Firefox 19 for Mac Now Available for Download

[benthewraith]

Originally Posted by Watabou

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by marc11

...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.

Originally Posted by TheRainKing

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]

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...on-7000009776/

[dyn]

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]

I wonder if the retina bug is fixed, vs. just "disabled"!

[Mackilroy]

Originally Posted by John.B

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.

Originally Posted by Terrin

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.

Originally Posted by Terrin

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?

Originally Posted by Terrin

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.

Originally Posted by Terrin

Third, Google's analytics definitely tracks your bookmarks. If you don't disable it, it even does it on other browsers.

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.

Originally Posted by Terrin

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.

Originally Posted by Terrin

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]

Originally Posted by RoboCop001

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]

Originally Posted by Rudy69

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?

Originally Posted by Bill Killer

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.

Originally Posted by Doc750

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.

[GermanyChris]

nothing google goes on my Mac..

FF is my preferred browser bar none.

Opera is second

[OLDCODGER]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by balwx

FF, Chrome, IE, Safari....

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

You still can!

[CptSky]

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

[VoR]

Originally Posted by CptSky

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

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]

Originally Posted by mikeray

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]

Originally Posted by dyn

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]

Originally Posted by marc11

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]

Originally Posted by VoR

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]

Originally Posted by marc11

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]

Originally Posted by Watabou

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]

well, retina isn't disabled, but it still has the bug where some dropdowns and the address bar dropdown appear on the wrong monitor!

[Lancer]

Just installed the update (well FF had already downloaded it and was waiting for me to restart the program) anyway it feels faster now