updates Meet the browser: Firefox Next

[Samurizer]

Before you start flaming members, click on the link in my signature. They will never catch up with Chrome, I never said they would.. Mozilla does not have the funding that Google does. The point I was trying to make is that Mozilla could still release updates or revisions every 6 weeks, but they really do not need three channels to do it. One cannot file a bug report on a procedural issue. I just do not ever move up with the channel. I stay with the Nightly builds as my extensions will continue to work and not be borked for a couple of days while ACR is updated. Yes Heartripper this is an old issue.

So first you claim that Mozilla is artifically inflating Firefox's version numbers to keep up with Chrome, and then you turn around that Mozilla doesn't have the funding that Google does. Why would Mozilla need funding to keep up with Chrome's version numbers? How poor do you need to be before you're unable to afford to artificially bump version numbers? Your claims are all contradicting each other. They don't even come together to form a cohesive story, much less any facts.

Mozilla needs multiple release channels because no sane software vendor writes fresh patches for a product as complex as Firefox and deploys it to the masses six weeks later. Six weeks is simply nowhere near enough time for QA and for add-on authors to test and react to new changes. Do you honestly believe that everyone should be running the Aurora channel?

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

So first you claim that Mozilla is artifically inflating Firefox's version numbers to keep up with Chrome, and then you turn around that Mozilla doesn't have the funding that Google does. Why would Mozilla need funding to keep up with Chrome's version numbers? How poor do you need to be before you're unable to afford to artificially bump version numbers? Your claims are all contradicting each other. They don't even come together to form a cohesive story, much less any facts.

Mozilla needs multiple release channels because no sane software vendor writes fresh patches for a product as complex as Firefox and deploys it to the masses six weeks later. Six weeks is simply nowhere near enough time for QA and for add-on authors to test and react to new changes. Do you honestly believe that everyone should be running the Aurora channel?

Firefox is not all that complex of a program. Google is trying to take control of the entire internet. They have billions at their disposal, Chrome is not an open source product such as Firefox. Chrome started with the numbers game and not Firefox. Mozilla just tried to keep up , knowing that they cannot catchup with the numbers game. Also Firefox is very close to dropping behind Chrome. Maybe Firefox should have ran a TV ad during the World Series as Chrome did.

The addons I am using now with the exception of about 3 are identical to the ones I used with Firefox 3.0. In your opinion then software companies such as Adobe, MS, are all insane as they only have one channel. For Adobe right now it is Photoshop CS6. No I do not believe everyone should be on the Aurora channel. I never said that. The Aurora channel should not exist. The progression should be from Nightly to Beta to Final.

[Samurizer]

Firefox is not all that complex of a program.

A program that has more than 60 megabytes' worth of source code and almost a hundred developers working full-time on it is "not all that complex"?? Wow, which university did you graduate from and what are your qualifications that something like Firefox "isn't all that complex" to you?

Chrome is not an open source product such as Firefox.

You've never heard of the Chromium project, have you?

Chrome started with the numbers game and not Firefox. Mozilla just tried to keep up , knowing that they cannot catchup with the numbers game.

And why the hell not? If Mozilla's motive was really to catch up with Chrome in the numbers game they could release once every three weeks and pass Chrome in a matter of months. Hell, they could release once every week if they wanted to. What's stopping them? How on earth would Mozilla's lack of "billions" prevent them from releasing Firefox quicker than Chrome if they really wanted to catch up? Are you even trying to make any sense?

The addons I am using now with the exception of about 3 are identical to the ones I used with Firefox 3.0. In your opinion then software companies such as Adobe, MS, are all insane as they only have one channel.

*facepalm* For ****'s sake, it's because Adobe and Microsoft's products ARE NOT ON RAPID RELEASE SCHEMES!

For Adobe right now it is Photoshop CS6. No I do not believe everyone should be on the Aurora channel. I never said that. The Aurora channel should not exist. The progression should be from Nightly to Beta to Final.

And how does that change anything? That's still three release channels, which is exactly what you were whining about earlier.

I don't mean to flame you, but your ignorance is unbelievably astounding. Please go and at least make some semblance of an effort to educate yourself before claiming you "know damn well" about anything.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

A program that has more than 60 megabytes' worth of source code and almost a hundred developers working full-time on it is "not all that complex"?? Wow, which university did you graduate from and what are your qualifications that something like Firefox "isn't all that complex" to you?

You've never heard of the Chromium project, have you?

And why the hell not? If Mozilla's motive was really to catch up with Chrome in the numbers game they could release once every three weeks and pass Chrome in a matter of months. Hell, they could release once every week if they wanted to. What's stopping them? How on earth would Mozilla's lack of "billions" prevent them from releasing Firefox quicker than Chrome if they really wanted to catch up? Are you even trying to make any sense?

*facepalm* For ****'s sake, it's because Adobe and Microsoft's products ARE NOT ON RAPID RELEASE SCHEMES!

And how does that change anything? That's still three release channels, which is exactly what you were whining about earlier.

I don't mean to flame you, but your ignorance is unbelievably astounding. Please go and at least make some semblance of an effort to educate yourself before claiming you "know damn well" about anything.

I would do as you said. Educate yourself and learn some manners. Chromium is NOT Chrome.Going from Nightly to Beta to Final is not three release channels. The channel would progress from Nightly to Firefox Beta and Firefox Final. You see once a Mozilla product becomes Beta, it is branded as Firefox. The Aurora channel is a waste. Why would anyone want to use a channel that is in between Alpha and Beta which is what Aurora is. Now unless you can conduct yourself in a civil manner, I am done responding to any of your posts.

[Samurizer]

I would do as you said. Educate yourself and learn some manners. Chromium is NOT Chrome.Going from Nightly to Beta to Final is not three release channels. The channel would progress from Nightly to Firefox Beta and Firefox Final. You see once a Mozilla product becomes Beta, it is branded as Firefox. The Aurora channel is a waste. Why would anyone want to use a channel that is in between Alpha and Beta which is what Aurora is. Now unless you can conduct yourself in a civil manner, I am done responding to any of your posts.

1. Chromium is Chrome for all intents and purposes. Google takes Chromium snapshots and slaps proprietary codecs, Flash/PDF plugins, an updater, and a different logo on them, and you get Chrome. The underlying browser is completely identical. If you wanted Chrome's source code, you dig around the Chromium repositories and get it.

2. Just because Beta is branded as Firefox doesn't mean it's the same channel as Release. If they were the same channel, they'd be, oh I don't know, be the same channel instead of being called Beta and Release and have different version numbers? I'm not sure why I'm reduced to explaining something this obvious, but oh well...

3. Maybe if you stop trying to act like you "know damn well" about anything at all while spewing all sorts of ignorant nonsense and yet insisting they're facts, you might get respected. Yes, I know probably it's a strange concept for you, but that's how it works.

[AltecXP]

*sticks with his Safari so he doesn't have to deal with this *****

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

*sticks with his Safari so he doesn't have to deal with this *****

A smart person.

[BetaAddict]

You can read can't you. Read what I posted. If you do not agree I do not care. This is a forum and being such debates will happen. C-Ya

I go away for a few hours and there's two pages of useless comments. If you are looking for a debate, use the search function on the forum. This numbering issue has already been debated on at least a dozen threads, going on and on with useless drivel like this for pages.

So bottom line is this. Regardless of what you think about Mozilla's intentions are about version numbers, keep this thread kosher for discussing new features, bug reports, and user issues related to the use of Firefox.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

really Grinder, go away, you've lost this pointless argument

now can we please get a mod in here to clean this thread back up

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

really Grinder, go away, you've lost this pointless argument

now can we please get a mod in here to clean this thread back up

You go away .Listen, I tried to end this long time ago. I stated my opinion and it was not agreed to. So what. I said to move on but no one seems to want to. This is a Forum and this section is about Firefox. Deal with it.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

You go away .Listen, I tried to end this long time ago. I stated my opinion and it was not agreed to. So what. I said to move on but no one seems to want to. This is a Forum and this section is about Firefox. Deal with it.

yes this is about firefox, so when i come here and see new replies i want to hear new things about what's landing on firefox, not some petty argument, which whether you want to see it or not you were causing just by trying to claim your opinions as hard facts

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

yes this is about firefox, so when i come here and see new replies i want to hear new things about what's landing on firefox, not some petty argument, which whether you want to see it or not you were causing just by trying to claim your opinions as hard facts

I want to see the same things as you do. That being said the OP is Firefox Next. I see nothing wrong with bringing up an Idea. I did not start this and I am sorry I ever brought it up. The proper person has been notified.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

I want to see the same things as you do. That being said the OP is Firefox Next. I see nothing wrong with bringing up an Idea. I did not start this and I am sorry I ever brought it up. The proper person has been notified.

don't be sorry for stating your opinions, just be a little careful with your wording as things can easily be taken the wrong way on the internet

I too should apologize to you as I think I was a little harsh when I told you to just go away, for that I'm sorry

anyway, the firefox 11 nightly has been running great for me so far, mozilla's making some good progress performance wise :)

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Yes they have. Firefox 11 has been running great. The fonts have improved as well as video quality., I just wish the memory use would drop.

[Semtex]

I just wish the memory use would drop.

Compare to what? All modern browsers have almost same RAM usage in this days, in Firefox, extensins are most of the time problematic once, some goodies will land ASAP in Fx and memory usage will go down, I've alredy notice that in latest Nightly RAM consumption is far smaller then it was ;)

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Compare to what? All modern browsers have almost same RAM usage in this days, in Firefox, extensins are most of the time problematic once, some goodies will land ASAP in Fx and memory usage will go down, I've alredy notice that in latest Nightly RAM consumption is far smaller then it was ;)

IE 9.0. I have one tab open with Firefox and I am using 131,828KB. With one tab open with IE I use around 87,000KB. I understand that some extensions use a great deal of Ram but I still think Firefox can be lower. This is not a real concern to me as I have 16GB of Ram but it may be to some users.

[Semtex]

OK, agree about IE but this browser is system native so there is huge diffrent in engine and code and when You look at overall usage difrent is not even 50MB where Firefox is open source code....

This looks like looking for hole where there is no hole :D

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

OK, agree about IE but this browser is system native so there is huge diffrent in engine and code and when You look at overall usage difrent is not even 50MB where Firefox is open source code....

This looks like looking for hole where there is no hole :D

I know what you mean. MS can hide the stats anywhere. :)

[Anthonyd]

IE 9.0. I have one tab open with Firefox and I am using 131,828KB. With one tab open with IE I use around 87,000KB. I understand that some extensions use a great deal of Ram but I still think Firefox can be lower. This is not a real concern to me as I have 16GB of Ram but it may be to some users.

Based on ... ? Please don't tell me that you are looking at memory consumption in the task manager ...

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Based on ... ? Please don't tell me that you are looking at memory consumption in the task manager ...

No I am not. I was looking at Process Explorer. I don't believe it though as MS can hide it under some other task.

[chrisdoland]

I wish the memory use would drop also. Grinder, stop defending your statements. The comments are pointed, there is no right answer. Your "wish" is good enough and those that argue the point should review the definition of Trolling. I have an atom core processor and like to surf while watching watching 720p content. Asrock Ion 330 has a gpu but tends to freeze when launching Ff.

[chrisdoland]

Well I am of the opinion that Mozilla should stop all of this silliness and concentrate on one Nightly build like they did before the rush to compete with Chrome (number wise). I am now using Firefox 11 and I can see not all of the difference between it and Firefox 4.

Agreed. They lost alot of people with delayed release dates. The switch from using a point system to implementing a entire new version is entirely Chrome. We had 3.5, then 3.6, and so on. Chrome has been gaining ground and those of us who have used Phoenix, Firebird, know the truth. 3 pages of arguing over this? He is right.

[Samurizer]

Yes they have. Firefox 11 has been running great. The fonts have improved as well as video quality., I just wish the memory use would drop.

Not sure why people are having problems with Firefox memory usage. Here's my stats for Firefox 9 (11 extensions) and Chrome 16 (8 extensions) with the exact same tabs open, Firefox has been running for at least 2 hours while Chrome was freshly launched for the test.

Agreed. They lost alot of people with delayed release dates. The switch from using a point system to implementing a entire new version is entirely Chrome. We had 3.5, then 3.6, and so on. Chrome has been gaining ground and those of us who have used Phoenix, Firebird, know the truth. 3 pages of arguing over this? He is right.

Do you have any logical arguments to put on the table or are you just ranting about your personal opinions?

[BetaAddict]

IE 9.0. I have one tab open with Firefox and I am using 131,828KB. With one tab open with IE I use around 87,000KB. I understand that some extensions use a great deal of Ram but I still think Firefox can be lower. This is not a real concern to me as I have 16GB of Ram but it may be to some users.

Not sure why people are having problems with Firefox memory usage. Here's my stats for Firefox 9 (11 extensions) and Chrome 16 (8 extensions) with the exact same tabs open, Firefox has been running for at least 2 hours while Chrome was freshly launched for the test.

Memory consumption is moot when most people now have computers with at least 4GB ram these days. This is like saying I have a 250GB hd and Windows system files take up 15GB. Low ram footprint is always great, but I'm not worried about it when it means giving up performance.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Not sure why people are having problems with Firefox memory usage. Here's my stats for Firefox 9 (11 extensions) and Chrome 16 (8 extensions) with the exact same tabs open, Firefox has been running for at least 2 hours while Chrome was freshly launched for the test.

Do you have any logical arguments to put on the table or are you just ranting about your personal opinions?

If you are referring to me, I am not ranting about anything. Maybe you should read the prior two posts..

Memory consumption is moot when you have at least 4GB ram these days. This is like saying I have a 250GB hd and Windows system files take up 15GB. Low ram footprint is always great, but I'm not worried about it when it means giving up performance. Ram does help in temporarily caching data in memory to make it available faster than writing data on the hd and reading it back.

I posted that somewhere in this thread that the memory usage does not bother me as I have 16Gb of memory.