Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 43 Arrives With 64-bit Version For Windows, Android Tab Audio Indicators (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today launched Firefox 43 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Notable additions to the browser include a 64-bit version for Windows (finally!), a new strict blocklist for the browser's tracking protection feature, and tab audio indicators on Android. "There is, however, a bit of a caveat. Firefox 64-bit for Windows has limited support for plugins. Certain sites that require plugins and work in Firefox 32-bit might not work in this 64-bit version. But Mozilla doesn’t see this as a big problem, and says it is by design. After all, the company plans to drop support for NPAPI plugins in Firefox by the end of the year (though it will keep Flash around). Mozilla has just over two weeks to deliver on that promise." Here are the changelogs: desktop and Android.

102 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. By Design by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But Mozilla doesnâ(TM)t see this as a big problem, and says it is by design.

    Yes, the shittyness of Firefox is by design.

    1. Re:By Design by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Netscape has never been able to actually pay attention to what the users of its browser want. The new netscape, which you kids know as mozilla, is behaving 100% EXACTLY like the old Netscape ...

      Firefox stopped being the best browser right about the time ie6 was deprecated. Yes, IE sucks, but FF sucks more actually.

      This is all simply an extension of their inability to write a browser.

      Not that they don't have some talented developers, they do ... but they just let them do whatever they want and have no focus on actually delivering something users want, so they keep coming up with all these retarded silly side projects and all these retarded bloated 'features' in firefox ... its only taken them 15 years to realize doing everything in XPCOM and JavaScript was a fucking stupid idea.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:By Design by bhcompy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it's the browser with the best implementation of NoScript. Thus, it is indispensable.

    3. Re:By Design by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For me it is "Tree Style Tabs". Unfortunately, Mozilla plans to phase out the current extension framework in favor of something more along the lines of what Chrome does - so we'll both be screwed shortly. But in the meantime, Firefox's killer feature is its extensions.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:By Design by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's wrong with acting exactly like how the older product worked? Newer is not better. A web browser is simple, it doesn't need biweekly changes to its UI. the old Netscape was just fine. Web browser as an application platform is the dumb idea. DRM in browsers is a dumb idea.

      If firefox goes away then there is literally nothing left. A browser must support adblock and noscript, as well as general purpose plugins.

    5. Re:By Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What actually is wrong with Firefox then?

      Works fine for me. I can't discern much difference between FF and Chrome for all the modern day HTML I throw at it.

      FF uses less memory and run my JS a bit faster. Not that I worry about that much.

      I just attended a Microsoft gig where they were enthusing about the Edge browser and how they had ripped out a ton of non-standards compliant junk from it whilst at the same time adding support for defacto standards implemented by FF, Chrome, Safari and Opera.

      The sooner all browsers drop support for silly plug-ins like Java, FLASH and Silverlight the better as far as I am concerned.

    6. Re:By Design by Excelcia · · Score: 2

      Palemoon

    7. Re:By Design by RevRagnarok · · Score: 1

      I am also a huge fan of that extension and will mourn when it dies.

      --
      I should put something clever here. Maybe someday.
    8. Re:By Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What actually is wrong with Firefox then?

      Works fine for me. I can't discern much difference between FF and Chrome for all the modern day HTML I throw at it.

      That's the issue, it's constantly trying to be more like Chrome but anyone who wants Chrome is already using Chrome. Many of us used Firefox because it wasn't like Chrome, at least we have Pale Moon.

    9. Re:By Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Firefox is not written or developed by volunteers.

      Where exactly have the _millions_ of dollars the Mozilla foundation spent been going exactly?

    10. Re:By Design by nevermore94 · · Score: 2

      I think this removal of NPAPI is highly premature. Chrome removed it earlier this year leaving Firefox as the best non-IE choice for my needs. Our company relies on 2 different browser based products, one for our thousand employees remotdesktopping into our company and another for our employees remote VPN connecting into thousands of customer servers. Both of these products require NPAPI to function. So, I will either have to stay on an old version of Firefox or be forced to use IE until the providers of these products get their software updated.

      --
      Nevermore.
    11. Re:By Design by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Firefox suffers from the syndrome known as "Bikeshedding".

      They long ago abandoned what should be their core focus -- fix bugs, improve performance and implement new standards as needed (CSS 3, HTML 5) -- and have focused instead on endless tinkering, completely destroying the UI and a parade of useless new "features".

    12. Re:By Design by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time there was a project called nspluginwrapper that allowed 64bit Firefox on Linux to run 32bit plugins such as Flash.

      I think it needs a new maintainer because non-Windows operating systems made the transition to 64 bit browsers some time ago.

    13. Re:By Design by PRMan · · Score: 1

      There are security problems and plugins are constantly fighting with each other over the same resource.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    14. Re: By Design by unencode200x · · Score: 1

      Ditto! Between ABP, NoScript, TreeStyle Tabs and Sync I can't give up FF just yet.

      --

      Chance favors the prepared mind.
      Perfect is the enemy of good.
    15. Re:By Design by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro. Now what does that have to do with Mozilla? Did Mozilla fire all its employees?

    16. Re:By Design by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      do you think 64-bit Flash will be less prone to exploits?)

      Yes, for things like ASLR to actually be useful at exploit mitigation you need a 64-bit OS.

    17. Re:By Design by sfosparky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was not familiar with the term "bikeshedding". Now I am -- thanks for that. And I was delighted to learn the term in the context of Firefox's constant breaking of the browser's U.I. for no good reason. Thanks to the many of other commentors who have articulated in their own different ways what I too believe about Firefox's usability destroying "upgrades". When I first heard about another FF "upgrade", my first reaction was to wonder, what part of the user interface that didn't need changing was going to be destroyed this time?

    18. Re:By Design by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm all for fixing the security problems. Moving stuff around on the UI has nothing to do with security.

    19. Re:By Design by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Except as TFS points out they are killing the plug in framework thus making their transformation into a shitty ersatz Chrome complete.

      If you wish to keep your extensions I suggest you migrate to either Pale Moon or Comodo Icedragon as both of those have forked away and will be keeping the extension framework. The main difference is that Icedragon has the new style UI, Pale Moon has kept the original FF UI, so you can simply pick which UI suits you best and call it a day.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    20. Re:By Design by ewhac · · Score: 1
      I dunno; the uMatrix plugin looks very interesting, and seems to have a lot more flexibility than NoScript. NoScript blocks/enables script domains globally, whereas uMatrix will allow script domains to run depending on the domain of the page they're running on. This means you can let Facebook scripts run while viewing Facebook pages, but block them from running on any other site.

      uMatrix doesn't offer defenses against Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exploits, or provide Application Boundary Enforcement (ABE). The consensus among uMatrix users appears to be to install NoScript for its XSS and ABE features, but turn off its script blocking, leaving that task to uMatrix.

    21. Re:By Design by davester666 · · Score: 1

      "Shitty by Design" So, they've been paying royalties to Microsoft to be permitted to do this?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    22. Re:By Design by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

      I've used mozilla for ages and version 42 was total crap, just loaded v43 and hope the bugs were squashed

      --
      Go well
    23. Re:By Design by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I've been using uMatrix for years but I use it with Opera. It's nice that you FF folks finally got it. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    24. Re:By Design by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      NoScript is an extension, not a plugin. Those are two completely different kinds of addons. Mozilla's quite particular about that distinction.

      Extensions are the things we all know and love, like uBlock, NoScript, GreaseMonkey etc. Plugins are things like Flash, the Java web plugin for running applets, Google Update, Silverlight, and so on. For the most part we really don't need plugins.

    25. Re:By Design by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Netscape was just fine

      Seamonkey still exists so use that. The more people who support it, the more likely it will continue to be maintained.

      Web browser as an application platform is the dumb idea

      Demonstrably false.

      DRM in browsers is a dumb idea.

      Demonstrably false.

    26. Re:By Design by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many extensions and themes will be broken/unusable after this update...

      --
      No sig today...
    27. Re:By Design by Merk42 · · Score: 2

      What actually is wrong with Firefox then?

      It doesn't solve 100% of the uses cases for 100% of people, therefore it is shit. I, of course, know what makes the perfect browser, but will not do anything to make it happen lest I be shown to be unsuccessful.

    28. Re:By Design by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      32 bit saves memory use and storage (the latter by not needing duplicate libraries for running both 32 bit and 64 bit software)

      That makes it still important. Same thing on a random old 64bit-capable desktop : they're mostly starved for RAM so running a 32 bit OS (or at least 32 bit Firefox) is very much worth it.
      "Every processor runs 64 bit" and "RAM is cheap" are pointless arguments when you're stuck at 1GB or 2GB and there's no way or cheap way around it.

    29. Re:By Design by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      There are forged SSL for man in the middle in Comodo products. It is the same as Superfish or whatever that Lennovo thing that hit last year.

      Time to let Mozilla die or have someone fork it into something new. While in 2004 it was cutting edge and cleaned up compared to the dung of Netscape that preceeded it still in Mozilla suite it is stale again and not flexible which is why Google gave up on making a gecko Chrome and switched to Webkit during development.

    30. Re:By Design by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      IE is on life support now too, MS is only really interested in developing Edge which, you guessed it, doesn't support NPAPI. For your company's needs, the best solution would be to create a little script that runs IE in "kiosk mode", where basically it hides the address bar, navigation buttons and so forth and just displays the web page. You can basically turn the NPAPI based site into a kinda native looking app, while not giving the user a way to navigate to other sites where they might be infected.

      I'm for the removal of NPAPI. It was a horrible system, plug-ins could crash the browser and has unlimited access to every part of it. Worse still apps could slyly install NPAPI plug-ins into your browser without permission, and it x86 only too.

      Chrome has a new API called Native Client that is a vast improvement and completely open. Most importantly it is secure, and flaws in a plug-in won't open the entire browser to exploits.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:By Design by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      That blog post keeps a little bit of hope alive, but honestly it also raises alarm bells. It's clear they are moving ahead with a strategy that they have not clearly thought out. The good news for us little folk is that they are doomed to fail with the current approach.

      Our big fear is that, once we provide a WebExtensions API, there won’t be anything to motivate people to switch over to it.

      They are right to be afraid, because without a clear answer to this, that is exactly what will happen.

      Kind of sad that they will spend so much time on a failed effort, but it's not my money and not my effort.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    32. Re:By Design by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Because you're stupid or willfully ignorant?

    33. Re:By Design by whopub · · Score: 1

      Privacy Badger was disabled after the upgrade.

    34. Re:By Design by jjbenz · · Score: 1

      agreed, that's one reason why I haven't jumped on the chrome bandwagon.

    35. Re:By Design by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      If it is superior, people will use it. If it is inferior, people won't use it. Pretty straightforward. They should be scared because they are implementing an inferior solution.

    36. Re:By Design by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Both of these products require NPAPI to function.

      Some applications require IE5 to work. Your point?

    37. Re:By Design by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that every web app should actually be distributed as a native binary or source code. Which you will then install. Clearly you've not thought that through.

      Without DRM, commercial enterprises which need to have a modicum of control over their content in order to even license it for streaming in the first place simply wouldn't exist. We'd have far less choice.

    38. Re:By Design by evolighting · · Score: 1

      No mater how right your word may sound, it can be covered simply by "I dont like it"

  2. Time to upgrade by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Well, time to upgrade.

    1. Re:Time to upgrade by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Well, time to upgrade.

      To what?

    2. Re:Time to upgrade by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Chrome. Now before anyone mentions calling home to Google and spying on you, can anyone demonstrate this behavior? Surely by now someone has captured packets of what is being sent.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    3. Re:Time to upgrade by jlv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I won't use Chrome again until there is a reliable way to prevent extensions from auto-updating. I got tired of finding out "surprise!" that something that worked yesterday is no longer around because the extension has gone "pay".

    4. Re:Time to upgrade by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Chrome has all the disadvantages of Firefox, but from Google. Rapid fire unnecessary updates unrelated to security, dropping of support for plugins, development oriented towards developers rather than users, frequent kissing of advertising butts, etc.

    5. Re:Time to upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every time you go to a google site (google, gmail, etc), it "calls home". And it leaves plenty of traces. Of course, it's not forcing people to do that. But it encourages.

      But yes, it also calls home by itself by insidiously installing google Keystone at the first opportunity.

    6. Re:Time to upgrade by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      Chrome was severely broken from the Dec 2nd to the 8th due to the 48.x upgrade, NTLM didnt work with squid based proxy servers. It broke offices around the world for a week, since chrome auto updates. And if you're a google office user, it impacted your entire company.

      Google knew about this issue in regression, fixed it, yet it still made it into production code due to the "devops" mentality..
      https://code.google.com/p/chro...

      A major problem with firefox, it doesnt support installed certificates in windows. Chrome does. We use certificates tied to the users PC/VM with google office, so users cant log into google email except from their 1 verified instance. (and tied to their mobile iron on the apple/android phone)....

      I WANT to use Firefox, but I'm tied to Chrome if I want to read my mail. (we have pop/imap/apps turned off too, since we don't have password access, sigh, i miss thunderbird...)

      And this monday, keepass stopped working with my chrome and firefox on my linux box, and firefox uses keefox, chrome uses chromelpass..

      JAVA! I still use it for dell idracs, but I cant use chrome to access idracs now. And Firefox with its dell signed ssl cert issues, sigh, always deleteing them after adding them so they dont conflict.

      I'm not happy with browsers in general, continuously breaking, non compatible apps..

    7. Re:Time to upgrade by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

      Chrome has all the disadvantages of Firefox

      Really? Because video on Firefox sucks ass, but on Chrome it's slicker than snot.

    8. Re:Time to upgrade by labnet · · Score: 2

      Does chrome support tree tabs as well as the firefox treetabs extension. (I dropped chrome because I could find no such functionality)
      I don't know how people browse without vertical tabs (I usually have 60+ tabs open at a time)

      --
      46137
    9. Re:Time to upgrade by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

      Chome's UI is shit and can't be changed. One of the best features of Firefox has always been the ability to rearrange things exactly how I want, instead of being forced to use what someone else dictates. Of course Firefox eliminated much that a while back in their quest to be more like Chrome.

    10. Re:Time to upgrade by alantus · · Score: 1

      A major problem with firefox, it doesnt support installed certificates in windows. Chrome does.

      What you mean is that it uses its own certificate storage instead of the one provided by the OS. The same happens in Linux.

      But what is even more ridiculous is that Firefox and Thunderbird don't even share a certificate storage.

      What they should do is implement a build time option like --ca-cert-store=...
      Then I could specify something like: /etc/ssl/cacert.pem or some special keyword to indicate Windows' thingy.

    11. Re:Time to upgrade by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      I meant upgrade from the previous version of Firefox to the latest version. Most of my browsing is in Chromium.

    12. Re:Time to upgrade by rsborg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Chrome has all the disadvantages of Firefox

      Really? Because video on Firefox sucks ass, but on Chrome it's slicker than snot.

      What are you running, a Dual-Pentium?

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    13. Re:Time to upgrade by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oh sweety, Chrome doesn't have anywhere NEAR all the disadvantages of firefox.

    14. Re:Time to upgrade by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      1st off Chrome is designed to be updated frequently without breaking. Firefox is not. I never hear of things break between releases besides a few small bugs here and there that get rapidly fixed.

      IE 6 had the same bugs for a freaking decade. Slashdot is now conservative and hates updates for anything but frequent updates mean web developers do not have to incorporate bugs and hacks that only work with certain versions as they get fixed fast.

      The plugin model is designed to interface least in Webkit browsers so it is not a problem.

      FYI IE is still around but gets updated every 12 to 18 months if updates scare you.With this approach IE is now w3c standards complaint and even supports adblock plus and HTML 5 and CSS 3.1.

    15. Re:Time to upgrade by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      But look at what Mozilla is doing to Firefox? They keep taking features away and locking stuff away with the GUI. Meantime Google is more limited with it's plugins and extensions but is designed with software engineering not to break.

      I never hear of people angry Chrome got updated. Only Firefox which shows me it has a problem. IE used to be painful at work but now since it is W3C complaint as long as the intranet apps are updated it is no problem for updates. Can't say the same with Firefox

    16. Re:Time to upgrade by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your IT department needs to look into this

      http://www.google.com/intl/en_...

      Google has GPOs and tools to integrate with active directory for pushes so your sys admins can control that

  3. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which about:config preferences do I have to mess with to disable all the unwanted "features" in this version?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Which about:config preferences do I have to mess with to disable all the unwanted "features" in this version?

      browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete to false will remove the worthless "Search For..." entry from the autocomplete dropdown when typing in the URL bar.

    2. Re:So... by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Start with "about:config?filter=browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete" - also consider "about:config?filter=xpinstall.signatures.required" if you need to use unsigned addons.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:So... by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete to false will remove the worthless "Search For..." entry from the autocomplete dropdown when typing in the URL bar.

      Thank you! That was driving me insane.

    4. Re:So... by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Thank you. First thing I spent this morning googling to fix.

  4. Wait by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Did you guys hear something?

    1. Re:Wait by PRMan · · Score: 1

      No. But then again I ignore people that want to save IE6...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  5. Recently tried out the nightly builds v.45 64bit by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So I'm a bit of a Firefox loony, maybe visible from my post history.

    I've been a "hardcore" web browser, ever since using NetCaptor (a shell replacement for Internet Explorer which offered tabbed browsing, IIRC the first tabbed browser)
    Anyhow, I like Chrome performance but GREATLY dislike my ability to customise it, specifically tab control (which tab will the app go to if I close the current tab, left or right? will a new tab open in the foreground? what if I middle click a URL, foreground / background?)

    I've loved FireFox for years, but the 32bit builds are frankly, unstable dog shit for me, crash extremely regularly.
    I switched maybe 12 to 18 months back to WaterFox, some dude compiling up the 64bit code of FireFox and packaging it. It runs exactly the same as FireFox for me, all plugins work and it virtually never crashes. Problem is, as an "extreme" browser (anywhere from 30 to 300 tabs open at a time) FireFox / WaterFox can get slow.
    REALLY slow, CTRL-TAB to change tab? Can take .5 to 3 seconds. Clicking some buttons can be slow to react. Generally after a few seconds of switching into a tab though, it responds /mostly/ ok (Don't even think about Flash Video in a tab though, I just put that into Chrome and drop it on to a second monitor)
    I just checked, I currently have 393 tabs open (working on getting this down) of all the things I'm currently reading / researching etc.

    So to get to the point,.....
    I was hoping that E10s (Electrolysis, multi-threaded Firefox) would fix my problems, when it finally got better. I installed said nightly builds and I have to report that sadly. The performance difference between WaterFox and standard 64bit FF Nightly 45 (with E10s) virtually identical to one and other.
    I've confirmed E10s is on and being a nerd but without programming skills, I kind of blindly, optimistically figured, hey, latest builds, 64bit official, e10s, I bet if anything nightly might be less stable but fast as hell!
    Not in the slightest, it really is virtually identical :/ the one surprising thing I'd say is it's stable as heck for me. I notice almost no different between WaterFox and Nightly 45.
    Note: I did try this, with and without my plugins to make FF nice and usable.

    For what it's worth, my #1 plugin I can't live without is Tab Mix Plus. That fine control on tab behaviour and the fact I'm an extensive keyboard shortcut guy, makes the browser far, far more usable for me. I'd say I browse between 4 to 12 hours a day, every day.

    Please note, I do COMPLETELY realise that running in excess of 30 to 50 tabs is ridiculous, but back 6 years ago, I could do this under FF32 and while it was unstable, the performance of the primary UI for FF was fine.
    All I want the damn code to do is HIGHLY prioritise the current tab in front of the user and HIGHLY prioritise the ability to switch tabs, preferably the ones nearby (left, right of the active tab) - the process of going between them shouldn't be slow. Considering I've got 4 threads at my disposal here, it's a bit of a shame.

    At least it's stable and at least I can control the behaviour and look, how I like. I think Googles stubborn attitude towards Chrome is ghastly, personally.

  6. Does it still have Pocket? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Has Pocket been removed yet?

    1. Re:Does it still have Pocket? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The first thing I do is Customize that crap right off the toolbar... Doesn't make it go away, though.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Does it still have Pocket? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Isn't flipping "about:config?filter=browser.pocket.enabled" enough?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Does it still have Pocket? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a pocket add-on have been enough? Why does this function that only benefits a commercial company need to be built into the core browser rather than them making an add-on like anyone else?

  7. Firefox 43.... by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The version number almost says it all. How can you get excited about a new Firefox release with any feature, when it's just another rapid release. It could have true hard AI and no one would notice any more. It would get lost in the staggeringly mediocre array of non-features nobody wants, forced UI changes, broken addons, and developers that decide they know more about what people want than the users do.

    Firefox adopted Google's rapid release cycle on a project that it was neither technically nor culturally suited for. One has to actually admire their dogged persistence to holding course in the face of what is an almost a completely unified chorus of "WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE?!?!?".

    I recommend Palemoon. A fork of the previous Firefox LTR, it has refused to add features unless they make sense, is compatible with most addons, and has its own growing body of its own addon developers that are quite loyal to the project for the simple reason that the project remains loyal to them. That's not to say that it's a static browser. Just one that took the best of what Firefox was and decided to continue in the direction of sensible goals and not alienating its user base.

    1. Re:Firefox 43.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sadly palemoon has decided not to support MSE (Media Source Extensions), which means no 1080 hd videos from youtube. This may not be huge issue for some but is killer for me. Every browser sucks in some ways..

  8. Hooray! by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Same problem every other 64bit browser has that uses plugin made under designs from 20 years ago

    But with 64 bits, Firefox will finally be able to address all the memory it uses!

    1. Re:Hooray! by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      That would be lovely, now if only Firefox kept track of all that memory it uses, we might get somewhere.

      Try it out. Use Firefox for a day or so, check out the various system memory usages. Close Tabs. Hell close whole windows...
      Although it might freeze up for 1-10 minutes while it tries to figure out what to do now. The one thing it definitely wont do though is give up the precious ram.
      Yeah... still using 2.5 Gigs FF Developer (or Nightly) --- which has been available as 64 bit for more than a year.

    2. Re:Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Firefox has used less memory than Chrome since 3-4 years ago. Quite a bit less, actually.

    3. Re:Hooray! by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I've been running firefox continuously on my development machine since early september. It's still only using 400 MB of RAM. I'm pretty sure that firefox using a lot of memory is due to some extension or plug-in that people are using. Because I've never seen Firefox using 2 GB of memory when I was running plain old Firefox without any extensions.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Hooray! by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you are correct. Yet if an extension uses memory - Firefox should know --- and when you close windows (and tabs) then that RAM should be released. Yet that is not the case. Unlike every other browser - that memory in use becomes nearly untouchable until you close and restart Firefox.

    5. Re:Hooray! by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      about:memory is about as useful as a wet dull stick.

    6. Re:Hooray! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      What kind of uptime do you have on FF? Whenever I use FF, with no addons, and never close it, after a month, it uses more memory than Chrome. At least Chrome frees up its memory as your close the windows. /myexperience

    7. Re:Hooray! by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      There is a plugin that unload tabs by default and reloads them when you click on them again. It makes a huge difference if you run firefox for extended periods of time.

  9. It's 64 bit now? by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    It's 64 bit now? Woo Hoo! I can wait faster!

    1. Re:It's 64 bit now? by alantus · · Score: 2

      It's been 64 bit for almost six years.

      $ file /usr/lib/firefox/firefox

      /usr/lib/firefox/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs)

      Strange, I get a different output:

      C:\>file /usr/lib/firefox/firefox
      'file' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
      operable program or batch file.

    2. Re:It's 64 bit now? by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      I used the 48 bit intermediary version for a while. It had less bite that the 64.

  10. Can't upgrade by DeHackEd · · Score: 2

    Remember back when IE 6 refused to die because corporations had ActiveX stuff that prevented upgrading? NPAPI has become like that as well. I can't upgrade because I have apps that run as Java applets and I'll lose them. I already can't use Chrome...

    So, here's to vendors migrating away from Java and issuing updates I guess...

    (And I find it ironic that Flash gets some kind of exception even though even Adobe wants it dead.)

  11. Re:All You Need Is a Thunk! by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    I think a thunk is a thought I had some time ago.

  12. Why the instability in Firefox? FF dies? Pale Moon by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Informative

    To me, the most important feature of Firefox is the add-ons. I like Session Manager, for example.

    Question about Firefox: Microsoft's Process Explorer shows that Firefox uses the CPU while no Firefox windows are in the foreground. Why? Firefox's CPU use is especially intense when many windows and tabs are open. Also Process Explorer shows that often Firefox continually adds memory to its "Private Bytes" and "Working Set", even when there is no Again, why?

    Someone above mentioned Pale Moon. Pale Moon has a 64-bit edition.

    Joke:
    Instead of browser.pocket.enabled = false in Firefox, try:
    browser.adult.supervision.enabled = true in Pale Moon. (Not a real Pale Moon choice, of course.)

    Pale Moon has tools for backup and migration. Adblock Latitude blocks ads. There are other Pale Moon ad-ons, and usually Firefox add-ons work perfectly.

    "Pale Moon Commander ... provides a user-friendly interface to advanced preferences that would otherwise require manual editing of parameters, which can be cumbersome and time-consuming to do."

  13. Re:Recently tried out the nightly builds v.45 64bi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, a browser not being able to handle 50 tabs is ridiculous. That's like a document editor that fails after 100 pages (or all the text editors that crap out when you have 0.5MB of text on a single line). I use Firefox with under 2500 tabs. Anything over 1500 and Firefox starts crapping all over itself, but I've been up to around 2500 before (most of these are suspended tabs, though they seem to take up far more resources than they should. Suspended tabs should be the equivalent of bookmarks but they aren't.) I search for something or go to a site like Slashdot and open up every link or article I'd like to read as new tabs. Then I go through each tab closing as I finish. Many pages have more interesting links, so the tabs tend to grow faster than I consume them. I could use bookmarks, but I really like the contextual info tabs give you. I can scroll through my tab bar and remember what I was thinking about when dealing with tabs from that time. They show the thought pattern I had at the time and make it easier to pick up where I left off. Bookmarks don't give you that. Bookmarks force you to try to organize them in some way. My tabs are self organizing.

    Using so many tabs really brings out some horrible design decisions Firefox has. GIFs and animations keep playing in other tabs. They shouldn't. There's no reason for the stupid flashing background to keep flashing when you're not looking at it but it does. The animated download arrow is super annoying. The entire browser freezes when that thing plays and the animation freezes while whatever was downloaded gets saved to disk. Why it takes 2-5 seconds to save a 1MB image I have no idea, but that's how long it takes the browser to process it even when the webpage (which has the image and a bunch of other content) loaded faster than that. Clearing the download history reduces the frozen time... WTF is up with that? Adding something to a download database should be a constant time operation no matter how big the database is. What's going on under the hood?

  14. Re:All You Need Is a Thunk! by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    As I posted earlier, there was a solution for *nix known as nspluginwrapper.

  15. Re:can someone explain why it lagged so much on Wi by OhPlz · · Score: 2

    I remember using Minefield at least as far back at 2010, a bit earlier I think. So it was there for Windows, it just wasn't a fully legit release that you could get from the normal download page. It worked fine for nearly everything including plugins, although as mentioned Flash was a problem if you cared about Flash. I jumped over to Palemoon when the CEO thing happened at Mozilla, it had 64 bit as a regular download. Why it took Firefox so long.. hey, they have a lot of useless features to add and useful features to remove. It takes time!

  16. Re:Recently tried out the nightly builds v.45 64bi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At first I used windows, then I suffered massive tab loss while doing a research project. Next I used the Tab Group Manager plugin (tabs of tabs), which is awesome, but sadly the developer never came back after a natural disaster and it now has compatibility issues. Session manager and Tab Mix Manager are good enough for me now. If Firefox starts swapping when it's taking up GBs of memory then it doesn't crash. When it doesn't swap it crashes. I don't know why it works sometimes and not at other times.

  17. 64-bit questions... by antdude · · Score: 1

    Can we still use the same extensions, addons, etc.? Or do we have to get separate 64-bit versions? Speaking of separatation, does 64-bit Firefox install a different location?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:64-bit questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It now installs in Program Files unlike the versions before - in Program Files (x86).

    2. Re:64-bit questions... by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I expect most add-ons will work, the way they do already across different versions of Firefox running on different operating systems. Sounds like plugins won't work though I wonder why Firefox-64 doesn't just ship with a 32-bit x86 plugin-container executable. Maybe something about the Wow64 / thunking stops them from doing it or maybe there is no point if they're getting rid of plugins entirely.

  18. Lightning Fast by nowsharing · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just moved to the 64-bit FF and it's lightning fast and my entire big list of extensions still work perfectly. I'm really impressed. My only gripe is that the about:config hack to restore the old drop-down search engine list isn't working yet. The string is still there though, so I assume it will come back to life eventually.

  19. Prefer Firefox but stop the Chrome spies lies by xenoc_1 · · Score: 1

    That same seven year old page explains how every single one of those features can be disabled. Directly in the Chrome options or by using a non-Google search engine.

    Hell, just create your own query string as your Google.com[.localcountry] and you can use Google for your default search while still not sending the RLZ string.

    That's all before adding any privacy/content blockers.

    So the question still stands, where's the proof that Chrome tracks you and reports what you do back to Google?

    Rational people who don't have an agenda know it doesn't, if set up properly, even before adding extensions. As one of them, I'm not afraid that Chrome does secret "conspiracy theory" stuff. With uBlock Origin added using additional blacklists, Ghostery (yes, I know they're part of the advice industry, they're honest about it and their tracking is ethically opt-in), Referrer Control, and one of IxQuick, StartPage, or DuckDuckGo as my default search, I am quite satisfied that Chrome doesn't "track me around the web".

    There are reasons I still prefer and use Firefox or Firefox-derived browsers as my "daily driver", a switch back to that browser family I made about 2 years ago after a half-decade of Chrome preferences. But some loony "Chrome spies on everything you do" conspiracy nonsense isn't any part of my reasons. And I still do use Chrome too, at least several times weekly, for certain things sites it does better.

    Maybe when the crazed Mozillians finish screwing up FF beyond the ability of CTR and Status-4-Evar, I'll go back to Chrome, Chromium, ironically a Chromium-based non-sleazy (rules out Iron and Dragon/Chromodo) browser. By then, Moonchild may also have screwed up Pale Moon enough in his quixotic attempt to remove all Firefox compatibility, so that the Chrome family is the only viable choice.

    But until then, while I'm using a Mozilla-based browser, I'm still not giving in to nor spreading the unsubstantiated nonsense that Chrome spies on everything you do.

    By the way, out of the box, Firefox reports back all the same types of things as does Chrome without turning off its defaults. And neither browser is necessarily "being evil" - Many people like search suggestions, typo correction, Safe Search, predictive page load, and/or localized search.

    I don't, many technologists and sophisticated users don't like and use them, but those are valuable services for the "typical web user". Which services obviously need "what is the user doing" data sent to the browser maker and/or partner service providers, in order to do such things.

    Make the browser choice for reasons, not FUD.

    Posted from Mobile Aurora (Android equivalent to Firefox Developer Edition).

  20. Re:Recently tried out the nightly builds v.45 64bi by Merk42 · · Score: 1

    Please note, I do COMPLETELY realise that running in excess of 30 to 50 tabs is ridiculous, but back 6 years ago, I could do this under FF32 and while it was unstable, the performance of the primary UI for FF was fine.

    Whoa. FF32 had a time travel feature?

  21. It's getting worse and worse by burbilog · · Score: 1

    This update broke my Tree Style Tabs and ScrapBook Plus. It was relatively easy to fix Tree Syle Tabs, it was possible to reinstall the extension, but they completely blocked ScrapBook Plus!!! Ok, I installed ScrapBook X, but it seems they are on the quest to kill the best extensions. Next time they will kill ScrapBook X and then I'll have scrapbook directory with years of precious saved pages and no way to view them.

  22. Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host by dave420 · · Score: 1

    You are presenting a very one-sided appraisal of the abilities of your software. There are plenty of things HOSTS files can't fix, but browser extensions can. Your dishonesty is staggering, but unfortunately not unexpected.

  23. Re:Recently tried out the nightly builds v.45 64bi by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    I think Googles stubborn attitude towards Chrome is ghastly, personally.

    Does this sound like Microsoft and IE 15 years ago to anyone else?

  24. I'm fed up with slowness, bring e10s and kill the by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    Bring e10s and kill the old extensions, even XUL if it be although I've always liked it.

    Likely most everyone is fed up now, users are less technical than ever too and so good luck explaining them that the browser making 5-second pauses all the time is good for them.
    On a former story's comment someone compared it to Mac OS 9, which is about right. Mac OS 9 was a consumer OS from the 1980s, but sold around 1999. It was killing the parent company.

    I'm sorry for you people with extension XYZ but extensions are updated, rewritten, replaced by something else or just die. There may be workarounds too : install developer or custom edition, disable e10s, install the unsigned old extension.
    I do fine with a handful vital extensions instead of hoarding them. In fact over the years Firefox incorporated features such as crash recovery, opening text-only links etc. though there's been some dumb crap (removing setting to disable images? etc.)
    And Flash doesn't even get killed yet if you still want it. Yes I'm a fairly traditional user (most applications must have a menu bar), tradition includes having Flash available and I still kind of like it.

  25. Re:Why the instability in Firefox? FF dies? Pale M by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Chrome has Session Buddy. I only just found it. https://chrome.google.com/webs...

  26. unsigned extensions disabled following update by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

    After updating to v43.0 this morning (32-bit version), I found that the Avira Browser Safety extension had been auto-disabled. This extension is unsigned by Mozilla but, coming from Avira, can surely be trusted. That decision, IMHO, should ultimately rest with the user, not with Mozilla.

    To re-enable it, it was necessary to turn off signature checking for all extensions (xpinstall.signatures.required) -- a somewhat risky and therefore perhaps sketchy measure. To re-install it, it was necessary to manually download the extension .xpi file and install it from a local file because Firefox now refuses outright to install any unsigned extension from a website.

    --
    licet differant, aequabitur
  27. Re:All You Need Is a Thunk! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    All plugins in Firefox run under plugincontainer.exe, which talks to the main firefox process. There is no reason why plugincontainer.exe couldn't be a 32bit process and the main Firefox process 64bit.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  28. Re:All You Need Is a Thunk! by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    Most of the thoughts in my head are spam.