PDA

View Full Version : Firefox 19 for Mac Now Available for Download




MacRumors
Feb 18, 2013, 08:53 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/18/firefox-19-for-mac-now-available-for-download/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/01/firefox.pngFirefox 19 is slated to be launched on Tuesday, but as noted by The Next Web (http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/02/19/you-can-download-firefox-19-for-windows-mac-and-linux-right-now-official-launch-tomorrow/), the latest version is already available for*download from Mozilla's servers. The U.S. version of Firefox 19 for the Mac can be found in the aforementioned folder by accessing the Mac directory and then selecting "en-US."

Most notably, this update includes a built-in PDF viewer, making former PDF viewing plug-ins obsolete. The viewer was built using HTML5 and will provide a quicker, more secure way to read PDFs in the browser.

Firefox 19, which comes more than a month after*Firefox 18 (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/08/firefox-for-mac-gets-updated-with-retina-support/), also includes remote debugging, bug fixes, and CSS improvements. While the official release notes have yet to be posted, the*beta notes are available (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/19.0beta/releasenotes/):-Built-in PDF viewer
-Canvas elements can export their content as an image blob using canvas.toBlob()
-Startup performance improvements (bugs 715402 and 756313)
-Debugger now supports pausing on exceptions and hiding non-enumerable properties
-Remote Web Console is available for connecting to Firefox on Android or Firefox OS (experimental, set devtools.debugger.remote-enabled to true)
-There is now a Browser Debugger available for add-on and browser developers (experimental, set devtools.chrome.enabled to true)
-Web Console CSS links now open in the Style Editor
-CSS @page is now supported
-CSS viewport-percentage length units implemented (vh, vw, vmin and vmax)
-CSS text-transform now supports full-width
-Starting Firefox with -private flag incorrectly claims you are not in Private Browsing mode (802274)The official launch of Firefox 19 will take place tomorrow, on February 19. The updated version of the browser will be*available for download (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/)*from the Mozilla website.

Update: The FTP link has been removed. Firefox 19 is now officially available from the Mozilla website. (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/)

Article Link: Firefox 19 for Mac Now Available for Download (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/18/firefox-19-for-mac-now-available-for-download/)



viperGTS
Feb 18, 2013, 08:54 PM
19?!?!?

balwx
Feb 18, 2013, 08:55 PM
wow

Rudy69
Feb 18, 2013, 08:55 PM
Yet somehow they still don't support Lion's scrollbars :/

mrsir2009
Feb 18, 2013, 08:57 PM
Huh...? :eek:

It seems like it was yesterday when I was using Firefox 3 - And I'm only 16! When the hell did they rack up 19 releases?

SandboxGeneral
Feb 18, 2013, 09:01 PM
You can see their RapidRelease/Calendar here (https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar) and a blog posting about it too here (http://blog.mozilla.org/channels/2011/07/18/every-six-weeks/).

balwx
Feb 18, 2013, 09:02 PM
I haven't tried FF in a long time.

OriginalMacRat
Feb 18, 2013, 09:03 PM
19?!?!?

You blinked.

Now version 20 is out.

Bill Killer
Feb 18, 2013, 09:03 PM
Firefox has fallen so far behind Chrome and Safari.

Xenomorph
Feb 18, 2013, 09:07 PM
Firefox has fallen so far behind Chrome and Safari.

Really? I still see Firefox as a the better browser, by far.

Tell me, how functional is Chrome & Safari's NoScript extension? How customizable are their interfaces?

I can't think of any reason to use something like Internet Explorer, Opera, Chrome, or Safari.

TheGenerous
Feb 18, 2013, 09:07 PM
I loved Firefox.

balwx
Feb 18, 2013, 09:09 PM
FF, Chrome, IE, Safari....

Feels like I was using NCSA Mosaic not that long ago.

a0me
Feb 18, 2013, 09:09 PM
Are people on Mac still using Firefox? I switched to Chrome after Firefox 4 but I'd be curious to see what's the user base for each browser now.

Michaelgtrusa
Feb 18, 2013, 09:09 PM
Fast!!

lewis82
Feb 18, 2013, 09:12 PM
I'm using Nightly, aka Firefox 21.0a1. The PDF reader has been there since version 14 in the alphas, but somehow never made it to the beta even though it was perfectly stable since at least version 16.

slicecom
Feb 18, 2013, 09:17 PM
People still use Firefox?

doubleaa
Feb 18, 2013, 09:18 PM
I'm going to wait until FireFox 47. Safari will suffice for a few more weeks.

autrefois
Feb 18, 2013, 09:19 PM
Firefox has fallen so far behind Chrome and Safari.

You must be mistaken — Firefox is on version 19, and Safari is still on 6. So Firefox is obviously over three times more advanced! :eek: (At least that's what the folks at Mozilla would apparently want us to think.)

mrsir2009
Feb 18, 2013, 09:21 PM
Firefox has fallen so far behind Chrome and Safari.

Eh... I use Firefox at school, and IMO it's pretty decent. All the major browsers are good now, for most purposes. I use Chrome personally, but I wouldn't at all mind using FF, Safari, or IE (on Windows) either.

jonnysods
Feb 18, 2013, 09:22 PM
I'm holding out for FF 90 in March.

blesscheese
Feb 18, 2013, 09:24 PM
Really? I still see Firefox as a the better browser, by far.

Tell me, how functional is Chrome & Safari's NoScript extension? How customizable are their interfaces?

I can't think of any reason to use something like Internet Explorer, Opera, Chrome, or Safari.

Agreed, and it is open source, and serviced by a dedicated community.

I try not to get paranoid about things, but having Google collect and hang on to all my info does get me wondering at times...

Krafty
Feb 18, 2013, 09:27 PM
Lol, one new feature accounts for a whole upgrade.

marc11
Feb 18, 2013, 09:36 PM
I use to love FF myself, but when they had that period where each new release broke each and every plug in, I gave up; I think this has been long since corrected, but I just moved on. It just became too frustrating and the new version numbering thing is retarded; they would be way better off following the generally accepted practice of point releases for minor changes like this, and version changes for major releases.

Bill Killer
Feb 18, 2013, 09:48 PM
Eh... I use Firefox at school, and IMO it's pretty decent. All the major browsers are good now, for most purposes. I use Chrome personally, but I wouldn't at all mind using FF, Safari, or IE (on Windows) either.

It's not bad by any means, but while Chrome and Safari have done a good job of excising themselves of bloat and focusing on application speed, Firefox has gone the heavy customization route. Great for some people, but completely unnecessary for my needs. All of them offer extensions, but Firefox, to me, is defined by these extensions, and the performance slows a bit too much for my liking.

On a Windows machine, though, I'd choose it 10 out of 10 times over Safari.

ardent73
Feb 18, 2013, 09:49 PM
Firefox has fallen so far behind Chrome and Safari.

Firefox still has features that I consider absolutely necessary, that no other browser has ever had. Chrome is good, not great, I still use it. And I wouldn't use Safari if you paid me to. (I would use IE but only if paid. :p )

Bill Killer
Feb 18, 2013, 09:55 PM
Firefox still has features that I consider absolutely necessary, that no other browser has ever had. Chrome is good, not great, I still use it. And I wouldn't use Safari if you paid me to. (I would use IE but only if paid. :p )

Chrome had 2 big advantages over Safari until last summer: speed and a combined address/search bar. Safari finally fixed the latter, and on a Mac, it's a stable, quick browser. Firefox is fantastic when I need to download a YouTube video (Potter musicals FTW), but I use it for little else. My web browsing needs just aren't that demanding.

mrsir2009
Feb 18, 2013, 09:55 PM
On a Windows machine, though, I'd choose it 10 out of 10 times over Safari.

They don't actually make Safari for Windows anymore, do they?

Bill Killer
Feb 18, 2013, 10:00 PM
They don't actually make Safari for Windows anymore, do they?
I haven't been on a PC since summer 2010 so I have no idea.

mrsir2009
Feb 18, 2013, 10:11 PM
I haven't been on a PC since summer 2010 so I have no idea.

Well, they don't have it on the Apple website for download anymore... I guess Apple realised Safari for Windows sucks.

w0lf
Feb 18, 2013, 10:17 PM
They don't actually make Safari for Windows anymore, do they?

That's correct, the last and final build for windows is 5.1.7 .

Doc750
Feb 18, 2013, 10:21 PM
Chrome kills everything else out there ... Quick and simple.

I hate google

PinoyAko
Feb 18, 2013, 10:22 PM
Firefox user here when I am on a Windows environment. I have necer experienced any crash at all.

tech4all
Feb 18, 2013, 10:26 PM
Chrome kills everything else out there ... Quick and simple.

I hate google

Harsh man. Harsh.

Yamcha
Feb 18, 2013, 10:29 PM
Really? I still see Firefox as a the better browser, by far.

Tell me, how functional is Chrome & Safari's NoScript extension? How customizable are their interfaces?

I can't think of any reason to use something like Internet Explorer, Opera, Chrome, or Safari.

Not sure about Firefox, but on Chrome your bookmarks & settings are synced, so you don't have to export the bookmarks on other computers or on Windows.

Also I don't know of any other browser that has a Web Store, or the ability to play games and run applications right on your browser.

The interface on Chrome can also be customized, but personally I generally find the vast majority of themes for both Firefox and Chrome are dead ugly, which is why I stick with the default theme.

mrsir2009
Feb 18, 2013, 10:32 PM
Chrome kills everything else out there ... Quick and simple.


Of course - Since Google has the most $ out of anyone for development, marketing, advertising etc... Apple has a lotta $ too, however their browser is only for Mac OSX and their game isn't software applications.

Grimace
Feb 18, 2013, 10:50 PM
Of course - Since Google has the most $ out of anyone for development, marketing, advertising etc... Apple has a lotta $ too, however their browser is only for Mac OSX and their game isn't software applications.

Hasn't Safari been on Windows for years now?

wordoflife
Feb 18, 2013, 10:52 PM
Firefox 19 is slated to be launched on Tuesday, but as noted by The Next Web (http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/02/19/you-can-download-firefox-19-for-windows-mac-and-linux-right-now-official-launch-tomorrow/), the latest version is already available for download from Mozilla's servers (ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/19.0/).]

It's been the 19th of Feb in many parts of the world already.

Watabou
Feb 18, 2013, 10:58 PM
Seriously people. Chrome is at version 24. No one complains about that.

I guess the only reason people complain about Firefox's version number is that they have nothing else to complain about.

I'll make a bold statement. Firefox is the best browser out right now. I'm running 28 tabs right now. How much memory is it taking? A measly 845MB. Suck on that Chrome/Safari.

Add on the customizability, the number of great plugins out there like Adblock Plus, Pentadactyl, NoScript, made by an awesome company that actually respects the open web and your privacy, and the secure browsing, you'd be mad to use Chrome or even Safari.

While people have complained, Firefox has just gotten better and better with each release, while Chrome has just gotten buggier and buggier. Don't deny this, I use Chrome for flash and I know how buggy that piece of crap is. Meanwhile, Safari just thinks your free RAM is up for grabs and ends up slowing the entire system down, bringing it to crawl and then you get the dreaded "all tabs must be force reloaded" if you even think of opening more than 5 tabs.

mrsir2009
Feb 18, 2013, 11:02 PM
Hasn't Safari been on Windows for years now?

It used to be, but they discontinued it.

Fatalbert
Feb 18, 2013, 11:05 PM
"-Built-in PDF viewer"
It didn't have this before?! I remember when I thought Firefox was a cool browser, before I had used it... Is it just me, or is it very slow compared to Safari and Chrome and even IE?

SilvorX
Feb 18, 2013, 11:06 PM
Huh...? :eek:

It seems like it was yesterday when I was using Firefox 3 - And I'm only 16! When the hell did they rack up 19 releases?

I still remember when it was Phoenix and only available on Windows, it was insanely fast at the time (well for me, on dialup with a slow PC). Then I remember when a developer finally ported Firebird to Mac. I kept switching between Firebird/Firefox and Safari every few months until Chrome came around. I'm kind of surprised Firefox is still around, but if it didn't seem so bloaty and slow, I'd be still using it

Fatalbert
Feb 18, 2013, 11:07 PM
I'll make a bold statement. Firefox is the best browser out right now. I'm running 28 tabs right now. How much memory is it taking? A measly 845MB. Suck on that Chrome/Safari.


You have to compare it to Safari on your computer. My Safari takes less than 845MB for 28 tabs, and that's mostly because I have less than 825MB available without Safari. The apps adapt depending on how much RAM is available.

I think Safari and FF use the same amount of RAM for me. However, it seems that Safari can sometimes get really messed up sometimes somehow, making it really slow and buggy (like on my bro's iMac G5).

mrsir2009
Feb 18, 2013, 11:08 PM
while Chrome has just gotten buggier and buggier. Don't deny this, I use Chrome for flash and I know how buggy that piece of crap is.

Not for me, it isn't - I use Chrome Canary regularly with dozens of tabs open, and it's great. Perhaps, since you only use it for Flash, it is FLASH that is the buggy piece of crap, and not Chrome overall? And why do you actually use a separate browser for Flash, anyway? If you don't want Flash ads and all that garbage loading up while you browse, just install a Flash-Blocker on Firefox.

----------

"-Built-in PDF viewer"
It didn't have this before?! I remember when I thought Firefox was a cool browser, before I had used it... Is it just me, or is it very slow compared to Safari and Chrome?

Yeah - Chrome has had PDF viewing built-in for ages.

Fatalbert
Feb 18, 2013, 11:10 PM
Well, they don't have it on the Apple website for download anymore... I guess Apple realised Safari for Windows sucks.

Safari for Windows was actually good before Apple tried to make it some kind of Chrome copy. Then it sucked. I want a freaking menu bar.

----------

Chrome had 2 big advantages over Safari until last summer: speed and a combined address/search bar. Safari finally fixed the latter, and on a Mac, it's a stable, quick browser. Firefox is fantastic when I need to download a YouTube video (Potter musicals FTW), but I use it for little else. My web browsing needs just aren't that demanding.

Safari and Chrome can download YouTube videos without any modifications, but any browser can install a GreaseMonkey script that adds a "download" button to YouTube. I use Safari with Click2Plugin so that all YouTube videos open in QuickTime Player, which makes them load faster (no throttling), kills ads, and lets me save the file if I want it.

Moshe1010
Feb 18, 2013, 11:11 PM
The fox died in the fire.

NMF
Feb 18, 2013, 11:12 PM
Friends don't let friends use Firefox.

Fatalbert
Feb 18, 2013, 11:12 PM
Really? I still see Firefox as a the better browser, by far.

Tell me, how functional is Chrome & Safari's NoScript extension? How customizable are their interfaces?

I can't think of any reason to use something like Internet Explorer, Opera, Chrome, or Safari.

For one, you've apparently been using a browser that can't view PDFs this entire time. Firefox is also slower than Chrome, which I find to be slightly slower than Safari. Though Chrome uses the most RAM out of any browser, totally hogging it.

Watabou
Feb 18, 2013, 11:19 PM
Not for me, it isn't - I use Chrome Canary regularly with dozens of tabs open, and it's great. Perhaps, since you only use it for Flash, it is FLASH that is the buggy piece of crap, and not Chrome overall? And why do you actually use a separate browser for Flash, anyway? If you don't want Flash ads and all that garbage loading up while you browse, just install a Flash-Blocker on Firefox.

I actually run the Dev channel. You know, I don't know if it's just me but even when I don't run flash, it crashes on me, constantly, or shows me that stupid face and the dialog saying "Kill pages or wait". I was running Canary a while back but went to Dev since I noticed javascript going haywire on some websites.

The only reason I run Chrome is because it has Flash preinstalled, so I don't have to install it on my machine. That's just my preference.
I can get by on Youtube html5 on Firefox but sometimes the videos don't run or they aren't compatible, in which case, I go to chrome.

Chrome was actually great when it first launched. I used it a lot and liked it a lot.

Now it takes huge amounts of memory, crashes, shows its stupid sad face at least two times a day, and it complains everytime. I try going on websites that have my username and password stored and even though I specifically told Chrome never to store passwords, it still asks for my Keychain password. Not once. But THREE times! I have to click deny three times. Seriously. If I accidently reload the same website, I have to click Deny three times again! **** that ****.

Fatalbert
Feb 18, 2013, 11:22 PM
[COLOR=#808080]
The only reason I run Chrome is because it has Flash preinstalled, so I don't have to install it on my machine. That's just my preference.
I can get by on Youtube html5 on Firefox but sometimes the videos don't run or they aren't compatible, in which case, I go to chrome.

YouTube got really buggy once they "upgraded" (peed on) the interface, and it sometimes doesn't load. When that happens, Click2Plugin in Safari dodges all Flash and HTML5 BS from YouTube by opening YouTube videos as regular old MP4s in QuickTime Player. I've actually not used Flash in a long time.

I can understand you not liking Chrome because I do find it buggy (still better than FF IMO), but have you actually used Safari without dismissing it as default and evil? It's the most underrated browser of all time, probably because it looks like the Mac version of IE.

Undecided
Feb 18, 2013, 11:38 PM
Meh. I like Safari, especially the double tap to smart zoom feature.

Watabou
Feb 18, 2013, 11:42 PM
YouTube got really buggy once they "upgraded" (peed on) the interface, and it sometimes doesn't load. When that happens, Click2Plugin in Safari dodges all Flash and HTML5 BS from YouTube by opening YouTube videos as regular old MP4s in QuickTime Player. I've actually not used Flash in a long time.

I can understand you not liking Chrome because I do find it buggy (still better than FF IMO), but have you actually used Safari without dismissing it as default and evil?

I really like Safari's Click to Flash and Youtube5 extension. I wish something like that existed for Firefox. Mozilla has been talking about bringing h264 support on mobile Firefox and slowly to the Desktop as well so hopefully, we get it soon. The only bad thing about Firefox is they push out new features really slowly, especially for the Mac.

And yes, I have extensively tried Safari 6. To be honest, I love it. It's faster than either Firefox or Chrome. But, it takes up way too much memory. I once had Safari taking over 2.5GB of memory. I'm serious. I think I posted the screenshot over at The Safari RAM thread on here. Every time I use Safari, the whole OS slows down and then Safari gives me the message "all tabs have to be force reloaded". Then I get all my free memory back and the OS feels fast again. That's the only big thing I don't like about Safari. I also don't like how it doesn't have cookie exceptions which I use in Firefox and NoScript. I tried the nojavascript(I forget what it was called) plugin but it's wonky and you have to pay for it after a trial.

I never get that problem with Firefox. Even though I run Nightly, I have had 0 crashes. Actually, I don't even remember the last time Firefox has crashed on me. I think it was something like 2 versions back and the TabMixPlus plugin broke and crashed. It's super stable though. And despite its memory problems in the past, it has gotten really good now.

John.B
Feb 18, 2013, 11:43 PM
Not sure about Firefox, but on Chrome your bookmarks & settings are synced, so you don't have to export the bookmarks on other computers or on Windows.
Sorry, not willing to let Google track my bookmarks. But you go right ahead.
Also I don't know of any other browser that has a Web Store, or the ability to play games and run applications right on your browser.
I'm not familiar with this. Google sells you web "applications" that only run in their Chrome browser? What, sort of like a modern day IE6? But I'm sure it's great for the Google Uber Alles crowd...

Mackilroy
Feb 18, 2013, 11:46 PM
Sorry, not willing to let Google track my bookmarks. But you go right ahead.

I'm not familiar with this. Google sells you web "applications" that only run in their Chrome browser? What, sort of like a modern day IE6? But I'm sure it's great for the Google Uber Alles crowd...
What proof do you have that Google is tracking your bookmarks?

And no, Google doesn't sell them. At least I've never paid for one, and I have a fair few.

At any rate, I'm using Safari 6 at the moment. Under Mountain Lion I generally only launch Chrome if there's a YouTube video I can't see under Safari.

mentaluproar
Feb 18, 2013, 11:56 PM
Of course - Since Google has the most $ out of anyone for development, marketing, advertising etc... Apple has a lotta $ too, however their browser is only for Mac OSX and their game isn't software applications.

Chrome is just modified chromium. Don't give google too much credit.

Fatalbert
Feb 19, 2013, 12:12 AM
I never get that problem with Firefox. Even though I run Nightly, I have had 0 crashes. Actually, I don't even remember the last time Firefox has crashed on me. I think it was something like 2 versions back and the TabMixPlus plugin broke and crashed. It's super stable though. And despite its memory problems in the past, it has gotten really good now.

Yes, FF is very stable, but I don't like that it's slow. The Safari RAM hog thing is strange (never happens to me), but I can see it happening to others since Safari sometimes has issues on certain computers for unknown reasons. It's fine for my desktop, luckily, not as good on my laptop though.

X5-599
Feb 19, 2013, 12:39 AM
Huh...? :eek:

It seems like it was yesterday when I was using Firefox 3 - And I'm only 16! When the hell did they rack up 19 releases?

I guess they wanted to "keep up" with Chrome and their ridiculously hight version numbers... Same with Microsoft/Playstation namings. It's not a coincidence that it was not called the XBox 2 but XBox 360. Because XBox 2 sounds outdated next to a Playstation 3.

John.B
Feb 19, 2013, 12:51 AM
What proof do you have that Google is tracking your bookmarks?

Dude. Google indexes everything. You believe Chrome bookmark syncing would somehow be off limits?

Microsoft is running an ad right now ripping on Google for indexing keywords in peoples' Gmail for use in targeted advertising. "Don't be evil", my arse!

Let me ask you the opposite question: What proof do you have that Google isn't tracking synced bookmarks in Chrome?

Bill Killer
Feb 19, 2013, 01:09 AM
Dude. Google indexes everything. You believe Chrome bookmark syncing would somehow be off limits?

Microsoft is running an ad right now ripping on Google for indexing keywords in peoples' Gmail for use in targeted advertising. "Don't be evil", my arse!

Let me ask you the opposite question: What proof do you have that Google isn't tracking synced bookmarks in Chrome?

So your proof is an ad from a company that owns Bing, which also is in the advertising business?

RMo
Feb 19, 2013, 01:13 AM
Most notably, this update includes a built-in PDF viewer, making former PDF viewing plug-ins obsolete. The viewer was built using HTML5 and will provide a quicker, more secure way to read PDFs in the browser.

Does anyone know how the compatibility is with this? I'm sure it will be fine for most users, but I've occasionally seen problems with PDF forms in other browsers' or PDF viewers' implementations before. (I'm talking ones with a Submit button that may do something like shove the contents to an ASP or CGI page or whatnot for processing. This is probably crazy to do nowadays, though perhaps there are still reasons to create them, but I've seen enterprise environments that still have some of these around.)

ksgant
Feb 19, 2013, 01:25 AM
Sorry, not willing to let Google track my bookmarks. But you go right ahead.


Why not? What's the big deal, seriously? You can turn this feature off if you think big, bad Google is invading your privacy (OMG, I've been screwgled!). Then turn off Safari's feature too that keeps that your bookmark settings in the cloud. Also, Firefox offers this feature.

Oh, and make sure you get an independent email provider that has zero spam filtering...because if any provider protects against spam, they're reading your emails. I mean, that's the way it sees if something is spam. So don't let them do that! (OMG, They're tracking your email along with your bookmarks!!!!).

This whole privacy this is way way WAY overblown.

mrsir2009
Feb 19, 2013, 01:33 AM
So your proof is an ad from a company that owns Bing, which also is in the advertising business?

MS is not so much of a problem, because although they have small stakes in personal data (Bing), their main game is selling software. Google's main game is advertising, so they are much more of a threat to privacy.

JGRE
Feb 19, 2013, 02:21 AM
You must be mistaken ó Firefox is on version 19, and Safari is still on 6. So Firefox is obviously over three times more advanced! :eek: (At least that's what the folks at Mozilla would apparently want us to think.)

Dream on, if they are going to increase the version number for every small change they will be at number 745 next month. This does mean anything however.

----------

Well, they don't have it on the Apple website for download anymore... I guess Apple realised Safari for Windows sucks.

Anything from Apple on Windows sucks. Just give iTunes for Windows a try and you will see.

Bill Killer
Feb 19, 2013, 02:25 AM
MS is not so much of a problem, because although they have small stakes in personal data (Bing), their main game is selling software. Google's main game is advertising, so they are much more of a threat to privacy.

This does not mean that Microsoft doesn't sell online activity to advertisers. The same way being a hardware company doesn't stop Apple from utilizing iAds for the same purpose.

At the end of the day, it's a conflicting viewpoint.

JGRE
Feb 19, 2013, 02:31 AM
"-Built-in PDF viewer"
It didn't have this before?! I remember when I thought Firefox was a cool browser, before I had used it... Is it just me, or is it very slow compared to Safari and Chrome and even IE?

I used FF on Windows for years and I was pleased. When I switched to OSX, I was astonisched how slow FF is on the MAC. I tried Chrome for a period, but when comparing the IE-fischy tank test, it appread that Safari was much faster in rendering. Where Crome only got to about 25 FPS, Safari was running about 50 FPS. So now I just use Safari and with Glimms installed, I have about anything I need (I do not care about skins and other crap).

----------

Not for me, it isn't - I use Chrome Canary regularly with dozens of tabs open, and it's great. Perhaps, since you only use it for Flash, it is FLASH that is the buggy piece of crap, and not Chrome overall? And why do you actually use a separate browser for Flash, anyway? If you don't want Flash ads and all that garbage loading up while you browse, just install a Flash-Blocker on Firefox.

----------



Yeah - Chrome has had PDF viewing built-in for ages.

Yeah and it sucks :mad:

trustever
Feb 19, 2013, 02:53 AM
I have been a long time user of Firefox since it was released for windows back in the days and when moved to macs in 2008 I just found it there, awesome and usefull. Since then I have never readdressed the question if I need any other browser but after reading all this discussion I might re address the question and see...

mikeray
Feb 19, 2013, 02:58 AM
Chrome kills everything else out there ... Quick and simple.

I hate google

Presently, Firefox does javascript faster than Chrome, but Safari does it faster than Firefox.

rmwebs
Feb 19, 2013, 03:14 AM
Meh. Firefox releases mean bugger all these days. A minor upgrade and they call it a whole new version number.

Firefox is still a bloated pile of crap. You cant beat a good webkit based browser right now. Safari, Chrome, Chromium, etc all do a great job IMO.

----------

Presently, Firefox does javascript faster than Chrome, but Safari does it faster than Firefox.

And as Webkit is opensource, you'll probably find that Apple's javascript engine is as well, thus Chrome & Chromium will eventually get it.

----------

Dude. Google indexes everything. You believe Chrome bookmark syncing would somehow be off limits?

Microsoft is running an ad right now ripping on Google for indexing keywords in peoples' Gmail for use in targeted advertising. "Don't be evil", my arse!

Let me ask you the opposite question: What proof do you have that Google isn't tracking synced bookmarks in Chrome?

Oh not this load of rubbish again. People really need to do their research before posting :rolleyes:

- Google does not track your every move in chrome
- It tracks your search history and habbits, to build an anonymous profile that says "oh IP address 123.123.123.123 like Golf, lets show him/her Golf adverts".

Thats as far as it goes.

And before anyone starts the crap about Google selling your info, just stop and think for half a second, then Bing it and read.

Finally, for what it's worth, Safari on iOS tracks your browsing as well. Apple keep a pretty similar record to Google, which is used to show you iAds.

No big company is 'Good' and Apple is far from exempt.

SkyBell
Feb 19, 2013, 03:33 AM
Grr. I Remember FF2 being a big deal. I remember years-long wait for FF3 being torturous, and the final release hype beyond comparison to any web browser out there. It was near-salivation when a 2.x or 3.x update was released, even.

Nowadays, "Oh, a new FF version? Cool, I guess." Where's the fanfare, the build-up? I miss the tech world of... a few years ago. :(

SimonTheSoundMa
Feb 19, 2013, 03:52 AM
Not sure about Firefox, but on Chrome your bookmarks & settings are synced, so you don't have to export the bookmarks on other computers or on Windows.

Firefox has synced since before Chrome. It's far better than Chrome or Safari for syncing. You can encrypt client side, unlike Chome where the EULA says Google will scan your address book for advertising purposes. You can run your own sync server, good if you're a business. Firefox syncs everything, bookmarks, adons, settings for browser and adons, and one thing totally lacking from Chrome is it syncs history.

Cod3rror
Feb 19, 2013, 04:37 AM
Firefox is still the best, however, they went crazy with versions.

They also have upgrade the HTML5 support, particularly the scroll bar replacement.

trustme
Feb 19, 2013, 04:58 AM
Damn. Not two or three years ago everyone used to be on Firefox's dick but now it's Chrome. I guess Chrome will die soon as well after some other browser comes into the picture. Maybe Opera.

Steve121178
Feb 19, 2013, 05:02 AM
Sorry, not willing to let Google track my bookmarks.

They don't track anyone's bookmarks, but even if they did, they are bookmarks to public facing websites! What's the big deal?

Gallion
Feb 19, 2013, 06:01 AM
Huh...? :eek:

It seems like it was yesterday when I was using Firefox 3 - And I'm only 16! When the hell did they rack up 19 releases?

They changed the way they develop Firefox and in doing so, the frequency of the releases since... Firefox 6 I believe, or maybe a little bit later.

Now (as I remember) there are 3 teams, each of them working on a different upcoming version of Firefox. One works on the Alpha version, another one on the Beta version and another one on the current version. So when a new version comes out, the 2 upcoming versions have already been in the work for months. Frankly, with the pace at which things change in technology, it's really a good idea for them to do it that way, so they can adapt very quickly and also roll out features more quickly.

Manderby
Feb 19, 2013, 06:03 AM
Ah, I remember ten years ago when I was the only one having a Mozilla logo on my win-desktop. This eventually became Firefox. Glorious! Victory! Finally a publicly distributed replacement for IE. And it caught on. IE went from 90% down to 10% over the coming years (according to my own statistics).

Ah yes. Those were the times where the browser-battle began. Now, I don't care anymore.

Since years now, I am running Safari on Mac for it's look and feel and Firefox on Win for it's stability. Why change. It does not matter to me.

PS: Using Firefox and Opera on Mac for development. Tools are much better suited for my development style.

Gallion
Feb 19, 2013, 06:04 AM
Meh. Firefox releases mean bugger all these days. A minor upgrade and they call it a whole new version number.

Firefox is still a bloated pile of crap. You cant beat a good webkit based browser right now. Safari, Chrome, Chromium, etc all do a great job IMO.[COLOR="#808080"]

None of them can handle my very numerous tabs as well as Firefox does.

Risco
Feb 19, 2013, 06:29 AM
I used to use Firefox all the time on my windows laptop. On Mac it is really a non starter until they fix the zooming and text reflow, as well as implementing h.264 through OSX like what has recently been enabled for windows.

Then we have theme issues, a lack of intergrated search and a whole host of other bugs that have yet to be fixed. Yes, some of these can be enabled by extensions, but they dont work that well. It seems they have a lot of mac users, just not enough coders.

Gallion
Feb 19, 2013, 06:37 AM
Firefox's release cycle explained here : http://mozilla.github.com/process-releases/draft/development_overview/

Warning : Do read it until "Releases Over Time". If you only read the beginning, it sounds as though they introduce features in the final releases that aren't fully working. It is not so.

----------

a lack of intergrated search
What do you mean by integrated search?

----------

Sorry, not willing to let Google track my bookmarks. But you go right ahead.

I'm not familiar with this. Google sells you web "applications" that only run in their Chrome browser? What, sort of like a modern day IE6? But I'm sure it's great for the Google Uber Alles crowd...

My answer to your Google paranoia : http://xkcd.com/792/

negrohero9
Feb 19, 2013, 06:56 AM
Firefox soon to be...over9000

clevin
Feb 19, 2013, 07:07 AM
Firefox has fallen so far behind Chrome and Safari.

you don't even know what you are talking about. Unless you consider less memory hog, faster js, better extension system somehow "behind" safari.
On Mac it is really a non starter until they fix the zooming and text reflow, as well as implementing h.264 through OSX like what has recently been enabled for windows.

Then we have theme issues, a lack of intergrated search and a whole host of other bugs that have yet to be fixed. Yes, some of these can be enabled by extensions, but they dont work that well. It seems they have a lot of mac users, just not enough coders.
what zooming an text flow?
what integrated search? you mean search from urlbar? i am pretty sure you can do that long time ago?

Simplicated
Feb 19, 2013, 07:12 AM
you don't even know what you are talking about. Unless you consider less memory hog, faster js, better extension system somehow "behind" safari.

Still no support for Lion scrollbars and gesture support is still half-baked. It may be faster but these user interface elements should also be updated to bring about a better user experience. Unfortunately Firefox seems to have done so little in this area.

clevin
Feb 19, 2013, 07:23 AM
Still no support for Lion scrollbars and gesture support is still half-baked. It may be faster but these user interface elements should also be updated to bring about a better user experience. Unfortunately Firefox seems to have done so little in this area.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564
It apparently is going to land on the nightly soon, but will still be a way to go until showing up in the released version.

If these are important issues, sure, otherwise, I don't agree with categorically claiming firefox is somehow "far behind", since its superior in many substantial areas many people care.

rmwebs
Feb 19, 2013, 07:35 AM
None of them can handle my very numerous tabs as well as Firefox does.

Never had a problem on chrome tbh. I've regularly got 5+ windows open, each with around 50 tabs. As long as you've got a decent spec mac it should never be an issue.

Mr. Retrofire
Feb 19, 2013, 07:46 AM
Firefox has fallen so far behind Chrome and Safari.
Yeah. The security you can get via the Adblock Plus and NoScript extensions is really an old and unique feature of FF. FF is so far behind!

;-)

Mascots
Feb 19, 2013, 07:54 AM
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564
It apparently is going to land on the nightly soon, but will still be a way to go until showing up in the released version.

If these are important issues, sure, otherwise, I don't agree with categorically claiming firefox is somehow "far behind", since its superior in many substantial areas many people care.

I remember seeing this topic way back when Lion was released, sad to see they still haven't implemented it. I moved away from Firefox completely around that time because it began to look like an eyesore and was lacking support for too long on "basic" native Mac elements.

That and it performed like crap under the work I was doing. I found it was constantly maxing out the memory on my notebook to the point that OS X was crawling to a stop. Chrome seemed to handle the same workload under the same circumstances much better. Then I discovered that Chrome and Safari's debug panel rivals, if not exceeds, Firebug. That was goodbye.

Terrin
Feb 19, 2013, 08:06 AM
What proof do you have that Google is tracking your bookmarks?

And no, Google doesn't sell them. At least I've never paid for one, and I have a fair few.

At any rate, I'm using Safari 6 at the moment. Under Mountain Lion I generally only launch Chrome if there's a YouTube video I can't see under Safari.

Seriously? Google is an advertising company. Unlike with Apple, you are not the customer. You are the product. Google's whole business model is to get as much information about you as possible to offer that to advertisers. It does that by giving you so called free product.

First, I have Little Snitch installed on my Mac. When using Chrome, it calls home multiple times a session. No other browser does that. By comparison, Safari and Firefox call home once a week to check for an update, and that can be shut off. Chrome is calling home to give Google your browsing information.

Second, Gmail scans your email and gives you ads based on what you send and receive in terms of email. For instance, I am a bankruptcy attorney. I get email with the words attorney and bankruptcy in them a lot. Consequently, Google gives me law school and bankruptcy attorney ads. This also highlights how Google's methods performs poorly for their real customers: the advertisers. I get ads from Google that I have no interest in.

Third, Google's analytics definitely tracks your bookmarks. If you don't disable it, it even does it on other browsers. (http://www.iqworkforcecareercenter.com/2011/03/how-google-analytics-tracks-bookmark-visits/)


Finally, I don't have any direct proof that if I take a nose dive off the twenty story water tower by my house I am going to die, but common sense dictates that is the case. The same applies with Google. Its business model requires it to data mine you. This might not bother you. There are larger principles at stake though related to government. Google has to give governments the information it has on you when the government requests it.

Further, Google's security isn't that great. Recently, the Wiki Leaks revealed that the Chinese government hacked Gmail and obtained a large amount of information. My step dad's account was recently hacked. I received emails from his actual email account telling me he was in the hospital. My gmail account was also hacked a few months later.

hexor
Feb 19, 2013, 08:08 AM
Let me ask you the opposite question: What proof do you have that Google isn't tracking synced bookmarks in Chrome?

Guilty until proven innocent is a slippery slope.

Terrin
Feb 19, 2013, 08:21 AM
Yes, FF is very stable, but I don't like that it's slow. The Safari RAM hog thing is strange (never happens to me), but I can see it happening to others since Safari sometimes has issues on certain computers for unknown reasons. It's fine for my desktop, luckily, not as good on my laptop though.

The RAM hogging on Safari has to do with Safari's Top Sites feature. Safari indexes a large portion of your browsing feature to allow Top Sites to work. If you don't use Top Sites, there is information on the Web that tells you how to disable it.

----------

Why not? What's the big deal, seriously? You can turn this feature off if you think big, bad Google is invading your privacy (OMG, I've been screwgled!). Then turn off Safari's feature too that keeps that your bookmark settings in the cloud. Also, Firefox offers this feature.

Oh, and make sure you get an independent email provider that has zero spam filtering...because if any provider protects against spam, they're reading your emails. I mean, that's the way it sees if something is spam. So don't let them do that! (OMG, They're tracking your email along with your bookmarks!!!!).

This whole privacy this is way way WAY overblown.



You clearly do not understand the issue. Apple is not actively tracking your book marks or email. For book marks, it merely is storing them at your request in the Cloud. Use the feature or not, Apple doesn't care. With the exception of iAd, Apple isn't an advertising company. For instance, there are no ads in its online services. When you buy a Mac, there are no third party products cluttering up the desktop popping out at you. iAd also is very limited. It doesn't offer any personalized information to advertisers.

Google on the other hand does want you to use all of its online products because it is actively analyzing your data to try and more effectively offer you personalized advertising. Some people might not mind that. I personally do because I dislike ads and the personalization of ads is poorly done. The bigger issue is 1) Google hasn't safe guarded people's information very well (it has been hacked), and 2) it has a lot of information to give to any government seeking the information.

----------

Why not? What's the big deal, seriously? You can turn this feature off if you think big

PS you can't turn it off. Chrome calls home no matter what you do.

Yvan256
Feb 19, 2013, 08:22 AM
I haven't tried FF in a long time.

I haven't played Final Fantasy in a long time too.

scaredpoet
Feb 19, 2013, 08:24 AM
Sorry, not willing to let Google track my bookmarks. But you go right ahead.


I really don't get how some people can smugly proclaim that they're not letting a company track them or allegedly do "evil" things with their data in one turn, and in the next use software that is largely bought and paid for by that same company, to the tune of $300 million a year. (http://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla-almost-300m-per-year-in-search-deal-besting-microsoft-and-yahoo/) That accounts for 84% to 86% of Mozilla's yearly revenue. In exchange for what? Why, for the right to be first in line to track and allegedly do "evil" things with your search data, of course!

Double standard much?

And this is all assuming you trust Mozilla's statements on the matter. The IRS didn't. But Mozilla paid them off (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/mozilla-tax-irs-settlement,18910.html). No doubt with some of that Google cash they get plenty of.

Bottom line: that oh-so-evil-company you hate so much for wanting to know everything about your bookmarks, among other things, is largely responsible for the very survival of the browser you're using to avoid their evil ways... and it's probably not nearly as effective at that as you think.

I use neither Chrome nor Firefox on my Macs. But I'd have to say if I was in this conundrum, I'd at least respect Google for largely telling you what they do with your data, even if it is in legalese. It's better than proclaiming to be the tiffany standard for openness out the front door, and accepting hundreds of millions of bucks for data tracking rights from the back door.

Terrin
Feb 19, 2013, 08:30 AM
Finally, for what it's worth, Safari on iOS tracks your browsing as well. Apple keep a pretty similar record to Google, which is used to show you iAds.

No big company is 'Good' and Apple is far from exempt.

OK, now you are making stuff up. iAds is not used in Safari, and it doesn't gather personalized information. iAds is used strictly in iOS apps where the developer elects to use iAds. Safari does not track anything on Apple's behalf.

You can test this on a Mac by installing Little Snitch. Chrome calls home repeatedly during a single session. Safari and Firefox call home once a week to check for updates.

Compare Apple's online services to Google's. None of Apple's online services, including its email, contain ads.

ncaissie
Feb 19, 2013, 09:25 AM
Seriously people. Chrome is at version 24. No one complains about that.

I guess the only reason people complain about Firefox's version number is that they have nothing else to complain about.

I'll make a bold statement. Firefox is the best browser out right now. I'm running 28 tabs right now. How much memory is it taking? A measly 845MB. Suck on that Chrome/Safari.

Add on the customizability, the number of great plugins out there like Adblock Plus, Pentadactyl, NoScript, made by an awesome company that actually respects the open web and your privacy, and the secure browsing, you'd be mad to use Chrome or even Safari.

While people have complained, Firefox has just gotten better and better with each release, while Chrome has just gotten buggier and buggier. Don't deny this, I use Chrome for flash and I know how buggy that piece of crap is. Meanwhile, Safari just thinks your free RAM is up for grabs and ends up slowing the entire system down, bringing it to crawl and then you get the dreaded "all tabs must be force reloaded" if you even think of opening more than 5 tabs.

My 11 year old daughter uses FF on her windows laptop. The other day I tried to use it but she had 20-30 tabs open and there was an out of memory error on the screen. I hard to do a hard reboot of the laptop to recover it.
As a developer Iím proud of her for not using IE. I have a Mac and love how Safari syncs all my open tabs with my iOS devices.

zorinlynx
Feb 19, 2013, 09:28 AM
Call me stubborn but I still use Firefox on Mac.

Part of it is inertia and being used to it. Another part is using Firefox on other platforms at work, particularly Linux. It's nice to have the same browser configuration across platforms.

Also, no other browser has such a rich support for add-ons. Adblock works best on Firefox, and there's all kinds of fun tools like video downloaders and the like.

App tabs are another great feature; they let you have persistant minitabs on the left side for things you always keep open, like Twitter, Facebook, Google+, etc.

So yeah. I acknowledge that Safari and Chrome are also great browsers, but Firefox is what I'm used to; it works well and is highly flexible, so I keep using it. Besides, I get plenty of MobileSafari time in on my iPad and iPhone. :)

Prof.
Feb 19, 2013, 09:53 AM
Apparently I was using Firefox 13, since I hadn't updated it since June/July of 2012 when I bought my MBP. So 6 updates have been released in that time.

Terrin
Feb 19, 2013, 09:54 AM
I really don't get how some people can smugly proclaim that they're not letting a company track them or allegedly do "evil" things with their data in one turn, and in the next use software that is largely bought and paid for by that same company, to the tune of $300 million a year. (http://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla-almost-300m-per-year-in-search-deal-besting-microsoft-and-yahoo/) That accounts for 84% to 86% of Mozilla's yearly revenue. In exchange for what? Why, for the right to be first in line to track and allegedly do "evil" things with your search data, of course!

Double standard much?

And this is all assuming you trust Mozilla's statements on the matter. The IRS didn't. But Mozilla paid them off (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/mozilla-tax-irs-settlement,18910.html). No doubt with some of that Google cash they get plenty of.

Bottom line: that oh-so-evil-company you hate so much for wanting to know everything about your bookmarks, among other things, is largely responsible for the very survival of the browser you're using to avoid their evil ways... and it's probably not nearly as effective at that as you think.

I use neither Chrome nor Firefox on my Macs. But I'd have to say if I was in this conundrum, I'd at least respect Google for largely telling you what they do with your data, even if it is in legalese. It's better than proclaiming to be the tiffany standard for openness out the front door, and accepting hundreds of millions of bucks for data tracking rights from the back door.


It isn't the same thing. Google has paid Mozilla to be its default search engine. The user isn't required to use Google. The user can use Bing, Yahoo, or whoever. Whoever the user decides gets the search data. Mozilla doesn't need a privacy policy, as it doesn't choose who gets your data.

Apple does the same thing. Google pays Apple to be the default Search provider, but the difference is in Safari you can change it permanently. In Firefox, you have to use the pull down menu every time.

I personally prefer Bing on the Desktop as Microsoft pays me to use it and the results are about the same. Microsoft even has a website where users blindly test their preference for the results. It has bought me at least 10 Starbuck coffees. Further, I think the default screen is cooler, and it does better image searches.

I also do not see the relevance of your IRS statement, as the dispute was over how Mozilla accounted for its income. It is no secret Google pays Mozilla to be the default search engine.

jthompson666
Feb 19, 2013, 10:44 AM
Anyone with me in thinking Opera still kicks ass? (Well pretending versions 12.1x never happened)

jc1350
Feb 19, 2013, 10:54 AM
Not sure about Firefox, but on Chrome your bookmarks & settings are synced, so you don't have to export the bookmarks on other computers or on Windows.

Firefox has built-in sync that syncs cookies, bookmarks and tabs that are open on your other devices/computers.

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-sync-take-your-bookmarks-and-tabs-with-you

Thana6tos
Feb 19, 2013, 11:47 AM
It will be 30 by year end, LOL. What the heck, 50 by the end of 2014 ;)

VoR
Feb 19, 2013, 12:22 PM
It will be 30 by year end, LOL. What the heck, 50 by the end of 2014 ;)

Doesn't matter though, it's just a fast release cycle and is just a number :)

I use firefox as my main browser for various reasons and chromium to a lesser extent.

I'm not that impressed with the PDF.js reader, but even less impressed with the original article that seems to imply that it's fast because its html5? Probably worth testing rather than focusing on key/buzzwords, the PDF viewer is unfortunately slow.

rmwebs
Feb 19, 2013, 12:51 PM
OK, now you are making stuff up. iAds is not used in Safari, and it doesn't gather personalized information. iAds is used strictly in iOS apps where the developer elects to use iAds. Safari does not track anything on Apple's behalf.

You can test this on a Mac by installing Little Snitch. Chrome calls home repeatedly during a single session. Safari and Firefox call home once a week to check for updates.

Compare Apple's online services to Google's. None of Apple's online services, including its email, contain ads.

Read what I said again. I said Safari ON IOS. The webkit framework on iOS does call home to Apple unless you disable it.

Risco
Feb 19, 2013, 12:52 PM
you don't even know what you are talking about. Unless you consider less memory hog, faster js, better extension system somehow "behind" safari.

what zooming an text flow?
what integrated search? you mean search from urlbar? i am pretty sure you can do that long time ago?

Smooth zooming the whole page, instead of moving all the text and jerky zoom. In otherwords safari style zoom.

Firefox's release cycle explained here : http://mozilla.github.com/process-releases/draft/development_overview/

Warning : Do read it until "Releases Over Time". If you only read the beginning, it sounds as though they introduce features in the final releases that aren't fully working. It is not so.

----------


What do you mean by integrated search?

----------





Safari / Google Chrome search style rather than a seperate dedicated search box. Searching from the url bar only gives "i'm feeling lucky" results. It also does not bring up suggestions.

benthewraith
Feb 19, 2013, 01:04 PM
Seriously people. Chrome is at version 24. No one complains about that.

I guess the only reason people complain about Firefox's version number is that they have nothing else to complain about.

I'll make a bold statement. Firefox is the best browser out right now. I'm running 28 tabs right now. How much memory is it taking? A measly 845MB. Suck on that Chrome/Safari.

Add on the customizability, the number of great plugins out there like Adblock Plus, Pentadactyl, NoScript, made by an awesome company that actually respects the open web and your privacy, and the secure browsing, you'd be mad to use Chrome or even Safari.

While people have complained, Firefox has just gotten better and better with each release, while Chrome has just gotten buggier and buggier. Don't deny this, I use Chrome for flash and I know how buggy that piece of crap is. Meanwhile, Safari just thinks your free RAM is up for grabs and ends up slowing the entire system down, bringing it to crawl and then you get the dreaded "all tabs must be force reloaded" if you even think of opening more than 5 tabs.

Just curious because I feel like I'm the only one in the world with this problem, but Firefox doesn't stop my system from sleeping when downloading a file (e.g. a 700mb download that takes 30 min will get interrupted around the 15 minute mark by the computer's sleep). No sleep assertion is set by Firefox.

TheRainKing
Feb 19, 2013, 01:12 PM
Firefox is a good browser but I'm not sure why they make so many releases these days.. Kind of odd.

My list of preferable browsers goes like this.

Safari - Blends in best with OS X, loads things quite quickly, icloud tabs etc..
Firefox - Trust worthy browser, has lots of add ons
Chrome - It's nice but I don't really trust Google anymore when it comes to privacy. I've heard bad things.
IE - Piece of crap but something had to be bottom.

Matt McHeck
Feb 19, 2013, 01:15 PM
There seems to be a bug with zooming by keyboard shortcuts.

cmd + "-" decreases the documents zoom level
cmd + "+" however increases the overall display zoom level, leaving the documents zoom level the same
cmd + "0" resets the documents zoom level but not the display zoom level.

Anyone else having this problem?

RoboCop001
Feb 19, 2013, 01:19 PM
The only reason I use Firefox is for Tab Groups.

Is there an extension that adds this capability to Chrome or Safari? I've looked, but haven't been able to find one.

dyn
Feb 19, 2013, 01:35 PM
...they would be way better off following the generally accepted practice of point releases for minor changes like this, and version changes for major releases.
One small simple question: why?

Why would they be better off? What would it bring me as a user? Why use something silly as major.minor.minorminor.evenmoreminor as most do? Why do what most do in the first place?

Or even more simply put: who cares about the version numbering? I don't see it nor use the version numbering when browsing the web. I only use it when troubleshooting and even then I don't care what version numbering system they have. I only want to know if the version the user is running is the latest or not and if not why I'd want to upgrade to something newer and maybe even which version I need/want to upgrade to. Other than that...who cares? It's for displaying web pages.

Firefox is a good browser but I'm not sure why they make so many releases these days.. Kind of odd.

Kind of odd you are replying to a topic you clearly haven't read at all. Why participate in a discussion while not even listening to others? If you read back you'd have found someone posting links that explain the new numbering scheme and why it is a better thing than what they previously did. In short: you get new features and bug fixes much quicker (it took them about 1.5 years with Fx4; now it's just a couple of weeks). The new quicker release system did have it's drawbacks in the beginning but they are sorted out now (extensions don't break "en masse" and the user isn't being bugged about updating stuff, it happens in the background).


IE - Piece of crap but something had to be bottom.
Try IE9 and/or IE10, they are good browsers, even better than Safari/Chrome are now.

york2600
Feb 19, 2013, 01:36 PM
I just thought I'd drop this off. I'm a Firefox user. I like the UI. Chrome is clearly faster. Safari is just painfully slow

http://www.zdnet.com/the-big-browser-benchmark-january-2013-edition-7000009776/

dyn
Feb 19, 2013, 02:10 PM
You clearly can't read benchmarks you mean. Chrome is made by Google and so is the V8 benchmark. There is a slight bias in that one. The SunSpider is made by the Webkit guys and has a slight bias towards webkit, however, it is Firefox and IE who are clearly faster than Chrome ;) The Peacekeeper benchmark is a strange one, not many see it as a good benchmark. The Kraken benchmark is one from Mozilla and has a slight bias towards Firefox. And we can go on and on like this. The differences you do see are very small and probably not even worth mentioning.

Thus the conclusion that is drawn is not positive and not negative for any of the tested browsers: "As with every browser benchmark, it's hard to draw any definitive conclusions from the data given that there's no overall winner.". Given the amount of progress IE has made this would be the only browser you could call "winner". In reality it really doesn't matter which browser you use when it comes to performance. They all do equally well nowadays. Just pick one that offers the features you want/need and you find most comfortable to use.

dma550
Feb 19, 2013, 02:12 PM
I wonder if the retina bug is fixed, vs. just "disabled"!

Mackilroy
Feb 19, 2013, 02:14 PM
Dude. Google indexes everything. You believe Chrome bookmark syncing would somehow be off limits?

Microsoft is running an ad right now ripping on Google for indexing keywords in peoples' Gmail for use in targeted advertising. "Don't be evil", my arse!

Let me ask you the opposite question: What proof do you have that Google isn't tracking synced bookmarks in Chrome?
Google indexes everything? Really? They even index what you turn off?

Those keywords are automated, though with any company you have email through they can read your email if they really wanted to. Doesn't make it right for anyone.

I don't, but I block all forms of tracking, ads, and other such nonsense, so they're wasting their money and time with me.

Seriously? Google is an advertising company. Unlike with Apple, you are not the customer. You are the product. Google's whole business model is to get as much information about you as possible to offer that to advertisers. It does that by giving you so called free product.
Yes, they are an advertising company. They're also a search company. If you think companies besides Google aren't also interested in learning about you, you're also wrong. But you being the product? No. If I learn you like mangos, and I show you mango ads, that doesn't make you a product.

But good luck with them showing me any ads. As I've said, I block them.

First, I have Little Snitch installed on my Mac. When using Chrome, it calls home multiple times a session. No other browser does that. By comparison, Safari and Firefox call home once a week to check for an update, and that can be shut off. Chrome is calling home to give Google your browsing information.
Do you know precisely what Chrome is sending to Google? Do you have proof for your assertion?

Second, Gmail scans your email and gives you ads based on what you send and receive in terms of email. For instance, I am a bankruptcy attorney. I get email with the words attorney and bankruptcy in them a lot. Consequently, Google gives me law school and bankruptcy attorney ads. This also highlights how Google's methods performs poorly for their real customers: the advertisers. I get ads from Google that I have no interest in.
I get no ads from Gmail whatsoever. Perhaps you need to do a better job of adblocking.

Third, Google's analytics definitely tracks your bookmarks. If you don't disable it, it even does it on other browsers. (http://www.iqworkforcecareercenter.com/2011/03/how-google-analytics-tracks-bookmark-visits/)
Meh, I've disabled that. I disabled everything I didn't care for. Tracking can be useful, especially for companies looking to see how successful their advertising is. It isn't inherently evil.

Finally, I don't have any direct proof that if I take a nose dive off the twenty story water tower by my house I am going to die, but common sense dictates that is the case. The same applies with Google. Its business model requires it to data mine you. This might not bother you. There are larger principles at stake though related to government. Google has to give governments the information it has on you when the government requests it.
It's also refused to give out information when, for example, the US government has requested it. I don't give Google anything that I don't want to, so the information they have on me (which is pretty limited) doesn't bother me.

Further, Google's security isn't that great. Recently, the Wiki Leaks revealed that the Chinese government hacked Gmail and obtained a large amount of information. My step dad's account was recently hacked. I received emails from his actual email account telling me he was in the hospital. My gmail account was also hacked a few months later.
The Chinese are hacking all sorts of databases worldwide–Google simply happens to be a very large and valuable target to hit. Implying that because the Chinese hacked them makes them insecure is fallacious. They've hit secure military networks–does that make the military insecure, or just the Chinese very determined?

Google is not intrinsically evil. Sure, it's a corporation, and it wants to sell things, but it's not terribly difficult to block them from showing you ads or tracking you. I've done that, which is why I have no problem with Chrome.

hexor and scaredpoet also make good points.

2Turbo
Feb 19, 2013, 02:22 PM
The only reason I use Firefox is for Tab Groups.

Is there an extension that adds this capability to Chrome or Safari? I've looked, but haven't been able to find one.

This. Chrome for main browsing. Firefox for Tab Groups. As soon as Chrome gets 'em, I won't have to use two browsers

MagnusVonMagnum
Feb 19, 2013, 02:45 PM
Yet somehow they still don't support Lion's scrollbars :/


If only that were true seeing as in IMO the Lion/Mountain Lion's scroll bars suck. This isn't an iPhone, after all. Apparently we don't "need" up/down buttons for fine adjustments anymore, for example. Oh wait. My NOIA themed Firefox is still missing those buttons so it seems Firefox is forced to behave like OSX after all (save the NOIA bars look like aqua sliders and that's what theming is for, to NOT look like Apple's CLONE looks). In fact, I just tried the default theme for Firefox 19 and the scroll bars are identical to the ones in Safari (oh boy). Maybe you just need Mountain Lion?

Firefox has fallen so far behind Chrome and Safari.

In what regard? Personally, I couldn't stand Chrome when I tried it and Safari has dumped support so many times for my machines (first my old PPC machine and then my Macbook Pro as long as it was running Snow Leopard and I didn't upgrade it to Mountain Lion until just recently for stability concerns). Sorry, but I need my browser to last more than a year.... (at the current rate of OS upgrades) before it gets dumped for updates. Besides, it's nowhwere NEAR as customizable as Firefox. I don't know how I'd live without TabMixPlus customizations and Download StatusBar at this point plus AdBlock is infinitely better on Firefox than Safari (where it lets like half the ads through whereas Firefox lets hardly any through).

Yeah, Chrome and Safari pretty much SUCK. I don't personally use the speed of Javascript rendering as my gauge of the capability of a browser. Since when is Javascript the measure of all humanity? Blogging pages that are 200 pages long are the only reasons they felt the need to speed it up as much as they have and blogging seems to be on the way out (I mean seriously, have any bloggers HEARD of using more than ONE web page rather than some 200 page long monstrosity that takes forever to load and even longer to render? What a flipping WASTE of bandwidth. There should be a regulation against such a thing existing since obviously most human beings are far too dense to figure these things out on their own). And I only need try to load a web page with my 1st Gen iPod Touch to see how ridiculous things have gotten with freaking social "buttons" everywhere that load last and other columns and garbage that make reading a simple news article take 1000x longer to load than it does to read it. WTF is wrong with simple TEXT for simple things like NEWS? My god, everything doesn't have to be about eye candy in this world. Imagine how much faster OSX would be on older hardware if it didn't have so many flying windows and rotating screen effects.

I will admit that for running Scrabble on Pogo.com, Firefox (at last test) used a LOT more CPU power than Safari running the same Java applet. That just shouldn't happen and if it weren't a total PITA to report such things to Firefox, I'd probably see about getting it addressed some day, but as it is, I won't report jack squat to Firefox for that reason. I'm not out to spend hours doing their freaking job FOR them. I'm not the one getting paid to do it, after all. Reporting a bug/issue benefits them far more than me. I just run Safari for Scrabble and pretty much nothing else at this point.

Chrome kills everything else out there ... Quick and simple.

I hate google

Isn't that a contradiction seeing Google makes Chrome? Frankly, given Google's "real name" BS on Google+ and them trying to force people to convert at every turn, etc., I'd be afraid Chrome was spying and reporting every single keystroke back to headquarters...if not now, soon. Google is slowly becoming more evil than Microsoft ever was. It's like watching the freaking Galactic Empire being born, only not as boring as the Star Wars Prequels. :D

GermanyChris
Feb 19, 2013, 03:14 PM
nothing google goes on my Mac..

FF is my preferred browser bar none.

Opera is second

OLDCODGER
Feb 19, 2013, 04:04 PM
Although I use Omniweb for its ability to set site-by-site preferences, I use Firefox for one site because it allows me to block their insistent Refresh and Auto-Play - which no other browser seems to offer.

If Omniweb could block those two evils, no other browser would be required by me.

Lancer
Feb 19, 2013, 04:15 PM
Why is it they are not using point updates and haven't for a very long time?

I've used FireFox since the beta days and it's still my preferred browser but I do have Safari and Chrome installed.

MisterKeeks
Feb 19, 2013, 04:19 PM
FF, Chrome, IE, Safari....

Feels like I was using NCSA Mosaic not that long ago.

You still can! (http://www.floodgap.com/retrotech/machten/mosaic/) ;)

CptSky
Feb 19, 2013, 04:21 PM
If they continue to release a major version instead of optimizing and adding features to one (they released ~2 minor versions per major since Firefox 4 ? It's totally illogical...), we'll see Firefox 100 around 2022-2023 :p

VoR
Feb 19, 2013, 05:13 PM
If they continue to release a major version instead of optimizing and adding features to one (they released ~2 minor versions per major since Firefox 4 ? It's totally illogical...), we'll see Firefox 100 around 2022-2023 :p

Where they focus their feature and bug priorities is a completely different arguement, but their current choice is not illogical - it's just a 'new' methodology and more importantly, just a number.
Lots of software is done the same, with potential less focus on (by users?) on this number. Why should anyone care and what is the difference between application X with the version number 0.07, 1.0, 1.63 or 234.76153? Look at chrome and/or look at Linus' jump from and explantion of kernel versioning 2.x to 3.x etcetcetc.

I hope Firefox continues to be a fantastic and relevant browser. With news that opera may switch their rendering to WebKit, if we lost gecko etc we'd basically be stuck with WebKit and IE - Past experience shows this could be a very bad thing for the web :)

No one else less than impressed with the PDF.js viewer though? I said before that the buzzword orientated article really irritates me regarding this, it's not very fast and seems better in Chromium.

Fatalbert
Feb 19, 2013, 05:34 PM
Presently, Firefox does javascript faster than Chrome, but Safari does it faster than Firefox.

Safari is so underrated :(.....:)? << less security threats?
Currently, Safari is the only OK browser for Windows that does not get infested with Babylon Search.

marc11
Feb 19, 2013, 06:18 PM
One small simple question: why?

Why would they be better off? What would it bring me as a user? Why use something silly as major.minor.minorminor.evenmoreminor as most do? Why do what most do in the first place?

Or even more simply put: who cares about the version numbering? I don't see it nor use the version numbering when browsing the web. I only use it when troubleshooting and even then I don't care what version numbering system they have. I only want to know if the version the user is running is the latest or not and if not why I'd want to upgrade to something newer and maybe even which version I need/want to upgrade to. Other than that...who cares? It's for displaying web pages.




Well I care. When I see version 18, then a few weeks later, version 19, then version 20, my expectations with large version number changes is that there are huge changes to the application, when the fact is, these are just point releases and should be communicated as such.

So one day we will see Firefox version 189? When it reality, the last 175 releases were just bug fixes and small changes. It does not need to go four levels deep, but the a point release against a version for bug fixes is rather normal, universally understood and just makes sense.

It is just stupid in my opinion to call every bug fix or patch release a new version when it isn't.

Just one mans opinion is all, I do not use Firefox anymore, I will come back when it is at version 999 in a few months.

VoR
Feb 19, 2013, 07:13 PM
It is just stupid in my opinion to call every bug fix or patch release a new version when it isn't.

Isn't that exactly what it is? :)

Ps. There's been a whole load of changes throughout their new release schedule - major/minor/bug/etc

Just pay attention to the features you're interested in and ignore the number.
Maybe it won't reach version 189, maybe after version 34 they'll just name it after the hash of the most recent git commit that someone decided was a good build, or maybe they'll take the square root of the build date and put the number 3 in front of it, or maybe....

I don't think it really matters :) I love listening to arrogant developers like Linus explaining these things, almost doing it for the sake of it (unlike Mozilla mind...). I don't like it when Adobe adds a dubious feature to a product, a digit to their version and a digit to the price tag (at least their most ubiquitous product has a fast release cycle, a nice simple 9 digit version number and a hard to find, cryptic changelog)

marc11
Feb 19, 2013, 07:17 PM
Isn't that exactly what it is? :)

Ps. There's been a whole load of changes throughout their new release schedule - major/minor/bug/etc

Just pay attention to the features you're interested in and ignore the number.
Maybe it won't reach version 189, maybe after version 34 they'll just name it after the hash of the most recent git commit that someone decided was a good build, or maybe they'll take the square root of the build date and put the number 3 in front of it, or maybe....

I don't think it really matters :) I love listening to arrogant developers like Linus explaining these things, almost doing it for the sake of it (unlike Mozilla mind...). I don't like it when Adobe adds a dubious feature to a product, a digit to their version and a digit to the price tag (at least their most ubiquitous product has a fast release cycle, a nice simple 9 digit version number and a hard to find, cryptic changelog)

Yes it is the same and yes I have noticed that some releases are major and some minor; it is just a mindset to me from my software background. Major releases got a new number and fan fare and often more money; point releases were just sent out, no fan fare, no big deal.

At the end of the day it is the same; but when Firefox reaches version 100 I think it will just be silly to see.

VoR
Feb 19, 2013, 07:30 PM
At the end of the day it is the same; but when Firefox reaches version 100 I think it will just be silly to see.

And like the kernel, maybe it'll get to an arbitrarily large number and someone at Mozilla agrees with you, suddenly deciding that they don't like this silly number and they'll use a different different one.

Yeah, it's a logical mindset to major/minor version in some projects, but the real gist is that it doesn't matter (and often real world development doesn't match that scheme well).

You think it's silly, I think you're silly, you probably think I'm silly - there's probably a guy at Mozilla reading opinions like ours, and ignoring what it means for the software, thinking what a damn great idea it was to switch schedules :)

TheoW593
Feb 19, 2013, 08:53 PM
Seriously people. Chrome is at version 24. No one complains about that.

I guess the only reason people complain about Firefox's version number is that they have nothing else to complain about.


I think the "complaint" is that, until Chrome became popular, a Firefox update that was a .0 release was a major update, with worthwhile features, (I remember the big countdown to version 4) not just a maintenance update like lately.

dma550
Feb 19, 2013, 09:04 PM
well, retina isn't disabled, but it still has the bug where some dropdowns and the address bar dropdown appear on the wrong monitor! :mad:

Lancer
Feb 19, 2013, 09:20 PM
Just installed the update (well FF had already downloaded it and was waiting for me to restart the program) anyway it feels faster now :rolleyes:

GoKyu
Feb 20, 2013, 12:20 AM
I was a diehard Mozilla/Firefox user for at least the last 10+ years...nothing else would do - even when I switched to Mac, Camino didn't have all the features I liked in FF.

So maybe 8 months ago, I decided to give Chrome another try, and the speed difference was way too noticeable, and by this time, Chrome had the extensions from FF that I wanted.

I would switch back in a heartbeat if FF would be even close to Chrome's speed, and I'll download this new version to give it a try. Have to say though, that I do love the ability to sync bookmarks on any computer just by logging in with my gmail account...

Gallion
Feb 20, 2013, 01:19 AM
Still no support for Lion scrollbars and gesture support is still half-baked. It may be faster but these user interface elements should also be updated to bring about a better user experience. Unfortunately Firefox seems to have done so little in this area.

I personally care about none of what you stated so in my book, Firefox is far from "lagging behind".

----------

Never had a problem on chrome tbh. I've regularly got 5+ windows open, each with around 50 tabs. As long as you've got a decent spec mac it should never be an issue.

I might give it another try then. The last time I tried it was about 1.5 year ago.

----------

My 11 year old daughter uses FF on her windows laptop. The other day I tried to use it but she had 20-30 tabs open and there was an out of memory error on the screen. I hard to do a hard reboot of the laptop to recover it.
As a developer I’m proud of her for not using IE. I have a Mac and love how Safari syncs all my open tabs with my iOS devices.

Ha! Props to your daughter for being a future power surfer! Tab on!

----------

Smooth zooming the whole page, instead of moving all the text and jerky zoom. In otherwords safari style zoom.



Safari / Google Chrome search style rather than a seperate dedicated search box. Searching from the url bar only gives "i'm feeling lucky" results. It also does not bring up suggestions.

Heh, I just checked what Safari does. I couldn't do without Firefox's "Awesome Bar" that brings up results from your history by typing keywords from either a page title or URL, so I would hate for it to become a simple search bar and screw up the Awesome Bar in the process, so no thanks. You can already do a normal search from the URL bar anyway.

Gallion
Feb 20, 2013, 01:30 AM
And I only need try to load a web page with my 1st Gen iPod Touch to see how ridiculous things have gotten with freaking social "buttons" everywhere that load last and other columns and garbage that make reading a simple news article take 1000x longer to load than it does to read it. WTF is wrong with simple TEXT for simple things like NEWS?

You know, you have a DAMN GOOD point there. I need to find a way to disable these damn things. I bet there is a FF add-on or greasemonkey script for that.

Edit : Found something! http://superuser.com/questions/454629/how-can-i-block-social-share-buttons-in-webpages

Gallion
Feb 20, 2013, 01:45 AM
Well I care. When I see version 18, then a few weeks later, version 19, then version 20, my expectations with large version number changes is that there are huge changes to the application, when the fact is, these are just point releases and should be communicated as such.

So one day we will see Firefox version 189? When it reality, the last 175 releases were just bug fixes and small changes. It does not need to go four levels deep, but the a point release against a version for bug fixes is rather normal, universally understood and just makes sense.

It is just stupid in my opinion to call every bug fix or patch release a new version when it isn't.

Just one mans opinion is all, I do not use Firefox anymore, I will come back when it is at version 999 in a few months.

I kind of agree with your point of view and also the point of view that it's just a number. The number itself doesn't matter, but I really dislike that version numbers can't be used as points of reference anymore, as now, all version numbers are insignificant.

I think that rapid release cycles like this should also come with a new versioning system to avoid confusing people as to what version numbers mean. Something appropriate for rapid release cycles would be for the software to bear version numbers based on the year, so 2013.0, 2013.1, 2013.2, etc. At least, the year would give us something to relate to, it wouldn't make people expect big changes every time a version comes out and it would make things a bit less confusing than completely insignificant numbers.

Lancer
Feb 20, 2013, 02:19 AM
Sorry haven't read all the posts but I just found a problem with one of the add-ons. Download Statusbar doesn't display some file types anymore with FireFox 19, it shows JPG but not MP4s, haven't tested it fully yet.

thubsch
Feb 20, 2013, 06:03 AM
Two pictures are worth a LOT of words:

Firefox 19.0:https://dl.dropbox.com/u/54668219/FireFox.pdf

Safari 6.0.2:https://dl.dropbox.com/u/54668219/Safari.pdf

Oh well.

goosnarrggh
Feb 20, 2013, 09:22 AM
Why is it they are not using point updates and haven't for a very long time?


They will release a new "major" version number every 6 weeks, no matter how large or small the change set may be.

If they need to make an emergence release, for example to fix a critical security flaw with known exploits, and the severity of the problem means that they cannot until the end of the 6 week cycle to do it, then that will be a point update.

palmharbor
Feb 20, 2013, 12:42 PM
Running FF 19, get popup in many sites telling me to update Flashplayer.
I believe this browser is now infected...I feel you you say OKAY you will install something horrible

I have screen shot as tiff file but this site will not upload a tiff file.

dma550
Feb 20, 2013, 01:23 PM
I will stay here, there are too many features I need, like full firebug and addons interacting with tabs (tab mix plus). I am disappointed though that I cannot edit bookmarks with right click like in Chrome and FF on pc. That one still gets me!

dyn
Feb 20, 2013, 01:26 PM
Well I care. When I see version 18, then a few weeks later, version 19, then version 20, my expectations with large version number changes is that there are huge changes to the application, when the fact is, these are just point releases and should be communicated as such.

You are not answering the question so try again: why use the major.minor system? What use is it to the average user and what use is it to the average developer? Or in other words: what are you trying to accomplish with the major.minor system?

Also: why the egoism? There are many more people on this globe than just you. Some will use Firefox, some will use something else. Most of them are ordinary users who do not care about version numbering at all. They want the browser to do why they have it installed for: browse the web. You don't need version numbers for that. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what most of the users will think but most of all what the company itself thinks. Usually it ends up with doing what most of the userbase wants or what the company wants.


So one day we will see Firefox version 189? When it reality, the last 175 releases were just bug fixes and small changes. It does not need to go four levels deep, but the a point release against a version for bug fixes is rather normal, universally understood and just makes sense.

So? What's the problem exactly? In some releases there will be big changes, in some there won't but that's not the point of it all. Software has to be of high quality not of a high amount of features, new stuff, etc. We've seen what happens when you focus on putting heaps of big changes into software. The quality (and thus things like speed, stability, security, etc.) goes down quickly as well as the chance of not being able to deliver on time. Also, the major.minor release thing is just one of the many systems that are universally understood, used and make sense up to a certain point.

There is no difference between 10.8.2, Mountain Lion, 189, a.b, xxii, 23789dfsbjkadsvf8812, etc. They are all valid, logic ways of doing it that are universally understood, are being universally used and do make sense. It's all in the way how you define it. Some simply use the version numbering from their versioning system (git, mercurial, subversion) because that's part of its job. You use it for versioning so why not use the version numbering? The reason why most don't lies in the way the vcs do version numbering. They are hashes which is hard to remember and look up so most use a simplified version numbering.


It is just stupid in my opinion to call every bug fix or patch release a new version when it isn't.

I find the above stupid as it shows a complete lack of knowledge about developing software and contracts. You agree upon a certain set of fixes, patches, features and/or a time frame. Whatever you deliver can be called a new version because people agreed upon calling it such. That's what it is about eventually: you think of how the version numbering should go for that particular product. It is not something that is universally for every product out there from every company, every programmer. In general the user doesn't care at all.

Just stop claiming that Mozilla is doing it wrong. There is no wrong or right when it comes to version numbering. There are many roads that will lead to Rome and there are many ways of version numbering. The development process Mozilla is using isn't new (take a look at "agile") and neither is their version numbering (MS Word and many other wordprocessors use it for their own version numbering system as well as just about any vcs). Is the criticism correct? Hell no, it's hypocrite as it can get.

I think the "complaint" is that, until Chrome became popular, a Firefox update that was a .0 release was a major update, with worthwhile features, (I remember the big countdown to version 4) not just a maintenance update like lately.
Which let to lots of people complaining about it being so late. After it was released there was another never ending stream of complaints about the software not being stable, fast, etc. People went to Chrome because Fx4 was bloated. It was bloated because people expected lots of changes and features because they thought that quantity is the same as quality. They learned a very wise lesson that day: quantity usually means a decrease in quality.

Anyway, both Chrome and Firefox update in the background so users hardly notice they are on a new version. This is a good setup to get rid of version numbers entirely and move on to rolling releases (there are many software that are already on rolling releases).


Something appropriate for rapid release cycles would be for the software to bear version numbers based on the year, so 2013.0, 2013.1, 2013.2, etc.
There are some Linux distro's that do this. I like how Ubuntu does it by using the year.month type (yyyy.mm) because you can immediately tell how old a piece of software is. That's one of the main things you want to use the version number for (how old is it, is it the latest?). Other than that...you simply check with the manufacturer and you get your answer (or you Google the problem and the version number which gives you plenty of results).

oldhifi
Feb 20, 2013, 02:29 PM
so I downloaded Mozilla today and Clamxav found this again:

B.C.Exploit.CVE_2013_0019

I had previously removed it and then removed Mozilla, so what gives?? is this still on my computer?

Zyphras
Feb 20, 2013, 03:18 PM
With regard to version numbers: to be fair, Chrome is four years younger as a browser yet is at version 24! It only seems alarming to Firefox users considering how slowly version numbers moved in the past.

marc11
Feb 20, 2013, 04:11 PM
You are not answering the question so try again: why use the major.minor system? What use is it to the average user and what use is it to the average developer? Or in other words: what are you trying to accomplish with the major.minor system?

Also: why the egoism? There are many more people on this globe than just you. Some will use Firefox, some will use something else. Most of them are ordinary users who do not care about version numbering at all. They want the browser to do why they have it installed for: browse the web. You don't need version numbers for that. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what most of the users will think but most of all what the company itself thinks. Usually it ends up with doing what most of the userbase wants or what the company wants.


So? What's the problem exactly? In some releases there will be big changes, in some there won't but that's not the point of it all. Software has to be of high quality not of a high amount of features, new stuff, etc. We've seen what happens when you focus on putting heaps of big changes into software. The quality (and thus things like speed, stability, security, etc.) goes down quickly as well as the chance of not being able to deliver on time. Also, the major.minor release thing is just one of the many systems that are universally understood, used and make sense up to a certain point.

There is no difference between 10.8.2, Mountain Lion, 189, a.b, xxii, 23789dfsbjkadsvf8812, etc. They are all valid, logic ways of doing it that are universally understood, are being universally used and do make sense. It's all in the way how you define it. Some simply use the version numbering from their versioning system (git, mercurial, subversion) because that's part of its job. You use it for versioning so why not use the version numbering? The reason why most don't lies in the way the vcs do version numbering. They are hashes which is hard to remember and look up so most use a simplified version numbering.


I find the above stupid as it shows a complete lack of knowledge about developing software and contracts. You agree upon a certain set of fixes, patches, features and/or a time frame. Whatever you deliver can be called a new version because people agreed upon calling it such. That's what it is about eventually: you think of how the version numbering should go for that particular product. It is not something that is universally for every product out there from every company, every programmer. In general the user doesn't care at all.

Just stop claiming that Mozilla is doing it wrong. There is no wrong or right when it comes to version numbering. There are many roads that will lead to Rome and there are many ways of version numbering. The development process Mozilla is using isn't new (take a look at "agile") and neither is their version numbering (MS Word and many other wordprocessors use it for their own version numbering system as well as just about any vcs). Is the criticism correct? Hell no, it's hypocrite as it can get.


Which let to lots of people complaining about it being so late. After it was released there was another never ending stream of complaints about the software not being stable, fast, etc. People went to Chrome because Fx4 was bloated. It was bloated because people expected lots of changes and features because they thought that quantity is the same as quality. They learned a very wise lesson that day: quantity usually means a decrease in quality.

Anyway, both Chrome and Firefox update in the background so users hardly notice they are on a new version. This is a good setup to get rid of version numbers entirely and move on to rolling releases (there are many software that are already on rolling releases).


There are some Linux distro's that do this. I like how Ubuntu does it by using the year.month type (yyyy.mm) because you can immediately tell how old a piece of software is. That's one of the main things you want to use the version number for (how old is it, is it the latest?). Other than that...you simply check with the manufacturer and you get your answer (or you Google the problem and the version number which gives you plenty of results).

Also: why the egoism? Seriously? You write a thesis and ask this question? And then you go on to call me stupid for having my opinion about how I prefer to identify what version of software I am running. I am not going to go into the details of why it is important, you know better than the rest of the world, you said so yourself. Having an OPINION and stating that OPINION as I said many times in my posts is not being egotistic. I stated my opinon, you stated yours, its called a discussion. Wow, why the egoism, dude, step off the soapbox huh? And IF you read ALL the posts I did write why I prefer point release numbers for minor changes and full release numbers for major changes.

Its a browers, get over yourself, your ego and your lack of respect for others opinions and move on.

szw-mapple fan
Feb 21, 2013, 09:01 AM
Huh...? :eek:

It seems like it was yesterday when I was using Firefox 3 - And I'm only 16! When the hell did they rack up 19 releases?

the same thing is happening with chrome.

----------

Eh... I use Firefox at school, and IMO it's pretty decent. All the major browsers are good now, for most purposes. I use Chrome personally, but I wouldn't at all mind using FF, Safari, or IE (on Windows) either.

I used to use chrome on windows, but after switching to a mac last month... I found that nothing beats safari with multitouch.

dyn
Feb 21, 2013, 12:25 PM
Also: why the egoism? Seriously?

Yep because your post contains nothing but "I I I I I I I I I I I" stuff. The way you've put it is: I want this and this thus Mozilla has to implement it, period. That's how your post comes across. If you don't want it to come across like that, rewrite it.


You write a thesis and ask this question? And then you go on to call me stupid for having my opinion about how I prefer to identify what version of software I am running.

Nope, I'm calling your reasoning stupid because it simply is. Again, you reason that because you want version numbering to be a certain way everybody should use it like that. Funny thing is, I did ask many other questions in that post and the previous one but you have answered none of them.


Its a browers, get over yourself, your ego and your lack of respect for others opinions and move on.
Please do what the above quote says: get over yourself, drop the enormous ego, answer the simple questions (aka keep on topic instead of evading the discussion which you are doing now), show some respect to others and quit the whining about version numbering. Mozilla has set its mind and you're not going to win it thus the discussion is completely useless. Waste of time and energy. Very funny that you feel this way yet make a huge fuzz about the fact that Mozilla isn't doing major.minor. Macrumors is also not the place for this discussion. Move to support.mozilla.com and start a discussion over there because that's where the Mozilla devs are. Just discuss the features of Firefox in this topic because the version numbering discussion is becoming rather pathetic.

MagnusVonMagnum
Feb 21, 2013, 05:22 PM
I like Firefox a lot better for browsing, etc., but I couldn't help but notice that Netflix runs smooth in Safari but choppy in Firefox here (HD or not) and the GPU has acceleration on and the CPU is using like 20% on one CPU at most so WTF is it choppy with Firefox? I have no idea. I noticed the same thing with Java game apps on Pogo.com. Scrabble will take like 16% for Java on one CPU either way but with Safari, its own process uses less than 1% while Firefox uses like 85-100%. WTF?!

Firefox has some issues still. And good luck giving them the feedback. It seems like they want YOU to do ALL the bug-tracing work for them. You can't just report the problem and expect them to look into it. Hell no. Sorry, but I'm not the one getting paid to work on it. They're lucky I want to report the bugs/problems at all. So now I simply don't bother.