MozillaZine

Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Release Candidate 2 Available

Friday November 11th, 2005

The second release candidate of Mozilla Firefox 1.5 is now available for download. Like the first release candidate, Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Release Candidate 2 is intended to allow testers to ensure that there are no last-minute problems with the Firefox 1.5 code. Our report on last week's launch of Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Release Candidate 1 has more details on what's new in 1.5.

Firefox 1.5 RC2 can be downloaded from the Firefox project page or the Firefox 1.5rc2 directory on ftp.mozilla.org. Users of Firefox 1.5 RC1 will be offered RC2 through the software update system. More details can be found in the Firefox 1.5 RC2 Release Notes.


#1 "Help" > "Check for Updates"

by dummy00001

Friday November 11th, 2005 1:53 AM

Reply to this message

It worked!

#3 Re: "Help" > "Check for Updates"

by imforumman

Friday November 11th, 2005 4:20 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, I didn't even have to check! Well before I knew about the availibilty of RC2, Fx offered to upgrade and ... it worked! This is the way software updates should always work! Grrrrrreat job!

#19 Re: "Help" > "Check for Updates"

by tseelee

Friday November 11th, 2005 8:50 AM

Reply to this message

I've posted a few times about failed update patches, so I thought I should also say something when it works. Thanks!

#26 Re: "Help" > "Check for Updates"

by gromer

Friday November 11th, 2005 11:47 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I noticed it worked fine. Was in the middle of browsing and it poped up with the restart dialoge. Restarted FF and it was working fine!

#35 Re: "Help" > "Check for Updates"

by kelvin273

Friday November 11th, 2005 7:32 PM

Reply to this message

For me it mostly worked. Firfox notified me that the update was available, and I clicked the "Later" button. Help-->Check for Updates allowed me to locate the update on my own time. Bothe these functions obviously worked properly. Firefox also dutifully downloaded the patch, then informed me that it couldn't verify the integrity of the package and was therefore downloading the entire update. After it spent forever trying to connect to the update server (presumably because of the large number of users upgrading), I closed the window. When I went back through the Help-->Check routine, the update was paused. This normally wouldn't be a problem, except that the Resume button was grayed out, forcing me to go to the product page to download 1.5rc2 manually.

#2 Waiting for GB version

by Toolz

Friday November 11th, 2005 3:57 AM

Reply to this message

...and hoping that opening twenty tabs won't increase the memory load to 90MB. Damn I don't want to troll, but my main thought on installing well over ten intermediate packages (not counting trunk builds) is that little priority has been put into resource usage. I thought perhaps all the overhead would all auto-magically float away on the final final release but obviously not, according to Asa's latest blog entry.

#5 Re: Waiting for GB version

by mlefevre

Friday November 11th, 2005 4:41 AM

Reply to this message

There have been some improvements since 1.0, and there are more happening which will go into Firefox 3.0 or whatever the next major version from the new trunk stuff. But the cross-platform nature of the code and the usage of XUL for the interface and stuff does (not that I know anything about this, but I've seen comments from developers that agree...) mean things aren't quite as efficient as code written for a particular platform. Memory usage is something that's being worked on for stuff like Minimo, for small devices, but it's not a huge priority for Firefox. Most people don't use 20 tabs at the same time, and most people have enough RAM that 90MB isn't going to hurt anything even if they did. I don't think priorities are likely to change, so you may as well get used to it...

#21 Re: Re: Waiting for GB version

by ed_welch

Friday November 11th, 2005 9:21 AM

Reply to this message

You don't need 20 tabs open at the same time to get the 90mb. Firefox continuously grows in memory the more sites that you surf. An application that uses huge amounts of memory is always causes a performance hit, no matter how much memory you have in your system - it takes a certain amount of time to move multimega bits around in main memory, also less of application data fits in cache. The only solution the solution is to close down Firefox regularly.

#25 Buy some memory you cheap chaps!

by jabcreations

Friday November 11th, 2005 11:21 AM

Reply to this message

IoI...buy some memory then! You wouldn't try play doom 3 with a 256k trident video card would you?

A 1,024 megabyte stick (DDR 400/PC3200) costs just around 100 bucks, 110 for name brand. If you can't build a system yourself opt to spend the extra 400 bucks to go from 512 to 1024 (see what knowledge and wisdom can do, saves you money IoI).

As a modest gamer I run 2048 megabytes of ram and of course I have virtual memory disabled. Virtual memory today is like IE6, it's a useless dinosaur of past problems still causing problems today.

Firefox's "memory issue" is not an issue if you are with the times.

All normal users should run 1,024 (2 sticks in a 4 slot motherboard). Gamers should be using 2,048 (2 sticks in a 4 slot motherboard).

If you can afford to have a computer and internet connection and are reading this, then you can afford to buy at least another 512mb stick in the very least. I suggest Newegg (where I get the prices and have never gotten screwed).

#31 Re: Buy some memory you cheap chaps!

by BenoitRen

Friday November 11th, 2005 3:38 PM

Reply to this message

"As a modest gamer I run 2048 megabytes of ram" Overkill. There's no game out there that asks more than 1 GB RAM at the maximum.

"Virtual memory today is like IE6, it's a useless dinosaur of past problems still causing problems today." Actually, disabling virtual memory might cause problems in Windows.

"Firefox's "memory issue" is not an issue if you are with the times." That's just a cheap excuse.

"All normal users should run 1,024" Unless you run heavy programs like PhotoShop and want to multi-task a bit, that's far from true. 512 MB of RAM is enough to run smoothly.

#41 Re: Re: Buy some memory you cheap chaps!

by jabcreations

Saturday November 12th, 2005 6:16 AM

Reply to this message

World of Warcraft, Firefox, and other normal applications that I run use about 1200-1400 mbs of physical memory. This goes beyond the need for 1024. 4GB would be overkill. Additionally I have absolutely no lag in World of Warcraft while running through the map Ironforge (while running straight through and clicking on everyone as they load). Doing this with insufficient ram will freeze the game for 10-30 seconds (and you risk falling in to a large ditch). Turning off virtual memory and having enough physical memory has made the performance I desire possible.

#50 Re: Re: Re: Buy some memory you cheap chaps!

by mjm01010101

Saturday November 12th, 2005 9:36 PM

Reply to this message

Do not run a system without a pagefile--ever. Possible data loss will occur, and certain performance loss. Windows will often recreate the pagefile for use anyway: it's nessesary for vital functions of Windows to work.

#56 Re: Re: Re: Re: Buy some memory you cheap chaps!

by jabcreations

Sunday November 13th, 2005 6:37 PM

Reply to this message

My system runs much smoother without a pagefile then it did with a pagefile. I attribute this to using each part as it was intended. Hard drives were not built with the intention of being an extension to memory.

#58 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Buy some memory you cheap chap

by duffbeer703

Monday November 14th, 2005 5:41 AM

Reply to this message

Hard disks have been functioning as a extension of memory for decades.

#38 Re: Buy some memory you cheap chaps!

by cochonou <cochonou@captured.com>

Saturday November 12th, 2005 3:55 AM

Reply to this message

There is little point in disabling virtual memory. If you want to investigate on the subject, a good read to begin would be : <http://kerneltrap.org/node/3202> . This is a discussion about swap file perfomance in Linux. Many of its points are revelant to the Windows NT based operating systems.

#52 maybe you should READ the post before you reply

by ed_welch

Sunday November 13th, 2005 5:38 AM

Reply to this message

I don't think you even read my post. DRAM is NOT infinitively fast. As I said, "an application that uses huge amounts of memory always causes a performance hit, no matter how much memory you have in your system - it takes a certain amount of time to move multimega bits around in main memory, also less of application data fits in cache."

#66 Re: Buy some memory you cheap chaps!

by jussik

Tuesday November 15th, 2005 6:04 AM

Reply to this message

No, I don't try to play Doom3 with a 256k Trident. I do expect a web browser to be usable without a gigabyte of memory

a) my laptop is maxed out at 512MB b) memory prices for laptops are something else (which is why my other laptop is still at 128)

Now, my machines work pretty well, but they would work even better if my web browser wasn't the biggest memory hog... Or are you telling me I should get a new computer to browse the web?

#29 Re: Re: Re: Waiting for GB version

by mjm01010101

Friday November 11th, 2005 1:29 PM

Reply to this message

Windows will manage the memory fine, as will Linux. Open up 20 different pages in IE, and let us know how much RAM it takes. Here: I did it for you: <http://www.indeego.com/memcomparison.jpg> Those are IE with no pages loaded, BTW, just blank.

Memory is cheap. With a gig installed, you won't be paging anyway.

#40 Re: Re: Re: Re: Waiting for GB version

by panos

Saturday November 12th, 2005 5:33 AM

Reply to this message

> Open up 20 different pages in IE, and let us know how much RAM it takes. > Here: I did it for you: <<http://www.indeego.com/memcomparison.jpg>>

Wrong data. You didn't open new windows in IE, you opened new threads. I just ran a test with 22 images for both IE and Firefox and IE required only 22MB.

Interestingly, I also think that there is a problem in your Firefox setup. I opened the same images and Firefox asked nothing more than 25 MB.

You need to revise your configuration I think.

#36 Re: Re: Re: Waiting for GB version

by Toolz

Friday November 11th, 2005 11:28 PM

Reply to this message

Yes. Perhaps the bigger issue is that opening twenty tabs and closing them all will still leave you consuming 90MB. It shouldn't be necessary to have to close Firefox at least twice a day. As I recall this wasn't such a pain before Firefox reached about v0.9. Thank the Lord for SessionSaver.

#42 Re: Re: Re: Waiting for GB version

by Toolz

Saturday November 12th, 2005 7:36 AM

Reply to this message

Yes. Perhaps the bigger issue is that opening twenty tabs and closing them all will still leave you consuming 90MB. It shouldn't be necessary to have to close Firefox at least twice a day. As I recall this wasn't such a pain before Firefox reached about v0.9. Thank the Lord for SessionSaver.

#22 Re: yeah right: "people don't use 20 tabs"

by roseman

Friday November 11th, 2005 9:35 AM

Reply to this message

right. i usually use 25, and hen ONLY because old netscape 7.x used to hang if you went much over 25. i can sometimes be talked into only 10 or 15 tabs, but rarely. TABS are the reason many of us use Firefox in the first place!

#39 Re: Re: Waiting for GB version

by panos

Saturday November 12th, 2005 5:21 AM

Reply to this message

People will never get used to performance issues. Remember when Microsoft was advertising their revolutionary IE 4.0 browser, performance was their strongest and most frequent argument vs Netscape Communicator.

Now Firefox is the revolutionary browser but it does have performance issues compared to IE. The arguments I see here about "upgrading the system" are ridiculous. People will find it much easier to click on the IE icon than upgrade their computers with more memory. Please grow up guys. Not everyone can upgrade their system, and money is usually the last reason.

Performance is more important for Firefox's victory than W3C specs support.

#4 Yay

by ChaosFish <fishos@gmail.com>

Friday November 11th, 2005 4:39 AM

Reply to this message

Now will you please change that "Fx 1.5b2" in Releases from MozillaZine header? :p

#43 and don't forget Camino!

by gashu

Saturday November 12th, 2005 8:29 AM

Reply to this message

yea, and Cm to 1.0b1 as well. ;-)

#6 Good Work

by mjm01010101

Friday November 11th, 2005 4:46 AM

Reply to this message

Unlike RC1, I've had much better luck with this version. Love the upgrade process, talk about fast!

#7 update sized 8M.

by anauman

Friday November 11th, 2005 5:23 AM

Reply to this message

Seems only I have bad luck with updates. WBEL4. All the same as with Beta1, Beta2, RC1. Initial load of partial update ~300K. Then download of full update ~8M.

#8 Tools/Options/Privacy is still not right

by neilparks1

Friday November 11th, 2005 5:53 AM

Reply to this message

#9 Re: Tools/Options/Privacy is still not right

by mlefevre

Friday November 11th, 2005 6:05 AM

Reply to this message

That would be bug 283697, I think.

#11 Re: Re: Tools/Options/Privacy is still not right

by Racer

Friday November 11th, 2005 6:56 AM

Reply to this message

This is slightly annoying, but not important enough to warrant another rc. Given that there is a usable fix available, this will probably only make it into 1.5 if an rc3 is released for other reasons (which is unlikely).

#12 Re: Re: Tools/Options/Privacy is still not right

by scuac

Friday November 11th, 2005 6:59 AM

Reply to this message

From bug 283697: "Expected Results: Changed the mouse cursor to the resizing cursor and allow the user to resize the the options panel."

I don't know in previous versions, but in RC2 the options/properties panel is resizable now, at least on Linux. So that bug appears to have been squashed.

#48 Re: Re: Re: Tools/Options/Privacy is still not rig

by neilparks1

Saturday November 12th, 2005 9:15 PM

Reply to this message

Silly question: If it is resizable in Linux, why is it not resizable in Windows? The bug is not squashed.

#24 Re: Tools/Options/Privacy is still not right

by wgianopoulos <wgianopoulos@yahoo.com>

Friday November 11th, 2005 10:41 AM

Reply to this message

What theme is that??

Does nto look like the default, so I think you need to complain to the theme author,

#34 Re: Re: Tools/Options/Privacy is still not right

by aconbere

Friday November 11th, 2005 6:25 PM

Reply to this message

I believe it's firefox importing a gtk theme If I'm not mistaken

#49 What theme is that?

by neilparks1

Saturday November 12th, 2005 9:27 PM

Reply to this message

If you are asking about my screenshot at <http://img79.imageshack.u…img79/5650/options1wh.jpg> , that is the default Windows theme.

#79 Re: Tools/Options/Privacy is still not right

by ishbeta

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 5:51 PM

Reply to this message

Didn't you just try the dropdown menu? It has one.

#10 update success!

by scuac

Friday November 11th, 2005 6:46 AM

Reply to this message

Earlier today, my home computer got updated to RC2, few secs, no problem. That's Fedora Core 3 linux. Now at work again, a very fast and succesful update to my Redhat 9 workstation. Thank you!

Now, I have this problem on both machines, which is really just a cosmetic thing. Whenever I roll the mouse pointer of the red button that closes the tabs (on the tab bar to the far right), the button gets lighter as it should, but also the background of the button gets lighter, which looks ugly. I wonder if I am the only one with this problem?

#23 Re: update success!

by agewert

Friday November 11th, 2005 10:31 AM

Reply to this message

Same problem here with RC1 on Fedora Core 4...

#13 After installing...

by andrewabc

Friday November 11th, 2005 7:14 AM

Reply to this message

It redirected me to <http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/> which seems to have nothing to do with RC2

I still have the loading webpage icon in tab continuously spinning even though the page is done loading.

Also have a bug where the url from one tab stays in the address bar even after closing the tab or switching tabs.

The upgrade to RC2 went well. Hope they have an RC3 to fix these problems that are new in the RC releases.

#33 Re: After installing...

by bkor

Friday November 11th, 2005 4:25 PM

Reply to this message

Disable / uninstall greasemonkey

#14 Minor problems with update process / info

by txGreg

Friday November 11th, 2005 7:35 AM

Reply to this message

When choosing the updater from help/check for updates, the version of the new release shows v1.5 instead of v1.5 RC2. Need to make sure that the version information is adequate before final ships. Also, on the resulting dialog, there is a "view more info about this update link" that goes to <http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/>. Notice there is no mention of the 1.5 builds at all yet, let alone anything to tell the distinction between RC1 and RC2.

I would imagine this will be cleaned up before final release, but just wanted to mention it in case.

I also ran into an error that said 'partial update could not be installed, proceeding with full update' or something similar. I'm assuming that this won't be "fixed," as it's probably related to some of my extensions or somesuch. However, I did want to point out that this window/dialog popped up behind the main Firefox window -- it would have been easy to miss if I hadn't been paying fairly close attention.

Hope this helps.

#18 Re: Minor problems with update process / info

by mlefevre

Friday November 11th, 2005 8:15 AM

Reply to this message

The fact that RC1 and RC2 both say "1.5" as the version is because they are candidates for release. If they put "RC2" in there, then they would have to do another update to change the number (that's the explanation for the displayed version info within Firefox - I assume it's the same for the update info)

The "view more info" page being wrong is one of the remaining few release blockers - bug 315285. It will be fixed on the server side.

The update window popping up behind is bug 311614 - I guess it'll be fixed at some point, but they decided it wasn't a release blocker for 1.5.

#60 Re: Re: Minor problems with update process / info

by txGreg

Monday November 14th, 2005 9:54 AM

Reply to this message

Thx for the updates mlefevre

#84 Re: Re: Minor problems with update process / info

by tweetiepooh

Thursday November 17th, 2005 3:06 AM

Reply to this message

However a small update to cosmetically change the Help-About screen should be small enough and easy enough to warrent doing.

Sometimes it's the little things like that that can make or break a product.

True it's no big deal and most people using a RC version probably don't care but it would be a nice touch.

#15 The auto-update does not work for es-AR locale?

by fedetxf

Friday November 11th, 2005 7:36 AM

Reply to this message

Should I wait for it or localized auto-update will not happen for RC's? Thunderbird autoupdate worked a few days ago, but it is the en-US locale version.

#20 Re: The auto-update does not work for es-AR locale

by feranick

Friday November 11th, 2005 8:59 AM

Reply to this message

Localized version are still not available. Be patient, they will show up soon. As far as Thunderbird, the updates will be available next week, according to the Mozilla QA blog.

#27 Re: The auto-update does not work for es-AR locale

by marknelson

Friday November 11th, 2005 12:05 PM

Reply to this message

I am in en-US and have never gotten an Automatic Update and would like to know what is the reason Firefox keeps telling me "No Updates Found, Firefox was not able to find any available updates". is it something I am doing or something somewhere else?

#16 What about Venkman (the JavaScript debugger)?

by deepgloat

Friday November 11th, 2005 8:05 AM

Reply to this message

When is Venkman (the JavaScript debugger) going to get updated for 1.5?

#17 Portable Firefox 1.5 RC2 Available

by CritterNYC

Friday November 11th, 2005 8:15 AM

Reply to this message

It's also available in portable form: <http://johnhaller.com/jh/…rtable_firefox/deer_park/>

And for fans of the portable apps: <http://johnhaller.com/jh/…tuff/portable_apps_suite/>

#28 And to think they said I was wrong ...

by DP3_001

Friday November 11th, 2005 1:18 PM

Reply to this message

... about RC2's release date. I just LOVE being right!! ;-)

#30 Full DL

by PAStheLoD <pasthelod@gmail.com>

Friday November 11th, 2005 1:44 PM

Reply to this message

B2 -> RC1 I had to do the whole update by hand .. now RC1->RC2 , it still needed the full install pack, but a lot more better :)

#32 To bug or not to bug

by eternalsword

Friday November 11th, 2005 3:47 PM

Reply to this message

I'm not sure if this is a bug or not as I am not an avid OSX user, but this is the issue. On Firefox RC2 on OSX, the next and previous tab keystrokes are Control+Page Down and Control+Page Up. Since the keystrokes are Ctrl+Page Down and Ctrl+Page Up on Windows, the typical assignment would be the Apple Key in place of Ctrl as it is with the other keystrokes that I know rather than the Control key. This is just a heads up to anyone who knows more than me about OSX to determine if this a bug or not.

#37 Re: To bug or not to bug

by sardisson

Saturday November 12th, 2005 1:04 AM

Reply to this message

The default keystrokes on Mac OS X are cmd-opt-right arrow and cmd-opt-left arrow, which match other Mac browsers, but for whatever reason the Windows shortcuts were left operational.

#44 Default Browser

by mwalker206

Saturday November 12th, 2005 4:51 PM

Reply to this message

Windows xp won't let the new firefox be the default borwser.

#53 Re: Default Browser

by sn0wflake <sn0wflake@tdcadsl.dk>

Sunday November 13th, 2005 6:26 AM

Reply to this message

Uhm, yes it will. Check your configuration again.

#45 Firefox still not closing process after exiting

by jman

Saturday November 12th, 2005 7:18 PM

Reply to this message

I don't know if this is an issue from way back when I went from 1.0.7 to Beta 1, but everytime I exit firefox, I notice that the background process is still running, not only that but over time the amount of resources that process uses, grows and grows, somtimes up to 90mb and the program it's self is not even open! In addition if firefox is opened again without closing that process, the program starts another instance of the firefox process. Is this a bug or an issue with upgrading exclusive to my system? I guess, when the final release comes out I could do a fresh install, including a clean profile, but before I did something drastic like that (which includes having to redownload and reinstall all my extensions; a major pain in the rear end), I wanted to get some input on this issue. Thanks.

#46 Re: Firefox still not closing process after exitin

by komencanto

Saturday November 12th, 2005 8:29 PM

Reply to this message

I've had this problem too but not for a while. If you use the alphas or betas it can screw up your profile, especially if you use extensions. I recommend a fresh install, remove everything from your profile and the Mozilla Firefox directory and then replace your bookmarks file if you want. Then reinstall your extensions. That should solve your problem hopefully. ^_^

#55 Re: Re: Firefox still not closing process after ex

by jman

Sunday November 13th, 2005 7:07 AM

Reply to this message

Well I did a fresh reinstall of firefox rc2 and it does operate a lot smoother and faster now, and I did find the reason for the process problem. There is an option that allows you to clear your private data everytime you exit firefox. I noticed that at first this operated correctly, but then it stopped. Then everytime I closed firefox just like before I reinstalled, the firefox process would stay open and the 'clear private data' box would pop up before I opened firefox again, not after I had closed it. So I decided to see what would happen if I unchecked the option to have the private data cleared on exit and sure enough the problem stopped. I haven't had a problem with the process staying open since. In my opinion this is a major bug in firefox and really needs to be fixed. Those of us who are at least halfway computer savvy will know to exit the process or whatever if we had this issue, but those who only have basic knowledge won't know what to do. Though I haven't let the problem get this far, I'm sure that if someone just kept on reopening firefox that firefox would keep opening new processes indefinitely, and would eventually crash someone's computer, especially if they don't have a load of memory. Hope this helps in the development of this very good browser. Thanks to all the developers for their hard work...keep it up.

#47 How about security updates?

by komencanto

Saturday November 12th, 2005 8:32 PM

Reply to this message

Will Firefox 1.5 have fixed the 3 security holes visible at <http://secunia.com/product/4227/> . Security is one of the big sellers for Firefox and it looks like shit to have 3 unsolved security holes (even if they aren't very big ones) sitting there on secunia for months, where Opera doesn't have any. We should aim to keep it at 0, right? Other than that 1.5 looks nice. Solves most of the problems people might have had.

#51 Re: How about security updates?

by mlefevre

Sunday November 13th, 2005 3:37 AM

Reply to this message

Those "holes" aren't fixed in 1.5. It doesn't look good to have secunia showing unpatched "vulnerabilities", but on the other hand it does seem a bit wrong to let Secunia make design decisions rather than having the Mozilla folks making them. It's definitely good to improve security where possible, but the main criteria for changing something shouldn't be "because Secunia says so". The vulnerabilities are all "less critical", which pretty much means it's arguable whether they can be counted as actual security holes.

The cookie "vulnerability" is a problem with the way cookies work in general and it applies to all browsers except Opera, who have chosen to break some sites (and potentially cause problems for future sites, even though they are following standards) to avoid the problem. The last one is a Java vulnerability on Mac OS X when using tabs - sounds like the possible solutions from the Firefox side are to disable Java, or to get rid of tabs, so instead they're waiting on Apple to fix things, which may be happening. The javascript URI drag vulnerability looks from the bugzilla links as if it may have been (partly) fixed - not sure what the status of that one is, but the user has to an image from the page into the URL bar, so it's not simple to exploit anyway...

#54 Ludo!

by sn0wflake <sn0wflake@tdcadsl.dk>

Sunday November 13th, 2005 6:27 AM

Reply to this message

Finally figured out why the heck I couldn't play Ludo. It was because of Adblock. I've upgraded to AdblockPlus and now everything works :)

#57 context menu overlaying file-picker

by gnorris

Monday November 14th, 2005 3:22 AM

Reply to this message

Sometimes a few seconds after the file-picker appears (generally as a result of selecting Save Image As), the context menu pops up and overlays it. Is anyone else seeing this?

I'm running on Linux (Debian sid), in case that makes a difference.

#92 Re: context menu overlaying file-picker

by gnorris

Friday November 18th, 2005 7:51 PM

Reply to this message

This is Bug #305970 in Bugzilla <<https://bugzilla.mozilla.…rg/show_bug.cgi?id=305970>>. It's still present in Firefox 1.5rc3.

#59 PDF Files will not display 1.5RC2 Windows XP

by weather

Monday November 14th, 2005 7:17 AM

Reply to this message

I upgraded from Rc1 to RC2 this morning... No PDF pages will display in browser works ok in 1.0.7 and worked with RC1..

What gives?

#63 Re: PDF Files will not display 1.5RC

by neilparks1

Monday November 14th, 2005 2:04 PM

Reply to this message

I had same problem with RC1 as well as RC2. PDF links open a blank tab and offer me the option to display with an external app or save to disk. The "plugin" that worked with all FF versions through 1.0.7 to display PDF files with Acrobat controls in a browser window no longer works.

#68 Re: PDF Files will not display 1.5RC2 Windows XP

by weather

Tuesday November 15th, 2005 9:58 AM

Reply to this message

Currrent system: Adobe Acrobat Professional 6.0 and Adobe Acrobat Reader 6.0 tested browser with PDF file from server and locally, both failed During upgrade to 7.0.0 I was repeatedly asked to stop Acrobat Reader, had to stop Reader Process from Task Manager. I guess still running even though no page(s) were displayed in browser. I upgraded to Acrobat Reader 7.0.0 and things worked.. PDF file is displayed within browser, no questions asked, no blank page. I then upgraded to Acrobat Reader 7.0.5 and things still worked ok. about: plugins was reading "Adobe Acrobat plugin 6.0 for Netscape, now reads ... 7.0.0 for Netscape

Why did I have to update??

Later...

#61 Error launching browser window:no XBL binding for

by hajj_3 <hajj_3@hotmail.com>

Monday November 14th, 2005 12:48 PM

Reply to this message

ive had a few crashes, i sent the bug report to ms, so hopefully those will be fixed. i still get this error though "Error launching browser window:no XBL binding for browser", no-one seems to have fixed it yet: <https://bugzilla.mozilla.…rg/show_bug.cgi?id=315741>

i get this several times in a row and firefox just wont open, so i have to use IE6 instead.

very annoying bug!

#62 Error launching browser window:no XBL binding for

by hajj_3 <hajj_3@hotmail.com>

Monday November 14th, 2005 12:53 PM

Reply to this message

ive had a few crashes, i sent the bug report to ms, so hopefully those will be fixed. i still get this error though "Error launching browser window:no XBL binding for browser", no-one seems to have fixed it yet: <https://bugzilla.mozilla.…rg/show_bug.cgi?id=315741>

i get this several times in a row and firefox just wont open, so i have to use IE6 instead.

very annoying bug!

#64 Localized versions

by geckah

Monday November 14th, 2005 4:25 PM

Reply to this message

Well, sometimes released are localized and sometimes not... Even somtimes stable released! What an annoying mess arround ff localizations making hard to spread ff in my country!

There are not much differences between 1.5rc1 and 1.5rc2! SO why there are not localized versions of RC2??

#65 Re: Localized versions

by geckah

Monday November 14th, 2005 8:54 PM

Reply to this message

Ok! There are localized versions! A little bit later than the annoncement but here they are! Thanks a lot!

Had nothing to do! FF updated itself and just asked me to restart it. Worked like a charm! Thanks again to mozilla developers great work!

Just wonder why there is no in line spell checking for textarea fields? Thunderbird's doing it when writting messages...

#71 Re: Re: Localized versions

by tseelee

Tuesday November 15th, 2005 7:29 PM

Reply to this message

See if there's an about:config pref for that. I'd like to see urlbar inline autocomplete as default and form inline autocomplete, but I doubt they'll get implemented anytime soon.

#67 Text looks odd

by neilparks1

Tuesday November 15th, 2005 6:18 AM

Reply to this message

First encountered this in RC1, and still seeing it in RC2. Look carefully at the words "Some" and "uncrumpled" in the screenshot.

<http://img382.imageshack.…mg382/1948/crumple7cw.jpg>

#69 Firefox scrolling speed

by Slapo

Tuesday November 15th, 2005 10:02 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know whether I'm the only one that has noticed, but with sites that are graphics intensive (e.g. vectorpeeps.com or any other site with many (big) pics), scrolling is painfully slow. To hunt down the problem, I tried in both Opera and IE and it went there without a problem, smooth just like with text sites. Any solutions? And no, nglayout.initialpaint.delay doesn't solve anything (it's only initial anyway).

#76 Re: Firefox scrolling speed

by mlefevre

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 11:01 AM

Reply to this message

You're not the only one that's noticed - bug 90198, bug 163975 or bug 215090 could be what you describe. There are probably others - vectorpeeps appears to do funky things with frames as well, which also slows down scrolling. If there were easy solutions, they'd probably be in the browser by default by now...

#82 Re: Firefox scrolling speed

by danzeb

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 9:14 PM

Reply to this message

Scrolling works fine for me at vectorpeeps.com with a cable modem connection. Do you have a dial-up connection?

#83 Re: Re: Firefox scrolling speed

by Slapo

Thursday November 17th, 2005 2:03 AM

Reply to this message

I have a 3mbit/s broadband cable connection, that's not the problem. Only the scrolling speed. Slow like hell on an Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester), 1GB of RAM, nVidia 6800LE.

#70 RC2 Partial/Full Update

by davidcornish

Tuesday November 15th, 2005 3:34 PM

Reply to this message

On en_GB RC1 it tried to upgrade to RC2 with a partial update on restarting firefox, though this failed, and it then had to do a substantial full update which worked very easily and effortlessly, but did lose some of the advantages of size that was meant to be introduced by partial updates. Otherwise great.

#72 autocomplete in forms?

by genie <vlad19@gmail.com>

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 6:41 AM

Reply to this message

does it work? I think its not.

#73 Long content in textarea

by xxaaqq

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 7:01 AM

Reply to this message

I don't have access to Bugzilla (or at least I couldn't figure it out). I did try searching and couldn't find this.

If you have very long text in a textarea (without line breaks), the content becomes invisible! You can highlight it, but you just see black/highlight, no text. You have to break it into smaller chunks to see it.

#74 works for me

by Slapo

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 10:17 AM

Reply to this message

works for me

#75 autocomplete in forms?

by Slapo

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 10:26 AM

Reply to this message

'works for me' should have been a response to ' autocomplete in forms?'

#77 Background process

by MrBobla

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 2:50 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah! wtf is this background process that stays in memory. Just felt like posting about it. Besides that, firefox is great I mean I hardly notice it, that's the way it should be afterall isn't the web browser just a window to the www universe. Only a dirty window gets noticed.

#78 It works!

by ishbeta

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 5:44 PM

Reply to this message

I've had no problems with 1.5 RC2 & cant wait for "THE 1.5!"

#80 Mozilla Bug # 209375 found in firefox

by gul

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 8:23 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla Bug 209375 - Form apparently submitted twice; second time empty This bug exists in Firefox & Mozilla. Any idea when will the fix be available ? Thanks

#81 Re: Mozilla Bug # 209375 found in firefox

by tseelee

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 8:34 PM

Reply to this message

It seems to have been fixed. Good for you. ;-)

#86 Re: Re: Mozilla Bug # 209375 found in firefox

by gul

Thursday November 17th, 2005 4:08 AM

Reply to this message

I tested with 1.5 RC2 and I found this issue. Could you tell me which version/build of Mozilla/Firefox is this fixed ? Thanks

#90 Re: Re: Mozilla Bug # 209375 found in firefox

by gul

Thursday November 17th, 2005 9:26 PM

Reply to this message

I tested with 1.5 RC2 and I found this issue. Could you tell me which version/build of Mozilla/Firefox is this fixed ? Thanks

#91 Re: Re: Mozilla Bug # 209375 found in firefox

by gul

Friday November 18th, 2005 6:58 AM

Reply to this message

I tested with 1.5 RC2 and I found this issue. Could you tell me which version/build of Mozilla/Firefox is this fixed ? Thanks

#85 Mozilla Bug # 209375 found in firefox

by gul

Thursday November 17th, 2005 4:05 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla Bug 209375 - Form apparently submitted twice; second time empty This bug exists in Firefox & Mozilla. Any idea when will the fix be available ? Thanks

#87 updated

by Mukanil

Thursday November 17th, 2005 2:06 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5

#88 RC3

by plwong

Thursday November 17th, 2005 4:49 PM

Reply to this message

I just got an update. And my original copy is RC2. Is the updated version RC3?

#89 Re: RC3

by scuac

Thursday November 17th, 2005 5:30 PM

Reply to this message

My question exactly. Did RC3 just get rolled out? Or is this the final 1.5??

Post Talkback

You must be a MozillaZine member to post (note that this is not the same as forum membership). Please keep your comments friendly! No HTML is allowed in your text — URLs will be converted to hyperlinks (for example, type only http://www.example.com/).