.

The only noticeable problems have been its failure to remember certain Form data, notably User IDs on Hot Mail, and the inability to ESCape from a Print Preview invoked from within an onload="window.print();" generated frame.

While I've some minor quibbles, such as the less than intuitive Password management pop-up, the placement of the Refresh Button, and the lack of a Progress Bar, FF 4 is a significantly marked improvement over its predecessor.

[Clint1]

The only noticeable problems have been its failure to remember certain Form data, ......

While I've some minor quibbles, ...... and the lack of a Progress Bar,......
Those are real killers. I guess they don't want anyone to realize just how slow webpages load. :confused: Hopefully they'll have those fixed in the official release.

[deepsand]

Those are real killers. I guess they don't want anyone to realize just how slow webpages load. :confused: Hopefully they'll have those fixed in the official release.
For some reason, the problem with Form data re. Hot Mail is not unique to FF 4; and, it's not consistent.

As for the Progress Bar, FF 3 doesn't have one either. Don't recall about FF 2 or 1.5; but, don't think they had them either. Still, it's something that a number of Beta testers are asking for; do, it may yet show up.

[Clint1]

As for the Progress Bar, FF 3 doesn't have one either. Don't recall about FF 2 or 1.5; but, don't think they had them either. Still, it's something that a number of Beta testers are asking for; do, it may yet show up.
:confused: We must be talking about something different, because I've always had a "progress bar" at the bottom of every FF version. It shows the progress of the page load, a "bar" from left to right, then it disappears when the page is fully loaded. Is that what you mean?

[kgun]

Remember, that usually extensions can be made to work with any FF version with the hack, it's just a PITA. That can EASILY be done by the extension creator in a second! Yet they refuse to do it. (This forum's new stupid search can't find my posts about that).
Have you tried the advanced search feature and its sub options? The present search feature is the best that the forum has had so long IMO.


Back to topic - (I did not have time to read the whole thread to get answers to the following questions):
How is the status of FF 4? Is it out of beta?
Is it better (read more efficient) than older versions?
What are the main new features?

[Clint1]

Have you tried the advanced search feature and its sub options? The present search feature is the best that the forum has had so long IMO.
Unless it's changed since I typed that, yes.



Back to topic - (I did not have time to read the whole thread to get answers to the following questions):
How is the status of FF 4? Is it out of beta?
Is it better (read more efficient) than older versions?
What are the main new features?

Posts 66, 68 and 69, in short. Apparently it's still in Beta since that's what DS is using.

[deepsand]

:confused: We must be talking about something different, because I've always had a "progress bar" at the bottom of every FF version. It shows the progress of the page load, a "bar" from left to right, then it disappears when the page is fully loaded. Is that what you mean?
Yes, we are talking about that bar, named in FF as the "Status Bar," toggled On/Off via the "View" button. That option is missing from FF 4.

As it is not omnipresent, and the blue progress bar graph itself is confined to a much smaller area than in IE 6, and to the very right side, such that it is not nearly so visually obvious, it momentarily escaped my consciousness, resulting in what is technically known as a brain fart.
.

[deepsand]

How is the status of FF 4? Is it out of beta?
Still in beta; currently Beta &.


Is it better (read more efficient) than older versions?
The new JägerMonkey JavaScript engine makes it very much faster; 3 to 5 times as fast as FF 3.6.12.


What are the main new features?
See http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/beta/features/ .

[Clint1]

Yes, we are talking about that bar, named in FF as the "Status Bar," toggled On/Off via the "View" button. That option is missing from FF 4.

As it is not omnipresent, and the blue progress bar graph itself is confined to a much smaller area than in IE 6, and to the very right side, such that it is not nearly so visually obvious, it momentarily escaped my consciousness, resulting in what is technically known as a brain fart.
.
I'm not clear if we were talking about the same thing are not. So are you saying that FF4 has the bar after all and you just didn't have the "Status bar" option checked, or it doesn't? That is the only status/progress indicator I see on FF. It's at the right side of the status bar.

[deepsand]

No, FF 4 Beta 7 does not offer the Status Bar.

It is the case that that bar is not present on all instances of FF that I use; and, when it is present, it is much less visually obvious than the one I used to seeing on IE 6. Therefore, I simply momentarily forgot that it was present in earlier versions of FF.

[Clint1]

DS, I see FF4 is on their home page now, so a few questions please since this thread has had no posts to it in a while:

Can it peacefully coexist with FF 3.5x?

What problems did you have with extensions that are were used with 3.5x or later (prior to v4)?

Is it any faster, or more stable?

Can it work with both tabs and windows the way previous versions did?

Does that IE right click hack (http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/threads/107728-Hack-for-IE-Right-click-context-menu-addition-quot-Open-in-FireFox-quot-or-Chrome-or-other) work with it?

And most importantly, in the end, what features were finally removed in the final release version?

Thanks.

[deepsand]

DS, I see FF4 is on their home page now, so a few questions please since this thread has had no posts to it in a while:

Can it peacefully coexist with FF 3.5x?
Each Beta version installed separate from my installation for 3.6.x.

I've not yet installed 4.0; but, expect that, as was the case with previous major version upgrades, it will replace 3.6.


What problems did you have with extensions that are were used with 3.5x or later (prior to v4)?
The only issues that I've ever had with incompatible FF extensions related to skins.


Is it any faster, or more stable?
Haven't run any benchmarks; but, Betas were noticeable faster than 3.x, as appeared to be the case re. stability as well.


Can it work with both tabs and windows the way previous versions did?
Yes.


Does that IE right click hack (http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/threads/107728-Hack-for-IE-Right-click-context-menu-addition-quot-Open-in-FireFox-quot-or-Chrome-or-other) work with it?
Won't know until I install 4.0; but, as that's an IE hack, one that simply calls the main FF EXE, I would expect it to work just fine.


And most importantly, in the end, what features were finally removed in the final release version?
Won't know until I install 4.0. However, from Beta 11, I don't recall anything of import being missing. E.g., the Progress Bar, which had earlier been removed, was restored after testers bitched long and loudly.

[kgun]

Won't know until I install 4.0.
I have that installed, but miss

export favourites to an html document on the file menu

Is it possible to make a new browser without that feature? That will be an argument for many to use another browser.

At least, I can not find the option on the file menu.

[Clint1]

Each Beta version installed separate from my installation for 3.6.x.

I've not yet installed 4.0; but, expect that, as was the case with previous major version upgrades, it will replace 3.6.
So you're saying that I cannot installed FF4 in its own folder separate from 3.5?



The only issues that I've ever had with incompatible FF extensions related to skins.
:shock: You're kidding! I always heard that you too had to find updated extensions when moving to a newer version! How do you manage to avoid this? I have dozens of extensions I can no longer use because they refused to make newer versions (and only some work with the hack I mentioned long ago).



Won't know until I install 4.0; but, as that's an IE hack, one that simply calls the main FF EXE, I would expect it to work just fine.
That's what I figure, I was wondering though if it may be different in some way to prevent that. I guess one can also have two FF versions in the right click, one for 4 and one for 3.5x. Just add separate reg and 'fopen' files accordingly.



Won't know until I install 4.0. However, from Beta 11, I don't recall anything of import being missing. E.g., the Progress Bar, which had earlier been removed, was restored after testers bitched long and loudly.
Well that's good to know. Thanks be to bitching. :lol:

[deepsand]

I have that installed, but miss

export favourites to an html document on the file menu

Not present in FF 3.6 either.

[deepsand]

So you're saying that I cannot installed FF4 in its own folder separate from 3.5?
To clarify, if you use the Advanced/Custom setup option, you can still specify an installation sub-directory of your choice. The 4.0 Betas' default was a separate sub-directory for each version; the public RC probably defaults to the generic sub-directory name as have previous versions.


:shock: You're kidding! I always heard that you too had to find updated extensions when moving to a newer version! How do you manage to avoid this?
Perhaps because I long ago greatly curtailed my use of extensions, owing to the performance hits.


That's what I figure, I was wondering though if it may be different in some way to prevent that. I guess one can also have two FF versions in the right click, one for 4 and one for 3.5x. Just add separate reg and 'fopen' files accordingly.
That should work quite nicely.


Well that's good to know. Thanks be to bitching. :lol:
I'm still a bit hoarse. Good thing they responded to us, or I'd really be pissed off. ;)

[Clint1]

To clarify, if you use the Advanced/Custom setup option, you can still specify an installation sub-directory of your choice. The 4.0 Betas' default was a separate sub-directory for each version; the public RC probably defaults to the generic sub-directory name as have previous versions.
Gotcha.



Perhaps because I long ago greatly curtailed my use of extensions, owing to the performance hits.
Wow, that explains it. Other than when a page won't work correctly in IE, there's no point in even using FF if there's no extensions installed! :lol:



I'm still a bit hoarse. Good thing they responded to us, or I'd really be pissed off. ;)
But I see the export bookmarks to an HTML file is gone! Nice job Mozilla. :twisted: :evil: :brain-dead: (Probably another reason why I uninstalled v3.6).

[deepsand]

Wow, that explains it. Other than when a page won't work correctly in IE, there's no point in even using FF if there's no extensions installed!
As I earlier somewhere else remarked, I use FF primarily for those instances when I want multiple related tabs. E.g., I may open a new FF window for this forum, with multiple tabs open for the CP and various threads, so that all of my current WPW activity is grouped together.

Those activities which do not require separate simultaneous views are opened in IE6.


But I see the export bookmarks to an HTML file is gone! Nice job Mozilla. :twisted: :evil: :brain-dead: (Probably another reason why I uninstalled v3.6).
Until kgun mentioned that, I wasn't aware that that function had ever existed. Perhaps it was so little used that beta testing evidenced no demand for it.

[kgun]

Not present in FF 3.6 either.
The new version is fast, but I already have problems with it on my newly configured computer with OS updates blocked. I was unable to open a PDF document and had to use Opera.

[deepsand]

... was unable to open a PDF document and had to use Opera.
Problems with all PDF files; or, only certain one(s)?

Using Adobe Acrobat plug-in or a different one?

[kgun]

Using Adobe Acrobat plug-in or a different one?
Only one so far.

[deepsand]

I've had such random instances with PDF files across multiple browsers/versions.

Problem may relate to MIME type ascribed by author.

[SamyHyppia]

Well things worked out OK from me. I didn't even uninstall the old version, just upgraded it to version 4.
And another interesting thing was the fact i had a loot of add-ons and most of them worked perfectly. Didn't try any PDF files to be honest but i will give it a go once i reach home

[profileSystm]

I always had issues with viewing pdf files within firefox. Might be an issue with the adobe browser plugin.

[deepsand]

I always had issues with viewing pdf files within firefox. Might be an issue with the adobe browser plugin.
Intermittent problems occur with Adobe Reader itself over the past few versions; typically such manifests itself as a blank black document.

When that happens, I open them in Acrobat.

[Clint1]

Intermittent problems occur with Adobe Reader itself over the past few versions; typically such manifests itself as a blank black document.Yet another example in an endless line of "upgrades" being DOWNgrades. That's why I use v7.0.9, and why I always save old versions of everything.

[deepsand]

The endless needless changes to the functionality of Adobe Reader & its plug-ins have become a major PITA.

[SamyHyppia]

Ok encountered the same problem when trying to open a PDF file. Made a little Google search and it appears this is one "to do/to fix" thing that people from the company are looking into.
But didn't manage to find anything about when it would be fix or if they will release a patch or something regarding this issue. Will wait for further information...

[alphaomega]

Intermittent problems occur with Adobe Reader itself over the past few versions; typically such manifests itself as a blank black document.

When that happens, I open them in Acrobat.
Yes, I always had and still have problems with opening PDF files in Firefox, no matter what version. It got so far that I download PDFs in IE. Never had frozen IE by downloading PDF yet. I wish I could say this about Firefox.

[Clint1]

Strange that this is one of the problems I do not have in FF. :confused: PDF files have always opened ok in it for me. (v3.5x).

[deepsand]

I'm also experiencing seemingly random problems saving PDFs from the FF plug-in.

The Save function, using either the browser toolbar, if present, or Adobe's new floating toolbar, sometimes just does nothing.

Having to then use Adobe's new <SHIFT><CTRL><S> to save is a PITA. Try to do that with one hand, while not looking at the keyboard.

[Clint1]

FF is so frickin' screwed up for the life of me I cannot understand how anyone would use it. I take back what I said in post #98, now it's screwed up again! In the past, any PDF link I would click would immediately open up Adobe Reader and the PDF file. Done, no problem. Now, I'm getting that asinine idiotic "You have chosen to open......." prompt, asking me, ONCE AGAIN, WTF I want to do with the file! I want to open it moron!!!! And Adobe isn't even in the frickin' list anymore, it's not even in the second extended list!! I have to keep clicking the frickin' "Browse" button, search for it on my HD, and then I also I keep checking the frickin' "DO THIS AUTOMATICALLY FOR FILES LIKE THIS FROM NOW ON" checkbox, and it's just too frickin' stupid to remember that! So every time I want to open a PDF file in it, it's a long drawn out process! Die Mozilla.

[deepsand]

Now, I'm getting that asinine idiotic "You have chosen to open......." prompt, asking me, ONCE AGAIN, WTF I want to do with the file! I want to open it moron!!!! And Adobe isn't even in the frickin' list anymore, it's not even in the second extended list!! I have to keep clicking the frickin' "Browse" button, search for it on my HD, and then I also I keep checking the frickin' "DO THIS AUTOMATICALLY FOR FILES LIKE THIS FROM NOW ON" checkbox, and it's just too frickin' stupid to remember that!
I've had the same happen with other apps as well, including IE, so I'd say that it's more likely a Windows problem, not a FF one.

[Clint1]

I've had the same happen with other apps as well, including IE, so I'd say that it's more likely a Windows problem, not a FF one.
Odd. That's only happened with me on FF. But then again I seem to be the only one with the unrelenting ActiveX problem. (The perpetual "Your security settings do not allow web sites to use ActiveX controls installed on your computer" pop-up, that NOTHING will remove).

[deepsand]

Personally, I lay a lot of these odd behaviors at the feet of the Registry Hive. No one can convince me that each and every application, including Windows itself, is both perfect re. the management of its own Reg. entries and in complete harmony with all other applications.

[bbsinclair]

some plugins are not compatible with FF4... =S

[deepsand]

some plugins are not compatible with FF4... =S
That is the case for 3rd party extension to any application when it is altered.

Of those flagged as incompatible, some actually are; but, their authors have yet to test them and mark them accordingly.

Of those which are truly incompatible, it is up to their authors to act if they so wish.

[niftystats]

FF 4 too buggy for me :(

[deepsand]

FF 4 too buggy for me :(
Specifics, please.

[deepsand]

I m using win xp and i have also tried FF 4 but at my its not working properly......
Likewise, specifics are required.

The general "there's a problem" lament is of no value.

[SamyHyppia]

Don't really know why but the last version really made some ugly crashes and shutdowns .....

[deepsand]

Don't really know why but the last version really made some ugly crashes and shutdowns .....
Do you mean the most recent, FF4? Or, the one prior one, FF3?

And, what is your distinction between a "crash" and a "shutdown?"

[Clint1]

FYI: Fix Firefox 4.0 toolbar user interface, problems (Make Firefox 4.0 look like 3.6) (http://dmcritchie.mvps.org/firefox/firefox-problems.htm#fx4interface). I haven't tried it yet since I don't yet have FF4 installed.

[deepsand]

Odd; my installation of FF4.0 emulated my 3.6. layout automatically.

Didn't have to set about un-hiding anything, changing tab locations from top back to bottom, etc..

The only noticable different it that the Add-on tool bar, while still at the bottom, just above the Task Bar, is now populated left-to-right, rather than the previous right-to-left.

[poconell]

I have been aching to update to firefox 4 but its inability to run the norton internet security plugin, would really work as a disadvantage. I really rely on that to keep me safe while I do casual browsing. I know it would not be long until they will resolve the incompatibility issue but I guess I would just have to wait.

[deepsand]

I have been aching to update to firefox 4 but its inability to run the norton internet security plugin, would really work as a disadvantage. I really rely on that to keep me safe while I do casual browsing. I know it would not be long until they will resolve the incompatibility issue but I guess I would just have to wait.
A bit of research indicates that the problem predates FF4, affects other applications as well, and that Symantec should not be counted to quickly resolve the issues.

Over the years, I've found NAV to be avoided, as it extends its tendrils far too deeply into the OS, such that, not only is performance degraded, but perfectly good machines get turned into expensive bricks when NAV chokes.

I would strongly urge that you seek a different security application.

[deepsand]

I have been aching to update to firefox 4 but its inability to run the norton internet security plugin, would really work as a disadvantage. I really rely on that to keep me safe while I do casual browsing. I know it would not be long until they will resolve the incompatibility issue but I guess I would just have to wait.
A bit of research indicates that the problem predates FF4, affects other applications as well, and that Symantec should not be counted to quickly resolve the issues.

Over the years, I've found NAV to be avoided, as it extends its tendrils far too deeply into the OS, such that, not only is performance degraded, but perfectly good machines get turned into expensive bricks when NAV chokes.

I would strongly urge that you seek a different security application.

[Clint1]

A bit of research indicates that the problem predates FF4, affects other applications as well, and that Symantec should not be counted to quickly resolve the issues.

Over the years, I've found NAV to be avoided, as it extends its tendrils far too deeply into the OS, such that, not only is performance degraded, but perfectly good machines get turned into expensive bricks when NAV chokes.

I would strongly urge that you seek a different security application.
There's a thread right now at an email list to which I belong regarding Norton 360 screwing up FF4.

[deepsand]

There's a thread right now at an email list to which I belong regarding Norton 360 screwing up FF4.
A quick search found a lot of problems with Symantec screwing up a lot of things.

Glad I dumped them years ago.

Were I Peter Norton, I'd consider sueing Symantec for defamation of character.

[kgun]

What I really like about FF 4.* is that if my old computer shuts down, FF loads my last task, e.g. writing a forum post. That is very nice. In addition as a development platform, it is Fast and has a lot of plugins like http://getfirebug.com/ and the web development toolbar. http://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/

There is a FireBug lite for other browsers, and a similar more advanced web debugger http://www.fiddler2.com/fiddler2/ for the major browsers. But as far as I know the web development toolbar is unique to FF. Opera has som inbuilt (DragonFly) and external plugins that you can find on the view + Developer Tools menu.

FF 4.* is as such a valuable tool for web masters. My productivity increased with many per cents when I replaced IE 9 with FF 4.*.

[deepsand]

From the above remarks, and recalling no earlier comment to the contrary, I conclude that this is your first time using FF, as the various features that you cite all predate version 4.