EPTFFox 5.0 Beta Thread
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/
wtf, 4.0 was released a few months ago and 5.0 is already out?!
Firefox 5.0!
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
FFox 5.0 Beta Thread http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/ wtf, 4.0 was released a few months ago and 5.0 is already out?! | ||
|
Snipershot
United Kingdom59 Posts
| ||
|
Zhiroo
Kosovo2724 Posts
| ||
|
[N3O]r3d33m3r
Germany673 Posts
no it is not as "bad" as ff 4.0, it's a great improvement. Mozilla announced a few months ago that they wanna release newer versions faster to concide with other developers. it just sounds mor dandy if it goes from ff 5.0 to 6.0 than 3.6.4. or 4.0.7 this year we will see ff6 & 7 too =D as for the changes http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/ and all the bug fixes http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/buglist.html | ||
|
TadH
Canada1846 Posts
I still use chrome though ;/ | ||
|
DarKcS
Australia1237 Posts
Stability and ability to change add-ons without a full browser restart are the best changes though. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:21 Snipershot wrote: is it any good i switched to chrome along time ago :d On June 25 2011 00:22 Zhiroo wrote: If it's as bad as Firefox 4.0 I will not bother. Happy with Chrome at the moment. On June 25 2011 00:37 TadH wrote: I actually like IE9. I still use chrome though ;/ Ironic really. Chrome users claim to be the ones aspiring toward fast speed and efficient usage, while their browser fails at both these facets: its slower than opera, uses the most memory of all mainstream browsers, and doesnt have plugin flexibility to make up for it. In short, Chrome is a load of hot air. | ||
|
DerBeefman
Germany226 Posts
But actually the new layout with tabs on the top and so is kinda nice. | ||
|
sh4w
United States713 Posts
| ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:45 DerBeefman wrote: Hhmmm used old Firefox version till I auto-updated some days ago. I'm not really used to the new menu layout, it looks nice no doubt but its kinda weard that all options and functions are in that orange box top right :D. But actually the new layout with tabs on the top and so is kinda nice. Hitting 'alt' brings the menu back, just like on IE7+. I for one, noticed zero changes. Except that I don't have my adblock/greasemonkey icons visible anymore. Meh. <edit> What is wrong with 4? I liked it... | ||
|
Elasticity
3420 Posts
IE: random thing that need to open fast. FF5: All stuff with 30+ tabs divided in many group tabs. Chrome: + Show Spoiler [Click this only if you're 18+] + + Show Spoiler [I forgot at some places you need to be…] + + Show Spoiler [Are you really sure?] + pornnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Safari: nice icon sitting on the dock <3 LOL | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:48 sh4w wrote: Yeah chrome is really really really really bad. I am probably going to stick with 3.6 forever. 4 was so bad that I'm not even going to try 5. The only (little) things that I don't like are the way bookmarks are shown as well as the different "work offline" menu. Otherwise, it's MUCH better than Firefox 3.x imho. | ||
|
Flameling
United States413 Posts
| ||
|
Gak2
Canada418 Posts
Downloading firefox 5 as I type this FYI, not updating leaves your browser with known security vulnerabilities | ||
|
[N3O]r3d33m3r
Germany673 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:45 DerBeefman wrote: Hhmmm used old Firefox version till I auto-updated some days ago. I'm not really used to the new menu layout, it looks nice no doubt but its kinda weard that all options and functions are in that orange box top right :D. But actually the new layout with tabs on the top and so is kinda nice. you can change the looks of it to anything you want, you can make it look the same as 3.6, you are not forced to use it as it came On June 25 2011 00:53 Gak2 wrote: FYI, not updating leaves your browser with known security vulnerabilities ye anybody who is not updating is a scrub | ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
| ||
|
vnlegend
United States1389 Posts
They're still missing Chrome's open last tab closed option, and a blank page with previously closed tabs. That's about the only weakness. Firefox is great for surfing with adblockplus. Chrome's addon is not on par with FF's. | ||
|
Blyadischa
419 Posts
On June 25 2011 01:07 vnlegend wrote: The new 4.0-5.0 version of Firefox is good. It loads MUCH faster and they basically copied Chrome in terms of the tabs at the top + fast loading speed. I also like their extra 1-click options such as highlight http text -> open in new tab. They're still missing Chrome's open last tab closed option, and a blank page with previously closed tabs. That's about the only weakness. Firefox is great for surfing with adblockplus. Chrome's addon is not on par with FF's. History -> Recently Closed Tabs -> click | ||
|
Monokeros
United States2493 Posts
Chrome : Standard Browser Opera : porn. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:43 xarthaz wrote: Ironic really. Chrome users claim to be the ones aspiring toward fast speed and efficient usage, while their browser fails at both these facets: its slower than opera, uses the most memory of all mainstream browsers, and doesnt have plugin flexibility to make up for it. In short, Chrome is a load of hot air. just because the latest iteration of a previously crap browser is 0.1% faster then chrome doesn't mean i'm gonna switch. Chrome will implement hardware acceleration soon too. Besides i call bullshit about chrome using more mem then ff or ie got a source? Chrome the only browser to resist pwn2own for years. | ||
|
JSH
United States4109 Posts
FF4 was the biggest disappointment, as it kept freezing, like IE And FF3 never did that for me I seriously considered downgrading to FF3, but well 5.0 is out and I'll give it a whirl~ | ||
|
Monokeros
United States2493 Posts
| ||
Empyrean
16986 Posts
This devolved fast. EDIT: Actually, I'll leave this open if it doesn't turn into a browser debate. | ||
|
Empyrean
16986 Posts
Giving this another chance! | ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:48 sh4w wrote: Yeah chrome is really really really really bad. I am probably going to stick with 3.6 forever. 4 was so bad that I'm not even going to try 5. Didn't try 4 but I didn't like the look at all and am perfectly fine with 3.6.X. Also, we still get updates, so all is good. | ||
|
ruthless69
Australia18 Posts
On June 25 2011 01:17 Nizaris wrote: just because the latest iteration of a previously crap browser is 0.1% faster then chrome doesn't mean i'm gonna switch. Chrome will implement hardware acceleration soon too. Besides i call bullshit about chrome using more mem then ff or ie got a source? Chrome the only browser to resist pwn2own for years. I'm gonna ask you to open 15 tabs in chrome and then in FF. Chrome will most probably have 1 process for each tab with however much memory used because of it crash protection thingy. And then check FF with same 15 tabs open Should be one process and less memory because only one instance of an application is open. Not sure about IE but it sucks no matter what they do. | ||
|
adso
718 Posts
For me, until now and maybe for long: no one can never outfox the fox. | ||
|
iloevrsg
128 Posts
| ||
|
R1CH
Netherlands10340 Posts
| ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
IE -> netscape -> firefox -> opera -> firefox -> chrome -> firefox 4? -> chrome -> firefox 5 or something ^_~ just switched completely from chrome to firefox.... what a pain -______________- spent all yesterday (well not really but alot of yesterday) switching over -.-; | ||
|
SilentCrono
United States1420 Posts
| ||
|
kiy0
Portugal593 Posts
Chrome is still my choice. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On June 25 2011 01:17 Nizaris wrote: Its not about acceleration, it just renders slowly, the html&css parsing back end of chrome is simply slow. its that simple. Try zooming pages in out, shifting areas. chrome is decently fast at this, but nowhere near as fast as opera does the same thing. neither of the browsers have hardware acceleration at the moment.just because the latest iteration of a previously crap browser is 0.1% faster then chrome doesn't mean i'm gonna switch. Chrome will implement hardware acceleration soon too. Besides i call bullshit about chrome using more mem then ff or ie got a source? Chrome the only browser to resist pwn2own for years. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
alepov
Netherlands1132 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:43 xarthaz wrote: Ironic really. Chrome users claim to be the ones aspiring toward fast speed and efficient usage, while their browser fails at both these facets: its slower than opera, uses the most memory of all mainstream browsers, and doesnt have plugin flexibility to make up for it. In short, Chrome is a load of hot air. I have chrome, ff and ie installed and i checked a lot of sites to see for myself and chrome loads everything way faster. Don't care about memory usage and I can find all the plugins i need. On June 25 2011 00:20 Zephirdd wrote: I just got the auto-update, so I believe it is not beta anymore. FFox 5.0 Beta Thread http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/ wtf, 4.0 was released a few months ago and 5.0 is already out?! During 4.0's release they also announced that the following updates will be released faster than before (like google does.) | ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:22 Zhiroo wrote: If it's as bad as Firefox 4.0 I will not bother. Happy with Chrome at the moment. I hated Firefox 4 with a passion. It completely changed the layout of the top area of the screen, with limited options to change it back, among other annoying things. Worst of all is the "hardware accelerated text" or whatever it's called. All of the text on the web was virtually unreadable.... the text is blurry, letters blend together, and if you zoom in 800% you can see the letters are made of light browns and blues instead of dark blacks and purples. There were supposed to be solutions to change the text back, but none of them worked for me in FF4. As a browser it was literally unusable. Just for the hell of it I installed FF5. Much better layout, and actually works as fast as Chrome now. Text problem was still there, but the "turn that shit off" solution actually works in FF5. Ever since Chrome came out I've had to choose between the awesome speediness of Chrome, or the full featured Firefox with its Adblock that actually blocks EVERYTHING, where Chrome's misses a lot of video ads. Now I don't have to choose... FF5 is by far the best browser I've ever seen. Loving it. | ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
On June 25 2011 02:58 ruthless69 wrote: I'm gonna ask you to open 15 tabs in chrome and then in FF. Chrome will most probably have 1 process for each tab with however much memory used because of it crash protection thingy. And then check FF with same 15 tabs open Should be one process and less memory because only one instance of an application is open. Not sure about IE but it sucks no matter what they do. I like the fact that Chrome keeps things in separate processes, for numerous reasons. If one tab crashes the whole thing doesn't burn and I don't have to restart the browser. As for increased memory usage from this it is really a negligible amount. Chrome is weakest in the add-ons. Firefox is still the best at this since it's very open source and been like this for a while, AdBlockPlus and NoScript are just a couple of examples. As for switching browsers, I've been on Opera and Chrome for years, switching is a pretty big hassle. | ||
|
epikAnglory
United States1120 Posts
On June 25 2011 01:16 Monokeros wrote: Firefox : ripping music, although now I just use JDownloader Chrome : Standard Browser Opera : porn. Why is that for Opera lol? | ||
|
IKenshinI
United States132 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:04 R1CH wrote: There's pretty much no difference between 4 and 5, they're just trying to play catch up to Chrome which is at version 12 (not that anyone notices or cares). Kind of silly. version 14 on dev  [very buggy right now though] | ||
|
FireS
Romania415 Posts
| ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On June 25 2011 05:47 rabidch wrote: I like the fact that Chrome keeps things in separate processes, for numerous reasons. If one tab crashes the whole thing doesn't burn and I don't have to restart the browser. As for increased memory usage from this it is really a negligible amount. Chrome is weakest in the add-ons. Firefox is still the best at this since it's very open source and been like this for a while, AdBlockPlus and NoScript are just a couple of examples. As for switching browsers, I've been on Opera and Chrome for years, switching is a pretty big hassle. Come on, at least be honest dude. Try opening 50 tabs in opera/ff. its gonna take around 500.600 meg assuming typical blog/forum style pages. then try it in chrome: it will take 2 gigs or more. Chrome is flat out terrible in memory use, its that simple. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:04 R1CH wrote: There's pretty much no difference between 4 and 5, they're just trying to play catch up to Chrome which is at version 12 (not that anyone notices or cares). Kind of silly. it's because 12 sounds more impressive then 5 so like chrome they run off the idea ppl like higher numbers frankly it's going to sound silly at like 20 | ||
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
spiral77
United States28 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:52 Flameling wrote: Actually, isn't there a 6.0 now... apparently called Aurora? Yes, but it's an alpha build. This post has more info if you're interested: http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/04/13/new-channels-for-firefox-rapid-releases/ | ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
I used chrome a while back but switched back to firefox. Chrome was good too but nothing was wrong with FF so I don't know why I'd switch. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
They all do the same thing slightly different imo. as for myself, i used FF but found chrome to be much faster and cleaner when i gave it a spin. been a chrome fan since. FF is still great and ill never uninstall it. Maybe ill give 5 a look. My issue with firefox is when it was trendy and new it was super fast and stable. But over the years i feel like they have added so much junk to it that i no longer have any desire to use it. but like i said, ill give 5 a look  | ||
|
schimmetje
Netherlands1104 Posts
This release schedule (and the end of lifing of previous versions) is.. silly however. They can never hope to catch up with MS on the corporate side of things like this. I know their defense is "we don't wanna", but that doesn't seem consistent with past complaints or, you know, common sense. Though this is not a problem with the browser itself of course Just saying. | ||
|
DarkOptik
452 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On June 25 2011 00:43 xarthaz wrote: Ironic really. Chrome users claim to be the ones aspiring toward fast speed and efficient usage, while their browser fails at both these facets: its slower than opera, uses the most memory of all mainstream browsers, and doesnt have plugin flexibility to make up for it. In short, Chrome is a load of hot air. I think that a big selling point for Chrome is that it looks minimalistic (and by extension, fast and efficient). I never really made an informed decision over which browser to use, and I'm pretty sure majority people don't either. But the moment I saw Chrome for the first time, I instantly thought - this looks so slick, simple and fast, it's so awesome. And from that point on, I could never comfortably use another browser.  | ||
|
Shinshady
Canada1237 Posts
| ||
|
Makavillin
113 Posts
| ||
|
SleepTech
United States222 Posts
On June 25 2011 09:03 xarthaz wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 25 2011 05:47 rabidch wrote: I like the fact that Chrome keeps things in separate processes, for numerous reasons. If one tab crashes the whole thing doesn't burn and I don't have to restart the browser. As for increased memory usage from this it is really a negligible amount. Chrome is weakest in the add-ons. Firefox is still the best at this since it's very open source and been like this for a while, AdBlockPlus and NoScript are just a couple of examples. As for switching browsers, I've been on Opera and Chrome for years, switching is a pretty big hassle. Come on, at least be honest dude. Try opening 50 tabs in opera/ff. its gonna take around 500.600 meg assuming typical blog/forum style pages. then try it in chrome: it will take 2 gigs or more. Chrome is flat out terrible in memory use, its that simple. Why in the world would you need more then 2 to 3 tabs open at once? I can understand maybe 5 to 10 at once but 50? Why? If you're not looking at 5 different sites, why have them open? | ||
|
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
| ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
Opera's really good when you need to have a LOT of tabs | ||
|
ballasdontcry
Canada595 Posts
On June 25 2011 13:55 SleepTech wrote: Why in the world would you need more then 2 to 3 tabs open at once? I can understand maybe 5 to 10 at once but 50? Why? If you're not looking at 5 different sites, why have them open? who are you to say how many tabs people need to open? I personally keep ~20 tabs open at any given time, some regular sites I visit (which I now pin as "app tabs" in FF5), others contain somewhat useful info that doesn't deserve bookmarking but I'll come back to later. Both chrome and FF have memory leak issues, but I think FF has done better in alleviating it in recent updates. And I need the noscript addon that's only found in FF because it just makes my browsing experience so much better (blocking ads, annoying Flash elements on websites, preventing potentially malicious code from running, etc) | ||
|
Ruscour
5233 Posts
I haven't updated yet, it seems awfully quick off the back of 4.0, but I am happy indeed especially considering the Linux changes I read about...Firefox 4.0 for Linux had very little attention to it and had some pretty major flaws. Maybe 5.0 was what 4.0 was supposed to be, although I love some of the changes that 4.0 had. Firefox Sync is amazing for someone like me who has a million computers. | ||
|
LuMiX
China5757 Posts
| ||
|
v3ctor
Canada53 Posts
On June 25 2011 09:07 semantics wrote: it's because 12 sounds more impressive then 5 so like chrome they run off the idea ppl like higher numbers frankly it's going to sound silly at like 20 But that's the thing: with chrome, they don't even care about the version numbers. If you go to download chrome, there's no mention of the version number AT ALL. I really like their approach - they've made the updating process so seamless that there's no need to make any fuss about versions. I remember they had one firefox update that just changed one config variable to fix a farmville issue, and yet it required an update confirmation + a multi-megabyte download. wtf? | ||
|
JeeJee
Canada5652 Posts
On June 25 2011 13:55 SleepTech wrote: Why in the world would you need more then 2 to 3 tabs open at once? I can understand maybe 5 to 10 at once but 50? Why? If you're not looking at 5 different sites, why have them open? I'm by no means a tab fanatic, and yet I keep a routine 5-10 tabs open and I consider myself a minimalist .. Right now for example, I have 2 TL tabs, gmail, facebook, 2 tabs from another forum, and a miscellaneous webpage (SS platform videos). I can certainly see how people can routinely use much more than 10 tabs, especially if they don't constantly close them, something I'm quite diligent about since every tab that's opened I have used in the past couple of minutes. On June 25 2011 09:15 Destro wrote: Its funny how browsers have turned into one of those "what i use is obviously better" debates just like phones, operating systems, consoles, etc. They all do the same thing slightly different imo. To be fair, there's objective marks for browsers, those can't be marred by opinion and objectively make a browser better than another like memory usage for example. That's quite unlike ie phones, where most of the discussion is about ui/looks (something that applies to browsers as well, but is subjective so no point discussing it) | ||
|
daedelus
United States13 Posts
That said I keep switching back and forth between safari(on Mac) and firefox. Safari keeps flash from loading in new tabs until you actually switch to the tab saving battery life for laptops. | ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
Firefox as backup ;p I used to use firefox a lot more until I got my macbook, where I was too lazy to switch my main browser | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
| ||
|
anzient
Denmark119 Posts
On June 25 2011 09:23 DarkOptik wrote: Is it just me or does Adblock for Chrome not work for Jtv ads? It's definitely installed for me, but it doesn't seem to block ads embedded into Flash. It works fine with FF4/5 though. No it's not just you, and it's the sole reason I don't use chrome. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18918 Posts
Guess my eyes will have to die to the eternal whiteness :[[[[[[[[ | ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
| ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
3.6 was nice, and I've had very very little problems with it. I will move on to 5 eventually, but it's still unknown as to when that may be. | ||
|
RaLakedaimon
United States1564 Posts
| ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
unichan
United States4223 Posts
| ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
On June 25 2011 09:03 xarthaz wrote: Come on, at least be honest dude. Try opening 50 tabs in opera/ff. its gonna take around 500.600 meg assuming typical blog/forum style pages. then try it in chrome: it will take 2 gigs or more. Chrome is flat out terrible in memory use, its that simple. honest? rofl, i dont open 50 tabs in chrome. why should i? i never actually open that many tabs, maybe 20 max. its different for everybody, everybody uses browsers differently, you cant just make a blanket statement on why other people should use the browser you like. i always find it amusing that these arguments on internet browsers are such that people have to use the words "be honest" in replies to me i've also had resource issues in the past and present with all of the listed browsers and they all fail in some cases, but the multi process design of chrome makes it much easier to handle when something goes wrong in memory usage since individual processes can just be killed manually in chrome using its built in manager. this is really the design i wish more browsers had but dont, i think that creating new processes should be a little smarter than the way chrome does it but it is a step in the right direction to making a more easily controllable browser (hence why they have chrome OS now) On June 25 2011 09:23 DarkOptik wrote: Is it just me or does Adblock for Chrome not work for Jtv ads? It's definitely installed for me, but it doesn't seem to block ads embedded into Flash. It works fine with FF4/5 though. chrome does not block embeeded flash ads well, if at all--i have not seen it properly block flash ads ever. even opera does better than chrome at this, but if you want a browser that actually blocks everything you hate, use firefox. i dont know if chrome will ever improve upon this. the opera way of blocking ads is more crude than firefox and can actually sometimes be detrimental to performance with some badly made filters. On June 25 2011 15:06 daedelus wrote: I've had issues with some flash players breaking on Chrome. Firefox is going to load everything because it's been around for so long web designers are used to programing for it. With 5.0 Firefox is also catching back up in terms of speed. I find all the chrome fanboys strange. I tried chrome, it didn't load pages correctly broke flash players. Maybe it's gotten better but not loading all webpages is fail for a browser. That said I keep switching back and forth between safari(on Mac) and firefox. Safari keeps flash from loading in new tabs until you actually switch to the tab saving battery life for laptops. never had that issue, opera sure sucks at handling some webscripts though. | ||
|
Highways
Australia6103 Posts
This is pathetic from Mozilla, 4 was just released a month ago.... | ||
|
maitiu
Germany58 Posts
On June 25 2011 16:43 anzient wrote: No it's not just you, and it's the sole reason I don't use chrome. If Chrome blocked ads in streams I would have never seen the hilarious Old Spice ad | ||
|
Cryhavoc
372 Posts
On June 25 2011 17:27 Highways wrote: Wow wtf, updated to 5.0 and none of the addons work anymore. This is pathetic from Mozilla, 4 was just released a month ago.... just use this https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter all addons will work again | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On June 25 2011 17:03 unichan wrote: Wow, the new Internet Explorer 9 is so much better. All of you bandwagoners using firefox lol? And the people here saying google chrome? LOLOL. Seriously both of those are so ugly, just use internet explorer... firefox is crap. I hope you're trolling. Firefox has extremely customizable appearance (in multiple ways), and is generally always ahead in web standards and feature support over Internet Explorer. Bandwagoning has nothing to do with it — it's about using an excellent product, one that caters to the user with a huge amount of extensions that will provide the exact features a user needs, and one which is highly configurable via screens like about:config. | ||
MrHoon
10183 Posts
Ever since FF4, it seems like any flash related site has a 1/4 chance of crashing my firefox, it's driving me mad. | ||
|
Depetrify
978 Posts
On June 26 2011 15:03 MrHoon wrote: just a question, has anyone else's Firefox been crashing like crazy these past weeks? Ever since FF4, it seems like any flash related site has a 1/4 chance of crashing my firefox, it's driving me mad. YES! I thought it was just me. | ||
|
enigamI
Canada385 Posts
Edit : But honestly I don't have a huge preference between the big three. Lot of exaggerated hate going around in this thread... Try to take a deep breath, reread your post, then decide if it's worth it :S | ||
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
wow guess this wasn't my computer's problem Sometimes youtube will crash when I minimize or try to close firefox if it has 2 or more tags and it's really pissing me off, ctrl-alt-delete won't fix it. I just have to wait a long time until it finally asks me "U WANT TO CLOSE TABS YES/NO??" I really don't want to jump ship to chrome because DownloadthemAll is an amazing addon which chrome doesn't have  edit: On a side note, if chrome has downloadthemall addon, I would jump ship. Or anything even similar to it. | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
I would think that was obvious | ||
|
han_han
United States205 Posts
I use noscript. Chrome has no true equivalent, so I shall stay until someone shows me something exactly like noscript in chrome. | ||
|
anatem
Romania1369 Posts
downgraded to 3.6, the best browser ever, never had a single problem with this version | ||
|
Jayjay54
Germany2296 Posts
but firefox 5 seems like 4 if you ask me | ||
|
251
United States1401 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
MinoMino
Norway1103 Posts
On June 27 2011 21:20 anatem wrote: pretty annoyed about the recent versions, i'been a loyal user of Firefox since 2004, but with version 4.0 i started getting crashes, freezes, it was working slower and other such small issues downgraded to 3.6, the best browser ever, never had a single problem with this version I'm exactly the same. Ever since I upgraded to 4.0, I get crashes at completely random times, and I get the occasional freeze whenever I'm loading some Flash application. I was hoping updates would get rid of it eventually, but even after going to 5.0, I still get them. FF used to be so reliable for me. | ||
|
Ender985
Spain910 Posts
On June 26 2011 15:28 han_han wrote: There is one real reason why I continue to use firefox despite their rapid-release shenaniganism: I use noscript. Chrome has no true equivalent, so I shall stay until someone shows me something exactly like noscript in chrome. Well there is NotScripts, which is essentially the same (but from a different author). The only major difference is that it needs you to input a 20 character long password inside a certain file when first installed, nothing too complicated. You should give it a try. | ||
|
mav451
United States1596 Posts
On June 27 2011 21:56 Ender985 wrote: Well there is NotScripts, which is essentially the same (but from a different author). The only major difference is that it needs you to input a 20 character long password inside a certain file when first installed, nothing too complicated. You should give it a try. It is by no means the same. Until NoScript is released from the original author himself, and with the full functionality/security provided by the original FF extension, it should never be considered an equivalent. I'm currently watching this thread, and suggest anyone interested keep it bookmarked: http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6332 The NoScript author's last response, on June 9th, suggests that with the experimental API's there may be a "NoScript Lite", but again, by no means is this an equivalent extension to the full-featured FF original. For additional reading, you may want to read the following posts as well: https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7610 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/ | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On June 26 2011 15:03 MrHoon wrote: just a question, has anyone else's Firefox been crashing like crazy these past weeks? Ever since FF4, it seems like any flash related site has a 1/4 chance of crashing my firefox, it's driving me mad. Only back in like firefox 2 or something. Streaming sites seemed to be particularly problematic. The issue had to do with CPU use a bit too, I think (problamtic for older CPUs). I'm pretty sure firefox 3 was fine on my old computer, and certainly has been very fine on my new computer. I didn't have much issues with 4, but I also didn't use it as much as 3. | ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
| ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
Firefox 6 has 2 changes that I cannot stand and I'm wondering if anyone knows how to fix them (google search didn't do much for me). 1) It now highlights the website name on the address bar. for example "teamliquid.net". However, this is fucking annoying because I use a dark theme and the rest of the bar is unreadable unless I highlight it. I cannot use firefox without this theme. It is perfect (NASA Night launch) and I hate pretty much every other theme. Is there a way to disable this new feature? 2)Added "Unsorted Bookmarks" tab at the bottom of my bookmarks. Also really annoying because now it reaches the bottom of the screen and it's just painful to look at... a minor inconvenience but it takes the same amount of place as 2 links and I sometimes add random pages and remove them later for easier access. I never add enough links to cause me to have to scroll through them though. I have also not found a way to remove this. I hate Mozilla. They ALWAYS downgrade their product. Firefox 5 I was finally getting used to (after using an add-on to have a status bar and moving the icons back to their normal places) but now they decide to fuck it up again. Oh, and apparently (from google searches), FF6 uses more memory than FF5 (I didn't do any tests but it does indeed look higher than normal at the moment for me; maybe just a coincidence). Anyway, anyone know how to fix these problems? Otherwise I will permanently downgrade to FF5 I think. | ||
|
2WeaK
Canada550 Posts
On August 19 2011 04:37 Kurr wrote: I know it's only semi-related since it's about FF 6 but I have a few questions. I just upgraded (because it makes 90% of my add-ons unusable so I waited a bit to update... didn't help much). Firefox 6 has 2 changes that I cannot stand and I'm wondering if anyone knows how to fix them (google search didn't do much for me). 1) It now highlights the website name on the address bar. for example "teamliquid.net". However, this is fucking annoying because I use a dark theme and the rest of the bar is unreadable unless I highlight it. I cannot use firefox without this theme. It is perfect (NASA Night launch) and I hate pretty much every other theme. Is there a way to disable this new feature? 2)Added "Unsorted Bookmarks" tab at the bottom of my bookmarks. Also really annoying because now it reaches the bottom of the screen and it's just painful to look at... a minor inconvenience but it takes the same amount of place as 2 links and I sometimes add random pages and remove them later for easier access. I never add enough links to cause me to have to scroll through them though. I have also not found a way to remove this. I hate Mozilla. They ALWAYS downgrade their product. Firefox 5 I was finally getting used to (after using an add-on to have a status bar and moving the icons back to their normal places) but now they decide to fuck it up again. Oh, and apparently (from google searches), FF6 uses more memory than FF5 (I didn't do any tests but it does indeed look higher than normal at the moment for me; maybe just a coincidence). Anyway, anyone know how to fix these problems? Otherwise I will permanently downgrade to FF5 I think. For your first problem... Set browser.urlbar.formatting.enabled to false in about:config http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/862379?s=highlight&as=s | ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
| ||
|
StyLeD
United States2965 Posts
I think safari does this too but I'm on a PC. If Firefox or IE ever implement this to their url bars then I will seriously consider them as legitimate options. | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On August 19 2011 04:46 Steel wrote: For the second sort your bookmarks =D Well, I have 10 folders already plus a ton of other bookmarks that stay there permanently although without a folder. On August 19 2011 04:44 2WeaK wrote: For your first problem... http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/862379?s=highlight&as=s Thanks, I will do that. | ||
|
GentleDrill
United Kingdom672 Posts
On August 19 2011 04:49 StyLeD wrote: I use Chrome because it gives me a bigger screen and I can type in, say, "t" and it'll automatically list teamliquid because that's my #1 site I end up typing for the letter "t". I think safari does this too but I'm on a PC. If Firefox or IE ever implement this to their url bars then I will seriously consider them as legitimate options. Firefox has done that for ages. | ||
|
aike
United States1629 Posts
So has Internet Explorer lol. Also, Firefox 6.0? wtf? Didn't 4.0 come out like less than a year ago?? LOLOLOL | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On August 19 2011 04:49 StyLeD wrote: I use Chrome because it gives me a bigger screen and I can type in, say, "t" and it'll automatically list teamliquid because that's my #1 site I end up typing for the letter "t". I think safari does this too but I'm on a PC. If Firefox or IE ever implement this to their url bars then I will seriously consider them as legitimate options. Ah, I have every form of auto-complete or anything related to that turned off, even the url bar only shows my current url and erases itself. I live alone, it's not for what you think . I just like having it organized and I don't like having FF saving my history or searches. | ||
|
JeeJee
Canada5652 Posts
Not to mention, firefox can have the most screen estate efficient layout possible. Chrome can probably do this too, I guess? Anyway this is a SS of my firefox (click to enlarge): ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/kQSt7.png) You can't really get any more efficient than that -- I love it. | ||
|
stormchaser
Canada1009 Posts
| ||
|
StyLeD
United States2965 Posts
| ||
|
chesshaha
United States1117 Posts
I use chrome as my default browser, and I only use firefox 5% of the time. IE 0.1% of the time. Edit: The tab groups feature is kinda cool, not sure it is new in 6 or not, but no way this will make me switch back to firefox from chrome. | ||
|
BamBam
745 Posts
| ||
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
Mackem
United Kingdom470 Posts
| ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
Not perfect but works great still. | ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
On August 19 2011 05:14 Ponyo wrote: Well when 4 came out i downloaded it and it like lagged all the time? so I used the old version. I'll try out 5.0 because im an old fan, but yea I've gone a year with google chrome before. Right now because of college I am alternating between chrome/homework and mozilla/sc2/social. Internet explorer 9 sucks balls. lag? sounds like your computer doesnt have much memory. | ||
|
Carson
Canada820 Posts
| ||
|
Spitfire
South Africa442 Posts
| ||
| ||
