Mozilla Firefox 5.0 Final

They also make their future moves known. So not much that happens at Mozilla will come as a surprise if one keeps in touch with what they're up to.

I wonder what all the fuss is about.

Just turn off updates for the browser and for the add-ons. Be happy.

If you get tempted to try out any "new" version, you could use the portableapps.com version which will install itself totally separately from your existing version and have its own set of add-ons: here, by add-ons, I mean the ones downloaded from here (-https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/-) and not things like Java, Flash etc.

The uninstall of portable Firefox is also clean since nothing is written to the registry in case that is a concern.

 

With no more security updates for v4 and v3.6 EOL being mulled over, that's not much of a solution for people who care about security.

Glad I have no issues with grabbing a fresh copy of nightly now and then.

 

It has been most interesting reading this thread as it's the first that I have stumbled upon that is discussing Firefox 4 shortcomings. There used to be a bug report section on the Firefox site but that's no longer available, nor is there a list of recent changes.

My associates develop plugins and we are all so disappointed with Firefox 4 that we were all hoping that it was a mistake. And it must have been so because within 3 months they released a new major version.

I downloaded version 5 a couple of days ago and haven't had a chance to try it, but from the sounds of things on this thread that might be a waste of time also.

So what is Firefox trying to do, lose what's left of its users?

 

how did u get that impression? the people complaining are typically the people unwilling to experience change and havent given the new version a valid shot. They see an addon doesnt work and that immediately discourages them from progress.

Im using v5 and id say its the best version to date, i love the updated UI over v3, the speed improvements and most of my addons work.

The only real complaints i see are from people not having compatible add-ons and thats a complaint to be given to the addon maker. is Mozilla supposed to stop updating because some lazy addon makers cant simply change a string in their product making it work with v5 (a lot of the time addons still work with newer version, addon makers just need to change it so it recognizes v5 then works fine) or they dont take the effort to update on time.

 

Kendo, personally, what i have a problem understanding is why the version number 5. Because looking at the changelog, it sure looks like 4.1 or 2, and specially since version 4 is no more.
There are differences, but they do not imo justify a new major version number.

Sort of like permanently losing a great feature, with no benefit whatsoever. Except for them of course, since they don't have to support version 4..

The release notes are here:

 

I'm not sure I understand what's going on here: a developer of plugins doesn't know where to find recent changes?

 

I'm not the developer, but I did notice that there was nowhere to file a bug report.

Sure, Firefox 4 performs ok on normal web pages and on a fresh start it seems to load pages faster, but that slows down after a while.

Most people will not have noticed that it no longer acknowledges some JavaScript that it had no problems with in previous versions, JavaScript that is still supported in every other web browser on the planet.

And no-one may have noticed that it no longer supports some functions defined in Mozzilla's own Npapi specification.

No, its not the plugin developer's responsibility to re-invent the wheel because one particular browser has been mangled. If they want users to migrate to Chrome, they are doing a good job of it.

 

Just a thought about version numbers. What's it to us what version number etc. they use as long as the new upgrade works. I don't care if they refer to the next upgrade as V#*.0 as long as I know it's the latest version.

 

A major version number used to indicate that Firefox was reworked and changed alot. One number means a lot. Continued support for older versions means a lot.

A new major version would mean that you should prepare yourself for it, new features where coming, the UI reworked and/or whatever.
If you didn't want to do it straight away, so, i don't know, you could work(!), you knew Mozilla would support your installed version for quite a while (no more), so you could continue working instead of attending to the browser, updating YET again, and check for new options, configure them, check addons, compatibilities etc.

In other words, software was there to serve you, not the other way. That's one of the reasons i switched to Debian actually, maintenance is a breeze once you know your way around.

And web developers, now what reference do they have, or anyone who has an interest in Firefox, now needs to constantly follow their mailing lists and changelogs, to find out version X is EOL?

People who i recommended Firefox or installed it, are they going to get non-working addons? Websites broken?
The 'lazy addon developers' argument doesn't stick, because many of them are doing it in their spare time.

I love Mozilla still, but this makes absolutely no sense. Will they add LTS (Long Term Support) letters for every 3rd version number..

 

A lot of the reviews I have read make that point also.

 

Examples and sources please.

 

Kendo also wrote:

One would have expected that at least one of the "we" referred to knows where to find the changelog and Bugzilla.

Anyway, as mentioned elsewhere: If you don't like the seating arrangement you can always get off and walk.

 

Goebbels, anyone?

I find discussion of version numbers very stimulating intellectually. Such discussions and reviews enable me to make better use of browsers.

 

Not sure what that means.

 

You seem to be stuck in the mindset that "decision-maker Firefox developers" are always right. LOL

Face it dude, Mozilla shot itself in the foot with this new version number scheme.

There were very good reasons since the very start of the project for not doing things this way. But, to copy Chrome seems to be the new priority.

 

About the browser itself, to me, seems to use the lowest resources of all browsers, especially when loading flash. I noticed Chrome with its separate processes for each tab seems to spike the CPU compared to Firefox when loading flash.

Very stable version overall. Two extensions I used 'karma blocker' and 'VTzilla' are unavailable for V5, but nevertheless, only using WOT, CookieCuller, BetterPrivacy and Adblock Plus, and it's running well.

Agree, best version to date. And about the developers, surely they know what they're in for when they create an add-on, that is checking each week/month to see if the extension needs to be updated.

 

Really? It shot itself in the foot how, please? It ticked off the corporates, who are outpaced by glaciers? It ticked off some people whose add-ons stopped working temporarily? It ticked off idiots who don't find a single thing wrong with how Chrome does the exact same thing, but if Mozilla does it, they're suddenly wrong? You like change with your version numbers? Fine, stick with Chrome and let them add "new features" every six weeks that mostly resolve around their search engine...yeah, they're advancing at a rapid pace, they are.

Oh, btw, Opera is jumping on this same "must be like Chrome!" ship now if you haven't heard, IE9 made an attempt to, but I don't think MS can handle rapid updates to be honest. In any case, version 5 is here, it's been here, it's staying here. You like it and use it, or you don't and move on. It's ridiculous to have several pages of the same dumb argument over and over again.

 

Never liked the way Chrome abandoned the default paradigm of version number scheme.

As for Microsoft position, read it here.

 

Regarding the article you referenced, I've found Mozilla to be one of the easiest programs to update, simple alert, accept and it's done. Yes it'd inconvenience a lot of people, but for security, stability updates, has to be done. Some users would lose more time having an unstable version crashing, then updating, and having an improved version.

You could bake a cake in the time IE downloads and installs a new version.

 

Ain't that the truth. When I install Windows and do the updates every time it gets to IE 8 it takes forever to install.

 

IE9 intalls very fast. The same applies to the bimonthly (every two months) cumulative IE updates.

@Saraceno

You missed the point. Who is against updating here? We are talking about proper updating schemes.

 

I can't use IE9 on XP.
I just know IE8 is slow going to install.

 

Because the IE8 installation process has to deal with all that IE6 mess first. The 2 are just so different from each other. Then, there is the process of downloading/installing the cumulative updates as well.

 

I see your point about proper updating. Maybe releasing a new version was part of the marketing campaign, draw a few more people in 'V5 is released!', considering Chrome is gaining so many users.

Case in point, got me on board, haven't used firefox in awhile, been pleased with the new version.

About IE, this is another topic altogether, but flash on my IE9 doesn't work. Tried all sorts of fixes on the net, uninstalls, re-installs, roll backs to IE8, flash is gone. Tried a few more fixes on MS forums, now no sites will load. Cheers IE! If only I could uninstall all of it altogether, would put my mind at ease. heh heh

 

Try latest Flash version, they fixed some issues with IE9. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/...-3-hardware-accelerated-rendering-in-ie9.aspx