Mozilla has released Firefox 25

Mozilla has once again released a new version of Firefox a few hours early on its FTP servers. Firefox 25 is now available for download for Windows, Mac and Linux from that location, but will likely launch the latest public build of the web browser on Tuesday via the automatic update feature or on Firefox.com. The Android version of Firefox 25 will also likely become available on Google Play on Tuesday as well.

The FTP download does not have an official change log but the beta version's release notes states that Firefox 25's find bar is no longer shared between tabs. It also states that "Resetting Firefox no longer clears your browsing session" and a new option to "migrate another browser's history and settings" if a user has not access Firefox recently. It's more than possible that the final version of Firefox 25 will have even more new features.

Earlier today, Mozilla confirmed to Neowin that it will continue to support Firefox when used on Microsoft's 12 year old Windows XP operating system for the foreseeable future. We are still awaiting when the version of Firefox that works with the Modern UI of Windows 8 and 8.1 will come out of beta testing. At the moment, it looks like that will happen with Firefox 27, which is due for release in January.

Source: Mozilla via The Next Web

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple uncertain if it will be able to meet retina iPad mini demand

Next Story

Microsoft refutes rumors of last-minute software bugs with Xbox One

72 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

acido00 said,
Hope they fix the Flash bug on Mavericks!!!
Flash needs to be replaced/needs a complete rewrite. I can't express how much faster a Flash blocker makes web browsing - no browser lockup.

May give it a shot once it posts, but for me the Linux version has always been really slow compared to the Linux version of Chrome.

i wish there 'stop button' to stop the execution of running javascripts,
I found that most javascripts are designed that its execution can't be stopped with "Esc" key anymore.

Thats annoying those scripts are usually made to to fetch new ads every few seconds intervals.

I feel like IE is the only browser trying to improve their UI. Firefox, Safari and Chrome just feel the same version, after version. I find myself using IE just to have a change sometimes.

@mac said,

I feel like IE is the only browser trying to improve their UI.


Improve?!? It's an uncustomisable dogs breakfast of a UI once hidden elements are unhidden!

DJGM said,

Improve?!? It's an uncustomisable dogs breakfast of a UI once hidden elements are unhidden!

What part of it needs customized? It's a clean, simple UI.

@mac said,
I feel like IE is the only browser trying to improve their UI. Firefox, Safari and Chrome just feel the same version, after version. I find myself using IE just to have a change sometimes.
Tell me, what's wrong with Firefox? They've pretty much perfected web browser design from my opinion. I certainly find it to give the smoothest browsing experience while offering plenty of customization. I don't really want another major UI change.

Skin said,

Then um, don't unhide it?


Leave it all hidden, it's too dumbed down. Unhide it all, and everything is in the wrong place, and there is now way of customising the UI elements to where they should be.

The placement of the menu bar is wrong. The placement of the main buttons is wrong.
The placement of the home button is wrong. The placement of the tabs bar is wrong.
Even when the tabs bar is on its own separate row, it's still wrong.

Dot Matrix said,

What part of it needs customized?


All of it. The GUI of Firefox is over-simplified (dumbed down) by default, but that's easily corrected
with Customise, and made to look like a proper browser made for a desktop, not a tablet.

Dot Matrix said,

It's a clean, simple UI.


If I want a dumbed down uncustomisable UI, then I'll browse the web on my phone or a tablet.
Oversimplified, dumbed down UI like IE9/10/11 is not suitable for the desktop.

wingliston said,

Try Firefox UX then.


No need. I already use SeaMonkey (formerly the Mozilla App-Suite). It has a busy UI by default,
but with the same sort of customisation as Firefox, ao its UI can be as busy or dumbed down
as you want it to be. I enjoy the flexibility and variety I get with this amount of customisation.

DJGM said,

All of it. The GUI of Firefox is over-simplified (dumbed down) by default, but that's easily corrected
with Customise, and made to look like a proper browser made for a desktop, not a tablet.


If I want a dumbed down uncustomisable UI, then I'll browse the web on my phone or a tablet.
Oversimplified, dumbed down UI like IE9/10/11 is not suitable for the desktop.

Just what are you on? What else do you need?
Enjoy your clutter then. Browser UIs don't have any right being busy by default, as with any UI in general.

Dot Matrix said,

What part of it needs customized? It's a clean, simple UI.

Then what's the problem ? You can make Firefox UI clean and simple without too much effort.

DJGM said,

No need. I already use SeaMonkey (formerly the Mozilla App-Suite). It has a busy UI by default,
but with the same sort of customisation as Firefox, ao its UI can be as busy or dumbed down
as you want it to be. I enjoy the flexibility and variety I get with this amount of customisation.

Yay!

Let's hear it for Seamonkey!!

Anytime there's a conversation about some programs UI here, it cracks me up! To think so many of you can trash a program because of what the UI looks like is crazy!

I'd really like to know how many of you just set and look at that kind of stuff anyway? If something works like it's supposed to, I don't care what it looks like!

Dot Matrix said,

Just what are you on? What else do you need?
Enjoy your clutter then. Browser UIs don't have any right being busy by default, as with any UI in general.

No if you are a power user.

Brony said,

No if you are a power user.

What does being a power user have to do with cluttering up the screen with controls? Browsers are about content, not buttons or menus.

Dot Matrix said,

What does being a power user have to do with cluttering up the screen with controls? Browsers are about content, not buttons or menus.

A power user requires the access to different tools directly.

Anyways, about the upper interface:
iexplorer 10 uses 60px while Firefox 25 uses 72px but Firefox 25 uses the space more efficiently for tabs.

Brony said,
A power user requires the access to different tools directly.
That's why a true power user like me actually removes stuff from the UI and relies on shortcuts 24/7. It gives you more screen real estate to actually browse the web.

All I have for my UI is the menu button, bookmarks button, tab bar, back/forward button, URL bar, and downloads button. If you don't understand how I can live with that, ask me how I do anything and I'll probably describe an equivalent or quicker way to do it than you.

Dot Matrix said,

Just what are you on? What else do you need? Enjoy your clutter then.
Browser UIs don't have any right being busy by default, as with any UI in general.


What an absolute load of drivel. You must have hated browsers before Chrome came along
and started the trend of dumbing things down. My browser isn't cluttered ... to me at least.
Pretty much everything I have on the UI in my installation of SeaMonkey has its uses. I'd be
lost without most of the stuff in the menus, although I admit there are a small number of
items in some of the menus that don't really need to be there.

At the very least, most of the items under the File, Edit, View, Tools and Window menus are
useful to me. My SeaMonkey menu bar is also home to my mostly used extensions, much
like the Add-ons bar that replaced the Status bar in Firefox a while back

I am the type of power user that enjoys customisability and flexibility. I like to have all my
most used features and tools within easy reach, regardless of the program I'm using.

Desktop browser UI's don't have any right to be dumbed down to such a point that they
look like they've been designed for use only on a mobile device. The argument about
streamlined GUI's being so necessary because they free up screen real estate is crap
when we can have large displays set at high resolutions. Saving those few extra lines
is pointless, unless you have an ancient 15inch CRT monitor stuck at 800x600!

So you go ahead and continue enjoy your useless dumbed down GUI's and I'll continue
to enjoy the flexibility of my ultra-customisable cluttered GUI, and we'll leave it at that.


(Lest we foget ... NeoPlanet! Now THAT was one massively over cluttered browser GUI!)

DJGM said,

Pretty much everything I have on the UI in my installation of SeaMonkey has its uses. I'd be
lost without most of the stuff in the menus, although I admit there are a small number of
items in some of the menus that don't really need to be there.

Have fun using your mouse; I'll be using the keyboard! No need to drag the mouse, position your mouse over the correct button, click, and repeat as you go through menus. I think pressing two or three buttons to do any task is faster. Especially if my hands stay on the keyboard the whole time; then if I want to do a search in a new tab, I don't have to click to open a new tab, click the search bar, type, and hit enter. No, I just press CTRL+T, type, and hit enter. And I don't use bookmarks either; I just press CTRL+T, type what I want, and use the arrow keys to select what I want.

What's the point of having extra UI controls if they don't offer any extra usefulness and are only more cumbersome to use than using shortcuts?

Pluto is a Planet said,

Have fun using your mouse; I'll be using the keyboard! No need to drag the mouse, position
your mouse over the correct button, click, and repeat as you go through menus.


I actually find it quicker and easier to use the mouse, than having to memorise keyboard shortcuts,
especially when a small number of options in the menus actually have keyboard shortcuts. I find a
mouse is more than quick enough to navigate any of the menus and get to exactly what I want.

When it comes to the keyboard, I use it for what it was designed for in the first place ... typing!

Pluto is a Planet said,

What's the point of having extra UI controls if they don't offer any extra
usefulness and are only more cumbersome to use than using shortcuts?


True ... if they didn't offer me any extra usefulness, I wouldn't bother with them, but they actually
do offer me extra usefulness. To me, it's the keyboard shortcuts that are cumbersome.

Think of browser GUI as the program's toolbox. With browsers like SeaMonkey, there's a good
selection of tools ready for use, but with slimline (dumbed down) browsers, it's like having a
toolbox with more than half your tools missing! Like a carpenter or a joiner going to work
for the day with only a small hammer, four small nails, and a screwdriver.

Of course, there is the fact that SeaMonkey isn't just a web browser, it's an application suite.

DJGM said,

Think of browser GUI as the program's toolbox. With browsers like SeaMonkey, there's a good
selection of tools ready for use, but with slimline (dumbed down) browsers, it's like having a
toolbox with more than half your tools missing! Like a carpenter or a joiner going to work
for the day with only a small hammer, four small nails, and a screwdriver.

The majority of users don't need carpenter tools, though, and shouldn't be forced to have them. GUIs are developed for the LCD (Not that I'm calling users dumb, and for the majority of users, K.I.S.S. is key. The place I work at upgraded to IE10 last month, and feedback has been quite positive, compared to IE8. THe majority of the comments are saying they're enjoying having more screen space that IE10 offers by default.

Dot Matrix said,

The place I work at upgraded to IE10 last month, and feedback has been quite positive, compared to IE8. THe majority of the comments are saying they're enjoying having more screen space that IE10 offers by default.

Not surprised. IE 7 and 8 were slow. Google took advantage of this, and offered the world a slim faster browser - Chrome. IE has finally caught up to Firefox and Chrome (and yes I know, surpassed them in some areas). But Google and Mozilla won't stop, like Microsoft did with IE 6 back in the XP days. There's still many improvements that need to be made to IE (I still prefer Firefox or Chrome).

warwagon said,
It's so much fun to watch you get angry at just the mention of the word "XP"

XP XP XP XP XP XP XP XP

I just picture Ballmer going on the stage and screams XP XP XP XP XP just for Dot Matrix enjoyment.

Dot Matrix said,
Firefox: We'll continue to support XP, but the Hell with developing for 64bits or Windows 8!

What bull.

At the moment the mass majority of plugins are still only 32-bit. Only the 3 main plugins support 64-bit but many 3rd party ones are 32-bit only. You can't load 32-bit dlls into a 64-bit program so I think they are holding out to see that the others will start developing 64-bit programs. It's the good old chicken and egg scenario all over again.

shinji257 said,

At the moment the mass majority of plugins are still only 32-bit. Only the 3 main plugins support 64-bit but many 3rd party ones are 32-bit only. You can't load 32-bit dlls into a 64-bit program so I think they are holding out to see that the others will start developing 64-bit programs. It's the good old chicken and egg scenario all over again.


32-bit plugins can be loaded into a 64-bit application if a wrapper is used. iirc the 64-bit versions of Opera 12.x had another process which handled 32-bit plugins.

According to the index.html pages, the build isn't final ("we aren't quite finished qualifying Firefox 25.0 yet.").

Nas said,

According to the index.html pages, the build isn't final ("we aren't quite finished qualifying Firefox 25.0 yet.")


Yet too many people still jump the gun, foolishly hammer the Mozilla FTP before the official release.

Just because it has been posted on the FTP servers, that doesn't mean it's a finalised release.
It can still be withdrawn at the very last minute.

BTW, the Firefox 25 for Windows has been reverted back to a 10/26/2013 build from the previous 10/28/2013 build.

HA!

Nas said,
BTW, the Firefox 25 for Windows has been reverted back to a 10/26/2013 build from the previous 10/28/2013 build.

HA!

The funniest thing about that is that because of Mozilla's practice of waiting a few days, it didn't lead to update problems like Windows RT, Apple TV, and iOS had. So while Mozilla might acknowledge through their practices that humans (and their employees) aren't perfect, they're also mature about it and prevent screwing over their normal users.

Notice another developer that does the same thing: Notepad++.

It is shame Mozilla chooses to not release a 64-bit version. The usual crashes in the 64-bit version, not present in the 32-bit version has worn very thin. (I run both versions on separate machines, with identical add-ons and plug-ins. All the plug-ins are automatically installed by virtue of the applications I use. So, clearly, 64-bit machines have to suffer.)

I don't want to be that Qualcomm guy who got fired, but seriously though the priority should be to focus more on the memory leak than if anything else 64bit

As we moved from Firefox 1x (not 1.x), to Firefox 2x (especially after Firefox 21), the memory leak on Mac is a joke. I used to root for Firefox after they addressed the memory leak, but now, I have reverted back to Safari/Chrome. Firefox without any plugins just eat up memory like candies from sky (averaging close 1.5 to 2 gig of memory usage.. about 600 Mb in the first 30 minutes..and if you leave Firefox running for days or so... you see memory leaks)

I know that most of you will reply and suggest that I should open bugs, but honestly, I don't think the team is really doing much to address this issue, other than the usual "restart the browser / force GC to kick in / rebuilding Firefox profile...etc" And the Mozilla team already made a comment in one of those bug reports saying that "we have good authority to say that memory leak does not come from Firefox.."

Memory usage on OS X is rather strange, the numbers Firefox reports (in about:memory) often differ from the Activity Monitor, and the numbers Activity Monitor show differ from the values it shows for overall memory usage.

Right now for me Firefox is showing 700MB used, Activity Monitor is showing 900MB used by Firefox, and it's showing a total system usage of 5GB of RAM, when I only have like 3 apps open using less than 2GB total.

chrisj1968 said,
I don't see a 64 bit version.. oh wait, that would be waterfox.. sorry- my bad..

It still isn't a proper 64-bit version. From my understanding it is just a 64-bit recompile. I do not know though if they did any under the hood changes to account for the bit length changes. I know another project had to patch a few bugs that cropped up when they switched over due to bitness changes on specific types of values.

The_Decryptor said,
Memory usage on OS X is rather strange, the numbers Firefox reports (in about:memory) often differ from the Activity Monitor, and the numbers Activity Monitor show differ from the values it shows for overall memory usage.

Right now for me Firefox is showing 700MB used, Activity Monitor is showing 900MB used by Firefox, and it's showing a total system usage of 5GB of RAM, when I only have like 3 apps open using less than 2GB total.

If OS X is taking the same path as Windows and Linux then programs are well over-commited on how much memory is given to them and that is what it is reporting. Usually programs don't use what they ask for and it is there just in case. As soon as another program actually needs more ram it will be automatically reallocated.

Edited by shinji257, Oct 29 2013, 5:49pm :

chrisj1968 said,
I don't see a 64 bit version.. oh wait, that would be waterfox.. sorry- my bad..

What's so good about a 64bit version?

ThunderRiver said,
I don't want to be that Qualcomm guy who got fired, but seriously though the priority should be to focus more on the memory leak than if anything else 64bit

They are, and the problem is not "the memory leak" as if some huge elephant in the room, but there is simply traditional optimizing work now. There were some big, documented memory inefficiencies but most have been fixed by now. There are no known big memory leaks in Firefox today, as per the traditional definition of "memory allocated that is unintentionally never released until application shutdown".

As far as I know from Firefox, memory fragmentation is a major reason behind any memory use that seems to "build up", but there has been work here as well to attempt to minimize it.

From my experiences, Firefox is among the most memory efficient browsers today, and certainly more so than e.g. Google Chrome.

You may be interested in following the MemShrink project for regular updates on Firefox memory use optimizations from the team that is working on this, as well as Are We Slim Yet.

http://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink
http://www.areweslimyet.com/

Edited by Northgrove, Oct 29 2013, 11:04am :

Dinggus said,

What's so good about a 64bit version?

When a program is running in 64-bit mode, it has access to twice the amount of registers for both general purpose and for SSE and the general purpose registers are twice as many. This will allow the code to digest more data at a time without having to resort to the same amount of variables. Registers are inside the CPU but variables are stored in RAM and cache.

The other good thing is that if a 64-bit program has a security flow in form of a buffer overflow and someone some malicious page manages to get code into the gaping hole, the code has to be 64-bit otherwise it won't work.
This makes it more difficult to write universal malicious code.
64-bit code has many benefits in terms of raw computing capabilities.

The benefits has nothing to do with the 4 GB.
The memory benefits are just one point.
It's not only the address bus that has been widened.
Everything else has widened.
In terms of general purpose registers (plain data and integer), the amount of available register space is four times larger. The amount of SIMD-registers (used by SSE) is twice as large and some instructions and new features are only available in 64-bit mode.

Those who bash 64-bit software (or lack thereof) should educate themselves.

I may not need a 64-bit version of Firefox, but why can't Mozilla make the 32-bit version work without frequent crashes on 64-bit machines???

TsarNikky said,
I may not need a 64-bit version of Firefox, but why can't Mozilla make the 32-bit version work without frequent crashes on 64-bit machines???

Umm... I run Windows 8.1 64-bit and no crashes here... If you are having crashes you can always open a bug report. I do that even if I don't think it is their fault but it is only happening on their product.

Example: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=837489
Example: https://mojang.atlassian.net/browse/MC-12006

francescob said,
For how many years are they planning to delay the metro version?

Depends on whether you want a real Metro experience of a fake on (Chrome) and more importantly whether there is demand there to justify dedicating resources in said area.

It seems companies are doing with Windows "Modern" interface what they did with the advent of x64 Windows a few years back. Some will jump in and others will drag their heels since the current versions work fine for the majority. Remember how they moaned about certifying 64bit drivers? Show me a company today that wants to sell hardware that won't do 64bit. It will be the same with modern interface. They will get there as it becomes standard in future Windows versions and saturates the market.

I am curious though .. if it takes that long for Mozilla to release a proper metro version.. what does that say about the modern interface introduced by Microsoft? Wasn't it supposed to be easy peasy to implement modern interface when Microsoft released Windows 8?

For brand new applications it should be easy, but porting an old codebase over to a brand new interface is hard.

Luckily there's already a tablet version of Firefox, so they can use that as the base for the metro version.

As a programmer, I know what you meant by porting legacy code over. But I have always assumed that Mozilla Firefox had a decent code base to begin with (i.e. separation of concerns, dependency injection...) but I guess I was wrong?

ThunderRiver said,
But I have always assumed that Mozilla Firefox had a decent code base to begin with (i.e. separation of concerns, dependency injection...) but I guess I was wrong?

Look back at Firefox's heritage and you'll see how certain concepts (like IoC/DI) were not applied/known/en vogue. Give it a few generations (OK, maybe 10-15 gens) and skip out on full-on refactoring... and you wind up with Firefox as we know and love today -- oh, and let's not forget the forks, branches, and platform-specific patchwork.

ThunderRiver said,
As a programmer, I know what you meant by porting legacy code over. But I have always assumed that Mozilla Firefox had a decent code base to begin with (i.e. separation of concerns, dependency injection...) but I guess I was wrong?

Firefox does have an internal separation like that, but even then they have to write a lot of stuff from scratch (The metro interface uses a similar rendering path to the Android version, which didn't exist on the desktop so they had to write a new rendering pipeline, etc.), having an existing tablet version did help (Even if a bunch of that was written in Java, needing to be re-written/converted)

It's also not considered a "tier 1" platform I think either, the lack of a metro interface doesn't stop you using the normal interface, unlike on Android, etc.