Mozilla Releases Firefox 57 'Quantum' Web Browser

[nutmac]

My understanding was Quantum, at least in its beta form, did not support AdBlockPlus. That's a deal-breaker for me, no matter how "fast" it is.

Adblock Plus is terrible. They sell ad spots for advertisers to get through their blocker. On Chrome and Firefox, you should use uBlock Origin.

 

[saulinpa]

My understanding was Quantum, at least in its beta form, did not support AdBlockPlus. That's a deal-breaker for me, no matter how "fast" it is.

Upgraded and AdBlockPlus appears to be working.
[doublepost=1510682355][/doublepost]What surprised me is that the top bar of the FF window now looks like Microsoft to me.

 

[CTHarrryH]

Does seem faster but it sure is ugly - I'll get used to that but I wonder who designs these sites. AdBlock works for me.
One of my favorite extensions doesn't - Password exporter. I would export these to be able to view when I needed the password on other platforms.
I like firefox because I can set it to automatically delete history, cookies etc when it exits.

 

[samden]

i was using the betas of quantum. impressed with the speed, but it was a HUGE battery hog. haven't tested the final though, hope they've fixed that.

As with most beta software, the beta had all kinds of analytics and logging turned on so I am sure that the release version will be less of a battery hog. How much though, I can't say.

I was a fan and user of Firefox since it was Firebird, and I love its bookmark+password syncing feature. But when webkit is becoming the de-facto engine, Firefox seems to be slow and fluttering around, to the point it got into the stupid version number race with Chrome.

Now, I just use Safari, and occasionally Chrome for sites with Flash. iCloud and keychain+1Password take care of the bookmark and password syncing. On the PC, I just use Edge, and Chrome as well for Flash content.

Webkit is far from the de-facto engine. In fact a lot of desktop software is being written using a platform called Electron which is based on Chrome's V8 engine.

 

[joelw135]

This is hot stuff. They're on fire!

Is that what the fox said?



I'm done.

I love the speed of the new browser, but for me without Tab Mix Plus handling tabs is a pain in the butt. I like when i could manage tabs and load at the end or link in new tab. This doesn't work well for my work flow.

 

[fairuz]

Looks nice, but "lighter"... I'll have to see it to believe it. I feel like every browser has been claiming efficiency improvements for years when in reality they use more computing resources than ever before.

Their threading model looks promising. Chrome's naive way of one process per tab just wastes RAM and puts strain on the kernel. I complained about that from the start, and I was also annoyed when Safari adopted it.
[doublepost=1510685370][/doublepost]

Adblock Plus is terrible. They sell ad spots for advertisers to get through their blocker. On Chrome and Firefox, you should use uBlock Origin.

And also on Safari
Besides, uBlock Origin definitely seems lighter than AdBlock and ABP, at least in my experience.

 

[killhippie]

My understanding was Quantum, at least in its beta form, did not support AdBlockPlus. That's a deal-breaker for me, no matter how "fast" it is.

AdBlockPlus was updated to version 3.0.1 a few days ago as a web extension now so its supported, although there is work top do...

 

[hamiltonrwatch]

They sell ad spots for advertisers to get through their blocker

source?

That makes no sense. You can post blocking issues in EasyList's forum, & mods will write an exception for you to insert into AdBlock Plus filters.

[doublepost=1510688943][/doublepost]

uBlock Origin definitely seems lighter than AdBlock and ABP, at least in my experience

AdBlockPlus was updated to version 3.0.1 a few days ago as a web extension now so its supported, although there is work to do...

Thank you! Didn't want to update until I was certain it was supported. And I'll give uBlock a go as well.

 

[sparkles3020]

I tried it on a 2014 macbook pro. It wasn't as fast as safari and fan temperature went up by 15-20 degrees. Very disappointed.

 

[justperry]

Just downloaded/Updated Firefox, loaded MacRumors on both Firefox and Safari, Safari is still (much) faster.

What surprised me is that the top bar of the FF window now looks like Microsoft to me.

Yes, it's Fugly.

 

[Candlelight]

Hadn't realised what market penetration Firefox had.
https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0

I hadn't realised the market penetration Chrome had!

I've always been a Firefox user, and this update is just another step up.

 

[fairuz]

source?

That makes no sense. You can post blocking issues in EasyList's forum, & mods will write an exception for you to insert into AdBlock Plus filters.

Agreed, definitely don't think that's the case. I only use uBO for the speed.
[doublepost=1510696109][/doublepost]

What surprised me is that the top bar of the FF window now looks like Microsoft to me.

And before, the whole thing looked like Chrome. I miss whatever actually original design they had before that.

 

[Konigi]

I like it so far, but just one question: is it possible to activate text replacements (as I programmed myself through macOS and iOS) in Firefox or Chrome? That's one of the main reasons that I use Safari, because I save time when I am writing stuff. And it's just disabled with Chrome and Firefox.

 

[CPx]

Firefox finally fixed their color management for wide-gamut macs, two years after the wide-gamut iMac was released. They fixed it for still images, anyway. Video color is still messed up. Maybe another two years?

 

[kemo]

Looks nice, but "lighter"... I'll have to see it to believe it. I feel like every browser has been claiming efficiency improvements for years when in reality they use more computing resources than ever before.

Their threading model looks promising. Chrome's naive way of one process per tab just wastes RAM and puts strain on the kernel. I complained about that from the start, and I was also annoyed when Safari adopted it.
[doublepost=1510685370][/doublepost]
And also on Safari
Besides, uBlock Origin definitely seems lighter than AdBlock and ABP, at least in my experience.

If you use Safari on macOS, give extensions that are using content blocking API a try - much more efficient blocking.

 

[skiabox]

Could you give a random example of a video not working for you? Full screeen or standard window? I just checked one of my video links that's 1080p and it works fine. I get the same "5 out of 6" browser supported features as you do.

There is no reason to search for hardware or operating system issues as long as chrome is working fine.
As everything is working fine on chrome it is a 100% problem of firefox.

 

[decafjava]

Well I use Windows at work and just upgraded and it is much faster on my work HP laptop running Windows 8. I'll have to see how much better it is on my mac at home - I've mainly switched to Safari as it is but like having Firefox as an alternative. I only use Chrome for the in-browser version of Google Earth which is amazing.

 

[BrianBaughn]

Tried it on my Late 2008 MacBook. Streaming video still lousy.

Maxthon is still the only browser I've found with which I can watch fullscreen, streaming video with no stuttering.

 

[fairuz]

If you use Safari on macOS, give extensions that are using content blocking API a try - much more efficient blocking.

Good idea. I didn't know they brought that to macOS.

 

[beerbaron23]

This browser is incredibly fast but it has problems while watching youtube videos with resolution from 720p and above.
Trying to see what is wrong I've visited youtube.com/html5 and I got this page:

I must state here that chrome is working fine with youtube and all these boxes are ticked in chrome.

In your "about:config" find "media.webm.enabled" and set it to "False" then restart. If your are on windowes then make sure you update your video card drivers direct from the manu, like nVidia, AMA or Intel, they have all released me ones
[doublepost=1510782226][/doublepost]

Not impressed so far. Just @ google.com RAM usage for Chrome is ~450MB and FF Q is ~780MB. No extensions enabled on either.

A couple tabs? get a realt work load for ~30 tabs going and Firefox will always be way less then Chrome, every tab you open on Chrome eats ram, where on Firefox the inititial ram cost is greater (as the multiprocessing is for different parts, actions and rendering of the browser) Hence why there is not hiccups as theres never a process waiting/relying on the other to finish. That is what make Firefox so much more faster then Chrome now...

 

[decafjava]

Well I use Windows at work and just upgraded and it is much faster on my work HP laptop running Windows 8. I'll have to see how much better it is on my mac at home - I've mainly switched to Safari as it is but like having Firefox as an alternative. I only use Chrome for the in-browser version of Google Earth which is amazing.

Well I am posting from the Mac version and it is a very noticeable improvement in speed and smooth browsing indeed. Might start using it more often now.

 

[Act3]

chrome seems faster to me still on my old i7 windows 10 desktop

 

[Partron22]

Couldn't they have called it "Firefox Lithium" instead of "Firefox Quantum"?
It's just v57 after all, not some uncollapsible wave function with fractal feathers.

I think I'll wait for 57.01 or so. I really don't feel like going through a whole mess of new settings, and looking for tricky privacy holes etc. just now. 56 is working, and I've got enough obfuscation that I don't get ads for CRISPR kits on Daily Kos anymore.
Reviews sound basically nice so far, but there have to be a few nasty surprises waiting for me.
At least it's not yet Chrome or Safari.

 

[nutmac]

source?

That makes no sense. You can post blocking issues in EasyList's forum, & mods will write an exception for you to insert into AdBlock Plus filters.

https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads

Larger entities (as defined below) pay a licensing fee for the whitelisting services requested and provided to them (around 90 percent of the licences are granted for free). It should be noted that the Acceptable Ads criteria must be met independent of the consideration for payments. If the criteria are not met, whitelisting is impossible.

Regarding fees, only large entities (those with more than 10 million additional ad impressions per month due to participation in the Acceptable Ads initiative) have to pay. For these entities, our licensing fee normally represents 30 percent of the additional revenue created by whitelisting its acceptable ads.

 

[hamiltonrwatch]

https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads

I'll concede, per the info in your link, that they do indeed take money for "Acceptable Ads" but it still doesn't make sense. By default, "Acceptable Ads" is disabled and the end-user decides if they want to participate. What's the point then, for advertisers to pay them for content that will most likely be blocked anyway?