2965 replies to this topic 23 votes

[Chasethebase]

Audioboxer, on 13 April 2011 - 13:31, said:

Okay, thanks for clearing that up!

So think of it as Nightly = Chrome Dev, Aurora = Chrome Beta, Stable = Stable.

[The_Decryptor]

First official 6.0 nightlies are out, onwards to 7.0!

[Audioboxer]

Chasethebase, on 13 April 2011 - 13:49, said:

So think of it as Nightly = Chrome Dev, Aurora = Chrome Beta, Stable = Stable.

Yup, adopting that mindset now. I'll probably try running the nightlies now that they've revamped the icon/graphics. Bit wary of extensions breaking though, but we'll see - Chrome doesn't really have this problem on dev.

[vasa1]

Chasethebase, on 13 April 2011 - 13:49, said:

So think of it as Nightly = Chrome Dev, Aurora = Chrome Beta, Stable = Stable.

Won't it be more like:
Nightly = Canary
Aurora = Dev
Beta = Beta ?

[bogas04]

vasa1, on 13 April 2011 - 13:54, said:

Won't it be more like:
Nightly = Canary
Aurora = Dev
Beta = Beta ?

yes

[Chasethebase]

vasa1, on 13 April 2011 - 13:54, said:

Won't it be more like:
Nightly = Canary
Aurora = Dev
Beta = Beta ?

Looking at the roadmap, yeah, that seems much more sensible.

Also liking how you can swap channels.

[ViZioN]

Has anyone managed to enable extension compatibility for the new 6.0a1 Nightly? I tried adding extensions.CheckCompatibility6.0a1 == false and extensions.disableCheckCompatibility == true but it seems to have no effect.

[kilara1988]

It works with extensions.CheckCompatibility6.0a.

[ViZioN]

kilara1988, on 13 April 2011 - 18:10, said:

It works with extensions.CheckCompatibility6.0a.

Thanks but tried this command (even making the first 'c' lower-case) but my addons are still disabled. Tried adding a extensions.disableCheckCompatibility == true also seems to have no effect. Are you sure it was that command you added and not some other tool that disables compatibility checking? What am I missing?

[+ViperAFK]

You need a period before the number, like:
extensions.CheckCompatibility.6.0a1

[ViZioN]

ViperAFK, on 13 April 2011 - 19:56, said:

You need a period before the number, like:
extensions.CheckCompatibility.6.0a1

Thanks This did the trick.

[kilara1988]

Oh.My bad.Didn't see i forgot the period before the version number.

[Detection]

Ive just had my 2nd update in about 2 hours - says 6.0a1

[PGHammer]

Mr Nom Nom's, on 13 April 2011 - 11:02, said:

Nice to see that once again Firefox is becoming primarily a Windows browser with Mac and Linux users supported by accident rather than actually deliberately designing for the platform. Promises of OpenGL accelerated layers in Firefox 5.0 and low and behold they've failed to deliver - why aren't I surprised.

Blame the platforms (OS X 10.6+ and X.org) - not the browser. Mesa has not even caught up to *Windows* in terms of OpenGL support, and even OS X 10.7 DP2 is even further back.

Also, both OS X and Linux distributions have continually refused to allow the same UI as Firefox 4 uses on Windows today. (Firefox 4's UI on Linux is identical to that of Firefox 3; what's up with that?)

[PGHammer]

Frylock86, on 13 April 2011 - 13:02, said:

True, but x64 browsers ATM, aren't ready for primetime yet. They're kinda like Office x64, nice to have, but not really needed by 99.9% of users.

That said, I hope IE10 x64 has the new JS engine IE9 x86 has.

If you have multiple mailboxes (say, GMail/GoogleMail and that of your ISP), Outlook 2010 x64 is a better choice than the same mail application in x32. The problem with Office 2010 x64 (like IE x64) is the lack of add-ons and plug-ins; most of the x64 plug-ins and add-ons that do exist were Microsoft-written.

I switched up with 2010 for exactly that reason - I have GMail and my ISP mail acount; both of which get a crapton of e-mail. Outlook 2010 x32 would bog down, if not flat-out fall down, while 2010 x64 runs like a champ, even using GMail's IMAP defaults.

Where x64 plug-ins and add-ons exist, Office, like IE (or even Firefox) is a lot more stable in x64 (stability FTW).