Firefox 7 to use as much as 50 percent less memory

Earlier this year, Mozilla decided to take a new and interesting approach to developing its Firefox web browser. Instead of waiting several months or even a year between versions, we are now seeing major new versions of the Firefox browser being released within weeks of each other. Indeed Firefox 6 is currently scheduled for release sometime this week. But Mozilla's creators are already working on the following version, Firefox 7.

In a blog post written by Nicholas Nethercote, one of Mozilla's programmers, he claims that Firefox 7 will have a solution that many users of the web browser will be happy to hear. He says, "Firefox 7 uses less memory than Firefox 6 (and 5 and 4): often 20 (percent) to 30 (percent) less, and sometimes as much as 50 {percent) less. In particular, Firefox 7′s memory usage will stay steady if you leave it running overnight, and it will free up more memory when you close many tabs."

That's a massive improvement over Firefox 6 which technically hasn't even been officially released. Nethercote points out, "This means that Firefox 7 is faster (sometimes drastically so) and less likely to crash, particularly if you have many websites open at once and/or keep Firefox running for a long time between restarts." He credits the improvements in part to MemShink, a new effort by Mozllla designed specifically to decrease Firefox's memory usage and this may just be just the beginning. He says, "... development versions of Firefox 8 already have even better memory usage, and I expect we’ll continue to make further improvements as time goes on."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The IBM PC is 30 years old today

Next Story

Mango RTM build 7720 has been leaked

102 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Gutierrez said,
piece of **** FF6 is using 421.56 MB right now. 8 tabs.
Im considering go back to 3.16 or move to opera.

Hop over to Aurora, got 9 open right now and using ~265.5MB, and that's with a fair number of addons. v3 is just too slow to consider moving back. Opera? Not a fan personally but if you like it, whatever works.

Guys, you really need to understand how complex web pages are to render and store in memory. It depends hugely on what was on those 8 tabs. Besides, this article is talking about Firefox 7 not Firefox 6. What's the point of complaining about Fx6's memory usage in an article about how much better Fx7 is?

chrome memory hog (yeah the browser that use more ram but use less cpu and feel snappy)
opera cpu hog (cpu usage increase a lot but everything load so fast use less ram than others)
firefox (the BEST balancing both resources but sometimes dont feel that snappy or fast like chrome or opera)

i choose firefox extensions or addons plus customization its better than a few seconds.

chrome memory hog (yeah the browser that use more ram but use less cpu and feel snappy)
opera cpu hog (cpu usage increase a lot but everything load so fast use less ram than others)
firefox (the BEST balancing both resources but sometimes dont feel that snappy or fast like chrome or opera)

i choose firefox extensions or addons plus customization its better than a few seconds.

belto said,
right now firefox5 is a memory hog. i hope that they get this fixed soon.

Yes, as the article states the first batch of noticeable memory improvements will come with Firefox 7 which will be released in 6-7 weeks.

belto said,
right now firefox5 is a memory hog. i hope that they get this fixed soon.

just install Firefox 7 from the Aurora channel as i never had any issues with stability etc and i been using it for a good month or so now.

as long as you don't have a billion extensions installed odds are you can force your extensions to work with Firefox 7 by going to about:config then add in the following...

New > Boolean.. "extensions.checkCompatibility.7.0a" (without the ") and put it to FALSE then reboot Firefox and your extensions should work.

plus according to reports... Firefox 7 is about 10percent faster than Firefox 5 and Firefox 8 is about 20percent faster than Firefox 5 (or about on par with Chrome 14). plus obviously RAM use is significantly decreased with Firefox 7 vs previous versions and it's quite noticeable. proof you ask? = task manager or Firefox's 'about:memory' tab shows exactly how much RAM is being used. which is typically in the 200 to 300MB range and that's with quite a bit of use without closing it and many tabs open.

belto said,
right now firefox5 is a memory hog. i hope that they get this fixed soon.

chrome eat more memory than firefox....

belto said,
right now firefox5 is a memory hog. i hope that they get this fixed soon.

FF5 is not as bad as FF4 to call it a memory hog. on FF4 I had to restart the browser a handful of times a day, now with FF5 I always manage to keep it open for a couple days before having to reopen it due to memory leaks. This is only getting better release after release.

After using Chrome and IE9 I'm sure that when they add per-process tabs the memory usage will just go to hell (or should I say heaven, since it'll go way up?).

epk said,
After using Chrome and IE9 I'm sure that when they add per-process tabs the memory usage will just go to hell (or should I say heaven, since it'll go way up?).

They don't have to use a process per tab (even Chrome doesn't in all cases). Mozilla is contemplating to split the application into five processes isntead: interface, website content (for all open tabs), plugins (e.g. Flash), GPU renderer and JetPack extensions. This should keep the memory overhead in check while retaining some of Chrome's favorable characteristics like the responsive interface under load.

Erunno said,

They don't have to use a process per tab (even Chrome doesn't in all cases). Mozilla is contemplating to split the application into five processes isntead: interface, website content (for all open tabs), plugins (e.g. Flash), GPU renderer and JetPack extensions. This should keep the memory overhead in check while retaining some of Chrome's favorable characteristics like the responsive interface under load.

I see, well that would be better indeed.

Digitalx said,
this is really where chrome needs to be soon in development.

Agreed. that's easily Chrome's biggest issue when it comes to general performance is it's RAM use levels are much higher than Firefox 7 which is a issue for those of us with 2GB of ram (or less) in our systems who generally have multiple tabs open and leave our browsers running most of the time.

Edited by ThaCrip, Aug 13 2011, 2:08pm :

Digitalx said,
this is really where chrome needs to be soon in development.

There's not much they can do unless they change the underlying architecture of the browser as their multi-process model forces them to duplicate everything in ram for each tab you open.
And they are pretty much frelled if the OS does wacky stuff with memory allocation (like OS X Lion, where they show a much worse performance than on Win 7)

They always claim " Firefox uses less memory" with each new version and blah blah blah, but i would not believe them without some sort of hard proof.

soldier1st said,
They always claim " Firefox uses less memory" with each new version and blah blah blah, but i would not believe them without some sort of hard proof.

Exactly, I switched to Chrome and it's working fine for now.

ghostrider86 said,

Exactly, I switched to Chrome and it's working fine for now.

+1 was a big time firefox fan, but after 5 i was like nope and moved.

ghostrider86 said,
Exactly, I switched to Chrome and it's working fine for now.

As long as you don't keep a lot of tabs open or have massive amounts of memory I guess Chrome is fine: http://gregor-wagner.com/?p=79

I have about 3 dozens tabs open in Firefox right now (spread among different tab groups). Firefox uses about 600-700 MB on OS X 10.7. I reopened the exact same tab set in Chrome and it almost hit 2 GB. That's efficiency right there!

You are right, Chrome is working much harder and use more resources. The people at Google have to admit that Firefox is the best browser. At least right now. And offers so many possibilities. Now with the seventh edition was also improved a bit.
http://www.miere-bucovina.ro

I have about 3 dozens tabs open in Firefox right now (spread among different tab groups). Firefox uses about 600-700 MB on OS X 10.7. I reopened the exact same tab set in Chrome and it almost hit 2 GB. That's efficiency right there![/quote]

soldier1st said,
They always claim " Firefox uses less memory" with each new version and blah blah blah, but i would not believe them without some sort of hard proof.
Read the bloomin' blog post, or hey ... download it and try it? Cause I don't see what other hard proof you would need.

soldier1st said,
They always claim " Firefox uses less memory" with each new version and blah blah blah, but i would not believe them without some sort of hard proof.

hard proof? , try it.

i can guarantee it's a CLEAR difference and it's not in my head either as you can verify it's using noticeably less ram by checking task manager and even Firefox's own 'about:memory' tab that shows RAM use levels.

it genuinely is using significantly less RAM and the claim is legit this time as Firefox 4/5/6 burn up more and more RAM the longer they are open with the random loading and closing of tabs but with Firefox 7 (or newer) the issue is gone as you can typically have many tabs open and RAM use stays normal now. RAM use typically floats around 200MB after you been using it a while with say 10-ish tabs open and even on the higher side it typically don't exceed about 300MB and that's usually with roughly 10-20 tabs open.

i been on Firefox 7 (in the Aurora channel) for probably around a month or maybe more now and what i said above is quite consistent and i use my browser quite a bit in your average day with the browser being typically open for around 24 hours, although i am sure it could go quite a bit more than that if i had to, as it usually has updates for it about once a day in which case to install updates i need to reload the web browser.

p.s. people trying to defend Chrome, as far as RAM use is concerned... that's not even close to Firefox 7 in RAM use as that burns a lot of memory vs Firefox 7 when it's been open for a while with many tabs open. there is no way anyone could say otherwise.

that 50percent claim i would probably believe as i been using Aurora (Firefox 7) for a while now and i will not go back to earlier versions as the memory usage is truly improved to a large degree as before memory usage used to go higher and higher the longer the browser was opening with the random opening and closing of tabs but now that seems to be cured as on the higher side i typically float around 300MB with many tabs open and usually around 200-300MB after it's been open for a while.

memory usage was my biggest complaint about Firefox and now that it's fixed i would say it's comfortably the overall best browser now.

plus they say Firefox 7 is about 10percent faster than Firefox 5 and Firefox 8 is supposedly 20percent faster than Firefox 5.

i dont no why people like chrome me to when it came and after used some months i checked system reliabilty and all problems releated only from chrome "problem is stoped working" thats why i decided to stick with fx with is awsome addons;) and now i never seen a single problem i love firefox great browse than any other

wv@gt said,
haven't they said this before? Ill believe it when I see it, there has been a memory hole for ages now

it's actually completely legit this time. i been using it (Firefox 7 Aurora) for a while now and there is a CLEAR difference to the point i am not going back to earlier versions.

RAM use don't seem to climb higher and higher the more you randomly open/close tabs now as i would say after the browser has been open a while you typically float between 200-300MB. usually 300MB-ish is on the higher side and that's with many tabs open as at this moment i got 18 tabs open and Firefox's 'about:memory' says i am using about 307MB. even windows task manage says i am using about 278MB and my browser has been open many hours with quite a bit of use to.

p.s. because the memory use was hands down my main complaint with Firefox in the past but now that it's cured it's comfortably back as THE BEST browser if you ask me. and according to the article Firefox 8 further improves on it but that's still 'nightly' so ill hold off on that due to stability reasons as it's been less tested compared to Firefox 7 so far so i suspect it's possible more serious bugs could still exit in it where as Firefox 7 has all i been using for probably the last month or more now.

Edited by ThaCrip, Aug 13 2011, 7:05am :

ThaCrip said,

i am using about 307MB.

Firefox 3.6.19 / 12 tabs pretty loaded

Memory mapped:188,743,680
Memory in use: 161,363,818

its a ****ing browse NOT A VIRTUAL MACHINE!!

MichaelJTKnox said,
Jeez am I right in remembering that 5 was out a month and a half ago? Should be 4 beta 2...
No, because they want people actually benefiting from the changes, not waiting for an endless beta cycle to end.

Yeah Firefox 6 is a memory hog.. during the testing it always dragged my internet if i didnt close the browser its not worth the download Firefox 7 is awesome so fast .. just wishes it didnt have to constantly update

Cripe!!

Hasn't memory been an issue in this browser since the day it was created?

And they're just now getting around to getting it reduced some?!

No wonder I've never been able to tolerate it for more than 5 minutes.

Firefox doesn't need to compete with Chrome in speed.
Opera is faster than Chrome at rendering and BG TAB performance to me.
So, Firefox needs to try to compete with Opera.

Not like it matters if you have 12GB RAM, SSD, and i7 OC

ThePitt said,
lol?

Indeed, lol. Unfortunately, these extremely rare Opera-guys have become even worse than the Linux-Users on fanboyism.

Even while currently Opera 11.50 is a total mess. Worst Speed, worst memory management. If you try to render a site with many scripts, css etc, Opera it's like downloading the elements one by one. Slow as hell.

They didn't even polished their new UI design. They released it as final with a ton of glitches. Same old bugs and incompatibilities still occur. If you go on their forums and talk about memory-problems for instance, the most likely you'll get is a "Topic Locked." No Hardware acceleration, no [...] many things.

The most funny is that they still wonder why Opera doesn't even exists in Statistics, previews, tests etc.

EuroSCeptiC said,

Indeed, lol. Unfortunately, these extremely rare Opera-guys have become even worse than the Linux-Users on fanboyism.

Even while currently Opera 11.50 is a total mess. Worst Speed, worst memory management. If you try to render a site with many scripts, css etc, Opera it's like downloading the elements one by one. Slow as hell.

They didn't even polished their new UI design. They released it as final with a ton of glitches. Same old bugs and incompatibilities still occur. If you go on their forums and talk about memory-problems for instance, the most likely you'll get is a "Topic Locked." No Hardware acceleration, no [...] many things.

The most funny is that they still wonder why Opera doesn't even exists in Statistics, previews, tests etc.

I am just telling it how it is.
My netbook is my main performance gauge - it is extremely sensitive to differences in software.
That is why I dropped Firefox pretty fast for Chrome.
Now I switched to Opera because it beats Chrome where it matters,
responsiveness and scrolling speed.

The interface is what Chrome simply doesn't get - lots of options, well designed, easy to navigate.

Opera is not popular, but it sure does somethings right.
It is the only browser that DOESN'T SLOW DOWN when opening tons of background tabs, Chrome is second to me.

CM0S said,
Damn, I spent 90$ for 12GB RAM for nothing!

you seriously have 12GB of ram?

that's overkill. by the time that even comes close to being needed your system will be very dated.

4GB if pretty much plenty nowadays and i would say anything over 8GB is overkill/waste of money.

ThaCrip said,

you seriously have 12GB of ram?

that's overkill. by the time that even comes close to being needed your system will be very dated.

4GB if pretty much plenty nowadays and i would say anything over 8GB is overkill/waste of money.

Meh 8gig is like 85$, 12gig is like 120$. I paid that for 512meg back in the days LOL! Memory is so cheap that unless you're stuck with a laptop.. you can put a good amount of memory for nothing or almost

ryoohki said,

Meh 8gig is like 85$, 12gig is like 120$. I paid that for 512meg back in the days LOL! Memory is so cheap that unless you're stuck with a laptop.. you can put a good amount of memory for nothing or almost

sure, if you got money to burn but it would make more sense to save the $35 and put it towards a bigger HDD for example or maybe a SSD type drive since going from 8GB to 12GB is pretty much pointless. hell, even going from 4GB to 8GB ill bet is minimal but that might be slightly noticed in some cases i suspect but 8GB to 12GB is basically pointless.

hell, i paid roughly $100 for a 4MB of RAM stick (total system memory would have been 8MB after the upgrade) back around 1995. (that pains me to think about that nowadays. lol)

p.s. sadly though in my PC, since it's 5 years old now, i still have the older DDR 400mhz stuff which is still quite pricey to upgrade. i am still on 2GB of RAM (4x 512MB. all my RAm slots are full). i would like 4GB, which would be a solid upgrade, but for what it costs to upgrade it's not really worth it considering the age of my PC as i am better off getting a new PC.

Edited by ThaCrip, Aug 13 2011, 2:03pm :

what i noticed was that after a while the back button and the page refresh button would stop working and pages would not load all the way. i would have to click the address bar and hit Enter on the keyboard or i would just have to close out Firefox and load a new instance. I switched from the 7.0 alpha down to 6.0 Beta 5 and these things have been cleared up.

hotdog963al said,
Firefox, 50% less RAM usage? I'd have to see it to believe it!

Just download the Aurora build (which is Firefox 7).

MaSx said,
Firefox as fast as Chrome? I'd love it! but I guess we probably never see it as fast and good as Chrome.

I think functionally it's better than Crome. It would be awesome if it were as fast...

M_Lyons10 said,

I think functionally it's better than Crome. It would be awesome if it were as fast...


Yep, that's why I'm still sticking to it and cuzzin at it when it always decides to freeze on me here and there starting 4.x to 5.x

MaSx said,
Firefox as fast as Chrome? I'd love it! but I guess we probably never see it as fast and good as Chrome.

Having to defend Firefox...

Chrome is NOT faster than Firefox all the time. On simple pages, and light usage, ya, but for RIA or graphically rich HTML5/CSS3 and dynamic content, Chrome is a huge magnitude slower than Firefox.

Sadly, neither one even come close to IE9 when it comes to dynamic or graphical rich content using the new standards. And this is a big difference. IE9 gives a fairly consistent performance level no matter if you have a netbook or the latest i7/Xeon. In contrast, on CPU staved systems Chrome's numbers drop to the floor, as do Safari.

Firefox has a bit better last phase composer using Direct2D on Vista/Win7 than Chrome and this is where it also nails Chrome in performance tests.

Until Chrome's base engine is redesigned from the ground up to treat web pages like more like code and use a JIT concept beyond javascript, as HTML5 continues to grow, Chrome will continue to feel like a horribly slow browser for richer web content.

If you go to Beautyoftheweb.com or search for IETestDrive, you will find both actual sites and tests using graphical/dynamic content.

Looking through my chart of tests, Chrome 14, all GPU acceleration enabled, the best it does is 1/2 the speed of IE9 on graphical and dynamic HTML5/CSS3 content. Sadly, other tests have it hitting 1/10th and even around 1/1000th the speed of IE9. (And the non-Chromium 14 builds are far far slower, even with GPU acceleration on.)


Sadly, not being able to catch IE9, as Google even states, they are focusing on WebGL and native code. Which are NOT standards and WebGL is the biggest security threat ever introduced to the internet, not only allowing GPU access to web sites to open up exploits, but even offering flaws in GPU architectures that can be 'pumped' to fry a video card instantly. (There is sample code of this already out there, that if you have X series GPU do this, Y series of GPU do this, Z series of GPU do this - with the result being a dead GPU.)

Google is STILL pushing WebGL as their 'way' of handling fast/rich web content - which is NOT a standard and is a huge security risk that if used will make all that came before it seem likes childs play. Especially as it can directly touch the GPU and not only exploit the system, but even just fry a video card by using known weaknesses in various GPU architectures with OpenGL.

Firefox is at least hitting 80% of the speed of IE9 on some tests.

(Also in the test chart, Chrome 14 is averaging 60% CPU usage, and IE9 is averaging 30% CPU usage. Chrome is averaging 130mb to 300mb of RAM usage, IE9 is averaging 40mb to 90mb of RAM usage. -Yes the same tests on same hardware. Firefox is averaging 50% CPU usage with 150mb to 400mb of RAM usage.)

So Chrome the fastest, ya not anymore. On a javascript test, maybe, but in real world and upcoming content, no...

PS IE9 on Mango running these same tests with same Window size - faster than Chrome on a desktop computer unless the test is heavily CPU bound and the desktop has an non-mobile i5 or i7 CPU. (As even IE9 on WP7 is using the GPU and treating content more like code.)

I thought Chrome was so head of Firefox, that they will always lag behind them. Chrome was leading the competition all along among open-source browsers. But they may just be able to compete with them.
Now the UI needs to improve dramatically too. Not as clean, simple and fast as Chrome or IE9.

FMH said,
I thought Chrome was so head of Firefox, that they will always lag behind them. Chrome was leading the competition all along among open-source browsers. But they may just be able to compete with them.
Now the UI needs to improve dramatically too. Not as clean, simple and fast as Chrome or IE9.

chrome was never ahead of firefox. Maybe speedwise, but thats it.

2xSilverKnight said,

chrome was never ahead of firefox. Maybe speedwise, but thats it.

UI wise too. No? And that is the most important thing for me. More important than the number of fish count in FishIE Tank.

Jen Smith said,

Subjective. Works for some, but for me, a big no. Can't stand Chrome's UI.
True, it is subjective. But I think 'cleanliness' may be a bit subjective. Judging by the layout, colour scheme and etc. You know, that shiny orange button FF has, and as compared to Chrome and IE9 minimalist designs.

But that may change in FF8, since major UI changes are planned for it.

nonick said,
this fast version advancement craze is so stupid. it must stop.

Tell that to Google, not Mozilla.

nonick said,
this fast version advancement craze is so stupid. it must stop.

The development cycle for Firefox 4 was feature-driven and it lead to the release being delayed by months because they had to wait for major features to land and stabilize. At the same time many features were already perfectly usable by a general populace as early as mid-2010 but where held up by the unfinished parts. A purely time-based schedule will hopefully prevent such situations arising again.

Edited by Erunno, Aug 13 2011, 9:07am :

ahhell said,
WTF? Isn't that a bit excessive and I'm not talking about the memory usage??

Suppose I could get rid or 1 or 2 addons that I don't seem to be using much, but the rest really do make my use of the internet/firefox that much better.

38 tabs is pretty good for me, in my constant tab battle. Must learn to focus

In case you wondered... https://pastee.org/v2au2

Fortunately, the ones marked as (Incompatible), still actually work.

DARKFiB3R said,
36 enabled addons

Your problem right there. Extensions are third-party code which can introduce all kinds of bad memory behavior or they just plain need the memory to provide their additional functionality.

Erunno said,

Your problem right there. Extensions are third-party code which can introduce all kinds of bad memory behavior or they just plain need the memory to provide their additional functionality.


I know, it's a issue I choose to live with, sacrificing speed for functionality.

But that functionality increases the speed at which I can get things done, and the general usability of the browser, so it's an acceptable trade-off for me.

Got it down to 32 addons now, and that has shaven off a good 200MB of ram usage

Looking forward to the day when addons are a separate process, so you can easily see the worst culprits, then I can bug the hell out of the dev, to fix their **** lol

If they are not listed as "firefox - addon name" I'll be ****ed though. "plugin-container" for instance, seems to be the start of a bad trend

DARKFiB3R said,
Looking forward to the day when addons are a separate process, so you can easily see the worst culprits, then I can bug the hell out of the dev, to fix their **** lol

Unfortunately it's not possible to offload many of the more powerful extensions to their own processes as from the browsers point of view they are part of Firefox. Here's a good (though very technical) explanation of how Firefox' extension system works: http://www.oxymoronical.com/bl...refox-updates-break-add-ons

Erunno said,

Unfortunately it's not possible to offload many of the more powerful extensions to their own processes as from the browsers point of view they are part of Firefox. Here's a good (though very technical) explanation of how Firefox' extension system works: http://www.oxymoronical.com/bl...refox-updates-break-add-ons


Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. I would hope that the "really important add-ons" are better behaved, and if not, then perhaps Mozilla should do something about it. Maybe by supporting the dev, or baking it right in?

It is totally retarded for Mozilla to have so many major versions out at once. Pick one and make sure it works....

Foub said,
It is totally retarded for Mozilla to have so many major versions out at once. Pick one and make sure it works....

Officially, there is only one major version out there. The rest are all development builds, no different from running say a nightly build of Chromium.

Max Norris said,

Officially, there is only one major version out there. The rest are all development builds, no different from running say a nightly build of Chromium.

Hardly.....

FMH said,
Are nightly builds different from Aurora?

Yes, they receive regularly update and uses even lesser RAM and I can bet, they are much more responsive and less memory and cpu hog.

Zlip792 said,

Yes, they receive regularly update and uses even lesser RAM and I can bet, they are much more responsive and less memory and cpu hog.
Thanks for the answer. I am downloading now. Just out of interest( browser fetish), not a developer or anything.

FMH said,
Thanks for the answer. I am downloading now. Just out of interest( browser fetish), not a developer or anything.

Nightly are development builds. Unlike Aurora and Beta builds, which go through a formal quality assurance procedure and are relatively stable, Nightly is just the latest code which goes through the bare minimum of testing (unit tests, integration test, etc.). If you are fine with living on the bleeding edge (including the possibility of data loss and stability issues) then there's no problem using Nightly and reporting problems early to developers. Otherwise I'd stick to the more stable channels (i.e. Aurora, Beta or plain Firefox Stable).

Erunno said,

Nightly are development builds. Unlike Aurora and Beta builds, which go through a formal quality assurance procedure and are relatively stable, Nightly is just the latest code which goes through the bare minimum of testing (unit tests, integration test, etc.). If you are fine with living on the bleeding edge (including the possibility of data loss and stability issues) then there's no problem using Nightly and reporting problems early to developers. Otherwise I'd stick to the more stable channels (i.e. Aurora, Beta or plain Firefox Stable).

Got it! Like Chrome Canary.
Thanks.

ProChefChad said,
Forget FF7, how about FF8 --> http://nightly.mozilla.org/

Firefox 8 will be the greatest browser ever existed. Firefox 9 will be the personification of perfection.

-Better, Stronger Hardware Acceleration

-Faster and better Optimised JavaScript Engine

-Total control of Add-ons System

-Full HTML5 support

-More and Better Developer Tools

-Separated processes for everything, Lighter In Content UI + visual Unification

-Perfect Memory Management

-Brand New Home Page / Searching System with many abilities

-Overall optimisations since the last major overhaul ( 3.6 -> 4 ), bug fixes, and with the safety of Mozilla, without worrying for my data. 100% trustworthiness.

-Native Windows x64 build

Just can't wait - I use right now Fx 8a1 x64 along with Flash 11 x64 beta 2 and both working more than perfecty.

Talk about getting ahead of yourself. I'm running Windows 9 right now and unfortunately Firefox 7 isn't compatible.

Enron said,
Talk about getting ahead of yourself. I'm running Windows 9 right now and unfortunately Firefox 7 isn't compatible.


You'll have to go with Firefox 14 at least

Enron said,
Talk about getting ahead of yourself. I'm running Windows 9 right now and unfortunately Firefox 7 isn't compatible.

Don't worry, you should be able to use Firefox 20 by then, which I hear has been made conpatible for Windows 14 and Mac OS XV.

Interesting I was a devout Mozilla/Firefox user from v1.5 to 3.6. Firefox v4.0, and the progression of some critical Chrome extensions, pushed me into full time Chrome use. I can't imagine going back now.

KeR said,
Better hurry, I hear Google will have Chrome 20 out sometime next year.

Speaking of Chrome, look at the ads on the top and right.

KeR said,
Better hurry, I hear Google will have Chrome 20 out sometime next year.

LOL, so true (But i love Chrome so munch )

KeR said,
Better hurry, I hear Google will have Chrome 20 out sometime next year.

Cool, wonder if they'll change something more than the version number in all those version

McKay said,
Wasn't its predecessor a horrible memory hog anyway?

they are going the apple route.. just update one aspect of your product alot because it makes for easier marketting purposes..

Lachlan said,

they are going the apple route.. just update one aspect of your product alot because it makes for easier marketting purposes..
What utter rubbish. You have no basis for that whatsoever.