Firefox 29 gives Mozilla's browser a major makeover

Firefox 29 gives Mozilla's browser a major makeover

Summary: New-look tabs and menu plus additional customisation gives Mozilla's browser a new look.

SHARE:
82

Mozilla has unveiled the latest version of its Firefox internet browser, with an emphasis on customisation and cross-device syncing.

Jonathan Nightingale, VP of Firefox at Mozilla, said Firefox 29 – which is available to download now - is the "biggest update in a while" for the nearly decade old browser, featuring its new Australis user interface.

The design is closer to Chrome than previously; redesign of the browser tabs makes means that tabs not in use fade into the background so they are less of a distraction (the downside is it also makes them harder to see). And a new Firefox menu in the right-hand corner puts all the most used functionality – such as new window, print, history and find, all in one place.  The menu includes a "customise" tool that allows users to add or move any feature or browser add-on, while bookmarks can be created with a single click. Firefox retains its seperate search box however.

The Firefox Sync service, which is powered by Firefox accounts, allows user to keep the same browser set up on different devices, sharing browsing history, saved passwords, bookmarks, open tabs and form data across PCs and mobile Android devices.

Further reading

Topics: Browser, Emerging Tech, PCs

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

Talkback

82 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Firefox 29 gives Mozilla's browser a major makeover

    First person on my block to upgrade, bragging rights are mine!
    Loverock.Davidson
    • Kind of funny

      As I was reading this story Firefox had updated the browser. Talk about live news.
      Richardbz
      • Let me guess: still as leaky as ever?

        Then again I can live w/ it. Leaking some memory is definitely better than using Chrome to leak your privacy to $croogle and their NSA boss.
        LBiege
        • Sometimes, I think you're trying too hard...
          ForeverCookie
          • He is. And shouldnt be.

            Its like the "Oh so many" around here who try too hard.

            Never good enough to say "Brand X isn't for me because of x,y,z...". And of course they never concede that x,y,z may not be an issue to others.

            It seems to be the automatic rule of thumb around here that if you don't like something you have to blow your reasons up to extra large super-duper beyond belief size, and then call the product crap, or worse, then accuse the administration and/or owners of the company of being any fanciful combination of crooks, devils, Satan worshipers, fiends, monsters or some severely mentally deficient person or people. While I can completely understand why someone might point out that the people who take this approach themselves are idiots, its the people who take this approach that usually then go on to say how the people who use the product they hate are in fact some form of idiot. This would typically make many many millions of people idiots because we are almost always talking about products that many many millions at least are already using and enjoying.

            I myself have come to realize quite some time back that just about any product that several million people are using and enjoying is almost never anything like crap, even if I don't like it myself. Ive also long since come to realize, its not the product I hate at all. Its usually a user of the product who cant understand that what they like and think is great is simply not for everyone, and usually for several good reasons, and that person goes on to speak of competing products in the aforementioned manner, spouting off like some maniac who thinks people who use competing products need to be taken to a mental ward.

            That's the part Ive lost total patience for. People who say ridiculous things, like some huge and incredibly successful company is about to go broke, or some product has some terrible flaw that's a real killer when numerous people have long since pointed out the flaw is insignificant or can easily be worked around. Telling us how some particular product is going to go no place when its already selling in the millions, calling users of the products morons and losers, yet so many are already using the product they hate, or from the company they hate, that many of us likely know many who are already happily using the product and we know as a fact these people are not morons or losers.

            Ya, there are some around here that just seem to want to try way to hard to let the world know that they have these ridiculous over bearing opinions about products they hate and the people that use those products and the companies that make those products. Even at the cost of making themselves sound ridiculous and blowing their credibility.
            Cayble
  • Just a Chrome copy

    I found it to be stable enough and may impress the Firefox loyalists. But for me its just a badly done attempt at copying Chrome. Which is not really bad as I think Chrome has been kicking not only IE but also Firefox. My only thought for Mozilla about Firefox 29, is why keep the separate search box? Is this supposed to appease the die hard classic Firefox users? If your trying to expand the usefulness of the Windows space, then taking out the search box would have been my first move. Otherwise, its a better step forward then what Mozilla has been doing with Firefox. Just not sure, if it would cause many already using Chrome to switch.
    JohnnyES-25227553276394558534412264934521
    • Chrome is a joke of the town

      ... b/c it's rigged by $croogle inside out. I have FlashBlock turned on when visiting Youtube and yet Chrome decides it for me that I have to watch these videos as long as the tab is on so it simply ignores my preference. I just happened to have a few Tube tabs open so every time I re-start Chrome it automatically play videos on all these tabs that forces me to click each tab to stop it.

      Then there's this stupid font settings that does not allow customized zoom. Enough is enough. I'm going back to IE / Firefox / Opera.
      LBiege
    • Chrome copy?

      The UI is similar, yes, but I can't think of a single thing that makes it a Chrome copy that matters.
      Michael Alan Goff
  • Drop mozilla

    Everyone should uninstall all mozilla products. They don't support traditional marriage, I see no reason to support them.
    WayneGoodin@...
    • re:

      You're a dinosaur. Ironic when you think about it, huh? Since you probably don't believe they even existed and that their fossils are just fakes that your god planted to trip up those whose faith isn't solid enough.
      Sir Name
      • Maybe you should let him speak for himself

        Regardless, political boycotts accomplish nothing of value. They don't change anybody's minds. They might create a few hypocrites (but we have too many of those already), and silence the timid (but we really need more political participation, not less), but they also contribute to polarization, backlash, and extremist politics (which we also have too much of).
        John L. Ries
        • Somebody flagged me, but didn't bother to argue

          Pity.
          John L. Ries
        • Freedom of Speech

          Yes, our country is getting very scary. What is happening to our First Amendment right, and IMHO, the most important one, when people can be punished for what they believe and say. You don't have to agree with him/her, but where are we going with political correctness?
          dtani
          • Technically...

            ...the First Amendment only prohibits governments from interfering with freedoms of religion, speech, the press, and peaceful assembly, and private persons have made periodic attempts to restrict any and all of the above from time to time (sometimes violently), but at the very least, efforts to punish people for political participation are contrary to the spirit of the first amendment and very much undermine the free political discourse and debate on which democracy depends.

            I wonder why I'm anonymous today.
            John L. Ries
          • And now I'm not anonymous

            Most intriguing.
            John L. Ries
          • Problem with your point.

            @dtani

            "Yes, our country is getting very scary. What is happening to our First Amendment right, and IMHO, the most important one, when people can be punished for what they believe and say. You don't have to agree with him/her, but where are we going with political correctness?"

            You have to focus here, and you havnt.

            The way you have presented your point, your Implying that there should be a "hands off approach" of what people believe and say because of the first amendment.

            Opinions about places, things, products, political issues and similar such things, one can see your point with little reservation. Certainly in general terms.

            With people, there is a difference.

            Firstly, if your going to exercise your free speech in some negative manner about a person, the law already says what your saying must generally speaking be true, or it risks becoming "defamation" and can not only stifle that speech but have you wind up paying out a lot of money.

            Secondly, we are not perfectly there yet, but in the free truly democratic parts of the world we have come to realize you cannot be allowed to critique, demean, marginalize or advocate for such against any type of human just because they can be identified as a "certain" type of human. We are not perfectly there yet because there are "some" people who have still been brought up to believe at the very least, some negative thoughts about some "kinds" of humans. Its at least reached the point where most of us have come to realize that the only way any of us can be safe and free is if all of us are safe and free.

            And that means if I am of some race or culture that the man down the road dosnt like, that me and my family can be free of the fear that he will make successful efforts to make our lives worse. That means that if I am of a particular religion or gender and there is someone who feels those of my religion or gender are not as deserving as their religion or gender, that if they make efforts to restrict or marginalize me I can find recourse. And it has taken some significant time, unfortunately, but we now have come to see that those of various forms of sexual orientation as it turns out are for the most part in the same circumstances as all the other "types" of humans. And as such, being a society that demands equality for all to ensure we are all safe and free, it has now come to our attention that there have been rights that have been denied to those of different sexual orientations and that those rights should be afforded to them as well.

            We have decided as a society that there is NOTHING to be gained in our society by demeaning or marginalizing or advocating for such that reduces or restricts any human beings rights, and again, as such, we have seen there is only wrong and increased danger and lack of freedom for all if people are allowed to do so. So no, we have now largely decided it is in no way alright in any way to do things or even speak of humans in such negative ways based on the type of human others are.

            See Donald Sterling? ITS NOT ok to marginalize other humans of any kind just because of the kind of human they are. And that is because we finally are gaining the good common sense to understand, that by far being human is the most important thing.

            Freedom of speech does not allow for marginalization of any human just because they are not the kind of human you feel deserves less rights.

            If you don't want some people to be treated as humans with all the related human rights, and there are those "some people" now being treated as humans with all the related rights in your country, you basically have two choices. Either Shut the F up about it, because you HAVE NO RIGHT to demean fellow humans of any kind or advocate reducing or restricting their rights, or you can leave the country. Go to another country that puts restrictions on "those people" that you can live with.

            One of the first things that people who want to marginalize other humans will always say is, "don't I have a right to an opinion?"

            And that works, right up until someone who has the very same kind of cruddy opinion about him and his kind try marginalizing him and his family. Then hes asking why arnt his rights being protected, why cant his kids be safe walking the streets, why cant his wife get a job?

            And its ALL because none of us can be safe and free unless we are all safe and free.
            Cayble
          • What are you on about?

            The whole Mozilla gay marriage issue was Freedom of Speech working exactly how it ought to have.

            Mozilla, the Web, and the World are better off for it, too!
            x I'm tc
    • Yes, that always makes good business sense

      What next? Don't use Chrome because Google supports Democrats?
      William.Farrel
      • Nope, just don't use an abusive company's product.

        Use something else that doesn't restrict the free speech of an individual. I don't care if you're gay, purple, straight, walk upside down. You shouldn't be BULLIED and cost your job by rabble of ANY ILK.
        howard.blake@...
        • Your so wrong its sickening.

          One name.

          Donald Sterling.

          This is where we see if particular people have grown up or not.

          Donald Sterling has particular thoughts and feelings about black people. The NBA said his thoughts and feelings, his OPINION about black people was entirely unacceptable.

          The NBA acted. Donald Sterling, as far as his relationship with the NBA is NO MORE. Permanently.

          Anyone and everyone brave enough to speak has said the NBA did the right thing. I certainly agree. Of course the cowards with prejudiced minds who know their thoughts about blacks are of a stone aged mentality have rightly decided to keep their mouths shut.

          But I see there are still those plenty brave enough to say we should still be considering people, HUMANS of differing sexual orientation as free game for discussions and considerations of various kinds of marginalization.

          Isnt that just great.

          If it wasn't a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of opinion for Donald Sterling to tell his girlfriend that she shouldn't be seen talking with black people or bringing them to basketball games it sure as hell isn't a matter of freedom of speech and opinion to actually work towards denying those of differing sexual orientation the right to marry.

          I couldn't care less what anyone thinks; its impossible to reconcile marginalizing ANY human with any logic that thinks safety and freedom for all is critical to a thriving society.
          Cayble