DiggJoin DiggAbout
See the original image at news.cnet.com —

Think Firefox 3 is fast? Try Firefox Minefield

news.cnet.com — Firefox is outdoing itself with Minefield, which sets new speed records. Read this blog post by Matt Asay on The Open Road.

made popular 76 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Related by Keyword BETA!

Firefox community to set Guinness World Record

  • 3852 diggs
  • Made popular 223 days ago
  • 319
  • blog.mozilla.com

Firefox Minefield: Faster Than Chrome

  • 1185 diggs
  • Made popular 100 days ago
  • 145
  • www.linuxhaxor.net

IE falls below 69% market share, Firefox climbs above 21%

  • 2348 diggs
  • Made popular 4 days ago
  • 392
  • www.tgdaily.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • chesstwin, on 10/23/2008, -10/+78I've used it some, and noticed g-mail and digg are much faster. Can't wait for it to come out of alpha!
    • PHLAK, on 10/23/2008, -5/+134From my understanding, minefield isn't a separate project, it's Mozilla's way of testing new/revised technology that will eventually trickle it's way into Firefox. Therefore, you will never see an actual browser called Minefield, portions of Minefield will end up in Firefox.
      • SurlyDuff, on 10/23/2008, -5/+50Close but not really PHLAK. Minefield is a way of testing new technology but it's not like it trickles into the next Firefox. When they feel they have enough features in it, Minefield "branches" off and creates the branch builds which eventually lead to the alpha builds and beta builds and eventually the final build, in which new features are not really added. There will never be a Minefield release, but it's constantly adapting and is already closer to the next version of Firefox even at the time a Firefox version is released! By that point, there's nothing new or interesting happening to the Firefox builds anymore...only security fixes really.
      • threemagic, on 10/23/2008, -7/+2@surlyduff:

        you never touched 3.1 yet, have you?
      • SurlyDuff, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Well I'm on 3.1b2pre if that's what you mean...Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1b2pre) Gecko/20081023 Minefield/3.1b2pre ID:20081023034205
      • threemagic, on 10/24/2008, -2/+1@surlyduff:

        then you know the HUGE speed difference.. way more than just a security fix.
      • SurlyDuff, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying...quite badly. I'm saying that Firefox final builds themselves have nothing new and 3.0.1, 3.0.2, etc. will never have any new features....Firefox 3.1b2pre *IS* minefield and is a trunk build...
    • reformation, on 10/23/2008, -10/+7That will never happen.
    • Jeremyz0r, on 10/23/2008, -4/+14"It's a separate install so it won't affect an existing Firefox install."

      BS, I have to do an addon finish installation every time I want to switch. Also, it doesn't allow you to load both at the same time.
      • Onestone, on 10/23/2008, -2/+11Use different proffiles.
      • MacParrot, on 10/23/2008, -13/+6@onestone

        Is that really an efficient way to go? To use a different profile just for a web browser?
      • Memnochxx, on 10/23/2008, -0/+27@MacParrot and others:

        Not a different computer profile, a different firefox profile.
        1. run firefox.exe -profilemanager
        2. create a new profile
        3. add the following to the minefield shortcut: -mp yournewprofile (I think)
      • MacParrot, on 10/23/2008, -0/+29Oh OK, egg on my face. You cleared that up nicely
    • whaught, on 10/23/2008, -0/+5minefield is the testing/nightly build of firefox. Currently it is the testing version for firefox 3.1 beta 2...... it is already out of alpha: beta 1 can be found at http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html
      • Goblinkiller, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2It's the testing/night build of Firefox 3.x - for Firefox 2.x it was called "Gran Paradiso" instead
    • Knowltey, on 10/23/2008, -2/+2Never gonna happen, it's the nightly builds of Firefox. Basically whaught is correct, the beta can be found there, but Minefield is still ahead of it, you may notice the version numbers in Minefield contain dates, which correspond with the night that you got them.
      • regeya, on 10/23/2008, -0/+4If you download the 3.1b1 sources, the branding is set to 'Minefield' as well.

        Fast as heck, though. Digg is actually usable under 3.1b1.
    • moduc, on 10/23/2008, -2/+2To me 10% is impressive. However, I probably won't feel much of the improvement. Probably the most important change would be to improve the area where it's very slow 1000%. That would be nice.
    • wpyh, on 10/23/2008, -3/+2g-mail?
    • xShad0w, on 10/23/2008, -8/+3Sorry. Safari is still faster.

      http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/09/ ...
      • alamir, on 10/23/2008, -1/+4your link had nothing little to do with minefield.
      • Darkhacker, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1This is actually just Javascript performance so you shouldn't name a particular browser. The real competition is between TraceMonkey and SquirrelFish Extreme (SFX). They both can certainly be used outside of Firefox and Safari.

        But you are correct. SFX is faster than TM and WebKit is also ahead on standards compliance too.
      • msoule, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1Squirrelscript "Extreme" is not currently available in any browser on the market. It's speed comparison in the article you reference is to two products that are available in browsers today. Not sure what Safari has to do with it other than to give you a chubby...
  • SurlyDuff, on 10/23/2008, -5/+82I've been using Minefield (or variations thereof) since about 2005 as my main browser. Yeah there are times when major issues creep up (like Flash not working or certain content crashing the browser every time you visit a site) but it's certainly worth it if you've got a beta/alpha mindframe and love to get in on the cool new technology before everybody else does. Also, the author mentioned that major extensions don't work, but there's been an easy way to get around that for a long, long time. Install the Nightly Tester Tools extension or turn off compatibility checking.
    • FreakinRepublic, on 10/23/2008, -11/+7dugg for knowing that this thing existed before this article. been having the same issues with Flash, but im not worried. it is a very good alpha so far, and hopeful for the future of FF.
      • KargeOfTylenol, on 10/23/2008, -8/+4UR2KOOLELITEBETATESTR!!@
      • FreakinRepublic, on 10/23/2008, -6/+5@Karge - I didn't mean i dugg it cuz I knew it existed before the article u *****...its just surprising that someone has been using it for that long and now that everyone's reading bout it everyone's gonna try it and get the word spread a lil more....and apparently UR2C00L4SPACES
    • megamod, on 10/23/2008, -2/+2I had run into it a while back. It was being listed as Firefox 3 beta 2, which made me confused. Specially when I ran it and it said it was Minefield. I was like wth?
      • Frustian, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2Once you install a beta or alpha FF you get put in the beta/alpha release stream. Basically once you install the first one, FF will automatically update you to the new beta/alpha versions like minefield.
    • JesusFaction, on 10/23/2008, -3/+1Minefield is unusable for everyday use, since so many great add ons dont work
      • insertAliasHere, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3about:config
        extensions.checkCompatibility = false

        Maybe not the best solution, but many of the extensions work, but they have the version number set to a previous version.
      • jhandfield, on 10/24/2008, -3/+1Or, uh, you could just not run these add ons and extensions. Firefox is a quite capable web browser all by itself...
    • SurlyDuff, on 10/23/2008, -1/+5All the add-ons I use work just fine once compatibility is overridden. Which ones do you use?
    • gropo, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Minefield: also fantastic for old deprecated Freescale/IBM 74xx/75x iron, architecture-specific builds.
    • Gorgamel, on 10/23/2008, -1/+1The newest nightly builds are called Gran Paradiso, and thats what I'm on. The name for the build between firefox 2 and 3 was called minefield, and changed when they released 3.0.
      • rowjimmy, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2i thought it was the other way around? i remember running firefox 2 betas that were called Gran Paradiso (on *nix)
      • zwaldowski, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3You're wrong, but nice try. Minefield is the moniker for nightlies, hence the name. Gran Paradiso was/is the name for any and all officially released beta releases, particularly when talking about Firefox 2. Firefox 3 had a quick jump from Minefield to Gran Paradiso to "Mozilla Firefox 3 RC" or such, but it had it nonetheless.
  • daxz, on 10/23/2008, -70/+426No, I don't think Firefox 3 is fast.
    • doc99, on 10/23/2008, -49/+5I was gna say the same
      • 5needles5, on 10/23/2008, -11/+8then digg the guy, no need statements that you wanned to say the same..
      • jonmlm, on 10/23/2008, -2/+11just bury the guy, no need for.. oh, wait.
      • mohsenxp, on 10/23/2008, -2/+2hehe.
      • colonelbuckshot, on 10/23/2008, -3/+1Buried for typing like an awkward English teenager
    • agree2disagree, on 10/23/2008, -42/+5that's because ur running the crap version of Firefox 3 you are on 3.0, get 3.1
      • doc99, on 10/23/2008, -20/+2you took the words str8 out my mouth!
      • pantone287, on 10/23/2008, -26/+8a mac user claiming expertise about fast browsers is laughable. Face it. All of your browsers suck ass.
      • 4rp4n3t, on 10/23/2008, -12/+4hey doc - was he kissing you?
      • doc99, on 10/23/2008, -9/+1No, he just talks sense
      • FreakinRepublic, on 10/23/2008, -16/+2@4rp4n3t - don't worry bout those losers, lil ***** wouldnt know what a good OS is if it kicked em in the balls. and Safari is more than fast enough for the norm user, who cares about benchmark tests? it performs well enough. personally FF is slower on my mac than Safari is...and before you say windows is better, i actually am dualbooting on a macbook and have just recently bought it. Safari kicks FF/Chrome/IE7(are they even alive?) asses any day....on a mac
      • bsd3, on 10/23/2008, -4/+8firefox 3.1 is still beta, so please don't suggest something that isn't finished yet. no one wants a buggy application... and I agree 3.0.X is a slow browser...
      • binarysun, on 10/23/2008, -3/+6Why, is 3.1 that much faster then?

        I remember them saying how lightening fast 3.0 was when it came out - but I found out it was about as fast as a tortoise compared to Opera 9.5 - that launched at the same time.

        For a fast streamlined browser, Firefox can't compete with Opera ... BTW I don't care about plugins - there, Firefox wins, but Speed??

        ... NOPE!
      • narupo, on 10/23/2008, -0/+4Can someone post the link for FF 3.1,I searched mozilla site but the latest one is 3.0.3.
      • cawpin, on 10/23/2008, -1/+23.1 is significantly faster than 3.0.3. It is as fast as Chrome on the systems I've put it on.
      • bjornski, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3@narupo

        Here you go.
        http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html

        I love 3.1 over 3.0.

        Tracemonkey FTW.
      • morechase, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2i too love 3.1 over 3.0
        but i find that there are still to many big bugs in the beta to use it as your main browser over 3.0

        so till 3.1 is out of beta and its bugs are worked out i would recommend just using 3.0 and sucking it up for the extra couple of seconds it takes to load a page...
    • doc99, on 10/23/2008, -23/+38Hold up there Firefox fanboy, I never said Firefox was crap or nuffin, latest version, Google Chrome, Apple Safari .. that is fast.

      I think firefox is a food browser, just not fast.

      You want me to use a beta browser, cus it's a bit faster then the pervious, but slower the Safari nd Chrome?
      • insinuate, on 10/23/2008, -0/+95A FOOD browser? hmmmm I may be interested in this. What function do I have to turn on to get to this on Firefox?
      • doc99, on 10/23/2008, -8/+25hahaha .. I'm sooooo sorry ... who put the G and The F next to each other anyway? lol
      • nowhereelse, on 10/23/2008, -0/+72Works best with delicious.
      • bsd3, on 10/23/2008, -4/+13firefox 3.1 is faster than chrome, opera and safari, you probably didn't turn on the .jit in about config... but as I said before it is still a beta and it is not worth of downloading and installing on your machine...
      • Stevo23, on 10/23/2008, -2/+10A food browser? Fantastic! Now I'll never have to get up from the computer.
      • RoboDonut, on 10/23/2008, -19/+5Firefox _is_ crap. Every Linux browser is crap.
        Firefox is slow as molasses at absolute zero -- on Linux, at least. It works fine on Windows and Mac.
        Epiphany is just as bad as Firefox because it uses Gecko.
        Konqueror is massive. I'd rather not install every KDE and QT related library just for a simple browser.
        Opera tries to do everything, and does none of it well.

        The only one that shows any promise whatsoever is Midori, which is still under heavy development.
      • PleaseJustDie, on 10/23/2008, -0/+4I would disagree, I use firefox 3.1 beta, it is more than ready to be installed on your machine.
      • la7crosse11, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1So, everytime I try any site with flash based portions in chrome it complete moves around entire divs, or at least I'm guessing it's CSS stuff, does nobody else get this? Trying to use E*Trade on chrome is like hell on earth.
      • Junior612, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2@RoboDonut:


        try lynx
    • franklymister, on 10/23/2008, -5/+18Firefox is the biggest resource hog on my computer.

      It's ironic, because the reason I switched to it was that Netscape had become a bloated monster.
      • repmekevets, on 10/23/2008, -0/+24netscape? holy crap, i've transported back to 1996!!
      • Stormran, on 10/23/2008, -3/+29Quick! Warn everyone not to vote Republican in 2000!
      • askantik, on 10/23/2008, -2/+3lol
      • acaloiar, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Do you mean Mozilla? Firefox was a while after Netscape my friend, I assure you. Mozilla was the next step.
      • YoWhatDaFuxUp, on 10/23/2008, -0/+5Buy stock in apple
      • gaqua, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2@Stormran: most people DIDN'T vote Republican in 2000. Remember, Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.

      • Darkhacker, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2You switched to Firefox from Netscape?

        I suppose painting racing stripes on your car makes it go faster too?
    • Morac, on 10/23/2008, -13/+6Firefox 3.0 is fast and doesn't use a lot of memory, UNLESS you bog it down by added tons of extensions and plugins.
    • 4321234, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2Firefox is faster with javascript, so the slower pages load a lot faster. Other browsers may start up faster and render html faster, but that's not anywhere near as noticeable. Having said that, the first place I tried out after enabling jit was a digg page with 200+ comments, and it instantly crashed.
    • rnyc14, on 10/23/2008, -2/+1i actually think firefox 2.0 was faster for me. i run into a lot of problems with firefox but i have use it for years. the browser just stops loading webpages as soon as i go to myspace, photobucket or sometimes facebook.com i have to restart every single time or use IE instead. firefox is indeed the biggest resource hog on my computer when compared to IE, IE is actually running faster. I do have some extensions running and was forced to eliminate a lot of them to try and make it go faster. but what is the point of having firefox if you cant enjoy the damn extensions???

      Dont get me wrong i do like firefox and is my main browser but i have not seen that much improvement on firefox 3.
      • regeya, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Give the 3.1 beta a try. Digg is downright usable. Also, make sure you're running the latest-greatest Flash.
    • TriplePlay2425, on 10/23/2008, -2/+2It's still faster than IE. Even with 15 extensions.
    • Chubakkaz, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3Oh god that made me laugh
    • HigherLogic, on 10/24/2008, -1/+4Chrome, Safari, Opera. Those are fast. Firefox? Not so much.
  • pardonator, on 10/23/2008, -9/+14It also sets new records for the speed and amount of times it's crashed for me. I know it's still early days but I really wouldn't bother trying it if you intend to use it as a main browser.
    • KnarkJesus, on 10/23/2008, -0/+13Yeah, Minefield really isn't recommended for everyday browsing. It is intended for developers and testers so bugs can be discovered and fixed. Use it at your own risk.
    • RyanJones, on 10/23/2008, -0/+6That is the point you know, minefield crashes, the testers report it so it can hopefully get fixed before the official release is made.
    • qber, on 10/23/2008, -0/+7There is a reason it's called Minefield.
    • merreborn, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1If you are not prepared for crashes, DO NOT USE A NIGHTLY BUILD. Wait for a release.

      The nightly is expected to have bugs. Hence the codename "Minefield", as in a dangerous place you should not walk if you don't want things to blow up around you.
    • aalmeida259, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1You can just adjust your FFX3 settings to make it a dickload faster without the bugs. Granted its not as fast as Minefield, but its still blazing.
  • baldgye, on 10/23/2008, -2/+38I'm running it now, and adblock plus works for me...
    • DomZy, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3Yeh I've been running it for weeks and adblock plus works fine. There was a brief period where it didn't work when it went from 3.1preb1 to 3.1preb2, so he must have been using it around that time.
    • bjornski, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Also no issues with NoScript. I almost refuse to surf without that one.
      • mockidol, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2If that's true you wouldn't be able to see this:


        [Ad Removed]
      • bjornski, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1I run NoScript, AdMuncher and AdBlock.

        What was I supposed to miss?
  • maisteri, on 10/23/2008, -5/+176How can I play it?
    • str1fe, on 10/23/2008, -0/+71Spacebar flies the helicopter
    • kevyn, on 10/23/2008, -5/+59start->all programs->games->minesweeper
    • PhailQuail, on 10/23/2008, -5/+48Applications>Games>Mines
    • yotsukado, on 10/23/2008, -3/+21This game sucks, don't get it. Most of the GOOD endings end in rick rolls...
    • junkwheel, on 10/23/2008, -8/+4Press H to set up the bomb.
    • anononon, on 10/23/2008, -1/+23Keep hitting ALT+F4
    • aceslick911, on 10/23/2008, -1/+5no, digg up, stupid!
    • Whaines, on 10/23/2008, -0/+6Hold down the Windows Key + E for 30 seconds. I'm sure it'll pop right up.
      • skyroket, on 10/24/2008, -0/+4For those of you who don't know, the windows key is a cool way to do a lot of things besides bring up the start menu.

        Windows Key + E = launch Windows Explorer
        R = opens the Run command window
        D = show desktop
        M = minimize everything when your wife walks in
        Shift M = unminimize everything when she's gone
        F = Find
        Tab = Brings up the leet scrolling window chooser thingy you will never use unless you're showing off Vista to your friends.
      • bjornski, on 10/25/2008, -0/+1@skyroket

        Good lord, I've been using Windows since 3.1, and I didn't know a lot of those.

        Thanks!
    • anizzle, on 10/23/2008, -2/+6But will it run crysis?
      • regeya, on 10/23/2008, -1/+1I don't even think the NCC-1701's computer core will run Crysis. Too dadgum slow.
      • SuicideMouse, on 10/23/2008, -0/+4I'm sorry, did you say, "dadgum"?

        What the ***** are you chewing?
    • sh4rkb1t3, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1Start > Run > "winmine.exe"
  • drvelocity, on 10/23/2008, -3/+8I've used it for a week and it's only crashed once. Firefox 3.0 (not to mention every other browser I've ever used) crashes often for me as well so it's not like there's a huge risk in using the alpha version. I'll take the massive speed increases with the perceived stability issues any day. Can't wait for this to go final so the add-on developers get everything updated.
    • desertDenizen, on 10/23/2008, -2/+1Firefox hasn't crashed on my machine since I added Flashblock about 2 months ago.
  • zanthrax, on 10/23/2008, -36/+4Great, another branched of version of the same project.
    This is why open source generaly fails.
    • KnarkJesus, on 10/23/2008, -1/+20Minefield is the pre-release verison of Firefox where all the new fixes and features are added for testing, not a "branched of" version.
    • thosewithnoeyes, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1which is why you general fail.
  • Totz83, on 10/23/2008, -15/+7It seems slower for me than FF3, the page is still loading while I type this
  • agree2disagree, on 10/23/2008, -14/+36Firefox 3.1 (Beta) > Chrome > Firefox 3
    Get the Firefox 3.1 Beta here - this is the one with the FASTER java
    http://mozilla.osuosl.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/ ...
    • adriaaan, on 10/23/2008, -0/+25http://mozilla.osuosl.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/ ... There you go, now available for multiple operating systems.
    • xaxxon, on 10/23/2008, -0/+99faster javaSCRIPT. Big difference.
    • skyshock1, on 10/23/2008, -3/+5Scrolling using 3.1 still feels like I'm pushing a rubber mat over carpet on OSX. I'll still w/ webkit nightlies. They're much nicer IMO.
      • cawpin, on 10/23/2008, -3/+2Scrolling works just like it did in 3.0. It's just fine.
      • trunkster, on 10/23/2008, -1/+1I did some javascript speed tests of my own:
        http://celtickane.com/webdesign/jsspeed.php

        Just try that in both browsers. Webkit nightlies are still by far the fastest.
      • andycr512, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Have you tried Tools->Options->Advanced->Use Smooth Scrolling? Not sure why it's disabled by default, but it is.
      • skyshock1, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1@ trunkster

        Using FF 3.1 I get consistent ~275. With the newest Webkit nightly, i'm seeing ~380. So 3.1 is slightly faster there. But I just can't get past the ***** page scrolling.

        @ andycr512

        I'm on a mac. Maybe it's better on a PC, I wouldn't know. I tried enabling smooth scrolling but it made little difference. Still feels like molasses. Webkit's page scrolling is so much snappier. FF 3.1's JS engine is definitely faster in benchmarks, but it feels like the difference in real-world browsing is only marginal.
      • mrraven200, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1What kind of processor do you have skyshock? Firefox 3.1 beta scolls very fast for me both on a dual PPC G5 tower and a 1.5 year old MacBook. Are you getting spinning beachballs on non FF apps as well? If so maybe you have font corruption issues, I ran font validate on fontbook on my OS X machines and it made a HUGE difference once I got rid of corrupt fonts.
    • trollick, on 10/23/2008, -12/+3What's "Chrome"?
    • bigwillystyle, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1speed wise is it faster than WebKit?
      • skyshock1, on 10/24/2008, -0/+2Depends on what you mean by speedwise. Back/forward page rendering, JS rendering, CSS rendering, plain HTML rendering, page scroll speed, etc... and also what your basis for comparison is. I will say this though, almost every aspect of the browsing experience seems snappier going from 3.0 to 3.1
  • Silverjam, on 10/23/2008, -2/+9Does anybody know how it performs compared to FF 3.1 with javascript.options.jit.chrome=true and javascript.options.jit.content=true?
    • RyanJones, on 10/23/2008, -0/+5Much better on most things except recursion, which isn't supported yet in tracemonkey.
    • Knowltey, on 10/23/2008, -0/+7It IS FF 3.1 essentially!
  • asmithz, on 10/23/2008, -0/+10Thought that this would not be faster, and if it was it would barely be noticeable. But WOW! was I wrong. This thing blazes through all the websites i visit. I cant believe i dealt with such slow browers before.
  • pantone287, on 10/23/2008, -18/+9what a ***** stupid name.
    why not name it something cool like mutually assured destruction?
    • FreakinRepublic, on 10/23/2008, -4/+8lol cuz its like playing the game minefield...you dont know if your gonna kill the guy(crash the browser) whenever you visit a site!
      • Stevo23, on 10/23/2008, -3/+3Buried for being 13 years old.
      • FreakinRepublic, on 10/23/2008, -7/+2ummm....im 22....but close pedobear wannabe
    • oedenfield, on 10/23/2008, -0/+9plus it was never meant to be used like people are advocating today (like this guy at cnet). it is a work-in-progress type build and Minefield actually fits very well because as others have said.. it does have many more bugs and less polish than the main Firefox releases.
    • Brigadier, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2They used to just say "alpha" but people didn't know what that meant. Threads like this one would come up and people would complain about the alpha being unstable and crashing - which is exactly what an alpha does. So they renamed it Minefield hoping people would get the point. Apparently they didn't.
    • Lockhart, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Like what... Mozilla Masturbating Monkeys?
      • AdamFromMyspace, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Wasn't that a Ubuntu release?
  • MacParrot, on 10/23/2008, -11/+6I usually use WebKit (FireFox for those sites that won't allow Safari or WebKit), but exactly how is a 10% increase in one particular part leaving something in the dust?
  • exeprime, on 10/23/2008, -7/+129It's not a browser, it's a codename for Firefox alphas. Fail.
  • superjamie, on 10/23/2008, -0/+15As an avid Firefox fan, I regularly try the latest Minefield builds to see how the next version of FF is coming along.

    3.1 is amazingly fast, thanks to TraceMonkey, however the stability's not quite there yet.

    It has indeed whet my appetite for faster JavaScript engines though, I cannot wait until Firefox 3.1 goes final release!
    • mrraven200, on 10/24/2008, -0/+13.1 beta is very stable on my OS X box and has fast javascript if you enable it with about:config search for jit and change the 2nd entry to true. Posting for 3.1 beta now in fact.
  • fatas, on 10/23/2008, -13/+4quick IE ***** patent all their *****, in America anyway
    • Kromel, on 10/23/2008, -1/+1Quick! Put away the bong before your parents get home!
  • redcodenl, on 10/23/2008, -1/+8Well, the good thing is: Speed is measurable

    So there is no need to think things are fast or slow. You can actually measure it. But the biggest problem with that (of course) is creating a good relevant benchmark/test.
  • dfross, on 10/23/2008, -3/+7Another great feature about Minefield is it is compilable in a full 64-bit version, which works very well on Vista x64.

    Some may say it needs >4Gb for the memory leaks, but it's more than just that ;) I've been quite impressed with it so far, stability is more beta quality than alpha, impressive.

    http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/How_To_Build_Window ...
    (if someone knows a proper x64 package rather than rolling your own, please link it here)
    • cgoff, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2http://www.vector64.com

      Also has 32-bit builds with SSE enabled for a bit of an extra boost over the official builds.
    • regeya, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1I built the 3.1b1 release on my amd64 machine, and dang, that thing flies. Firefox 3.0, by comparison, was completely unusable on the same machine, especially on Digg. One, maybe two comments, and I'd have to kill the browser.

      Part of the problem may have been Flash, which I've also updated. If you're a Linux user and are still using 9, please upgrade, because the build for 10 is downright usable. Hardly any crashes!
    • TexMexMatt, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3Just sucks that Flash isn't working with that 64-bit version. Well, could be working but I haven't found anything about it so to me the 64-bit version is kind of useless when you cant watch youtube or anything with Flash. Some people might find that good but I don't.
    • alan784, on 10/23/2008, -1/+1except for the fact that there is absolutely no point in having a 64 bit version because you cant take advantage of the x64 capabilities unless your dealing with big file sizes.
      • dfross, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1There is more to 64bit than simply addressable memory. You think there is no benefit other than going over 4 gig of ram in vista?

        Faster large scale arithmetic (exceptionally useful in high-end video), and not to mention utilising functions native to the 64bit chips rather than a 32bit compatability mode, are some of the largest benefits.
  • Trick01, on 10/23/2008, -0/+4Nightly Tester Tools extension helps with forcing extension compatibility, so its usable as a daily browser. And yes, it is just a codename for the latest firefox nightly release, and the soon to be released 3.1 will have all the speed enhancements.
  • Portfolioso, on 10/23/2008, -2/+18I have a problem with this article. This guy writes for CNet? They ought to be ashamed:

    I hated how he made Minefield sound like a brand new browser, separate from Firefox. He redeemed himself though, by stating it was an alpha pre-release,

    >>"It's a separate install so it won't affect an existing Firefox install. You have nothing to lose but your chains."
    Yes, it's a separate install, but it utilizes the same profile, which could mess things up

    >>"It doesn't support some of my favorite Firefox extensions (like Adblock Plus), but it actually has surprisingly good support for extensions, given that it's a fast-moving project."
    This is a contradiction. Secondly, maybe he's writing to a non tech audience, but if he knew anything about computers and Mozilla, you can bypass the extension browser version check. I use Adblock Plus on Minefield.

    In other news, I love 3.1. It's amazing.
    • Knowltey, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1-profilemanager
      I always run my Minefield on a seperate profile than my regular Firefox, because there are time where it will severely screw with S^%*
  • KboT, on 10/23/2008, -9/+3uh no, I've never thought Firefox 3 was fast. Google Chrome is about three times faster than anything Mozilla. However, this 'Minefield' interests me. We shall see...
    • reformation, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3Its just the nightly alpha build of firefox.
  • aaronirwin31, on 10/23/2008, -11/+4That last damn thing I want is another browser. Call me old, or whatever, but I've been using computers and software long before windows had a 3.1 after it and Photoshop had 2 tucked behind it.

    In all this time I know this much. I hate new software! I only get the new stuff if I absolutely have to. Maybe this one is faster, but I don't care. I know where all the menus and functions are on this one. I don't want a new operating system (for the PCs or the Macs). I don't want a new version Photoshop or Illustrator. And I don't want a new browser. Even if it's free. lol
    • syre, on 10/23/2008, -0/+11look its grandpa simpson!
    • chewbacca77, on 10/23/2008, -0/+5...and get off my lawn!
    • Knowltey, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Then you'll be happy to know that it's not a new browser. It's just what will become that new number tucked behind "Firefox" muahahahahahaha *cough* ahahahahaha
    • jellystones, on 10/23/2008, -1/+3If everyone thought like you we'd all still be using MS-DOS. The evolution will never stop.
  • Sahtor, on 10/23/2008, -18/+9Think Firefox is buggy? Try Minefield
    • Brigadier, on 10/23/2008, -0/+8Minefield is the codename for Firefox alphas. They used to just say "alpha" but people didn't know what that meant. Threads like this one would come up and people would complain about the alpha being unstable and crashing - which is exactly what an alpha does. So they renamed it Minefield hoping people would get the point. Apparently they didn't.
      • wpyh, on 10/23/2008, -2/+1I think his main point is that Firefox is buggy, which is true.
  • surka, on 10/23/2008, -10/+4While Fx3 is quite nice browser (in my opinion), Google's Chrome is way faster thanks to its background DNS checks..

    But overall - Firefox is the leader of browsers thanks to its complexity of plugins, and its humane plugins/add-ons manager
    • saisumimen, on 10/23/2008, -0/+5"Firefox Minefield" (aka 3.x alpha) is apparently even faster than Chrome by about 10%.
      • surka, on 10/23/2008, -4/+3It should be faster only in JavaScript-related pocesses, as it acquired an updated version of Chrome's V8 JavaScript engine.

        I was referring to overall webpage loading (DNS check).
      • PleaseJustDie, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3Its not an updated version of V8, its TraceMonkey, a completely different project tasked with the same solution.
    • comrade693, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Note - mozilla is working on adding that as well:
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45340 ...

      There are some numbers in the bug, but they don't see much of an improvement over broadband, but on slower connections it seems to help out a lot.
  • rockstar1o9, on 10/23/2008, -7/+4a) Please get Flash working. x64 is happening as we're starting to hit 32-bit limits (like with RAM) so tell Adobe to hurry the ***** up with that *****. I hate having to open up another browser to visit YouTube.
    b) Some sites say Minefield isn't compatible because it's not IE, Firefox/Mozilla, or Safari. Can we please get an easy user-agent changer? (the user-agent add-on isn't compatible with Minefield)
    • Kral, on 10/23/2008, -1/+7Screw flash, let's get HTML 5 support in and optimized and bid proprietary plugins and codecs farewell. Flash has been a problem for far too long.
    • niczar, on 10/23/2008, -0/+4Flash 32 bits works just fine on Fedora Core 9 64 bits, thanks to nspluginwrapper. Bonus: player launched in another process, protected by SELinux.
    • TonyCubed, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2A) 32-Bit limits are being hit, but on the consumer level, that's only with having access to 4GB's of RAM or more. We are hardly seeing common applications like 'Flash' player even getting near the 32-Bit 'limit' that you speak of.

      B) As for your website problem, over at @ tete009's unofficial builds webpage, he has a way to fix your problem

      "Some sites and add-ons do not work properly.

      I recommend changing the value of "general.useragent.extra.firefox" from "Minefield/…" or "BonEcho/…" to "Firefox/…", and some sites and add-ons will work properly."

      Hope that helps.
    • int19h, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1All problems with Flash are Adobe's fault.
  • nowhereelse, on 10/23/2008, -1/+5The thing I like most about Chrome is the process control so I'm able to shut down a misbehaving tab without needing to restart the whole program. Is this implemented in FF3.1 or any other upcoming browsers?
    • RyanJones, on 10/23/2008, -0/+6It doesn't work anyway. I've had numerous crashes where the browser failed to isolate the single crashed tab. However, yes there is something in the works for post Firefox 3.1 to implement separate tab control.
      • skyshock1, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Usually happens w/ flash. Don't know if that's really a chrome problem or a flash problem.
      • andycr512, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1For me, every time a Chrome tab crashed, the entire browser crashed. Not once has it recovered as it says it does. Tabs crash significantly more often than Firefox ever does, too - I don't remember the last time Firefox crashed, but Chrome crashed regularly.
    • TravisOwens, on 10/23/2008, -2/+1No, it would require a huge amount of reworking for this to happen, so wait for Firefox 3.5 if you're lucky, otherwise maybe 4.0
      • RyanJones, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1I know what I am talking about, you however don't. There isn't a 3.5 planned for what it is worth and the re-writes are not actually that complicated, the complicated part is getting plugins and addons to work correctly with the new system.
    • alarchy, on 10/23/2008, -2/+2It's also a feature of IE8.
    • PleaseJustDie, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1@Travis it actually wouldn't require a "huge" amount of reworking. It would require creating a new thread with the creation of each tab which is a relatively simple process, from there it would just be creating the system to sync the threads for communication which isn't an overly complex task either.

      However, 3.1's feature list was set before Chrome was beta'd so chances are you're right in that it won't appear for 3.1, but it probably will for the next release.
  • Stevo23, on 10/23/2008, -13/+4"Think Firefox 3 is fast?"
    No.
  • Kral, on 10/23/2008, -3/+18The article:

    "Minefield is, in fact, a way to glimpse into the future of Firefox, as it's a pre-release/alpha version of the Firefox browser."

    The link he gives:

    "Warning: This is NOT A FINAL OR PRE-RELEASE VERSION"

    Fail.
  • reformation, on 10/23/2008, -9/+2Its seriously not worth it. The speed improvements are not worth the hassle of getting it working properly without crashing.
  • bsd3, on 10/23/2008, -7/+5why do you even bother which browser is faster, Google's or Mozilla's? if you think that couple of seconds do any difference, than you are probably wrong. from my perspective, every browser is doing an excellent job reading html, javascript, css and rest of languages... the only thing that I'm concerned and others should as well, is security of browsers...
    p.s. sorry for my English grammar, it's little bit rusty... :)
    • TonyCubed, on 10/23/2008, -1/+7Internet Explorer 4, 5 ,6, 7 and Beta 8 are doing a good job with CSS/HTML? Bloody hell, I must of walked into a parallel Universe when I got home today.
      • Knowltey, on 10/23/2008, -0/+6OH DEAR GOD! IE rendered webpages! MY EYES!
      • bsd3, on 10/23/2008, -0/+0this is hilarious!!! excellent one... :D:D:D
    • PleaseJustDie, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1I wish IE would just jump on board with javascript standards, I'm tired of having to write so many extra lines of code just to handle cross-browser compatibility.
      • kr3mliyn, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Frameworks help... unless your a purist/sadist.
      • PleaseJustDie, on 10/25/2008, -0/+1frameworks don't answer every question though, many times frameworks just don't seem to integrate in to what I'm doing well or I need to use multiple frameworks and they don't work well together so in the end I end up having to code something from scratch that does half of this and half of that to get it to do what I want.
  • oda1, on 10/23/2008, -11/+4I'm gonna go ahead and stick with Opera.
    • Spearbox, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Their motto used to be Fastest Browser on Earth, but they've dropped that since. Not being sarcastic, just wondering, why not aim to be what they once were?
    • borez, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3Oh, you're the one then.
  • buughost, on 10/23/2008, -9/+2Or use a browser that isn't so CSS-retarded
  • ebusinesswizard, on 10/23/2008, -10/+1I haven’t use firebox 3 browser yet. That's why i can say about it.
    • TonyCubed, on 10/23/2008, -0/+6What was the point commenting then?
  • mrogi, on 10/23/2008, -6/+1When I click on a link in Firefox3 the webpage pops up before I can blink. How much faster than that does my web browser need to be?
    • kr3mliyn, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1So fast your webpages appear a week before they were created!
    • askantik, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1You got dugg down, so I assume my comment below will be, too.

      People who do this kind of thing are like the people who spend $800 on a chip to get 2 extra horsepower for their car... And you can tell how much difference again? Oh yeah, none, especially since you don't drive in NASCAR or some *****...
  • RipleyIsDead, on 10/23/2008, -6/+9Thank you Google! For getting the ball rolling on fast Javascript!
    • TonyCubed, on 10/23/2008, -0/+10Tracemonkey (Firefox's new Javascript engine) was in development before Chrome was even released a month or so ago. It's only now that it's stable enough to be in a Alpha/Beta version of FF 3.1 but even then you need to add a line to the 'aboug:config' to enable it.
    • TheCoreh, on 10/23/2008, -0/+8The webkit team was working on Squirrelfish way before Chrome was released, too.
    • fundi245, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2True but one of the moz devs said that pushed out tracemonkey faster to better compete with chrome.
  • PARTyZAN, on 10/23/2008, -3/+7I'm a Firefox user myself, and I can say it's not a fast browser at all. I hate its too aggressive image compression. Just try to open multiple tabs with big images, it'll take its time to switch a tab (like 4-5 seconds on a quad core PC). Firefox 2 however does not have that problem.

    http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/stevestevemarc.j ...

    Try openning this image, and then switch tab for a few seconds. FF3 will lock up for a few seconds, when it decompresses the image.

    http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t ...

    Firefox is a good browser, but it has its issues.
    • TonyCubed, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2I don't have this problem, I've just loaded that image and a few images from Deviantart and I'm switching between tabs just fine, but that might be down to me running a custom build of Firefox: I'm running tete009's Firefox 3.0.3/Minefield builds over @ http://www1.plala.or.jp/tete009/en-US/software.htm ... I would really advise looking at his builds and use his memory utilities with a custom .ini file which can be optimised for CPU's with more than 1 core/thread. His build are really fast, I recommend them to anyone! :) Can't wait for him to start building 3.1 Builds!
    • reformation, on 10/23/2008, -1/+1It doesn't matter that you have a quad core - firefox is only using one of them
      • comrade693, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Firefox has lots of places where it uses more than one thread so you are very likely to be using more than one core...
    • TravisOwens, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1There is a slight hang up if you haven't looked at the image in awhile as the memory gets swapped to the page file although on my Core 2 Duo /w SATA it takes only about 1sec, on my older Core 2 Duo /w IDE, 2-3secs.

      The problem isn't really Firefox per se, and this is one of the ways Firefox no longer looks like a memory hog.
      • PARTyZAN, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1FF2 didn't look like a memory hog to me, while on the other side FF3 annoys me with this "feature".
  • riddlebox, on 10/23/2008, -4/+3Apple Safari, and Google Chrome = fast. Eh Firefox 3, its not IE 6 or 7. I will give them that. They really need to revamp Firefox. Don't get my wrong. I use firefox everyday because of the tools that I use developing and things of such. But for straight browsing I normally move over to chrome since its release.
  • asmithz, on 10/23/2008, -4/+17Like it matters but 92/100 on acid3 test
    • Knowltey, on 10/23/2008, -3/+1That's like a B on your homework!
      • comrade693, on 10/23/2008, -0/+11I feel sorry for you if you went to a school where a 92% was a B.
      • AdamFromMyspace, on 10/23/2008, -0/+4In all my EE classes, 30/100 is a B
    • rocke86, on 10/23/2008, -2/+2B+ at my old high school. Mine was based on hard work and not the free trophies for all mentality.
      • TNicholson, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1hey rocke86...

        ***** YOU YOU PRETENTIOUS PRICK.
  • mendez8, on 10/23/2008, -3/+3I can't download it from here http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minefield/ .I don't see any link to do it.
  • AtomicDog1471, on 10/23/2008, -1/+12Download here:

    http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nig ...
  • shawnanigans, on 10/23/2008, -10/+4I don't think Firefox is fast. It's awfully bad with memory. But Minefield is brilliant.
    • RyanJones, on 10/23/2008, -0/+7Minefield == Firefox (Trunk) so that statement is a tad contradictory.
    • Goblinkiller, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Minefield is just the codename for non-stable versions of Firefox 3.x and will eventually turn into a new version when it has matured. The Firefox 3.1 beta is essentially the same as Minefield at the moment for example.
  • reformation, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3This is not for general use, its alpha software. Just use the proper release unless you are serious about testing.
  • diggerpleez, on 10/23/2008, -6/+4I am guessing their naming didn't come from the Mozilla marketing team. Code-naming your software after something you have to tip toe around or face death/dismemberment due to blowing up seems like an interesting twist.
    • TravisOwens, on 10/23/2008, -0/+7It's named Minefield for a reason, because it's alpha and considering unstable & unreliable. They want you to realize it's "scary" to run this.
  • flintmecha, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2...Minefield isn't a special version of Firefox.

    It's Firefox without the "Firefox" branding and logo.

    It is also generally the only way to preview pre-beta builds.
  • borez, on 10/23/2008, -2/+1After using minefield for around twenty minutes and then switching back, FF3 now seems pretty sluggish in comparison. It's a lot faster loading web 2.0. sites, I noticed it a lot with digg, and also opening and closing multiple tabs was definitely an improvement.

    Bring on the FF3 implementation.
  • Finalreminder, on 10/23/2008, -1/+1bloody hell, that is fast!
  • Weip, on 10/23/2008, -7/+1Not as fast than Chrome. I'm stick with it since its first release 2 months ago. GJ Google!
    • trollick, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Is Chrome still around?
    • Finalreminder, on 10/23/2008, -0/+0Blows chrome out of the water.
      Plus it's just as feature rich as any other browser...except chrome
  • overbyte, on 10/23/2008, -2/+1but how is flash performance in it because it's bloody awful in firefox
    • neotrantor, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1i think alot of the speedup is because the flash player won't initalize with this version
  • zyce, on 10/23/2008, -1/+8I'm happy for Firefox and their new TraceMonkey engine, there was some huge gaps with recursive javascript benchmarks when compared to Chromium, but it seems they've bridged the gap.

    Google fired back against Minefield w/ TraceMonkey by making some more improvements to V8 for it to barely edge out TraceMonkey. As it stands, it's going to be nigh-impossible to make TraceMonkey as fast as V8 in their current forms unless TM gets some low-level reanalysis. It's my suspicion the guys working on TraceMonkey don't have a unified vision as the technology isn't driving toward any definitive goal.

    Hell, they're both beta browsers and they both knock the socks off IE/Opera/Firefox 3.0.1. Competition is ***** awesome. I'm sticking with Chrome for most quick-browsing tasks until Firefox can whoop their ass. Until then, I'll enjoy watching both teams improve from my chair on the line.
    • RyanJones, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2Actually that is not true at all. TracerMonkey doesn't even trace recursion yet, let alone stuff over DOM methods. Once these are added, the current lead that TM has will be amplified quite a bit (initial tests boast another 20% improvement for the dom preview stuff alone). Do the math guys, there is still plenty of room for improvement on all sides here.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
  •  

    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. 2009 — 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.