Firefox 6 Official release on Tuesday

[brkkab123]

Firefox 6.0 will be out next Tuesday. That's just like McAfee's Site Advisor and Norton's Safe Web Lite don't work with it either. W.O.T. kind of work's. You don't always get any color's like it normally shows. Heck the website's and software companies need to get with the time's FF 7.0 will probably be out in early October, if not sooner.

 

[Ace]

Are you meaning official releases?

7 and 8 are already out in alpha.

 

[Elmer BeFuddled]

I use 8, damn quick. But for every day I'll stick with the fastest (for me) of the three series as I have customised the hell out of it!

 

[Ace]

I use 8, damn quick. But for every day I'll stick with the fastest (for me) of the three series as I have customised the hell out of it!

Yeah, I created a firefox theme compatible for version 3.6* and version 4.0 but I couldn't use it in versions 5.0 and up... It was a full firefox theme too

 

[brkkab123]

Yeah, original release. 6.0 is being released Tuesday. 7.0 is either towards September 22 - October 4 or so. it's looking like every 6 weeks for a new version and just a .01 version in betwen full version changes.

 

[Elmer BeFuddled]

So by Xmas 2012 we'll be on FF 18? Why not just fix one before moving on to the next? Or is this "padding"?

Always thought if something has to be changed to a new version just after you've installed it, there must be something fundamentally wrong with it to start with, and white wash will stop anybody spotting the cracks.

Elmer (v1012345234.1.2342.45556 beta)

Strangely I.E.9 is nearly 3 times faster than 3.6.6 (which is faster than 4 or 5, or is it 73? FF8 nearly matches I.E.9) on this here machine. Perhaps I ought to jump back to the light side!

 

[brkkab123]

From what I've heard FF 8.0 is the one everyone will want. That's the version that fixes FF's memory usage issue's without the end user having to hack about:config to fix the problem.

 

[clifford_cooley]

From what I've heard FF 8.0 is the one everyone will want.

I'm still trying to understand the need in releasing versions between where they have their goal set.

If eight is where they want to be, then why work on development of the versions between?

It's a waste of time for the release of what seems to be beta versions that have very little support.

 

[brkkab123]

Clifford you're right. I think they're just trying to compete with Google on their releases.. Apparrently, they haven't yet realized that Google put's a update out for Chrome every week. Not every 6 weeks. It's also going to be curious to see if they switch to Bing in the fall, when Google's contract end's with them. If they do switch, that'll take money out of Google's pocket. It won't hurt Mozilla, either way. PC Magazine's Extreme Tech had a article on there website about that one yesterday. Hear's the link to the article. http://www.extremetech.com/internet/92558-how-browsers-make-money-or-why-google-needs-firefox

 

[brkkab123]

Here's a link for the final version of Firefox 6.0. http://lifehacker.com/5830673/firefox-6-now-available

 

[Ace]

Now that i'm using Firefox 8 and they've gone into rapid development I would expect them to come out with the finals for them in a couple months. I'll stick with what i've got. I would already consider it to be more advanced and faster than google chrome. And probably still more secure, I haven't had any issues with security so far.

 

[brkkab123]

Here's a new one. Now Mozilla is apparently doing away with version numbers. Here's a link to an article about it. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/firefox_lose_version_numbers

 

[Ace]

I already knew about that, I started using Aurora almost a month ago. And now i'm onto Nightly, even though Aurora is still called version 7 and Nightly, 8. Nightly originally started off as a second version of 7, but they changed that.

 

[davehc]

Thanks for the heads up, brkkab. I am not a Firefox regular user, although I have it on my computer, so I did not already know that.
I was notified through other sources of the Build 8 of the 64Bit browser, which I think is what Ace mentioned, . I gave it a whirl and could not, in a too short test time, see any big advances from earlier 32Bit releases, so continued to give FF a miss.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/90546-firefox-8-x64-has-64-bit-browsing-finally-come-of-age

 

[Ace]

Thanks for the heads up, brkkab. I am not a Firefox regular user, although I have it on my computer, so I did not already know that.
I was notified through other sources of the Build 8 of the 64Bit browser, which I think is what Ace mentioned, . I gave it a whirl and could not, in a too short test time, see any big advances from earlier 32Bit releases, so continued to give FF a miss.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/90546-firefox-8-x64-has-64-bit-browsing-finally-come-of-age

Firefox Nightly actually comes in 32bit and 64bit. It's just like Adobe Flash player 11, which adds support for 64bit more recently, with a 32bit version download of it as well.

 

[brkkab123]

I've been running the final release version of Firefox 6.0 since Sunday night. It has been stable on my end so far. Also, I double checked that my about:config tweaks survived the upgrade. They did. IE9 still appears to be a little faster than both FF and Opera 11.50. I've tried Chrome in the past, but until they get DownThemAll, I won't be using it.

 

[davehc]

Thank you for that information. I was aware of that but, as I said, I do not use Firefox in my daily environment, so was only interested in the 64 bit progress.
Fwiw. I did try out Flash player "square" (64Bit) about a year ago. It seemed to work OK, although there were many web posts of problems. But, for the same reason stated, I saw, at that stage, little advantage in a 64Bit browser, so quit.

 

[brkkab123]

Yeah, considering 64 bit os's have taken over and the fact that there are rumours floating around that Windows 8 is supposably going to also have support for 128 bit. It's high time all browsers come out with reliable 64 bit versions.

 

[clifford_cooley]

there are rumours floating around that Windows 8 is supposably going to also have support for 128 bit.

Even if true I dought the general public will see 128bit. It's more likely that Windows Server 2012(??) would have 128-bit support.

 

[brkkab123]

Yeah Clifford, PC World did a article on Windows 8 a few issue's back and stated it was going to be 128 bit capable. It was around the same time all of Microsoft's Windows 8 video's appeared. The 128 bit seemed odd considering Intel & AMD haven't said anything about 128 bit cpu's.