A look at Firefox 4: what Mozilla plans for the next big version

ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind DroneAustin, TX
edited May 2010 in Science & Tech


  • SpampySpampy Madison, WI
    edited May 2010
    That feature that tells you exactly how much RAM/CPU an extension is using is prime, I've been wanting something like that for a while.
  • AlexDeGruvenAlexDeGruven Wut? Meechigan
    edited May 2010
    Looking forward to what the web is going to be offering over the next year or so.

    Hardware-accelerated rendering (2d)
    Hardware-accelerated flash
    Non-flash interaction and video

    The static pipes sound like a really cool setup, but I can imagine they have the potential to be utter nightmares for server-side people if things aren't managed perfectly.
  • djmephdjmeph Detroit
    edited May 2010
    Firefox definitely needs a performance boost. That's really all I care about. I tried to switch to Chrome but it just can't handle AJAX very well.
  • edited May 2010
    Will the 64 bit version support 32 bit plug-ins?
    (Still no 64 bit flash for windows)
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited May 2010
    No specifics were mentioned in the presentation, but we can assume that the 64-bit build of Firefox will support 32-bit plugins. It'd be pretty useless to users if it didn't.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited May 2010
    64-bit builds of Firefox in Linux have taken advantage of 32-bit Flash plugins for a while - I imagine they've figured a fair bit of it out. :)

    I don't know if I'm a huge fan of moving to the Chrome UI paradigm of tabs above all else, but I'll give it a shot, at least. Here's hoping it's much faster and a bit more stable... my install has been prone to crashes of late.
  • QuadWhoreQuadWhore Toledo, Ohio, U.S.
    edited May 2010
    Its looking good, but if it isn't close to being as fast as chrome (hopefully its faster), then I most likely wont use it.
  • BandrikBandrik Elkhart, IN
    edited May 2010
    If its RAM usage is better, I will be elated.
  • LincLinc Bard Detroit
    edited May 2010
    I'd settle for being able to edit my bookmarks on a Mac without opening the bloody Bookmark Manager :rolleyes:
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited May 2010
    ^Seconded. Mac needs the ability to right click on a book mark, that drives me a little nuts.

    FF4 so far looks like good and will keep me cemented in Fire Fox as my main. I keep trying Chrome with each build and just don't like it. The speed gain is so insignificant the rest of the stuff I don't like is.
  • edited May 2010
    When I first upgraded to Firefox 3.0 from the previous version, its noticeably better performance and less memory usage was a very pleasant surprise. Firefox 3.5 has been an insignificant upgrade compared to 3.0, but it is a minor revision anyway. If 4.0 can repeat the what 3.0 did, I will be more than happy. I have been using Firefox 3.5 on more than 5 computers with Windows XP, Windows 7, and Ubuntu with 100% stability. I am so content that I have not tried any other browser. IE8 does not count as a browser.
  • lmorchardlmorchard {web,mad,computer} scientist Detroit, MI
    edited May 2010
    For any of you guys seeing Firefox perform significantly worse than Chrome: Have you tried creating a new profile for Firefox?


    That seems to help a lot of people, who are basically doing that by switching browsers. Having a years-old Fx profile versus a brand new Chrome install always puts Fx at a disadvantage in comparison.

    There's been craploads of effort put into memory use reduction and performance increases, even on Fx 3.6. Chrome is actually more of a memory hog than Fx these days, sometimes by an order of magnitude.
  • lmorchardlmorchard {web,mad,computer} scientist Detroit, MI
    edited May 2010
    Not sure what you guys mean about the bookmark management, though... right-clicking in Mac menus? Does that work in Windows or something?
Sign In or Register to comment.