Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 20, 2013, 12:20 AM   #126
GoKyu
macrumors 65816
 
GoKyu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Orleans
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...
__________________
16 GB VZ iPad 3 16 GB Black iPhone 5
Mid 2011 Mac Mini 2.3Ghz i5 |14gb RAM|Samsung P2770HD
Epson Stylus Photo R1800|Bose Companion 5 speakers
GoKyu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 01:19 AM   #127
Gallion
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simplicated View Post
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".

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncaissie View Post
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!

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Risco View Post
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 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 01:30 AM   #128
Gallion
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
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/45462...ns-in-webpages

Last edited by Gallion; Feb 20, 2013 at 02:09 AM.
Gallion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 01:45 AM   #129
Gallion
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc11 View Post
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.

Last edited by Gallion; Feb 20, 2013 at 01:51 AM.
Gallion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:19 AM   #130
Lancer
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
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.
__________________
Late 2012 iMac, 27", 3.4Ghz i7, 32Gb RAM, 2Gb 680Mx, 1Tb Fusion and iPhone 5s.
Lancer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 06:03 AM   #131
thubsch
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Haymarket, VA
In-Browser PDF Viewer... Flounders

Two pictures are worth a LOT of words:

Firefox 19.0:

Safari 6.0.2:

Oh well.
__________________
Cheers, Tristan
thubsch is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 09:22 AM   #132
goosnarrggh
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancer View Post
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.
goosnarrggh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 12:42 PM   #133
palmharbor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Firefox19 Malware

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.
palmharbor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 01:23 PM   #134
dma550
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: CT
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!
dma550 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 01:26 PM   #135
dyn
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: .nl
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc11 View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoW593 View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallion View Post
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).
dyn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:29 PM   #136
oldhifi
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: USA
B.C.Exploit.CVE_2013_0019

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?
__________________
IMac 20 " 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo OSX 10.6.8,
Apple TV, Roku, IPad Mini, Galaxy Note 3
oldhifi is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 03:18 PM   #137
Zyphras
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
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.
Zyphras is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 04:11 PM   #138
marc11
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NY USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyn View Post
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.
__________________
Various Apple Products
marc11 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 09:01 AM   #139
szw-mapple fan
macrumors 6502a
 
szw-mapple fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsir2009 View Post
Huh...?

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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsir2009 View Post
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.
szw-mapple fan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 12:25 PM   #140
dyn
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: .nl
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc11 View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
dyn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 05:22 PM   #141
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
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.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC