Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 4 is here

mozilla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 355 posts

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#241

Post by wvenable »

bretthoerner wrote: post #97
mbrubeck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Faster startup, more responsive, faster JavaScript with the new Jaegermonkey JIT. * New, less cluttered UI. * Built-in sync of bookmarks/tabs/history/passwords, fully encrypted on the client (unlike Chrome's sync which encrypts passwords only). * Sync your bookmarks, tabs, history, passwords, and form data to Firefox for Android! See also this thread for answers from various members of the Firefox team: http://www.…

But aren't those all features of Chrome? Wouldn't a happy Chrome user want to know about something FF4 does that Chrome doesn't? It's very clear that 4 > 3.6, the features you listed are awesome ... they just aren't very appealing to a current Chrome user.

Multi-row tabs. It's not built into FF, but it is available with an add-on. After using multi-row tabs for a while, I can't live without them.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#243

Post by metageek »

kanak wrote: post #216
ericdschmidt wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ctrl+w is fastest way to close tabs anyway ctrl+tab to cycle through tabs

I use ctrl+w, but it's too close to ctrl+q. Is there a way to disable ctrl+q in firefox?

Yeah, the Q/W thing is a longstanding annoyance. It's a dumb decision, going back at least as far as the original Mac.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#244

Post by dpcan »

Uhg. Had to roll back to 3.6

The new one looks great and seems to run fast, but my most important add-ons weren't supported. I hate being held back by my add-ons, but I have no choice.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#245

Post by discipline »

Damn them - damn them to hell. The thing that Firefox 3 did in Winidows (XP anyway) that was so useful was that when you deleted trash or spam, it automatically put the pointer on the OK button. Not the OS preference, but a Firefox feature. It didn't work in OS X, but it worked in XP. They took that feature away - I saw it in the beta, but was hoping they really hadn't deleted it. Damn them.

OK, other than that, I like FF4! Just had to vent.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#246

Post by metageek »

hasenj wrote: post #195
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that Chrome's extensions are quite real, feature rich, and stable. The last time I used FF, massive memory leaks were blamed on "your extensions." Not to mention I'm not even sure which IETab extension is real anymore. One is dead, the new one is nagware, etc. Oh, and I like that flash is sandboxed and autoupdated. I like a built-in PDF reader. I can't imagine going back to the stone age of browsers with FF or…

Well, AdBlocking in chrome is really weak. Also, I actually don't like the built-in PDF reader in Chrome. Scrolling was weird in it last time I checked.

Yeah, personally, I'd rather stick with evince, and have the same PDF viewer whether I open a document from the browser or from the command line.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#247

Post by sapper2 »

hasenj wrote: post #58
d0m wrote: post #2

Lets say I'm a chrome user (and loving it), is Firefox4 worth a try? What are the main differences from the last version?

* Real ad blocking (more generally: real extensions). Other points (not so major for most): * Audio api (allows you to synthesize audio) * Better language support (Chrome on Linux has tons of issues with non-latin languages)

>more generally: real extensions

Agree. Compare for example iMacros for Firefox and iMacros for Chrome, and you see the limitations of the Chrome extension API.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#248

Post by sahaj »

hasenj wrote: post #206
ebiester wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If flash crashes, it only crashes out one tab. That's the killer feature for me with chrome.

In firefox, if flash crashes, it doesn't crash any tab; just the flash element (e.g. the youtube video box becomes gray)

It's the same for Chrome.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#249

Post by bad_user »

mushtar wrote: post #240
bad_user wrote: post #229

I have been using Chrome for 6 months now. What I liked about Chrome: optimized usage of vertical space and speed. But what I really disliked about it -- Chrome add-ons are useless. Chrome would never allow something like Firebug without being built-in. And I couldn't find a plugin with proper Delicious integration either. Also, searching the history in the address bar works a lot better in Firefox -- probably has so…

Why do you say that Firefox 4 is not as vertical-space efficient as Chrome? Right click on your tabs, and select 'Tabs on top'. Right click on the Menu bar and uncheck 'Menu bar'. Done--looks like Chrome!

I'm on Linux and I can't find the "tabs on top" option.

EDIT: oh, found it, but my tabs were already on top.

Problem is, Chrome also does away with the title bar.

Re: Firefox 4 is here

#250

Post by prakashk »

primigenus wrote: post #138
rufugee wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you, but using Chrome has always given me this unsettling feeling that somewhere in Google's server farm, a machine is collecting everything I do and linking it to my other activity (gmail, gdocs, etc). It might now actually be going on, but it's hard for me to trust that it's not. I just don't like giving a behemoth like Google access to my complete internet history, even though the most harmful t…

I love giving everything I do to Google. It makes my daily life so much easier. Whenever I think about big corps and how I potentially may not trust them, I look around for people who actually work there. In Google's case, I find young, smart, cool people just like me who I trust not to be dicks and do things with my stuff I wouldn't want them to. They may mess up sometimes (I would), but I feel like I can trust them…

> In Google's case, I find young, smart, cool people just like me who I trust not to be dicks and do things with my stuff I wouldn't want them to.

Not too long ago, "Google fires employee for snooping on users" - http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/16/business/la-fi-googl...

Post reply on HN