Gaming Firefox 3.6 released

[jgu1994]

Doesn't feel faster to me, feels a bit slower tbh. Also, I'm hating that scroll wheel clicking opens a new tab next to the current one, and not all the way to the right.

 

[Hakoda]

hmmmm very interesting...

I have to say that when it comes to start-up times.... Google Chrome wins *FIXED*

but when it comes loading web pages, Firefox wins due to its better built engine PPP

~ Jon

Unfair!

Why would you do a 'start-up test' when Firefox already has addons on and Chrome doesn't? Do a test without add-ons!

Nononono That's what i did. I disabled all add-ons which were not necessary. THEN launched Firefox. Its launch time was about a second behind Chrome's. Of course I wouldn't run a test WITH add-ons installed. That completely and utterly stupid. You could do the same just by adding extensions to Chrome.

~ Jon

Then why did you say "lag from addons"?

Wow. *bitch slap in the face for me* Now I see what you're saying... fail on my part... My bad. incorrect wording. no clue why firefox is slower, chrome is faster

On another note I disabled all plugins as well and Firefox is now only half a second behind Chrome. (perhaps is because firefox loads its plugins like startup programs in windows... all trying to load at once... im not sure cuz they were all disabled, interesting... & when I say plugins I mean the items in the plugins tab of the add-ons dialog box. Plugins are not the same as add-ons that you download to personalize Firefox.) Note that the plugins that were disabled in Firefox are enabled in Google Chrome. (eg Adobe Flash, Adobe Reader, Java, ect)

Sorry about the confusion.

~ Jon

 

[zeromac]

Nvm, im downloading 3.6 now

 

[kobykaan]

for those that have addon problems use the NIGHTLY TESTER tools addon and it should force /override compatibility with your addons/themes etc that don't work

 

[Cyan]

This post is the full version (for curious people how wants to understand how add-ons are working), for shorter and quicker solution, see Urza's solution or my next one, few post bellow.

I wanna update to 3.6, but one of my most used extensions, save image in folder hasn't been updated yet.

a little history :
Long time ago (Firefox 1.0, before 1.5), when add-ons started to work and needed manually install (and no uninstall possible), they used a manifest file to explain which file to copy, and where :
install.rdf + content.rdf

Then, with newer Firefox version, they started using another file format to define which file to install :
install.rdf + chrome.manifest
Both worked until now.

On Firefox 3.6, they removed the old and obsolete content.rdf
-Add-ons using content.rdf will not work anymore.


-If the currently installed add-on is using the newer file structure (but does not work on 3.6.* yet), you can update the add-on yourself to make it work with 3.6, or any version you need.

How it's working :
When installing an add-on, it checks the installation manifest to determine the Firefox min and max version the add-on can be installed on.

The .xpi is just a plain .zip renamed to .xpi
Inside the .xpi, there is the install.rdf, which define the max version of Firefox on which you can install the add-on.
You can easily edit this value.


If the add-on is using the new file structure : you see a chrome.manifest : Bingo ! you can do it yourself

Spoiler: How to edit the version manually

- Go to mozilla add-on website and download the desired file (right click to save to disk).
- Rename the .xpi to .zip
- Extract the .zip content to a new folder
- Check if there is a chrome.manifest. if there is, you are saved !

This is the first case, the easy one. everybody can do it.
- Edit install.rdf with your favorite text editor and look for this :
CODEÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ1.5
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ3.5.*
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ

Spoiler

You see the , you can type : 3.6.* instead of 3.5.* to make any future 3.6.x versions compatible
3.7a1pre is also a possibility.

- Save your install.rdf
- Re-zip the folder
- Rename .zip to .xpi, and drag/drop the .xpi into the Firefox main window.
- Restart Firefox and test your newly installed add-on. There are always a possibility that it will not be compatible with newer Firefox version because of interface/functionality changes, in this case you will have to wait for an update, I'm sorry for you

Another possibility :

Spoiler: There exists a hidden feature to disabled the installed add-ons version checking

type in the address bar :
about:config
accept the warning
right-click on the center window and select
New>Boolean

Name : extensions.checkCompatibility
Value : false

It's not recommended to disable all the compatibility checking. It's usually only for debug process.

Last :
@RupeeClock :
I'm developer of an add-on similar to "Save image in folder".
My add-on is "Automatic Save Folder". You define filters based on filename, hosted domain, or current website URL, and the file will be saved where you chose.
It can also open the File explorer inside the right folder automatically, no need to search an hour inside sub-directories up to the desired folder.

Automatic Save Folder

 

[Urza]

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6543

Far less annoying solution.

 

[Satangel]

Very interesting speed comparison between the several browsers

 

[Urza]

Very interesting speed comparison between the several browsers

What exactly is interesting about it?

 

[Satangel]

Very interesting speed comparison between the several browsers

What exactly is interesting about it?

That you can see which browsers are the fastest on some points, which browsers use less memory, best Java usage, ....
It's handy to see which browser is the best according to those points at the moment.

 

[Cyan]

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6543

Far less annoying solution.

Even quicker, no add-on needed :

type in the address bar :
about:config
accept the warning
right-click and select New>Boolean

Name : extensions.checkCompatibility
Value : false


Done




Your add-on (as with my preference) will not work for older and outdated file structured add-ons.
Your add-on is made mostly for testing nightly build, which are in development and the authors are making them with the new file structure.
But old add-on will not work anymore on 3.6 (those using content.rdf)

 

[Urza]

Very interesting speed comparison between the several browsers

What exactly is interesting about it?

That you can see which browsers are the fastest on some points, which browsers use less memory, best Java usage, ....
It's handy to see which browser is the best according to those points at the moment.

But who cares which browser takes 3 seconds longer from a cold boot, or uses 100MB more RAM? Even if you spent 12 hours a day in your browser these things are barely relevant at all.

"Best" is not a matter of miniscule numbers.

 

[Satangel]

Very interesting speed comparison between the several browsers

What exactly is interesting about it?

That you can see which browsers are the fastest on some points, which browsers use less memory, best Java usage, ....
It's handy to see which browser is the best according to those points at the moment.

But who cares which browser takes 3 seconds longer from a cold boot, or uses 100MB more RAM? Even if you spent 12 hours a day in your browser these things are barely relevant at all.

"Best" is not a matter of miniscule numbers.

Agreed, "Best" is highly subjective. I just stay with Firefox at the moment, because the extensions and overall lack of bugs satisfy me.
Chrome is faster, but I don't get the same good feeling like with Firefox there.
But I can imagine those memory usage things are very relevant for people who don't have a PC with 1GB RAM (they still exist

)

Also, Java and DOM/CSS support is interesting for site designers which are probably present in this forum.

 

[Urza]

Chrome is faster, but I don't get the same good feeling like with Firefox there.
But I can imagine those memory usage things are very relevant for people who don't have a PC with 1GB RAM (they still exist

)
Then they should probably be sitting in a bash shell using lynx or something.

QUOTEAlso, Java and DOM/CSS support is interesting for site designers which are probably present in this forum.

Not so much. Subtle performance differences aren't going to chance the way you write your code; especially considering you're most likely not taking an active role in trying to change their browser choice.

Sidenote: Javascript, not Java.

 

[Maikel Steneker]

But who cares which browser takes 3 seconds longer from a cold boot, or uses 100MB more RAM? Even if you spent 12 hours a day in your browser these things are barely relevant at all.

"Best" is not a matter of miniscule numbers.

That's true, but these comparisons are useful if you want to choose a browser. For example, if I see that Chrome is better than Firefox in every way, I might as well try Chrome and switch. Also, if a browser uses a lot of RAM it might not work properly on my old PC which has a very little amount of RAM.

I'm still on Firefox 3.5.7 because Ubuntu only switches to the next version when you upgrade to their next distro (which will be released in april). The differences are not big enough to manually upgrade. However, I did use Firefox 3.6 for a bit in Windows. It seemed a bit faster, but not that noticeable. The way new tabs open now (next tot the tab your browsing instead of at the end) will take some time to get used to though...

 

[Urza]

But who cares which browser takes 3 seconds longer from a cold boot, or uses 100MB more RAM? Even if you spent 12 hours a day in your browser these things are barely relevant at all.

"Best" is not a matter of miniscule numbers.
That's true, but these comparisons are useful if you want to choose a browser. For example, if I see that Chrome is better than Firefox in every way, I might as well try Chrome and switch. Also, if a browser uses a lot of RAM it might not work properly on my old PC which has a very little amount of RAM.
Except they ignore all the aspects that are actually important, such as interface design, customizability, extensibility, etc.

It would be like picking cars based on binary differences in gas mileage exclusively.

I'm still on Firefox 3.5.7 because Ubuntu only switches to the next version when you upgrade to their next distro (which will be released in april). The differences are not big enough to manually upgrade. However, I did use Firefox 3.6 for a bit in Windows. It seemed a bit faster, but not that noticeable. The way new tabs open now (next tot the tab your browsing instead of at the end) will take some time to get used to though...

CODE

deb http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/ubuntuzilla/mozilla/apt all main
sudo apt-key adv --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com C1289A29
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install firefox-mozilla-build

EDIT: And will continue to keep you updated with official builds throughout the life of that install.

 

[Cyan]

The way new tabs open now (next tot the tab your browsing instead of at the end) will take some time to get used to though...

I'm using TabMixPlus to customize the tabs. maybe it will help you too.

 

[DeMoN]

The way new tabs open now (next tot the tab your browsing instead of at the end) will take some time to get used to though...

I'm using TabMixPlus to customize the tabs. maybe it will help you too.

Nice find, but there really should be an option to change this without having to install yet another add-on.

And Firefox will always > Chrome in my opinion because of one thing: Adblock.
Google will never let Chrome have an ad-blocker, for obvious reasons.
I'm not sure if Opera has Adblock or not, last time I checked it still didn't support any add-ons.

 

[Urza]

And Firefox will always > Chrome in my opinion because of one thing: Adblock.
Google will never let Chrome have an ad-blocker, for obvious reasons.

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail...cnamgkkbiglidom

 

[DeMoN]

Well I see Chrome has come a long way. Back when I last used it, you could only hide the ads, not block them completely.
But Google's reaction is still something I'm looking forward to, because hiding ads is counter-productive to their company. Right now, it doesn't matter to them too much because very few people use Chrome as their default browser, but once Chrome gains market share, Google will have to do something, for the sake of the advertisers.
Google is definitely serious about trying to make Chrome the most popular browser. I went to a Google info-session at school and they said they are making deals with HP and Dell to include Chrome on their computers.

How excited is Google about the ad blocker for Chrome?

 

[Urza]

Well I see Chrome has come a long way. Back when I last used it, you could only hide the ads, not block them completely.
But Google's reaction is still something I'm looking forward to, because hiding ads is counter-productive to their company. Right now, it doesn't matter to them too much because very few people use Chrome as their default browser, but once Chrome gains market share, Google will have to do something, for the sake of the advertisers.
Google is definitely serious about trying to make Chrome the most popular browser. I went to a Google info-session at school and they said they are making deals with HP and Dell to include Chrome on their computers.

How excited is Google about the ad blocker for Chrome?

Old link, google made a statement last month concerning ad blockers. Basically their argument is that people install ad blockers as a result of annoying ads, which in turn will push ad makers to make their ads less annoying, thus preventing people in the future from caring enough to install blockers.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/16/go..._on_adblockers/

Chrome actually has 10% of the browser market already, which is a pretty huge amount of people. So yes, they definitely do care.