Mozilla updates to Firefox 8, disables add-ons Mozilla has released the new build of its Firefox browser and, as promised, it’s cracking down on third-party add-ons. The new build, which comes six weeks after Firefox 7, will switch off third-party add-ons by default and display a start screen after loading to ask users to enable or disable the features they want. The move …
I was amazed how many plugins had installed themselves last time I checked - so that will be good - if I have to sanity check at each upgrade thats fine by me. Last version on Windows 7 crashes all the time, 250Mb of memory for firefox and 400Mb for plugin container last time it hung. Flash crashes all the time (Jobs was right it is a memory/cpu hog and buggy).
Hopefully this version will be better otherwise I'm switching to another browser.
Come on Mozilla... Pull your finger out. 64 bit is here and it's real. We've got Flash, and everything else I need. There is a real performance benefit (at least on my setup) but still, I'm forced to use a Nightly build. There's nothing particularly wrong with Nightly, but it's not an official build.
Really, with this new faster release cycle, I was hoping for a 64 bit Windows release by now.
I'd love to return to FF - in fact, I still use it for web dev purposes.
Whilst Chrome is fast, it's not without it's own share of problems.
All I can say, is that it's a good job tabs are 'sandboxed', as the number of times I get an 'oh snap' message (which ceased to be amusing after the second time), I've lost count.
Also, the chrome settings interface is irritating - and then there's the whole idea of Google capturing whatever data they wish.
FF has become a memory hog - there's no denying it - but perhaps, with tighter control over add-ons, they can gain some ground back ... I'll take it for a spin in a demanding dev environment to see how it stacks up.
How is a 6 week release cycle gonna kill Chrome? Why is FF trying to outdo Chrome? I am a FF user, but I find this numbering daft. I used to look forward to whole number releases. What's new, what's shiny in the box. Not anymore.
Does it matter? No, not really. Same old, same old. Unless you have broken add-ons or unless you are trying to de-Internet Explorer a company away from MS. As a regular user, I see no big pain or gain, but find the whole thing rather childish.
You'd expect that kinda BS numbering scheme from one of the dumber corporations' marketers a while back. Not from open source.
How about memory trimming instead?
You'll notice that Google don't even make an issue of the version number of Chrome. You have to dig to find the version number even in the browser or on the Chrome website. As such I can only assume Mozilla are calling every slightest update a major version upgrade for the media coverage.
I know the FF fanbois are frantically defending this policy, but it seems to me that they are missing the point big time. What Google have realised is that only proper geeks give a damn about version numbers and the like, what they want is a browser that just works. Just like their TV or whatever. They don't want a bewildering choice of features, plugins and options. Just a plain vanilla browser that does what it says on the tin.
These days the ordinary Joes outnumber the fanbois which is why Chrome is rapidly overtaking other browsers.
It seems to me that there's some confusion over the disabling of third party addons. As I read it only addons that are enabled by other software are disabled by default (i.e. the accursed Yahoo toolbar that is bundled everywhere). The addons you enable yourself (adblock etc.) are unaffected. Or am I wrong on that?
Posting hre because I'm too lazyto sign up for engadget comments, but this is a much better report than what i read there. When i first read it all it mentioned was twitter support, and 'a new way to manage addons' - not the fact that it blocks third party add-ons, etc.
And the Twitter support is only via the search box, which I have disabled/hidden anyway. At first I thought it was going to be some big ugly Twitter logo somewhere, but no, it's in a feature I never use, plus the actual decent updates, I am going t oupdate right now. Fuck all ya'll haters that don't look into iot further and just post comments along the lines of 'twitter in my firefox? ghey'
Typos = beer.
I got a dialogue box where I had to check the add ons I wanted to enable, I liked that, that's fine. I didn't really look at anything else but I really don't want Twitter support. The browser already has enough Twitter support as it can navigate to the Twitter website... that works fine.
If they could just concentrate on making the browser faster, lighter, improving support for future version of html and css, I would be perfectly happy. I'm currently using Chrome as my main browser, but see no need to pledge allegiance to and be tied to one browser, so I use FF occasionally.
Largely, yes. The .NET Framework is one culprit, and the Windows version of the Java plugin from Oracle is another. When you install those programs they stick a globally available add-on into your Firefox installation. They're generally to help out with stuff, but not always, and prior to now you'd get no notification one was installed.
"Faster" is the feature people want. I would be surprised of more than 4% of users use tab grouping, for eaxmple.
A browser is essentially a vehicle for exploring the internet. Having twitter built in is like eating in your car rather than driving to the restaurant. Feature packing reminds one of web portals circa 1995. Yahoo, Alta Vista et all all thought we wanted a busy portal with as many links and features as possible. Google realised search was all we wanted.
Just give us the best vehicle to explore with, we will do the rest. That means: fast, light on resources, private and secure.
I think the point that people are trying to make is that Mozilla are making a big thing about including Twitter withing the search options and that's not a good thing. I wouldn't say it was a shark jumping moment, but it's getting there.
What we have here is a browser developer who have previously made a big deal about their technical superiority and purity suddenly trying to jump on the fashion bandwaggon. It does not bode well.
Six weekly "major" version upgrades are a total nonsense. You just couldn't develop and test major new versions that fast. It's marketing plain and simple. They're adding stuff that would hardly count as a +0.1 upgrade and calling it a +1.0 upgrade in order to try to get media coverage (aka free advertising).
Firefox is out of control, version 7.0.1 was bad, freezing all the time, with browser nonresponsive for 20-40 seconds. Just look at the size of the download, version 3.6.24 was around 7550 KB, version 8.0 nearly double at 14250 KB.
I've nearly stopped using Firefox now, and switched to Opera which is fast and responsive. Next step is to uninstall Firefox, but that will be a sad event as FF has been a good companion.
Prompting users to decide if they want to disable the add-ons or not is pointless if they don't also give a way to remove them.
I've got a bunch of 3rd party installed add-ons that I disabled many versions ago, but do you think I can remove them? If I'm going to have to remove the browser completely to get rid of these **** unwanted add-ons, I may as well try another browser (one that does make it possible to remove unwanted add-ons).
FF8 works a lot faster and smoother than 3.6 in my experience. Stopping unauthorized extensions is wise and most of mine work with this upgrade. Yes the release cycle / numbering is daft and could become self-defeating and they need to get a grip on that as well as the potential bloat, but I have tried Chrome several times and I keep coming back to FF as well as IE9. The major problem that I have with IE9 is that the fonts are always a bit blurred unless I enable the site compatability option which I tired to do as a default but then certain sites like google complained.
.deb packages The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
