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!

Ask Slashdot: Life After Firefox 3.6.x?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the i-hear-netscape-is-good dept.

Firefox 807

Mooga writes "I am a hard-core user of Firefox 3.6.x who has chosen to stick with the older, yet supported version of Firefox for many years now. However, 3.6.x will soon hit end-of-life, making my life, and the lives of similar users, much more complicated. 3.6.x has been known for generally being more stable and using less RAM than the modern Firefox 10 and even Chrome. The older version of Firefox is already having issues rendering modern websites. What are others who have been holding onto 3.6.x planning on doing?"

cancel ×

807 comments

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

Why the anxiety? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235949)

I do not understand techie luddites. Why didn't you upgrade? Why the anxiety? It's a fucking WEB BROWSER. Life will go on.

Re:Why the anxiety? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235981)

exactly get with the times faggots, or go back to netscape navigator 3. it's easier on teh memories.

Re:Why the anxiety? (5, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236013)

Except this Luddite's primary arguments, RAM allocation and stability, are apparently bullshit. Why even humor him with a Slashdot submission?

Re:Why the anxiety? (5, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236097)

I could have sworn back in the 3.6 days that everyone was complaining about its RAM usage, and that some pined for the 2.0 days of better RAM usage.

Isnt there a saying about the grass being greener?

Re:Why the anxiety? (4, Informative)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236169)

I was screaming about RAM usage because it sucked back then too.

Re:Why the anxiety? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236179)

If you did swear to such a thing, you wouldn't be wrong.

Re:Why the anxiety? (5, Informative)

celtic_hackr (579828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236205)

3.6 did use more memory than 2. Every later version used more and more memory up until version 8. Version 8 still used more memory than 3.6. Version 10 may or may not use more memory, but from version 8 forward the browser is way faster. Version 3.6 was rock solid stability wise for a long time. It's old now. I moved off it sometime last year. Version 10.0 is the new long term support version. It's the only logical choice to run now. I found 4, 5, 6, 7, and even 8 to be less stable. Which ought to be expected. 3.6 was after all a .6 version and not a .0 version, with many more bugfixes along the way. 10.0 is twice the disk size as 3.6, but again it's going to be WAY faster, but perhaps not much different on the memory landscape. The poster should begin migrating now, before support ends.

That is if you're one of those people who believes in keeping your system up to date, security patch wise. Kind of pointless to change the locks once everything is cracked open and stolen. So I guess I'm saying UPGRADE NOW to 10.0, while you have a choice.

Re:Why the anxiety? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236027)

ya, they are missing out on all these awesome new features Mozilla has added.
Like.........umm........

Re:Why the anxiety? (3, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236211)

Firefox Sync is pretty awesome if you use multiple computers, requires version 4 and above.

Re:Why the anxiety? (2)

celtic_hackr (579828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236215)

Like ummm ... 3x the speed.

Yeah, nothing good there. Who wants more speed?

Re:Why the anxiety? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236047)

for example, PPC Macintoshes can't run a version of Firefox later than 3.6x
A PowerPC iMac I have is more than adequate for light office use, and will probably keep running for several more years.
But no PPC support for later browsers will send it to the landfill before that.

--- Eventually we'll be unable to access websites that rely on features in recent versions of flash, java or html5.

Re:Why the anxiety? (3, Insightful)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236181)

there's a reason for that. It's unsupported hardware. It's been abandoned as a platform. You'd be wise to replace it.

Re:Why the anxiety? (5, Informative)

sydsavage (453743) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236217)

Check out TenFourFox [floodgap.com] . Current versions of Firefox, compiled for PowerPC Macs.

Re:Why the anxiety? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236247)

That's because PPC is a dead platform. Right now you have two options: get a newer computer or compile a newer version of Firefox for PPC yourself.

Re:Why the anxiety? (5, Informative)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236269)

But no PPC support for later browsers will send it to the landfill before that.

--- Eventually we'll be unable to access websites that rely on features in recent versions of flash, java or html5.

You can always put Linux on it. Even the latest [ubuntu.com] Ubuntu runs on PowerPC, which I expect includes an updated Firefox.

The disadvantage is no Flash, but you really shouldn't be running Flash on PowerPC anyway because the latest version has serious security unpatched vulnerabilities. And Flash is slowly disappearing anyway -- your iMac will probably be more useful a couple years from now when Flash is dead than it is now!

As users, we're getting fucked over. That's why. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236055)

In the past, upgrades usually brought at least some benefits. There'd be useful new features, there'd be performance improvements, there'd be memory usage reductions, and so forth.

But then starting with Firefox 4, Mozilla went silly. This was around the time that Chrome was starting to get better known, and instead of continuing with what had brought them success in the past, Mozilla decided to start imitating Chrome whenever possible.

This, of course, was a horrible decision for us users, and we're still dealing with the fallout sometime later. Everything we liked about Firefox, like real menus, having a status bar, and showing the protocol in the URL bar, have become very broken. Yes, that's right. They took core functionality and disabled it by default, or removed it outright.

Yeah, I know Firefox is free. But it's still very disrespectful what Mozilla has done to us long-time users. We helped spread the word about Firefox. We helped it become quite popular. The Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation benefited financially from this. Then they pulled these stunts.

There's absolutely no reason for them to do what they have done to us. Instead of improving Firefox, they have trashed it. Many of us have moved to Chrome. After all, if we realistically have to choose between Firefox's poor imitation of Chrome, and Chrome itself, we might as well just use Chrome. At least it feels faster and seems to use less memory than Firefox does, even if it does have all of the same drawbacks.

Re:As users, we're getting fucked over. That's why (0, Troll)

Sneeka2 (782894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236095)

I'm going to whine on /. on how betrayed I feel by a company whose free products I have enjoyed using in the past for free without having given back anything to them now that there are better alternatives and I don't feel like switching because I feel that company owes me for some reason.

FTFY.

Re:As users, we're getting fucked over. That's why (1)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236127)

The sad thing is that we're now in the position we were ~10 years ago with Netscape Navigator, except that this time Mozilla is playing the part of Netscape, and there's no Phoenix on the horizon...

Re:As users, we're getting fucked over. That's why (0)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236225)

Mozilla is the descendant of Netscape Naviagator, so I'm not surprised.

Re:As users, we're getting fucked over. That's why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236131)

Nobody owes you anything. Quit your pathetic nerd raging.

Re:As users, we're getting fucked over. That's why (5, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236235)

here's what you were really asking through your raging: Why did Firefox drastically increase build numbers for only minor releases?

great question AC, here's the answer. Public opinion held consensus that the higher the build number, the more advanced the browser. As IE was in build 9, Google chrome was in version 10, and Opera was in version 11 when Firefox version 4.0 came out, Mozilla decided to abandon their convention for build numbers and play catch-up. Nothing more than public opinion.

I think this was a smart decision.

Re:As users, we're getting fucked over. That's why (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236261)

Please find me a person that actually believes that. Or better yet find me a typical "Joe Sixpack" that knows what version his browser is. I want citations, not just some random anecdote you made up.

Re:Why the anxiety? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236079)

For me because the new version locks up my PC if I left it open when it auto updates and after an update it resets back to some default settings which I have to keep turning back off. They are now as bad as Apple thinking they know what is best for you and how your computer should be configured.

Re:Why the anxiety? (1)

JimBobJoe (2758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236121)

For me it's because I am on a iBook G4 and there is no PPC version beyond 3.6, plus there is no PPC version of Chrome. All I have is Safari (which isn't bad) plus unsupported versions of Firefox and maybe Opera?

Re:Why the anxiety? (2)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236171)

If the developers of Firefox properly understood just how many things BREAK when upgrading a browser, maybe then they would design things to make it easy for two or more versions of Firefox to co-exist (even if there is a requirement that any one user only be using one version at a time and thus require switching user to use a different version). Then, it would at least be easier to migrate gracefully to their new versions.

As it is now, it's a major pain in the arse to upgrade Firefox, usually much worse than upgrading Linux. Because they already do some things wrong, I have to work around that. And that breaks when I upgrade. For example, when I do upgrade, I'll need to build new multi-instance templates and update all the static instances. And that's all because Firefox developers are trying to make it all run under one instance. Very annoying.

And the Firefox people went on a version frenzy, so I just STOPPED upgrading altogether until things settle down. I am most certainly NOT going to upgrade more often than every 2 years.

Pet peeve - luddite != against technology (1, Interesting)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236173)

It's a common misconception that the luddites were against modern technology - in fact, their campaign was about job protection.

They didn't ruin all of the texture factories - just ones where people were losing jobs as a protest against the loss of jobs - not against the (more) modern technology.

Re:Why the anxiety? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236191)

I don't understand techie groupies. Why did you upgrade even though there was no advantage to it? It's just a web browser!

upgrade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235957)

the same was probably said of netscape 4

Hard-core user? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235959)

What exactly is a "hard-core" user?

Re:Hard-core user? (5, Funny)

Sneeka2 (782894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39235977)

One whose head is too hard to upgrade to a newer version.

Re:Hard-core user? (1)

Jezisheck (2558157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236101)

Try to be assertive a bit. :) FF 3.6 has been sticking i.e. with Ubuntu. The concept of Linux is using stable, time-proven software. When you want to guarantee stable browser for the whole environment (i.e. on university or in company), you will stick with something you know that works fine. You won't be looking forward for quick-and-in-hurry-developed new versions. Especially when they come with no visible enhancements or new features – then you start worrying about bugs introduced into the program with update. Personally I don't have reasons to delay upgrade much (except for incompatible addons), but if I should make a decision for a whole bunch of computers, I would stick with 3.6 too. ;)

Re:Hard-core user? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236141)

FF 3.6 has been sticking i.e. with Ubuntu. The concept of Linux is using stable, time-proven software. (...) You won't be looking forward for quick-and-in-hurry-developed new versions.

Seriously? Have you even USED Ubuntu?

Re:Hard-core user? (1)

Sneeka2 (782894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236227)

FF 3.6 has been superseded by 4.0 and subsequent versions almost exactly a year ago. There have been many many releases since then. How stable do you need your software to be before moving on? Also, it's a browser for crying out loud. While that usually is a mayor tool these days, it's not your production server or OS kernel.

Re:Hard-core user? (4, Informative)

celtic_hackr (579828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236289)

No, you should upgrade to 10.0.

Here's three simple reasons:
1) New LTS version. It's going to be around for a while.
2) 10.0 is the fastest version, since maybe forever with Mozilla/Firefox.
3) No more default incompatibilities with add-ons. By default all plug-ins/add-on are compatible. Only those marked incompatible by the authors are incompatible.

The smart user will be doing testing on 3.6 now, before official support ends. So when it ends any known issues can be dealt with. Nothing worse than having to scramble to upgrade because of some newly discover security flaw. Scrambling leads to hurriedness which leads carelessness which leads to mistakes which leads to the darkside ... taking over your servers.

Re:Hard-core user? (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236257)

Newer is not always better. People on slashdot should be tech savvy enough to know that much.

Re:Hard-core user? (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236021)

it all depends on the type of porn they look at.

Sounds familiar (5, Insightful)

emeitner (513842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39235965)

Doesn't seem too long ago that I was having the same questions about Netscape Navigator 4.5. I survived.
 

Re:Sounds familiar (3, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236133)

Doesn't seem too long ago that I was having the same questions about Netscape Navigator 4.5.

So how did you get a coma in the first place?

Just upgrade (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235967)

Stop being a pain the ass and upgrade.

It's a browser, not some server software.

Chrome (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39235969)

Not quite as good as FF used to be but it is not bad after you get used to it.

Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235975)

I was a firefox user for users until I realized that chrome is what firefox used to be.

Not an issue (4, Insightful)

spandex_panda (1168381) | more than 2 years ago | (#39235979)

I have switched to Chrome and am happy with seamless updates.

Really, what advantages do you have with using an old, outdated version? Smaller memory footprint, well, are you actually low on memory? RAM is cheap. You already said that version 3.X is slower than modern builds.

The only suggestion I have is live with the new version progression, stop being concerned with it and live with what the developers are doing. Either that or move to gentoo and compile you own!

Re:Not an issue (4, Interesting)

zephvark (1812804) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236163)

The advantages to sticking with an older version are, you already know it works, and your add-ons work with it. You also know that the good gentleman at Firefox haven't decided to rearrange the interface again for no apparent reason. Finally, of course, the new versions don't actually seem to have any interesting new features.

I updated from 3.5 to the latest version, recently, because of some problem where the browser would just stall out for 3-4 seconds, becoming completely unresponsive. The update does seem to have fixed that problem. Otherwise, I haven't really noticed any significant difference, which is really just fine with me.

Re:Not an issue (1)

kwalker (1383) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236167)

One man's treasure is another man's trash. I've had the opposite experience. I HATE Chrome's updates. They've caused nothing but problems when it pushes out a major version update that silently breaks existing websites for no apparent reason (Chrome 15 to 16), or bloats up to 1GB of RAM within eight hours of launch (16 to 17). And I can't go back because their previous builds no longer show in their repositories.

Re:Not an issue (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236241)

Holy shit!? 1GB or ram? /sarcasm

Sir, web browsers are not just web browsers anymore. The average web page has so much multimedia content and scripting, its quite impressive that, after running for 8 hours or more, it maintains only 1GB footprint.

Also, you can buy 2 GB of ram for less than a tank of gas.

Re:Not an issue (1)

Ken_g6 (775014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236275)

I tried this. However, being a Luddite, I prefer to hang on to my old, unsupported version of Ubuntu (9.04, Jaunty Jackalope). Chrome now says that my operating system is not supported anymore, and refuses to auto-update.

Re:Not an issue (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236279)

It's old. But it's not necessarily outdated and not necessarily a worse version. If it's idiotic to not upgrade I'll respond by saying it's idiotic to always upgrade just because you can. I actually had to undo the 9.0 release because performance was noticeably worse than 8. Maybe 9.1 fixed it but I don't care. No reason to upgrade. I had considered just going all the way back to 3.6 but it's about the hassle of downgrading versus the hassle of getting rid of the "please upgrade" box all the time.

Get over it already (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39235991)

3.6.x has been known for generally being more stable

Firefox 9 is perfectly fine. No problems.

and using less RAM

Who gives a shit if it uses a little bit more memory. I just bought 16GB of RAM for $75. It isn't 1991 anymore.

I don't like the bullshit upgrade schedule where they make a few minor improvements and call it a major new release. That's why I'll probably stay with 9 for a while. But there is no reason to stay with 3.6.

Re:Get over it already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236115)

Keep up. FF9 has exploits. You have to be either on FF3.6.27 or FF10.0.2 to have the latest patch to address exploits.

Re:Get over it already (3, Interesting)

El_Oscuro (1022477) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236145)

The bullshit upgrade cycle is what is literally driving me away from Firefox. I have run Firefox since before it was called Firefox (it was called "Firebird" in the 0.7 days), but am now starting to switch to Chrome. It seems like every time I start Firefox, I have to go through several screens of verifying my addins, etc. Now, when Firefox "upgraded" to 10, my most important web application crashed it. Chrome runs it just fine. I love Firefox, but this upgrade bullshit is killing it.

Re:Get over it already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236199)

You know you can turn off Firefox's automatic updates, right? Options > Advanced > Update.

Re:Get over it already (2)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236195)

Who gives a shit if it uses a little bit more memory. I just bought 16GB of RAM for $75. It isn't 1991 anymore.

Have a look at your local DDR2 RAM prices. Its become legacy hardware and is rather expensive.

Re:Get over it already (4, Insightful)

s-whs (959229) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236223)

and using less RAM

Who gives a shit if it uses a little bit more memory. I just bought 16GB of RAM for $75. It isn't 1991 anymore.

I don't like the bullshit upgrade schedule where they make a few minor improvements and call it a major new release. That's why I'll probably stay with 9 for a while. But there is no reason to stay with 3.6.

You have a very poor memory as in 1991 memory usage was not 300-500 MB just for a silly webbrowser.

And your argument that memory is cheap is true for DDR3, but if you've got a bit older machine like I have that's perefctly fine for everything I use it, using DDR2, it's a lot more expensive.

Memory use of applications and Xorg too is just insane these days. Even Xemacs that I often use, I've got one editing a html file and it uses 32 MB (and that's a low value, it's often 100MB). Why? What the hell does it all load and do compared to the mid-late 1990s where you could use it without hogging all RAM on a 32MB machine?

Always the arguments by people like you is 'memory is cheap', but it's not really. Not needing new memory is cheaper than new memory. Not needing to waste time on 'why the hell is my memory not enough any more' is better than wasting time on it. Sometimes you even need to upgrade your PC to get affordable new memory. That's the case esp. for a slightly older PC of my niece. Your argument is also the reason why developers don't seem to give a shit about memory footprint, whatever they claim. 300MB for browsing some webpages? Absolutely ludicrous. Thunderbird seems to have a complete built in webbrowser in it to display HTML stuff. Nuke all that crap and let it do emails! Then it wouldn't need 200-300MB.

It's a vicious circle of upgrades that are not really necessary as quickly as they would be if applications didn't load so much useless crap and do so much useless crap.

Re:Get over it already (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236239)

If your computer takes DDR3 RAM, it is cheap. Then again, some of us have older systems. My PC desktop is on DDR2 (4GB) but it's still a 6 core AMD Phenom II.

I don't agree with the premise that Firefox 3.6 uses less RAM and is more stable. I've had better luck with Firefox 8, 9 and 10 on that front. It's also much faster executing JavaScript. In fact, 3.6 is the worst version to date to try to get to compile. It's very picky about shared library versions and don't even both to build it without HTML5 features enabled.

The only complaint on newer Firefox releases is the ridiculous major version numbers for no reason. My employer won't update to a major release but once a year and we just moved to firefox 9. No security updates for a year. It sucks. Too much work to re-certify all our internal web apps on a newer release.

Google Chrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235993)

People like Asa Dotzler and the failure of the plugin-container to contain Flash from causing even kernel panics made the move to Google Chrome (or Chromium) a no brainer.

It is just a browser - not a believe system.

If Mozilla shows trash like Asa Dotzler the door and marketing stops writing the code I will switch again.

"Betrayal" is the privilege of the end user.

Re:Google Chrome (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235999)

...the failure of the plugin-container to contain Flash from causing even kernel panics...

If Flash is causing kernel panics, it's an issue with your kernel. Nothing in userspace should be able to cause a kernel panic, and it's unreasonable to expect anything running in userspace to fix a kernel panic.

Re:Google Chrome (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236285)

More likely a video driver issue. That has been stated over the years as one of the many issues with Flash. While I'd agree the driver should not fail, Nvidia just isn't listening.

Re:Google Chrome (0)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236031)

People like Asa Dotzler and the failure of the plugin-container to contain Flash from causing even kernel panics made the move to Google Chrome (or Chromium) a no brainer.

It is just a browser - not a believe system.

The problem is Asa Dotzler has said that Firefox is not a browser -- it's a "platform". In other words, they plan to shovel even more pointless bullshit into Firefox.

Firefox is a fucking browser. It was feature complete at version 2.0. Since then, the only thing they should have been concerned with is (a) fix bugs (b) fix security flaws (c) improve page rendering speed (javascript, etc) (d) add support for HTML 5.

Re:Google Chrome (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236119)

Blaming Mozilla / Asa for flash is one heck of a stretch.

Re:Google Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236137)

GP did not make any connection between Asa and Flash.

Why don't you go and suck the tears from Asa's cock, then?

Shit... fanboys are everywhere.

Re:Google Chrome (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236265)

I couldn't get Chrome to compile.

I don't see a reason to stay on 3.6. (4, Insightful)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 2 years ago | (#39235997)

Memory management has improved somewhat in their later releases and I believe Mozilla has changed the plugin system to be compatible with their new release cycle. Additionally, the JavaScript engine is so much faster in later releases and HTML5 support has improved a lot as well.

Let it die.

(Then again, I became a Chrome user recently and haven't looked back. Their plugin and web app support is fantastic and built-in Firebug capabilities are great. Really love how well it synchronises with Google services and their Android version is looking very promising.

Re:I don't see a reason to stay on 3.6. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236081)

What I like about Chrome is how its profligate waste of my system resources makes Firefox seem like the model of efficiency.

The UI is a huge reason not to upgrade. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236213)

The benefits you mention are immediately negated by the horrible UI that Firefox has had starting with version 4.

They threw out decades of experience, knowledge and convention, for absolutely no gains whatsoever.

Getting rid of the menu bar by default was just plain stupid. Then they followed it up with the status bar bullshit. These are among the worst UI design decisions ever made in an application that's so widely used. They both harmed usability significantly, with no benefits. The 20 extra pixels at the top and bottom of the screen, when most users (even laptop and netbook users) have over a thousand vertical pixels to work with, are not worth the loss in usability.

There have been many other stupid and unnecessary changes recently. What was one an effective browser to use is now a mess. Any performance improvements in the past few releases have been completely negated by these UI screw-ups.

It does us no good if pages now load a half-second sooner due to performance improvements to the JavaScript engine, if simple actions that were easily accessible via the traditional menus now take us 30 seconds or more to figure out how to do, if we can even do them at all, since the UI changes have been put in place.

Really? (5, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236001)

Making your life "much more complicated"? It's an outdated web browser. Update to something modern and move on with your life.

Fucking fusspot nerds (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236007)

If you want to browse the current web, use a current browser. You may *want* to use an older browser, but clearly it's not working out for you. I may *want* to spread butter with a screwdriver, but I'd be better of using a tool appropriate for the job.

I'm sure you're feeling indignant about being "forced" to upgrade, and I'm sure you think your reasons for wanting to hang onto an old piece of software are valid. Nobody else cares. Either fix it for yourself or move on.

Re:Fucking fusspot nerds (3, Funny)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236113)

Oh come off it mate.

We all know what you REALLY want to do with that buttery screwdriver.

You nasty bastard.

Addons blah blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236009)

I just wish my addons would work then I would upgrade. Without my addons, I may as well use any other browser. You have the typical AdBlock Plus, NoScript and Cookie Managers which have alternatives but things like X-Forwarded-For Spoofer (Gaining access to idiotic region restricted US-only websites), FireBug, Certificate Patrol and other various utilities have non-trivial alternatives when using other browsers.

Firefox 3.6 has lower RAM usage? (5, Insightful)

Fancia (710007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236017)

3.6.x has been known for generally being more stable and using less RAM than the modern Firefox 10...

I actually don't agree with your premise. While Firefox had some issues around version 4, Firefox 10 is actually faster and more stable than Firefox 3.6 was, and RAM usage is on a downward trend. I understand that Firefox ~4 turned you off because I was really irritated by the regressions that came around that time, but things *did* get better. If you give it another try and make sure you give it a fair shake without already having decided it's worse, I think you'll find it's actually an improvement over what you're using right now. It's not like Firefox 3.6 was a speed demon in its day either... Firefox's memory hog problems go back way further than that.

Re:Firefox 3.6 has lower RAM usage? (2)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236193)

Cancelling some moderation here, but I finally went for 10 from 3.6 once the ESR was available. It's not been a nightmare, but certainly no picnic. Windows 7 now frequently suggests I close FF to free memory, whereas it never did before. I also get lots of slow script warnings I did not have before. The only pro I've found is that 10 is better at restoring eozens of tabs, as it does not try to load them all at once.

Upgrading. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236039)

Upgrading.

My friend, we have just the thing. (5, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236041)

You want SeaMonkey [seamonkey-project.org] . Modern Gecko, archaic memory management model. Required system specs page says 128 MB of RAM and 233 MHz Pentium. It even sits in your system tray if you ask nicely enough. Not exactly pretty by modern standards, but I gather that's not your highest priority.

wow, really? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236045)

using less RAM than the modern Firefox 10 and even Chrome

Firefox is currently using 500MB on my laptop, I assume most of it from caching. Are you really that desperate? Send me a pm, and I'll give you a gig of RAM free, which I have laying around after my last upgrade. Or buy it here yourself for $32 [newegg.com] .

Re:wow, really? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236153)

using less RAM than the modern Firefox 10 and even Chrome

Firefox is currently using 500MB on my laptop, I assume most of it from caching. Are you really that desperate? Send me a pm, and I'll give you a gig of RAM free, which I have laying around after my last upgrade. Or buy it here yourself for $32 [newegg.com] .

Sure. Throw in more memory. Why the hell not. After all, 500MB seems perfectly reasonable for a web browser, right? Hell, Adobe Reader certainly justified any upgrade from version 5.x because everyone knows a 100MB+ bloatware installer is necessary for....reading PDFs.

Sorry, I guess I'm as irritated as the next guy for watching my hardware upgrade cycle be dictated by bloatware running on a ridiculous upgrade cycle, especially where value-add is pretty damn hard to find.

Re:wow, really? (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236183)

Many algorithms can make a tradeoff between memory and higher speed. If the RAM is cheap, why not make that tradeoff?

(Acrobat reader here of course exempted, because it reaches the remarkable achievement of managing to go slower AND using more RAM.).

The memory bugs are being fixed (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236049)

http://blog.mozilla.com/nnethercote/category/memshrink/ [mozilla.com]

Start there. They are working thru the memory issues. They have a pretty good idea where they are at (and how to fix them). They just figured out a huge one with a common plugin (mcafee) that they do not control.

They are also building in metrics to help people find the bugs instead of 'in task manager it is using 1.5 gig' (about:memory).

All in all I have been pretty happy with the 4-10 series. The only thing that pissed me off was the movement of controls. "learn yet another layout..." sort of thing.

Most of the speed increase for this last version came from the memshrink project (it was a decent one too).

If you are seeing crazy memory metrics they have steps they would like you to help them with to get it fixed...

Less ram usage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236051)

On modern systems consumer systems which have 4/8/12/16 gigabytes?

Tell me you're using some really old hardware and then your complaint might be justified.

Seriously, Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236063)

Do we just give any nagging luddite wanker a soap box now? Maybe I should write a submission about how my ball-maneuvered mouse is finally dying, and ask how people avoid those optical mice these days? They use more electricity, you know!

why are you using and old browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236065)

If your computer is crashing or running of memory using the latest browser, you need a new computer. You're a geek, you're supposed to be using beta versions, and contributing to development of new software and standards.

Luddite refuses to upgrade. News at 11. (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236083)

Unless you're being forced to run obsolete software by some perverse corporate mandate, you have no excuse nor valid reason for running such outdated software. You are the smoking clunker on the highway of the internet. You are the grey haired granny in the fast lane of the web. The road hazard. The surfing security hole.

Are you getting it?

You are the security risk.

Re:Luddite refuses to upgrade. News at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236209)

You are the security risk.

Maybe he isn't using WIndows?

Re:Luddite refuses to upgrade. News at 11. (2)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236237)

How often should people be required to upgrade? Keep in mind that upgrading does break things very often, and Firefox is among the leaders of breakage. Upgrading takes time. And with something like Firefox, that's a very critical point to be broken, because you may not be able to access anything until the glitches and other bugs are worked around (which is often slow when answers are not forthcoming on the forums where asked). My last Firefox upgrade took 2 weeks to get it working right.

And of course you will see a lot MORE straggling this year because of Ubuntu's switch to Unity, and people holding back in versions 10.04 or 10.10 to "wait and see" what happens. At least I'm going to try Xubuntu 12.04 on a separate machine and see how well it works. If it works OK and I can get Compiz running under Xfce this time, and the Firefox version on it can be made to work in multi-instances OK, then in about 2 months after that I'll switch my main desktop over to that, and then be on whatever that version of Firefox is.

I now wonder if the question I started this post with will even be answered.

Re:Luddite refuses to upgrade. News at 11. (1, Informative)

Tofof (199751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236263)

3.6.x is not obsolete. The most recent security update for it was just two weeks ago - v.3.6.27, released February 17th, 2012.

I hope you're simply misinformed. It's not like Mozilla stopped pushing security fixes for it - in fact, that's what is motivating the submitter to ask this question, so that he avoids the very situation you so hyperbolically described.

Make your own fork (3, Informative)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236085)

I'll skip the obvious question about why you don't like new Firefox or other browsers and try another tact.

Since this is all open source software, why don't you find like minded people and make a new fork based on Firefox 3.6? If you want to go older than Firefox 3.6, you can always use K-Meleon. [sourceforge.net]

I feel the same way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236109)

I read this article, and went, "WTF?" Why would you use Firefox 3.6? For a finer browser, I recommend NCSA Mosaic—it uses even *less* RAM than Firefox 3.6! OP, you would probably like it very much. Mosaic was from the start a good, reliable, lightweight browser, without any of that CSS garbage and JavaScript crap! It's such a shame nobody supports it anymore, although that hasn't stopped me from using it daily on Windows 3.1! Why can't everybody just stick with what we already knew was the best in 1993? Stop succumbing to needless upgrades that do nothing but demand such ridiculous minimum system requirements such as 2 GHz processors and broadband internet connections! Planned obsolescence, I tell you! Nothing more!

Dammit, the Slashdot comment CAPTCHA doesn't work in Mosaic! I'd better just ask the kids to lend me one of their new-fangled Eye-Phones so I can share my intelligent, thought-provoking views over the internet super-highway.

Re:I feel the same way (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236253)

I was using FireBird 0.8 until recently. FireFox 3.6 is a lot slower. I'd go back if it wasn't for the case that I can't find a 64-bit version.

It's like currency redonomination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236111)

The New Penny is equal to the old 20 Shilling piece, or whatever. Similarly, Firefox... what are we on now... 10.1? Firefox 10.1 is basically Firefox 3.8.01 in the old number system. They just did the same basic thing Netscape 6 did, when they just skipped release version 5, to keep up with Internet Explorer's Jones'.

It's not worth loosing sleep over.

Two Choices (3, Informative)

kwalker (1383) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236123)

You have essentially two choices: stay on 3.6 after EOL and deal with it, or upgrade.

Staying on 3.6 (Which I have to do one one machine because it's a G4 Mac and already has no support) is an option, but eventually, depending on what kind of websites you frequent, you may get pwn3d. But if you restrict yourself to known-good websites, and use extensions like AdBlock, FlashBlock, and possibly GreaseMonkey, you can probably coast along for years.

Upgrading to a new browser (Especially on Linux) is also not a terrible idea. Firefox 10 is actually pretty good about RAM use (Better than Chrome 17, for my uses), and you can set the interface to match Firefox 3.6 so you don't have to re-train yourself to the new look and feel. It's even a bit more snappy than Firefox 3.6, and it does have some nice features for web-centric users (Like pinned apps, and Firefox sync).

I understand the "I'm staying here" feeling, but unless you're willing to make some serious compromises, you're on your own.

Same thing I have been doing for the past 18 month (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236135)

Chrome for facebook, Opera for general browsing, and Firefox 3.6 (with all but the most necessary plugins disabled, and the .net shenanigan addon completely removed) for things that must be Firefox. IE for corporate intranet sites that require it.

FUD (2)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236139)

give up the F.U.D. and enjoy the FUN!

If you can't stand the constant updates you can always get the ESR (extended support release) [mozilla.org] . If you have javascript enabled then upgrading is absolutely worth it. Firefox 10 also has add-ons set to compatible by default so your add-ons should work unless the developer has opted out, or the add-on uses binary components. Memory usage has also improved leaps and bounds since 4.0 - I dare say it is better then 3.6 since I can now leave it running overnight with no adverse effects when I go back to it

Re:FUD (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236177)

oh yea, with a little configuration and the status-4-evar [mozilla.org] add-on you can make it look and act just like the old firefox

3.x? What about 2.x? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236147)

I never used 3.x. Or rather, I used it, then switched to Chrome until 4.x came out (there's a nasty bug that makes the browser stop rendering while updating Live Bookmarks - and I had nearly 150 of those, meaning once an hour or so, it would freeze up for about five minutes).

I did, however, keep a copy of 2.x installed on my then-secondary backup desktop (later became my tertiary backup desktop), because it has the lowest RAM and CPU usage, and said redundant desktop is almost a decade old. A 900mHz Athlon and 384MB of RAM is not quite sufficient to run FF4+. I'm not worried about security (384mb of RAM might technically be enough for Windows, but I'm not stupid enough to find out), and

However, I have no complaints about the current releases of Firefox on reasonably-modern machines. Well, the scrolling in bookmark folders is kind of wonky on OS X, but that's about it.

My advice to you is therefore dependent on how good your machine is. If it is at all modern (64-bit capable is probably a good rule of thumb), and above the power range of an Atom, I would advise you to upgrade to current and suck it up, or possibly convert to Chrome. If, however, you are sticking with it because you're running it on ancient crap, just deal with it being "unsupported". Or, hey, it's open-source, just backport the security patches yourself.

i gave up round 8 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236155)

no longer use firefox...and i was a host that helped get the original communicator out....TOTAL CRAP NOW every browser.
last real decent one was netscape 3 gold.

Hardcore user (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236161)

I am a hard-core user of Firefox 3.6.x

Dear Slashdot,

I am a hardcore Windows 98 user and I don't accept the fact that my outdated software makes me a security risk. What do I do?

Sincerely,
A fucking dummy

Is this submission a joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236203)

Firefox 4 was released less than a year ago [slashdot.org] . What websites are suddenly incompatible with Firefox 3.6? The browser hasn't changed that much in a year.

Make Firefox 10 like 3.6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39236219)

Here you go [kaply.com] , now you'll be able to start using all the proper diagnosis tools [mozilla.org] like about:memory?verbose
Don't forget to follow the Memshrink [mozilla.com] and Snappy [mozilla.com] progress.

I would've liked Chrome... (1)

frooddude (148993) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236243)

If it weren't for it's complete inability to deal with Roaming Profiles and magically ignoring the fact that it's pinned to my task bar.

So I switched back to Firefox and w/ v10 it's not too shabby. I miss the multi-threading of Chrome, sometimes it'd be nice to go to another tab while waiting for the 'script is eating your CPU' dialog to come up. It's nice to have search actuated by / again, although I didn't miss it quite enough to hunt down a solution for Chrome. I also think the bookmark tools are a little better in Firefox.

Get the Source Code . . . (2)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236251)

. . . and upgrade it any way you like. That's what all /.rs do, right?

Fork it! (1)

drwho (4190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236273)

One of the most important aspects of the 'Open Source' movement is that projects only die by neglect. No person, committee, or corporation can kill a project by mere decree once source code has been made Open Source. So, if there are enough people who want to stay with Mozilla 3.6, they should band together, and fork it. Yes, with a lack of technical competence and knowledge of this specific code, this may be difficult. But, perhaps those who do not have the skills or time to keep the code up-to-date as far as critical things like security patches, could HIRE some programmers with the skill do do the work. Yes, imagine PAYING for software? Some people seem to forget that programmers have bills to pay, too. So, MOZ36-fans, form a forum, raise money on kickstarter, find some programmers, and PAY them. Or bake them cookies. Something.

Get the extended release version (5, Informative)

Eric Coleman (833730) | more than 2 years ago | (#39236283)

I'm in the same boat, I just (two weeks ago) switched from 3.6 to 10. I still have 3.6 installed just in case, but so far I'm adjusting.

In order to have some stability though, try the ESR version, it's what I'm using. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html [mozilla.org] And if you want to read the FAQ, go with http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/ [mozilla.org]

So far, there are a few hiccups. There were a few add-ons that didn't make the switch, but they were rarely used, so I haven't noticed their absence yet. The tab size is annoying and I haven't figured out how to fix that yet. The old about:config fix doesn't work, and the userchrome.css fix just screws things up more.

I did need to readjust the default layout, the lack of a refresh and stop button is just annoying, but they're easy to add back. I like having a user interface, so yeah, that.

Noscript and Adblock plus work. I recommend the "status-4-evar" addon to get the status bar back.

Overall, I haven't noticed the slowdown or memory consumption. Of course, everyone's mileage will vary.

One new feature, at least new for me, is that you have FF restore all your tabs after you close your browser, but when you start back up, the tabs won't load unless you click on them. I really like this feature. Back in 3.6, it could take a really long time to restore a browsing session.

Overall though, the shock of switching isn't as bad as you think.

I think I should probably end this post with instructions on doing a side-by-side install. Before installing anything, make a copy of your firefox profile. Then edit the 'profiles.ini' to reflect this, it's up a folder or two from the profiles. In the profiles.ini, make a new name, something like myff10stuff for your profile. Then, get the ESR build and install to a different folder, but do not start FF at the end of the install. Edit the existing FF shortcut or make your own, but put -P on the end. it should read something like
"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox 10\firefox.exe" -P myff10stuff
All that is because the profile manager doesn't let you copy an existing profile. You can delete, rename, or create a new one, but you can't copy. You'll probably want to do the same thing to the 3.6 copy and use the 3.6 profile.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>