MozillaZine

Mozilla Firefox 2 Release Candidate 1 Available for Testing

Wednesday September 27th, 2006

Mozilla Firefox 2 Release Candidate 1 is now available for download. This preview of the next version of Firefox browser is aimed at Web Application Developers, testers and early adopters.

For more information, refer to the Release Notes.


#1 I like the look vs the last beta

by rustyshelf

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 7:56 PM

Reply to this message

I think the slightly updated look since the last beta looks much nicer (on the mac at least). I'm sure you'll still get people complaining, but I'm now a fan of the new look (I wasn't with the last beta).

Rusty

#6 Re: I like the look vs the last beta

by RobertM

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 10:08 PM

Reply to this message

I'm on a Mac and I think the theme itself fits together better on the Mac now (i.e., the Go button and rounded search box now don't have problems lining up where they should and whatnot), but I still think the 1.x theme looked better--this theme still isn't very Mac-like.

Error number one is the hover effects on the buttons. Mac icons don't increase in saturation when you hover over them--that's a Windows thing, and it feels and looks weird. Second, the Back/Forward drop-down button has a weird non-Mac-like effect, too--heck, that probably looks weird on *any* OS. (The last beta also decided it was too cool to use native-looking toolbar buttons on Windows when I tried it last and instead relied solely on the saturation-increase on hover. If you ask me, buttons should just go back to being "normal" [assuming RC 1 didn't change anything, which I wouldn't know because I haven't tried the Windows version yet]. Change the icons if you must, I can live with that.)

Also, on the Mac I have a problem with it staying "open" even though I've closed everything. The only way I know it's still open is that the dock icon still has the triangle underneath it, and I have to Force Quit before I can start it again. Beta 2 had that problem, and it seems to exist in RC 1 as well. No, I haven't filed a bug report, and no, I haven't looked to see if someone else has, though if anyone knows that would be great. :)

Anyway, to kinda sum this all up, I like the changes in functionality but think it looks weird, especially on OS X--go back to native-looking toolbar (pinstripe background?) and ditch the hover effects, and you'll be well on your way to looking normal again. Otherwise, for the first time, I just might have to (gasp) use the non-default theme. :)

#7 Re: Re: I like the look vs the last beta

by RobertM

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 10:16 PM

Reply to this message

Whoa, speaking of third-party themes, I just tried the new "Pinstripe for Firefox 2.0" theme from Gerich/Horlander, and it blows my socks off: <http://kmgerich.com/2006/…w-with-20-more-macintosh/>

(OS X only, of course. Though as far as I know they're still working on Windows/Linux versions that should closely resemble the 1.x theme ... it's just that their porting of Pinstripe to Firefox 2.0 on OS X went a little farther than they anticipated, and it's *amazing*.)

#9 Re: Re: Re: I like the look vs the last beta

by sremick

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 10:47 PM

Reply to this message

I like the look a lot, except the upside-down tabs would totally mess with my head and drive me up the wall in about 5 seconds. :(

Tabs going up from the bottom (so they are "attached" to the page window they represent) make the most visual sense... never understood the logic/analogy of turning them upside down.

#27 Someone is adding bugs to Firefox 2

by jabcreations

Thursday September 28th, 2006 1:10 PM

Reply to this message

I posted a thread about how to increase Firefox's popularity and Firefox and I got slapped in the face with a bug introduced by a unknown Mozilla developer. <http://forums.mozillazine…php?t=463447&start=15>

Someone please fix this... <https://bugzilla.mozilla.…rg/show_bug.cgi?id=353657>

Besides that I love the new features for 2.0 which eases the lack of a newer version of the Gecko engine.

#32 Re: I like the look vs the last beta

by gaeth <gaethconnmaigh@gmail.com>

Thursday September 28th, 2006 6:08 PM

Reply to this message

I agree the new look is very streamlined, and doesn't have any clutter. I especially like the "report web forgery" link in the help tab...This is not present on sea monkey, but I'm sure it will be added at a later date.

#2 "Go" button

by Harrison

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 8:11 PM

Reply to this message

Is there any way to remove that useless "Go" button now? Before it was its own button but now it seems to be coupled with the URL bar.

#3 Re: "Go" button

by baka_toroi <epremuz@propuh41.com.ar>

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 8:23 PM

Reply to this message

I find the "go" button hideous. The magnifying glass on the other hand is OK. Now it's the time to wait for most extensions and themes to be compatible with this new version :( BTW, does anybody know if localized versions will also be available with bundled spell-checkers?

#8 Re: "Go" button

by Caetck

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 10:23 PM

Reply to this message

Harrison, put this in your prefs.js file with Firefox closed, then launch the browser again. user_pref("browser.urlbar.hideGoButton", true);

The new them looks great on SuSE Linux 9.2 Pro using KDE. Amber

#14 Removing the tab list button

by mfg

Thursday September 28th, 2006 2:43 AM

Reply to this message

I've set browser.tabs.closeButtons to 3 to get rid of the per-tab close button and browser.urlbar.hideGoButton to true to get rid of the pointless button on the end of the URL bar; now I just need to find out how to remove the tab list button that I keep hitting accidentally when I go to close a tab and the interface will be usable again.

The default theme looks as cheap and nasty as ever, but that's easily fixable.

#53 Re: Removing the tab list button

by mpontes

Saturday September 30th, 2006 12:45 PM

Reply to this message

You could just set it to 2 and close your tabs with the mouse's middle button instead. While I agree most users need the close tab button, it's rather useless for people who are used to use the middle button for tab-related operations.

#4 Ack

by jedbro

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 9:50 PM

Reply to this message

Ack, the New theme still looks like crap on Linux.

#5 Looks like crap on Mac As well

by jedbro

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 10:05 PM

Reply to this message

This theme looks really bad on MacOSX as well, why not take some pointers from the pinstripe theme.. <http://kmgerich.com/2006/…w-with-20-more-macintosh/> Now *that* is a theme that is MacOSX worthy.

#10 Already crashed twice

by amosshapira

Wednesday September 27th, 2006 11:13 PM

Reply to this message

I've already got two (or three? can't remember) crashes in the last two days since the automatic update happened. Reported them through the automatic feedback tool.

#11 Nice but nothing to write home about

by jilles

Thursday September 28th, 2006 1:01 AM

Reply to this message

Currently I'm running 2.0 at home and 1.5 at work. I hardly notice any difference. If you liked 1.5 you'll find yourself comfortable using 2.0. On the other hand, 2.0 is unlikely to have much important features that you can't get in 1.5 (i.e. I don't really miss 2.0 at work). There's of course some nice incremental changes in 2.0 but nothing to write home about. Most of the improvements you can get by installing extensions in 1.5 (e.g. all the tab stuff, spell checking, session restore, rss rendering, etc). That doesn't mean it isn't nice to have all those features properly integrated. Overall it doesn't look like a full year (I was running 1.5 beta's/RCs around this time last year) of development to me and that isn't surprising because most of the developers have been working on 3.0 where all of the more interesting things are happening it seems.

Also, I'm not enthousiastic about the new look. But then the previous theme wasn't that good either (kind of dull and icons are poorly designed). The main feature of the new theme seems to be that it is different, not that it is better. To be honest, it seems a bit like a rushed job motivated primarily by a need to defend the 0.5 version increment (why else would it have been landed after the feature freeze). However, it's good enough that I won't install a third party theme. The discussion about the version number is of course not really worth the trouble, so lets move on and get 3.0 going.

#12 A step back ...

by johann_p

Thursday September 28th, 2006 1:28 AM

Reply to this message

at least when it comes to configuring cookie management: why on earth did they remove the option to not accept cookies unless they are from the original domain? Instead of removing this very useful configuration feature they should have added a feature to not execute Javascript that is not from the original domain. Do they get paid from commercial sites that use this as a tracking and statistics device for removing that useful feature?

#13 Re: A step back ...

by ajpaterson

Thursday September 28th, 2006 2:04 AM

Reply to this message

Have they really removed this in version 2? This feature goes right back to the Netscape days and, in my opinion, is an important privacy feature. Even IE has this feature now so it is definitely a big step backwards if it has gone. At a time when they are adding more and more functionality into the browser itself, it seems odd that they should remove such a feature from a browser that is so often recommended because of its privacy/security features. Maybe they have moved the setting somewhere else or just hidden it? I sincerely hope so otherwise I think that I will be stopping with v1.5!

#16 Re: Re: A step back ...

by johann_p

Thursday September 28th, 2006 7:10 AM

Reply to this message

Well, I could not find it and it is not where it used to be. Also, they did not mention anything about this in the release notes. I think good release notes should not just document what has been added but also what has been removed or changed and if they really insanely removed the GUI for these settings, the release notes should also document whther the backend still works, whether the prefs settings are still used etc.

#50 RE: A step back ...

by gonzotek

Saturday September 30th, 2006 7:26 AM

Reply to this message

Use about:config to set network.cookie.cookieBehavior to 2. <http://kb.mozillazine.org…ork.cookie.cookieBehavior>

#62 Re: RE: A step back ...

by mhenriday <mhenriday@gmail.com>

Monday October 2nd, 2006 11:08 AM

Reply to this message

Unless I've entirely misunderstood the network.cookie.cookieBehaviour tutorial to which gonzotek kindly provided a link, the problem that cookie acceptance cannot be restricted to those coming from the original domain in the GUI using tools>options>privacy>cookies cannot be resolved by using about:config to set network.cookie.cookieBehaviour to the value 2, as this setting disallows all cookies - an option which, by the way, is found in the GUI. To allow cookies from the original server, network.cookie.cookieBehaviour should be set to the value 1. Or have I missed something ?...

Henri

#24 Re: A step back ...

by G_W_A

Thursday September 28th, 2006 9:01 AM

Reply to this message

No longer being able to restrict 3rd party cookies is my only concern. Otherwise, it works and looks great! Please add this important functionality back.

#61 Re: Re: A step back ...

by GALAHs

Monday October 2nd, 2006 8:26 AM

Reply to this message

I was a huge fan of rejecting 3rd parties websites cookies.

It should be a returned as an option!

#75 Re: Re: Re: A step back ...

by dserodio

Friday October 6th, 2006 8:31 AM

Reply to this message

/me too! Please, bring it back!!!

#15 Freeze on Win95

by SomeGuy

Thursday September 28th, 2006 3:14 AM

Reply to this message

I'm a tiny bit disappointed, it freezes up after opening and displaying the first page under Windows 95. I noticed that removing the file nsUrlClassifierLib.js will let it mostly run, although I think whatever that does it is just calling whatever function is causing the actual freeze as certain web pages will still cause Firefox to freeze.

(And before anyone asks why Windows 95... Because I can! Oh, and no IE!)

#23 Re: Freeze on Win95

by BenoitRen

Thursday September 28th, 2006 8:26 AM

Reply to this message

Hey, it's my good friend Nathan! ^_^

I've heard that the addition of SQLite is what broke Windows 95 support, because it doesn't support Unicode out of the box. Relevant bug: <https://bugzilla.mozilla.…rg/show_bug.cgi?id=353537>

#17 The spellchecker

by johann_p

Thursday September 28th, 2006 7:30 AM

Reply to this message

I wonder why Firefox needs their own set of dictionaries? Many people already do have OpenOffice dictionaries with their own exceptions/additions which are available for a big number of languages. Why not allow to use them? Or more generally, make spelling dictionaries pluggable as OpenOffice does (at least on Linux)?

#18 The close-tab button

by steeg

Thursday September 28th, 2006 7:31 AM

Reply to this message

Is there an option to have the old style close-tab button, where there is just one fixed-position close-button for all tabs? Or is this something that themes can implement?

Having a separate close for each tab can be nice, but I find that I more often want to close a lot of tabs - and having to move my mouse around to close them is, well, less efficient... (There's always the keyboard ofcourse, but for me the mouse feels more natural when surfing)

#20 Re: The close-tab button

by steeg

Thursday September 28th, 2006 7:39 AM

Reply to this message

Ok I saw someone in another tread posted "set browser.tabs.closeButtons to 3" in prefs.js. This will solve my problem. I wasn't aware of this.

#21 Re: Re: The close-tab button

by steeg

Thursday September 28th, 2006 7:50 AM

Reply to this message

Ok, sorry to go on like this, but an option in the .js file for a close button on both at the end of the tabstrip and in all/current tabs would still be nice.

#19 How NOT to trim images by default?

by pplwong

Thursday September 28th, 2006 7:36 AM

Reply to this message

I can't find the chekc box option allowing you to set if firefox should trim images by default anymore. Anyone know where that option is in this RC?

#25 Re: How NOT to trim images by default?

by mlefevre

Thursday September 28th, 2006 9:25 AM

Reply to this message

Not sure it's in the UI any more, but you can set it in about:config - the pref is browser.enable_automatic_image_resizing

#26 Re: Re: How NOT to trim images by default?

by pplwong

Thursday September 28th, 2006 9:39 AM

Reply to this message

Ah, thanks! I totally forgot about about:config after not needing to use it for long.

#22 window.open()

by ccapeng

Thursday September 28th, 2006 8:15 AM

Reply to this message

The transition experience is much better than IE 7.

So far I see two problems : 1, In window.open(), the "dependent" attribute does not work any more. 2, In some cases, the "View Selection Source" window freezes.

#33 Re: window.open()

by bzbarsky

Thursday September 28th, 2006 6:51 PM

Reply to this message

> So far I see two problems : 1, In window.open(), the "dependent" attribute does not work any more

This was a purposeful change. Untrusted content should not be allowed to create dependent windows. If you're seeing this with privileged script, please file a bug and CC me.

#39 Re: Re: window.open()

by ccapeng

Friday September 29th, 2006 8:43 AM

Reply to this message

Not very convince. The pop up window with trusted content (or https) should stick with parent window; otherwise float away. We like the "dependent" window. And, only FF can achieve this kind modal window in the easy way.

I understand FF has very high security in mind, but I appreciate it can be smarter. Now, I am interested how FF handle untrusted iframe?

#42 Re: Re: window.open()

by ccapeng

Friday September 29th, 2006 4:37 PM

Reply to this message

I think the major problem is that pop up window can't get focus() again regardless "dependent". Use the following as sample. Open a window, then sink it. Click "POP UP" again, FF1.5 get focus, but FF2. Same problem if I use trusted content.

&lt;HTML&gt; &lt;HEAD&gt; &lt;SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript"&gt; function Popup() { var fooWin = window.open( "<http://www.google.com/>", "myWindow", "status = 1, height = 300, width = 300, resizable = 0" ) fooWin.focus(); } &lt;/SCRIPT&gt; &lt;/HEAD&gt; &lt;BODY&gt; &lt;FORM&gt; &lt;INPUT TYPE="button" onClick="Popup()" VALUE="POP UP"&gt; &lt;/FORM&gt; &lt;/BODY&gt; &lt;/HTML&gt;

#76 Re: Re: Re: window.open()

by markob <markob_mcs@hotmail.com>

Thursday October 12th, 2006 5:18 PM

Reply to this message

I would strongly urge keeping the dependent flag for similar reasons as stated above. It's very difficult to come close to the modal dialog functionality in IE and without the dependent flag, tougher still. We're testing on FireFox and Mozilla on the PC and the dependency functionality appears to still be there (by default). When we test on Linux FireFox, it's not. The user can display a pseudo-modal dialog box but if he closes the parent window, the modal dialog remains, sometime getting lost behind other windows. The next time the modal dialog is invoked, the "lost" copy of the dialog is invoked but focus does not return, which appears to the user as if the action is simply not happening. This is about as bad a user interface flaw as can be introduced to the normal user, who will quiclky decide the site is "flaky" or smi-funcional. I can't imagine a security justification that trumps this, but if there is it would be useful perhaps to share it here. In the mean time, we struggle to have good cross platform compatibility but have to reluctantly admit that the best experience, at least for application type websites, is with IE. Please let's work to level the playing field and avoid knocking out important develpopmet capabilities that are already there.

#28 Various problems, could be extension related

by siliconglen

Thursday September 28th, 2006 1:53 PM

Reply to this message

I've had no problems at work but at home I'm having a few problems with RC1. First off being that when i go to log into bugzilla there's no response when I enter my login details. The next problem is that I have a space for the bookmarks toolbar, and the bookmarks appear in the bookmarks toolbar on the bookmarks menu, but nothing is appearing on the bookmarks toolbar itself. The last problem is that I can't use multiple tabs. When i go to open a new one and select it, the address bar does not synchronise. Even though the tab is in the foreground, when I enter something in the address bar, it just overwrites the first pane rather than the one I'm working with.

My add ons are: chatzilla 0.9.75 google toolbar for firefox 2.1.20060807W Html validator 1.2.2 (htmlvalidator.com) Talkback 2.0 (which reports it isn't compatible with Firefox 1.5.0.7 even though the Browser about says Firefox 2.0) Web developer 1.0.2

Any ideas?

#29 Re: Various problems, could be extension related

by siliconglen

Thursday September 28th, 2006 2:00 PM

Reply to this message

I uninstalled RC1 and reinstalled 1.5.0.7 and everything is now back to normal.

#30 Love it overall

by krissilver

Thursday September 28th, 2006 3:38 PM

Reply to this message

Great great release overall, some points...

1. Only accept cookies if from original domain, simply must remain, this is too crucial a security function to remove. 2. Back/Forwards - b2 corrected the long standing issue of the drop down seperator not showing upon hovering over it. Please correct this simple thing. 3. Bookmarks arent used by the majority of the web as per google research, so its clutter to the majority. 4. Go icon is basically a forwards button, it should be an enter arrow to make clear it has the same loading effect as enter. 5. Tabs minimum size should be bigger, and close buttons should remain on each tab. Changing this is un subtle and shows close on each tab as not working when it does it more usable mimimum tab sizes remain. Plus the more tabs there are, the more helpful and efficient a tab close on each tab is.

#40 Re: *ack*

by roseman

Friday September 29th, 2006 10:36 AM

Reply to this message

you said: "Bookmarks arent used by the majority of the web..."; not sur what you mean, but i visit web pages all day long, and use BOOKMARKS for 90% of my surfing; google, or links on a page for the rest.

Bookmarks rule!

#31 Love it overall

by krissilver

Thursday September 28th, 2006 3:50 PM

Reply to this message

Great great release overall, some points...

1. Only accept cookies if from original domain, simply must remain, this is too crucial a security function to remove. 2. Back/Forwards - b2 corrected the long standing issue of the drop down seperator not showing upon hovering over it. Please correct this simple thing. 3. Bookmarks arent used by the majority of the web as per google research, so its clutter to the majority. 4. Go icon is basically a forwards button, it should be an enter arrow to make clear it has the same loading effect as enter. 5. Tabs minimum size should be bigger, and close buttons should remain on each tab. Changing this is un subtle and shows close on each tab as not working when it does it more usable mimimum tab sizes remain. Plus the more tabs there are, the more helpful and efficient a tab close on each tab is.

#34 Looks nice

by FattMattP

Thursday September 28th, 2006 10:34 PM

Reply to this message

The latest release looks nice. Now hopefully all the extension developers will begin updating their extensions and not wait until the last minute.

#35 Two inbuilt themes

by ruturajv

Friday September 29th, 2006 1:03 AM

Reply to this message

I've seen Fx 2 and 1.5 both on Windows and Fedora, The 1.5's theme is great, unfortunately 2's theme suxs...

I hope Fx2 is released with 2 built-in themes like SeaMonkey or Mozilla Suite (having Default and Modern themes built in)

PS: Again, ... didn't like 2's theme.

#36 Visual refresh

by juloml

Friday September 29th, 2006 5:26 AM

Reply to this message

"Visual refresh" finished very fine in RC1 (previous beta was not very good at this point). Only one exception: I don't like home button somehow. After 2-3 days of testing I didn't find any annoyance in product functionality or stability. Good work. Looking forward to 2.0

#37 Handling of application/octet-stream changed

by eddiethehead

Friday September 29th, 2006 6:22 AM

Reply to this message

I really like 2.0 except one new "Feature" completely breaks my web application. We have an application for managing the companies documents where everyone can upload and retrieve all of our product documentation. When people are wanting to view a document we stream the file from the database using an application/octet-stream mime type so that they get the option to either save the file to their disk for later use or open it to view it. In IE, FF1.0 and FF1.5 this works great. In FF2.0 we only get the window to save to disk. I figure this was probably done for security, but the window tells me I'm downloading a Word document so why can't I open it in Word. I can see if I checked it to always say download for that type but I don't even have that option.

#38 Sidebar on right not working.

by pym

Friday September 29th, 2006 7:31 AM

Reply to this message

Following customization from <http://www.mozilla.org/un…/customizing.html#usercss> which was working with FF1.5 is no longer working with FF2 rc1. /* Place the sidebar on the right edge of the window */ window > hbox { direction:rtl; } window > hbox > * { direction:ltr; }

#48 Re: Sidebar on right not working.

by pym

Saturday September 30th, 2006 12:12 AM

Reply to this message

#81 Re: Sidebar on right not working.

by void

Wednesday April 25th, 2007 9:07 AM

Reply to this message

The "DOM" in version 2 changed, you can use the DOM Inspector to find the new structure.

/* Place Side-bar at the right (Fx v2+) */ #browser-stack > hbox { direction: rtl; } #browser-stack > hbox > * { direction: ltr; }

#41 glowing buttons, Go button, tab contrast, tab list

by rainerm

Friday September 29th, 2006 3:30 PM

Reply to this message

At first when trying out beta 2, I thought the glowing buttons did not have enough contrast (against the bright background of the default theme). In RC1, the problem seems to have been solved by making the theme background darker. However, given the choice between a darker background and the lighter one, I would definitely prefer the lighter one. Going back to check out beta 2 again, I also came to think that the contrast on the glowing buttons is actually good enough, since it is noticeable. (By the way, I do like the fact that the New Tab button is a fully button again, rather than one that just goes down partially.)

The Go button. Some people apparently like to have it not be there at all. I like to have it on the left. (I also prefer the old look of the button to the new look). Is there any chance of going back to the way it is in v1.5?

I find the non-active tabs in RC1 to be rather dark. In v1.5, the active and non-active tabs are both bright (which I like), but have enough of a difference in color to be noticeable, and I also like the color bar across the top of the active tab (helps a lot). On the other hand, in beta 2, there was not enough of a contrast in color between the active and non-active tabs (and there was no color bar on the active tab, which did not help). The solution in RC1 seems to be to make the non-active tabs darker. Any chance of going back to the way it is in v1.5?

Doing that would probably make the glowing buttons harder to differentiate - but, as I noted, I suspect they are good enough anyway, contrary to my earlier sense of the situation.

I do like the close button on every tab - as long as there is a tab list that makes it possible to quickly and conveniently switch to a tab that is not on screen because of the need to have the tabs be larger than before, as a practical matter, when they get small, due to the real-estate that the close button takes up on each tab.

#43 Spell-Checker: Canadian English?

by WordWarrior

Friday September 29th, 2006 6:25 PM

Reply to this message

Does anybody know if there's work on a Canadian English spell-checking dictionary for Firefox 2.0? The extensions site only has dictionaries for UK and Australian English.

If not, I'd like to contribute to the effort. How would I go about creating my own spell-check dictionary extension?

#44 Spell-Checker: Canadian English?

by WordWarrior

Friday September 29th, 2006 6:40 PM

Reply to this message

Does anybody know if there's work on a Canadian English spell-checking dictionary for Firefox 2.0? The extensions site only has dictionaries for UK and Australian English.

If not, I'd like to contribute to the effort. How would I go about creating my own spell-check dictionary extension?

#45 Spell-Checker: Canadian English?

by WordWarrior

Friday September 29th, 2006 7:08 PM

Reply to this message

Does anybody know if there's work on a Canadian English spell-checking dictionary for Firefox 2.0? The extensions site only has dictionaries for UK and Australian English.

If not, I'd like to contribute to the effort. How would I go about creating my own spell-check dictionary extension?

#56 Re: Spell-Checker: Canadian English?

by PGAGA

Saturday September 30th, 2006 9:10 PM

Reply to this message

Sunday 01 October 2006

I am using the OOo MySpell Canadian dictionary with RC1 on OS/2 and WinXP. I copied them from my 1.5 SpellBound dictionary folder to my 2.0 folder.

Phil

#46 Ooops!

by WordWarrior

Friday September 29th, 2006 7:09 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry for the multiple postings. I maintain a whitelist of cookies, and since mozillazine wasn't part of that list, I didn't get the confirmation messages, but that posts actually went through.

#47 Ooops!

by WordWarrior

Friday September 29th, 2006 9:50 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry for the multiple postings. I maintain a whitelist of cookies, and since mozillazine wasn't part of that list, I didn't get the confirmation messages, but that posts actually went through.

#49 Dictionary...

by krissilver

Saturday September 30th, 2006 5:47 AM

Reply to this message

The dictionary spell checker is a very good feature, but after some further thought and reading the above comments, I'm growingly concerned its been a little rushed. Its very disappointing dictionaries are not being shipped with a lot of builds. At RC1 stage is worrying such basic matters aren't being better dealt with and implemented. This is really not good and its not totally clear to what extent if any this may be the case the final release. Also given past experience, I don't think Mozilla are giving locals matters like this quite enough of the attention it deserves. After Konqueror Mozilla are to be fair probably the best with locales, but still improvements needed. You don't get more fundamental with a browser than languages, there's been past problems with locales being released on time and its improving. This has a dangerous smell of the same mistakes being made due to a lack of solid organisation and efforts to fundamentally improve and ensure timely release of dictionaries for ALL languages of the world.

As per previous comments here I sense there's fundementally better ways to implement spell checking such as linking to dictionaries, office suites being an obvious source as users who have they're dictionary with all additions of words, should not have to go all the way through doing the same for the same language spell checker in another basic application. Great feature, but been rushed me thinks. Anyone have further information, thoughts...?

Also, having to go through your document looking for red lines on words and right clicking each and every one is a bit of a long winded un-efficient way of spell checking, a one click spell checker button bring up a box going through all words, is basic efficiency and what users are used to and expect. No matter how good a feature is, if its not ready, improve it, make it ready, then release. This growingly has "rushed" all over it.

#51 Re: Dictionary...

by WordWarrior

Saturday September 30th, 2006 7:29 AM

Reply to this message

krissilver,

You're preaching to the choir.

OS X, for instance, has a dev kit called Cocoa, which includes inline spell-checking for free. That is, any application I write using Cocoa will automatically include spell-checking. Due to the need to use legacy code, Firefox is built with Carbon, an older API for Mac OS (which predates OS X). However, Apple is starting to back-port Cocoa features to Carbon (hopefully one of them will be free spell-checking).

What I find a little bizarre is why the spell-checking feature wasn't designed to include the Thunderbird dictionary XPI files. Those files contained complete implementations for email spell-checking. As far as I know, even obscure dictionaries like Canadian English were included.

I can only surmise that the recent loss of developers to Google and other companies is starting to hurt, and that the developers they have left aren't as l377 as the guys who left. However, this is pure speculation, so don't take what I just said as an authoritative statement.

#52 Re: Dictionary...

by WordWarrior

Saturday September 30th, 2006 8:49 AM

Reply to this message

krissilver,

You're preaching to the choir.

OS X, for instance, has a dev kit called Cocoa, which includes inline spell-checking for free. That is, any application I write using Cocoa will automatically include spell-checking. Due to the need to use legacy code, Firefox is built with Carbon, an older API for Mac OS (which predates OS X). However, Apple is starting to back-port Cocoa features to Carbon (hopefully one of them will be free spell-checking).

What I find a little bizarre is why the spell-checking feature wasn't designed to include the Thunderbird dictionary XPI files. Those files contained complete implementations for email spell-checking. As far as I know, even obscure dictionaries like Canadian English were included.

I can only surmise that the recent loss of developers to Google and other companies is starting to hurt, and that the developers they have left aren't as l377 as the guys who left. However, this is pure speculation, so don't take what I just said as an authoritative statement.

#54 This is insane

by johann_p

Saturday September 30th, 2006 3:38 PM

Reply to this message

It seems they have totally crippled the preferences in this release, removing a lot of very useful things for no apparent reason. Apart from the cookie option to accept cookies only from the original domain I cannot find the options for whether or not to show the download dialog or where to download files to. What can the motivation for such an idiotic removal be? I have just thrown away RC1 and reinstalled 1.5 -- I am not in the mood to configure my browser by hacking about:config all the time.

#55 Re: This is insane

by Picklesworth

Saturday September 30th, 2006 5:09 PM

Reply to this message

Those options are in the Main tab of the Options window ;)

#64 grmbl

by johann_p

Monday October 2nd, 2006 11:54 AM

Reply to this message

ok, I am insane. Or at least I have trouble catching the moving target options seem to be in the last releases. Those damned things never are where the were just a release ago.

Thanks for helping me here :)

#57 RC1 is working great for me

by LGM

Sunday October 1st, 2006 7:32 AM

Reply to this message

I'm really loving RC1. I've completely uninstalled 1.5.0.7. First of all, RC1 is fast and stable on my machine. No crashes or glitches. Nothing out of place or missing in the interface. And all my user data migrated over nicely and shows up fine. What I like are the spellcheck (I could not get Spellbound to work in 1.5.0.7); the session saver; and what seems like increased speed. I'm even getting used to the separate close buttons on each tab. It's superior to the previous way tabs were handled. Managing bookmarks is easier now too with the double panes (or did I just miss that feature in previous releases?). So kudos to the team of developers who put this out. It puts Microsoft to shame. IE is an ancient slug compared to RC1.

#58 RC1 is working great for me

by LGM

Sunday October 1st, 2006 7:44 AM

Reply to this message

I'm really loving RC1. I've completely uninstalled 1.5.0.7. First of all, RC1 is fast and stable on my machine. No crashes or glitches. Nothing out of place or missing in the interface. And all my user data migrated over nicely and shows up fine. What I like are the spellcheck (I could not get Spellbound to work in 1.5.0.7); the session saver; and what seems like increased speed. I'm even getting used to the separate close buttons on each tab. It's superior to the previous way tabs were handled. Managing bookmarks is easier now too with the double panes (or did I just miss that feature in previous releases?). So kudos to the team of developers who put this out. It puts Microsoft to shame. IE is an ancient slug compared to RC1.

#59 RC1 is working great for me

by LGM

Sunday October 1st, 2006 8:12 AM

Reply to this message

I'm really loving RC1. I've completely uninstalled 1.5.0.7. First of all, RC1 is fast and stable on my machine. No crashes or glitches. Nothing out of place or missing in the interface. And all my user data migrated over nicely and shows up fine. What I like are the spellcheck (I could not get Spellbound to work in 1.5.0.7); the session saver; and what seems like increased speed. I'm even getting used to the separate close buttons on each tab. It's superior to the previous way tabs were handled. Managing bookmarks is easier now too with the double panes (or did I just miss that feature in previous releases?). So kudos to the team of developers who put this out. It puts Microsoft to shame. IE is an ancient slug compared to RC1.

#60 Mail Icon

by mikespa

Monday October 2nd, 2006 5:09 AM

Reply to this message

The Mail icon that can be added to the Navigation Toolbar is missing in RC1. This has been really handy for me. RC1 looks good and works for me except for extensions. On the surface not much new.

#63 When I try to download Firefox 2.0 RC1, I get 1.5.

by marknelkin

Monday October 2nd, 2006 11:39 AM

Reply to this message

When I go to the download page for Firefox 2.0 RC1, I get 1.5.0.7 instead.

This is for windows English.

Does anyone else get this problem?

#65 Download confusion resolved

by marknelkin

Monday October 2nd, 2006 1:22 PM

Reply to this message

I have no idea why this happens, but if I am in Firefox 1.5.0.7, then I get the wrong download.

But if I go to IE 7, RC1, it works fine.

I get the right download.

Does anyone know why this happens?

#66 My problem was noscript

by marknelkin

Monday October 2nd, 2006 2:16 PM

Reply to this message

OK, I now see what happened.

When I went to the download page it sent me to a page where javascript was blocked, and I did not unblock it.

Why that sent me to the download of 1.5.0.7 rather than 2.0 RC1 is beyond me.

I would have expected that it might block the download completely, but not send me to the wrong one.

#67 RC1 I LIKE IT!

by ishbeta

Monday October 2nd, 2006 9:31 PM

Reply to this message

This Fx is what I expected 1.5 to be in the areas of speed. The features of note to me is the session saver & the tabs its nice to have the control over them as default. At least now having tab control doesn't mess with other extensions. I had nothing but trouble with the tabrowser ext. The only thing I don't get is the spell check. I'll go to the Fx forums to find out how they work. Thank you to the Moz Devs.

#68 Re: RC1 I LIKE IT!

by ishbeta

Monday October 2nd, 2006 9:34 PM

Reply to this message

Almost forgot the new EM that is the way it should be!

#69 Update from Beta 2 didn't work for me

by leafdigital

Tuesday October 3rd, 2006 2:20 AM

Reply to this message

It tried the partial update, failed; tries the full update and then (after downloading it and halfway through the progress bar you get when running it after that) appears to fail and dump me back in beta 2. Hrm. At least it didn't leave the browser unloadable...

I'm going to try downloading it from scratch. I guess most people updating from beta 2 had a successful experience though as there aren't any other posts here?

--sam

#70 But installing manually was OK

by leafdigital

Tuesday October 3rd, 2006 2:30 AM

Reply to this message

Just to note that reinstalling manually worked fine. It even upgraded one of my extensions for me... Hrm, I wonder why the automatic install didn't work.

--sam

#71 Non-default directory?

by leafdigital

Wednesday October 4th, 2006 2:39 AM

Reply to this message

My previous Firefox was in a non-default directory. Maybe that caused the problem.

--sam

#72 Secure cookies and session save

by keiffer

Wednesday October 4th, 2006 4:30 AM

Reply to this message

The tabs are particularly handy, since I tend to run Fx with plenty open tabs.

What happened to the "for originating site only" cookies option. Although I clear the cookies when I close Fx, it would be nice to know the advertisers are tracking my movements.

Session saver -- fab. I've left my machine running for a number of days, and experienced it's effectiveness. It'll certainly help me switch off more regularly and become a little more green. But where is the menu option to use it? Is this another option that needs to be set via about:config? I'm hoping we're not making about:config the first port of call for config changes.

Otherwise great! Although the little I've played with IE7, Fx is going to struggle to gain in enterprise networks. I'm happy to say, more and more people I talk to and advise on IT stuff are using Fx, even non techies. And that's good for Fx.

#73 Re: Secure cookies and session save

by LGM

Wednesday October 4th, 2006 7:45 AM

Reply to this message

For session saver, go to the main page under Options. Next to "When Firefox starts:" select "Show my windows and tabs from last time" in the drop down menu. You don't have the option to save sessions and recall them much later -- just the previous session. Works great and will do just fine for me until extensions like Session Saver and Session Manager are tweaked to work with Firefox 2.

#74 Re: Re: Secure cookies and session save

by keiffer

Friday October 6th, 2006 2:00 AM

Reply to this message

That's what sleep deprivation does for one (3 boys, one that's 7 months and teething and only just slept through the last two nights).

Anyway, thanks for the reminder. Didn't even think to look at the "When Firefox starts:" option. I had done so when I first installed it, but didn't think any further on it.

Does anyone have any info on the cookies for originating server option?

#77 Re: Re: Re: window.open()

by markob <markob_mcs@hotmail.com>

Friday October 13th, 2006 6:38 AM

Reply to this message

To add another point about modal dialogs, the window.open dependent flag is only one possible workaround that we now seem in danger of losing. It would be fine if we had full support for EITHER the 'dependent' flag or the 'modal' flag, but now we appear to have neither. Right now, the modal flag doesn't provide true "application modal" behavior, it simply provides a means of keeping a dialog window on top of the parent window, but fails to provide event capture, and therefore makes it possible for a normal user to access the underlying parent window while the modal dialog is active. That's very bad; the user can invoke other functions on the parent window or worse yet, close it, leaving the modal dialog window stranded without a context, and floating behind other windows (now that the dependent flag is in danger of being discontinued). Imagine something as simple as a date selection calendar popup window, in IE one line of code gives you a true modal dialog that remains above the parent form window and captures evens to prevent a user from doing anything else until the popup is closed. In Firefox, you can use window.open with the modal flag to do the same thing, but the user is free to click on the parent window while the popup is active, and is free to close the parent leaving the dialog stranded or lost. Worse still, the lost copy then prevents the calendar popup from reappearing the next time the parent is opened and the dialog is invoked! It's imperative we start taking the importance of modal dialogs more seriously, it remains one of the key differentiators between IE and FireFox, despite all the other great application development features in FF. We were on the verge of making FireFox a supported option for our web based applications, with FF 2 moving backwards on modal dialog functionality, there's just no way.

#78 Re: Re: Re: window.open()

by markob <markob_mcs@hotmail.com>

Friday October 13th, 2006 9:07 AM

Reply to this message

To add another point about modal dialogs, the window.open dependent flag is only one possible workaround that we now seem in danger of losing. It would be fine if we had full support for EITHER the 'dependent' flag or the 'modal' flag, but now we appear to have neither. Right now, the modal flag doesn't provide true "application modal" behavior, it simply provides a means of keeping a dialog window on top of the parent window, but fails to provide event capture, and therefore makes it possible for a normal user to access the underlying parent window while the modal dialog is active. That's very bad; the user can invoke other functions on the parent window or worse yet, close it, leaving the modal dialog window stranded without a context, and floating behind other windows (now that the dependent flag is in danger of being discontinued). Imagine something as simple as a date selection calendar popup window, in IE one line of code gives you a true modal dialog that remains above the parent form window and captures evens to prevent a user from doing anything else until the popup is closed. In Firefox, you can use window.open with the modal flag to do the same thing, but the user is free to click on the parent window while the popup is active, and is free to close the parent leaving the dialog stranded or lost. Worse still, the lost copy then prevents the calendar popup from reappearing the next time the parent is opened and the dialog is invoked! It's imperative we start taking the importance of modal dialogs more seriously, it remains one of the key differentiators between IE and FireFox, despite all the other great application development features in FF. We were on the verge of making FireFox a supported option for our web based applications, with FF 2 moving backwards on modal dialog functionality, there's just no way.

#79 Re: Re: Re: window.open()

by markob <markob_mcs@hotmail.com>

Friday October 13th, 2006 9:26 AM

Reply to this message

To add another point about modal dialogs, the window.open dependent flag is only one possible workaround that we now seem in danger of losing. It would be fine if we had full support for EITHER the 'dependent' flag or the 'modal' flag, but now we appear to have neither. Right now, the modal flag doesn't provide true "application modal" behavior, it simply provides a means of keeping a dialog window on top of the parent window, but fails to provide event capture, and therefore makes it possible for a normal user to access the underlying parent window while the modal dialog is active. That's very bad; the user can invoke other functions on the parent window or worse yet, close it, leaving the modal dialog window stranded without a context, and floating behind other windows (now that the dependent flag is in danger of being discontinued). Imagine something as simple as a date selection calendar popup window, in IE one line of code gives you a true modal dialog that remains above the parent form window and captures evens to prevent a user from doing anything else until the popup is closed. In Firefox, you can use window.open with the modal flag to do the same thing, but the user is free to click on the parent window while the popup is active, and is free to close the parent leaving the dialog stranded or lost. Worse still, the lost copy then prevents the calendar popup from reappearing the next time the parent is opened and the dialog is invoked! It's imperative we start taking the importance of modal dialogs more seriously, it remains one of the key differentiators between IE and FireFox, despite all the other great application development features in FF. We were on the verge of making FireFox a supported option for our web based applications, with FF 2 moving backwards on modal dialog functionality, there's just no way.

#80 Vulnerabilities and Suggestion

by Lusfox

Thursday October 26th, 2006 12:09 AM

Reply to this message

This flaw reported by Mozilla <http://www.mozilla.org/se…nce/2006/mfsa2006-59.html> is still unfixed in the latest Firefox 2.0 final.

This exploit works in Firefox 2.0 Final: <http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/ffoxdie.html>

"Jonathan Watt and Michal Zalewski independently reported timing dependent testcases that trigger crashes at the same place during text display. We have seen no demonstration that these crashes could be reliably exploited, but they do show evidence of memory corruption so we presume they could be. Note: Thunderbird shares the browser engine with Firefox and could be vulnerable if JavaScript were to be enabled in mail. This is not the default setting and we strongly discourage users from enabling JavaScript in mail."

by SecurityFocus

__________________

Suggestion:

The Firefox could load extensions in real time without needing to close and to come back to open and did not have to allow to the extensions crash.