| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Firefox 3, Beta 4 hits the streets | |
|
||
| Time: 01:51 EST/06:51 GMT | News Source: APC Mag | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Mozilla today released a new beta version of Firefox 3. Beta 4 builds on the existing releases of Firefox and includes more than 900 enhancements from the Beta 3 and includes 'drastic improvements to performance and memory use.' It also provides other fixes based on feedback from the community. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 228 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:49:09 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 16797 (65.95.8.25) at 3/11/2008 5:53:36 AM |
|
Yet another release where they promise to resolve ("drastically improve" sounds better, eh?) performance and memory issues. Well, I hope so.
Asshat: "Firefox has no performance or memory issues." This post was edited by gonzo on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 05:56. |
| #2 By 21705 (142.213.176.140) at 3/11/2008 11:23:47 AM |
|
Again includes more than 900 enhancements from the Beta 3
How can they do so much changes between each beta!?!? It was the same from B1 to B2, B2 to B3 |
| #3 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/11/2008 12:57:56 PM |
|
That's why they have so many betas - they just keep adding crap between betas.
Typically, a new software version is created with a given set of targets that include enhancements and bug fixes. The majority of these make it into beta 1 (although not in their final form) The rest come in subsequent betas. It seems to me that by beta 3, all enhancements should be in the application. The fact that 900 enhancements are in beta 4 sounds to me like poor development standards. |
| #4 By 105323 (156.70.222.26) at 3/11/2008 1:13:10 PM |
|
@rxcall
That's a very idealistic view and not what happens in general. Microsoft make hundreds of changes to Windows between betas, and they only slow down when they get to to the release candidate stage. As betas progress they are less likely to land major features. @DL You can see the change lists using Bugzilla at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/query.cgi?format=advanced @gonzo You can choose to believe that they have not attempted to resolve some of these issues, but you should really check Bugzilla and the source tree for yourself. You will find a number of improvements. It's better than before but not perfect. They are probably better spending time on other things now that it's 'good enough'. |
| #5 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/11/2008 1:59:03 PM |
|
#4: now you are showing your lack of real-world development experience.
Let's just have 10 betas so we can fit every possible enhancement in there. This post was edited by rxcall on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 14:16. |
| #6 By 10557 (199.229.1.111) at 3/11/2008 2:47:31 PM |
|
#4:
* Microsoft also takes months between betas, not 3-5 weeks. * Bugzilla demonstrates abilities to check-in files and write comments; checking in a file does not constitute a feature enhancement -- unless fixing ones own bugs is considered an enhancement. * As for performance issues resolution, not every check-in is inherently "better than before." Most of the "enhancements" are probably fixing of known bugs which surfaced during the regression testing phase. * "Good enough" is highly subjective. Lets keep in mind that it has taken the Mozilla/Firefox team over 8 years to attempt to resolve their display:inline-block CSS 2.1 bugs (search bugzilla for that)... and they are not fully resolved even in FF3 Beta. This post was edited by nasserd on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 14:49. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/11/2008 3:49:50 PM |
| #3: How an app under development makes it to release is entirely arbitrary. There is no official number of betas or RCs you must have, and having more beta builds does not mean your process is broken or sub-optimal. As far as I'm aware, an app should be feature-complete by the time it is badged as a release candidate. Other than that, you can create as many beta builds you want, as required. |
| #8 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 3/11/2008 4:58:33 PM |
|
Wow... planets must be misaligned or something... I'm agreeing with Latch.
As far as I'm concerned, Moz can do whatever they want as far as their dev process goes... it's quite obvious that the same conventions aren't followed from developer to developer, product to product, company to company, although I'd have to say there seems to be a bit more standardization than there used to be. As the saying goes, "Shipping is also a feature," but at the same time, to whom are they accountable? It's not like I can say our organization will stop paying if they don't release.... :P I guess all I could request is that they stay somewhat predictable, and if they're going to change their conventions or processes, make it fairly well-known in some fashion (similar to how many Microsoft products started shipping CTPs in addition to regular betas--this was widely-reported). That said, the JavaScript performance figures look amazing (not sure how well it translates into real-world performance, but anyhow...): http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=548&tag=nl.e539. Since IE7 (with IE7Pro), I haven't used Firefox as much... sounds like it's time to check it out again. Still, I have to say that deploying, maintaining, and keeping security tabs on two browsers is just not worth the rather minimal benefit in a business setting--particularly without a good global-deploy system that integrates with existing patching systems. Lack of integrated lock-down controls is another (yeah, I'm aware of FrontMotion--it's very limited). Might go on an IT desktop or two, though. :D |
| #9 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 3/11/2008 7:36:29 PM |
|
#1 " Yet another release where they promise to resolve ("drastically improve" sounds better, eh?) performance and memory issues. Well, I hope so."
It's ok, you're just used to Microsoft's SDLC which basically goes along the lines of: 1) Create half-assed product (IE) 2) Improve half-assed product 3) Realise that your half-assed product is losing in the market place so find a way of integrating it with every copy of Windows sold given you have an effective monopoly in the consumer OS market 4) Once half-assed product is integrated with Windows and on by default to every Windows user improve the product to "good enough" level. 5) Keep making incremental updates to "good enough" product until all competition is effectively destroyed. 6) Stop working on said product effectively making it half-assed as the years go by. 7) Wait until a competitor comes along and starts to impact your market share. 8) Wait a bit longer just in case they don't succeed. 9) Finally start the grand PR machine rolling telling everyone how you're working on the next version of what has been for a number of years now a half-assed product. 10) Release half-assed product still with little to no standards support and claim to be working on the next version after that one which is the real version that you've always been working towards. Claim things like wanting to comply with the standards and anything else that the marketing people have read on forums and told you to say. 11) Don't mention anything when the latest two versions of your product perform horribly compared to the competition in the latest acid test and in fact v5.5 of your product outperforms v7 and v8. 12) ... 13) Profit! |
| #10 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at 3/11/2008 9:51:28 PM |
|
<tonymanero>You phony bastards!</tonymanero>
Yes there is no official limit to the number of betas an application development project can have, but if any one of you suggests that adding 900 enhancements to the beta 4 stage of any project is SOP then you are a liar! Yes, sometimes the unexpected happens and often we have to adjust on the fly but come on. If this was in the project plan, then the development manager should be fired. If it wasn’t in the project plan then the development manager should be fired. Oh that’s right, he’s probably not getting paid in the first place. Well you get what you pay for! At any rate, I would have loved to have heard the developer spring this on his boss. Employee: “Listen I know we’re a couple of months away from RC1 so I figured we could use that time to add a thousand or so mostly meaningless enhancements into the mix at the last minute.” Employer: “Latch… You’re fired!” |
| #11 By 7797 (72.229.133.104) at 3/12/2008 7:12:49 AM |
|
rxcall They didn't add 900 meaningless enhancements. I think a more accurate description would be that 900 changes were made to the codebase, mostly bugfixes etc.
Another problem here is that we can't compare this with practices of closed source companies because well the source as well as the process is closed. They don't tell you how many code changes happened between betas. If you are lucky they will give you a marketing approved list of the most important changes. Some of the changes that were made were simple things like enabling the new vista theme that was already built in, but not enabled by default. The picture you paint that the new beta has 900 meaningless enhancements is simply ... well ... wrong. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/12/2008 8:23:41 AM |
| #10: You just don't get it, and the bizarre part was how you castigated someone else for their perceived lack of real-world experience. What everyone here has been trying to tell you is that there is no SOP. I've worked for 4 software development houses and they all did it differently. If FF's development model and methodology has them making these large-scale changes between betas, and that process works for them, then who are you to criticize? |
| #13 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/12/2008 8:23:51 AM |
|
#11: "Firefox and includes more than 900 enhancements from the Beta 3 "
Call the "meaningless" part poetic license. |
| #14 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/12/2008 8:27:24 AM |
| #12: There is another thread saying that they are going to release Beta 5 this month. How can they possibly get meaningful input from beta4 in less than a month? |
| #15 By 105323 (156.70.222.27) at 3/12/2008 8:59:22 AM |
| #14: Easily - they capture stack trace and info from crashes, and then group/sort this data to focus on the top bugs. Like it or not they have an enthusiastic bunch of followers who will file bugs for anything that seems to be wrong with the product. It would seem they also have the funds to have paid testers these days too. |
| #16 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/12/2008 9:03:26 AM |
|
#15: "It would seem they also have the funds to have paid testers these days too. "
That would be the deep pockets of Google. And sorry for being needlessly nasty in my first comment to you. |
| #17 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 3/12/2008 12:38:06 PM |
|
#11 "They didn't add 900 meaningless enhancements. I think a more accurate description would be that 900 changes were made to the codebase, mostly bugfixes etc."
Not according to the release notes. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b4/releasenotes/ These look like HUGE changes to me. "Improved in Beta 4!] New Download Manager: the revised download manager makes it much easier to locate downloaded files, and you can see and search on the name of the website where a file came from. Your active downloads and time remaining are always shown in the status bar as your files download. [Improved in Beta 4!] Full page zoom: from the View menu and via keyboard shortcuts, the new zooming feature lets you zoom in and out of entire pages, scaling the layout, text and images, or optionally only the text size. Your settings will be remembered whenever you return to the site. [Improved in Beta 4!] Integration with Vista: Firefox now has Vista-specific icons, and uses native user interface widgets in the browser and in web forms. [Improved in Beta 4!] Integration with the Mac: the new Firefox theme makes toolbars, icons, and other user interface elements look like a native OS X application. Firefox also uses OS X widgets and spell-checker in web forms and supports Growl for notifications of completed downloads and available updates. A combined back and forward control make it even easier to move between web pages. [Improved in Beta 4!] Integration with Linux: Firefox's default icons, buttons, and menu styles now use the native GTK theme." etc etc |
| #18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/12/2008 1:09:38 PM |
|
#17: "They didn't add 900 meaningless enhancements. I think a more accurate description would be that 900 changes were made to the codebase, mostly bugfixes etc."
Not according to the release notes. Those release notes list a small handful of the 900-odd changes, so I'm unclear on why you feel the need to contradict tgnb. You've shown 5 improvements, some more major than others. What about the other 895+? Looks like tgnb was right to me. At any rate, this is awesome. It's good to see FF evolve like this than to see it sit there, stagnating for years, until suddenly it lurches back to life and implements features others have already had for years. |
| #19 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/12/2008 1:36:43 PM |
|
Once again, from the article text "Firefox and includes more than 900 enhancements from the Beta 3 "
Not bug fixes and enhancements, just enhancements. That's what the article says and you haven't given me any reason to doubt the validity of the article. This drives me back to my original point. Bug fixes at this late in the game are inevitable so why muddy the waters with additional enhancements that need to be regression tested and could potentially throw off time lines. Oh, that's right I forgot about the legions of "enthusiastic followers who will file bugs for anything that seems to be wrong with the product" and who are infallible especially in tight deadlines. |
| #20 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/12/2008 3:44:53 PM |
|
#19: The article may not have had all the details, or didn't explain them clearly. From the FF release notes so helpfully provided by parkkker:
"Firefox 3 Beta 4 includes more than 900 enhancements from the previous beta, including drastic improvements to performance and memory usage, as well as fixes for stability, platform enhancements and user interface improvements." It appears that 'fixes' and 'improvements' are included in the 900+ total. So, the total of 900+ enhancements is a mix of bug fixes, feature improvements and new features. I very much doubt that they've added hundreds of new features, so it then follows that the majority of enhancements are bug fixes and slight improvements to existing features. As for deadlines, if FF3 needs more time then it will slip. |
| #21 By 7797 (72.229.133.104) at 3/12/2008 10:09:16 PM |
|
rxcall the article is wrong. there were not 900 enhancements made. as i've said its more accurate to say 900 changes have been made most of which are small bugfixes. So you added your poetic license to an already incorrect statement and base the rest of your arguments on that. If i have to tell you where to go to verify that what i'm saying is accurate, then youre a lost cause. But just to amuse you, make a google search for firefox 3 beta4 900 changes and you will see that the word enhancement has been used by the author of this particular article while others speak of changes, not enhancements. I guess technically though bugfixes could also be called enhancements but now we're just going on about semantics. http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=23077
Its also important to note that some of the new enhancements in beta4 were not simply coded in the time between beta3 and beta4 but existed for some time and have just been "enabled" for testing in beta4, which by the way is still not intended for end users by the way. parker, the features they listed aren't features they wrote between beta3 and beta4 and as Latch has said thats 5 out of 900, you have a LONG LONG way to go even IF your assertions were correct. This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 22:17. |
| #22 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/13/2008 8:48:57 AM |
|
tgnb: This thread is based on an article. We are discussing said article. I don't feel it necessary to go out and validate the FF "features" included in beta releases. I'll leave that up to you.
Anyway, you should be berating the author for publishing such drivel. And I'll stand by my claim of "mostly meaningless" - "Firefox now has Vista-specific icons"! Wow! Why doesn't the FF development team make a real breakthrough and have Firefox run in protected mode on Vista? I guess that's too much to ask for a team that's tied up with that all important "icon" and "theme" work. Now wait for the inevitable list of FF breakthrough enhancements... This post was edited by rxcall on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 08:50. |
| #23 By 7797 (72.229.133.104) at 3/13/2008 10:15:32 AM |
|
Just because this thread is about an article doesn't mean you should pick out a single word from the article (enhancements) and use it to distort the actual point.
I think the point is simply that lots of work is getting done Next you're telling me i should berate the author for publishing drivel, but I suppose I shouldn't berate you for picking out a single word from the "drivel" and using that to distort said drivel making it even more useless? "Why doesn't the FF development team make a real breakthrough and have Firefox run in protected mode on Vista?" Google is your friend. Search and you shall find your answers. Making Firefox run in protected mode on vista wouldnt be a breakthrough at all in my opionion. There are arguments for and against it. Neither are vista specific icons. To be honest with you i wouldnt care if Firefox 3 didnt have any breakrthrough features. They are currently making whats working for them overall incrementally better. And thats just fine by me. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 10:19. |
| #24 By 60455 (68.186.182.236) at 3/13/2008 12:41:39 PM |
|
To digress...
have any other Internet hosts noted that actual FF use is in decline? I think that the decline is very much related to performance and security issues FF has encountered and the strengths of PM implementation on IE 7 / 8 BETA. Just a thought and not a happy one. I think the heat that FF/Moz brought really did get IE development moving. I mean not as people think, but IE 7 moved up and out of Vista and ahead of Vista's release. People thought IE dev was just dead. I don't think it was. I think it was active but bolted to Vista. FF Moz moved it up and out from the Vista release schedule. |
| #25 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/13/2008 1:04:22 PM |
|
#23: "Google is your friend. Search and you shall find your answers."
Let me guess, your boyfriend does your homework for you too. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 228 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:49:09 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
