Firefox 5.0 released

[johnwillyums]

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

 

[lehnerus2000]

Turn off Auto-Updates

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.

 

[A Guy]

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

 

[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

 

[darkfriday]

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.

 

[Buddahfan]

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.

:roflmao:

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

 

[wds7]

Firefox button > Options > Options

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

View attachment 162003
​

In the "Options" window: Advanced > Update

View attachment 162004
​

Make your desired selections.

I finally gave up on FF5 ... came back to FF 4.01

and this is exactly what i did .

Thanks .

 

[Phone Man]

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.

:roflmao:

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 :banghead:

Jim

 

[Schroff87]

Index of /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/6.0b1-candidates/build1/win32/en-US

Here is a candidate of the first beta of FF 6.0.

 

[Buddahfan]

File This Under When I See It I Will Believe It

complete article on link below

Memory improvements coming to Firefox 7

By Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | July 6, 2011, 7:35am PDT

Firefox 5 might just be out of the gate, but Mozilla is working hard on improvements for Firefox 7. One of those improvements is the way that Firefox handles memory usage.

Firefox developer Nicholas Nethercote outlines some of the changes. The first is per-compartment reporters, which should help power users and ordinary users see what’s going on:

One nice thing about this feature is that it gives technically-oriented users a way to tell which web sites are causing high memory usage. This may help with perception, too; people might think “geez, Facebook is using a lot of memory” instead of “geez, Firefox is using a lot of memory”.
​

Along with per-compartment reporters comes dramatic improvements to the JavaScript heap fragmentation:

… in short, the size of the heap was over 5x smaller (21MB vs. 108MB) after closing a number of tabs and forcing garbage collection. Even if you don’t force garbage collection, it still helps greatly, because garbage collection happens periodically anyway, and longer browsing sessions will benefit more than shorter sessions.

This change will help everyday browsing a lot.

 

[fseal]

Well good for the memory work, and the per tab memory usage is cool. But to claim that "Facebook is taking a lot of memory" is pretty disingenuous. It is in fact Firefox's rendering of Facebook that is taking the memory...

If Opera or chrome or IE uses 1/2 the ram to render the same page, it's still FF that has the memory problems (Which is has had from day one). For example the memory difference between FF and IE on this single page is IE: 24Meg and FF: 32Meg, fresh launch, zero menu bars or plugins. It's not Seven Formums taking 32 meg on Linux, it's still FF...

 

[stormy13]

For those running Nightly, it just updated to 8a,

 

[lehnerus2000]

No problems

Firefox button > Options > Options

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

View attachment 162003
​

In the "Options" window: Advanced > Update

View attachment 162004
​

Make your desired selections.

I finally gave up on FF5 ... came back to FF 4.01

and this is exactly what i did .

Thanks .

No problems.
I'm glad the info was useful.

 

[lyjacky11]

Mozilla Firefox 5 New Features

Mozilla Firefox has been updated to Firefox 5:Welcome to Firefox
There are 3 new features:

App Tabs:What are App Tabs? | How to | Firefox Help
Switch To Tab:http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Location%20bar%20autocomplete?s=awesome+bar&as=s#w_what-is-switch-to-tab
Tab Groups:What are Tab Groups? | How to | Firefox Help

 

[BOO]

Not much change at all to be upgraded from firefox 4 to firefox 5. I am disappointed, because they're basically the same.

 

[andyparks]

just installed the nightly 64bit and up to now it seams better and faster then ie9 64bit

 

[Phone Man]

just installed the nightly 64bit and up to now it seams better and faster then ie9 64bit

It should be faster then IE9-64 since Microsoft didn't put much effort into IE9-64. It still has the old IE-8 engine. IE9-32 has the upgraded engine and is faster then IE9-64.

Jim

 

[andyparks]

just installed the nightly 64bit and up to now it seams better and faster then ie9 64bit

It should be faster then IE9-64 since Microsoft didn't put much effort into IE9-64. It still has the old IE-8 engine. IE9-32 has the upgraded engine and is faster then IE9-64.

Jim

Thanks I did no that

 

[yowanvista]

5.0.1 released

Release notes

 

[Phone Man]

5.0.1 released

Release notes

Looks like just an update for Mac OS. Doesn't show up when I check for FF updates in Windows. I guess I will wait for it to show.

Jim