digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The User Interface of Firefox 3: Features

blog.mozilla.com — Firefox 3 is going to provide a wide range of improvements to performance, stability, and security, and it ’s also going to present several new user facing features. Here is a quick recap of design work that’s been going on in the Mozilla community over the past few weeks for Firefox 3

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ChuckIT, on 10/11/2007, -10/+74I've been waiting for a new interface. not really a fan of the downloadable interfaces.
    • Crazymaniacc, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15You should really try one, I love the iFox Smooth.
      Anyway this is looking fine, not to drastic but ok.
    • Hayaemsay, on 10/11/2007, -81/+14I use Opera... ;D
    • gamesector, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36@chuckit

      Why? It takes about 10 seconds to download and install them and some are pretty decent.
    • theone3, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17(comment abuse - mirror with working images) http://tinyurl.com/34pxx2
    • lazlonger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+26thanks for the link. why is it considered comment abuse to offer a working version of the site in question? it seems like adding a comment about how the piece of @#$ isn't working would be considered ok, but adding a corrective solution is abuse? doesn't make any sense i can see....
    • motheroats, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I also don't like those interfaces taking up a lot of my memory.
    • Blarbo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I like Classic Compact. Same look as default Firefox theme, but it takes up a lot less space.
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3699
    • PueSi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21Firefox themes kick ass.
      If you want to save as much space as possible my setup is Minifox+TinyMenu+AdBlockPlus.
      Here's a screenshot of how it looks on my system: http://i8.tinypic.com/68cr6n5.jpg
      Minifox
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1202
      Tiny Menu
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1455
      AdBlockPlus
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865
    • smithro1984, on 10/11/2007, -2/+143@puesi
      Why on your screen-shot have u been googling "micropenis"?
    • starsky51, on 10/11/2007, -0/+45@PueSi you missed a link:
      http://www.google.com/search?q=micropenis

      care to explain?
    • coonj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1even spending a few minutes moving things around with the "Customize" feature will get you a UI you are more happy with. I would at least try that if you don't like to download themes.
    • PueSi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+47It was research from a recent digg article, just don't look at the pictures you'll thank me.
    • coonj, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0 --
    • blaze03, on 10/11/2007, -1/+44@ PueSi

      "It was research from a recent digg article"

      A likely story!
    • PueSi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+76Ok you got me my firefox theme is not the only thing that's small...
    • gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1Stylistically, it compares to IE7 build 5231, but with much better CSS2 support than IE7 final!

      Don't hit on this post. IE7 in build 5231 of Vista actually looked cool. They ditched it for the ***** interface it holds now, so if any build of IE is to be used as a UI comparison, it's going to be 5231. (Here's an image: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/vista_5231_ie7_0021.jpg )

      I was almost going to switch away from Firefox due to the bloat (most likely to Opera) but if they can pull off a full UI overhaul, I'll stick with it a little bit longer =)

    • clemsontiger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I have been using gran paradiso since alpha 1. Its sad when i will use an alpha 1 because it is more stable then IE.
    • snapcase, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Ya know, I like the way bookmarks are handled in the current version. I don't see a reason for the change mentioned...

      And on the note of themes, I prefer Littlefox by Alfred Kayser. I've tried just about ever other minimalist theme out there and I feel this one is still the best.
    • sephiroth965, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The best FF skin was "smooth alternative" but it hasn't been updated in forever...

      http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/28424583/
    • DOGPARTY, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They're only removing the favicons because of their design mistake to put the padlock in the right of the bar.

      Don't punish us for your stupidity mozilla.
    • Malachai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@dogparty (#7008227)
      If that was the case, why not just change the padlock location?
  • LordVoldemort, on 10/11/2007, -44/+17Looks a bit bloated and in the way.

    Netscape much?
    • Mejogid, on 10/11/2007, -15/+43Yeah! Lets all jump on the 'Firefox is bloated' bandwaggon. I don't know if you're actually aware what bloat is, but I can't see how anything in the article could have a noticable effect on RAM usage, and none of it makes the UI less accessible. While there's obviously something to be said for keeping the core of firefox trimmed down, hese are mockups of an alpha browser and, in all honosty, would probably be significant improvements. If you're computer suffers that much using firefox, use something like kmeleon, camino or epiphany.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -13/+39@mejogid: It doesn't matter what they add or take away. I'm using the latest version of FF and I'm still getting memory leaks and resource hogging (88% of processor cycles at times). I really wish they'd put everything on hold until the browser could sit in the background without deciding that it needs my entire gig of RAM and all of my computer's processing power.
    • theone3, on 10/11/2007, -15/+28LV is making the very valid point. This is turning into another Netscape. They've made a good browser, it works, it's fast, it's simple and it has a good engine (Firefox 0.8). Now they're screwing up consistently, making it slower and more bloated - rather than optimizing the engine they keep changing the UI. Rather than fixing the RAM leaks they build in more extensions based on horribly inefficient XUL+JS. They're building deeper partnerships w/google etc. They're changing their business model. They're doing everything to make sure that they don't actually do the core work required to have a good, fast, reliable, solid browser. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13@theone: This seems to happen more and more with popular software (commercial and not). Is there a law or something that someone has mapped out based on "feature creep," efficiency, popularity, and time?
    • theone3, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5Yeah. The more successful companies are at not doing it, the larger they get. Google (simple, highly optimised), Apple ('complex enough', 'stable/fast enough'), Microsoft (immense complexity, passable stability/speed), Symantec (crap on home side, brilliant on corporate side) are all fairly successful, whereas Lavasoft, Mozilla, ZoneLabs have all failed miserably. So yes, there is a model, it's called 'economic success'.
    • grogan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2These mostly seem like solutions looking for problems to me.
      I also suspect that many of these features will be cut, as the small core Firefox team won't be able to deliver all of these in any reasonable amount of time.
    • Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Why don't you just stick with 1.5 then? It's not like they don't support it anymore and those of us who want newer features get them aswell.
    • theone3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Actually what I said earlier may not be the best explanation. Software development on large scales is all about management of complexity. This includes striking it out where it's not profitable (i.e. not demanded), putting it in where it is, and making sure it's all systematically implemented, documented, and done in a way that produces flexible and reliable code that programmers can actually handle. SW Companies that do this well will naturally be better equipped to compete, hence they will be more successful (assuming they have the right products, at the right price, at the right time) and hence make more money. SW companies that happen to have the right products at the right time and the right price by fluke and don't have these qualities (picking the right features, implementing them systematically, fomally, reliably) will end up like ZoneLabs or Netscape.

      Anyway the upshot of all that is that sucessful software development firms are likely have $ because they meet demand efficiently and effectively.
    • macmcrae, on 10/11/2007, -8/+23I don't know about jumping on the bloated bandwagon -
      but I am all over the Firefox is slow as hell at
      surfing digg bandwagon. It sux to say,
      but Opera and IE are much faster than FF now.
    • riah, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5@theone3
      Umm, Firefox is still open source, Netscape was not. The Mozilla.com entity has not replaced Mozilla.org, it is just an addition to manage the corporate side of things. The development is still handled by the development team and thousands of contributors. And Firefox 3 will feature a new rendering engine, which seemed much quicker for me when using the alpha in Windows XP. It passes the Acid 2 test too.
    • Ancestor, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5I call BS.

      1) I dare all of you who say how much slower Firefox has got over the time to do a simple test. Load a couple of pages using Firefox 2.0 and then Firefox 1.0, under THE SAME CONDITIONS (using the same profile etc). The fact is, and all the objective tests that I've seen show it, that Firefox isn't getting slower. Memory usage et al - probably, but that's a different story.

      2) Mozilla's got a strict policy about performance. There are daily performance tests done and no commits which permanently regress performance are allowed. All such changes are backed out.

      3) The rendering engine is responsible for performance. Firefox shares its rendering engine (Gecko) with plenty of other browsers. Claiming that there's a huge performance regression in Firefox but observing no such thing in those other browsers built on top of Gecko make no sense whatsoever.
    • stupergenius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@Dumbledorito
      Well that's not all Firefox's doing. Sites like Digg use a fair amount of Javascript, and since Javascript...well...sucks, a post with a large amount of comments can take some processing. Well, most Web2.0 sites use AJAX to some degree which helps to offload processing to the client so the application can provide a more interactive experience without requiring a beefy server cluster, so it is natural that a large portion of the sites you visit require a fair amount of processing. Sites like Google Maps, Flickr, etc. make heavy use of Javascript and so can really strain an aging machine. All of which is entirely out of the developers' meaty hands, unless they disabled Javascript and I don't think many of us would use Firefox anymore.

      So no I don't think Firefox is bloated out of the box, unlike EMACS which is the definition of bloat(couldn't resist the jab, use Vi), but with a zillion addons even I would become bloaty.
    • Mejogid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@theone3
      Fair point, but I find the Unix philosophy a useful rule of thumb for distinguishing between features and bloat - I'm not sure of the exact quote, but to paraphrase it 'do one task, but do it well'. In the case of firefox, it's stayed true to actually being a web browser, unlike netscape/mozilla. It definitely has performance issues, but that's more due to the liberal use of css/XUL/javascript in the UI than pure bloat - and without them we'd be seeing far less themes and extensions - two key firefox differentiators. Everything that's been added so far atleast sticks true to the goal of browsing the web, and if we're honest the extra features could simply not be responsible for the performance issues on some peoples' systems. Personally, I've found performance to be perfectly acceptable, but I'd say what's needed is a combination of optimisation (and perhaps stripping of unnecessary javascript/XUL/css) and feature improvement.
    • HigherLogic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3>> Lets all jump on the 'Firefox is bloated' bandwaggon

      Might as well, already got on the Firefox one! (ah, me kid, me kid)
    • soogy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3LV has a point. Instead of focusing their attention on creating a fancy UI -- obviously an attempt to battle IE's new fancy interface -- they SHOULD be doing what they were a few years back: make Firefox a stable, fast, efficient and standards-compliant browser. It is going in the wrong direction now.

      The "bloat" (sort of, but it's more inefficiency than bloat) is just one of many issues that needs to be fixed in Firefox before they go off touting their new UI. Hell, window.opener is still broken after several years; even the boys at Redmond got that one right.
    • thailand1972, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3FF2 regularly uses up my RAM and CPU. The RAM I can live with (it's normally anywhere between 30-300Mb of useage) - but the CPU? When the CPU peaks out there's a notable latency with my laptop - everything slows down. The times I've checked this happen it's been FF tying up the CPU. Do a search on "FF CPU":-

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Firefox+CPU&btnG=Google+Search

      ...and you'll see it's not only me.

      FF developers : please eradicate this problem in FF3. If not, I'll give up and switch back to IE.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@stuporgenius: It happens on almost all sites I leave open. I listen to several podcasts by using players embedded on their pages, or I just leave a blog open, or I just leave a page of text I'm reading through up. And the pages are DONE loading. But left to themselves, they often start chewing up the computer's resources for no apparent reason.

      Even if Javascript was the cuprit, wouldn't it eventually "finish" whatever it was doing (unless one is looking at something that looped constantly or updated itself)? I admit it's been 5 years since my last java course and I avoid it like the plague, so I might not be as up on how it (mal)functions.
  • Mejogid, on 10/11/2007, -4/+43My 2 requests:
    Resume downloads across sessions (it's apparently in the works but certainly isn't enabled in the trunk builds).
    A better default theme (1.x was much better looking IMO and intergrated far better with the user's theme).
    • lukeo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10i actually quite like the UI in 2. in previous versions i would always install new themes, but with 2 i am happy enough with the UI to leave it as default.
    • gioma1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3> Resume downloads across sessions (it's apparently in the works but certainly isn't enabled in the trunk builds).

      http://flashgot.net

      >A better default theme (1.x was much better looking IMO and intergrated far better with the user's theme).

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3449 maybe
    • dbr_onix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5My request with the Download Manager would be more reliable resuming. I don't think I've ever had a download pause and resume properly, and nearly always have to start again.
      I can use wget and it's -c flag for bigger downloads, but for ~10MB ones I don't want to have to use an external download manager (With something like Flashgot)
    • Mejogid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@gioma
      I tried flashgot, but found it to be too invasive and over the top and now just use wget -c (or cocoawget on OS X). As for the winstripe theme - one of my favourites along side the Tango ones.
    • JohnnyKdiggs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3One of the great things about Firefox is that even if you hate the default theme, you can easily a better one.

      Did you know that there are certain browsers (and operating systems) that allow you only one theme, take it or leave it.
    • n0va, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Resume downloads across sessions:
      use DownThemAll ( http://www.downthemall.net/ )
      Unlike Flashgot, this is just an extension. Works on par with Flashgot too! And did I mention it's free?
  • hiPpymIck, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4if i think i might want to refer to a Digg story later i put it and the linked story on del.icio.us
    and i tag them both 'diggfirefox3' for example so i can identify what theyre about and link them up later

    the stuff in the article about improved bookmarks reminds me i dont really have a very efficient system

    anyone know place with a simple guide to how to bookmark (not just Digg)
    so it still all makes sense when youve forgotten about them
    (but didnt want to lose them) and youve got hundreds of bookmarks?

    - so im not just wasting my time finding stuff i might want later - only to lose it
  • electioneering, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17it's about time they add built-in tagging. my bookmarks are out of control.
    • tomi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Perhaps you should make use of folders then? I have my bookmarks rather neatly organized. If it weren't for folders, you wouldn't be able to find anything...
    • deadmann, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I'm over folders. Bring on the tags.
    • syncosoftkerala, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I prefer keeping my bookmarks accessible from anywhere; so its Google Bookmarks for me all the way.
      ( Some prefer del.icio.us ) - Both has tagging features, and addons which neatly integrate with Fx.
  • LifeLikeLabs, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6http://www.duggmirror.com in case it goes down (already dragging).
    • killerofkiller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13any mirror to the images?? someone who caught it b4 it went down upload the screenshots pls
  • DietMountainDew, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Oh No Mozila Servers Go Bye Bye. :-(
  • chriskeyes, on 10/11/2007, -45/+7IE7 is just as good. I've had no problems with it at all. It's a shame to find that most digg users don't see it that way.
    • bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23Without an ad-blocking feature?

      No. No it is not.

    • theone3, on 10/11/2007, -19/+8http://www.ie7pro.com/
      http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/details.aspx?view=info&itemid=3012162
    • Paranoidmarvin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8obviously you've never tried to build a website that works well on IE7 and Firefox...
    • theone3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I don't see what that has to do with usage.

      I'll use whatever browser I damn well like, and you'd better have your site working on it. I sure as hell do on mine. I say that as a web developer/designer who spends much of his time fixing IE6's irrits (note:IE7 is much less of a pain than IE6, almost equalling FF)
    • DarkSunlight, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Why digg theone3 down?
      Someone screamed for adblock in ie7? Well that's exactly what ie7pro does!
  • hadiz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Doesn't EVERY new version of an application say it's going to enhance or improve "performance, stability, and security?" those are things that happen behind the scenes anyway and 9 times out of 10 you can't tell the difference
    • mossblaser, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1This is the 1 time out of 10. Try using the digg comment system. What in firefox 2 was juddery and laggy is smooth as silk in firefox 3.
  • SgtBlue, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Hmm, never though Mozilla servers would bow to the Digg Effect. At least it's just the photos.
    • binaryspiral, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14It's wordpress... nothing new about that. :-)

    • justdave, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Should be up and running now. Alex posted the images on people.mozilla.com, which is personal webspace for Mozilla employees. Since employees also get shell accounts on that machine, it was limited to 100 processes per user to keep people from killing it. Unfortunately that limit apparently applied to apache as well, so as soon as it hit 100 concurrent connections it hit the limit and fell over. Apache's process limit got bumped, and the server is handling the load easily and is bored now. :)
  • binaryspiral, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Server.... is.... getting.... crushed.

    Must have mirrors - stat!
  • ChaosSeven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Awesome! More ways to raise that 25% (And more stuff that Microsoft can copy)
  • pmarks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Mirror:

    http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~pmarks/mirror/Alex%20Faaborg%20-%20%BB%20The%20User%20Interface%20of%20Firefox%203%20%20Features.htm
  • froggiestone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0CrY !!
    the site is already dead, and the cache thingy aint working either ( http://www.duggmirror.com ) Since it only cache the source code aka html & text, and screen the images from the original site :'(

    Guess i'll have to wait a bit then :)
  • froggiestone, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Aww maan nevermind the above link is working ->
    http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~pmarks/mirror/Alex%20Faaborg%20-%20%BB%20The%20User%20Interface%20of%20Firefox%203%20%20Features.htm

    ...people post so fast here, its insane :D
    • pmarks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I guess I managed to grab it just after it hit the digg front page. Then it was just a matter of using "Save Page As..." in Firefox.
  • TheSabre, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@gamesector

    Yes, I agree - a small sacrifice for an interface. The one thing I don't like is that you have to reboot Firefox to change themes. They need to have hot swap themes which, I believe, Opera has.
    • PueSi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Hell yes, it's super annoying specially when you just want to try an extension/theme.
    • Aleksej, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1FWIW, it is possible to enable additional XUL loading without restart, but I'm not sure it's a very good idea for daily use.
  • fatas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Does anyone one know if Firefox 3 will support CSS features for printing likey layout:landscape?

    Then I can use it as an excuse to get the whole office on Firefox..
  • harlequinade, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Just when you thought F/F couldn't kick IE 7's butt any harder, the gurus at Mozilla show us proof they're not even warmed up yet?? Excellent!
  • froggiestone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2True, but Anyway, im thinking a bit opera on the bookmark thingy, not that its a bad thing tho. but im looking forward to see what they come up with :)
  • greyspace, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Stability's the issue for me. Your mileage may vary, but I'm eager for a no-extensions-added Firefox that doesn't crash with frustrating regularity. Haven't seen that since v1.5.
  • adude, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Wow - seems like lots of new ambitious features (e.g., Quicksilver for Firefox)... seems like 3.0 will be a bigger jump than was 2.0

    I agree that Mozilla is running the risk of creating something closer to bloatware... but remember two things:
    1.) It's very hard to "sell" a product on just improvements like RAM leak fixes because it just doesn't sound like "enough" to warrant a version change from 2 to 3
    2.) Also, some of these things, like microformats, might become like RSS in which case it won't be bloatware but just part of the web standard
  • Azdak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Hooray for Porn mode! Uh...I mean private mode...yeah.
  • KineticShampoo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7I just hope it doesn't ***** my ram up the ass like FF2 does...
  • ThesyHacken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Quicksilver-like UI? Vista never deserved that tag line anyways, I'm sure Bill won't mind if I borrow it for a sec.


    Wow.
  • Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Just glancing at the "microformats", it seems it is redundantly duplicating the function of XML in HTML, which is itself XML. Wow, talk about brilliant ideas. Can we get a SOAP layer on that?
    • CrushThemTorg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There are few comments on Digg that totally blow my mind. Yours, sir, was one of them.
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Firefox 2 is far better than IE7, but Firefox 3 is going to absolutely blow IE7 out of the water.
  • DjOverEZ, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6If anyone was wondering, I took the liberty of going to evil.foo. There's nothing there.
  • fugazied, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2As long as they fix the crashes. Anything else is a bonus ;)
  • cdgore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1If you want to read about all the changes, the Burning Edge publishes all the changes and commits as well as links to the most up to date builds http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/
  • derekivey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'd like to see them make the top part (the part where the address bar and stuff is) be transparent in Vista with Aero on. I think that would look really good.
  • ishmal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Is Places enabled in the nightly builds? I know that it is in the trunk, but I don't think that it's being built by default yet.
    • comrade693, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yes they are enabled. Get alpha 5 when it comes out.
  • N4KMM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3To all of the "Firefox 3 is a bloated hogzilla" people. I have been using the Alpha version for a couple of days. It actually seems a little more responsive and less bloated.
    • stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Its because a lot of these goofballs just correlate an app with more features as slow. The reality is, its not so much the features but the code and rendering engine that make things slow and memory intensive. Hopefully they will improve on that engine because all the features sound great. I think a lot of people fear Firefox will turn into the mess that became Netscape Communicator with a lot of bloated apps all mingled into one. These people would still have us using Mosaic and telnet if they could.
  • oojamaflip2006, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2One thing I'd really like to see as a firefox user is the ability to choose which tabs are recreated when you recover from a crash using 'Session Restore'. For example, say I have 5 tabs open and one of them starts downloading a java applet or a mis-firing flash app etc and crashes FF, I'd like to be able to restore all of my other 4 tabs but not the one that went haywire when I do a Session Restore.
  • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm a diehard Opera user but I love how where this is going!

    @PueSi: Apart from your firefox theme, are you using WindowBlinds or what? Where can I get that XP sking you are using?
    • PueSi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/45441528/ GUI.Relax is the name of the theme.
      It's a windows visual style file I think you have to patch the UXTheme.dll to use this:
      http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=140707 ,if you already have some sort of skinning software it's probably already patched (i'm using TuneUp Utilities)
    • speaker219, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@PueSi
      The best part of the comment was the fact that you were smart enough to put a space before the comma at the end of the second URL. Now I don't have to hear the poor kiddies crying about how they had to copy and paste the link and remove the comma.
  • thegoodsteer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Mozilla should carry over & update all of my extensions for me when I upgrade, because I am far too lazy to do that myself.
    • *jooloop*, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I thought that they did...
      I seem to remeber a box that comes up says somthing about extension updating...
  • chrisutley, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5How about fix the memory leaks / crashing first?
  • geneticlone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hmm I usually look at the developer notes, they give a good overview of what the new tools will have:

    http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers
  • Xspire, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1mmmmmm. It looks deliciously mac-ked out.
  • Dway, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Make it suck less on OS X, and I'll switch to Firefox...
  • Theipolicy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Needs a super mario theme for it. Then I might switch back from Opera.
  • crosswick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I sincerely hope they fix the Flash plugin for Firefox. Just running a completely empty Flash app in Firefox takes several percent of your CPU; if you want to do stable timing in Flash you really need to use IE.
  • Phlieger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't like the idea of removal of the favicon, but I can't wait.
  • Caliente, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2All I want is improved RAM usage, without any sacrifices, i.e. page rewind /undo close tab etc. Or is that not possible?

    Either way I'm pretty happy with the Fox atm, but looking forward to see what the development team is going to come up with.
  • stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Agree with those complaining about speed and memory issues. That is one annoying aspect of FF. Id also like to see Firefox handle image loading better than the old school thing of showing a blank square like the image link is broken before the image appears. Also the download feature in FF just sucks. Opera has FF beat in that dept. Lastly, why the hell does cntrl + f in FF suck so bad as well. Why does the find dialog box have to be stuck to the bottom of the screen?

    The good is that Firefox does a great job supporting web standards, and it beats everything hands as a web development tool. Tabs creation should have a feature like maxthon where you can just drag the mouse on the screen and it instantly creates a tab for that page.
  • geoffreyireland, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Private browsing will be great for porno. Caught so many times by my girlfriend because she goes to type in an address and the visited link will appear.

    Good work Mozilla. Keeping all perverts under the net of their loved ones.
  • ninewest, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I like the way current interface is. I will now upgrade if they don't keep an option for keeping the current interface.

    http://www.nine-west-shoes.net/
  • pekea, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Merry Christmas

    http://www.best-buy-deal.com/after-christmas-shopp ...
  • pekea, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0http://us-freestuff.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.