Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Users Stay Ahead On the Update Curve
Reader Alex links to news of a study comparing the currency and patch level of various Web browsers, excerpting:
"Firefox users were far and away the most likely to use the latest version, with an overwhelming 83.3 percent running an updated browser on any given day. However, despite Firefox's single click integrate auto-update functionality, 16.7 percent of Firefox users still continue to access the Web with an outdated version of the browser, researchers said. The study also revealed that the majority of Safari users (65.3) percent were likely to use the latest version of the browser between December 2007 and June 2008, after Safari version 3 became available. Meanwhile, Microsoft's Internet Explorer users ranked last in terms of safe browsing. Between January 2007 and June 2008, less than half of IE users — 47.6 percent — were running the most secure browser version during the same time period."
47% are still using Mosaic????
No reason to fix what isn't broke.
I leave the auto-update feature on in Firefox because I trust that when Mozilla pushes updates they are valuable to me in terms of security or features and that they've been well tested. This has generally held to be true.
On the other hand, on any system I administer I immediately disable automatic updates because Microsoft sometimes pushes patches that only partially address a problem, creating a false sense of security, and then later re-issue them, push things like updates to Windows Media DRM as critical updates (it's not critical to me, Microsoft!), and release updates that go on to cause problems with other software or system stability in general.
When I can trust Microsoft to apply only security updates to IE (or other components of my choosing), maybe I'll consider turning automatic updates back on. Maybe.
This is understandable, considering the level of obnoxiousness. Firefox gives you a discrete notice that it has downloaded an update, and you can choose not to install it right away, but instead having it installed next time you start firefox. Windows Updates are so damn obnoxious that I always consider turning it off and doing my updates manually. I know how to update my computer manually, but I suspect the bulk of users out there, just get frustrated about the constant bells and whistles of Windows Update, that they turn it off and leave it like that.
When Microsoft has shit flashing on the screen automatically to remind you to do updates, it's evil intrusion in to one's privacy. But when Firefox does exactaly the same thing, they're God's gift to enlightenment.
The reason most Firefox users use the most up to date version is that it's the only way to get rid of the annoying pop-ups.
It's rational fear of the unknown.
I've never had a Firefox or Safari issue toast my machine. I've had IE updates do it twice before (on different machines).
I just don't see how a browser can cause such mayhem to the OS - considering it's the browser that supposedly runs inside the OS, and not the other way around.
Well ok, I can. To rephrase: I don't see how a browser should cause such mayhem to the OS.
The Mothership
I like that Firefox isn't pushy about installing your updates, but rather it lets you do it at your convenience. Safari I can understand too, because that's integrated into Apple's update program, and most people leave that on automatically.
What about us Lynx users?
There, I finally upgraded to FF3 on my FC8 box. You happy now?
.
The majority of IE users use IE "because it's there." These people see no reason to download a different browser because one is already provided for them. These are the same people that usually end up relying on Automatic Updates to secure their browser, in most cases not even aware that these updates were taking place to begin with. Chances are that these people don't know that their browser even has updates, much less that they are running an insecure, outdated browser.
Users of alternative browsers, by contrast, use their browser deliberately. They know that IE is there, but they blatantly decide to go against the tide and use something else. Whatever the reason for this depends on the user, but most of them share this common trait. Said browsers can't use Automatic Updates, so they must have their own update checking mechanisms in place. Every alternative browser I've used will check every so often for an update and display a pop-up for the user. The user then knows that their browser is out-of-date. Such users also tend to want the latest version, again for various reasons. Firefox is a bit more aggressive that most, downloading the update by default and installing it regardless of whether the user chooses to have it done now or later, which better explains its higher percentage.
Where I work we had IE 7 a couple years ago but the corporate intranet didn't work properly or IT didn't want to support it or something so I'm forced to use IE 6. I couldn't update IE if I wanted to on the computer where I work. I use firefox at home but I go to quite a few websites during my lunch break. Unless they're filtering out IP's from corporate domains I suspect the results of the study are skewed by users surfing while at work.
If I spend all my time keeping up with upgrades, I won't have any time left to actually use my damn computer. And sometimes an older version works better for me. All that automatic crap is turned off. My disks are backed up...I think... I'll upgrade if something breaks. I hope you're ok with that.
What?
That many people still run IE 2.0?
'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
Firefox users were far and away the most likely to use the latest version, with an overwhelming 83.3 percent running an updated browser [] However, [] 16.7 percent of Firefox users still continue access the Web with an outdated version of the browser.
Look I know this is slashdot and all but most of us are actually able to work out that 100-83.3=16.7.
I'm not sure why they couldn't have the update option for version 2.xx at least offer the option to update to version 3. It just kept telling me there were no new updates available. I wouldn't call it 'single click' at all.
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
And therefore the general populace of computer users who don't tell it to install are obviously not going to have it. Not to mention it requires clicks to install unlike all other updates that happen on their own and just tell you to reboot every 20 minutes. So I guess we could say Microsoft really needs to push 7 if they want everyone secure.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Well I still use version 1.5.0.12. Just minimize those annoying upgrade popups every time they pop up. 10 clicks & they just give an error & next day it's another popup for another upgrade. You mean those weren't advertizements? Well, probably just destroyed someone's TimeWarner stock.
Now that it's mentioned, there really is something about Firefox's update feature that gets you to install and use the latest version. Maybe it's that it's so easy and doesn't mess up anything, e.g., by making drastic changes to the appearance of the browser, etc. I would say that most of the nearly 20% who are running outdated versions are probably the paranoid type who think that updating their software will mean introducing problems, you know, the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But this study is totally correct: Of all the browsers, Firefox makes updating the easiest.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
AC makes no sense. Assuming it takes users some constant time C to update, and all users update theri browsers (big assumption...), then with two updates per week, users will run the latest version of the browser 1-C/7 of the time. With updates twice per month, users will run with the latest version 1-C/30 of the time. Obviously C/7 > C/30 therefore if you update less often users will be up-to-date more often.
That firefox users are up-to-date 83-ish% of the time is MORE, not less, impressive because Mozilla pushes out a fix for something about twice a week.
It seems that corporate/government users don't have as much of a choice in when to update their browsers and a good number don't have the choice to switch to firefox and are forced to use IE. I know that at my job (government) we can't update on our own and are forced to wait for the IT staff to push the updates through, sometimes days or weeks after they become available.
I'd reckon some of the lag is due to corporate policy. FF3 still hasn't been pushed to my work PC and I doubt they are in any hurry to push the update either. Lots of other corps are no doubt waiting for something big to justify the man hours for the update.
-- this space for rent --
Were live-CD browser like firefox taken into account ? I have been using Gutsy Gibbon live CD for a long time, and it is naturally not an updated version, which anyway I would not care for since there is nothing to exploit on my CD. Same for all people browsing from a VM.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Web developers heed my call. Stop making websites accept security corrupting browsers because half the time they are pry zombies. Look at your logs and see the rate at which these computers increase revenue. Drop them at whatever delta you think prudent.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Out of the out-dated versions of the various browsers, I wonder how many of those can't be updated by the user due to OS restrictions out of the user's control? ie, a locked down computer in a corporate environment. That type of thing is likely to skew the results a bit. More for some browsers than others.
---- Don't lick something unless you really mean it.
Firefox users are already going to be people who care more about what software they're using and security. IE users are everyone who doesn't really care and never actually chose what browser to use, everyone who doesn't know too much about computers and on top those who do care and chose IE, but those are only a minority of the IE user group. So it's logical that in the firefox user group people are going to update faster, it's not directly related to the browser but to the user group.
I wonder how much of that 47.6% figure is due to corporate IT departments refusing or unable to roll out newer versions of IE. I work on a fairly popular european website, with close to half of its IE users (around 25% total) still using IE 6. Site usage spikes around noon with a sharp dropoff on the weekend, suggesting that people browse it from work. So I did a quick internal survey in my (tech) company and found that outside of IT and Software Development, almost everyone was still using Windows 2000, which of course doesnt't get IE 7+. It's a shame, really. As a web developer, I hate IE 6 with a burning passion but it's not going away until MS activates the secret killswitch in W2K in a desperate attempt to get people to switch to Vista...
I wonder how much of the old Firefox usage is old installs in Linux? You can't use the built-in updater if you installed the RPM/DEB because the permissions are (or should be) wrong for letting you write to the folder. AFAIK there's only a few distros who have moved to Firefox 3 so far, so the rest would be showing up as out-dated.
Similarly for Windows, if they're counting Firefox 3 as "up to date" then how many people are still on old v2s because they don't know about v3?
Newer is NOT always better.
.59 only to find that ctrl/shift + mouse clicks were bugged, therefore screwing me in WoW. Had to revert back.
Anyone who uses linux should know this.
For example, wine v0.9.58 works perfectly for me; I blindly updated to
Usually, updates are a good thing, but not always.
I'm usually early in the update curve. But, after the low quality of Firefox 3 I'll have to rethink my mode of operation. Firefox 3 was so bad I ended up removing it from my Linux and Windows systems and reinstalled Firefox 2.
When using Portable Firefox, the automatic updates installs the normal version when updating. This results in something you don't want. So I uncheck the automatic update, and do this manually.
I use Camino as my browser on my Mac and choose to leave the home page as the default "Camino Start" page. Its very minimalist, just shows a small Google search box, and a link to the latest version which changes colour to red if my version is outdated.
No in-your-face messages, no irritating popups, no external syncing software... though I guess it only works if you keep it as your home page. Makes sense to use a feature that's built into every web browser (sarcasm aside): the ability to load a web page!
Cheers, ~ Ruben
It's unbelievable how pathetic ms is. I use a win xp (my employers pc) a mac and a ubuntu linux box at home. mac and ubuntu are fats straightforward and clean for updates. same for firefox on the 3 os. the mess is always with ms, with server not responding, trying to install and failing. This morning it did the the ms stupid thing. asked if I wanted to read some article on security (!), then tried to open a docx (amazing) which did not download at ald and stalled the stupid ie (which is only used for ms updates and some ms only applications like sharepoint).
I use Maxthon 2.1.2.649 with Safari_1m2s skin and let me tell you... given all the features that come along with Maxthon 2.1.2.649, I find it much more convenient to use both in terms of speed and security. All this hype about Firefox being soooo secure and fast is getting a bit ridiculous, I think. Look at Maxthon for a change. IMHO it IS MORE CONVENIENT to use than Firefox despite all those extentions of the latter.
The cited original study "Understanding the web browser threat" is published at: http://www.techzoom.net/insecurity-iceberg It also proposes to show a warning to the user if the browser in use is an old version and security patches have been missed, much like a "best before" date on perishable food. This would help to easily spot if one is at (unnecessary) risk when surfing the web.
Most people in big companies cannot update their IExplorer. Updates come through when IT have verified them. It's a trade off between the security risk of an old browser and the risk of breaking the entire company if the update is bad. Most BIG COMPANIES use IExplorer. Nothing to see here folks.
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
Out of curiosity, what percentage of the internet is still on Dialup?
I find that autoupdates are impossible over a dialup connection so I switch them off. I'm willing to bet that this is the most common reason for people using an old version of Firefox.
I think this just shows that firefox user are, just like my fellow opera users, just a bunch of browser fanbois. Hell, i even run weekly snapshot builds of opera for no reason. IE users dont care about the browser in the first place, Safari isn't something Mac users chose to use because it's so great either. So why would they bother updating all the time? ...
So in conclusion, this study shows: If you chose to use some special software, you will update it when you use it. Big suprise
(Warning: Self-promotion)
In my eWEEK column on this study I point out numerous problems with it. Many have been mentioned by others.
The main issue is that the study is based on user-agent string data from Google's logs, and Microsoft does not supply minor version information in that string, unlike Firefox, Safari and others. Microsoft considers this to be an "information disclosure vulnerability" because it would help an attacker to commit version-specific attacks.
Because of this, the authors only know about IE major versions (5, 6. 7, 8) and decided that all IE7 users were secure, while nobody else was. Microsoft is still providing security updates for IE5 and IE6; while they are not as secure as IE7 for a variety of reasons, it's not reasonable to lump them into a group with people who don't update their browser. Conversely, if you have IE7 and haven't applied any of the security updates to it, the study says you're up to date.
Be that as it may, as others have said, the issue here is that business users use IE and the other browsers have minimal footprint in it. Firefox, by default, has no support for managed updates, and IT in a big company would (make that should) never allow users to apply updates willy-nilly to their systems. Another point is that while Microsoft supports old version for years, at the demand of their customers, Mozilla withdraws all support for old versions within 6 months of a new one being released. In fact, support for Firefox 2 will end in December of this year. Businesses won't tolerate this. IE5 support on Windows 2000 will continue till 2010 and IE6 as late as 2015.
By updates you mean RAM ? Right ?
Windows Firefox users have that browser by choice - IE was already there, but they have chosen to download and use alternative browser.
In 99,9% of cases that means that they do have at least a vague idea what is the difference. Such users are far more likely to know what will the difference be should they move to FF3.
As for IE users it is not the case. Most of them use IE just because it came with Windows and update only because 'automatic update said so'.
My guess would be that less than 1% of IE users have actually used any alternative browser long enough to get past the discomfort of changing the habit and then decided to use IE.
For me, Firefox used to auto download and install the next version even when I set the options not to download and not to check for updates.
This wasn't very good when people were using my PC on a guest or normal user account, and Firefox would try to install the update anyways, just leaving a message about not being able to update on the screen for anyone who tried to run the program.
The Mac that I use for work runs OS X 10.4.11. When I use it, I log in to an account that has no Administrator rights. Firefox 2.0 does not notify me of the availability of security updates, and the "Check for Updates" option is not even available -- it is grayed out.
When I learn of the release of an update, I log out, log in using an account with Administrator rights, launch Firefox, and then "Check for Updates." Once the update is installed, I log out, log in without Administrator rights, and return to work.
I know what I'm doing, and news of the updates reaches me quickly, so I don't mind doing this. It would be better if the "Check for Updates" option warned me of available update and then told me to apply it using an account with Administrator rights.
The 16.7 percent figure who use an older version of Firefox might be lower if Firefox Extensions didn't break with every new version. Some users install extensions and get so used to the functionality it gives them that they won't upgrade until the extension gets upgraded too. I realise that improvements gained by new versions shouldn't be held back by third party add-ons - and I think Firefox 3 is a huge improvement over 2 - but I for one would not upgrade if a couple of extensions didn't work.
I unwittingly accepted a large Ubuntu upgrade that included Firefox 3.0 not ong ago. Firefox 3.0 braks the Foxmarks add-on, which, as a consultant, I find very useful as I rarely know where I will be on a given day. What is the coordinating effort with the add-on authors?
And yet half of IE users use an old version.
Don't all versions of Internet Explorer newer than IE 6 SP1 need a recent version of Windows with a recent service pack? A lot of businesses are still on Windows 2000.
On Linux, all Firefox required libs are already (or most probably) preloaded on RAM. Firefox startup is fast!
The real problem wasn't addressed: how many Firefox users still keep Windows and IE up to date?
There has been a great deal of malware which uses the Firefox browser as an attack vector on old vulnerabilities in IE... which it would be unable to do had Windows/IE been kept up to date.
A majority of Firefox users are keeping ONLY that application up to date, and letting everything else go to hell. So this article is quite meaningless... especially when you factor in all the 0-day Firefox exploits.
Doesn't this just tell you that people who use Internet Explorer use it because it is pre-installed, whereas people who choose to download a browser to use choose something else?
I'm not sure why they couldn't have the update option for version 2.xx at least offer the option to update to version 3.
Firefox 2 works on more platforms than Firefox 3. Most notably, Firefox 3 drops Windows 98, Windows ME, and Mac OS X prior to Tiger.
It really annoys me that Mozilla will not put any attention to the 'clearing history' bug in FF3. That version requires manual individual deletion of the web history regardless of the privacy settings.
These broken privacy features are the major redeeming aspect of Firefox and who knows when they will be fixed. I have stepped back to 2.0.0.15 for now. ..I know....waaaaa
This sounds pretty familiar...
I'm just as much of a Firefox advocate as the next guy, but... do we need to hash out why Firefox users are more likely to stay up to date than Internet Explorer users every 10 days?
A lot of people are sticking to IE6 because the daft Vista-inspired interface changes in IE7 make it downright unpleasant to use.
It's hardly fair to knock back a browser because it's actively annoying to upgrade, especially when there are so many better reasons to steer clear of IE.
because they're running an illegitimate version of Windows sans ability to pass (or knowhow to bypass) the WGA check before upgrading IE...so most are likely to have to live with IE6 - a lot of these people are the same ones, mind you, that have never heard of alternatives such as Firefox, which they would be able to update at their leisure.
Well said! We go one further and never allow any microsoft product any access to the internet. They all spy, download malware, do various malicious mischief that would get the average citizen prostituted ,etc. Micro$$ genuwine disadvantage is especially vicious and devious. Any pooter that we buy that we discover had 'vista' on it is immediately run over by our truck ten times and then put in the neighbors lead smelter to render any metals out of it. No way to sanitize the ultimate filth.
The problem with Internet Explorer is that the version of your OS determine if you can upgrade to the latest version or not. For example, Windows 2000 users can't use Windows Internet Explorer 7. It simply won't install. So they have to keep using Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. I even suspect IE 7 to require Windows XP Service Pack 2. Perhaps Internet Explorer 8 will require Windows Vista who knows... So many Internet Explorer users don't update because they don't want to but rather because they can't. On the other hand, browsers like Opera, Mozilla Firefox or SeaMonkey allow you to update whatever your OS version is. I even installed latest SeaMonkey painlessly on a Windows 98 box...
You mean that people who make no effort to find a better browser ALSO make no effort to update their browser? Gasp!
My general.useragent.override setting at about:config varies. It is currently "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.10) Gecko/20071115 Firefox/2.0.0.10". I'll probably be "using" some Safari or IE version when I visit sites using FF in the next few weeks. Yeah, I change it regularly. I am sure I am not alone. And I am, quite frankly, amazed that 83.3% actually admit to be running the latest Firefox. But then again.. those numbers may be 20% of people who are using some completely different browser and want to blend in with the FF crowd for all we know.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
That's because Firefox is the only software that I've encountered that has somehow managed to solve the update problem correctly. Firefox updates are quick, painless, require no rebooting, and don't even require you to restart the browser right away. It's almost an invisible process. And as an added bonus, updates for most plugins are equally painless.
If all software was this good about updating, our computers would be far more secure and would work better. You'd probably see tech support calls decline drastically across the board.
That's the main reason for people not upgrading Firefox. Fx3 has been out for weeks, but some extensions are still not compatible. Well, they are, but the developers can't be bothered to release a bumped version. Some even openly refuse to (MinimizeToTray). In every single forum thread about an extension it has to be explained how to bump an extension to the current version, and of course not every noob is confident enough to edit an RDF file or install yet another extension to take care of that. It doesn't help that addons.mozilla is slow to accept new versions.
Most (All I have tried, anyway) FF2 extentions work just fine with FF3, they just "won't" install them because there is a small file inside the plugin archive called install.rdf which "informs" which browser version the extentions are "designed" for. Those I needed when I was using the FF3 beta versions all worked just fine after I unpacked the extention, changed the "em:maxVersion" (under "em:targetApplication") in the plugins install.rdf and packed it again. I am not saying that all super-advanced extentions work if you make them claim they work with FF3, I am just saying that all the ones I use installed and worked just fine thanks to this wierd little trick.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
16.7 percent of Firefox users still continue to access the Web with an outdated version of the browser,
Computer labs. You have admins who set up the lab, turn on the security camera and leave the computers for the year, basically. The one in my dorm was running 2.0.3 last I checked(two months ago), the one in the engineering building was 2.12 (two months ago), and the one in france was also 2.12 I think. (couple of weeks ago).
Unless you carry a portable firefox around with you like I do sometimes (but rarely used because those computers are slow enough without having to wait to mount a usb drive), then you're subject to the whims and schedule of your updater.
Firefox updates work like this:
Updates download in the background. Magically. They apply. Magically. A notice tells you that a restart (NOT a reboot!) is required to make the updates effective. ONCE!!! (i.e. not every five #$&(@*$& minutes until you obey them, thank you very much Microsoft updater!).
When you decide to restart, you are taken back to the exact same place you were before the update. Tabs reopen, everything works magically.
Then, when it's all done, the browser continues to work as well as or better than it did before. Amazing, eh?
So in short, the update process:
1) is painless
2) is non-intrusive
3) is quick
4) doesn't break anything
If all software updated this easily and reliably, then most people would be FAR less resistant to updates and patches. Unfortunately, firefox is the exception, not the rule.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I'm willing to bet that this is the most common reason for people using an old version of Firefox.
Actually, another good reason to use an old version is that the older ones came as a zip file so they did not require an installer. Unfortunately, Mozilla seems to have stopped this practice with Firefox 1.01, so that's the highest version you're going to run on a "locked down" corporate Windows box. Thankfully I have full admin rights at this job, but my PC is too old to run anything too current (heck it never should be running XP for that matter!)
"...despite Firefox's single click integrate auto-update functionality, 16.7 percent of Firefox users still continue to access the Web with an outdated version of the browser, researchers said"
That's because the first thing I do when I install any software is look for and disable the auto-update, because A) I don't want programs randomly connecting to the network automatically and phoning up the mother ship; B) I don't want forever-running "Auto Update" programs running in the background and sucking up memory and network bandwidth unnecessarily and nagging me forever about updates (curse you Adobe Reader!!); and C) if it isn't broken, I don't want it "fixed" with new and potentially buggy versions that are greater resource hogs or that simultaneously decide to impose new license restrictions (e.g., WGA).
I'm quite capable of keeping track of security issues and doing updates on MY schedule rather than whatever dumb system the program uses. There's nothing worse than having a perfectly-functional system start popping up "Update for application X is now ready -- do you want to install and reboot now?" messages in the middle of an important presentation, or discovering the hard way that the latest version is riddled with bugs and/or incompatibilities with other software.
Auto-update should be OFF by default, and the user should be asked whether they want to enable it at the time of installation. I'm sick of presumptuous auto-update functionality. It's a cure that is often worse than the disease.
"Armed with more concise USER-AGENT version information, popular websites could also visually alert users (see Figure 6) to the fact that their Web browser is operating beyond its 'best before' date and any missing updates (including providing shortcuts to the location of appropriate updates)."
As I said elsewhere in the thread, it's not the web designers' job to make sure users have the latest browser version.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
For a huge number of people, upgrading to the most recent version of Internet Explorer means buying a new operating system.
When a home user buys a new computer to run Windows, possibly to replace an older computer whose components cannot keep up with newer tasks such as video editing, doesn't he or she already buy a new copy of the operating system with it?
Make your webpage target the standards in such a way that it looks stupid but still readable on IE, and put a button on every page for IE users that explains why the page looks like shit and where to get Firefox.
That's what End 6 is about, right?
Web designers often design around functionality, not browser versions. It's not uncommon for Javascript to check if a function exists before using it.
True, JavaScript programs should use "object detection" when possible to sniff the presence of DOM objects and methods rather than make assumptions based on User-agent strings. But in some cases, a method is present in multiple implementations albeit with different behaviors, such as the way different browsers handle mouse positions in events: relative to the screen, the document, or the visible portion of the document. How should a JavaScript program sniff for that?
Maybe it is because IE is at their job. Maybe they don't have administrative rights. Maybe their IT department doesn't want to upgrade.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I wonder: does that "using an old Firefox version" percentage consider that Firefox (and its branded derivatives) on Linux does not have this "auto update" feature?
I can certainly see people not upgrading to the latest version for a number of months if it requires the newer browser version to make it into the distributions' downstream for users to install. (For instance, Debian still packages a Firefox (Iceweasel) 2.x version.)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Am I the only one who after upgrading to FF3 a few weeks back, have issues with Gmail? Every time, and I do mean every time, I go to Gmail in FF3 the stupid thing scrolls to the bottom of the page, and to read my latest email I have to actually scroll up.
This occurs even after I re-installed my entire machine(Always remember what details you store in your mbr and try not to destroy it) and put FF3 on clean.
I've bug reported it with the FF3 bug tool, and nothing. A user said that the guys who develop FF normally fix on a daily basis, well they must have some seriously long days where they code then.
This cluster was a browser breaker, I've had to go back to IE 7 for my Gmail to work properly!!!!
I recently came up with very different stats: http://www.thelifeofbrian.info/blog/2008/07/03/firefox-3-world-domination/
...while I'm running Firefox 2 now, all it's attempted to do (both automatically and manually) is update me to 2.0.1.1 or whatever. The one-click easyness of the update seems to be lost when it won't download the really big new version the same way as everything else.
If this is not an isolated deal, and if FF3 is counted as the most 'up to date' browser (which is kind of silly because it was just released), it's plausible that this could account for some of the numbers.
Make me a sandwich.
I don't update Opera because loading 100 tabs is always a chore.
There is also the problem that my profile is stored in a non-default location and updating always requires me to change shortcuts to use this folder which is annoying.
Perhaps if loading a session with this many tabs was less laggy, I'd do it more often.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.