Mozilla Ready with Firefox 7 Aurora Build

[Peter1986C]

you would wonder where 6 is, wouldn't you?

Company-internal release, maybe. Or if one is on 5 (like me) and 7 is out, 6 will be skipped.

 

[Thrackan]

Company-internal release, maybe. Or if one is on 5 (like me) and 7 is out, 6 will be skipped.

Nope, I'm local admin here and free to install whatever I want.

 

[EarlZ]

Faster start up and better font rendering is a huge plus!

 

[1Kurgan1]

I don't understand why they care about version numbers. Most people know that one products version number doesn't mean anything about anothers. Like how ATi is going by thousands and NV is going by hundreds, must be ATi is way faster.

 

[remixedcat]

I'm using the 8.0 nightly... 64 bit (with 64 bit flash beta) and it's allright... the RAM usage is higher then 5, but becuase it's not optimized yet. it does URL domain highlighting like IE8/9 does. it has a new permissions manager those are the two that stood out from 5. LOL.

FF9 nightly is scheduled for next month!!!!!

 

[Peter1986C]

Company-internal release, maybe. Or if one is on 5 (like me) and 7 is out, 6 will be skipped.

Nope, I'm local admin here and free to install whatever I want.

With "company-internal" I meant an internal version to be used by the Mozilla devs sorry to be unclear. And now I think about it, my guess is a bit weird b/c FF is F/OSS. Whatever...

 

[Assimilator]

Aurora builds can be unstable and buggy.

I think you meant, "Alpha builds can be unstable and buggy".

 

[AsRock]

Crazy but i guess they have there reasons lol... Funny i just removed Google from 2 DELL systems this week as it was screwing them up and OMG how much space i was seeing it was taking was crazy.

 

[theJesus]

I'm using the 8.0 nightly... 64 bit (with 64 bit flash beta) and it's allright... the RAM usage is higher then 5, but becuase it's not optimized yet. it does URL domain highlighting like IE8/9 does. it has a new permissions manager those are the two that stood out from 5. LOL.

FF9 nightly is scheduled for next month!!!!!

Seriously? I'm still on 3.6.18 at home lol. I went from 5 to 7 at work and noticed very little difference. In fact, the most difference I've noticed at all was from 3.6.18 to 4, and then everything after that should have just been 4.x.xx

 

[MilkyWay]

As soon as i read Aurora i thought of Aurora illinois like the place in Waynes World lol.

Whats with the funny numbering scheme, btw im not on the beta service so im still on version 5.

 

[remixedcat]

yeah a lot of people dislike the new versioning system with FF and it breaks addons... they ether need to do away with the version dependancy for addons or need to keep to .x releases.

and people are stupid for thinking that just a higher version number then the rest is the better.

 

[Zubasa]

yeah a lot of people dislike the new versioning system with FF and it breaks addons... they ether need to do away with the version dependancy for addons or need to keep to .x releases.

and people are stupid for thinking that just a higher version number then the rest is the better.

Guess what?
This world is filled with uninformed and/or stupid people. :shadedshu

 

[ASRockIQ]

i've stopped using FF since the last version of 3.x and now i use Google Chrome

 

[remixedcat]

I would loose too many beloved addons if I moved to chrome... Plus the interface on FF is nicer.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

I think you meant, "Alpha builds can be unstable and buggy".

no, it's Aurora.
nightly -> Aurora -> beta/RC -> gold

 

[7mm]

Anyway, I'm far more happy with All new Opera (11.50), performing fast as usual.

 

[remixedcat]

I have noticed a thing here.... a lot of people from India love opera! why is this? very intriguing....

 

[user21]

They should just go ahead and call it Firefox 10.

 

[Wile E]

I wouldn't care one way or the other, but the FF team is forgetting one very important thing, a thing that keeps them relevant in this day and age: Extensions. These inflated version numbers are breaking extensions, for no good reason. Sure, I know how to disable that check, but most people don't, and shouldn't have to.

 

[remixedcat]

precisely...

 

[PsiAmp]

Mozilla team has a small numbers complex. IE has version 9, Opera has 11.5, Chrome - 14. Firefox has pitiful 4? lol, no user can be pleased with such a small version number.

And it doesn't matter that FF is slow as snail and has created around it an "Addon Hell". That's why I'm still using FF 3.6.1, some of my addons still don't work in 4.0.1. And without addons FF is a naked king. You can't even change keybindings without another addon.

Chrome is great for people that do not need much functionality, but fast browser that does the job.

My personal choice is Opera for being fast, lightweight and amazingly handy out of the box.

I wouldn't care one way or the other, but the FF team is forgetting one very important thing, a thing that keeps them relevant in this day and age: Extensions. These inflated version numbers are breaking extensions, for no good reason. Sure, I know how to disable that check, but most people don't, and shouldn't have to.

I know how to disable the compatibility check, but some addons simply don't work with new version.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

It's funny how Firefox is the only fully color manged browser on Windows, in 2011.

Wile E should know how horrible an un-managed image can look.

 

[remixedcat]

the only addons that seem to have trouble are ones that bring up any special menus. like some of the downloaders and some of the IE accelerator emulating ones.

I finally got the realplayer downloader to work in V5!!! but sadly not the nightly 8....

 

[de.das.dude]

Google Chrome FTW!!!

chrome = poor copy of Opera

so Opera FTW

 

[a_ump]

chrome = poor copy of Opera

so Opera FTW

I suppose. I know Chrome obviously got its ideas from the other 3 before it was released, but their implementation is pretty dam good. Don't have a problem with Chrome here