# Firefox 4 RC - Firefox is back in the saddle!



## Runefox (Mar 14, 2011)

I may have posted a post about the beta long ago, but the Firefox 4 RC is actually incredibly well polished, incredibly fast and incredibly well laid out. It takes less screen real estate than Chrome, and while it doesn't start up quite as quickly, its rendering speed is amazingly good, UI responsiveness is great, and it's just really awesome. If any Firefox users haven't bothered checking it out yet, you definitely should; Hell, you should check it out no matter what you use. It's such a huge leap forward from 3.x that it just leaves it in the dust in every manner.

Here's how I have my Firefox set up; Incredibly space-efficient (Omnibar plugin FTW!).





 Finally, a release of Firefox that's worthy of making me switch back from Chrome! Not that I hate Chrome, mind you...


----------



## Icky (Mar 14, 2011)

Yeah, the only thing I've been disliking about the beta is the slow startup time, but it's worth it for the speed once it starts.


----------



## Alstor (Mar 14, 2011)

It's extremely efficient, and it will give Chrome a good ride for its money. It just sucks that some of the add-ons don't work, like NoScript, Screengrab, and Chatzilla. It's going to be a pain looking for a good, free IRC right now, but I like this new Firefox too much to give it up.


----------



## Rouz (Mar 14, 2011)

Alstor said:


> It's extremely efficient, and it will give Chrome a good ride for its money. It just sucks that some of the add-ons don't work, like NoScript, Screencapper, and Chatzilla. It's going to be a pain looking for a good, free IRC right now, but I like this new Firefox too much to give it up.



I feel they slightly ripped on Opera not that it's a bad thing. I still love chrome, even if Google watches everything I do.


----------



## Alstor (Mar 14, 2011)

Rouz said:


> I feel they slightly ripped on Opera not that it's a bad thing. I still love chrome, even if Google watches everything I do.


 I only used Chrome for a day after I found it a bit... odd from my normal browser. But that's just me.


----------



## Rouz (Mar 14, 2011)

Alstor said:


> I only used Chrome for a day after I found it a bit... odd from my normal browser. But that's just me.


Chrome took a lot of getting use too. IE9 also has their release tonight. I've been using that, its actually kinda of impressive but the tabs and the address bar share the same space, its really annoying for long URLs, but I its really fast.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 14, 2011)

Actually, NoScript works. Also, on IE9, right-click the tab bar and there should be an option to show tabs on a separate row.


----------



## DragonTrew (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm using it for about two weeks now, and I'm impressed by this new version... But watch for memory usage, my normal browsing sections are about 3-6 tabs and it uses no less than 350-400 MB...


----------



## Taralack (Mar 15, 2011)

While I like the UI improvements, it's an even larger memory hog on my system than the current iteration. I know my computer is a little dated, but it shouldn't be using twice the memory of 3.6, right? Am I doing something wrong?


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 15, 2011)

I plan to switch over once my favored plugins are supported, I am currently using most of mozilla's software, even the email client. (using 3 email addresses at all times makes it needed)

I got high hopes, I never liked chrome mostly due to my love of adblocker plugins.ooo

EDIT: oooh the ones I want are supported and I love the new compact plugin that makes the whole interface the application bar making more of the space usable.
+love.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 15, 2011)

I downloaded it.

Same browser, same issues, new coat of paint.

At least it has better HTML5 support.


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 15, 2011)

The interface can be allot more compressed. I like that. I am a bit of a nut about minimal interfaces and whatnot.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 15, 2011)

Haven't had a chance to try it yet - will probably just wait for the official one.  I find there's no such things a perfect browser anyway - I use combinations of Chromium, Firefox and Midori for stuff.  IE occasionally when some idiot of a vendor does something non-standard that only IE supports. 

I do find it disturbing in the IT world just how very behind vendors are in supporting browsers and open-standards.  They all seem to live in a bubble where they think everyone is using IE 6, and Windows 2000/XP. :/


----------



## Leafblower29 (Mar 15, 2011)

All browsers run the same speed on my machine so I can't really compare it speed wise, but they have improved it. I like the new interface and I'm glad my add-ons still work.


----------



## Bobskunk (Mar 15, 2011)

Opera's still better.  Also: it has tabs in the title bar, SAY WHAT

So you didn't mention any fix of the forever-denied memory leak that has been present in various forms since 1.0, and others have mentioned it uses even more memory than 3.6.  That's what got me away from that browser in the first place!


----------



## CyberFoxx (Mar 15, 2011)

Personally, I'm finding that it's using a lot less memory than the 3.x series. Then again, I found the 3.x series to be using less memory than what people were saying it did. Maybe it's because I've turned off certain types of caching (Disc cache? What do I need that for when I got a 4GB Squid cache? And keeping pages in memory for the back button? I don't even use the back button!), and lowered a lot of the other types of caching. But hey, I'm the type of person that loves to edit config files. (You can't expect a program to run the same on every computer after all.)


----------



## CyberFoxx (Mar 15, 2011)

Hmm, I think I found out why this RC is faster than the betas. It appears that xulrunner is now using the V8 Javascript core. Found out that tidbit when it failed to build on my Gentoo/PPC box.

EDIT: Wait, maybe not the entire V8 core... But the Chromium IPC core at least...


----------



## LLiz (Mar 16, 2011)

Anyone interest in how Firefox is going in terms of speed should check out http://www.arewefastyet.com/

Personally, I am really excited for the 4.0 release, because I use Firefox nightly's and that means that shortly I get to download new builds of 5.0 every day!


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 18, 2011)

ive been using the beta for a long time now and i love it! it really is worth checking out^^


----------



## LLiz (Mar 18, 2011)

Mozilla have announced a draft of their new development strategy with a focus of getting new features out quicker. 

Read more here: Ars Technica : Mozilla outlines 16-week Firefox development cycle

Here's the gist of it:

There will be 4 new developent channels: moz-central, experimental, beta and Firefox. 
* *Moz-Central* will be the channel roughly equivalent to the current nightly builds, although perhaps a little more bleeding edge. 
* *Experimental* will be between the current nightly builds and beta quality, it will have more new features, intended for developers who want to test against new features. 
* *Beta* will be as the name suggests, contain features that are targeted toward the next final release but require more testing. 
* *Firefox* will be the latest stable release. 

I cringe a little because it means that Firefox is going to aim for multiple new major releases per year like what Chrome currently does, but overall it'll be a good move for the company because my feeling is that Mozilla's main problem is the amount of bureaucracy in the organisation, and there is certainly lots of room to trim the fat when it comes to the development process. 

Mozilla has to be careful, they're still the main glue that holds open web standards together, and they don't want to loose sight of the important role that they play here. People usually forget that Firefox was the browser that lifted the internet out of the "Works best in IE" rut that it was in. 

Also the article mentions Mozilla's extensions, and how users tend not to upgrade until their favourite extensions are compatible with the latest release of Firefox, this does certainly pose a major problem when you're releasing several big releases every year. They're going to have to come up with a pretty wise game plan here so that they don't ruin extensions on every single release. Perhaps they should guarantee compatibility of certain API elements for several major releases.


----------



## CoonArt (Mar 20, 2011)

Well, I used to have Firefox 4, but then it turned out to play unfair games with HOTMAIL! (very buggy all of a sudden.) So I wait a little more for the final.


----------



## FurryJackman (Mar 21, 2011)

I'd just like to point out this major difference in Chrome and Firefox:

Adblock Plus in Firefox prevents the data for anything blocked from being downloaded. This saves your bandwidth.

Adblock Plus and the "guy that quit his job to dedicate himself to it" Adblock on Chrome only hides the content. It still downloads the data, it just hides it. This means you're still going to be bit by the bandwidth bug.

And if you have a mobile bandwidth cap, it makes a huge difference.

I'm really looking forward to the final Firefox 4. Especially since IE9 couldn't support WebGL and Firefox and Chrome do.


----------



## Pine (Mar 21, 2011)

I just switched from Chrome. I have no regrets.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Mar 21, 2011)

I don't like the new Firefox look. It's too "Web 2.0" for my taste.

Also, it's unbearably slow compared to Chrome and 3.6 on legacy machines.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 21, 2011)

FurryJackman said:


> I'd just like to point out this major difference in Chrome and Firefox:
> 
> Adblock Plus in Firefox prevents the data for anything blocked from being downloaded. This saves your bandwidth.
> 
> ...


Actually, since I think around version 8 of Chrome, it's had the ability to block most items from downloading at all. It wasn't because AdBlock on Chrome couldn't do it, it was because Chrome couldn't, but that's been at least mostly fixed. I haven't heard anything about it since they said something along the lines of "there's one last hook we need Chrome devs to implement to fully block downloads", which was quite a while ago.


----------



## HatchlingByHeart (Mar 22, 2011)

I know this isn't a rant thread, but I'm getting a little tired of Google's spin on Chrome being the fastest browser available. Whenever I use it, it loads no faster then ANY other browser, this includes Firefox, Opera, and IE. Chrome screws up almost as many site layouts as IE, with IE still being the worst for that.

And the memory intensiveness issue people seem to have with Firefox is simply people installing, loading up, and using a buttload of different extensions all at the same time. You'll find that the high memory usage is only while these extensions are being loaded, not while they're being used, but Windows is criminally inefficient with memory and does not free up this memory afterwards. It's in reality a Windows flaw, not a Firefox one, which is why you never hear these reports of high memory use from Mac or Linux users.

TL;DR: Firefox does not constantly use the amount of memory people think it does.

I see so many people ditching Firefox for Chrome because of a combination of Google's spin and their own ignorance/lack of education.


----------



## LLiz (Mar 23, 2011)

Speaking of Chrome, I saw this ad at a train station recently: 






Also, check this site out, it tracks downloads of Firefox 4 live: 
http://glow.mozilla.org/


----------



## Kihari (Mar 23, 2011)

Eyh, first thing I did was put tabs back on the bottom.

I did realize the need to edit some of my settings due to minor UI changes; the status bar not being present, for example, made me switch to always showing the downloads window, and a few buttons had to be moved around up top.

Seems to be running well though. I'm liking the app tabs, now its convenient to keep email and the weather page open all the time.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 24, 2011)

Kihari said:


> I did realize the need to edit some of my settings due to minor UI changes; the status bar not being present, for example, made me switch to always showing the downloads window, and a few buttons had to be moved around up top.


Actually, the status bar = "Add-on bar" - It's where the add-on notification icons go to play.


----------



## Aden (Mar 24, 2011)

I'll keep it as a secondary browser, but Opera is my homeboy fo' lyfe


----------



## Vaelarsa (Mar 24, 2011)

My Firefox just updated this morning, and I like it.
Looks nice. And I like being able to keep Facebook pinned open to check on status updates frequently.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 25, 2011)

This is the issue I got with new Firefox
http://i56.tinypic.com/15ckao7.jpg

That fucking LOADING BAR ON THE BOTTOM LEFT WHEN I HOVER OVER SOMETHING
It was much better in the bar on the bottom :\ and it fucking sucks ass cause I cant see where a link directs to on certain sites


----------



## Flatline (Mar 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> This is the issue I got with new Firefox
> http://i56.tinypic.com/15ckao7.jpg
> 
> That fucking LOADING BAR ON THE BOTTOM LEFT WHEN I HOVER OVER SOMETHING
> It was much better in the bar on the bottom :\ and it fucking sucks ass cause I cant see where a link directs to on certain sites



I hate that thing as well. I was hoping it would appear on the status bar like it did in 3.6 if I enable it, but no. It appears ABOVE the status bar.

Also, most of the themes I like look crap now... But at least the Personas look decent, finally.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> That fucking LOADING BAR ON THE BOTTOM LEFT WHEN I HOVER OVER SOMETHING
> It was much better in the bar on the bottom :\ and it fucking sucks ass cause I cant see where a link directs to on certain sites


 Wait, what? You can't see where a link directs to? What do you mean by that? It's the same function as the status bar used to have, except it's hidden when it's not needed. I agree that it should be possible to put it back onto the Add-on bar when that's visible, but still, it shouldn't hide anything.




> I see so many people ditching Firefox for Chrome because of a  combination of Google's spin and their own ignorance/lack of education.


FF 3.x was horribly slow. That's the major reason why I jumped ship to Chrome.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 25, 2011)

Runefox said:


> Wait, what? You can't see where a link directs to? What do you mean by that? It's the same function as the status bar used to have, except it's hidden when it's not needed. I agree that it should be possible to put it back onto the Add-on bar when that's visible, but still, it shouldn't hide anything.


 NVM it seems to wanna work NOW
I wish it was on the bottom bar


----------



## CyberFoxx (Mar 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> NVM it seems to wanna work NOW
> I wish it was on the bottom bar


 
Here ya go.


----------



## Spatel (Mar 26, 2011)

HatchlingByHeart said:


> TL;DR: Firefox does not constantly use the amount of memory people think it does.


 
This is true. Firefox has had the best memory management of any browser since 3.0, but a lot of the perceived flaws come from

-Beta releases, which occasionally develop leaks. I noticed a leak in 4.0b11, but it was quickly resolved.
-Addons, which can develop their own leaks if they're outdated or poorly written.
- User Profiles can get corrupted and bloated over time. When you switch from a browser you've used for a long time to a new browser with a clean history, things typically run faster because your User Profile is squeaky clean.


----------

