Recommended Posts

Hey, today i noticed that google loads in nightly the old-fashioned search in nightly. I tried with a new profile too. It doesn't happen in Aurora, nor in Chromium, nor in IE9.

Some screenshots:

err2.PNG

Also in the italian version the logo is loaded incorrectly:

err1.PNG

This things make me realize how bad looking the internet was in the past :)

Google often use cookies to set how the site should appear to you when they are testing stuff (for example if you get the new Google bar or not). In this case, it appears your Nightly has somehow got one to give you the old design, which must be some sort of error on Google's end. Nice to see though!

Google often use cookies to set how the site should appear to you when they are testing stuff (for example if you get the new Google bar or not). In this case, it appears your Nightly has somehow got one to give you the old design, which must be some sort of error on Google's end. Nice to see though!

I thought that too, but after deleting the cache and cookies nothing changed

I got the same problem in nightly but changing the user agent fixes it for me. In about:config add "general.useragent.override" and string value "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.2" or whatever previous version of firefox.

Websites sometimes appear differently on other browsers and they detect that by sniffing the user agent. Try using iPad safari browser user agent and you can emulate googles iPad layout on firefox.

Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5

edit:

It appears that today's nightly changed user agent formatting. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588909

old nightly: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0a1) Gecko/20120217 Firefox/13.0a1

today's nightly: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0a1) Gecko/13.0a1 Firefox/13.0a1

This broke the google. So temp workaround is to manually change user agent or wait for google to fix it on their end.

The probably used that part of the useragent to detect if the rendering engine is modern enough for the standard design otherwise it will revert back to the old for compatibility reasons. The changing of the date format broke this backwards compatibility (Better to use dates than version numbers it would be simpler to do when Nightlies are involved which won't have a predictable version number)

Hey, today i noticed that google loads in nightly the old-fashioned search in nightly. I tried with a new profile too. It doesn't happen in Aurora, nor in Chromium, nor in IE9.

Some screenshots:

err2.PNG

Also in the italian version the logo is loaded incorrectly:

err1.PNG

This things make me realize how bad looking the internet was in the past :)

How bad looking it was? What's bad about that? It's called simple and simplistic and it loaded very fast too, I bet, which is how I wish it still was instead of all the bloat/crap Google has on their page and in their browser!! I'm not complaining about the speed of Google loading, but if everyone was still using dial up, I'd bet there be more complaining about it then?

90% of the reason I WILL NOT use anything Google!! It IS NOT the greatest thing since the wheel, or internet!! Google sucks green donkey d**k!!

How bad looking it was? What's bad about that? It's called simple and simplistic and it loaded very fast too, I bet, which is how I wish it still was instead of all the bloat/crap Google has on their page and in their browser!! I'm not complaining about the speed of Google loading, but if everyone was still using dial up, I'd bet there be more complaining about it then?

Nowadays version is minimalistic and loads almost instantly.

Just when you couldn't hate mozilla any more than you currently do.

They go and change this, which adds zero benefit but ****s every standard up.

Oh way to go...

What utter tosh. Why not actually read the bug ticket? UA strings are hardly a strict standard, as it is (and have a loooad of historical complexities around them). Sites should be feature sniffing, not browser sniffing. Do you have much experience with how UA strings work?

As it is, it's not going to stay broken/weird for long. Google is likely thinking the browser version is much older than it is.

"Sites should be feature sniffing, not browser sniffing. Do you have much experience with how UA strings work?"

Guess you've never been a web developer in your entire at all then.

Javascript comes with chome, firefox, etc. yes. A lot of browsers do not have javascript support (lynx, links, etc.), or have it disabled (no$cript).

This is just plain badly written code on Google's behalf, instead of checking for the version of the browser they check for the date it was compiled on, which is pretty damn meaningless (You could have a lower version with a higher build date, etc.) There's a reason Mozilla froze that date to be 2010-01-01 with 4.0, to discourage this, Google is just apparently slow to notice.

Edit: Ahh, I see the JS angle then. Still, your site shouldn't rely on JS to function and this is a server side issue on Google's behalf, not a client side issue.

"Sites should be feature sniffing, not browser sniffing. Do you have much experience with how UA strings work?"

Guess you've never been a web developer in your entire at all then.

Javascript comes with chome, firefox, etc. yes. A lot of browsers do not have javascript support (lynx, links, etc.), or have it disabled (no$cript).

It's not an either/or situation, though - browsers inherently without JS support could still be UA detected. I don't have much sympathy for people who would noscript Google - of course you're going to lose features that way. Just like if I turn off CSS, sites will also look fairly weird - but I'm not going to complain about it. (Turn off the scripts you don't want to run, for sure, but turning off *all* scripts and expecting everything to be okay is over the top)

There's many articles online about browser and feature sniffing, and the benefits of each - but they pretty much always come down on feature sniffing. I know browser sniffing is commonly used, but that doesn't make it good.

Besides, that's not a defence of your original comment at all, which was that somehow it was all Mozilla's fault.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • I've been on Deezer for over a decade, but glad that Tidal joined them in fighting AI slop. Can't stand such takes as Spotify's: "Spotify's CEO recently pushed back against listeners who call AI music "slop," urging people to stop using the term and instead embrace the creative potential of AI music."
    • “Could” … in the IS the healthcare is run by insurance companies that make indecent profits denying basic treatments to people that are paying money for nothing. Besides, where are all the Trump epigones who were stating that the tariffs were going to paid by foreign companies and not the US citizens? …
    • Microsoft Teams gets smarter at spotting sneaky meeting bots by Usama Jawad Microsoft Teams is set to receive a couple of new features soon, including a dedicated Recap app and a rather controversial location tracking functionality. The Redmond tech giant has also explained how it has made online communication and collaboration a lot more performant this year. Now, the company has detailed more secure bot admission mechanisms, as first reported by us in March 2026, and now available in Teams. As the use of AI has expanded across enterprise environments, Microsoft has begun allowing users to integrate bots into their meetings for various tasks, such as note-taking. While this has a tangible productivity benefit for users, Microsoft has highlighted how misconfiguration has allowed bots to join meetings that they shouldn't. This has created security and privacy risks, which Microsoft is now combating using a new Teams admin policy that allows organizers to control how external bots access meetings. Admins can leverage a policy called Manage external bots and their access to meetings. The default configuration is "When detected, require approval before joining", which places detected bots in a lobby before they are explicitly admitted into the meeting. The other option disables the experience. Microsoft has also requested admins to only allow organizers and co-organizers to manage access to a meeting, so that other people don't randomly allow bots into meetings. Teams will now be able to leverage infrastructure signals to intelligently detect and distinguish between bots and humans. Microsoft will soon also trial a registration experience for independent software vendors (ISVs) to build a system that registers a bot with Microsoft, so it is marked as a "known" bot. Teams will also categorize bots as trusted and suspected threats so that organizers can quickly identify which bots they want to allow into a meeting. Additional safeguards to block accidental admission of a bot into a meeting include: No one-click Admit option for identified bots Confirmation prompts when admitting participants that include bots Warnings when organizers choose Admit all, and bots are included Microsoft has begun rolling out this experience, and it will be retiring the current CAPTCHA verification implementation. In the future, the company plans to roll out new capabilities like allow-lists, organization-wide policies, admin reports, audit logs, and more granular controls.
    • With the current hardware prices Microsoft should lift the restriction. Then if you have the correct TPM then allow you to use X feature, if you don't have the correct TPM then don't but still actually let you run windows. 11. With a disclaimer during install that X features would be unavailable.
    • It's good for recycling of course. But commence inflation of a second hand RAM bubble and price gouging on DDR 4 inventory in 3... 2... 1...
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      538
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!