MozillaZine

Firefox 3.5RC1 Builds Available

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
schapel
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 10:47 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 12:29 pm

Firefox 3.5RC1 Builds Available.

There are signed builds for Mac and Linux, and unsigned builds for Windows. Enjoy!

El Pino
 
Posts: 403
Joined: October 30th, 2005, 9:15 am

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 12:44 pm

Thanks. Finally got the Firefox icon back (I like using nightlies, but the icon is way less good looking than the real Firefox).

The only thing that really annoys me about Firefox 3.5 is this new website http://www.fastestfirefox.com that claims that 3.5 is twice as fast as 3.0. Yea, it contains a footnote right below immediately busting this false claim, but that is only clear to the more technically minded people. I had hoped Mozilla would leave that kind of ******** marketing to the fellows at Microsoft.

schapel
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 10:47 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 12:58 pm

Firefox 3.5 is several times faster than Firefox 3.0 in JavaScript performance. JavaScript applications are exactly where you would tend to see performance problems, and they're where you tend to notice performance differences between browsers. I don't see any false claim.

Bluefang

User avatar
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: August 10th, 2005, 2:55 pm
Location: Vermont

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 1:21 pm

When discussing the speed of a browser, the majority of it comes down to how it handles content, not the UI, especially for non-technically inclined individuals. If you go question the someone on the street about browser performance, they'll probably give an answer in terms of content speed.

But this is not to say that the 3.5 UI isn't faster than 3.0. There have been significant performance improvements in the Places system, which affects major UI components (bookmarks/history management and URL bar). So there may not be 2x+ performance improvements across the board, but it's there where it counts.
There have always been ghosts in the machine... random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul...

Jugalator
 
Posts: 282
Joined: November 9th, 2002, 11:10 am
Location: Sweden

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 2:18 pm

schapel wrote:Firefox 3.5 is several times faster than Firefox 3.0 in JavaScript performance. JavaScript applications are exactly where you would tend to see performance problems, and they're where you tend to notice performance differences between browsers. I don't see any false claim.

The only part here that I'd think of would be that it doesn't take page rendering speeds into account very well. That's why I think IE 8 can sometimes feel a bit snappier than what the synthetic JS benchmarks would show. *shrug*

But yes, it does take into account Javascript exeuction speeds well. For js heavy sites like Facebook, Digg, and Gmail, that will make a major difference, but not as much for simply complex layouts.

schapel
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 10:47 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 2:24 pm

Bluefang wrote:When discussing the speed of a browser, the majority of it comes down to how it handles content, not the UI, especially for non-technically inclined individuals. If you go question the someone on the street about browser performance, they'll probably give an answer in terms of content speed.

And Firefox 3.5 does handle content much faster than Firefox 3 when that content is a JavaScript application. That's the content that there's a significant difference in speed among browsers. The image editing demo is one example.

Omega X

User avatar
 
Posts: 8172
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 2:38 pm
Location: A Parallel Dimension...

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 3:30 pm

Jugalator wrote:
schapel wrote:Firefox 3.5 is several times faster than Firefox 3.0 in JavaScript performance. JavaScript applications are exactly where you would tend to see performance problems, and they're where you tend to notice performance differences between browsers. I don't see any false claim.

The only part here that I'd think of would be that it doesn't take page rendering speeds into account very well. That's why I think IE 8 can sometimes feel a bit snappier than what the synthetic JS benchmarks would show. *shrug*

But yes, it does take into account Javascript exeuction speeds well. For js heavy sites like Facebook, Digg, and Gmail, that will make a major difference, but not as much for simply complex layouts.


Firefox is already pretty good at complex layouts. The refactoring in 3.0 and the many refinements in 3.5 keeps it on par with other browsers.

But hey, atleast you get a foot note. Companies like Apple claim "World's Fastest" when its not and they won't give you a foot note.
Latest: Firefox/78.0.2 *ESR/68.10.0 - Mobile/68.10.0 - Thunderbird/68.10.0
Nightly: Nightly/80.0a1 - Mobile/GV 77.0a1 - Daily/80.0a1

El Pino
 
Posts: 403
Joined: October 30th, 2005, 9:15 am

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 4:20 pm

schapel wrote:[... JavaScript applications are exactly where you would tend to see performance problems, and they're where you tend to notice performance differences between browsers. I don't see any false claim. ...]

I do. You are expecting that technical thinking from average users to interpret the message, which is not reasonable. Those users probably do not even know what javascript is. They will only understand the "twice as fast" part.

If I tell my mom a browser is twice as fast, she is not going to think "oh well, he probably means it is based on a Javascript-only test, since that is the real terrain on which browsers compete; so in reality it is not twice as fast". The website fastestfirefox is clearly aimed at people like my mom who are no experts on this, since a tech freak is not gonna be convinced by the fastest clapper in the world to switch.

In short, people are presented with statistics that have to be interpreted in a certain way (the way you do it), which they are not capable of since they don't have the knowledge to do so, and are thus led to think things that are simply not true (that Firefox 3.5 is twice as fast as 3.0 overall). Misguiding not-so-technical people by using statistics in a manipulative way is not what Mozilla should go for.

Bluefang

User avatar
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: August 10th, 2005, 2:55 pm
Location: Vermont

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 4:34 pm

Also keep in mind that much of Firefox's UI is written in JS, so with a flick of a [experimental] preference, you can apply many of those JS improvements to Firefox its self. I have no doubt that turning on the chrome JIT is going to be the top of many performance improvement guides.

And as I already mentioned, some of the major UI components have significant performance improvements, so the footnote actually doesn't do it justice.
There have always been ghosts in the machine... random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul...

schapel
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 10:47 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 4:42 pm

El Pino wrote:
schapel wrote:[... JavaScript applications are exactly where you would tend to see performance problems, and they're where you tend to notice performance differences between browsers. I don't see any false claim. ...]

I do. You are expecting that technical thinking from average users to interpret the message, which is not reasonable. Those users probably do not even know what javascript is. They will only understand the "twice as fast" part.

I don't want to get in a silly argument with you. What your Mom would think is "what's a browser." Whether people understand what the claim means is irrelevant to whether the claim is valid. My point remains: In the areas where the speed of the browser is most evident, Firefox 3.5 is much faster than Firefox 3.0. It's not "misguiding" anyone at all.

pal-moz
 
Posts: 5937
Joined: September 23rd, 2005, 5:40 pm
Location: Tokyo , Japan

Post Posted June 12th, 2009, 5:05 pm


not a final but a candidate.

jram
 
Posts: 86
Joined: March 17th, 2004, 11:12 am

Post Posted June 13th, 2009, 6:44 am

These kinds of tests mean nothing, in real life surfing you have extensions or your own tweaks. I'm on a MBP running leopard, I've tried every browser I could including Chrome , it now has a hourly for Mac. Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1pre) Gecko/20090611 Shiretoko/3.5pre Beetle ID:20090611231224 This browser with Noscript and ABP is the fastest of all when surfing for me.

Canonguy
 
Posts: 24
Joined: October 4th, 2005, 4:26 am

Post Posted June 14th, 2009, 8:37 am

Still won't autofill all the saved passwords I have in Firefox. this is a MAJOR bug in this version they better fix.

MacMichael
 
Posts: 26
Joined: October 31st, 2004, 8:45 pm

Post Posted June 15th, 2009, 3:31 am

I have the same autofill problem. Some web sites it works, others it doesn't.

michaell522
 
Posts: 2417
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: London, UK

Post Posted June 15th, 2009, 4:46 am

Bluefang wrote:I have no doubt that turning on the chrome JIT is going to be the top of many performance improvement guides.

Indeed. Which is why they were at one point talking about disabling it so the pref didn't do anything, because people probably do it, then their Firefox will start crashing and they won't think of why and will get annoyed... :(

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests