While Firefox 3.0 was just updated with a bunch of security and stability fixes, Firefox 3.1 has been in beta for a tad bit longer than Mozilla had originally planned. This is mainly due to the inclusion of a new javascript engine that's been dubbed "Tracemonkey." Although the next beta of 3.1 is scheduled to be released somewhere between March 10th and 12th, the version its leading up to will, in fact, be labeled Firefox 3.5.This upcoming milestone release will include the aforementioned Tracemonkey javascript engine along with new privacy features (including a private browsing mode), additions and changes to the way tabs are handled, and further progress in complying to the web standards demonstrated in the ACID3 test. Taking all of these features into consideration, Mozilla feels that bumping up Firefox's version number from 3.0 straight to 3.5 will be more indicative to the scope of work put into the latest iteration of their extremely popular browser.
So, why release the next beta as 3.1? Well, the beta builds have already started to compile and it takes time to increase the version number throughout their development system. It's only a number, though, and you can expect to see the 3.5 labeling begin to appear in both nightly builds and official builds in the very near future.
Or when Windows 6.2 got the name Windows 7?
In the end it's just a number...why people would get upset if it was called version 4.0 instead of version 3.5 or think 3.5 is better than 3.1 I don't really know.
Hell 4.0 makes more sense than jumping from 3.0 to 3.5 like they have done from a numbering point of view.
Doesn't matter what the end user "feels" would be better...
Either way, if it didn't matter to you, there's no point in arguing about it. Accept it and await its release.
Which is what I'm saying, it doesn't really matter what the number is as in many ways its pretty arbitrary. Just saying it's really no more or less appropriate for them to go 3.5 over half a dozen just as logical versions they could pick.
I'm certainly not arguing but.
Hell, Google went from beta to 1. with chrome without doing anything to warrant it.
Thats why Opera are coming up on 10.
Do you actually know what you are talking about? Opera has been around for ages. The 10th version is under development, so they call it Opera 10. Makes sense to me...
Also, artfuldodge, loads of people use Opera. It has a 2% market share, I think, now that may not be as many as Internet Explorer or Firefox but it's nearly the same as Safari and Chrome. It's still a lot of people.
Last edited by artfuldodga on 05 Mar 2009 - 22:08
His point is, 2% of hundreds of millions is still a lot of people.
it's closer to 0.71%, most of whom are probably using Opera mobile.
Opera at first didn't get much share because it was a pay for browser, once it went free it picked up a good more users
Do you actually know what you are talking about? Opera has been around for ages. The 10th version is under development, so they call it Opera 10. Makes sense to me...
Also, artfuldodge, loads of people use Opera. It has a 2% market share, I think, now that may not be as many as Internet Explorer or Firefox but it's nearly the same as Safari and Chrome. It's still a lot of people.
Firstly it's only around 1% and secondly its been slowly falling for the past few years now.
Chrome is pushed by Google on YouTube quite a lot.
IE comes with Windows.
Opera comes with...? And is seen advertised at...?
(talking desktop clients, not mobile)
The majority of users don't even know Opera exists, sadly.
Honestly, I've never really seen a Firefox advertisement either, except when they had that ad contest or something. Though I do have Adblock so that may be the problem...
people that install firefox, but end up with a 10 second load time because of their config... hasn't put firefox in a good light for awhile
It will probably become 4.0
Is going to be called 3.6pre for a while... maybe in the future, it could be renamed to 4.0
3.6a1pre
No word on what the release after 3.5 will actually be tho... could be 3.6 or 3.7 or 3.8 or 3.9 or 4.0
Any time there's a new branch cut or if a branch gets reversioned, the trunk (minefield) always gets reversioned +0.1 ... That way the bleeding edge version number is always higher, which is both logical and best for how the autoupdate system works.
Instead 3.5 is equal that few plugins will not work.
So yes, exist a real meaning between the version number.
but of course looking to see this new beta
but of course looking to see this new beta
Opera, Firefox, Safari, Chrome - all are pretty fast. IE8's is a big improvement too.
There were benchmark's on Apple's website about it, if you want to take a look. Or maybe you could download all of them and do the same tests to give your own opinion on each of the products
There were benchmark's on Apple's website about it, if you want to take a look.
Apple is best. Even their low color monitors are "the best" according to Apple.
This.
As I've stated numerous times, even when the Windows version of Safari was in beta, they were calling it the fastest, when it was anything but...
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49301219,00.htm
I simply trust the members here, who actually will test and see if it's truly everything it is cracked up to be.
Well, they should call it Firefox 7 then.
Still a wonderful product!
Microsoft really shot themselves in the foot with Active X because it was so poorly designed. Maybe it could have been great at one point, but that point has come and gone at least 5 times by now.
Still a wonderful product!
I Hope they NEVER support the reason so many IE users end up with viruses
Plus there's rarely a page anymore that I'll go to that requires that garbage so all in all let it die the slow painful death it deserves
Still a wonderful product!
I Hope they NEVER support the reason so many IE users end up with viruses
Plus there's rarely a page anymore that I'll go to that requires that garbage so all in all let it die the slow painful death it deserves
I just love how many mis-informed people there are on the internet. Thanks for providing me something to laugh at this evening
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.