Firefox 2.0 final is out

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

Pshawn5

Senior member
Aug 8, 2001
615
0
0
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Jeffwo
Originally posted by: Pshawn5
Did they fix the problem with flash player? I've tried the suggestions on the Mozilla knowledge base to fix the problem, but yet whenever i go to a flash player website such as youtube, Firefox crashes. it's becoming a annoying problem.
Click to expand...

Same problem here. I never got Flash to work with FF.

:(
Jeff
Click to expand...

delete any existing flash plugin then download the latest version. flash has always worked fine for me.
Click to expand...


tried that. going to try to uninstall Firefox completely and do a fresh install. I'm figuring there something corrupt somewhere.
 
V

Vich

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,849
1
0
Originally posted by: thescreensavers
Originally posted by: keeleysam
Originally posted by: thescreensavers
Its RC3 not final.... look at properties the version is the same as rc3 which is 4.42.0.0
Click to expand...

RC3 was accepted as final.

Read before you speak.
Click to expand...

well.... as the person above it is rumored
Click to expand...

So how do we know for sure if its final. Just wait until tomorrow?
 
J

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
It's nice to see firefox try to catch up to Opera. Sadly, it's still a few months behind :]

Then again, we don't want the guys at Opera getting lazy, so good luck.

- JaAG
 
P

Pepsi90919

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,162
1
81
Originally posted by: scott
Originally posted by: keeleysam
Originally posted by: thescreensavers
Its RC3 not final.... look at properties the version is the same as rc3 which is 4.42.0.0
Click to expand...

RC3 was accepted as final.

Read before you speak.
Click to expand...
Are you sure of that?

Can you please give a link to someplace where we can verify RC3 was accepted as final?
Click to expand...

well if you look in Help>About and see the build date is 20061010...
 
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
i forgot i paid for opera about 2 yrs ago.

downloaded latest version of opera, installed it and voila, registration settings were still in registry, i have a fully registered copy of opera.

it does seem to load faster than FF.
 
A

Aquaman

Lifer
Dec 17, 1999
25,054
13
0
Originally posted by: Pshawn5
Did they fix the problem with flash player? I've tried the suggestions on the Mozilla knowledge base to fix the problem, but yet whenever i go to a flash player website such as youtube, Firefox crashes. it's becoming a annoying problem.
Click to expand...

that never happend to me (I have ver 1.5)

Cheers,
Aquaman
 
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
IMHO FF is kinda like linux. It's great, but the time it takes to find and load all your plugins, etc, blech too much work for me.

I switched to Opera also from FF about 7 months ago, and wont look back. Just as customizable as FF, but easier. And lightning fast.

Glad FF got around to 2.0 tho...as 1.5 is so full of security leaks :)
 
Jeffwo

Jeffwo

Platinum Member
Mar 2, 2001
2,759
0
76
Originally posted by: Pshawn5
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Jeffwo
Originally posted by: Pshawn5
Did they fix the problem with flash player? I've tried the suggestions on the Mozilla knowledge base to fix the problem, but yet whenever i go to a flash player website such as youtube, Firefox crashes. it's becoming a annoying problem.
Click to expand...

Same problem here. I never got Flash to work with FF.

:(
Jeff
Click to expand...

delete any existing flash plugin then download the latest version. flash has always worked fine for me.
Click to expand...


tried that. going to try to uninstall Firefox completely and do a fresh install. I'm figuring there something corrupt somewhere.
Click to expand...


Yeah...I tried un/reinstalling...still no flashy...oh well.


 
J

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
i forgot i paid for opera about 2 yrs ago.

downloaded latest version of opera, installed it and voila, registration settings were still in registry, i have a fully registered copy of opera.

it does seem to load faster than FF.
Click to expand...

There is no "registration"

The fully functional, ad-free version of Opera is free to everybody ;)

- Newbie
 
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
i forgot i paid for opera about 2 yrs ago.

downloaded latest version of opera, installed it and voila, registration settings were still in registry, i have a fully registered copy of opera.

it does seem to load faster than FF.
Click to expand...

There is no "registration"

The fully functional, ad-free version of Opera is free to everybody ;)

- Newbie
Click to expand...

it wasn't when i paid for it 2 yrs ago. ;)

 
C

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
I never noticed the FF memory leak. I'm running 88,244k now with this and 1 tab open. I hope it's fixed in FF 2.0. Downloading now, we'll see.

meh, down to 44k. I honestly don't mind since I'm rocking 2gbs but I'd like it lower. I like the new look of FF...that tabs look smoother and I love the spell checker.
 
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
opera with 5 tabs open is using 106k of memory

FF with 1 tab open is at 80k of memory.


what's with the memory leaks?
 
SonnyDaze

SonnyDaze

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2004
6,867
3
76
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Normally, I'd take the time to write up a more in-depth explanation, but since my schedule is... uh... "hectic" right now, I'll just say this:

1. No, we have. Not. Released. Firefox. 2. Yet.
2. When people link to bits directly on a random FTP mirror, they're doing a number of people harm including, quite possibly, themselves:
* Digg and Reddit posts linking to direct FTP mirrors could be costing the operators of those mirrors hundreds to thousands of dollars in bandwidth bills, or may cause them to crash by linking directly to them. This could cause them to "un-volunteer" their services as a mirror, making it even harder to obtain Firefox on release days.
* People posting direct link to FTP mirrors don't know if that mirror is a member of the Mozilla FTP Mirror Farm, or some random, unverified mirror. We work hard to verify that the mirrors in our farm are serving the same bits we released, and we cannot make the same claim about other mirrors that aren't part of our farm. When using direct FTP links to random mirrors, users run the risk of downloading bits that have not been checked to ensure they do not contain a virus or trojan.
* "That's ok," you say: "I link directly to ftp.mozilla.org!" That can be even worse! Killing the project's FTP server does not help anyone, least of all people trying to obtain Firefox builds. And it makes for a grumpy IT group. And nobody wants grumpy IT groups. Especially a day before a release.
3. Linking directly to builds hinders our ability to remove/retract bits that we may have to remove for some reason. While this may not seem like a big deal, it becomes a problem when supporting users, one of our most important values. If, let's say, we pull a locale, due to a stop-ship bug?and yes, this is not a hypothetical?then users who've (pre-)downloaded that build will not receive valuable security updates for those builds. The counterargument to this is "Well, you should provide updates for everything you've ever offered on your FTP site." If we did this, we'd be spending valuable (and über-constrained) Build Team and QA resources generating updates and testing them for builds that weren't the final bits, and were never "released" as such.
4. Posting links before we release may point people to an incomplete FTP areas or mirrors. I haven't finished posting the source tarball, for instance. Will it happen before we release? Yes. Will there be unnecessary confusion from the open source community, wondering where this deliverable is? If you post links to an FTP site with the builds, yes.
5. Most articles have an unerring ability to link to the wrong thing. Slashdot's front page, for instance, currently links to the Windows British English build. I cringe at the thought of the community having to waste time while we're finishing things up with IRC, blog, and Bugzilla chatter asking "I got my build from Slashdot; why did you guys spell behaviour wrong?" And where are Slashdotters wanting uhh... you know... Linux builds supposed to get them? It's unclear from the article that directly links to an .exe for one [correct for one country, but mostly-wrong for everyone else] locale.
6. User experience can be degraded, leaving a bad taste in people's mouth: Firefox 2 has a number of components that use live content on websites. The whole community has been doing a lot of work to refresh, update, and translate this content, and parts of it are still coming together for the release. When you download a build, there could be various content, including certain parts of help, that are not yet ready. When you tell your friends to go download Firefox 2 before we announce it's ready, you're subjecting them to a degraded user experience, which could push them to go back to... "other browsers."

Now, before you suggest it, it's not as easy as putting in .htaccess restrictions, or setting the permissions on the files so people can't download them. The nitty-gritty details are in the newsgroups.

So please... just remember: "Preed the Release Engineer says: friends don't let friends download Firefox before it's released."

We know everyone's excited for the 2.0 release. We are too. But give us 24 hours, so we can make sure that your first experience with Firefox 2.0 is befitting of everyone's hard work on this major release.

I promise it's worth the wait.

Text
Click to expand...

Might be interested in this....:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom