ie8 fix
madison

Networking

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)

By | August 29, 2011, 2:17pm PDT

Summary: Firefox 6 is better than the Firefox 5 Web browser. That’s the good news. As for the rest, well I’m not impressed.

I used to love Firefox. For many years, it was the best Web browser around. Then, it got old and cranky. The good news is that Mozilla got serious about improving it. The bad news is that everyone else, even Microsoft with Internet Explorer 8 in 2009, did too. The other Web browser developers have caught up and surpassed Firefox. Worse still, the last few versions of Firefox haven’t been that good. Firefox 6, the newest version, is better than Firefox 5, but it’s not that great either.

Like most modern Web browsers, Firefox 6 has a “less is more” style interface. If that’s not to your taste, and I confess I like having real menus, Firefox does make it easy to bring back a more traditional Web browser interface.

Firefox also now supports, ala Google Chrome Web browser, pinned tabs. With these I can always have my favorite Web sites ready to go in tabs kept pinned to the left side of the tab bar.

I also liked that Firefox is continuing to work on improving its security. Firefox is about as safe as a browser can get these days.

Download.com: Firefox 6

This version of Firefox also does much better than previous versions at managing memory. Unfortunately, you really need to be a techie if you want to use the about:memory option to bring Firefox’s endless hunger for RAM under control. While I’m a techie myself, and I appreciate this level of access to the program’s memory use, I think 99% of users would have been happier with even better, and invisible, memory management.

I know that Firefox 7 will have better memory management. I also know that Firefox 7 is due out on September 27th. I would have been just as happy to wait for that and then for Mozilla to have released Firefox 6. As it is, Firefox 6 feels like a placeholder.

Don’t get me wrong. Firefox 6 is better than Firefox 5. That last version of Firefox crashed more often than a drunken teenager behind the wheel of a sports car.

OK, that was the good news. Here’s the bad news.

First, I, and a lot of other people, am already sick and tired of Firefox’s manic major release schedule Come on! Stop spending to much time playing with your major release designations, and just focus getting the software right, OK?

This isn’t just me being grumpy. I’ve found one Web site, my bank as it happens, that works fine with Firefox, but it doesn’t recognize Firefox 6 as being a valid Web browser. Yes, some of that is sloppy programming on their side, but Web browsers have to be ready for messy Web sites. As it is, I “fixed” the problem by using User Agent Switcher to mask Firefox 6’s Web browser identity with an older version of Firefox’s identity.

Firefox 6: A first look (Gallery)

At least that Firefox extension would work for me. Far, far too many others don’t work. Mozilla developer, Dave Townsend, claimed earlier this year that “Faster releases are good for add-ons.” No, they’re not.

Just because Mozilla developers are paid to keep up with constant change doesn’t mean that individual developers or small independent software vendors (ISV)s can keep up. From what I’m seeing they’re falling behind supporting Firefox with its six-week release schedule.

Even the big ISVs seem to be having trouble. For example, Adobe Flash on Firefox 6 on Mint Linux is failing for me. Chrome’s built-in version of Flash works just fine on the same Web sites on the same version of Linux. Go figure.

I also have to say that when it comes to raw performance, Firefox isn’t blazing into the lead. Far from it.

I’ve been using Firefox 6.0 on both my Linux and Windows XP and 7 PCs. For benchmarking, I used my Gateway DX4710 running Windows 7 SP1. This PC is powered by a 2.5-GHz Intel Core 2 Quad processor and has 6GBs of RAM and an Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) 3100 for graphics. It’s hooked to the Internet via a Netgear Gigabit Ethernet switch, which, in turn, is hooked up to a 60Mbps (Megabit per second) cable Internet connection.

On this Windows system, I ran not only Firefox, but Chrome 13 and Internet Explorer (IE) 9 to see how Firefox 6 compared to its chief rivals

Firefox, once more, didn’t do well on Web standards. On the Acid 3 compatibility test, which checks out how well a browser complies with various Web standards such as CSS, JavaScript, and Extensible Markup Language (XML), Firefox had a score of 97. Chrome had a perfect score of 100, and IE had a 95. These were the same marks for the browsers the last time I checked in on them.

On the HTML5 Test, which checks to see how compliant the Web browser is with the HTML5 Web page standard, Firefox showed a significant improvement. This time, it came in with 313 points out of a possible 400. Unfortunately for Firefox, Chrome did even better with a score of 340 out of a maximum of 400. IE? Microsoft can say what they will about HTML 5 support, but it still came in dead last with 130 points.

As for pure performance, I first tried the browsers out on Mozilla’s own Kraken 1.0, which is their update of the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark In Kraken, the lower scores are best. Here, Firefox was, at best, OK with a score of 7588.2ms. That’s a trifle slower than Firefox 5. Chrome 13 zipped into first place with 4927.7ms. IE? Ahem, IE came with a stinker of a score 17,051.9.

With Peacekeeper, where higher scores are better, Firefox really fell behind with 4,588 points. On this benchmark, IE surged ahead with a score of 8,343 to Chrome 13’s 8,010.

According to Google’s own JavaScript benchmark V8 Benchmark Suite, where higher scores are better, Firefox does a mediocre job with a showing of 3,614 compared to Chrome 12’s 7,677. Firefox scored much better than IE way, with its 2,193, but on this benchmark it’s not even in Chrome’s ballpark.

As for SunSpider 0.9.1, the oldest JavaScript Web benchmark, where lower results are better, Firefox shows well with 301.2ms. Unfortunately, Chrome 13 with 289.3, and IE 9 with 252.6 are still better

And, when all is said and done, that’s also my verdict on Firefox 6. The other browsers are better. While I can’t recommend IE 9 for all Windows users, since Microsoft has seen fit to not make it available to XP users, I can recommend Chrome for everyone. I wish I coud still recommend Firefox, but I can’t.

Related Stories:

Firefox 6 already sees bump in traffic soon after debut

Mozilla wants to hide Firefox version numbers from users - UPDATE

Firefox 6 patches 10 dangerous security holes

Firefox 6 - Official release

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system

Disclosure

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is a freelance writer. He does not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it.

His work has been published in everything from highly technical publications (IEEE Computer, ACM NetWorker, Byte) to business publications (eWEEK, InformationWeek, ZDNet) to popular technology (Computer Shopper, PC Magazine, PC World) to the mainstream press (Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, BusinessWeek).

110
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Firefox 7 is STILL a memory pig
runbei 11th Oct
Firefox 7 routinely hogs over 330 MB of memory with only five modest standard extensions installed and one tab open, after 30 minutes of non-frantic browsing. Yuck. Pah. Bleh. Oink.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
Randalllind Updated - 29th Aug
You now need the Add-on Compatibility Reporter install to get add-ons to work. I just wonder when Mozilla makes it part of Firefox.

Without it half the add-ons don't work.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
Michael Alan Goff 29th Aug
@Randalllind

Wrong.

A vast majority of addons work with Firefox 6. Stop spreading ignorance.
0 Votes
+ -
@goff256

... Only to be broken again with v7.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
Michael Alan Goff 30th Aug
7 isn't actually released yet for about a month.

Do you always judge by beta?
0 Votes
+ -
@goff256

Not always, but it is a sign of things to come. If I was a developer, and my addon was breaking every six weeks, I'd think twice before bothering to update it again. Developers don't always have all the time in the world to continue updating their addons just because Mozilla wants to artificially inflate their numbers.

I still am still in the process of trying to figure out how to uninstall addons and plugins from Firefox that haven't run since I left FF3.5...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
Michael Alan Goff 30th Aug
That problem is only for now.

Soon, Mozilla will be removing the version number check, before the end of the year. Not sure if it's going to be in version 9 or 10.
0 Votes
+ -
@goff256

Sweet. Long overdue, but good news nontheless.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
Michael Alan Goff 30th Aug
I agree.

The only time I want firefox to shut down my add-ons is if it detects that not doing so would crash the browser or something.
0 Votes
+ -
@Michael Alan Goff The only one I'm interested in, Zone Alarm Extreme Security, doesn't!

And I have begun to use IE9 again. I would love to remain with Firefox, as I like the product and want to encourage the development of all, and any, software.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
comnut2k Updated - 3rd Sep
@I am Gorby
Please tell, is IE9 as *functional* as FF4??
My main needs..
adblock using Fanboys list..
session manager compatible with tabmixplus.
Noscript, yescript, abilities..
flashblock with whitelist.
fully customizable, all buttons, menus moveable.
video & pic downloader like downthemall.

exeteded statusbar & download status
- has IE stopped lying about page download?? try unplugging your net, then load page! the 'progress bar' still moves!!... sad
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
comnut2k Updated - 3rd Sep
"Mozilla will be removing the version number check"
So we will get more crashes/brownouts from *ancient* addons??

(note: there is NO 'reply' button where I want it????)
@Michael Alan Goff
It seems to me there is a never ending parade of misinformation and often wildly misleading claims about all kinds and sorts of software around here on a regular basis; at least from many of the posters responding to various articles.

And its almost always of the same ilk. Whatever product the poster uses is next to flawless and the rest are trash in comparison. And common sense pretty much dictates thats inherently unlikely. If any one product of a particular kind was so much better then the rest, given any reasonable passage of time product usage would certainly reflect as much.

I for one am quite tiered of seeing posters fall back on claims of evil empires and swiss cheese products when in fact the very same product typically will have significantly broad usage, often by millions of happy users. At best one might speak of such a product in terms of less then perfect, or even speaking of specific issues or problems, but these all too often blanket insults generally claiming any successful popular product is in fact garbage can only be seen as sour grapes by someone who likes a different product but cannot give credible SPECIFIC reasons that makes the competition a true waste of time. It would certainly be an unusual situation where any software product that has high usage figures for quite a number of years and general customer satisfaction could rightly be declared as garbage.
0 Votes
+ -
I use Nightly Tester Tools myself personally, to disable the compatibility checking. I do my own checking, and if a new add-on causes a problem it's disabled and maybe uninstalled if not resolved within a few versions.

But anyway I'm running FF7b so some bugs and absurdities are expected. It scored faster on tests though
Total: 5995.0ms +/- 2.2% --Kraken
Firefox(v7.0) Scored: (Peacekeeper)
4999 Points

As evidenced by these two scores, I think improvement is being made with the fast release schedule. They may not be significant improvements but the fact that you wait far less for an improvement on Firefox even if it's only a bit is nice if you ask me.
0 Votes
+ -
@ZazieLavender...
Fast releases are OK and wanted for security fixes, so they are OK within a major release branch (and these fixes have then to be integrated also in other active branches).

But functionality fixes, or even speed improvements should not be posted so early if it requires a new major version for compatibility checking.

Those users that will want faster releases could subscribe to faster update channels, but this should not be the default (and even Chrome uses separate channels, with the default channel being the one with the slowest updates, except for security fixes or fixes against crashes; Chrome users that want faster releases can subscribe to the beta channel or to the alpha/development channel : I think it is an excellent idea that limits the impact of incompatibilties and can still allow early detection of those incompatibilities long before they come into the main channel)

Chrome also develops its releases with distinct milestones for future releases, all developed in parallel but where new functionalities are scheduled long in advance; there's no surprise update for developers of addons or websites.

Mozilla should be inspired by how Chrome can manage its versioning, and still being able to perform fast updates, without breaking existing functionalities or backward compatibility. The way Mozilla is managing Milestones is that this is only a large bag collecting ideas or concepts without clear specifications, and without scheduling them; so when a milestone is about to come, it just reports to the next one those that will not be implemetned immediately. The next milestone is then full of many crap ideas that may only have experimented from a past version, and no longer workable; there are many unfinished tasks in those milestones, and no work plan to resolve them by dependency or in an ordered way (in fact I think that even the developers of Mozilla don't seem to agree on any planning, each of them is working separately with too little interaction and cooperation). So most of them are just overwelmed by long and unorganized lists of bug reports or RFE's to resolve...
SJV, what the heck are you doing with FF 6 to make it crash? I surf the web, you know normal stuff, post on web forums, look at videos, log in to my company portal for POS and other data, use Google Apps, etc. It never crashes. Let me repeat, I have never seen it crash.
0 Votes
+ -
He obviously has a strange config'
thx-1138_@... Updated - 30th Aug
@rshol .. i've had FF 6.0 installed and haven't experienced any crashes - even with multiple tabs open, simultaneously. Suffice to say, i updated from FF 5.0 pretty much within 24 hours of the version being officially released.

What never ceases to amaze me is how SJVN (and most other bloggers on ZDNet) try to pass off their personal experiences as somehow being universal.

Nothing, new to see here .. same old, same old, crappy, anecdotal reporting .. from yet another ZDNet blogger.
0 Votes
+ -
@thx-1138_@...

He says he is using Linux Mint 10, with Firefox 6. As teh latest Linux Mint isn't up to Firefox 6 yet, he had to install it himself.

He might have gotten some of the dependencies wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
@YetAnotherBob: He might have gotten some of the dependencies wrong.

...we've been told that this ("DLL hell") doesn't happen on Linux.
0 Votes
+ -
Dependencies?
CFWhitman 30th Aug
@YetAnotherBob
When has that ever happened with Firefox? Generally, if a program will run, the dependencies are there. I can't recall ever tracing program crashes, other than perhaps a couple of crashes on open, back to missing dependencies and only occasionally to out of date dependencies, and that was in Windows.
@ye
Generally something like "dll hell" doesn't happen in Linux because libraries are versioned well (and that's gotten better in Windows too, I think), and because dependencies are managed by the package manager.

However, if you start compiling your own software, or installing simple executables in Linux that rely on open source libraries, then you can start having to track dependencies for those programs yourself. That can be annoying, but I've never seen it cause random program crashes. Usually, it just means you have to track down and install additional libraries to get one of these programs to work.

Proprietary software in Linux usually contains it own dependencies (this is often true of software for Windows as well). It would be conceivable for proprietary programs to create folders for standard proprietary libraries in /opt, and for that to lead to different programs overwriting these libraries. Then you could see problems similar to "dll hell" in Linux. Problems like that, however, haven't reared their heads in Linux so far. Overwriting a dll is increasingly unusual in Windows as well. In Windows more recently, the problem you sometimes encounter seems to be that different versions of the same library exist in multiple places and trying to figure out which dll files programs are actually using (probably from the PATH variable) and making them all work.
@CFWhitman: Generally something like "dll hell" doesn't happen in Linux because libraries are versioned well (and that's gotten better in Windows too, I think), and because dependencies are managed by the package manager.

...with Linux. As with Windows Linux relies on others to package the dependencies correctly. There's no magical enforcement done by the OS.
0 Votes
+ -
@thx-1138_@...

I haven't had it crash, either. It crashed once in FF5 and that was on a MySpace page full of java applets and other bloated Flash garbage trying to run scripts.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
waterhzrd Updated - 5th Sep
@thx-1138_@... "What never ceases to amaze me is how SJVN (and most other bloggers on ZDNet) try to pass off their personal experiences as somehow being universal."

Couldn't agree more. And as a sidebar, I am 100% banking online and I have zero issues with that either... EVER. Transfers, web bill pay, all of it. So yea, his bank website is sloppy to say the least. Don't blame the browsers for that, call the bank.
0 Votes
+ -
@rshol: SJV, what the heck are you doing with FF 6 to make it crash?
0 Votes
+ -
@rshol
I don't see where he said that 6 was crashing for him. He said that 5 had been crashing.
0 Votes
+ -
"their manic major release schedule"
Michael Alan Goff 29th Aug
I hate to break it to you, but any quickened pace would destroy a page that counts on version numbers. They could have made it all .x releases (4.1, 4.2, etc) and then the version number checker still tell you it wasn't valid.

As for addons, which has been stated before, there's no need to worry. Soon, the addons will not have compatibility checked by version numbers. I think this is scheduled to happen before the end of the year.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
the.nameless.drifter 29th Aug
@goff256

Most version checkers look for V X or at the worst V.Y this in reality is 4.0.2 which would be fine for all browser checks
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
Michael Alan Goff 29th Aug
How is it 4.0.2?

It would be 4.2, at least.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
the.nameless.drifter 30th Aug
@goff256

Because it isn't a major release its some very minor updates (like V5) hence my quotation of V4.0.2
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
Michael Alan Goff 30th Aug
You didn't tell me how this is a minor update.
@the.nameless.drifter Not really. If this was 4.0.2, that would mean they'd only included only bugfixes and security fixes since 4.0.0. New/changed features, UI, and functionality would have meant 4.1 and 4.2 under the old numbering scheme.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
the.nameless.drifter 4th Sep
@goff256

Better memory management, a new default view and better security, I have down as a ..x release. Maybe you could argue .x but its debatable
0 Votes
+ -
Please stop using acid test
x I'm tc 29th Aug
Many of the items included have be depreciated. A 100% actually indicates a *lack* of compliance at this point.
@jdakula well some of you developers had better make a *proper* test????
0 Votes
+ -
"...even Microsoft with Internet Explorer 8 in 2009, did too."
Like as if Ms could not do anything right!
0 Votes
+ -
Chrome 15
ArgyleBandit Updated - 29th Aug
The first stable version of Chrome shipped a little less than 3 years ago and Chrome 15 is already available for preview.

I tried using Chrome for a few months but the performance difference was negligible and the Plugin infrastructure is far less robust. I ended up switching back to Firefox.
0 Votes
+ -
Why does SJVN persist in "testing" new browser releases against ACID3 and HTML5Test?

The reason IE and FF "only" get 97% in ACID3 is that the remaining 3% are accounted for by tests of web font features that have since been deprecated from the HTML5 specs.

HTML5Test includes a ton of features that are not part of the HTML5 spec. With statements like:
The following tests go beyond the requirements of the HTML5 specification and are not counted towards the total score. If a browser supports one or more video codecs, two bonus points are awarded for each codec.
It's pretty clear that HTML5Test is doing all that it can to bias its numbers towards any vendor who opts to implement non-standard features.

It's time to deprecate HTML5Test.com and its fallacious test results.

Similarly, SJVN is more than happy to include tests from Mozilla and Google, but completely ignore the many tests published by Microsoft. What are you worried about Steven? That Microsoft's tests might highlight Mozilla's & Google's browsers' weaknesses?
0 Votes
+ -
@bitcrazed this is not the first time SJVN used those flawed tests... nor would I expect this will be the last time.
0 Votes
+ -
@Samic - Yeah, I know. It's very sad indeed to see someone unnecessarily diminish their reputation and integrity by offering up such biased viewpoints as this. If you're going to do comparative reviews, at least have the decency to include all vendors' tests, and not just those of the companies you prefer.
0 Votes
+ -
@bitcrazed

I sooo agree with you. Im pretty tired of those people who pretend something as true without giving you any serious metrics.
"Firefox is about as safe as a browser can get these days." Really? It still doesn't run in any sort of protected mode like IE7 (since Vista) and Chrome do.
0 Votes
+ -
Why do people ***** when Mozilla needlessly bump version numbers, yet when Google do it no one cares? Chrome has been jumping up versions numbers just as quickly since launch.

Firefox has App Tabs since Firefox 4, keep up. Firefox 5 ran just fine for me btw. I see little difference between Firefox 4/5/6.

Extensions breaking is a good reason to move to Chrome, they simply don't break when major version numbers change. It is easy to fix though, open the Extension and bump the MaxVersion number inside it yourself. This is too technical for most but not techie types.
0 Votes
+ -
IE 9 shouldn't score that high on sunspider
KSLGW95 Updated - 29th Aug
Edit: Never mind I confused Kraken with sunspider

Original Message:

@SJVN

Which version of IE9 did you use?

The 64 bit one uses an old Javascript engine.
Anyone who starts off a review by flaunting his biased predisposition toward the product being assessed cannot be taken seriously.

You can't simply use raw javascript benchmark data, which represents a small fraction of overall rendering performance, to make determinations about real world rendering capabilities that most people actually care about. You fail to notice the fact that, despite all these benchmark figures, Firefox actually renders many pages faster and more reliably than the other browsers you compared it to. You can open 100 pages simultaneously in Firefox and it will render all 100 of them perfectly every time without freezing or crashing. In Chrome or IE, you try the same thing and you may have to refresh at least 10 of those pages a few times due to imperfect or incomplete rendering. I'll take high rendering efficiency over raw rendering speed any day, because there's nothing more annoying than a browser that renders pages quickly, but incorrectly.

I use Ubuntu 11.04 and I have more fingers than I've had browser crashes over the last 3 years...and I'm talking about Firefox collectively running on 6 different machines, each with totally different hardware. In fact, I no longer remember clearly what the crash dialogue box looks like. If I want to see that, I'll have to look it up on Google. Back in the days when I was one of those who unnecessarily used Windows to browse the web, I noticed that whenever the registry accumulated errors, one of the first signs of this nearly silent problem was browser instability after a new browser update. The only way to solve the problem was to revert back to the older version or to do a fresh installation of Windows. This silent broken registry issue is one of the reasons why I switched to Linux for general computing. No registry, no more stability problems with browser updates. Problem solved.

When I tested Firefox 6 JavaScript execution speed on 32-bit Ubuntu running on this machine (a dual core - AMD Athlon ll X2 250 - with 2GB Ram), it was the fastest of the three browser, executing SunSpider in 264.5ms (Note that Firefox executed Sunspider javascript faster on my machine under Ubuntu than Chrome running on your more powerful Wintel machine). Opera came in at 293.6ms, Chrome was dead last at 308.1ms. Yes, that's right....Chrome's now the slowest of the browsers when it comes to running this particular test on Ubuntu 11.04. But SO WHAT? They're all so fast that if I put each browser in full-screen mode (by pressing F11), and then used them for an hour each, I'd probably forget which browser I was using by the end of each session.

The only legitimate complaint I see is the add-on update situation, which is really more the fault of third party developers, rather than Mozilla. The lazy ones simply need to get with the new program and update the add-ons to pass compatibility checks with the latest browser versions currently in testing. If a developer can't quickly make small changes to his add-ons, you can't rely on them to fix vulnerabilities that might turn up in their add-ons. I haven't personally had any problems with add-on compatibility, since virtually all the developers of my add-ons have ensured that they work with Firefox versions at least 2 versions above the stable version at all times. In other words, most of my add-ons are already compatible with Firefox 8 alpha.
0 Votes
+ -
very good point(s)
thx-1138_@... 30th Aug
@eMJayy " ... But SO WHAT? They're all so fast that if I put each browser in full-screen mode (by pressing F11), and then used them for an hour each, I'd probably forget which browser I was using by the end of each session. "

The browsers of today are rapidly reaching a growth plateau: where, effectively, the gains between versions are rapidly diminishing whilst the differences in generic performance measures across browsers is equally closing.

I envisage a time (.. very soon) when the difference between the major browsers will be trivial and the public (rightly so) will be spoilt for choices. And after all, if the market demands it, it inevitably becomes so.
0 Votes
+ -
Stability & compatibility
wright_is 29th Aug
I haven't had Firefox on Windows 7 crash for... Well, I can't remember the last time it crashed, certainly not in the last several months.

The same for Add-ons. All the ones I use work fine - the only exception being the HP print add-on, which they snuck in the back door!

I prefer Chrome in some ways, but until it gets a good equivalent to NoScript, it won't be my main browser.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't understand all the fuss about Firefox version numbers. A version number is just a number. Nothing more.

The only thing Firefox should do is to allow addons to be installed even if the browser is beyond the max version of the addon (maybe with a warning).

I have been a very happy Firefox user since its inception. It is very stable, hardly had any crashes, even the beta versions.

It seems that many people like Chrome very much these days, but:
- it installs itself in the user directory (C:\Documents and Settings or C:\Users), not even in Program Files, even if you have full admin rights. This is extremely bad practice, a complete disqualifier for me. Not worthy of a company like Google. And there is no way to change the install location. A nightmare for system administrators.
- Chrome is doing the same thing with version numbers as Firefox started to do recently. They are at version 13 or 14 already. Never heard anybody complain about this.
- Benchmarks say something, but not everything. Look and feel, manageability, flexibility are important as well. To me it is not that important if a page loads in 1.0 or 1.2 seconds.
- Chrome is aggressively pushing Google technologies to you. If you navigate to a page in another language Chrome gives an annoying popup proposing you to translate the page. Quite annoying.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6: A Firefox too far? (Review)
Rabid Howler Monkey 30th Aug
@pvermeij Just an FYI (as I also prefer Firefox over Chrome). One can download the Chrome installer from Google Pack and it installs in C:\Program Files.
IE9 is simply the best and safest browser out there. The version upgrades are planned well in advance.

Chrome/firefox do all these secret updates and fixes without the user consent is unacceptable and so many versions in a short period of time.

Chrome/firefox will never be an enterprise browser in the near future.
0 Votes
+ -
@owlnet Yet unfortunate that if you don't like the IE UI there's not much you can do about it since you can't even do the simplest tweaks, like moving the address bar down below anything else. I find the IE9 UI is horrible (just my own opinion, others say they like it, I just don't), and I can't really do anything about it. At least with FF I have total control of everything in the UI.
0 Votes
+ -
Firefox 7 routinely hogs over 330 MB of memory with only five modest standard extensions installed and one tab open, after 30 minutes of non-frantic browsing. Yuck. Pah. Bleh. Oink.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix