Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,492
- Location
- Northern Ireland
Firefox 8
- Thread starter bledd
- Start date
yes i'm using the x64 nightlys but this means auto-updates everyday or turning that off and not knowing if you should upgrade due to a security fix.
there is no real reason to have an x64 build though at this moment though. performance increase is minimal, and most of the plugins are still x86.
re: versions numbers, it's all a storm in a teacup. just use and abuse, don't worry about it!
re: versions numbers, it's all a storm in a teacup. just use and abuse, don't worry about it!
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,492
- Location
- Northern Ireland
And talking about version numbers, I don't see any difference between version 7 and 8.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 May 2007
- Posts
- 877
Then how would you decide what justifies increasing the version by a full number? You would inevitably start holding back changes instead of releasing them when ready, in order to make a large enough update to justify the new whole number. Which is what was happening before.
For example the change to 3rd party addons in Firefox 8 would have inevitably been kept back until a full redesign in the past.
No one will care about the numbers anymore once silent updates are implemented and addons default to being compatible, just as no one cares with Chrome.
There are a hell of a lot of differences between 7 and 8, but all of them are under the hood. The look has been frozen, and because it's so easy to skin or change it, it will be frozen for quite a few versions. As nuclearwinter said, silent updates will make it like Chrome, where no-one even notices the updates...
Don't really care to grab the latest release now and am quite happy to wait until it gets auto updated.
Anyway thanks 3dcandy for that OCuK Firefox extension. I have just installed it and it is ace. You done a real good job bro.
Anyway thanks 3dcandy for that OCuK Firefox extension. I have just installed it and it is ace. You done a real good job bro.
If you have any idea for going forward, let us know!
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
traditionally any large change or a sizeable collection of small changes has justified an increase by a full version number, right? I don't care either way but what most people dont get is why mozilla felt the need to follow in google's footsteps. Lets hope microsoft dont follow or we'll be on windows 25,764 before we know it
Why would that happen? and if mozilla were doing that then surely it's their development cycles that need to change and not the numbering system? Anyway, bah. Like i said, 'dont care
That's the US version with US English dictionary.
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/8.0/win32/en-GB/
Associate
- Joined
- 8 May 2007
- Posts
- 877
traditionally any large change or a sizeable collection of small changes has justified an increase by a full version number, right? I don't care either way but what most people dont get is why mozilla felt the need to follow in google's footsteps. Lets hope microsoft dont follow or we'll be on windows 25,764 before we know it
Why would that happen? and if mozilla were doing that then surely it's their development cycles that need to change and not the numbering system? Anyway, bah. Like i said, 'dont care
You pretty much answered that yourself when you said "sizable collection". How do you get a sizable collection of changes except by waiting until the changes have built up into a sizable collection? Therefore not releasing them on a rapid update schedule when and as they're ready.
You don't usually see changes like a redesigned download manager in 4.1, then a new home tab design in 4.2, then a completely rebuilt javascript engine in 4.3, then a new tabbing interface in 4.4 (to pick some random possibilities). All those things would instead be going into one big 5.0, or perhaps 4.5, release after a year or so.
The new version numbering just means they have the flexibility to not bother about what should wait for 5.0 and can instead get the changes out faster.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Well, that all sounds like a cop out to me. Whether the version number increases are 0.1's in quick succession or 1's, no is no reason at all in my eyes why they should affect what features they do or do not include in any one of those releases, and no reason why it should affect the release schedule in general either.
Maybe I'll never understand why they would limit themselves in such a way
Maybe I'll never understand why they would limit themselves in such a way
They've not limited themselves or anything in any way. Faster releases are always better. there are 2 additional channels for Firefox anyway, Aurora and BETA and both are very stable and can be used as a main browser (I use Aurora) and it updates itself pretty much every single day.
No you don't! I post this in almost every Firefox thread but nobody seems to pay attention.
Simply add a new boolean entry with the above for whatever version you're running and job done. I just have several there because I try out various versions of FF regularly and keep the same profile hence the value sticking.
No you don't! I post this in almost every Firefox thread but nobody seems to pay attention.
Simply add a new boolean entry with the above for whatever version you're running and job done. I just have several there because I try out various versions of FF regularly and keep the same profile hence the value sticking.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 8 May 2007
- Posts
- 877
Alternatively you can also just install this official extension which will disable compatibility checking without needing to make any changes for new versions:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/?src=api
And starting in Firefox 10 (iirc) all addons will default to compatible anyway.
Last edited: