I viewed your gallery of pictures and it looks pretty good. One thing that caught my eye: it only gives your the option to import bookmarks, passwords, from Internet Explorer, etc., and not a previous instance of Firefox.
Not understanding why that is so!
Dave
Firefox 3.0 Beta 1
by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | November 20, 2007 12:55pm PST | Image 1 of 29
Previous | Next
Firefox 3.0 Beta 1
View this screenshot gallery for a look at Firefox 3.0 Beta 1.
The installation process.
The installation process.
Just In
When I changed from Firefox 1 to 2, it just used all the setting from the previous version without having to do a separate import operation. My guess is this one will do the same.
This pc might not have had a previous version of firefox on it.
So, no prompt to import the firefox settings.
So, no prompt to import the firefox settings.
John, did importing bookmarks, etc. work for you with the beta release?
I have the previous version on mine, and figure if the beta install grabs the old bookmarks, etc, then I'll give the beta a try now. Else, I'll simply wait until the wide release version.
Btw, is there an anticipated launch schedule of v.3?
I have the previous version on mine, and figure if the beta install grabs the old bookmarks, etc, then I'll give the beta a try now. Else, I'll simply wait until the wide release version.
Btw, is there an anticipated launch schedule of v.3?
Your addons don't support FF3.
This is why this is a "developer support release" and they emphasize that it is "FOR TESTING PURPOSES ONLY" -- so that the people who do addons can update their code. And I suspect that it's being so widely distributed because there are a LOT of people who do addons for FF, this is the easiest way to give them time to upgrade before it goes to gold code.
This is why this is a "developer support release" and they emphasize that it is "FOR TESTING PURPOSES ONLY" -- so that the people who do addons can update their code. And I suspect that it's being so widely distributed because there are a LOT of people who do addons for FF, this is the easiest way to give them time to upgrade before it goes to gold code.
Does FF hold add-on creators to a set of quality standards before linking to them from their site? I find that in the support forums, problems with the FF browser are often blamed on add-ons, yet add-ons seem to be freely placed on and/or from the Mozilla site.
Are there standard levels that must be met before Mozilla links to an add-on?
Are there standard levels that must be met before Mozilla links to an add-on?
I will wait, and hope that a ppc-64 LINUX version will come out so I can install it on my PS3
Please don't show us anymore install images. It is a waste of time.
... it's a waste of time.
As he notes, uninstallers are very important. And bad ones are common. When loading Beta software of a critical component like a browser, knowing I can uninstall properly is a Big Deal.
How did posting your message contribute to the world? How did my reading it help me?
Personally, I'm adding to the store of irony in the world by wasting all our time by responding to YOUR message... ;=)
As he notes, uninstallers are very important. And bad ones are common. When loading Beta software of a critical component like a browser, knowing I can uninstall properly is a Big Deal.
How did posting your message contribute to the world? How did my reading it help me?
Personally, I'm adding to the store of irony in the world by wasting all our time by responding to YOUR message... ;=)
I'm still figuring out when the rules changed for version numbers.
It used to be that a full version number change meant a complete overhaul and visual appearance change.
Now it's, "We have to slap on a new version number or we'll look antiquated." Thankfully they don't charge for firefox or I might start to think they went the way of Valusoft when they bought Mastercook from Sierra: Every year they'd slap a new version number on the same software and sell it to unsuspecting customers as "New and Improved!"
What I see presented here on your pics are neat additional improvements, but none that I would consider giving it a full version number change. Total functionality hasn't changed. The overall appearance of the browser hasn't changed. Looks like a 2.x revision to me.
I guess I myself am too antiquated and ask too much...
It used to be that a full version number change meant a complete overhaul and visual appearance change.
Now it's, "We have to slap on a new version number or we'll look antiquated." Thankfully they don't charge for firefox or I might start to think they went the way of Valusoft when they bought Mastercook from Sierra: Every year they'd slap a new version number on the same software and sell it to unsuspecting customers as "New and Improved!"
What I see presented here on your pics are neat additional improvements, but none that I would consider giving it a full version number change. Total functionality hasn't changed. The overall appearance of the browser hasn't changed. Looks like a 2.x revision to me.
I guess I myself am too antiquated and ask too much...
I guess the License doesn't apply to 3.0 yet.
W00t
W00t
Of course it could be that some people consider it to be a major release if it just looks different. Kind of like bringing out last years model, but with metallic paint or low profile tyres, and calling it a brand new model.
There can be many changes "under the hood" which justify an increment in major version number even if visually (and functionally) the UI is more or less the same.
The naive and gullible are regularly taken in by a simple cosmetic change, handing over hard earned (or inherited) dollars for the "latest" model/version. If it is really important to know what you are getting, read the releae notes. Don't rely on the marketing departments claims and names.
There can be many changes "under the hood" which justify an increment in major version number even if visually (and functionally) the UI is more or less the same.
The naive and gullible are regularly taken in by a simple cosmetic change, handing over hard earned (or inherited) dollars for the "latest" model/version. If it is really important to know what you are getting, read the releae notes. Don't rely on the marketing departments claims and names.
I have to disagree about Firefox not making many changes. From everything I've read it seems like it really is a new Firefox, though much of that will be on the backend. One of the great things about Firefox is how much you can personalize it with addons, though I find some personalize it too much.
As for appearance, the default skin is one of many - though it's likely that the'll have to be modified before working with the new version.
I've personally never had any serious memory leaks with Firefox and find it works much faster than IE - so I'm glad to hear that any potential memory leaks were plugged and it should work even faster.
As it is now, I'll likely hold off for the final release, or at least try to, as I'm running other Beta software on my XP machine and Vista feels and acts like a Beta release with all it's instabilities and frustrating connectivity issues.
As for appearance, the default skin is one of many - though it's likely that the'll have to be modified before working with the new version.
I've personally never had any serious memory leaks with Firefox and find it works much faster than IE - so I'm glad to hear that any potential memory leaks were plugged and it should work even faster.
As it is now, I'll likely hold off for the final release, or at least try to, as I'm running other Beta software on my XP machine and Vista feels and acts like a Beta release with all it's instabilities and frustrating connectivity issues.
It's total nonsense to say that a major version number change meant a complete overhaul _and_ a visual appearance change - Ever.
A major version change occurs when you have a major change to the code tree - this can happen if you make serious mods to the core of an app (which is evidently the case with this version), or to the UI, or both.
I don't think your confusion is a result either of your being antiquated or of you asking to much - I think it's down to the fact that you didn't get round to reading the release notes
A major version change occurs when you have a major change to the code tree - this can happen if you make serious mods to the core of an app (which is evidently the case with this version), or to the UI, or both.
I don't think your confusion is a result either of your being antiquated or of you asking to much - I think it's down to the fact that you didn't get round to reading the release notes
It all started when Windows 98 became Windows ME. You remember...MS took a fairly serviceable OS, slapped in a bunch of convoluted code to completely embed IE into the OS and slapped in a little eye candy to pretty it up. I don't remember what they charged for it but I do remember it was about 100% more than it was worth.
"It used to be that a full version number change meant a complete overhaul and visual appearance change."
When? Sure, often a version change means a visual overhaul - but it's never really been considered necessary. All a major version change really means is that large, significant part of the code has been overhauled. Yes, a visual overhaul is often part of it - but it's never been required.
In fact, a large visual change can be jarring and confusing! A lot of people complained about the changes to Office's and Internet Explorer's interfaces. They changed dramatically, and people didn't like it.
Truth be known, there's really no way to win: If you change too much, people get confused and dislike it. If you don't change enough, people like you complain that it's not enough change. Is there any way to win??
IMHO, it is a big enough change. I've read about what's different, and they've definitely changed a lot under the hood even if the visual appearance is not that different. I've tried Gran Paradismo, and it was great! It's much faster and more responsive with more tabs, plus it uses less memory. I think it's well worth downloading.
When? Sure, often a version change means a visual overhaul - but it's never really been considered necessary. All a major version change really means is that large, significant part of the code has been overhauled. Yes, a visual overhaul is often part of it - but it's never been required.
In fact, a large visual change can be jarring and confusing! A lot of people complained about the changes to Office's and Internet Explorer's interfaces. They changed dramatically, and people didn't like it.
Truth be known, there's really no way to win: If you change too much, people get confused and dislike it. If you don't change enough, people like you complain that it's not enough change. Is there any way to win??
IMHO, it is a big enough change. I've read about what's different, and they've definitely changed a lot under the hood even if the visual appearance is not that different. I've tried Gran Paradismo, and it was great! It's much faster and more responsive with more tabs, plus it uses less memory. I think it's well worth downloading.
Do we really need to see all the little dialog boxes? I'd rather see several screen shots of the actual browser in action. You seem to have a lot of unnecessary screen shots in an effort to hide the fact that you had very little to show of the most important factor - the browser itself. And how hard would that have been?
There's one thing that's on the top of my list with Firefox - and another reason that this article doesn't really report much of importance - the unadjustable toolbars. Does Firefox 3 address that? I think that's a priorty for many of us, because we love to load up with extensions, don't we? which brings up something else - what does it matter how it "looks" - are we going to skin it - YES! Very few people are running a "bare" Firefox - because it's ugly, and skins are FUN! So we don't really need to see cosmetics, we need to hear about functionality.
Now if IE suddenly was skinnable... THAT would be something to report!
Now if IE suddenly was skinnable... THAT would be something to report!
Nice incrimental upgrade. I like the added security measures. Think they could have reached a little more.
where is the 3.0 source and what language
is it compiled with ????
Thanks,
Sincerely,
Marc Bellario
is it compiled with ????
Thanks,
Sincerely,
Marc Bellario
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
