Mozilla has released version 10 of its Firefox browser as part of its accelerated six-week build cycle, and has also included a pack of developer tools aimed at simplifying life for website operators. Firefox 10, available for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android, includes eight security fixes, but the most noticeable change in …
Chrome might be on version hundred and something by now, but you're still stuck with the same crappy interface of the very first version. While what is under-the-hood is certainly important, nobody would want to drive the latest Audi or Merc if they still came with a manual choke, 8 track and handles to wind the windows up and down.
And the apps in FF have far better integration; maybe it's a blessing and a curse, but I like the fact that if there is anything slightly annoying about any aspect of it, someone will have produced an app that deals with it.
I think Chrome looks *far* better than Firefox, there's something about that default font in firefox that I'm not keen on.
Well change it then!
@druck you could say the same to the OP complaining about Chrome.
The thing is I happen to like the uncluttered GUI in Chrome (and of course Opera) when compared with FF. The reason I do is again to do with intrusion, a web browser is a tool and I want to see the web page, not other stuff.
If it ain't broke...
"but you're still stuck with the same crappy interface of the very first version"
The Chrome interface is great and devoid of clutter. Why change it if it works?
Okay you may not like it, but then you have that nice bloated Firefox thingy to use... assuming you're happy waiting for it to update nearly every time you open it that is ;)
Bury it already
It's about time to bury what was once a lean, fast and secure browser.
Then it became that obese pile of rubbish which is bloated, slow and doesn't just seem to get any better any more.
Try to do more than just light surfing and shutting down the computer after an hour and you'll get to see and feel the surplus of fat it has built up over the years: it lags like hell, eats up your RAM like there's no tomorrow and in 2012 it is still possible to crash the whole browser from a single tab.
I, for one, am fed up with Firefox after using it since the 1.x days and am not going back. Google being evil and all that, at least they're able to build a browser that doesn't make me want to throw my laptop against a brick-wall every other day...
Finally, my Firefox memory problems are solved...
I've been really fed up with the constant demands for greater memory that Firefox has. So finally I've solved it; installed 16Gb of RAM in the laptop. Lightweight my arse.
...upgraded last night and now some of the stuff I work on is rendered all over the palce. Strangely, Chrome, ie9 and Opera all render correctly.
Which probably points to updates being fired out too fast for the testers to keep up.
Switched to Chrome
Tried Chrome on the Mac a year or so ago and wasn't impressed. About a month ago I got so annoyed with Firefox grinding my computer to a halt that I gave Chrome another go. It's improved in the interim as FF has gone backwards. I imagine I'll stay with Chrome until it starts to annoy me and the whole cycle starts again.
At least we have choice in our browsers. Interesting that Safari's not mentioned:-)
Your point being?
If Microsoft had their way there'd be one browser. Thankfully we have choice of several which are far better for the competition.
I, like you Grease Monkey, am fed up with Firefox's shenanigans. The problem with having only one version is there's nothing to differentiate a "real" update (that's a Major one in old money) with a "pseudo" update (wot we called a minor upgrade last year).
As a developer I'm particularly pissed off -- that's way more than mildly miffed -- at the constant issues with the addins. I absolutely have to have certain addins working; without them there's no point in using Firefox. Therefore I need to differentiate between a viable upgrade and, well, bollocks.
I particularly hate being used as some marketing gimp by Mozilla.
For me, there's no other browser which comes anywhere near Firefox for web development. I couldn't imagine what work would be like without Firebug, the Web Developer Toolbar, Life of Request, and the minor tools (which to be honest are available on Chrome) such as Measure It and Colorzilla. I morn for the excellent HTML Tidy which got hammered in one of the architectural changes.
If Firebug and the full Web Dev Toolbar were available on another browser (and not that MS shite which is Windwos VII only), I'd be out of here like a shot.
Gimp icon as I know my place.
...do I need "Page Inspector" when I have "FireBug"? "Page Inspector" just adds bloat for those who do not need it, those who do can seek out the likes of "FireBug" easily enough.
Stop reinventing the wheel, Mozilla and release proper enterprise support ASAP.
ps "FireBug" is freaking awesome!
Because Opera and Chrome and even IE9 have it, that's why!
Joe Schmoe does not need it and getting "FireBug" is but moments and one is very likely to install a slew of add-ons anyway.
Bloat is bloat - it's not needed by default.
@The Big Yin
"Bloat", of course, being something *you* don't want and therefore pretty meaningless as a criticism, easy as it is to trot out. Why not build your own from the source, then? You could even try to sound cool by calling it "lean and mean" - that wouldn't be cringe inducing ...
Ah, I see. Because I am not a 1337 h4x0r with time on my hands to roll a fork of Firefox I am not permitted an opinion? Nice.
My point was that for those who need it, FireBug works great and is simple to add.
Their "Page Inspector" is just one more thing to occupy resources, maintain and (potentially) be exploited.
But, you know, that's just my opinion. That thing that I'm not allowed to have.
You're allowed an opinion and people are allowed to disagree.
I'm one of the ones who disagrees. It's a (rare) good move on the part of Mozilla. It's something that other browsers have. You know them they're the ones that aren't hopelessly bloated. Coding something into the product should always be less bloaty and more secure than bunging it on top as a plugin.
I find Firefox starts about as slowly as Opera, but Opera is also my mail client so it should always be slower than just a plain browser. Chrome, however is much faster. Running the three of them Chrome and Opera are Faster than FF, IME. However I do hear a lot of people moaning about how slow FF is and I usually find I can solve their problems by switching off a plugin or two.
FF users seem to feel that their favourite browser needs a lot of plugins. They'll always tell you that FF with this, that and the other plugin is the best browser. It seems to me that they seem to be missing the point that FF isn't the best browser if it needs those plugins to be the best.
Chrome users don't seem to feel the need to extend their browser. And while Opera users certainly have the facility to extend their browser they don't tend to use it beyond maybe Adblock.
You realise I was being sarcastic when I said FF had it because other browsers do (although that's the reason). Firebug is effectively an official plugin, so why duplicate it with an inferior built-in version?
If Chrome set fire to it's users formatted their hard disks would Mozilla add that to Firefox? (Yes)
@Not That Andrew
Sorry, didn't get your sarcasm.
I tried to use the dev tools in IE the other week...oh dear god...the pain!
And I'll partly disagree with you too - even though Opera is my main browser too.
I still use Firefox for the few sites that just won't support Opera and I find it bloated, and that's with hardly any extensions. Firefox was my main browser for quite a while, in fact I used it from the Phoenix days until FF3 'broke' the URL bar, which is when I made the switch back to Opera.
The early versions of Firefox were indeed rather minimal and extensions were indeed required to get decent functionalities - but it remained a fast and efficient browser - esp. if you were careful to only install what you needed. (I know, most people didn't.)
There are indeed more built-in functionalities now - but nowhere near as many as Opera (I don't know about Chrome, I don't want Google doing sneaky stuff on my PC...), yet they've managed to make it slower and heavier on resources than Opera.
I like both approaches: that of the very fast minimal browser that you can customize with extensions to fit your needs, and that of the full-featured browser where I will accept a slight dip in performance if it means convenience. However nowadays Firefox misses the mark on both counts, it's not there in terms of features, and it's not fast either.
You seem to favour the full-featured approach - but we already use Opera for that! I'd rather FF went back to its original minimalistic concept.
Still crashes almost every time I log out of Gmail. I've been a loyal Mozilla fan for a long time, but I'm starting to get fed up, especially when nothing seems to happen to the crash reports I've been logging for 8 months or so.
Me! Me! Me! Me! Me!
Maybe you're the only one with that problem.
Maybe they couldn't replicate it.
Maybe they've got 100 more important issues causing grief for 1,000s of people.
Maybe, just maybe, the World doesn't revolve around you and your problems.
We need a STFU icon.
I'm sorry but in this case the world *should* revolve around the user.
If users get annoyed, they won't use the program, the program will not bring in any money, the program will die.
They changed it, they should sort it out. End of.
Whats the point of having the "bestest app eva" if nobody uses it?
Maybe, just maybe you should get off your little eggbox and STFU? :P
"Maybe, just maybe..."
You assume an awful lot about the OP. Maybe, just maybe, you could stop assuming in a maybe kinda way. Well, maybe.
I hope you are not an ISV or similar - but you may be, maybe. Telling a userbase to STFU? Maybe, just maybe, that's not very intelligent, but it maybe sounds OK to you. Maybe.
"We need a STFU icon."
Sure do. Guess who I'd use it on?
log out problems
What do you expect - you're not supposed to log out ... come on, who do you think you are? You're just a consumer feeding the machine.
Two Digit Browser
And that's why Opera will forever be Opera 9.80, Mozilla should have followed Opera's lead (again)
Ummm ... you know the latest Opera build is 11.61 right?
Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.1; U; Edition Next; en) Presto/2.10.238 Version/12.00
Erm. Help > About
System Windows XP
Patrick O'Reilly and Barry Shitpeas are talking about the user agent string string you numpties!
If you look carefully at Barry's, he's actually running the Alpha of Opera 12.
Opera has reported its user agent as 9.80 since Opera 10 as some badly designed sites throw a tantrum if there are 2 digits before the point in the user agent string.
The only new (read annoying) feature that I can immediately see is they have split the taskbar icon. So now there are two. The pinned icon and the running one. I liked having one icon with pages stacked. And for this we get a new version number? All the fools are doing is to annoy their users. I predict a turnaround soon as they lose market share to rivals. Please grow up Mozilla and stop trying to be Chrome.
Not a feature
That's something wrong with your task bar, unpin the one you've pinned to the task bar and pin the running one and you'll be good.
Thanks, it worked. Funny it worked on all versions before this one so they must have 'improved' something.
I fail to understand why Firefox needs to duplicate, in core, the features that are and have always been historically provided by (the infinitely superior) Firebug - but it may be motivated by the fact that Chrome, Safari and IE all now have their own internal developer tools.
I don't get the version logic here
Okay, it may be easy peazy lemon sqeezey to go up in solid numbers, but traditionally in most people's minds that a new version is a new revision of the whole package in a stable release. Or am I wrong?
Is it Mozilla have called the shots and not bothered to defend their reasons? A 6 week time scale doesn't give you long to test a very sensitive product that has to cope with a lot of standards (especially in the world of Web 2.0 going into Web 3.0). It worries the common person more than the geeky person. Mozilla's territory are people who were fed up with IE7/8 becoming hijacked by viruses/malware/spyware every month. Mozilla can't win on the corporate ground as IE is probably first choice (based on deployment/config) and Google Chrome is the google-fanboi's choice based on the fact it's established a reputation on its branding of Youtube, Gmail etc and the Google Chrome OS.
IMHO it should be like this...
x.00 = Major release for multiple features or revised packaged based on a new GUI etc.
1.x0 = Minor release for a singluar created/revised feature or major security flaw patched.
1.0x = Bug fix release.
The latter of the two should be silent updates to give off the impression that there's no need to panic on revising the product AGAIN!
Seriously Mozilla, have a beer on me and get your coders thinking straight again. It's not practical for the consumer user in a very security concerned public domain as encryption and major flaws are being reported left, right and centre in this day of age.
I'm out of the corporate world now, but the policy we always followed is that no software or new version of software could be deployed without full testing. With browsers that meant that they had to be tested with all the common apps they would be used with. Since more and more internal apps were web interfaces that meant more and more testing. As such the current Firefox release schedule meant that users ended up grounded at V4.
You could slip a minor version upgrade past with much less work and a bug/security fix with even less. Now I don't suppose for a minute my former employer was alone in having this policy. As such I suspect that many corporates will abandon Firefox.
And yes before the FF Fanbois jump on me, my employer had the same policy on Chrome. Nor would they allow the use of any of those Google products that seem to remain permanently in beta.
I'm sure Mozilla and Google might argue that their version numbers do not follow the accepted practice of x.00, 0.x0 and 0.0x that you describe, but the corporates would surely respond that they are not going to rewrite their entire software acceptance policy around the peculiarities of a couple of web browsers.
Mozilla, it's less than a year since you suddenly stepped outside accepted practice with your version control. Please step back again. You don't have to copy Google. I suspect that Google will be number 1 browser before too long because they appeal to the man in the street with their simplicity. I believe you have lost that battle already and will never win it back. As such you should maybe try to concentrate on consolidating your user base and producing a quality browser rather than chasing user numbers.
I may be on my own here, but...
I'm glad Firefox is updated so frequently. The updates are generally security fixes and, unlike IE updates, don't need you to reboot the entire machine. Who cares what version number you're on at the moment really, so long as it is the latest, most supported, and most secure? I've also never had a problem with my add-ons and if one suddenly stops working as the developers haven't pulled their finger out and tested it on the betas and auroras of the product they always seem to rectify this within a few hours, days at the most.
I'm running the nightly build of Firefox (just checked: 12.0a1 (2012-01-31) apparently) and it works like a dream, it does what I want, and I can customize it if I wish to. I tried Chrome and although it was fast I hated the interface and found lots of things that irritated me, but Firefox just works the way I want, and if they change things I know it is pretty simple for me to make my own alterations to tweak it back.
We produce our own software, we have just certified our latest release against FF9. Now FF10 is out, I can't redo all our certification. How are we supposed to keep up? How are corporates supposed to keep up?
Stop incrementing the major version number as it causes us and our customers an application certification nightmare!
I feel for you, but surely you knew this was going to happen with Mozilla's current policy? The solution surely is to not support Firefox?
inb4 'don't call me Shirley'
"The solution surely is to not support Firefox?"
That, Shirley, is exactly the correct solution. And it's the one that Mozilla should be worrying about.
I really feel for you...
Last August I'd gone to the trouble of installing the latest version of Firefox across our school and locking it down (I think it was version 5? jeez, and we're on 10 now!?).
Anyway, we made it as far as September whereby a NEW version was 'excreted', and guess what? All my lockdowns no longer worked! So, with all the chaos that usually ensues after a summer break, the net result was everyone having to put up with the older version until I could bring myself to find out what they'd f*cking changed... again.
(Not that the staff noticed any of this... @_@)
So, cheers Moz; seriously considering a Chrome rollout this coming August.
Do the developer tools do anything firebug doesn't?
And another one
I'm also getting royally sick of all these new version numbers. Firefox 10 now? It's getting ridiculous. I know Google do the same, but that doesn't make it right.
Please Mozilla: Stop this insanity. Try going for a new version number when you've actually added a few noticeable features. As it stands, I can hardly tell the difference between Firefox 4 and Firefox 10!
Anyone with crashing or performance issues bother to try in safe-mode and see if the problem is crappy extensions or old crud in the profile, rather than the browser?
Desktop = Great . Mobile = Needs work...
I must be in the minority here as for the last 5 years I've had no issues with Firefox and even memory consumption is better than Chrome's. It's also as fast as I want it to be - I cannot notice a difference to Chrome (unless my reflexes are just slow....)
The real issue for Mozilla is the desktop version. I've been using the latest Nightlies, which are now using the Native UI on Android and they are really, really slow...but improving.
Having said that it's the only browser on Android which gives you as close a desktop experience on mobile, i.e. in terms of pages looking exactly as they do on desktop. The others, i.e. stock, Opera struggle with complex pages and do not draw elements correctly.