Firefox 24 Arrives: WebRTC Support and NFC Sharing On Android 152
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 24 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Improvements include a new option to mass close tabs 'to the right,' as well as WebRTC support and NFC sharing on Android. Firefox 24 has now been released over on Firefox.com and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play. Compared to Firefox 23, this isn’t a big release for the desktop. Mac users will notice a new scrollbar style on OS X 10.7 and users of the browsers social features will appreciate the ability to tear-off chat windows by just dragging (full release notes: desktop, mobile)."
Wait (Score:2, Funny)
It can make my first post faster?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish they'd hurry up and standardize PITF over TCP/IP. There's a great case for adding a standard feature to HTML 5 that invokes it any time someone loads a page with a text box, types a text string along the lines of "first" and initiates an HTTP post action in less than 1.8 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
That just rewards the slower typists with a successful first post while blocking those who deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it would block the HTTP post action, that would just be censorship. Think of it as positive punishment to discourage future repetition but only in those serious enough to actually want to win the race.
Re:Still using 3.6 (Score:5, Informative)
I think blocking cookies is turned off by default in the new version, but that's not the same as "hiding controls". If you upgrade, your settings should be the same as before. Mine are.
Re: (Score:1)
Looked thru it a bit, and found that cookie control shows up when you select: Tools -> Options -> Privacy -> Use custom setting for history.
Re: (Score:1)
I just upgraded to 24, and I see the same cookie controls it always had.
I just upgraded to... using a plugin instead, since the dev team can't seem to get it right after 23 previous attempts, so I'm not optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're on Windows, YMMV. I seldom use Windows anymore.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Well, I'm on OS X here, and all the controls are in the same place they always were, and they've always worked fine for me.
I'm on Windows... I paid less for things to work fine for me. *shrugs* But hey, if cost is less important to you, you keep rocking that.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"I'm on Windows... I paid less for things to work fine for me. *shrugs* But hey, if cost is less important to you, you keep rocking that."
Actually, since I'm a developer, I have justification for getting the upper-end hardware anyway, and if you're going to do that, the cost differential between Mac and PC is actually pretty small. Review after review after review have been saying the same thing for years: "For the same level of hardware, Macs are only slightly more expensive."
But there's quite a bit more to it: Mac gives you native access to the *nix command line, and it is easier to run Windows in a VM on OS X than it is to run OS X on a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I have repeatedly over the years found this to the case."
I think I'll keep going with the respected industry reviewers.
But also, as I stated earlier, hardware is not the only issue. In many ways OS X is simply a superior OS. Now, if only they would adopt a modern filesystem...
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
"What are these "many" ways? Are they only superior in your opinion, or only in your particular use cases? Because I almost never people able to give me specifics on why OSX is superior to other OSes unless it's just a specific piece of software or some feature that only a few people would ever care about. If that's the case, Windows and Linux are just as "superior", not to mention other operating systems nobody ever tries because the mainstream OSes are so damn "superior.""
Are you arguing with me just for the sake of arguing with me?
As far as YOU are concerned, it is my opinion, about my own use-case. I don't feel like going into further detail at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't flatly say something's superior if you don't want to quantify it when you're challenged for your lack of insight."
And don't try to blame me for your rude manner of asking the question.
I repeat: as far as YOU are concerned (see that emphasis on YOU?), it is my opinion, about my use-case.
Maybe, if one day you learn to ask questions politely instead if insinuating some kind of misfeasance by the other party at ever turn, they might deign to actually answer you.
Until then, you don't deserve an answer.
Re: (Score:1)
"What are these "many" ways? Are they only superior in your opinion, or only in your particular use cases? Because I almost never people able to give me specifics on why OSX is superior to other OSes unless it's just a specific piece of software or some feature that only a few people would ever care about."
Translation: "The only people I know who say this have no reason for saying it, so I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about either. You only care about yourself."
If that's the case, Windows and Linux are just as "superior", not to mention other operating systems nobody ever tries because the mainstream OSes are so damn "superior."
Translation: "I'm putting 'superior' in quotes because I don't believe you and I'm going to argue with you because I think you're just talking out your ass."
When you can learn to ask questions in a mature, civil manner, you might start getting what YOU consi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You see the cookie options if you choose "Custom" for the "History" settings. The default of "Remember History" enables cookies and hides the option to separately disable them.
Pale Moon FTW (Score:5, Informative)
Pale Moon is a Firefox variant that largely keeps a traditional browser layout and has the latest security patches. [palemoon.org] It works with the few plugins I use, including NoScript.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Thanks for posting this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I've used Pale Moon for quite a while now. It's great to have a properly optimized 64-bit Firefox build on Windows. Moonchild (the dev) is generally very responsive on the forums and quick to fix bugs.
I use 13 popular Firefox Add-ons and they all work absolutely fine in Pale Moon. I'd recommend it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Pale Moon claims to be open source software but appears to be distributing as binary-only
You should really do your homework better...
Source code here:
http://www.palemoon.org/archived.shtml [palemoon.org]
IANAL but I would think the Mozilla Foundation licensing department might be interested in looking into this project...
The MPL allows combining MPL code with proprietary code (as long as you provide the MPL sources under the MPL license). Since the binary is partially derived from proprietary code, they can add additional license conditions to that.
Re: (Score:1)
Whether you run Fx 3.6 or Fx 36, PrefBar [tuxfamily.org] is your friend. Single-click radio buttons to turn on/off Javashit, images, cookies, etc.
That said... WebRTC: "Capture camera or microphone streams directly from Firefox Android using only JavaScript (a feature we know developers have been wanting for a while!)" And NFC speaks for itself in terms of the possibilities for exploits.
Yeah, web developers may want th
Two uses for WebRTC (Score:2)
"But privacy!" The last time I checked the spec, WebRTC required the user to click to activate the camera.
"But I don't see any compelling use for connecting my device's camera to a web site." Without WebRTC, how do you expect to be able to scan a barcode in order to submit a product's UPC or EAN to the product search web site that you are using? Without WebRTC, how would you make a video chat site without having to write a separate application for each PC operating system or mobile or set-top platform an
Re: (Score:2)
Without WebRTC, how do you expect to be able to scan a barcode in order to submit a product's UPC or EAN to the product search web site that you are using?
I've been looking for a way to do exactly this. Thanks, WebRTC!
Re: (Score:2)
And except that 99.9% of users simply don't need to scan barcodes at all.
They don't need to use a price comparison or video chat app, but they want to.
I hope firefox will be forked by privacy and security conscious developers some day.
It has been. Read the other comments to this story, particularly this one [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, the Firefox user equivalent to the IE user still using IE 6. We (the web dev community, in general) are going to leave you behind, so don't complain if things don't work right.
Re: (Score:1)
Oooh, web monkeys scare me. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh, web monkeys scare me. :)
It's not a threat, I'm just saying that the industry can't keep supporting Model Ts on the Information Superhighway. Things will start to break (if they aren't already). I think Firefox 18 is probably the oldest version of FF I'd use at this point, if I were a general user.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just saying that the industry can't keep supporting Model Ts on the Information Superhighway.
I understand and generally agree with your comment, but new and/or trendy doesn't always mean "better", even if the Firefox developers want it to and/or think it does.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just saying that the industry can't keep supporting Model Ts on the Information Superhighway.
I understand and generally agree with your comment, but new and/or trendy doesn't always mean "better", even if the Firefox developers want it to and/or think it does.
"New and/or trendy"? Implementing support for updated web standards is not the same as being 'trendy', and that's what the concern here is. Ignore the trendy nonsense as you will, but you really WANT support for web standards.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, Firefox version numbers have become meaningless to many of us over the last few years unless you pay really close attention.
I'm apparently running 9.0.1, but when I tell it to apply it's update it just restarts and doesn't actually do anything and leaves me with the exact same "Apply update" button in the help > a
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, Firefox version numbers have become meaningless to many of us over the last few years unless you pay really close attention.
I'm apparently running 9.0.1, but when I tell it to apply it's update it just restarts and doesn't actually do anything and leaves me with the exact same "Apply update" button in the help > about.
So I have no idea of what version I'm running in relation to anything else, don't seem to get updates when I tell it to, and have no trust in a piece of software which auto-updates itself quietly behind the scenes and do not want that.
So if the goal was to make something less confusing and easier to use and keep track of ... from my perspective, that's not working well at all.
You're never, ever, going to get me to fight on the side of Firefox on that kind of thing. :)
My only concern is people deliberately not keeping up with the times; it harms everyone. IE 6 held those of us in the industry back for FAR too long; we're just now beginning to catch up in being able to implement modern web standards. We just dropped IE 7 support at work a month ago. *sigh*
Feel free to use Chrome if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, but now I still need to figure out how the hell to upgrade from 9.0.1, which seems to be proving quite annoying. The built in mechanism seems useless.
Well, at this precise moment I'm running Firefox, Chrome and Safari all at the same time -- which is pretty much my standard configuration as I use them for different web presences and because Safari has incompetently implement
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, but now I still need to figure out how the hell to upgrade from 9.0.1, which seems to be proving quite annoying. The built in mechanism seems useless.
It's most likely a corrupted profile. I heard they were working on a profile cleaner feature, but I don't know if it ever got released or not. I'd backup your Firefox with MozBackup, then run the standalone installer and hope it fixes it. If not, reinstall the old version and restore via MozBackup.
Re: (Score:2)
And somehow we geeks expect people like our parents and non-technical people to be able to navigate this kind of thing.
I maintain mission-critical enterprise software, and that sounds like a pain in the ass to me.
Re: (Score:2)
And somehow we geeks expect people like our parents and non-technical people to be able to navigate this kind of thing.
I maintain mission-critical enterprise software, and that sounds like a pain in the ass to me. Your average user is going to have no frigging idea what any of that means and give up and go back to IE.
Yup.
Re:Still using 3.6 (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/fx/#desktop [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
3.6 has a status bar, and a real status bar at that. As opposed to the always-present extension bar add-on, I see status messages in the status bar and not above it intruding into page space.
I also have a real back and forward button, as well as an arrow I can click if I want to see my backwards or forwards history. I don't need to hold anything down if all I want is to go back three pages, or go forward to the most recent one from five pages back.
I regularly using 17 and 23 in different environments. The o
Re: (Score:2)
3.6 has a status bar, and a real status bar at that. As opposed to the always-present extension bar add-on, I see status messages in the status bar and not above it intruding into page space.
I also have a real back and forward button, as well as an arrow I can click if I want to see my backwards or forwards history. I don't need to hold anything down if all I want is to go back three pages, or go forward to the most recent one from five pages back.
I regularly using 17 and 23 in different environments. The only thing I like about the newer versons is that the URL is under the tabs and not above it (but for some reason, search is also under the tabs even though it is not tab-specific).
Right click on the back/forward button shows history. It looks like a timeline, and It will tell you how many pages are in front of you, and how many are behind. I like it. As for status bar, I used to be like you, bothered that the pop up is blocking the page content. But then I realized when I see the pop-up, I don't really want to see the content, and when I move away the mouse, the pop up is gone
What features did they now remove? (Score:4, Insightful)
What features did they now remove in the name of dumbing down the user interface for mentally challenged user group? Address bar? Right mouse button context menu? Bookmarks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
security patches are not in the xx product naming cycle.
honestly though I have no fucking idea how many major versions there are between 3.6 and 24.
oh and to get bitch and moan karma you must log in. even if you're posting bitchings and whatever you can still easily maintain a steady excellent karma rating as long as you every so often post something someone agrees with or finds interesting..
WebRTC ? (Score:2)
sweet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is different from the browser history how?
If you want your browsing to stay private, use "Private Browsing". It's right in the name!
Son, Google Play Services runs as root. If they want your Firefox browsing history, they can get it easily.
I think he's more miffed by the fact that they have no 'disable history' or 'automatically clear history when firefox closes' options on the mobile version, as they do on the desktop version. Thus your 'Top Sites' page is spammed with all your incidental browsing history, unless you remember to manually clear your history each time you close the mobile browser...
That being said, he should really take a look at Clean Quit [mozilla.org]. It adds a quick-exit option to your popup toolbar on FF mobile, and (the most import
Looking Forward to Checking Out WebRTC (Score:3)
New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't you morons just display the scrollbar in the normal default style the OS is giving you? That's what I hate about Firefox, it looks like an ugly Windows program on every OS.
System-level scrollbar overhead (Score:3)
Perhaps system-level controls have more overhead than application-drawn controls. Consider the "system resources" in Windows 3.1 and Windows 9x. All applications shared a single 65536 byte GDI heap and a single 65536 byte USER heap. Each system-level control, such as a window or a scrollbar, used up space in the GDI heap. One advantage of NetCaptor's tabbed browsing in the Windows 9x days was the ability to keep more pages open without taking up a whole window's worth of GDI heap space. Fortunately, this s
Re: (Score:2)
All the other browsers seem to be able to do it on OS X, Firefox is the exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you morons just display the scrollbar in the normal default style the OS is giving you? That's what I hate about Firefox, it looks like an ugly Windows program on every OS.
It's not like other browsers don't do this either: Chrome's scrollbars are fugly and non-native in GTK+, Chrome's titlebar is non-native, IE's tab and titlebar combination is unique amongst applications, Opera's button spacing is non-native, etc.
What's all this about? I'm running both Chrome and Firefox right now on Debian+WindowMaker and the scrollbars are exactly alike (alike to the rest of the system as well). How do I enable the "non-native-looking" scrollbars?
Just restarted (Score:2)
I just restarted Firefox, because after using 2 gigabytes on my 16-gigabyte system it started flashing black when switching windows in a way that predicts an imminent crash.
Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.
Also, has the issue with switching to another window when a page using Flash is opened been fixed? I doubt that.
64 bit Firefox .. (Score:1)
Firefox Nightly 26.0a1 (64-bit) [downloadcrew.com]
64-bit browser and 32-bit Flash Player (Score:2)
no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore
"No one" is strong language. Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM. Though netbooks are discontinued, some are still in operation, and several tablet PCs have similar specs. Besides:
a page using Flash
Do you expect to be able to use a 32-bit Flash Player inside a 64-bit browser? Furthermore, I limit Firefox's memory footprint on my machine by using Flashblock to control sites' access to Flash Player.
Re: (Score:2)
Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM.
Netbooks tendded to be 32-bit because the cheap Atoms used in netbooks were 32-bit only.
Re: (Score:2)
And those Atoms were 32bit only because Intel used that to artifically segregate between models and just disabled 64bit support from perfectly able 64bit silicon.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. But that's hardly a reason to not have a 64-bit version as the default for the desktops. After all, we're not talking about assembly code here.
Besides, I can't help but notice that Chrome is somehow managing to keep working with 100+ open tabs day after day
Mobile browsers evict less recently used pages (Score:2)
Besides, I can't help but notice that Chrome is somehow managing to keep working with 100+ open tabs day after day
That's because Chrome runs each tab in a separate process. It's far less likely for a single tab to top 1 GB than it is for all tabs put together to top 1 GB, reducing the need for a 64-bit binary. Firefox is working toward this model; search Bugzilla for "electrolysis" to find related bugs.
in a freaking phone.
I've noticed that if I have more than about three tabs open in Chrome or Firefox for Android, switching to another tab may cause the page to reload if it's been kicked out of memory. This "forgetting" interferes with the
Re: (Score:2)
Do you expect to be able to use a 32-bit Flash Player inside a 64-bit browser?
There is a 64 bit version of Flash:
http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/flash-player-64-bit-operating.html [adobe.com]
Re: (Score:3)
[Raises hand].
My PC at work is 32-bit.
What they need to do is release both 32 and 64 bit versions.
Re: (Score:2)
They used to have a 64-bit build, but but dropped it for various reasons [slashdot.org], though they did bring back 64-bit nightlies [slashdot.org].
Basically it was a buggier version, with fewer users and even fewer plugins that supported it.
You'll find a lot of kinds of applications to be 32-bit only - even Microsoft puts 32-
Re: (Score:2)
Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.
If you were using a real operating system, you could have been running 64-bit Firefox for five years or more. It's only people running an old clunker like Windows who are mostly stuck running 32-bit apps on a 64-bit OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows also has 64-bit builds. Either you're retarded and can't find any or you're trolling. Get a grip.
I have no idea. I just know Windows users keep complaining that Firefox is only 32-bit, whereas I've been running 64-bit Firefox on Linux since at least 2008.
I can't help it that Windows is crippled by backward compatibility and closed source applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, has the issue with switching to another window when a page using Flash is opened been fixed? I doubt that.
No. :( Just checked.
Re: (Score:2)
The most recent version of FF on OS X 10.6.8 (work computer) introduced a new behavior: with a few windows open, it'll suddenly use 100% of one core. I'll close every window (but leave the app running) and it STILL uses 100% of one core. I'll be interested to see if they fix that.
Re: (Score:2)
I do have a 64bit CPU and a 32bit OS (linux based), I'm contemplating whether upgrading the OS to a 64bit one or staying on 32bit. I have only 3GB RAM, and the 2GB process limit actually is a feature that prevents Firefox consuming all resources. When running on a 64 bit live USB, I had it eat all 3GB RAM + 1.9GB swap repeatedly which got the whole computer into a stand still till I managed to kill firefox or even just plugin-container from a VT-based terminal.
BTW last year I used a computer from 1999 with
Re: (Score:2)
Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.
Firefox is 64 bit on Mac, unlike Chrome which is still just 32 bit. The latter is fairly annoying, since that means you can't run java in Chrome on 64 bit. When using a credit card issued b a Norwegian bank, you frequently need java to handle credit card authorization [wikipedia.org] with an app and your security device.
Memory Leaks Solved? (Score:1)
Re:Memory Leaks Solved? (Score:4, Informative)
"I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0. Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox."
Oh man, as someone that hung onto 3.62 forever I can feel your pain, but Chrome? That thing is so creepy I couldnt keep it installed for a week.
I have found that the Firefox ESR with a LOT of customisation, including downloading extensions to fix some of the breakage, is the best option out there for me. Firefox "17" with bugfixes but no feature additions seems reasonably stable and has no noticeable memory leaks for me. If they are happening on the order of hours the best solution may be the fast restart extension.
Still eagerly awaiting a sane fork of firefox. I would be happy to pitch in some but I am far from capable of coding or funding it without lots of others onboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Memory Leaks Solved? (Score:4, Insightful)
I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0.
What memory leaks? If you've found new ones, have you reported them? Significant progress has been made in Firefox's memory usage in the last three years. Do you read the memshrink progress reports [mozilla.org]? If you don't, maybe you should.
Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.
Surely you realise that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox. Look at a comparison of browser memory usage with a single tab open [tomshardware.com] and multiple tabs open [tomshardware.com]. If you're happy with Chrome's memory usage, you'll be happy with any browser's memory usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0.
Where's the bug? Link to it.
And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true!
Did you not look at the memory usage charts from Tom's Hardware? Chrome uses more memory than other browsers. This has been my consistent experience as well as Tom's Hardware's as well as most everyone's. Look at another memory usage chart [tomshardware.com] from Tom's. They use Chrome's memory usage tool to measure it. Even Google disagrees with you.
Re: (Score:2)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016 [mozilla.org]
Whether Chrome temporarily uses more RAM is not the point. I have never seen Chrome get into a runaway 2-3GB memory leak like so frequently happens to FF https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016 [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you have any experience as a software developer, you know applications should be bullet proof. They should not have a vulnerability sitting around, waiting for some site to hit the correct use case to manifest it. A bug is a bug and the particular site that causes that pre-existing bug to manifest itself is not relevant. There should be no use case that causes Firefox--a browser used by billions of people world wide--to thro
Re: (Score:2)
This bug has manifested itself in both Windows and OS X, in my case. (And the code base is shared mostly for both so that rules out it being an OS problem.
To answer your essential question--yes--without question an application should be written to be bulletproof. There should be no use case possible that causes your ap
Re: (Score:2)
And it only makes sense for the owners of programs to fix them.
Finally, son, this is slashdot. If you can't handle the heat, run off to Reddit.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Anonymous Coward, I'm not sure what part of your hypocrisy I should focus on: that you are too scared to give your real name, that you challenged someone who was obviously speaking of a real issue that I have proven was a
There's also an emergency update to the ESR (Score:2)
That's great (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if you'd report your case to Mozilla and help them figure out what the problem is. Why? Because so few people have these issues, except a few very loud ones who refuse to do anything to fix them, pretending that it's always Mozilla's fault.
My case is like everyone else's case, normal usage; look through the thread, many people mention the enormous memory usage of FF.
Even when Firefox uses possibly the least amount of RAM of the major browsers while doing anything remotely useful.
I don't think so. Chrome has now been running for a few hours, and with pages open it's still only at 110 MB memory usage. FF uses twice as much immediately after having been started up.
But of course, not everyone will have the best user experience, it's just that the few who have these problems are universally unwilling to help Mozilla find out why. It's just "Mozilla's fault" and "nothing else matters... unless it means me having to do something".
Everyone has these problems. The browser isn't broken nor does it behave oddly. It's just enormously resource hungry, and I think it's a consequence of the design process and how the software ha
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome has now been running for a few hours, and with pages open it's still only at 110 MB memory usage. FF uses twice as much immediately after having been started up.
You do realize that Chrome spawns a multitude of processes, right? One for every extension, one for every tab, plus a bunch of others. Did you add up the RSS of all the processes, or did you just pick one at random? Are you using an empty profile, or do you have months of browsing history?
If I start Chrome, it uses 700-800 MB immediately after having been started up. It always uses more than Firefox.
Fire-Who? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Replace "FF" with "Google Chrome" and you'll see that Google beat Mozilla to the punch :-) Remember that Chrome is on version 29 (5 ahead of Firefox) and now uses more RAM than Firefox! You've also conveniently forgotten the Firefox ESR [mozilla.org] release (Chrome has *nothing* like it, so is a complete disaster for corporate use). Also, the performance gap has been gradually closing between Chrome and Firefox in the last year or so. For the first time in a couple of years, Firefox recent actually beat Chrome in Tom's
Re: (Score:1)
No, Mozilla will NEVER be able to satisfy you. Stop kidding yourself. They've practically rewritten half the browser over the last 2 years, solved a huge amount of their nastiest bugs, caught up and even surpassed the other browsers in some important ways, and they're STILL not even competitive by your reckoning.
I'd actually like to know what magical browser you're using that's so much better. You're also going to have to try harder to convince me that a rolling release schedule is the problem when virtuall
At the risk of sounding like a troll (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
NFC is kinda pointless until the iPhone supports it. There isn't a single large company that'll move until then. I can't tell you the let down it was when the iPhone 5 didn't have it. As near as I can tell the problem is iPhone users have lots of money and they spend it, so they're a required demographic for any major push forward.
You're right, you do sound like a troll.
With Android outselling Iphones 3 to 1, it really doesn't matter what Apple does. Android eclipsed Iphone long ago.
You'll notice most Iphone features came out on Android first, WiFi and cable tethering, copy and paste, the "new" data usage meter in IOS 7 has been in Android since version 2.
With features, the Android modding community is really the test bed, people who use community ROMS get the features first. The ones that are good get rolled into Android pr
Re: (Score:2)
Apple-Android fanboy war aside, Google dropped the requirement for NFC from Google Wallet [arstechnica.com] today due to lack of device support. NFC has caught on about as well as QR Codes; in other words, it hasn't. It may be useful for some people, but it's ultimately just a feature bulletpoint and irrelevant to most users.
Netscape Communicator redux (Score:2)
It's very distressing to see Mozilla has added "social media" and chat code into Firefox. We're right back to Netscape Communicator again. Firefox was created to get away from all that bloat. There's no reason for a web browser to have a chat and social media clients grafted onto it. Speaking of bloat, I'm using Firefox 23 right now on OS X; I have one tab open and it's gobbled up half a gig of RAM. Half a gig.
I think it's past time we nuke the thing from orbit and start over.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the "social media" stuff?, there's not any word about this, barring the summary describing chat as a social feature.
Vine Videos? (Score:1)
what RAM bloat? (Score:2)
howdy y'all,
i'm running ff23.0.1 and it's using 1/4 gig right now. i've been online for several hours, visited /., 9gag, reddit, mozillazine, bbc, etc. ... and still never more than an occasional blip up to a 1/2 gig. this is also a pretty tweaked profile with 50 [yes, really! [*grin*]] extensions.
folks who are seeing huge chunks of ram being used by firefox "while not doing anything" are seeing a _very_ different experience from mine. i always think of doing tech support ... "no! i didn't install anything
Re: (Score:2)
250 MB with 50 extensions. Sorry, I just don't believe you.
Android version is still unusable (Score:1)