Computer Hope
Software => Internet browsers => Topic started by: Allan on June 21, 2011, 10:25:27 AM
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20072903-264/mozilla-releases-firefox-5-first-rapid-release-version/ (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20072903-264/mozilla-releases-firefox-5-first-rapid-release-version/)
https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/ (https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/)
Download a Firefox that speaks your language:
https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html (https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html)
-
I personally think it's a bad sign that they're releasing so many different versions in a short space of time...
-
Be advised: Google & Yahoo add-on toolbars are incompatible with this version. I tried it and have downgraded to 4.0.1
-
Something strange is going on.
I used all the 3.xx beta versions and never had a problem but it seems like ver 4 and now ver 5 have more bugs than all the 3.xx beta versions combined.
-
Something strange is going on.
I used all the 3.xx beta versions and never had a problem but it seems like ver 4 and now ver 5 have more bugs than all the 3.xx beta versions combined.
I haven't encountered any bugs, personally. At least the update to FF5 didn't reset my options like FF4 did.
-
I haven't encountered any bugs, personally. At least the update to FF5 didn't reset my options like FF4 did.
FF5 to FF4 restored all the toolbars & themes. When upgrading from FF4 to FF5, it gave warning that toolbars were incompatible. I completed the install to verify this fact, then reinstalled FF4.
-
Not sure why you quoted me there, CC.
-
I'm not sure either.
-
what? already
[bangs head on table]
i just installed fx 4
-
Not sure why anyone would use Toolbars...
-
I have just installed Firefox 5.0 over the old 4.whatever it was and I couldn't find any difference.
-
Firefox 5 Changes (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/buglist.html)
Summary:
The latest version of Firefox has the following changes:
Added support for CSS animations
The Do-Not-Track header preference has been moved to increase discoverability
Tuned HTTP idle connection logic for increased performance
Improved canvas, JavaScript, memory, and networking performance
Improved standards support for HTML5, XHR, MathML, SMIL, and canvas
Improved spell checking for some locales
Improved desktop environment integration for Linux users
WebGL content can no longer load cross-domain textures
Background tabs have setTimeout and setInterval clamped to 1000ms to improve performance
Fixed several stability issues
Fixed several security issues
-
Looks like Mozilla is playing the version # game. You know, pump up the primary (part of # before the .) version # to keep up/catch up with other browsers with higher version #'s.
Otherwise, the updates in FF 5 look to me like they should have been 4.0.2, or some continuation within the 4 series, in the same manner as the 3 series, which ended in 3.6.17, as I recall.
-
personally, I wonder why they're all playing the Chrome # game? Chrome is already building on a version that they are calling 14.
But stability, usability, bug fixes and features are probably more important than anything else. If Chrome is on 14th major version, and Firefox is still on 4, as long as it's stable, would you ever really care?
-
personally, I wonder why they're all playing the Chrome # game? Chrome is already building on a version that they are calling 14.
But stability, usability, bug fixes and features are probably more important than anything else. If Chrome is on 14th major version, and Firefox is still on 4, as long as it's stable, would you ever really care?
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-infinite-version.html
-
Read up a little more on it in some other articles.
Seems they are switching to a "Rapid release" format (well, this thread title explains that). which means a new major version every 6 weeks.
I personally don't understand. The format of a version number is generally accepted to be- across many platforms-
Major.Minor.Revision.Build
Major version changes indicate major changes to the software.
Minor version changes indicate more minor version changes, more features, but same general feel.
Revisions can often be used to indicate bugfixes; builds are simply the number of builds made.
of course this is hardly something that is enforced; you can call your software whatever version you want. Chrome, for example, has had this release schedule pretty much since the start.
But it sort of asks the question- "why?".
What was wrong with the old version format? There isn't really a good reason to increment the Major version based entirely on a span of time; it generally should reflect feature changes. Are we to expect FF 13 this time next year?
-
Maybe we need a system where every browser is updated every day. Start with Jan 2000. So the version number is simply the number of days fro the base year. That way, it you use the browser every day, you know it is up to date! ::)
-
Maybe we need a system where every browser is updated every day. Start with Jan 2000. So the version number is simply the number of days fro the base year. That way, it you use the browser every day, you know it is up to date! ::)
There are a lot of articles/blog posts about how "unnecessary" versioning is. But the way I see it- if it was unnecessary, we wouldn't be using it. "versioning" was originally devised so that later releases of software could be easily differentiated from earlier versions. Otherwise, we would have had to figure out some other way of determining the capabilities, features, and documented flaws and bugs in our software. Why? Because it may affect us. The idea of a "rolling release" where your software is updated automatically, both without your knowledge, without a prompt, and so forth, just feels silly to me. I can understand what they are after- updates that are as transparent as possible- but do we really want the update to be transparent? And do we really want to "force" users to upgrade? After all, new versions of software fix bugs, but they also inevitably introduce new ones. Sometimes you want to wait- and let other people test an updated version- before you dip in your big toe, so you can know what to expect.
Most of this is centered around Chrome. And really, I'm not sure why. If Microsoft was to implement something similiar in any of their free products they would be flamed constantly "stupid Micro$haft always forcing their newest crapware on me"! In fact they still get flamed to *censored* even though the updates are free, optional, and actually tell you what they are. And then people decline the update in droves and continue to complain about how the old versions are insecure.
And yet, Chrome can update silently without any prompt or anything and it get's a freaking medal? I think this is a case of looking at the software through google glasses, I've noticed that anything that google does seems to be regarded as "revolutionary" even if it is an ancient concept; then everybody oooh's and awes about how clever and forward thinking they are, and tries to emulate them, poorly.
First: the "silent and automatic" updates don't apply to all software. Browsers and other network related applications I can understand, but stuff like word processors, Spreadsheets, and other client applications- it just doesn't make sense. What if Microsoft had rolled out, say, Office 2007 this way? (I mean, ok, they aren't giving it out for free, but work with me here, it's a hypothetical situation). One day somebody is using 2003, they quit, and restart, and poof- it's office 2007- toolbars are now ribbons and all that.
Would they be regarded as new an innovative? Of course not. The only reason that this sort of a rolling release concept works for Google Chrome is because- well, they look and feel the bloody same. I mean, seriously, when I started up chrome earlier- it was version 8; waited a few minutes for the update to finish (which I manually have to watch via the about box), restarted, and I was on version 12; but with no outwardly visible difference, aside from the icon change. And I can't recall it being much different for any previous version I had.
This is why it works for Google chrome- they aren't making... major changes to the software. Compare IE6, IE7, IE8, and IE9 to each other and there are outwardly obvious changes between them; compare Firefox 1,2,3, and 4 and they are all different. This is why I think everybody jumping on the "Silent updates for everybody" bandwagon will both miss the boat and do so in a tortuous manner- they will try to do this for software updates that make elementary changes to the way the software looks and/or feels, and that will leave them with frustrated users wondering what the heck is going on.
-
d...o we really want to "force" users to upgrade? After all, new versions of software fix bugs, but they also inevitably introduce new ones.
No.
And if I were presently working in a software development team, I would be ashamed to say that our team's design has to be updated every week, or even once a month. Do the people working on these projects have no pride in their work? There was a time when you got to version 2.2 of a major product, it would be stable for a long time. The developers were onto other projects.
-
They should just put an odometer on it...
-
Install this add-on, and Google & Yahoo Toolbars will function with FF5.0.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/?src=api
Found out how to do it on this forum: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2232197