Firefox 3.6 official support to end Tuesday

If, for some reason, you are still using Firefox 3.6 as your primary web browser, it's finally time to upgrade. Mozilla announced last March that it would be ending its official support for Firefox 3.6 this Tuesday, April 24th. In its message, Mozilla stated, "We strongly advise our users to upgrade from Firefox 3.6, as they will no longer receive critical security updates as of April 24th."

Firefox 3.6 was first released in January 2010 and Mozilla has since released a number of security updates for that version of the browser. Starting with the release of Firefox 4, Mozilla decided to make the upgrade to the next version of Firefox as the defacto security upgrade for the previous version.

In related news, Mozilla announced that starting with the official release of Firefox 13 in June, the minimal system requirements for the Windows version will go up from Windows 2000 to Windows XP SP2. Mozilla states, "We never change minimum requirements lightly, but this support change allows us to significantly improve Firefox performance on Windows by using a more modern build system."

Mozilla has already announced its future plans to release a version of Firefox that would support Windows 8 and the Metro touch screen user interface.

Image via Download24.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Weekend Poll: Would no WP7 to WP8 upgrade path kill Windows Phone?

Next Story

Computer repair scammers claim to be from Microsoft

38 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I would only use the 3.6xx versions if:
1: Your system is not fast enough or
2: Ram is low(512MB)
I have an older laptop, which is 11 years old it only has 512MB ram. Using anything newer than 3.6xx would make it very slow. i know i could upgrade but it would cost more than what it is worth.

I am still constantly blown away by how you people can complain about UI's and fonts and crap!

OK, ugly fonts are some what bothersome, but as far as the UI, what the heck are you people staring at all day long? Complaining about that is almost as senseless, IMO, as people who are amazed by or even bother paying attention to the wallpaper/desktop they use. Who sets and looks at ANY of those for more than a second?

I'm going to assume, as it's not mentioned here, that support for the 3.x versions of Palemoon are going away also?

cork1958 said,
*snip*

Wow. Just wow. UI is an essential part of of software and can both enhance and hinder its ease and pleasure of use. Stating that it's meaningless is just retarded as you DO have to stare at it. Just because you don't give a damn about good design (and I hope you are not a software developer) does not mean others don't either. And thank god for that.

gkl said,

Wow. Just wow. UI is an essential part of of software and can both enhance and hinder its ease and pleasure of use. Stating that it's meaningless is just retarded as you DO have to stare at it. Just because you don't give a damn about good design (and I hope you are not a software developer) does not mean others don't either. And thank god for that.

Mainly say that because it's amazing how often that is said here and everyone knows you can make it look/act/feel how ever they like!!

cork1958 said,

Mainly say that because it's amazing how often that is said here and everyone knows you can make it look/act/feel how ever they like!!

When you get older, you will learn that "I believe" if NOT the same thing as "everyone knows".

Oh man I've always used the version its simply the best and fastest, too bad it's going out of support but it will always be supported by me.

I don't know why they bother supporting such old versions for years.
Why not just stop all support for any older version than the current one? This will show they are serious about wanting people to upgrade.

they should make minimal support os to be 64-bit only and win7 and on. dropping support for both winxp and vista altogether will allow them to better focus for the future. let the 32-bit/obsolete os versions hold out stick with old version of firefox.

the only browsers i use nowadays are pale moon 64-bit (75%), opera 64-bit (24%), and internet explorer 9 64-bit (1%).

victorecho said,
they should make minimal support os to be 64-bit only and win7 and on. dropping support for both winxp and vista altogether will allow them to better focus for the future. let the 32-bit/obsolete os versions hold out stick with old version of firefox.

the only browsers i use nowadays are pale moon 64-bit (75%), opera 64-bit (24%), and internet explorer 9 64-bit (1%).


You have no clue about what you are talking about.
Why would they getting rid of 50% of the market? Especially since they have feature per OS already here (ex: direct2D isn't supported on XP, but it's here for Vista/7).

Also, you are talking about the 64bits vs 32bits builds, but Firefox 64bits is slower than the 32 bits, so for now it's useless to use it, that's why it's only available for aurora/nightly.

victorecho said,
they should make minimal support os to be 64-bit only and win7 and on. dropping support for both winxp and vista altogether will allow them to better focus for the future. let the 32-bit/obsolete os versions hold out stick with old version of firefox.
Dropping support for a supported OS such as: XP/Vista/Win7 x86 would be bad because:
1: Alot of users are still using x86/XP. Forcing that amount of users on such a large scale would only force the user to switch to a different browser. i sure hope you ain't a developer as then, by being very restrictive, would mean your users would jump ship and you'd be out of a job real quick. Apple is restrictive enough so don't go that far. Once MS drops support for XP then Mozilla could drop XP support.
the only browsers i use nowadays are pale moon 64-bit (75%), opera 64-bit (24%), and internet explorer 9 64-bit (1%).

"In related news, Mozilla announced that starting with the official release of Firefox 13 in June, the minimal system requirements for the Windows version will go up from Windows 2000 to Windows XP SP2. Mozilla states, "We never change minimum requirements lightly, but this support change allows us to significantly improve Firefox performance on Windows by using a more modern build system.""

i can't see that as being a bad thing

ThaCrip said,
"In related news, Mozilla announced that starting with the official release of Firefox 13 in June, the minimal system requirements for the Windows version will go up from Windows 2000 to Windows XP SP2. Mozilla states, "We never change minimum requirements lightly, but this support change allows us to significantly improve Firefox performance on Windows by using a more modern build system.""

i can't see that as being a bad thing

stupid.

ask for XP SP3 at least

or you deserve no support at all.

Ci7 said,

stupid.

ask for XP SP3 at least

or you deserve no support at all.

Did you consider that maybe the changes between SP2 and SP3 would have no effect on Firefox? I'm sure they didn't just pick SP2 out of thin air for no reason.

TRC said,

Did you consider that maybe the changes between SP2 and SP3 would have no effect on Firefox? I'm sure they didn't just pick SP2 out of thin air for no reason.

i mean why bother

Microsoft has dropped support for SP2 since how long now? Mozilla are asking for troubles....

I still haven't upgraded for a few reasons.

1) The terrible UI changes. A theme isn't going to solve that. This is the same reason I don't upgrade other software that I'm proficient with; needless UI changes.

2) God awful font rendering. It hurts my eyes to look at. IE9 has this problem as well. Chrome looks like 3.6, aka 'proper'. And no, no tweak to the font rendering has gotten it back to the way it was in 3.6. I've tested the browser on XP/7 VM's to no avail.

3) A bunch of addons I use don't work with the latest versions of Firefox and there are no replacements for them or the replacements are bloated/lack functionality.

4) Did I mention the UI?

3.6 was the last good version of Firefox IMO before they went completely AWOL like every company seems to be doing nowadays.

Worst case I'll have to see if someone's making an updated Firefox with the old UI, or use the 3.7 dev version prior to the UI change.

DAOWAce said,
I still haven't upgraded for a few reasons.

1) The terrible UI changes. A theme isn't going to solve that. This is the same reason I don't upgrade other software that I'm proficient with; needless UI changes.

2) God awful font rendering. It hurts my eyes to look at. IE9 has this problem as well. Chrome looks like 3.6, aka 'proper'. And no, no tweak to the font rendering has gotten it back to the way it was in 3.6. I've tested the browser on XP/7 VM's to no avail.

3) A bunch of addons I use don't work with the latest versions of Firefox and there are no replacements for them or the replacements are bloated/lack functionality.

4) Did I mention the UI?

3.6 was the last good version of Firefox IMO before they went completely AWOL like every company seems to be doing nowadays.

Worst case I'll have to see if someone's making an updated Firefox with the old UI, or use the 3.7 dev version prior to the UI change.

You're going to have to get use to UI changes. At least get a theme for that horrid 3.6 theme.

IE and Firefox render fonts using DirectWrite (ClearType) which is makes fonts slightly thicker. It looks much clearer, crisper and cleaner. It's designed for flat screens, not for CRTs. Chrome renders using GDI which makes the fonts look brittle, thin and plain ugly.
If for whatever reason you prefer GDI rendering (chrome style, Firefox 3.6) type in the firefox location bar "about:config" and enter "gfx.font_rendering.directwrite.enabled" (without quotes) in the search pane. Double click to change it to false. Restart Firefox. Go to "about:support" scroll to the bottom and check if DirectWrite is disabled. If it isn't you might need to disable some more preferences which I forgot.

Disable addon compatibility checking by going to about:config and right click and create a new boolean and enter "extensions.checkCompatibility.12.0" (replace the 12.0 with whatever version you're using) and click OK. Then make it's value false.
You know I've always disabled addon checking and I've almost never had a problems with my addons. They rarely stuff up with new versions.

Hope this helped!

DAOWAce said,
I still haven't upgraded for a few reasons.

1) The terrible UI changes. A theme isn't going to solve that. This is the same reason I don't upgrade other software that I'm proficient with; needless UI changes.

2) God awful font rendering. It hurts my eyes to look at. IE9 has this problem as well. Chrome looks like 3.6, aka 'proper'. And no, no tweak to the font rendering has gotten it back to the way it was in 3.6. I've tested the browser on XP/7 VM's to no avail.

3) A bunch of addons I use don't work with the latest versions of Firefox and there are no replacements for them or the replacements are bloated/lack functionality.

4) Did I mention the UI?

3.6 was the last good version of Firefox IMO before they went completely AWOL like every company seems to be doing nowadays.

Worst case I'll have to see if someone's making an updated Firefox with the old UI, or use the 3.7 dev version prior to the UI change.


1) Theme is a solution
2) Disable hardware acceleration , it wasn't in 3.6 so there is nothing to lose
3) Disable addon compatibility
4) You did

You can restore UI changes with various tweaks in about:config

I've kept the same look from firebird, albeit the tabs are now on top.
http://i.imgur.com/thlFz.png

DAOWAce said,
I still haven't upgraded for a few reasons.

1) The terrible UI changes. A theme isn't going to solve that. This is the same reason I don't upgrade other software that I'm proficient with; needless UI changes.

2) God awful font rendering. It hurts my eyes to look at. IE9 has this problem as well. Chrome looks like 3.6, aka 'proper'. And no, no tweak to the font rendering has gotten it back to the way it was in 3.6. I've tested the browser on XP/7 VM's to no avail.

3) A bunch of addons I use don't work with the latest versions of Firefox and there are no replacements for them or the replacements are bloated/lack functionality.

4) Did I mention the UI?

3.6 was the last good version of Firefox IMO before they went completely AWOL like every company seems to be doing nowadays.

Worst case I'll have to see if someone's making an updated Firefox with the old UI, or use the 3.7 dev version prior to the UI change.

The UI is more than the main browser theme.

The context menus, the menus themselves, the addons menu, THE STATUS BAR, etc., those have all changed. No theme will fix that.

Not only that, but my theme was abandoned and does not function on 4+. I even had to do some manual editing to get it to function properly on later versions of 3.6.

My directwrite font rendering is and has been disabled on my VM versions. The font is still not like it was previously.

People need to think outside of the general everyday stuff and look at the back-end more. I still use Vista just as I still use IE8 (because Vista came with 7, not 6, which I still use on XP), just as I still use 3.6, just as I still use the older versions of chat programs, etc. etc., it never ends. Companies think re-designing their UI every so often is great. Well, IT'S NOT. You just infuriate and alienate more and more people.

If I was in the position to put years of my life into learning coding languages, I'd create my own versions of (open sourced) software, but I'm not, so I'm forced to sit and bitch and try to workaround asinine changes from companies who lose sight of their past visions.

Thanks Google too, for wrecking Gmail's interface to the distress of many: https://groups.google.com/a/go...are-and-discuss-with-others


Anyway, I know 3.6's problems with 'current gen' websites/technology, which is why I have Chrome installed. It sucks to have to continue to deal with them, but again, due to all the BS and changes affecting my standard workflow which reduces my overall speed and efficiency at using the browser, I've refused to upgrade. I may hate the lack of new tech, but I hate the needless changes even more.

torrentthief said,
v10.0.4 is the latest stable version now, their old upgrade cycle was far better than their current cycle, shame

Umm 12.0 is latest stable version (on ftps at the moment though).

Please please please stop ranting about version naming , Chrome Dev is at 20 , and people have now gotten over it , so should you all. If you just ignore the version number you would realize you get a more regularly updated browser , with new feature which used to come after an year , now in 6 weeks , and no more compatibility breaking complaints with Addons now compatible by default. Just enjoy

torrentthief said,
v10.0.4 is the latest stable version now, their old upgrade cycle was far better than their current cycle, shame

Your opinion is based on what exactly?
Before we had one major update every 1 / 1.5 years with many features. Now you have new features every 6 weeks, so you don't have to wait for a year to use new feature already implemented and validated. How is that worse than before?

bogas04 said,

Please please please stop ranting about version naming , Chrome Dev is at 20 , and people have now gotten over it

One of the reasons I think people have got over the version numbers of Chrome is that it auto-updates quickly and unobtrusively, making everyone's life easier! Compared to Firefox, this is one of the many reasons I much prefer Chrome

CDav said,

One of the reasons I think people have got over the version numbers of Chrome is that it auto-updates quickly and unobtrusively, making everyone's life easier! Compared to Firefox, this is one of the many reasons I much prefer Chrome

Firefox 12 has silent updates.

CDav said,

One of the reasons I think people have got over the version numbers of Chrome is that it auto-updates quickly and unobtrusively, making everyone's life easier! Compared to Firefox, this is one of the many reasons I much prefer Chrome

With Firefox 12 you get UAC less Updating , later with Firefox 14 (12 weeks from now) you have Background updates which will give best silent updating experience (Just like GoogleUpdate.exe or whatever it's called works for Chrome)

bogas04 said,

With Firefox 12 you get UAC less Updating, later with Firefox 14 (12 weeks from now) you have Background updates

Anthonyd said,

Firefox 12 has silent updates.

Nice, didn't know that! Cheers

bogas04 said,

With Firefox 12 you get UAC less Updating , later with Firefox 14 (12 weeks from now) you have Background updates which will give best silent updating experience (Just like GoogleUpdate.exe or whatever it's called works for Chrome)

As good as that may sound for the majority of users, I really do NOT WANT that crap on my pc, ANYWHERE. If I did, I'd get chrome. I wish they'd stop all nicking features off each other, one day IE, opera, firefox, chrome, etc. will all be exactly the same just with different skins.

Anthonyd said,

Your opinion is based on what exactly?
Before we had one major update every 1 / 1.5 years with many features. Now you have new features every 6 weeks, so you don't have to wait for a year to use new feature already implemented and validated. How is that worse than before?

my opinion is based on the fact that recent versions of firefox leak memory like mad and use 100% of 1 thread. We only get stable versions with LTS releases, the others don't even get 1 update unless it is an important security update. So we only get a stable release once every 18 months which i think is when we will get a new LTS release. Before we would get a new firefox every 9 months or so and we'd get updates for over a year. This is far better than the current way. Its not the number of the version that bugs me, that is just a number.

torrentthief said,
my opinion is based on the fact that recent versions of firefox leak memory like mad and use 100% of 1 thread.

Sounds like a bad addon or corrupt profile. Last time I had a bad memory leak with Firefox oddly enough was with version 4, and that was probably an incompatible addon's fault too. 12 is actually quite good with memory usage, better than most others. Same goes for CPU usage, it's pretty tame unless you're loading something ridiculously large, and that'll spike any browser.

Max Norris said,

Sounds like a bad addon or corrupt profile. Last time I had a bad memory leak with Firefox oddly enough was with version 4, and that was probably an incompatible addon's fault too. 12 is actually quite good with memory usage, better than most others. Same goes for CPU usage, it's pretty tame unless you're loading something ridiculously large, and that'll spike any browser.

^this.
Also notice that Firefox 4 had many memory leaks, and it landed many months after Firefox 3.6. The quick release cycle helped a lot to fix those issues.