Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 8.0 Released

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the almost-caught-up-to-ie's-version-number dept.

Firefox 383

Today Mozilla announced the launch of Firefox 8.0. The headline features this time around include adding Twitter as a search bar option, tab loading tweaks, and the default disabling of addons installed by third-parties. "Sometimes you download third-party software and are surprised to discover that an add-on has also installed itself in your browser without asking permission. At Mozilla, we think you should be in control, so we are disabling add-ons installed by third parties without your permission and letting you pick the ones you want to keep." Here are the release notes and download links.

cancel ×

383 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You mean... (4, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990626)

Firefox 4.04

Re:You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990790)

Exactly... I think the open source community should rebel on this and give their own normal version numbers to Firefox. Just because Google is doing it isn't a good excuse. It is stupid to wrap minor updates and call it a major release. While Google does this with their version numbers they are no so grandiose about it. But firefox makes it seem like a major release.

I say we should all just just say Firefoxes proper version number. I think 4.04 is a little too far off. Perhaps 4.35

Re:You mean... (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991080)

Why don't they just call it "office 2013"? It has a better ring to it. Google also seems less buggy these days but not immune. I would be better of course that a native application would have less of these things going on than one that has merely been ported from a Linux build hence the sole remaining purpose for IE (internet banking).

FireFox has become fat to say the least and using 8 for a version number sure wont help their cause.

Re:You mean... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991226)

What is the main result?

Broken plugins and add-ons, for the couple of weeks it takes to realize the version changes nothing, and the dev swaps a string in his XUL.

Re:You mean... (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991706)

Why don't they just call it "office 2013"?

Office 2013 isn't a version number (or won't be when it's released), that's a Title. Office has always had a proper version number unrelated to the title. For example, the RTM version of Office was 14.0.6023.1000

Re:You mean... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991360)

The difference with Google seems to be that they never trumpet their version numbers at all. Users just know they're using Chrome, and that's it. Heck, I'm typing this on Chromium on Kubuntu right now, and I can't tell you offhand which version this is; I'd have to look it up in the "About" selection. FF, OTOH, constantly makes a big deal every time they make a new release with a new, bigger number.

Re:You mean... (2)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991432)

Better than a new release with an old, smaller number!

Re:You mean... (2)

Xanny (2500844) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990812)

I'd call 5.0 a pretty big deal, since that was when they got the browser CSS 3 / HTML 5 compliant in full. I'd also consider 9.0 to be a big deal, since its a pretty big speedup to jagermonkey. But yeah, 6 and 7 haven't been much of anything but a few tweaks like greying the non-domain address and such. I have no idea why Mozilla thought doing the Chrome name scheme was a good idea. I have no idea why Chrome thinks it is a good idea. All it does is make every release irrelevant and makes it so you can't hype new tech in the browser because to every user it is just "oh, another version".

Re:You mean... (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990884)

At this point I don't really see the version of numbering it anymore. It's a stable product (...line) that isn't going to be replaced by a better, newer technology in the next few years. I hate to make a car analogy but you might as well call it firefox 11. as in, the 2011 model of firefox. just keep releasing small updates throughout the year and when you're ready to introduce some major plugin breaking features, then go ahead and announce firefox 12. I'm a windows user and can't be arsed to figure out what version I have. I only know what chrome version (13.x) i'm using because I was trying to bug test a plugin with a friend last week. web browsers are no longer version numbers, they're "out of date" and "updated".

Re:You mean... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990958)

But at least that would make sense. You get an idea on how current or out of date your browser is.
Firefox 8 does that mean your firefox 5 is 3 years old or dangerously out of date?

Re:You mean... (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991242)

I don't care what it's called in version number. But for the love of god would they build in SOME form of enterprise level control options?

When your internal training websites break on this crap, but you can't lock out the updates and you have some ditz PHB in a corner office who insists "durr I gotta use Firefox 4 eberything bcuz my 18 year old son sez its tha best", you've got issues. And yes, I know the PHB is the issue, but HIM we can't fix. Firefox could easily allow for some simple group policy-level controls.

Re:You mean... (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990888)

I'd call 5.0 a pretty big deal, since that was when they got the browser CSS 3 /HTML 5 compliant in full

Ummm... what? Firefox 5 does not have full CSS3 or Html5 support. No browser does.

Re:You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991002)

It's really closer to 4.4 than 4.0.4 or 4.04, although to be fair and maybe give this one the honorary 5.0 (it's been 7 months, too), I can appreciate the technical difficulty of that surprise-addon blocker. I don't know anything about it, but it seems like it would be difficult to fully block something from writing in something to your configuration if it really wanted to. If it can do that to a degree that only malware-level tactics could break, then that's pretty sweet.

Really Adobe already jumped this shark years ago but at least they waited several months between releases for a PDF READER.

Re:You mean... (2)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991204)

The way Chrome updates makes sense for Chrome because Chrome isn't really identified with its version number. It's silently kept up to date when a new version comes out. It's pretty easy to forget what version you're even using. Chrome has pretty much set standards on how the browser works in the front end and changes to the browser do not generally effect these things. Addons developed for Chrome back to extremely early versions of Chrome still almost always work fine.

The opposite is true for Firefox. The constant tweaks to the browser has the potential to (and has) broken a lot of things. This rapid release schedule is much more problematic for Firefox, and I hope they stop soon.

Re:You mean... (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991436)

I have no idea why Mozilla thought doing the Chrome name scheme was a good idea. I have no idea why Chrome thinks it is a good idea.

Chrome doesn't think it's a good idea, which is why Chrome doesn't do it. Try this: find a bunch of Chrome users, and ask them which version of Chrome they're using. Most of them probably won't know. That's because Chrome doesn't advertise its release numbers, they just push everyone to use the latest. It's only Firefox that's running around screaming about their version numbers.

All it does is make every release irrelevant and makes it so you can't hype new tech in the browser because to every user it is just "oh, another version".

Releases should be irrelevant for a stable product; users should just be downloading the updates and using them when offered so they have all the latest security fixes, but there's nothing to get excited about. I don't see Google screaming about every new Chrome release that comes out. If there's a big change in the tech somewhere, they might trumpet that, but they don't make a new version that's not obviously different from the previous version, then make some giant new press event out of it.

Re:You mean... (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990930)

I was going to post the same thing! Only I would have said 3.8. Close enough: They need to stop this before we get to Firefox 27, sometime in mid December.

Re:You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991144)

Firefox 4.04

4.04, Firefox not found

Re:You mean... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991296)

"MOAR RELEASES! Hurry! We might catch up with Chrome's versions before we lose all our users! FULL STEAM AHEAD!"

Re:You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991420)

No! We need Firefox 9000!

Mozilla's misplaced priorities (0)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990642)

The top priority of the Firefox team needsto be guarding America's Internet against Italian islamocommunist hacker attacks. Which side are you on, Mozilla? I don't see anything in the changelog about code to deter Italian and Italianistic subversion of TCP/IP, HTTP, and other web page languages including plugins.

Re:Mozilla's misplaced priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990710)

POKEY THE PENGUIN , is that you?

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

Is Analingus the new Cunnilingus? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990674)

It happened when I was 19, a guy I met a guy in my College library took to his dorm and turned me around having pulled pants down. I figured he wanted to eat me doggystyle, when he stuck his tongue up my anus...

7 years later and more than 30 partners of all shades; half of whom have performed analingus on me, has me thinking its perhaps the new cunnilingus and 10 years time it will be part of foreplay.

PS: I return the favour.

Your thoughts.

Re:Is Analingus the new Cunnilingus? (1)

M4n (1472737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990788)

Making good use of your browser I see

slow down cowboy! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990678)

I have Firefox fatigue.

Re:slow down cowboy! (1)

gargeug (1712454) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990876)

Seriously. All this article is making me feel is dread knowing a new barrage of requests to update firefox will soon be arriving, and I will have to ignore them for a few weeks so I don't lose any of my add-ons. I'm not a software developer, but I'm pretty sure dread is not a feeling developers should be striving to instill.

Re:slow down cowboy! (4, Insightful)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991306)

Try it anyways.
I just upgraded and all of my plugins are working just fine.

Firefox's biggest problem isn't anything technical - it's that once they DO fix an outstanding issue, no one seems to recognize it. And IMO it would be a crying shame to kill a competent browser because of bad PR.

Now with 50% more bugs FREE!! (2)

M4n (1472737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990682)

I liked it better in the old days when all we had to deal with was huge memory leakage

No With Even More Suck! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990690)

I don't know what happened, but it looks like these guys have lost their direction.

Adding a metric shit ton of features no one asked for or cares about and incrementing the major version number every other day is not a viable alternative to bug fixes, performance issues and memory foot print.

I hope some one forks them. We need a good browser like Chrome, but with less Google.

Re:No With Even More Suck! (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990748)

Chrome-ium?

Re:No With Even More Suck! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990808)

Safari?

Re:No With Even More Suck! (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990858)

So you want Chromium, then.

Re:No With Even More Suck! (1)

SiMac (409541) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991472)

But without rapid release, apparently.

Re:No With Even More Suck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990908)

Adding a metric shit ton of features no one asked for or cares about

Actually. Opt-in plugin enabling was programmed in because IE9 does it.

Re:No With Even More Suck! (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991174)

Iron?

Don't bother (5, Funny)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990698)

Firefox 9.0 will be out next week.

Re:Don't bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990772)

I'm on the aurora channel. FF9 is nice!

Re:Don't bother (2)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990846)

I am on the Nightly channel. It does crash every once in awhile, but I get a lot less "Firefox is running but not responsding" after I have closed the browser.

Re:Don't bother (1)

flohuels (1920394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990794)

I expect Firefox 9 to come out when clicking the submit button for this comment...

Re:Don't bother (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991018)

I expect Firefox 9 to come out when clicking the submit button for this comment.../quote

Actually I thought Slashdot was a little slow with this story. I was prompted about the update earlier today and installed it w/o restarting Firefox. After installing a program that needed the computer to be restarted, I finally shutdown Firefox. Then some time later This story came up on Slashdot. Perhaps they should change the tag line from "News for nerds..." to "History for nerds..."

Re:Don't bother (0)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991192)

Firefox 9.0 will be out next week.

And the release schedule is accelerating so rapidly, Firefox 10 will be out before the end of this week.

Re:Don't bother (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991400)

When their update frequency breaks 2.6ghz, it's time to get a new pc, so my cpu can keep up with the counting.

To bad it isn't 3.x (2)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990726)

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Firefox/3.6.23 - Enough said. The latest version/series that actually matters.

Re:To bad it isn't 3.x (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990924)

Is Firefox 3.6 the new IE6 that people refuse to upgrade from?

Re:To bad it isn't 3.x (1)

theweatherelectric (2007596) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991108)

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Firefox/3.6.23 - Enough said.

It could be that enough has been said, but it's unclear what you're saying. The latest version of Firefox runs faster and is more capable than Firefox 3.6. There's no downside. You really should try Firefox 8. If you're still too fearful of Firefox 8, then wait until Firefox 9 is released and try it. Firefox 9 brings big improvements to the JavaScript engine.

Re:To bad it isn't 3.x (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991198)

Firefox 9 brings big improvements to the JavaScript engine.

Yeah! It'll run that synthetic benchmark 5 nanoseconds faster! Rock on!

Re:To bad it isn't 3.x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991670)

Firefox 3.6 runs on Win7? I'm surprised.

Firefox 8.0, now more unstable than ever! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990742)

New changes:

* Memory requirement increased from 4GB to 6GB (for up to four tabs).
* Tab limit before crashing increased from 2 to 4.

Re:Firefox 8.0, now more unstable than ever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991236)

I currently have 33 tabs open and my current FF memory footprint is 900MB. This particular Firefox session has been running for about 3 weeks, although I hibernate this laptop every night. On my home computer my Firefox session has been running well over a month, I have about 40-60 tabs open at any given time. I can't see it at the moment, but it typically sits at around 1.2GB of memory. If you're actually having the experience you claim to be having, I think the problem is you, not Firefox.

That's it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990764)

There are not that many features from the last version of 7.0 (even including those in the release notes). These release numbers boggle the mind. I was hoping this nonsense would stop once they caught up to Chrome; however, now it looks like Chrome has started this nonsense (or maybe they did it the whole time, I didn't pay attention until recently). Eventually, I hope they just switch to years or dates instead of the now meaningless version numbers.

Negative comments (1, Insightful)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990828)

What's with all the negative comments ?
My initial impression seems to be, this is very fast as compared to 7.0.1. Good work Firefox team, some of us still appreciate your hard work.

Now only if my company would switch from the horrible HP Quality Center to Jira, I would be set.

Re:Negative comments (2, Insightful)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990980)

Easy, we are tired of our add-ons being disabled with every new "major" release even though they work just fine, thanks. Also, FF is so needy with all it's "update me, update me" nonsense. Leave me alone and let me do something other than attend to you.

I switched to Chrome with NotScript and haven't looked back.

Re:Negative comments (3, Interesting)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990982)

The instability and other issues mentioned by others have spoiled many people's opinions about Firefox. For many of us, a new version just doesn't matter because any improvement would be too late to matter. Ironically, just this morning I personally reached my final level of frustration and decided to quit using Firefox for good. Having a new version to play with is not enough to make me try it again...mostly because I have completely lost faith in the ff dev team in general. Chrome has been my primary browser of choice for some time (not because of any love for Google, but because it works fast and reliably for me). Safari is my new secondary browser now that FF is going in the rubbish bin.

Re:Negative comments (5, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991078)

The sanity of the Firefox team is under question as of late. From what I can remember:

* Incrementing the major version number with every slight tweak is annoying.
* Worse yet, the reasoning behind it is stupid. They just want their version number to be big, like IE.
* Major feature creep: they keep talking about the browser as an OS, and 3D acceleration, and stuff that has no purpose in a browser.
* The long-standing issues about Firefox are being ignored: primarily memory and performance.

Re:Negative comments (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991220)

Oh for fuck's sake. This again? Firefox uses less memory then Chrome as it goes and as of late works just as fast. Version numbers are unimportant! Nobody gives a shit that Chrome is 14 (or 15 or whatever) now, but if here it's a problem. Look, the only diffference is the number. The updates are still the same way. And since FF9 you won't even notice them - silent updating like in Chromium.

new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (2, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990856)

I finally bit the bullet. After making probably 50 tweets complaining about various firefox crashes over the years.... I switched to Chrome even though they don't have a zoom plugin as good as NoSquint. (I compute exclusively on a 52-inch HDTV that I sit 5 feet away from, so my font needs are comparable to a visually disabled person {which I am not}).

I use Greasemonkey every day. Greasemonkey is built into chrome. Not firefox. And when they auto-upgrade-without-permission to a new version that doesn't support it, I lose functionality that I use every day. Not smart.

But it was the crashing every 10 minutes that finally did me in. I could live with the "1 gig of RAM per 15 tabs", even though I knew other browsers could do 50 tabs with the same memory. I mean: Buy more ram. Restart firefox to free up the leaked memory. There were solutions.

But no solution to crashing every 10 minutes. No. The best was when I downgraded and the problems persisted.

I'm so glad I finally took the plunge and switched to google chrome. I'd been avoiding it because the plugin/extension offerings were not previously sufficient. ANd it's true, I still have to open Firefox to use DownloadHelper to download YouTube videos (almost daily). There are Chrome equivalents, but I haven't found one that doesn't require you re-typing the title into the filename, and I'm quite willing to open a browser to prevent myself from having to type a long filename.

but in general - Firefox can take its shitty browser and shove it into whatever incompatible plugin it keeps up it's bloated ass.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990940)

I did this same thing. FF VI (what is this? a JRPG?) crashed every 10-15 minutes for me. So now it's chrome for me. I miss noscript. That's it.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (2)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991022)

Yes, switch from Firefox because of the 6 week release schedule, and go to Chrome ... who started the 6 week release schedule. Only they rarely ship new features, unlike Firefox, that the user can actually see.

Chrome now uses *substantially* more memory than Firefox, as of FF 7.

I would say you most likely have some bad FF extensions and/or a corrupted profile.

FF8 was the smoothest upgrade for me yet. Lazy tab loading is a godsend.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991210)

with the exception of DownloadHelper and NoSquint, I'm running the excact same set of extensions here. Firefox has been known to leak memory like a sieve. Just because your instance of something doesn't demonstrate a bug doesn't mean it's bug free. Now on to the crashing - Chrome has only crashed once in the past week, a crash tied to my explorer.exe crashing. Firefox never, even in it's good (3-4) versions, lasted that long, ever, regardless of extensions. Not on any of the 5+ computers running 3 different operating systems that I've used. My wife switched a long, long time ago, but I was hanging on because I liked NoSquint so much. I've actually seen Firefox use a full 8G before {obvious memory leak, you can see it climbing}. Firefox has major issues in 1920x1080 resolution that do not manifest in lower resolutions. Issues such as failing to be able to even display large-photograph JPGs, while simultaneously EVERY other browser (I have 5 installed) could.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991624)

What version of FF are you using? FF7's memory use is outstanding - WAY better than Chrome. I use the latest version of all the browsers and check these things out with every new release. Chrome uses 2-3x more memory on my work and home machines than FF does (as of FF7). Neither browser crashes for me on either machine I use. My work and home machines use 1920x1200 monitors (work machine has a secondary 1680x1050), and I have no weird problems about displaying large jpegs.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991684)

I never got to use FF7 long enough to notice. Too little, too late. Not crashing is way more important to me than memory use. Memory use was just an example of memory leaks and such. Anytime I had my browser open (no porn!) for 2 days it would be 1.5G, at any point in my 5 yrs or so of using Firefox. That they fixed it around the time that I finally switched is just a case of too little too late.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991280)

Only they rarely ship new features, unlike Firefox, that the user can actually see.

So what? Featureitis is not a good thing. Secondly, mozilla is only adding all those new features in a desperate attempt to look relevant whilst they lose marketshare continually to chrome.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991574)

Only they rarely ship new features, unlike Firefox, that the user can actually see.

So what? Featureitis is not a good thing. Secondly, mozilla is only adding all those new features in a desperate attempt to look relevant whilst they lose marketshare continually to chrome.

"Featureitis" implies useless features, which is not what Firefox is doing. Lazy tab loading is a brilliant thing, and makes the browser 10x more usable and responsive for me. Chrome, as of v17, doesn't even have the same feature set as a new install of Firefox, sans any plugins.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

Zhiroc (909773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991520)

I was getting tired of FF4/5 using 800 MB of memory, so I decided to upgrade to FF7. Now it grows to 1.5 GB. Yes, it has almost doubled. On the plus side, it seems to perform a bit better at a higher memory level than FF4/5, but still gets to the same slow performance eventually (which is fairly quickly, on the order of a day). So no, FF7 did not have the great memory reduction it was touted to have, at least for me.

I've decided to experiment and disable most of my extensions. I'm now running with the minimum of Stylish, NoScript, and ABP. The growth rate has slowed it appears (maybe by half), but as of right now I am at 944 MB and slowly growing.

My suspicion? FF has terrible memory fragmentation behavior in their JS engine. The more things you run that need JS, the worse it gets. There's one, and only one thing holding me back from going with Chrome all the way: the lack of a Master password.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

ewieling (90662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991128)

I switched to Chrome when Firefox "dropped support" for 3.x, or whatever the last version is which removed the "traditional" interface and replaced it with one that minimal interface which looks like Chrome. I had to give up a few plugins, but nothing I can't live without. My biggest issues with Chrome is that Flash doesn't seem to work. As I don't do much of anything which requires Flash, it isn't a big deal.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991320)

i think the current day "install_flash_player.exe" successfully installs it in current day Chrome, i.e. if you're starting from a fresh chrome install like I did. I'm not sure though. Flash can be a fucking bitch some/all of teh time. But when stuff is out there, I want to be able to view it, regardless of my opinion of the format, so...

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1, Insightful)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991156)

Crashes every 10 minutes huh... You've got to be doing something wrong. I leave a firefox browser open for weeks on end. Occasionally, when I reboot for a software update, firefox gets shut down. I don't remember rebooting last week, and I only shut down firefox today because of the update.

How much porn does it take to crash firefox in 10 minutes?

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991246)

I actually view my porn in another browser, only an ameteur would view porn in his primary browser! The other browser can manage 300+ tabs with less memory than firefox with 20 tabs. No, I won't say which one it is. ;)

Remember: A bug not manifesting in your instance of a program is not the same as the program being bug free. Firefox craps out at 1920x1080, failing to display JPGs at a JPG-ending URL if the system is distressed certain ways. Ways that don't affect the other 4 browsers I tested it on. But you know what? Now that I've switched to *anything that isn't firefox*, the problems are gone.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991594)

I use Greasemonkey every day. Greasemonkey is built into chrome. Not firefox.

Not to worry. Greasemonkey might not be built-in, but at least you can search Twitter without the hassle of installing an extension or actually going to Twitter.

Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991668)

KeepVid.com
Just sayin...

Slashdot as a search bar option? (1)

PastTense (150947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990898)

Is it true that headline features for Firefox 9.0 include adding Slashdot as a search bar option?

Yes! even number (2)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990902)

The even numbered firefoxes are the best!

Re:Yes! even number (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991258)

WRONG!

The even numbered firefoxes are good.

The irrationally numbered firefoxes are the best.

I can't wait for Firefox 26. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990956)

We might have 5 brand new actual features by then, rather than giving essentially bugfixes their own major version number.

Do we now get a Slashdot post every time Chrome... (1)

Rhywden (1940872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990960)

... updates its major version number, or what?

Seriously, why is there such a big hubbub about the version of Firefox when they've just moved to rapid incrementations of the version number? I don't see people doing the same with Chrome.

Re:Do we now get a Slashdot post every time Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991264)

It's not evil when chrome gets updated?

Re:Do we now get a Slashdot post every time Chrome (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991390)

Chrome silently updates and Google doesn't trumpet each release as if it's the second coming like what happens when Mozilla decides to bump the major version for no reason.

At least change the joke version number (1)

JustTech (1961012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990970)

It's kinda upsetting that the jokes on slashdot are the same at every Firefox release... shape up, think outside the box =)

Re:At least change the joke version number (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991392)

Knock Knock,

Who's There,

The Next Version of Firefox

The Next Version of Firefox who? Hello- where did you go?

Knock Knock,

Who's There,

The Next Version of Firefox

The Next Version of Firefox who? Hello- where did you go?

?

Every release breaks all useful tools (1)

snotclot (836055) | more than 2 years ago | (#37990974)

Every release breaks some tools - don't even mention their own plugins and addons created by others.

For example, my Thinkpad Client Security password manager used to work well with Firefox 1/2 - for v3 I had to go to the trouble of patching some js files myself because Lenovo didn't support it fast enough. Now with this super-fast release cycle, I can't patch my software and don't even bother anymore.

It's frustrating. I would move to Chrome (being a loyal Firefox person I have not yet) - if not Chrome is more evil in other ways.

Give a bit more time and I will give up Firefox. Just plain fed up with their douchebaggery. It was us fans that installed it for our non-geek friends, and it will be us fans that uninstall them and recommend everyone something else.

I'll wait to update... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37990978)

I wont bother updating firefox until this time next year when they release firefox 195.0, and have removed all of the things that made me move to firefox in the first place.

I'm going to wait (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991016)

By the time I compile 8, 12 will be out and that's the one I'm really waiting for.

It's just a number people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991034)

Quit getting your panties in a bunch. It's just a number.

I don't mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991056)

I don't mind that they're releasing so fast, although it was annoying at first, having just installed 3.1 or whatever, and 4 is out so I switch to it, and it seems like a few days later, 5 is out... but that's really no different from releasing 3.1, followed by 3.2, followed by 3.3... and just calling them 4, 5, 6... but the inflation is annoying. Why limit yourself to integers, though? I'm sure they'll soon be doing it by multiple integers... version 8 to be followed by version 10, then 14. When they get to 16, they'll start maybe using powers of 2, so after 16, they'll release Firefox 32, then Firefox 64. It seems absurd.

64-bit? (1)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991064)

8.0, the one that is supposed to finally be available in a 64-bit compile for Windows? Come on, even Flash player beat you to it!

HTML 5? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991138)

Yeah, they ought to be fully 64-bit by now. Incidentally, do they support HTML 5 now OOTB?

Re:64-bit? (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991548)

8.0, the one that is supposed to finally be available in a 64-bit compile for Windows? Come on, even Flash player beat you to it!

Don't you mean "Come on, even IE beat you to it!"

Re:64-bit? (1)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991606)

I don't know which is worse, to be beaten by Flash or by IE, although technically IE 64-bit is pretty well unusable last I checked, so I don't know if it counts.

best FF upgrade yet (5, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991100)

Completely smooth upgrade, no incompatible plugins, and lazy tab loading is the best feature ever for tab-crazy people like myself. Since they got the memory use under control in v7, life is good. With Chrome taking up 2-3x more memory than FF, I just can't deal with that anymore. Plus lazy tab loading is now my killer browser feature. Gotta have it. I think FF9 (Dec 20) or FF10 is supposed to have even more substantial memory reduction applied.

Re:best FF upgrade yet (1)

theweatherelectric (2007596) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991540)

I'm looking forward to the JavaScript engine improvements in Firefox 9. I tried the Broadway.js H.264 video decoder (github page [github.com] , demo page [github.com] ) in Firefox 7.0.1 and Firefox 9 Aurora. On my system it ran about two and a half times faster in Firefox 9.

Yet another version, still no MSIs or GPOs (3, Informative)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991114)

I know FF is multi-platform but you cannot even make GPOs an add-on. (It kinda defeats the purpose if the user can uninstall the add-on!)

Meanwhile in bug 267888 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=267888 [mozilla.org] ) there are still talking about creating ADM files.
ADM files are for Windows XP, when this bug was created 7 years ago!!!)
Windows 7 uses ADMX files.

But it doesn't matter now.
The people that need MSI/GPO cannot handle Full versions of FF coming out every 2 months.
They have enough trouble keeping up with "patch Tuesday" from MS.

...huh? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991200)

I'm still on 6, what happened to 7?
I can only imagine how pissed off add-on developers are with this batshit insane update schedule.

Safari 5.1 on 10.7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991230)

I moved away from Safari for a long time. But now, Safari can load tons of tabs and windows while retaining a smaller memory footprint than the others. And with the ClicktoPlugin extension, close to zero CPU time. Very stable. These are the only things that matter to me any more, and I haven't run into another browser that delivers them. Because I don't want to drain a battery in 30 minutes browsing the web.

Two different platforms... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991334)

two completely different behaviors.

I very happily run FF 7.01 on Ubuntu (11.04). It's snappy, fairly light - well, in comparison with previous releases.

On W7, however, it's dog slow, eventually becoming unresponsive enough that I have to open task manager and kill it. I've eased the problem lately by running Chrome. It runs much faster than FF (on W7, not on Ubuntu, curiously), but I sure would like to be able to have the same responsiveness of FF on both platforms.

What's the record? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991348)

Is there a current highest version number record? Is the Firefox developer community trying to beat it? The way things are going we're going to be at Firefox 150 this time next year, assuming they don't accelerate the timetable further.

A good release: Much faster (2)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991466)

On an old machine (8.5 years) running Windows XP 32-bit, this version is significantly faster than its predecessor. I don't care what version number they use; this is an upgrade.

How do I adapt to this?!?! (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991560)

I'm panicking right now. Why a new version number? I'm just not sure I can deal with this. It's just too much. Goodbye cruel world!

Still can't remove unwanted plug-ins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991568)

... without a lot of detective work. Maybe in FF1701 out next summer?

I uhhh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37991572)

...I seemed to have missed 7. Shit.

Both Firefox and Chrome have big problems (1)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 2 years ago | (#37991686)

When I use Firefox, memory usage is still a big problem. After running it for days on end, with lots and lots of tabs open, it eventually starts using 2 gigs of RAM.
Then there's problems where Flash Player just stops working after an upgrade. That stopped me from using Aurora and Nightly, because Flash will work for a while, then it breaks after a new Aurora/Nightly version. Whenever there's Flash problems, YouTube often crashes at the end of a video.
I really don't mind the "Extension upgrading situation" in Firefox, since I disable compatibility checking anyway. But nobody else knows you can do that. Firefox needs to make it a lot easier to disable "compatibility checking". It's a worthless feature that should be expunged, since it seems like it's more for liability or "not our fault" reasons than anything else. Only a small number of Firefox extensions actually break, like CacheViewer. That was a nice extension, and nobody has fixed or replaced it.

I've also tried Chrome. Actually SRWare Iron, but they're the same thing. (Don't respond with that outdated FUD about 5 lines of code being changed, since official Chromium doesn't support "adblock.ini" like Iron does).
After running Chrome for several days on end, it develops a completely different problem. You switch to a particular tab, and it takes about 5 seconds before it responds to anything. No scrolling, no interaction, just seeing the image of the rendered web page, and you are forced to wait until it wakes up. Firefox never had that kind of problem.
Also, Noscript and Adblock aren't available in Chrome. At first, I was using the built-in whitelist feature for Javascript, but due to boneheaded design decisions in Chrome, it takes a very long time to start the browser when there is a significant number of entries in the whitelist. Also, it treated first-party and third-party content as equally trusted, so it's just bad.
Then I used ScriptNo, which seems to work much better. Kudos, ScriptNo developer!
Ad blocking still sucks. Iron has its own ad blocking feature, which works very well, but it can't hide the elements that it is filtering, so you need an element hiding extension as well. Good luck figuring out which Ad-blocking extension is the good one, and which ones are trash, I'm still not sure which one is the good extension.
Then there's the problem with user scripts waiting for the page to be completely loaded before they run. For example, I use a UserScript to hide the awful right-side panel from Wikia sites. In Firefox, the script executes instantly with Greasemonkey. But in Chrome, it takes several seconds, as it waits to completely finish loading the page before it executes the userscript. Often there's some slow third-party javascript that isn't loading, and the userscript gets delayed for several seconds until that loads.

But the most annoying thing about Chrome is how it handles focus for links. In MSIE and Firefox, whenever you click on a link, or drag a link to nowhere, the link retains focus, and you can press Tab to go to the next link. But you can't do the same in Chrome or Opera.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>