Firefox 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 to Ship in 2011

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

  1. Posts : 8,383
    Windows 10 Pro x64, Arch Linux
    Thread Starter
       #20

    pparks1 said:
    yowanvista said:
    Incompatible addons are not a problem since you can disable the addon compatibility checker
    But if the addons truly don't work or cause stability problems in the software, then what's the point? I've not run into anything yet that really requires FF4 or IE9. I'm happily plodding along as it's displayed in FF 3.6. I do realize that most add-ons are not broke, just not known to work or supported.
    Well, I haven't had any stability issues with older addons since I use Beta 1 :)
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 2,528
    Windows 7 x64 Ultimate
       #21

    It all starts to get a bit rediculous when the numbers start to get large too.

    21, 22, 23, 56, 57, 58, 143 etc...

    Most companies restart the numbering system or rebrand sometime close to after 11 becuase the numbers start to blur togeather (Photoshop as one of many examples)
    Last edited by fseal; 09 Feb 2011 at 17:48.
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 6,292
    Windows 7 64 Bit Home Premium SP1
       #22

    Or like Paintshop Pro - I'm on version 13 now, uh - I mean X3 .
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 1,487
    Windows 7 x64 / Same
       #23

    I think Mozilla is feeling stiff competition from Chrome, causing them to make big deals about everything. And apparently release new versions closer together.
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 43
    Windows 7 build 7600
       #24

    Too bad we are still 10 betas away for an RC of Firefox 4.0
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 14
    Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
       #25

    AlexGP said:
    Too bad we are still 10 betas away for an RC of Firefox 4.0
    Laughed at this, hehehe.

    On another note, it's sad how susceptible the browser developers are to trends. Effin peer pressure man. I first noticed it when the private browsing feature became the must have.

    Firefox: So you have Private browsing?

    Chrome: Yeah, no biggie

    Firefox: Hmm, now we do too! HA!

    IE, Opera, Safari: Whatchu guys talkin about?
    Ironically enough though, private browsing was one of the major contributing factors that led me to download the first major Chrome build. I had and still have no use for it since no one touches my computer but me but it was interesting at the time.
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 685
    Windows 7 32bit RTM
       #26

    They need to be as fast as IE9 RC now hurry up Mozilla :)
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 1,360
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #27

    justlloyd said:
    AlexGP said:
    Too bad we are still 10 betas away for an RC of Firefox 4.0
    Laughed at this, hehehe.

    On another note, it's sad how susceptible the browser developers are to trends. Effin peer pressure man. I first noticed it when the private browsing feature became the must have.

    Firefox: So you have Private browsing?

    Chrome: Yeah, no biggie

    Firefox: Hmm, now we do too! HA!

    IE, Opera, Safari: Whatchu guys talkin about?
    Ironically enough though, private browsing was one of the major contributing factors that led me to download the first major Chrome build. I had and still have no use for it since no one touches my computer but me but it was interesting at the time.
    At least the private browsing was a real feature, not just some update gimmick.
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 8
    7 x64
       #28

    Gornot said:
    I don't get this idiotic "numbering cycle". Why does (major) version number matter at all? As long as the companies actually update and more regularly release new builds of their browsers (like Google does), who cares what the major version number is?

    Besides, I don't buy this BS at all, if Mozilla had this in plan, v4 would be long released and already updated dozens of times.
    its stupid yes, and google chrome only made it worst, now version number is big deal, I suppose the logical numbering should be the engine version, not some artificial big number
    ex: opera is version 11 but its presto engine is 2.x
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 3,187
    Main - Windows 7 Pro SP1 64-Bit; 2nd - Windows Server 2008 R2
       #29

    syobon999 said:
    ... now version number is big deal, I suppose the logical numbering should be the engine version, not some artificial big number
    ex: opera is version 11 but its presto engine is 2.x
    That sort of logic makes a lot of sense.
      My Computer


 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:26.
Find Us