Firefox 3 - good news in the pipeline

Here's some interesting reading for what is in the pipeline in FF3...

from:   http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/

"While Firefox 2 used less memory than it�s predecessor, Firefox 1.5, we 
intentionally restricted the number of changes to the Gecko platform 
(Gecko 1.8.1 was only slightly different than Gecko 1.8) on which 
Firefox was built. However, while the majority of people were working on 
Firefox 2 / Gecko 1.8.1, others of us were already ripping into the 
platform that Firefox 3 was to be built on: Gecko 1.9."
0
kes
3/13/2008 11:36:38 AM
mozilla.support.firefox 24319 articles. 10 followers. Post Follow

8 Replies
670 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 41
Get it on Google Play
Get it on Apple App Store

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:36:38 +0100, kes wrote:

> Here's some interesting reading for what is in the pipeline in FF3...
> 
> from:   http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/
> 
> "While Firefox 2 used less memory than it�s predecessor, Firefox 1.5, we 
> intentionally restricted the number of changes to the Gecko platform 
> (Gecko 1.8.1 was only slightly different than Gecko 1.8) on which 
> Firefox was built. However, while the majority of people were working on 
> Firefox 2 / Gecko 1.8.1, others of us were already ripping into the 
> platform that Firefox 3 was to be built on: Gecko 1.9."

firefox3 beta4 works great and is much faster
using less memory. the only thing holding it back
the extension authors not keeping up.
0
deadguy3
3/13/2008 3:57:20 PM
deadguy3 wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:36:38 +0100, kes wrote:
> 
>> Here's some interesting reading for what is in the pipeline in FF3...
>>
>> from:   http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/
>>
>> "While Firefox 2 used less memory than it�s predecessor, Firefox 1.5, we 
>> intentionally restricted the number of changes to the Gecko platform 
>> (Gecko 1.8.1 was only slightly different than Gecko 1.8) on which 
>> Firefox was built. However, while the majority of people were working on 
>> Firefox 2 / Gecko 1.8.1, others of us were already ripping into the 
>> platform that Firefox 3 was to be built on: Gecko 1.9."
> 
> firefox3 beta4 works great and is much faster
> using less memory. the only thing holding it back
> the extension authors not keeping up.

I doubt the extensions issue alone would hold back the launch of FF3. I 
would expect at least two 'Release Candidates' befor ethe final push. 
(If you read the article, it suggests there is further memory work to be 
done yet.)
0
kes
3/13/2008 4:33:59 PM
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:33:59 +0100, kes wrote:

> deadguy3 wrote:
>> [16 quoted lines suppressed]
> 
> I doubt the extensions issue alone would hold back the launch of FF3. I 
> would expect at least two 'Release Candidates' befor ethe final push. 
> (If you read the article, it suggests there is further memory work to be 
> done yet.)

its difficult to be patient when one sees how good
ff3 is going to be.
0
deadguy3
3/13/2008 9:21:12 PM
On 13.03.2008 10:57, deadguy3 wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> firefox3 beta4 works great and is much faster
> using less memory. the only thing holding it back
> the extension authors not keeping up.

Extension and theme authors don't, as a rule, provide updates for a
"beta". However, some extension authors set a MaxVersion to a more
distant version number which would include any/all betas, something
which I strongly disapprove of doing.

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
0
Jay
3/13/2008 10:33:25 PM
Jay Garcia escribió:
> 
> Extension and theme authors don't, as a rule, provide updates for a
> "beta". However, some extension authors set a MaxVersion to a more
> distant version number which would include any/all betas, something
> which I strongly disapprove of doing.
> 

Actually FF3 devs have asked extension developers to support the betas, so when 
the final version comes, the transition will be transparent to the user.
0
Luis
3/13/2008 11:47:22 PM
"Jay Garcia" ...
> On 13.03.2008 10:57, deadguy3 wrote:
> 
> --- Original Message ---
> 
>> firefox3 beta4 works great and is much faster
>> using less memory. the only thing holding it back
>> the extension authors not keeping up.
> 
> Extension and theme authors don't, as a rule, provide updates for a
> "beta". However, some extension authors set a MaxVersion to a more
> distant version number which would include any/all betas, something
> which I strongly disapprove of doing.

Actually the fact that extension authors are having to try to hit moving
targets for bookmarks implies that there is not a specific interface that
they have to use.  The interface should remain compatible, but apparently
is not..  There are far too many extensions getting dumped
simply because they have not updated maxversion numbers.  
-- 
HTH,
David McRitchie,
Firefox Custom:  http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/firefox.htm
 
0
David
3/14/2008 3:38:57 AM
Jay Garcia <Jay@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:

> On 13.03.2008 10:57, deadguy3 wrote:
> 
> > firefox3 beta4 works great and is much faster
> > using less memory. the only thing holding it back
> > the extension authors not keeping up.
> 
> Extension and theme authors don't, as a rule, provide updates for a
> "beta". 

There's been a push to encourage them to update through the beta cycle,
and a lot of them are.  I have 89 extensions installed, and every day a
few of them are updated.  I'm sorry now that I haven't kept stats on
the maxversions -- I may try to grep them out of the metadata over the
weekend.

> However, some extension authors set a MaxVersion to a more
> distant version number which would include any/all betas, something
> which I strongly disapprove of doing.

Yeah, that was always a bad idea.  One of the policies at a.m.o is that
they can't have maxversion set higher than the latest alpha/beta/final
release, which has helped a lot.
0
ISO
3/14/2008 4:37:38 AM
On 13.03.2008 23:37, �Q� wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia <Jay@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 13.03.2008 10:57, deadguy3 wrote:
>> 
>> > firefox3 beta4 works great and is much faster
>> > using less memory. the only thing holding it back
>> > the extension authors not keeping up.
>> 
>> Extension and theme authors don't, as a rule, provide updates for a
>> "beta". 
> 
> There's been a push to encourage them to update through the beta cycle,
> and a lot of them are.  I have 89 extensions installed, and every day a
> few of them are updated.  I'm sorry now that I haven't kept stats on
> the maxversions -- I may try to grep them out of the metadata over the
> weekend.

What we (Netscape) encouraged extension authors to do is to increase the
MaxVersion *within reason* thereby making compatible the extensions
throughout a beta. Problem with that is that some authors balked at that
idea because of the possibility of massive changes to the extension(s).

>> However, some extension authors set a MaxVersion to a more
>> distant version number which would include any/all betas, something
>> which I strongly disapprove of doing.
> 
> Yeah, that was always a bad idea.  One of the policies at a.m.o is that
> they can't have maxversion set higher than the latest alpha/beta/final
> release, which has helped a lot.

Correct, but I offered my own edited extension when asked by a user. But
first it was tested on my system before offering it.

And no, this last paragraph is not contradictory of the first. :-)

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
0
Jay
3/14/2008 3:09:33 PM
Reply: