Mozilla Firefox 10 now available

Six weeks after the last major release of Mozilla’s web browser, the latest update - Firefox 10 – is now available.

We’ve been tracking the progress of the browser’s beta development for the last few weeks, and while Mozilla hasn’t yet publicised its full changelog, you should expect to see most of the improvements that we’ve grown accustomed to in the various beta releases, including API support for full-screen applications, UI enhancements (such as the forward button being hidden until you navigate back), and various developer-focused improvements, such as new inspectors for Page and Style elements, and improved graphical support with CSS3D Transforms to add 3D animation to 2D objects, and anti-aliasing for WebGL.

The tablet-optimised Firefox for Android, which launched last month, gets these updates plus some of its own. Firefox 10 for Android now includes multitouch gesture support, while Firefox Sync gets a smoother set-up process to ensure that all of your Firefox-enabled phones, tablets and PCs can be more easily synchronised.

Firefox 10 will also be the first version under Mozilla’s Extended Support Release (ESR) programme. ESR evolved from feedback Mozilla received from exasperated administrators and corporate IT managers, who were growing increasingly frustrated at the six-week browser update cycle that Mozilla switched to last year. Under ESR, essential security updates are pushed to the browser, but full version updates will only come once a year or so.

If you’ve already got Firefox installed on your system, your browser will notify you of an update after downloading it in the background. If you fancy installing Firefox 10 from scratch, at the time of writing, the Mozilla site is still churning out version 9.0.1 – but our very own Razvan rather helpfully dug out the direct-download links on Mozilla.org and posted them up here.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

T-Mobile announces Full Monty plans: unlimited everything

Next Story

Upcoming mobile devices: February 2012

60 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Sub_Zero_Alchemist said,

Give the version numbers complaining a rest already.


Exactly. It's called "getting with the times". By that I mean if that's the current trend, then so be it.

Sub_Zero_Alchemist said,

Give the version numbers complaining a rest already.


its not me the one who is mad about the version numbers, mozilla is. If they dont care about this why they dont just stop namming their browser with numbers and change to names?.
Seem like they are desperate to win a race or at least tie this stupid race.

ThePitt, why don't you go read up on why they made the change, rather than making incorrect assumptions. Why would names help anyway? What would that achieve apart from ridiculous internationalization issues and an endless alphabet of what ... animals? Cheeses?

The short of it is: they're doing six weekly releases now. There is no concept of major/minor releases (apart X.0.1 critical fixes), because there's no way to decide if the release is major or minor. The concept just doesn't make sense. You can't increase it by anything other than an integer because that would imply major/minor. Dates *are* one option, but potentially even more confusing.

I'm liking each Firefox release even more! Palemoon also gets even better. Since Firefox 9 I've seen an incredible performance increase. It's been more like using Firefox on Windows XP, tabs close and open fast and very smoothly.

Now the only thing they are missing is to catch up with Chrome and Opera in HTML 5 input types.

Firefox 10 ESR (Enterprise) is also out. While regular Firefox 10 users will be moved to Firefox 11 in six weeks time, while Firefox 10 ESR users will be moved to Firefox 10.1 instead.

Erunno said,
The CSS prefixes are becoming more and more tools of engine lock-in. :-/

No they're not. They're a tool for making sure one engine's test implementation of something does not become the standard, or pollute the 'true' namespace.
If another browser doesn't support something, why would you add their prefix long before they do so? (Yes, that demo should be updated)

Prefixes avoided a whole lot of trouble with CSS gradients, for example, as webkit and others had different suggestions for how they should work (which has now been resolved, with webkit altering their implementation).

Erunno said,
Instead of repeating it I'll point you to this interesting article about the problems of vendor prefixes: http://hsivonen.iki.fi/vendor-prefixes/

Yeah, I did read the article previously (via Planet Mozilla). It's quite an interesting viewpoint, though it hasn't really convinced me. I still think that if they're used sensibly (which should be possible), they're useful. I am somewhat on the outside though, granted.

JamesWeb said,
I love how Flash and IETab crash all the time now, best new features ever.

IETab ? Are there still sites that require IE6 ? :-)

alexalex said,

IETab ? Are there still sites that require IE6 ? :-)


Allot of sites actually look better and run smoother in IE mate.

Oh yeah, and if a browser uses broken ways to fix fail designers, its FF, not IE
Im terrible at designing, yet my sites look exactly thesame on both IE and FF since IE7 without using 'IEhacks' to get it all working.

Good to heard, but the new versions are hell annoying, instead of increasing by 1 why not by 0.5 or something like that? Because before you know it, you probably have Firefox version 50 lols

It's time based, if they did change the numbering it would likely follow some date format. That quite likely wouldn't result in smaller numbers.

Increasing by 0.5 would imply that ever other release is 'special', which they are not.

Kirkburn said,
It's time based, if they did change the numbering it would likely follow some date format. That quite likely wouldn't result in smaller numbers.

Increasing by 0.5 would imply that ever other release is 'special', which they are not.

I suppose that is true enough, but still kinda annoying.

If it's generally available then why is is not available when I check for updates within firefox?!

Perhaps the post should be reworded that it's available from a certain link but not auto update yet?

Midnight Mick said,
If it's generally available then why is is not available when I check for updates within firefox?!

Perhaps the post should be reworded that it's available from a certain link but not auto update yet?

The post as usual adds to the confusion, as of this writting which is AFTER the article FF10 is STILL beta. so it's NOT released, thus no notification there is a "new version" available..

So to answer your question, no auto update yet .. to 10.

I did get the update half an hour ago after manually checking for the update ("About Firefox" will trigger an update check).

Used to love Chrome, but after the version 4, I was fighting with addons and version numbers, everytime i update my addons stopped working, don't have that problem with Chrome.

I think you mean "used to love Firefox".

Also, install this extension called Nightly Tester Tools. There is an option in that to force addon compatibility across all versions of Firefox.

The Dark Knight said,
I think you mean "used to love Firefox".

Also, install this extension called Nightly Tester Tools. There is an option in that to force addon compatibility across all versions of Firefox.

Do tell you truth, FF10 also bring "addons default to compatible".
From: http://blog.mozilla.com/addons...mpatibility-for-firefox-11/

Starting with Firefox 10, add-ons will default to compatible. All add-on versions that have compatibility up to Firefox 4 or higher will automatically work in Firefox 10 and all future releases. This excludes add-ons that are not extensions (themes, dictionaries, language packs) and add-ons with binary components.

alexalex said,
"your browser will silently update itself "

Since when Firefox silently updates itself ? This isn't Chrome.


They are actually rolling method of silently upgrading the browser in the future. Not sure if it is in any channel (in working shape) but there has been few patches for it at least.

Zkal said,

They are actually rolling method of silently upgrading the browser in the future. Not sure if it is in any channel (in working shape) but there has been few patches for it at least.

Firefox 12 (nightly currently and soon be aurora) does has Silent Update feature.

Zlip792 said,

Firefox 12 (nightly currently and soon be aurora) does has Silent Update feature.

Does that mean that the browser won't install in Program Files anymore? Are they trying to pull off a Chrome-like crap?

kavazovangel said,

Does that mean that the browser won't install in Program Files anymore? Are they trying to pull off a Chrome-like crap?

I doubt it (although it's possible). I imagine that it'd be possible just to change the permissions for the "Program Files/Mozilla Firefox" folder to allow all users write access, then it would be able to update itself without invoking a UAC prompt. IIRC this is how Steam works.

kavazovangel said,

Does that mean that the browser won't install in Program Files anymore? Are they trying to pull off a Chrome-like crap?

It will install in Program File but also offer opt out "Maintenance Service" program, which can be also uninstalled and can also be disabled. It will not run 24/7, it will check after intervals and service will automatically shutdown.

Majesticmerc said,

I doubt it (although it's possible). I imagine that it'd be possible just to change the permissions for the "Program Files/Mozilla Firefox" folder to allow all users write access, then it would be able to update itself without invoking a UAC prompt. IIRC this is how Steam works.

I didn't know you could do that at all under Windows 7 for instance. I thought the entire Program Files directory was protected for this very reason (Kinda - drive by installations). I guess that will be interesting to see.

M_Lyons10 said,

I didn't know you could do that at all under Windows 7 for instance. I thought the entire Program Files directory was protected for this very reason (Kinda - drive by installations). I guess that will be interesting to see.

But they manage to did this.. Dev was Brian R. Bondy...
He is also working to make startup faster.. let see..

M_Lyons10 said,

I didn't know you could do that at all under Windows 7 for instance. I thought the entire Program Files directory was protected for this very reason (Kinda - drive by installations). I guess that will be interesting to see.

I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure you can set the subdirectory permissions without affecting directories higher up (so the FF directory is available to everyone, but the main Program Files directory is restricted still). The initial install/upgrade will need UAC permissions though so as to set the folder permissions in the first place.

I always thought Chrome installed where it is so as to bypass the initial UAC install, and therefore allow the user to use Chrome at work, where one might not have admin privileges on their PC.

alexalex said,
"your browser will silently update itself "

Since when Firefox silently updates itself ? This isn't Chrome.

It's not very "silent" unless if you take the literal to make a noise, it certainly does NOT do so.. it bugs you "a new update is available, firefox needs to restart".. I can detect idle machine process or a screen saver which OBVIOUSLY means no one is using the computer.. THAT would be "silent".

I would rather programs just do it! leave me out of it. Otherwise I can turn the updates off.. if I don't want the program to have control.

alexalex said,
"your browser will silently update itself "

Since when Firefox silently updates itself ? This isn't Chrome.

It's not very "silent" unless if you take the literal to make a noise, it certainly does NOT do so.. it bugs you "a new update is available, firefox needs to restart".. I can detect idle machine process or a screen saver which OBVIOUSLY means no one is using the computer.. THAT would be "silent".

I would rather programs just do it! leave me out of it. Otherwise I can turn the updates off.. if I don't want the program to have control.

rijp said,
...
rijp, most people do restart their browser more than once every 6 weeks. Ideally, it doesn't bug you as soon as the update is out, and just silently installs the next time you start/restart it.

Zlip792 said,

But they manage to did this.. Dev was Brian R. Bondy...
He is also working to make startup faster.. let see..


I like this guy.

coth said,
anything new except number?

Being honest I just looked at the list, a hotfix AT BEST would have sufficed.
I'm adding firefox to my list of blocked update packages, can't be arsed with the hassle of spending ages updating and fixing things to get an overall ****-all noticable improvement.

n_K said,

Being honest I just looked at the list, a hotfix AT BEST would have sufficed.
I'm adding firefox to my list of blocked update packages, can't be arsed with the hassle of spending ages updating and fixing things to get an overall ****-all noticable improvement.

Agreed. It's really a shame that Chrome forced these other companies to do this. I use Firefox as my default web browser with a little bit of Chrome here and there. For years I've updated Chrome and not even noticed a change. Would I prefer an update period that makes more sense for ALL software? Absolutely. But when you have a competitor so blatantly taking advantage of the general user's confusion of version numbers, you have to combat the lunacy in a like manner...

M_Lyons10 said,

Agreed. It's really a shame that Chrome forced these other companies to do this. I use Firefox as my default web browser with a little bit of Chrome here and there. For years I've updated Chrome and not even noticed a change. Would I prefer an update period that makes more sense for ALL software? Absolutely. But when you have a competitor so blatantly taking advantage of the general user's confusion of version numbers, you have to combat the lunacy in a like manner...


Chrome didn't force anyone to do anything. They don't advertise their versions or upgrades like other browsers. The version isn't even anywhere to be found on the download page. Chrome isn't Chrome 17 or Chrome 18. It's just Chrome.

M_Lyons10 said,
For years I've updated Chrome and not even noticed a change.

I would much rather get improvements gradually over a period of months, than have a giant leap every year. You still end up with the same improvements in the end, but you got many of them earlier in the former case.

Comparing Chrome 5 to 15 probably would be noticeable.

Memnochxx said,

Chrome didn't force anyone to do anything. They don't advertise their versions or upgrades like other browsers. The version isn't even anywhere to be found on the download page. Chrome isn't Chrome 17 or Chrome 18. It's just Chrome.

No one other than tech websites "advertise" version numbers.

n_K said,

Being honest I just looked at the list, a hotfix AT BEST would have sufficed.
I'm adding firefox to my list of blocked update packages, can't be arsed with the hassle of spending ages updating and fixing things to get an overall ****-all noticable improvement.

Where I work there are about 1600 users and the tech guys there keep on top of everything, we're always bumped up to the latest software very soon after launch whether it be from MS or not (we have a lot of open-source software like VLC installed). I don't mean to be rude but if they can do it on a mediumish scale maybe your just trying hard enough...

n_K said,
I'm adding firefox to my list of blocked update packages, can't be arsed with the hassle of spending ages updating and fixing things to get an overall ****-all noticable improvement.

Use the Extended Support Release. It's what it's there for.

Neobond said,
Hope Waterfox is updated soon then!

I heard that new firefox is also 64 bit, was that a tale? (if it is, waterfox will be unnecessary, but at the moment FF installed into the x32 program files )

Jack@l said,

I heard that new firefox is also 64 bit, was that a tale? (if it is, waterfox will be unnecessary, but at the moment FF installed into the x32 program files )

Firefox has a co-build that is 64-bit. Chrome isn't 64-bit, and IE has a 64-bit but you don't want to use it, the problem is MOST sites and things like java / flash will not support 64-bit. They do NOW.. to some extent, but mostly 64-bit is the OS, browsers are still 32-bit, there really isn't a compelling reason to use a 64-bit browser.... until ALL add-ons and products are FULLY supported.

http://nightly.mozilla.org/

There is another project (that I quit following so I can't remember what it is) that is a pure 64-bit mozilla project.. something like nightshade or something it's a Mozilla project not Firefox.. but it is 64-bit, I quit using it because it wasn't compatible with ANYTHING, hence the problem with 64-bit native browsers.

Even products that DO have a 64-bit installer do NOT be fooled, they are probably NOT 64-bit products (iTunes is like that, there is NO 64-bit iTunes, only a 64-bit INSTALLER)

I have used 64bit browsers for the past few months fine. Since there are 64bit versions of Flash, Silverlight, and Java, nothing has been an issue. The only thing I have run into was battlelog plugins for BF3.

For me Waterfox is worth it. So is IE9 64bit. Simply why not?

http://www.favbrowser.com/inte...-bit-x86-vs-ie9-64-bit-x64/

rijp said,

Firefox has a co-build that is 64-bit. Chrome isn't 64-bit, and IE has a 64-bit but you don't want to use it, the problem is MOST sites and things like java / flash will not support 64-bit. They do NOW.. to some extent, but mostly 64-bit is the OS, browsers are still 32-bit, there really isn't a compelling reason to use a 64-bit browser.... until ALL add-ons and products are FULLY supported.

http://nightly.mozilla.org/

There is another project (that I quit following so I can't remember what it is) that is a pure 64-bit mozilla project.. something like nightshade or something it's a Mozilla project not Firefox.. but it is 64-bit, I quit using it because it wasn't compatible with ANYTHING, hence the problem with 64-bit native browsers.

Even products that DO have a 64-bit installer do NOT be fooled, they are probably NOT 64-bit products (iTunes is like that, there is NO 64-bit iTunes, only a 64-bit INSTALLER)

rijp said,

java / flash will not support 64-bit

Both Java and Flash have 64-bit versions available from their websites. I use both with Firefox 64-bit just fine.

rijp said,

Firefox has a co-build that is 64-bit. Chrome isn't 64-bit, and IE has a 64-bit but you don't want to use it, the problem is MOST sites and things like java / flash will not support 64-bit. They do NOW.. to some extent, but mostly 64-bit is the OS, browsers are still 32-bit, there really isn't a compelling reason to use a 64-bit browser.... until ALL add-ons and products are FULLY supported.

http://nightly.mozilla.org/

There is another project (that I quit following so I can't remember what it is) that is a pure 64-bit mozilla project.. something like nightshade or something it's a Mozilla project not Firefox.. but it is 64-bit, I quit using it because it wasn't compatible with ANYTHING, hence the problem with 64-bit native browsers.

Even products that DO have a 64-bit installer do NOT be fooled, they are probably NOT 64-bit products (iTunes is like that, there is NO 64-bit iTunes, only a 64-bit INSTALLER)


I've been using 64bit browsers since IE8, both java and flash had 64bit variants for more then a year already.
only silverlight is acting up somehow not listed in IE9 64bit for some reason, but cant be assed to find out why as ill just use 32bit IE9 if i need it.

And 64bit is noticeably faster then 32bit FF/IE.

The Nightly builds have had 64bit for a few months already too now.