4 ms·

It's not doomed but it's not doing to well. The last versions have not been different enough to warrant new version numbers and Firefox 8, while being decidedly

by smudgy 15y ago

It's not doomed but it's not doing to well. The last versions have not been different enough to warrant new version numbers and Firefox 8, while being decidedly quicker for some tasks, has been incredibly slow for my mundane tasks. I'm a hardcore Firefox guy, I've been using it and Mozilla since M6 but I changed to Chrome yesterday and, while it's not flexible and customizable as Firefox, it's Good Enough. I hope it gets better - perhaps focusing on the browser instead of higher version numbers and striving to look like IE or Chrome. Until then, I'm a Chrome guy.

gkoberger 15y ago
Don't worry about the version number -- a higher number doesn't mean there's a ton of new features; it merely means 6 weeks has passed. Pretty soon, upgrade dialogs will be completely suppressed and it won't matter what version you're on (much like Chrome). I like the rapid release; it means as a developer I can play with new features much sooner. Firefox is as fast or faster than any other browser (assuming you don't load it up with add-ons). [1] So it's not like everyone at Mozilla stopped programming and started focusing all their energy on merely incrementing the version number from 7 to 8. I don't know why you're so worried -- version is just a number. [1] http://lifehacker.com/5844150/browser-speed-tests-firefox-7-chrome-14-internet-explorer-9-and-more http://lifehacker.com/5844150/browser-speed-tests-firefox-7-...
- grimlck 15y ago
  Version number does matter because they can't seem to create a stable add-on API, and therefore version increment == add-on breakage.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Actually there is a stable API that works much like Chrome's, it's called Jetpack [1], the problem is that most addons don't use it, in part because also like Chrome's, it's much more limited - the default JS API basically gives the addon access to the whole Firefox internals. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetpack_(Firefox_project) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetpack_(Firefox_project)
theshadow 15y ago
There is something incredibly funny about a post incriminating Firefox for not having enough new features to justify a new version number at the same time declaring Chrome as awesome at the end of the post

by smudgy 15y ago

gkoberger 15y ago

Don't worry about the version number -- a higher number doesn't mean there's a ton of new features; it merely means 6 weeks has passed. Pretty soon, upgrade dialogs will be completely suppressed and it won't matter what version you're on (much like Chrome). I like the rapid release; it means as a developer I can play with new features much sooner. Firefox is as fast or faster than any other browser (assuming you don't load it up with add-ons). [1] So it's not like everyone at Mozilla stopped programming and started focusing all their energy on merely incrementing the version number from 7 to 8. I don't know why you're so worried -- version is just a number. [1] http://lifehacker.com/5844150/browser-speed-tests-firefox-7-chrome-14-internet-explorer-9-and-more http://lifehacker.com/5844150/browser-speed-tests-firefox-7-...

grimlck 15y ago
Version number does matter because they can't seem to create a stable add-on API, and therefore version increment == add-on breakage.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Actually there is a stable API that works much like Chrome's, it's called Jetpack [1], the problem is that most addons don't use it, in part because also like Chrome's, it's much more limited - the default JS API basically gives the addon access to the whole Firefox internals. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetpack_(Firefox_project) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetpack_(Firefox_project)

theshadow 15y ago

There is something incredibly funny about a post incriminating Firefox for not having enough new features to justify a new version number at the same time declaring Chrome as awesome at the end of the post