Mozilla launches Firefox 4

[mr pc]

Is there a comprehensive list of add-ons/extensions/themes that work well with 4?

I'm still sitting on 3.6.16 because I really like how my browser is at this moment - it works excellent and suites my needs nicely.

My FF may have a fair share of exts, but it runs quite well - So even though it may seem "heavy" to some, it's smooth as butter....minus the mem hogging but that has even slowed down.

I don't mind change, I do mind change that breaks what I already have without problems.

 

[StalkeR]

Firefox 4 Download Stats

Almous 16,300 000 downloads...

 

[24c]

Is there a comprehensive list of add-ons/extensions/themes that work well with 4?

I'm still sitting on 3.6.16 because I really like how my browser is at this moment - it works excellent and suites my needs nicely.

My FF may have a fair share of exts, but it runs quite well - So even though it may seem "heavy" to some, it's smooth as butter....minus the mem hogging but that has even slowed down.

I don't mind change, I do mind change that breaks what I already have without problems.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Snowdog]

Now, an update about the font blurriness - it does not happen with 64-bit builds! I am using the Minefield builds on my laptop with the hardware acceleration on and I have no problems whatsoever. On my Desktop I downloaded the 32-bit official version and yes, the fonts there were blurry until I unticked the hardware acceleration option. But the 64-bit build seems to be doing just fine.

Then DirectWrite is likely broken in the 64 bit build. This is just the way DirectWrite renders text. If DirectWrite is active, you will get that blurry text, IE 9 does the same thing when DirectWrite is active. I agree that for some fonts DirectWrite rendering sucks, but a fix won't be coming from Mozilla, it would have to come from Microsoft.

- As you've both mentioned, blurry text due to Firefox 4 new hard acceleration but this could be a driver incompatibility problem with the graphics card used (Check Intel/AMD/NVIDIA for updated driver).

As above, this isn't Mozillas Bug, it is Microsofts "feature", they consider this new font rendering "better". In theory, it is more typographically correct for typeface purists. Apparently it is quite decent for large black on white fonts.

The problem back in practical reality is that the new rendering is not very good for small fonts, or light colored fonts on dark backgrounds and is (IMO) miserable on small, light colored fonts like you often encounter on the internet.

The clear option is shutting it off (no really downside as pretty much nothing uses HW Accel), while you wait for Microsoft to improve small font rendering. Mozilla can't fix this and new drivers won't fix this.

 

[Snowdog]

Is there a comprehensive list of add-ons/extensions/themes that work well with 4?

So install it in a different directory to coexist, so you can try it. That would take 5 minutes.

At first I thought the same thing and when I first tried it some of my favorite extensions didn't work, but a visit to the homepages of the extensions showed most had updated versions all except a couple of extensions that hadn't been updated in years and clearly never would be. These I quickly found replacements that are still being updated. So I have everything I had before working.

 

[Vertex]

I love this new version of Firefox, feels much smoother and faster and along with IE9, it has been influenced by the minimalistic interface designed for more space pioneered by Chrome. I love the adds on, love the design as I am seeing it now, more user friendly and I'd definately prefer this over IE9 because IE9 lacks some really crucial built in features that a browser should have like the ability to resume paused downloads, spell check plus adds on and personalization support.

 

[unifex]

Now, an update about the font blurriness - it does not happen with 64-bit builds! I am using the Minefield builds on my laptop with the hardware acceleration on and I have no problems whatsoever. On my Desktop I downloaded the 32-bit official version and yes, the fonts there were blurry until I unticked the hardware acceleration option. But the 64-bit build seems to be doing just fine.

Then DirectWrite is likely broken in the 64 bit build. This is just the way DirectWrite renders text. If DirectWrite is active, you will get that blurry text, IE 9 does the same thing when DirectWrite is active. I agree that for some fonts DirectWrite rendering sucks, but a fix won't be coming from Mozilla, it would have to come from Microsoft.

In all honesty I have not seen the same blurriness in IE9, although that maybe due to the fact that I am still using the RC.

 

[yowanvista]

These few issues will be fixed in Firefox 4.2 which will be released in few weeks

Early 4.2 pre-Alpha1 builds is available
Index of /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central

 

[unifex]

Is it wrong to ask why there won't be a version 4.1 :sarc:?

 

[Snowdog]

In all honesty I have not seen the same blurriness in IE9, although that maybe due to the fact that I am still using the RC.

I have fully patched Win7 and latest stable versions of everything (Drivers, IE9, FF4).

FF4 and IE9 both render identically in GDI (IE GDI = FF GDI) mode or DirectWrite (FF DW = IE DW) mode. I have tested them side by side on several pages.

The difference, Microsoft has a complex flowchart to decide when you use DirectWrite and other modern features, so it will often drop into IE7/IE8 compatibility mode. But you can force it into IE9 to use DirectWrite (or force IE8 rendering to render using GDI).

Find a page with Blurry text in FF4, load it in IE9, if it isn't identical hit "F12", then check the bottom Developer box for "Document Mode" Chances are it won't be in "IE9 Standards", go to the dropdown and select "IE9 Standards" and you will activate DirectWrite and text will be identically blurry to FF4.

I have found a way to check for DirectWrite functioning independent of perceived font blur.

Find a page with reflowable text, not all of them work, but this one does so you spot it the first time:
DirectWrite « Marc Gregoire’s Blog

Now start shrinking the page down horizontally to squish the text, very slowly.

DirectWrite on: Shrinking is very smooth and even until a word gets moved.
DirectWrite off: Shinking jitters all over the place as words shake back and forth.

Again both IE9/FF4 behave the same way. Use F12 Document Mode to switch IE9 (no restart) or HW Accel off/on for FF4 (restart needed).

IE9 ie easier because you can switch without restart, but the are both the same.


Part of the point of DirectWrite is that it ignores pixel boundaries so movement, transformations are very smooth(but can have softer text). GDI text respects these boundaries so it has to jump to the grid (but can have sharper text).

FWIW: I downloaded the FF x64 Minefield 4.2a1. It behaves just like IE9/FF4 x32. DirectWrite is functioning and it creates some blur on some fonts.

 

[yowanvista]

Mozilla pushes on development with release of Firefox 4.2 Alpha 1

This morning Mozilla has made version 4.2a1pre available on the Mozilla Nightly website, under their "Minefield" branding. In an effort to speed up their development cycle, we should see Firefox 5 by the last week of June.
Under the plan proposed by Mr Sayre, new features would start life in the nightly channel, before moving to the experimental and beta channels before either being disabled or included in a final release build. Features that take a long time to develop can stay in the nightly channel until ready or scrapped. New code would be moved from the nightly channel every six weeks during a development cycle.

Neowin.net - Mozilla pushes on development with release of Firefox 4.2 Alpha 1



Fixed:

1. #644139 [Toolkit:Build Config]-mozapps/preferences no longer included in omni.jar (Change Master Password dialog doesn't work) [All]
2. #644164 [Core:Build Config]-make configure depend on the various version files [Win]
3. #638292 [Toolkit:Add-ons Manager]-InstallTrigger is not defined when a new page is opened by clicking a link with target="_blank" or using window.open [All]
4. #639090 [Toolkit:Startup and Profile System]-Safe Mode dialog doesn't allow the user to restart in normal mode [All]

Partial Landings/WIPs/Incoming:

1. #636190 [mozilla.org:Release Engineering]-Change firefox version on mozilla-central to 4.2a1pre [All]
2. #259861 [Core:XBL]-Should log errors on bindings with no id attribute [Lin]
3. #457102 [CoreDOM]-kill nsIXPointer [Mac]
4. #585786 [Core:XPConnect]-Get rid of slimwrapper checks in quickstubs when we can [Mac]
5. #595785 [ToolkitDownload Manager]-Getting a download's nsIChannel appears unreliable [All]
6. #601332 [Core:Layout]-Sunspider 0.9.1 never paints its subframe [Win]
7. #614145 [Core:XPConnect]-Fast-path null return values in quickstubs [Mac]
8. [BACKOUT]#617339 [Core:HTML: Parser]-window.arguments is undefined when opening an HTML file with a long-ish comment at the start. [Mac]
9. #632904 [Core:Editor]-Editor/IME/spellcheck use content states when they mean IsEditable() [All]
10. #636336 [CoreDOM: Core & HTML]-img/video/audio/source.setAttribute()/getAttribute() on src trims whitespace [All]
11. #637644 [CoreDOM: Core & HTML]-adding elements through javascript to Popup windows does not work. [All]
12. #643429 [Core:Geolocation]-Remove IsBetterLocation functionality [Mac]
13. #640201 [Core:Geolocation]-mGeolocation should NOT be set before Init() is called [All]

Changelog
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2140511

 

[yowanvista]

Is it wrong to ask why there won't be a version 4.1 :sarc:?

They skipped 4.1 because a different branch (Fennec aka. Firefox Mobile) was already using 4.1 in their build system.

The first FF4.2Alpha is available, a native 64-bit version is released too
http://nightly.mozilla.org/

 

[noobvious]

Just downloaded 4.0....still getting used to it, but I like it so far.

 

[mrobjo]

Have managed to get firefox 4 working at last ,not sure what was causing all my problems,but am very happy now with the look of it and it seems to work well.

 

[mr pc]

Is there a comprehensive list of add-ons/extensions/themes that work well with 4?

So install it in a different directory to coexist, so you can try it. That would take 5 minutes.

Did that (on external HD) and well - somehow it's confused now. So, if I use the 3.6.16 shortcut and then try to open the 4.0 to make comparisons it opens the first version and vice versa.

I do recall being able to do this with older betas though, so not sure what's going on

 

[Snowdog]

Did that (on external HD) and well - somehow it's confused now. So, if I use the 3.6.16 shortcut and then try to open the 4.0 to make comparisons it opens the first version and vice versa.

I do recall being able to do this with older betas though, so not sure what's going on

It has always worked this way for me when I had two versions, the first thing it does is check and see if FF is running. If it is it just opens a window with the running version.

Why do you need both running at the same time? 4.0 should try to use the same extensions as 3.6 so you could tell immediately which ones don't work... That is the quickest way to find out what needs update/replacement.

 

[mr pc]

Was hoping the 4.0 would be a raw version of it - but you are correct, it sniffed out my exts and tried to apply them and that was the view, bleh.

I'll eventually migrate over to 4.X, seeing it is my preferred browser - I hate to be picky but Chromifox is a really nice theme and I'll keep it where it's at.

just being picky over aesthetics really...

 

[seekermeister]

Was hoping the 4.0 would be a raw version of it - but you are correct, it sniffed out my exts and tried to apply them and that was the view, bleh.

I'll eventually migrate over to 4.X, seeing it is my preferred browser - I hate to be picky but Chromifox is a really nice theme and I'll keep it where it's at.

just being picky over aesthetics really...

I have been one to not care too much about aesthetics, but I'm becoming more so over time. It is not just a matter of eye appeal, it also crosses over into functionality. When this occurs, I can be very picky, and not ashamed to admit it. Of course, no one can judge this type of thing, except the user himself. I guess that is why there are so many options offered, both by the OS and programs. Sometimes i can't understand some people's choices, but I just bite my tongue, and keep my mouth shut.

 

[profdlp]

About five years ago, the first time I tried Firefox I think I lasted about a day with it. Nothing wrong with it then, but I was just used to where everything was in IE. I tried it again about six months later and decided to stick it out for at least a week in order to give it a fair trial.

For whatever reason, I seem to be a little less picky about that kind of thing these days. I do know how you fell, though.

 

[mr pc]

You are correct - but for many function follows form and I know that at this point my browser is exactly what I want in functionality and form. The only theme other than the FF standard is Chromifox, so trust me - the aesthetic is function, I really can't stand 99% of the themes out there.

And my add-ons are running great and seamlessly and are about 95% function (Cooliris being the only toy add-on honestly)

Seeing that the role of the browser is to integrate home computing with the internet - aesthetics is a rather large part in customer interest. Look at the cult of Apple - yes, they may have nice products, but many of them are popular because of form first.

I know that there is more to the browser behind the "glitz" which honestly i have very little of - but I have my browser optimized and configured to almost perfect function for my needs and if I like 1 theme out of hundreds, nothing wrong with that.