Firefox 5.0 released

That seems to be the problem Ace. You don't have a choice.

Firefox button > Options > Options

If you aren't using the awful button, "Options" is in the "Tools" menu.

In the "Options" window: Advanced > Update

Make your desired selections. :)

I use the Nightly Tester Tools addon to override compatibility. All my themes work using this method. A Guy

The Mozilla Corporation shipped Firefox 5 this week, almost exactly three months after it shipped Firefox 4.

Does that seem like an insane tempo? Ha! Fasten your seatbelts, because Mozilla plans to ship Firefox 6 in exactly six weeks, with Firefox 7 six weeks after that, and Firefox 8 … well, you get the idea. Not coincidentally, that release schedule perfectly matches up with browser archrival Google Chrome.

At that pace, in June 2014, a mere three years from now, Firefox will be on version 29.

Source

A Guy

A Guy said:

I use the Nightly Tester Tools addon to override compatibility. All my themes work using this method. A Guy

Big time TY. Love this kind of add on.

Interesting article.

Did Windows 95 start the idea of using years instead of version numbers?

The Amazing World of Version Numbers

They exaggerate. They fudge. They confuse. And sometimes they're not even numbers. By Harry McCracken | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 2:17 am

In theory, software version numbers should be about as scintillating as as serial numbers, house numbers, channel numbers, or Vehicle Identification Numbers. You don’t get much more mundane than the practice of keeping track of a software package’s major and minor editions by assigning decimal numbers to them.
Except…version numbers long ago stopped being version numbers. Software companies started using them as marketing weapons. They tried varying methods of assigning identities to applications, such as naming them after years. They decided that numbers were too dry and substituted letters and words that were meant to be more evocative. I’m not embarrassed to admit I find ‘em interesting enough to write this article.
I cheerfully admit to using the broadest possible definition of version number in this story–hey, I’m going to discuss names that don’t involve numbers at all. I know that developers still use more formal, traditional software versioning naming conventions behind the scenes. (Windows Vista, for instance, is officially version 6.0 of Windows; Technologizer is on version 20593, but don’t ask me to explain why.)
For no particular reason, I’m going to write this as a FAQ. Even though there’s an awful lot about this topic which I just don’t know…

When did version numbers come into use?

Some more. Pretty funny stuff

My only objection to names like Windows XP is that they don’t give you a clue about a product’s relation to its predecessors and descendants. In the last eleven years, Microsoft has released Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Me, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, and is about to ship Windows 7. Thousands of years from now, technology historians are going to have trouble figuring out what was released when, and may even believe that Windows 98 was the ninety-first release following Windows 7.

One last and final quote.

And Windows 7?

Well, in principle, giving a software product a version number that really is a version number isn’t a big decision–it’s just a statement of fact. But considering that Windows 7 is the first version of Windows with a straightforward version number since Windows NT 4.0 back in 1996, the moniker is a meaningful statement of some sort. I’m not sure if Microsoft has articulated publicly why it chose to drop the non-number naming convention it used for Windows XP and Vista, but the obvious explanation would be that it’s trying to position Win 7 as a low-key, high-value OS that delivers more than it promises–a sort of anti-Vista. The lucky connotations of the number 7 probably don’t hurt either.
Also, “Windows Vista II” wouldn’t have made anybody happy.

More on link above

Buddahfan said:

Interesting article.

Did Windows 95 start the idea of using years instead of version numbers?

The Amazing World of Version Numbers

They exaggerate. They fudge. They confuse. And sometimes they're not even numbers. By Harry McCracken | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 2:17 am

In theory, software version numbers should be about as scintillating as as serial numbers, house numbers, channel numbers, or Vehicle Identification Numbers. You don’t get much more mundane than the practice of keeping track of a software package’s major and minor editions by assigning decimal numbers to them.
Except…version numbers long ago stopped being version numbers. Software companies started using them as marketing weapons. They tried varying methods of assigning identities to applications, such as naming them after years. They decided that numbers were too dry and substituted letters and words that were meant to be more evocative. I’m not embarrassed to admit I find ‘em interesting enough to write this article.
I cheerfully admit to using the broadest possible definition of version number in this story–hey, I’m going to discuss names that don’t involve numbers at all. I know that developers still use more formal, traditional software versioning naming conventions behind the scenes. (Windows Vista, for instance, is officially version 6.0 of Windows; Technologizer is on version 20593, but don’t ask me to explain why.)
For no particular reason, I’m going to write this as a FAQ. Even though there’s an awful lot about this topic which I just don’t know…

When did version numbers come into use?

Some more. Pretty funny stuff

My only objection to names like Windows XP is that they don’t give you a clue about a product’s relation to its predecessors and descendants. In the last eleven years, Microsoft has released Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Me, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, and is about to ship Windows 7. Thousands of years from now, technology historians are going to have trouble figuring out what was released when, and may even believe that Windows 98 was the ninety-first release following Windows 7.

One last and final quote.

And Windows 7?

Well, in principle, giving a software product a version number that really is a version number isn’t a big decision–it’s just a statement of fact. But considering that Windows 7 is the first version of Windows with a straightforward version number since Windows NT 4.0 back in 1996, the moniker is a meaningful statement of some sort. I’m not sure if Microsoft has articulated publicly why it chose to drop the non-number naming convention it used for Windows XP and Vista, but the obvious explanation would be that it’s trying to position Win 7 as a low-key, high-value OS that delivers more than it promises–a sort of anti-Vista. The lucky connotations of the number 7 probably don’t hurt either.
Also, “Windows Vista II” wouldn’t have made anybody happy.

More on link above

And Windows 7 is NOT Version 7, it is Version 6.1.7601

Jim