Mozilla Firefox for Windows 31.0 Fileforum Pick

4.1 out of 5 stars 4.1 (8715 votes)

()

Windows 7/8/2000/Server 2003/Vista/XP / Freeware / 1,184,808 downloads

Mozilla Firefox is a free and open source Web browser descended from the Mozilla Application Suite and managed by Mozilla Corporation. Firefox is the second most widely used browser.

To display web pages, Firefox uses the Gecko layout engine, which implements most current web standards in addition to several features that are intended to anticipate likely additions to the standards.

Reviews of Mozilla Firefox for Windows

  1. 1 out of 5 stars
    bruno1972

    Reviewing 31.0 (Aug 6, 2014)

    fake, windows 31 doesnt exist. use windows 7 or 8 instead

  2. 1 out of 5 stars
    bigspud

    Reviewing 31.0 (Jul 30, 2014)

    the dialogue boxes for options and addons are way too big for screen, cant resize them, makes this version useless, v26 displays boxes okay, so its just sloppy coding. mozilla too busy trying to copy chrome, they need to scrap thia australis crapware.

  3. 4 out of 5 stars
    yoetama

    Reviewing 31.0 (Jul 24, 2014)

    feels less agile, only a few comparisons with other browser plugins are also the same.

  4. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 31.0 (Jul 23, 2014)

    and so it begins, sponsored/ad space tiles. This version has tile space for sale hard coded into it. It also has, like Chrome and all it's clones, a big Google search bar on the the new tabs page.

    I'm taking back that star I bumped the previous Australis version

  5. 3 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 30.0 (Jun 19, 2014)

    Well I've finally been able to get some scripts(stylish) that have restored most of the functionality I had before which aided in workflow. I've had to remove a few plugins though as they are now useless thanks to Australis.

    All and all I see no improvement and certainly don't consider taking styling ques from chrome as one either.

    I now won't be as harsh as my previous ratings but to use this as is would be quite a let down.

  6. 2 out of 5 stars
    Hergest

    Reviewing 30.0 (Jun 10, 2014)

    Firefox *was* the best browser, but since v.29 it is rubbish. Like many, I downgraded, which I consider an upgrade.
    I've now installed the Firefox ESR, to get security fixes for a while without picking up the new rubbish UI.

  7. 4 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 30.0 (Jun 10, 2014)

    Seems a little snappier in rendering pages but that's about it. Seems to have lost some performance compared to version 29.

  8. 1 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 30.0 (Jun 10, 2014)

    Not good

  9. 2 out of 5 stars
    traumadoc

    Reviewing 29.0.1 (May 11, 2014)

    In my opinion, version 23.0.1 is the most appealing. I have tried each major release that has come in the time since. 23.0.1 has the best interface and usability. Every version after that screwed around with putting this icon here or there, changing ease of access to downloaded items, clearing bars, moving bars, etc.

    Mozilla needs to get a grip and understand not to move things from where people expect them to be. Functionality is one thing, but making people search for something that "was always right there" is moronic.

    They figure, "hey, it's free." Well that's the wrong attitude.

    Go back to Firefox 23.0.1 folks.

  10. 1 out of 5 stars
    LakotaElf

    Reviewing 29.0.1 (May 10, 2014)

    They ruined it, I uninstalled it, will never go back to Firefox....

  11. 5 out of 5 stars
    cltx99

    Reviewing 29.0.1 (May 10, 2014)

    Excellent browser, with forward looking, easy to use changes. Personally, the new design suits me just fine. Some of my extensions were not working in previous FF releases. They've finally come to life. Well done!

  12. 5 out of 5 stars
    kstev99

    Reviewing 29.0.1 (May 10, 2014)

    OK, first of all I'll have to remove my foot from my mouth. I said I would never use Australis. I tried Chrome and just couldn't live with it. After giving this new Firefox try, I actually LIKE the Australis interface.

    Firefox is still TEN TIMES more customizable than chrome, and with the right add-ons to help, I think it's a keeper. I have been using Pale Moon for more than a year, and this actually seems faster and more responsive than the latest version of PM. The new SYNC works great!! I can open Firefox while at work, and like magic....all of my bookmarks, add-ons and prefs are the same as on my home computer. I fought using the Australis interface as much as anyone, but give it a try. Mozilla hasn't taken away your customization, you still have about:config and with 3rd party extensions, customize it about any way you like

  13. 2 out of 5 stars
    Artem S. Tashkinov

    Reviewing 29.0.1 (May 9, 2014)

    The worst "upgrade" in the entire Firefox history.

    Firefox has lost its appeal, for now I'm _upgrading_ to Firefox 24.5 ESR, and when the next ESR release comes out, I will upgrade to Seamonkey.

    There's no way I'm downgrading from Firefox 28 to Crapfox 29.

    Autstralis could have been made an option, a new skin, with an option to use the classic Firefox UI with all its customization. Instead Mozilla stripped us of our choice and customizability. Let their UI "designers" burn in hell.

  14. 1 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 29.0.1 (May 9, 2014)

    Not good

  15. 4 out of 5 stars
    halc

    Reviewing 29.0 (May 3, 2014)

    FF 29.0 still the best, but the new UI in it's default state is not for power users: takes too much space, offers too little configurability, breaks workflow and needs 3rd party add-ons.

    Thankfully Classic Them Restorer (from Mozilla add-ons page) helps a lot.

    Now wait for all the add-on makers to update their code...

    Other than that, for heavy lifting, customizability and overall use, FF is still the main browser, although Chrome is also very capable.

  16. 2 out of 5 stars
    LakotaElf

    Reviewing 29.0 (May 2, 2014)

    Very unhappy with it, to me they ruined it, nothing but junk now, not easy to use, many of the extensions were gone, junk, sorry but I uninstalled it and will not go back. They ruined it with this Australis junk....

  17. 5 out of 5 stars
    ali4ek

    Reviewing 29.0 (May 1, 2014)

    I simply love the new Australis interface, please keep it.

    One minor comment is I'd like to be able to move ALL buttons, including back/forward and reload.

  18. 4 out of 5 stars
    TGB72

    Reviewing 29.0 (Apr 30, 2014)

    from 11 addons I only have issues with one that promise an update in order to work with v29+. I really like the new interface but it's not true that it uses less memory, its the opposite, its using around 20MB more than esr 24.5. I didn't notice big difference in terms of speed and rendering between v24.5 and v29.
    @Artem S. Tashkinov
    According to FF the new esr will be v31
    I think that the worst versions were between v25 and v28. v29 seems pretty stable

  19. 5 out of 5 stars
    BooM13

    Reviewing 29.0 (Apr 30, 2014)

    With the new update and mine interface Firefox was the best of all browsers

  20. 2 out of 5 stars
    Artem S. Tashkinov

    Reviewing 29.0 (Apr 30, 2014)

    Firefox 24.5 ESR to the rescue!

    Too bad, the next ESR release will be based on Firefox 32 with this God awful UI.

  21. 2 out of 5 stars
    chaswill

    Reviewing 29.0 (Apr 30, 2014)

    Yep, I let it upgrade this morning and went running straight for V24ESR. Back to normal. What are those FF people smoking?

  22. 1 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 29.0 (Apr 29, 2014)

    The claim is that the new interface simplifies things and well, it is simply awful.

    First off, the unmovable menu/apps button is on the right side of the toolbar. Reading right to left is unnatural in most languages.

    Speaking of the menu, it's more designed for finger painting than anything else. Drag around large icons and you have your menu. BUT the useless bookmarks menu only goes one layer deep meaning no cascading, it just opens the manger to get into sub-folders. Such a complete waste of time.

    Honestly, I could go on and on as to how this lack of customization impedes work flow and browsing habits but what's the point? Chrome is infesting every part of the web and that's all there is to it.

    Fortunately there is a plugin that can restore alot of the old functionality but it seems like a waste of time to be releasing updates that people want to revert rather than improving the core of the browser.

    Palemoon, here I come

  23. 4 out of 5 stars
    geomelen

    Reviewing 29.0 (Apr 29, 2014)

    Well I just got the new FF Australis interface page and, to tell you the truth, it really doesn't look that bad. Actually it might take a little time to get accustomed to but it seems okay. The whole problem is that we are accustomed to do things a certain way and when change and new technologies arrive we resent the fact that we might have to "start all over again" and that's understandable. As part of our learning habits that is not unusual at all. Changes and innovation are usually difficult for us to accept and "learned habits" is just part of our psychological traits on how we think and act so, if you really think about it, after awhile, getting accustomed to the new FF is really no big deal. Sure we've lost a few things that we liked on our homepage, but can you imagine if we still had the "original FireFox" and all that "old technology"??? Let me put it this way, I can remember the first car I had a 1963 Chevy Impala and no AC. Do you think that I would change my 2012 Lexus GS 350 for the "old, trustworthy and beauty" of the Impala??? Yeah, it's a nostalgic felling I guess and I loved that Impala but you get the idea. I got over it and I'm sure that you will too. Technology and innovation has it's sacrifices but the positives out weight the lost.... so I welcome you Australis and thanks FireFox for a job well done.......

  24. 1 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 29.0 (Apr 29, 2014)

    Wow. This is beyond bad. Tried for a half hour to even somewhat figure out the new horrible interface and set up. Jump the shark is officially add FF to its list. Really sad to see how bad this has become with the last few versions. But this is way past bad.

  25. 1 out of 5 stars
    landfish

    Reviewing 29.0 (Apr 28, 2014)

    horrible,

    The "Classic Theme Restorer" add-on helps

  26. 1 out of 5 stars
    TGB72

    Reviewing 28.0 (Mar 22, 2014)

    I'm using firefox 28 right now, and I've to say that is the first time that I want to move to another browser. This version is highly unstable, 2 crashes in less than an hour with only a few tabs open. Right now I only have this tab (fileforum.betanews) and it's consuming 405.624KB, this is a big issue, I'm thinking to downgrade to v24 or use another browser like palemoon or qupzilla until this is not fixed.

  27. 4 out of 5 stars
    bigspud

    Reviewing 27.0 (Feb 7, 2014)

    fast and stable, now stop changing the ui.
    10 stars to to the extension and stylish makers that make it possible for me to modify ff so i can fix all the ui problems that moozilla thinks we need.
    still the best browser by far.

  28. 4 out of 5 stars
    landfish

    Reviewing 27.0 (Feb 4, 2014)

    Being one of the first to complain about the missing "browser.download.useToolkitUI" it's only fair I'm one of the first to thank the powers that be for putting it back

  29. 4 out of 5 stars
    Zootopia3001

    Reviewing 27.0 (Feb 4, 2014)

    If you liked version 24, you can get an Extended Support Release here...
    http://www.mozilla.org/e...refox/organizations/all/

    I for one don't care to be Mozilla's beta tester with Final versions in between Extended Support Release versions. Firefox 24ESR is currently at v24.3 with today's update.

    4 stars(for v24ESR) when compared to Opera, Chrome or Internet Explorer 9. Would be 5 stars if not for all the tinkering(unneeded bells and whistles), ridding of options that used to be and lousy interface(IMO) for Windows Vista on up.

  30. 1 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 26.0 (Dec 23, 2013)

    I am sick of the azzclowns who develope this browser making continual changes to the API and interfaces so that add-ons break with new versions. Get your heads out from between your buttocks and stabilize the architecture permanently. At this point in time you're no longer teenagers spinning code in mommy's basement; develope the application accordingly.

    To the devs:

    I'm a long-time Firefox user and I'm tired of your BS - have a clue or get one installed.

    ONE star.

  31. 2 out of 5 stars
    Zoroaster

    Reviewing 26.0 (Dec 12, 2013)

    @landfish : the imbecile is a Mozilla narrow-minded idiot.
    Firefox has decided to become an upstart crow, they want to look fancy and have abandoned their heritage as well as the users of always in order to look nice in the galleries of new-comers.
    Just choose Pale Moon browser, like I did, like more and more users do. It is faithful to the spirit, the flexibility and the users of what remains the only Firefox we like.

  32. 1 out of 5 stars
    landfish

    Reviewing 26.0 (Dec 10, 2013)

    It appears in v26 that we can't have the simple download window anymore in Firefox, the about:config "browser.download.useToolkitUI to true" trick doesn't work now. You can click on the useless download icon to make a window open, that has other rubbish on it that isn't needed. That's ok except for the fact you have to do this every time, it wont just open automatically.
    Who is the imbecile who goes "Now I just had a good idea, why don't we ......."

  33. 3 out of 5 stars
    Zootopia3001

    Reviewing 25.0 (Oct 29, 2013)

    Got tired of the 'Oops, well that was embarrassing' crash notifications from Firefox 24. Went back to Firefox 17.0.8 ESR for now and all is well and fast. Maybe Mozilla will have all the bugs worked out in a few more Firefox 24 extended service release versions.

  34. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 25.0 (Oct 29, 2013)

    It's been a while since I reviewed but with 25 being released, I had to post up my experiences. It has improved leaps and bounce since 20-23 were released. Memory usage is way down (and with version 26, memory usage will drop through the floor on image heavy pages (https://blog.mozilla.org...les/2013/10/Images2.png) and in general) and speed/rendering is near instant. This should hopefully now cause less crashes due to memory pressure on 32-bit systems. They really hit a home run with this version. I look forward to the next version even more.

  35. 4 out of 5 stars
    PaulWilliams

    Reviewing 24.0 (Sep 23, 2013)

    Thank you TC17 disabling lastpass fixed the problem. I was wrong it wasn't Mozilla's fault. Google Chrome is still slightly faster that's why I'm only giving version 24 a 4/5.

  36. 4 out of 5 stars
    Zootopia3001

    Reviewing 24.0 (Sep 20, 2013)

    Still the best browser, though Firefox is slowly ruining a good thing... The taking away of some options(i.e: Javascript), and the 'new & improved' this and that, such as the new download window function that I had to go into about:config to set back to the way it was before. Not really all that much speed improvement since v17ESR, but it is slightly noticeable nonetheless. From here I think all Mozilla will be able to do is cosmetic, probably to a point of eventually ruining Firefox. I think it's all downhill from here with all their constant need for tinkering.

    Gone from 5 to 4 stars for the above mentioned.

    UPDATE: Sometimes when I open Firefox 24 it says it had crashed prior and offered to open up the prior sites I had open. Thing is, it hadn't crashed. Now looking forward to Firefox 24.0.1.

  37. 5 out of 5 stars
    TC17

    Reviewing 24.0 (Sep 17, 2013)

    Still the best browser. Your crazy if you actually think Chrome is better. Even the addons are better for Firefox.

    To the person below mentioning the delay startup. I'd be willing to bet you are using Lastpass? I have that problem too, but its the authors of Lastpass that are at fault for that, not Firefox.

  38. 1 out of 5 stars
    PaulWilliams

    Reviewing 23.0 (Aug 14, 2013)

    I've been a loyal Firefox user since the beginning, but version 23 was too much for me to accept . Every time I open version 23 the program becomes unresponsive for at least 30 seconds. The only time I've had a similar problem was with the download manager after try to save a file. The program would become unresponsive for 10 seconds and then starts up again. Maybe there's a option in about:config to minimize the unresponsiveness, but I've lost patience. Firefox still has some positives, great extensions and lots of configurability, but I need better. For the last few weeks I've been using Chromium/Chrome and have been mostly happy. Chromium is faster, but lacks Google Chrome's Print Preview and Automatic Updater. My only complaints are a minimalist layout, annoying sign-in requests and difficulty switching search engines. I hope this will give Mozilla a wake up call.

  39. 4 out of 5 stars
    Uriel

    Reviewing 23.0 (Aug 7, 2013)

    Looking more and more like Google Chrome with every build. Google's paychecks to the Mozilla staff are taking effect.

  40. 3 out of 5 stars
    Output Overboard

    Reviewing 23.0 (Aug 7, 2013)

    I've used Firefox for years but Chrome is leaving it far, far behind.
    Still, I don't like the pushiness of Google sticking Chrome everywhere you look.
    Firefox seems to take up the niche title formerly owned by Opera.
    A fine browser is one that does what YOU want.
    Firefox is still good.

  41. 1 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 23.0 (Aug 6, 2013)

    For me, this is the version that proves to me that ff has jumped the shark. Every new version does something to annoy me. First you had the tab bar now located on top. Than the download window disappear (I don't want the download button on toolbar). Now with this version, you can't remove the tab feature at all like older versions. Not to mention all the updates mess with my add on's.

  42. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 22.0 (Jun 28, 2013)

    A marked improvement in speed over 21 and earlier versions. 23 has even more speed improvements going into it as well. Hope they can figure out the blurred font thing for those who are experiencing it. Not affecting me though.

  43. 5 out of 5 stars
    TC17

    Reviewing 22.0 (Jun 25, 2013)

    .....

  44. 3 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 22.0 (Jun 25, 2013)

    Firefox needs to go 64-bit

  45. 3 out of 5 stars
    Jack5

    Reviewing 20.0.1 (Apr 23, 2013)

    Downloading a pdf file after opening it in Firefox gives error, otherwise Firefox is good

  46. 5 out of 5 stars
    methuselah

    Reviewing 20.0 (Apr 2, 2013)

    ver. 20 working much faster on Win7. Haven't tried that version on Linux and Mac yet today...

  47. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 20.0 (Apr 2, 2013)

    Noticed some changes this time around, feature wise. Also, the couple sites that used to lock up, no longer do that. So it looks like those problems have been resolved.

  48. 2 out of 5 stars
    bruno.

    Reviewing 19.0.1 (Mar 1, 2013)

    they better concentrate on windows 7 first, most users dont have windows 19.0.1 yet....lets hope it doesnt crash all of the time

  49. 1 out of 5 stars
    xsnred

    Reviewing 19.0.1 (Feb 28, 2013)

    Waterfox is the ONLY way to go.

  50. 2 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 19.0 (Feb 20, 2013)

    I've switched to Pale Moon x64 and never looked back!
    http://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-x64.shtml

  51. 3 out of 5 stars
    -Lord-

    Reviewing 19.0 (Feb 20, 2013)

    I agree with grum.. where's the effing 64 bit version???
    waterfox for me too

  52. 5 out of 5 stars
    grum36

    Reviewing 19.0 (Feb 20, 2013)

    Instead of upgrade the version number like this Software of s*** (gogole chrome ) it 'll be nice to have a great x64 browser, I use waterfox

  53. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 19.0 (Feb 19, 2013)

    Very clean update. It broke none of my current add ons.

  54. 3 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 18.0.2 (Feb 5, 2013)

    No useful changers and annoying their shrinking user-base & me with piddling changes -

  55. 3 out of 5 stars
    Zootopia3001

    Reviewing 18.0.2 (Feb 5, 2013)

    A Facebook update. Yay.
    Whatever Mozilla. Version 17 was not affected. The new v18 Javascript engine in relation to Facebook is the reason for this update(crashes). The only reason I haven't gone back to version 16 is because version 17 has plugin container security support for HTML5. Maybe by version 30 there will be a reason to update from version 17.0.1. Also, apparently there's been no fix for the v11.5 Adobe Flash crashes in Firefox either, so it's Flash v11.2 still for me. I may not update Flash again either.

  56. 2 out of 5 stars
    -Lord-

    Reviewing 18.0.1 (Jan 21, 2013)

    I prefer FF over IE.. of course. As of late, however, the rapid fire updates, no 64bit version, and the 18.0.1 update have really turned me off. In the latest update, I am now having printing crashes, and on one Win8 machine it totally drags the system down to nothing.

    Sadly, Mozilla has gone the way of so many others who start out with something terrific and then either goes to bloatware, or total s***t

  57. 2 out of 5 stars
    bruno.

    Reviewing 18.0.1 (Jan 20, 2013)

    Microsoft should slow down with Windows 18.0.1, many people are still on Windows 7 albeit Windows 8. Firefox is okay

  58. 3 out of 5 stars
    SineWave

    Reviewing 18.0.1 (Jan 18, 2013)

    I'm almost forced to say, since I was a long time Firefox supporter, that for the first time ever I've gone back to v16.0.2 that worked well for me. I'm a scumbag for not even trying this 18.01 version probably, but v17 gave me some issues with memory consumption [memory leaks, obviously], and it made my other apps "hickup" in the background. I've noticed this 100% CPU overtaking by Firefox 17.01 more than a dozen times. I would like to know if the issue has been resolved in this new version? I will for the first time give it 3, though. I don't like where this is going... it feels fishy. I'm on the verge of trying out Chrome. After so many years. Sad. They should pull themselves together.

  59. 1 out of 5 stars
    nilst2006

    Reviewing 18.0 (Jan 9, 2013)

    With version 17 i lost an important addon to me. It wasn't compatible. No, i will not upgrade to version 18. I am tired of that as soon as i find an addon that really works the way i wan't Firefox kills it.... :(

    Therefore i rate FF 18 to 1.

  60. 4 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 18.0 (Jan 8, 2013)

    Agree with Zootopia3001 100% - I am really thinking of moving away from Firefox after using it for many years & defending it robustly on here & elswhere due the issues mentioned by Zootopia3001 - If I'm moving on I'm sure others must be thinking the same way. There is always a future speed increase on the horizon, this time in version 20 while all the time Chrome continues to tighten it's grip.

  61. 3 out of 5 stars
    Zootopia3001

    Reviewing 18.0 (Jan 8, 2013)

    @Monkey_Punch, You're missing the point. The constant breaking of add-ons with each new release eventually drives people away from Firefox. The developers of these add-ons don't have the resources that Mozilla has, hence the delays for an add-on fix. Add-ons are what made Firefox popular. If they are going to break every single month, then eventually people will look elsewhere for a browser...Hint hint... Chrome. Also, it IS a problem with Mozilla concerning the CONSTANT breaking of add-ons. Nothing should be THAT constant, including a new version number every month just to follow Chrome's lead. Apparently Mozilla is content with being a follower now.
    At the moment, I'm holding off on Firefox 18. This really is a leap forward, but am concerned with coming issues with the new script engine. Given the constant breaking of add-ons, I feel I must rate this browser lower to a 4 for now.

    UPDATE: I broke down and updated to v18. I'm not seeing the big improvement in speed. Firefox 18 was over-hyped, and I fell for it as well. Up to 26% increase in speed my butt. Barely 4 stars. Any more broken add-ons to come and it will be 3 stars.
    Further update:..... When multitasking with other programs Firefox 18 is slow and cumbersome as compared to Firefox 17. VERY noticeable sluggishness in comparison. This is what happens when you rush products out just for the sake of getting an update out to compete with Chrome's constant version updating. 3 stars.

  62. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 18.0 (Jan 8, 2013)

    Update: I don't want to start a flame war here, however, I am tired of the constant whine about FF breaking add ons. What part of "Mozilla doesn't write the add ons" isn't in your native language? It is not Mozilla's fault the authors of the the extensions and themes do not update them. Criticize FF based on running it with no add ons if you want to, but don't criticize it based on using 25-30 add ons whose authors don't keep up with the changes.

    I am usually on the same page as Music, but on the issue of add ons I have to disagree. The only add on I have regular issues with is the Theme "Aeon", but as I said earlier, the author catches up in a day or two of each release. In fact it was fixed today (Jan 9). That being said, to be honest, I don't use a lot of extensions, Ad Block Plus, NoScript, Tab Mix Plus, Fox Clocks, Calculator and a couple of others which the authors update regularly, so perhaps it doesn't impact me all that much. I wouldn't use Chrome on a bet for reasons I have stated in my reviews of that mess.

    @ roj 17.01 was a security update. If you don't like installing the betas as they come out, wait for the final version.

  63. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 18.0 (Jan 8, 2013)

    It's pointless to continue to whine about the rapid version releases. Who cares. I care that the final product is fast, stable, and works with the sites I visit. As someone who actually beta tests Firefox and reads (and submits to) Bugzilla, I know what immense performance improvements went into 18. These improvements were the result of the Memshrink and Snappy projects over the course of a year. New tools are being built to make Firefox even faster and we'll see some of that in version 20. Did you Extension/Add-on break with a new version? Why not complain to the Extension / Add-on author and not Mozilla. The authors, not Mozilla, are supposed to use the latest SDK and even Mozilla makes the SDK work at least two version of Firefox AHEAD of time. Overall, 18 is a major speed boost over the previous versions and my add-ons and extensions work just fine.

  64. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 17.0.1 (Dec 8, 2012)

    Works very well here, unfortunately time moves on & the idiots of this world are being catered for more & more, you only have to look at Windows 8 to see that -

    But for me Firefox is still the least intrusive browser there is I with a bit of tweaking runs as I want it.

  65. 1 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 17.0.1 (Dec 3, 2012)

    And now 17.01.

    SOD OFF Mozilla.

    ONE star for a BS development strategy run by fratbois.

  66. 4 out of 5 stars
    tontito

    Reviewing 17.0.1 (Dec 3, 2012)

    LOL, o wonder how you can even use internet with sutch knowledge...

    "i think its so buggy because nobody has windows 17.0.1 yet, most consumers are still stuck with windows 7 or windows 8...."

  67. 1 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 17.0.1 (Dec 2, 2012)

    They still haven't fixed the cleartype bug :(
    And a couple of days a ago Mozilla announced that they would stop developing the 64-bit version of Firefox: http://ars.to/UoR8Sn
    I've given up on Firefox.
    Now I use palemoon: http://www.palemoon.org/

  68. 3 out of 5 stars
    Ryusennin

    Reviewing 17.0.1 (Dec 1, 2012)

    Hardware acceleration still broken since 17.0.

  69. 2 out of 5 stars
    HeilNizar

    Reviewing 17.0.1 (Dec 1, 2012)

    I will wait for version 77.0 to come out, wont take long to get there :P
    Its more like little kids developing this thing now.

  70. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 17.0.1 (Nov 30, 2012)

    Fixed the issue I had with the Tools menu in the previous release. Seems fast and stable so far

  71. 5 out of 5 stars
    Zootopia3001

    Reviewing 17.0 (Nov 23, 2012)

    I find this update completely unnecessary minus the security fixes. Good to know that the new Social API 'feature' is optional and was disabled in about:config by default.
    The 'click-to-play' feature for plugins is a mixed bag that doesn't meet my expectations. Different sites behave differently with this feature, not standardized at all, so I disabled the click-to-play feature.
    Still the best browser out there. Firefox 18 is the big release I'm waiting for. Tried Chrome again and still a disaster IMO. Been that way since Chrome 8. Too bad the folks at Mozilla think that they need to copy Chrome's constant version updating. Will seem real silly when they get to version 50 something, if not already silly now.

  72. 3 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 17.0 (Nov 22, 2012)

    Getting REALLY tired of the far too frequent and often pointless upgrades which break plugins like PlainOldFavorites and TabMixPlus. ZillaLand has gone back to the ridiculous motto of "development so fast it's almost out of control". Dev your code, test your code THOROUGHLY and come out with timely point releases on a quarterly schedule barring emergencies - REAL ones - with a new full release yearly. Version 17? Really??? If Chrome wasn't such a clusterDuck and actually HAD plugins I'd almost be inclined to give it a go and I won't use that PigInAWig known as IE. Stop harassing your users ZillaLand - you're a HUGE pain in the azz.

    THREE stars for a BS dev strategy.

  73. 1 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 17.0 (Nov 21, 2012)

    I like Firefox but this version (17) enables Cleartype by default and that's HORRIBLE! !!

    The only way I know to disable Cleartype in Firefox 17 is to disable hardware acceleration in the advanced settings.

    If it wasn't for all this my rating would be 3/5

  74. 3 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 17.0 (Nov 21, 2012)

    Not sure what is going on here, it disabled several of my addons, which is to be expected until the authors of the add ons catch up to changes in the new releases, however when I try to open anything from the "tools" menu, nothing happens, zilch, zip, nada. No add ons, nothing. went back to 16.02 and everything works fine.

  75. 4 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 17.0 (Nov 21, 2012)

    Certainly an improvement over 16.02, but I worry about the direction Firefox is heading.

  76. 5 out of 5 stars
    Tallpaultn

    Reviewing 17.0 (Nov 20, 2012)

    @Bala7--That's close to being the stupidest question I've ever heard as Sen. John McCain would say... I would suggest you put your brain in gear before opening your mouth... Mozilla Firefox version 17.0 works great so far!!

  77. 4 out of 5 stars
    Bala7

    Reviewing 17.0 (Nov 20, 2012)

    "for Windows 17"
    where get I get Win17 ?

  78. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 17.0 (Nov 20, 2012)

    No problems, still the best browser by a long way.

  79. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 16.0.2 (Nov 9, 2012)

    Still the best. Nothing has made me change from that view. Chrome, u kidding, a browser with no features. Guess thats for the young kids. IE hasn't been good in a decade. Tried to warm up to Opera, still don't like it. With tons of add on's and themes/personas including the must have of all- Adblock, I can't see ever using those other browsers. any problems I ever get evolve around adobe flash. So I don't blame Firefox for that. Flash has been crap since adobe took it over. As for speed, its not even an issue anymore. They all are the same speed. So it comes down to feature to me. And bar none, Its firefox. You want a Firefox and Thunderbird combo, Seamonkey also is very good. Same code as this..

  80. 3 out of 5 stars
    some guy

    Reviewing 16.0.2 (Nov 4, 2012)

    stopped using 16.02 FF due to high memory usage and not responding was using 2 gigs of ram during a Google image search and locked up, went back to Using Opera 12.02 seems faster and less ram and now has adblock plus plug-in

  81. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 16.0.2 (Oct 29, 2012)

    Basically a security up date. It did, however fix the addons it broke in ver 16.0. Bruno is a troll, no point in responding to him.

  82. 2 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 16.0.1 (Oct 14, 2012)

    This seems to be a step backward from some of the 16 betas. I think the move back to 15.01 should have been permanent.

  83. 5 out of 5 stars
    Artem S. Tashkinov

    Reviewing 16.0.1 (Oct 13, 2012)

    @bruno70

    What a "review"!

    Idiocy prevails!

  84. 5 out of 5 stars
    tontito

    Reviewing 16.0.1 (Oct 12, 2012)

    3 seconds here :P

  85. 5 out of 5 stars
    Zootopia3001

    Reviewing 16.0.1 (Oct 12, 2012)

    Actually took an extra day for Betanews to put it up. It was available yesterday. You'd think that Mozilla would have taken the extra step to contact the sites that make the browser available for download to put the fixed version up ASAP. Not everyone leaves auto-update checked in the Firefox options menu.

    As a speed guide, I've found that the Betanews site itself is a good test for browser speed, especially when clicking the 'View All Reviews' link here. On this topic alone it takes 40 seconds for the whole Firefox review page to finally load on my system(XP, 3.2GHz CPU, 2GB RAM). Not good. Hopefully the new Javascript improvements in Firefox 18 will remedy that. ABC News comments page load is another load drag, if the comments are many. For this I am now giving Firefox only 4 stars.

    UPDATE: I've now found that it was Ghostery that was causing the incredibly slow load times here at Betanews, as mentioned above. Only took 10 seconds to load with Ghostery disabled for Betanews. Now I'm pondering getting rid of Ghostery. Back to 5 stars for Firefox.

  86. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 16.0.1 (Oct 12, 2012)

    There was a security problem with 16.0 so they pulled it reverted to 15.01 fixed it then re-released it.

    (there was a problem in the matter-anti-matter flow system that caused gravometric distortions in the space-time continuum - I ended up back in 2003 until they sorted it)

    @Zootopia3001 - I have had issues with Ghostery causing issues though only on some sites this being one of them, the problem does not occur with DNT+ but that don't block as many trackers either? BTW This issue does not occur with Ghostery on Linux either -

  87. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 16.0 (Oct 11, 2012)

    After an initial error with the download caused by a faulty cache entry on my system I have the V16.0 installed and i did not loose any of my favorite add-ons. I am not sure why I was not able to get this version at the homepage link above. that link sends me to a page with Version 15.0.1 as the latest and only version. Perhaps updating is regional and my region is not ready yet?

    Check this out: Command Line in the Firefox 16 Developer Toolbar - YouTube

  88. 3 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 16.0 (Oct 9, 2012)

    FF screwed the pooch with this version. It broke too many of my add ons to be usable, I went back PM 15.2 until they get it sorted out.

  89. 2 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 16.0 (Oct 9, 2012)

    Sad to say, but FF has jumped the shark. Latest version I can't get multiple sites to work. Including Youtube or Ustream. Always some issue with flash and other plug ins. Which doesn't seem to effect IE or chrome. So, saying goodbye to this browser.

  90. 5 out of 5 stars
    Zootopia3001

    Reviewing 16.0 (Oct 9, 2012)

    Seems the only real improvement is incremental garbage collection activation. However, I've had that turned on manually a couple of versions ago via about:config. Maybe there was an improvement to its garbage collection feature. Still the best browser out there though.
    @Monkey_Punch: BTW, SPDY v3 was introduced in Firefox 15 from what I've read, another feature I already had manually activated in about:config before Mozilla decided to activate it in a prior version upon upgrade/install.

  91. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 16.0 (Oct 9, 2012)

    Fast and only getting faster. Rockin' the new SPDY v3 support too. Looking forward to 18 as it has MORE speed performance updates going into it. Killing Chrome in the numbers (speed-battle.com).

  92. 4 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 16.0 (Oct 9, 2012)

    Just updated, certainly snappier than 15.x, leaves Chrome in the weeds, that's for sure. It must be frustrating to create add-on's for Firefox as each release breaks them, my two favorite themes don't work & now I'm left with probably the worst looking browser in the entire world - FF default.

    Edit: Whats the point in trying to give a decent evaluation when FileForum let people like Bruno continue to post, if that was done on a thread on BetaNews the person would be banned - Pointless -

  93. 5 out of 5 stars
    Mirage_Etoile

    Reviewing 15.0.1 (Oct 8, 2012)

    I noticed that it crashes but I discovered that the cause it's in the plugins .
    Try to disable the useless ones then it should work perfectly .
    Ever a great browser .

  94. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 15.0.1 (Oct 3, 2012)

    Small security up date

    @ PaulWilliams: If you are using something like Nightly Tester Tools to force add on compatibility, you are probably correct. I have had no crashing issues after a month of use.

  95. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 16.0 Beta 6 (Oct 3, 2012)

    Gets better with every release.

    @ bruno70: After months of giving this very good browser bad ratings because you didn't like the syntax Beta News used, you finally give it a rating it deserves? Your arrogance and hubris are beyond comprehension.

  96. 5 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 16.0 Beta 5 (Oct 1, 2012)

    This is the best Firefox browser I have used. Many small but annoying problems are fixed. Speed seems faster as well.

  97. 5 out of 5 stars
    egg83

    Reviewing 16.0 Beta 5 (Sep 27, 2012)

    Since Firefox 14, the improvements have been noticeable, esp. in the areas of speed and page rendering. As usual, high marks for this browser!

  98. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 16.0 Beta 5 (Sep 27, 2012)

    It's amazing the leaps and bounds in performance improvements made to Firefox since 13.0 was released. I've been following the betas and fixes going into 16 and they are amazing. The profiler work, SPDY v3.0, pipelining, leak fixes, etc is some of Mozilla's best work. Wish they would have had this work done a long time ago but better late than never. Now if only Adobe would fix their crashy plugin.

  99. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 16.0 Beta 5 (Sep 27, 2012)

    Seems faster & snappier than 15.01- Looking good -

    @Bruno7- 15.01 is still the final - Your past stupid comments render any of your reviews totally invalid. (a name change perhaps?)

  100. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 16.0 Beta 5 (Sep 26, 2012)

    First of this series of betas I've tried. Good stuff as usual.

  101. 5 out of 5 stars
    Tallpaultn

    Reviewing 16.0 Beta 3 (Sep 15, 2012)

    Mozilla Firefox 16.0b3 performs great. Mozilla changed the UI format back so that it is decent. Thanks Mozilla UI developers. Please don't mess around with the UI anymore. That FF icon & the info. message in the top left hand corner of the screen was absolutely ridiculous, unnecessary & had to go...

  102. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 15.0.1 (Sep 7, 2012)

    Not had any issues & used it for a few hours, a good browser.

  103. 2 out of 5 stars
    PaulWilliams

    Reviewing 15.0.1 (Sep 7, 2012)

    Firefox 15.0.1 keeps crashing on me. Noticeably faster than 14.0, but unstable. Maybe it's one of the extension I'm using.

  104. 5 out of 5 stars
    KenH

    Reviewing 15.0 Final (Aug 31, 2012)

    Using v15.0 with 20 extensions and v15.0 seems to render faster than previous ones. I don't think it's my imagination. Great work Mozilla!

  105. 5 out of 5 stars
    Tallpaultn

    Reviewing 16.0 Alpha 1 (Aug 29, 2012)

    I have been using Firefox 16.0a1 (32bit) most of the day on WinVista SP2 & it is somewhat faster than 15.0 Final & runs very smoothly. Haven't had any glitches so far. I recommend users give it a trial run. Thanks Firefox Development Team--keep on keeping on.

  106. 5 out of 5 stars
    UPieper

    Reviewing 15.0 Final (Aug 28, 2012)

    Hey bruno, the number after your name reflects your IQ, right? ;-)

  107. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 15.0 Final (Aug 28, 2012)

    No problems, running well, gets better with each release!

    Bruno is it possible to make such brainless comments & still access the Internet?

  108. 5 out of 5 stars
    Zootopia3001

    Reviewing 15.0 Final (Aug 28, 2012)

    With the release of version 13, I felt startup time lagged considerably, even more so with profiles. That's fixed with this version. Overall, snappier than the prior two releases.

  109. 5 out of 5 stars
    egg83

    Reviewing 15.0 Final (Aug 28, 2012)

    Seems like with each successive release, this browser gets more responsive and quicker. All my browser extensions work, no problems with page rendering (surprisingly, IE still has problems with a few sites, unreal!). My only issue is with the rapid number changes with the versions, guess developers want to catch up with Chrome, I guess :}

  110. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 15.0 Final (Aug 28, 2012)

    I am very impressed with FF 15. Pretty much stopped using Pale Moon except to check out new releases.

  111. 4 out of 5 stars
    Benevolent Dictator

    Reviewing 15.0 Final (Aug 28, 2012)

    I have just created an account so I could put a comment here. Usually I would not do such a thing, but I'm still high a little bit so voilà. Anyway to all the people who comment on bruno70 comment: common buddies! it's not even worth replying, lets keep focusing on postive things! :)
    Sins I'm beeing asked to type in my review, I would like to explain that my reasoning to award this Mozilla Firefox version and Mozilla Firefox in general for stars is that allthough I regard it very highly I still believe that there is some room for improvement and there allways be.
    Sincerely yours.

  112. 5 out of 5 stars
    Stevefarrell

    Reviewing 15.0 Final (Aug 27, 2012)

    Your a moron Bruno07. If you cant understand the naming then you really are stupid.

  113. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 15.0 Final (Aug 27, 2012)

    The best keeps getting better and better. Alas, stupid Flash plugin still seems to be a problem for some. Not Mozilla's fault though. Hope Adobe gets it together.

    Some nice browsing speedups from SPDY v2 (v3 coming in Fx 16!), Pipelining (if you enable it), and from gobs and gobs of performance fixes from the Snappy project. Many big performance increases will be coming with Fx 17. Good job Mozilla guys!

  114. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 6 (Aug 22, 2012)

    @Bala7, Bruno has been corrected ad nauseum and continues to post his crap about Beta News sending out nutty versions of Windows. He's a troll. As for my illiteracy? I wont comment, I hate flame wars, but you sir don't have a clue what my education level is. Got it?

  115. 4 out of 5 stars
    Bala7

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 6 (Aug 22, 2012)

    bruno70 is NOT a troll. The poster is merely literate. The use of proper English is something you degenerate high school dropouts will never understand.

  116. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 6 (Aug 22, 2012)

    @gatorfan95 do not feed the Trolls - I've been guilty of that lately, they probably can't comprehend anyway ;-) ~

    (Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience)

    @Bala - Bruno70 is a Troll of the highest order and probably finds its amusing to write silly reviews - Your alter ego perhaps? I think he/she should be banned from posting.

  117. 5 out of 5 stars
    Tallpaultn

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 5 (Aug 16, 2012)

    Gatorfan95, I got a big chuckle out of your comment to Bruno70. Struck me as very funny for some reason.

    Keep on keeping on Mozilla Firefox Development Team!! Kudos...

  118. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 5 (Aug 16, 2012)

    @Bruno70 I had hoped Beta News had removed you to stop your trolling, but it appears not. I'd explain it to you again, but it would be a waste of breath. If you dont know what the hell you are talking about please dont give a good program a 1 star rating out of sheer ignorance

  119. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 4 (Aug 11, 2012)

    @gatorfan95 - Agree, I've found the gap between Pale Moon & Firefox has closed significantly since version 14 to the extent I now use FF - FF keeps getting better & streets ahead of the auto-spy Chrome.

  120. 2 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 4 (Aug 11, 2012)

    Maxthon with a chrome skin is perfect

  121. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 4 (Aug 10, 2012)

    I've been using Pale Moon for quite some time now and I've been quite happy with it. I decided to give Firefox another try when it hit 15 beta 2 and I must say it looks like they've caught up with Pale Moon. Couple of little irritations customizing the Menu Bar, Navigation Bar etc, but hey it's beta right?

    @ WAI. You work for Google or what? I suggest all of you Google apologists out there read this.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19200279

    If you want Google spyware on your machines, be my guest. But don't tout that piece of spamware/spyware as the best browser around, it isn't close.

  122. 5 out of 5 stars
    Tallpaultn

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 4 (Aug 9, 2012)

    I have been using Firefox 15.0 since it entered beta 3 on WinVista SP2 Duo-Core Computer & it is performing remarkably well to be a mid-stream beta browser. Mozilla is improving the browser on an ongoing basis & I look forward to each new release & the improvements being made. Keep up the good work, Mozilla Firefox team!!

  123. 5 out of 5 stars
    dailytopup

    Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 21, 2012)

    The well known browser company,Mozilla is all set to come up with its new version of firefox web browser known as Mozilla firefox 14.With better mouse performance and identity features, firefox 14 also include enhanced security.Also the provision for secure google search is also made by automatically switching on HTTPS. While using shared and public Wifi our data will feel protected.The google search suggestions and the searched results will be provided through a secure website but the users will not be to feel any difference in their search.HTTPS searches in the browser are only supported by the Google in their search engine but it is ensured by Mozilla that the provision will be available for other search engines too in the future.

  124. 5 out of 5 stars
    SineWave

    Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 20, 2012)

    OK, this is becoming to look good. I was using v3.6.28 until recently because all this versions and shi* told me something is wrong, nothing else. However, I must say that so far, this works really nice and faster than my beloved 3.6. I have not experienced as much crashes as I expected, too. Just one in about 20 days. Nice work.

    Two digressions, though. IMHO

    Toolbar icons that are just grey now look terrible in my system, since I use white letters on dark background like every other normal, ergonomically conscious person should. Yes, I know, people are not conscious in many ways, even though it's been proven a zillion times that we see the white letters on the dark background much easier than the black letters on the white background. The thing is - computer is not paper! And if we could make black paper, we could see those letters easier, too. Anyway, I liked the toolbar icons in v3.6 the best so far and I want them back. Don't be as stupid as Microsoft to introduce stupid GUI changes just for the sake of it. What looks good is good. Don't rectify what's good already.

    Second. I wish they stopped changing the version numbers like that. It's completely stupid! For me, this is version 4 of Firefox. If you catch my drift... I also think this version confusion is not helping Mozilla in any way, on the contrary, it looks like the company is going down or something...

  125. 5 out of 5 stars
    SineWave

    Reviewing 3.6.28 (Jul 20, 2012)

    Bruno70, you're and idiot. Second time. LOL

  126. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 1 (Jul 18, 2012)

    @WAI - What do you have to do 'to keep up'?

    I can only wonder what browser you use as Chrome has updates on BN on an almost daily basis.

    (if you look in (hidden files) ‘Users/You/AppData/Local/Google' you will probably find lots of old Chrome versions that are still there)

    You don't have to use the beta versions of FF just as you don't have to use the Chrome Devs-Alphas-Betas etc. but if you don't what are you doing on a Beta site?

    I can only assume you are a Googleite & have not used FF recently as you give it one star, it's certainly worth more than that whoever you are?

    'Browser War' - Who would be in that I wonder?

    Firefox has improved immensely this last couple of months & it takes seconds for an update should you require it.

  127. 4 out of 5 stars
    WAI

    Reviewing 15.0 Beta 1 (Jul 18, 2012)

    @Music4Ever, i've had my share experiences with Firefox, Chrome, Maxthon, and sadly Opera yes i mention that browser to. yes i know this is the beta version but still Firefox isn't going anywhere with there fast releases. Chrome is where it's at and i do use Maxthon as well which won the Acid3 Browser test like 2times i think so far. Chrome is simplistic where as Firefox is and it not for some users out there. think of it as Chrome is Windows and Linux is Firefox. not many users use Linux. I like Chrome cause it saves everything to my Google Account. Now i've seen Firefox done something very very similar but i just prefer Chrome over anything else right now. I am no FAN of Google really so. though after using Firefox sometime today i will give it a better ranking. still though i would recommend Chrome over anything for now.

  128. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 17, 2012)

    havent heard from dumbo70 in awhile I had hoped Beta News had banned the troll. Rated 5 stars, as usual, just to counter his BS

  129. 4 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 17, 2012)

    Still a good browser but nowadays Chrome is a no-brainer.

  130. 4 out of 5 stars
    asaenz

    Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 17, 2012)

    OMG when they get to version 20, 30, 40 they're going to have that many versions listed here? Anyway great browser and used daily. If they can't list the latest changes at least a link.

  131. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 17, 2012)

    Still the best browser

  132. 5 out of 5 stars
    Renaak

    Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 17, 2012)

    If you're that stupid you clearly shouldn't be using a computer online and most likely contributing to various botnets.

  133. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 17, 2012)

    Best FF release yet.

    FatBa - Why do you say that? You mean if you have 'no brain surely? Another one with an inbuilt 'Herd Instinct'

  134. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 12 (Jul 11, 2012)

    Seems sorted now, faster than version 13.x - The final should be great.

  135. 5 out of 5 stars
    egg83

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 12 (Jul 11, 2012)

    Seems stable and quite fast at browsing, had no rendering problems, works well! Still my no.1 browser!

  136. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 11 (Jul 6, 2012)

    I found 14b9 and 14b10 to be a bit shaky with rendering but to me 14b11 seems really solid and renders instantly. Noticeable improvement over the earlier betas and likely what Mozilla wanted 13 to be.

  137. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 10 (Jun 29, 2012)

    No problems apart from occasional slight stuttering loading some pages usually on first start page, then seems OK.

    Firefox has made big changes since 13.x to the extent that I'm not able to notice much difference between FF & Pale Moon anymore.

    Not sure how it can mess a system up to be blunt?

    @robmanic44 - Why not just revert to version 13 you were happy with & leave the beta's alone?

  138. 5 out of 5 stars
    Artem S. Tashkinov

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 10 (Jun 29, 2012)

    The best web browser in the world. Period.

  139. 2 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 9 (Jun 29, 2012)

    This version has totally messed up my system. I have no choice but to leave Firefox for good and go with Chrome.

  140. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 9 (Jun 26, 2012)

    @SexyCow It's disingenuous at best to say Firefox is copy/pasting Chrome. Chrome would not even exist if were not for Firefox. Chrome very blatantly rips off Firefox code, reworks it, and then calls it their own product. What a joke. I tried Chrome once and it sucked. Spyware ridden garbage. Enjoy letting the Google marketing machine sell you off to the highest bigger.

    Firefox 14 is a slight improvement to the slightly shaky start of Firefox 13. I mainly use Seamonkey but it's based on *exactly* the same codebase as Firefox. That being said, I did experience some crashing of Firefox after the first week of use. Some were simple things like scrolling a mouse or jumping to another tab. Really dumb, really random. As mysteriouly as the crashes came, they mysteriously went away.

    I've been running all the 14 betas since they went live and the one thing I notice is an improvement in rendering speed. I haven't had any crashes with the 14 betas so far and the issues with crashing on Flash content has been fixed both of Mozilla and Adobe's end.

    All in all, improving quite nicely and smoking Chrome in all speed tests on speed-battle.com. Just sayin'.

  141. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 8 (Jun 20, 2012)

    Mrs/Miss/Ms Cow: I really wonder if you have installed this or if your windows installation is corrupt or full of junk as Firefox continues to improve with each release. It also works fine on my 27" display.

    From version 13 FF has improved in speed greatly, & I have no issues either in Windows or with version 13 in Linux & can only wonder why you do ~ (I'm intrigued: What browser do you actually use?)

    Great browser!

  142. 2 out of 5 stars
    SexyCow

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 7 (Jun 18, 2012)

    Getting worse with with every new version, the UI is going down the drain, the speed ain't increasing but decreasing, the logical layout is being undressed for these gadget smartphones, and they just copy&paste all the rest from Chrome.
    The bugfixing guys all work independently, resulting in every 1 bug fixed introducing 5 new bugs,
    They may be glad the addon developers are keeping a part of their userbase at bay, but most of these are shifting to Chrome also.

    2 points for at least trying to keep up.

    2 points for at least

  143. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 14.0 Beta 6 (Jun 9, 2012)

    To use the new download manager disabled by default, in about:config toggle browser.download.useToolkitUI to false. Still a work in progress, but shaping up nicely.

  144. 5 out of 5 stars
    EMDEE49

    Reviewing 16.0 Alpha 1 (Jun 9, 2012)

    I use this on a 64 bit win 7 Dell Laptop at work without issues. I use FF V16.a1 64bit exclusively with J.D.Edwards and it is insanely fast and stable...

    Keep up the great work........getting better

  145. 5 out of 5 stars
    Bonobi

    Reviewing 16.0 Alpha 1 (Jun 9, 2012)

    Wow, it runs very smooth and fluid. No problems at any of the sites I visit either.

  146. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 16.0 Alpha 1 (Jun 8, 2012)

    Been having some slow down probs with Firefox 13. Also some sites aren't working either. So I saw that this 64 bit version which I never saw before and its been great so far. Very fast, and so far no problems with any of my usually sites. I'm running a 64 bit windows 7 pc. Maybe its time more 64 bit programs are released. Lord knows, I've had a ton of software problems since I got this pc.

  147. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 13.0 (Jun 4, 2012)

    I'm happy with it. I am a die hard FF fan but have been using Pale Moon for some time now. This compares very well to Pale Moon 12.1. If there are no significant differences between this and the 13.0 update to Pale Moon when it comes out I may be back to FF full time. Definitely a 5 star program.

  148. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 13.0 (Jun 4, 2012)

    Still the best browser on the market.

  149. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 13.0 (Jun 4, 2012)

    No problems either on two Windows 7 PC's & on my old DELL laptop running XP.

    Great release!

  150. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 13.0 (Jun 4, 2012)

    @bigspud: *JUST* upgraded to 13 *FROM* 3.6???? Really? REALLY? Troll much? You waited 10 versions to upgrade and you are wondering why you are having problems? It's like complaining about upgrading from Windows 3.1 to Windows 7 64-bit and blaming the OS. If you didn't keep up with the newer versions after 3.6 and are having problems that's your fault chump, not Mozilla's.

    Firefox 13 final is running like gangbusters on my old Pentium M 2.26MHz laptop and XP SP3. Big performance win with this version.

  151. 1 out of 5 stars
    bigspud

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 7 (Jun 1, 2012)

    tried upgrading from 3.6, now ff unusable.
    these new versions are even worse than ie.
    i guess google millions$ payment to mozilla means they are steering the ff ship, which is sinking fast.

  152. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 7 (Jun 1, 2012)

    This has to be the best thing that's happened to Firefox in years!

    One hundred billion stars ~

  153. 3 out of 5 stars
    SineWave

    Reviewing 12.0 (May 31, 2012)

    Still using 3.6.28 as all of these updates are quite confusing, and 3.6.28 works great. Until this storm calms down, I'm going to be using 3.6.28. I don't even want to try v12.

    I do expect that hardware [VGA] acceleration will bring it up to speed, but there are probably many bugs to squash before this version becomes as reliable as v3.6.

    It's a bit sad. To say the least. As if aliens infested Mozilla? LOL Three stars for the effort... but I'm not going to advice anyone to upgrade from 3.6. On the contrary - I will highly advice against it.

  154. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 6 (May 30, 2012)

    Looking very good, I abandoned Chrome some time ago based on their increasing desire to know just about every aspect of my life.

    A brief flirtation last week with Chrome has not changed my mind but rather reinforced my opinion that FireFox is the best browser there is.

    Will be even better after the final & PaleMoon clean it up even further.

  155. 4 out of 5 stars
    VelvetElvis

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 5 (May 27, 2012)

    Love this browser, and have for years, but disappointed that Mozilla has drank the Google KoolAid regarding releasing minor improvements as full-point releases. Going from v2 to 3 to 4 was a Big Deal, now it's .

  156. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 5 (May 24, 2012)

    I commend Mozilla for supporting old OSes for as long as they did but the bi-product was that all the other browsers didn't have the legacy Achilles Heel that Firefox et al did and started to gain in speed and performance. Beginning with this version, Mozilla finally decided to cut the cord and dump the legacy support so they can finally crank up performance. I hope it's not too little to late as they should have done this probably back in the Firefox 4 days. 13 is shaping up to be fast and lean and I notice with this 5th beta how much so as compared to version 12. Hope the Mozilla folks can reclaim the performance crown and win back all those who have fled to Chrome and other browsers. Benchmarks I've seen so far are very, very promising.

  157. 5 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 4 (May 18, 2012)

    This beta has made a ton of progress. It's much more friendly and now supports my security system. It also supports all my extensions.

  158. 5 out of 5 stars
    Assirius

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 4 (May 18, 2012)

    Still the best absolutely .
    ;-)
    Its power lies in its frequent updates !

  159. 3 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 3 (May 11, 2012)

    The problem I have with this version is the failure of my system security to auto-update when it's installed.

  160. 1 out of 5 stars
    TROLL

    Reviewing 9.0.1 (May 8, 2012)

    S P Y W A R E

    you dont able clear form search history that check greyed forever

    S P Y W A R E

  161. 1 out of 5 stars
    TROLL

    Reviewing 10.0.2 (May 8, 2012)

    S P Y W A R E

    you dont able clear form search history that check greyed forever

    S P Y W A R E

  162. 4 out of 5 stars
    Bala7

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 2 (May 3, 2012)

    @Uriel

    or ... just use Palemoon.

  163. 1 out of 5 stars
    Uriel

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 2 (May 2, 2012)

    Since Firefox depends on marketers for their bread and butter, they seem to be developing the browser to meet the of those where their source of revenue comes from. This means that those who value their privacy will have to fight harder to protect it. I have ditched Firefox for the Pale Moon spin off.

  164. 1 out of 5 stars
    TGB72

    Reviewing 12.0 (Apr 30, 2012)

    6 tabs open without flash content, 48% of CPU usage and 312MB of memory consumption, I'm user of firefox since v1.5 and I saw the downfall since v4 to this crap, I'm really tired of it, I think I'll try opera or be back to FF v3.6.20 since I dislike chrome too.

  165. 1 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 13.0 Beta 1 (Apr 30, 2012)

    Welcome to the new silent update. no thanks

    Pale Moon fortunately will not be following suit

  166. 1 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 15.0 Alpha 1 (Apr 30, 2012)

    v15? hahahahahaha

  167. 1 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 12.0 (Apr 26, 2012)

    This browser doesn't need a review, it needs an exterminator. My security system wouldn't auto-update, backup software was non-functional and system cleaner didn't work.

    Mozilla can have this back with a loud NO!

  168. 4 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 14.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly) (Apr 25, 2012)

    i previously posted that fx 14 was well designed and responsive, but since some of the features have been backed out to meet rapid release schedule, i am withdrawing my endorsement and am returning to nightly. i've still switched from chrome as my primary browser and i'm happy, but no longer with fx 14. there's no way to withdraw a review, so i'm creating a replacement review.

  169. 3 out of 5 stars
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 12.0 (Apr 24, 2012)

    I'm frustrated with these rapid releases.

    In part because things that worked perfectly in v3.6.x do not work - either at all or in part - in 12.

    Adblock Plus in 3.6 works incredibly well. But in 12, even with that option unselected to allow certain ads through, there are a Bunch of ads that get through. I will check out Google News and ads that do not show up on 3.6.x show up in 12. Same thing for YouTube and many other channels.

    The skin I use, Past Modern, does not work with 12 either.

    TabMix Plus works differently, as does Custom Geometry - and I seem to lose some functionality.

    I really dig Firefox. v3.6.27 works GREAT for me. Why do they have to go and break stuff that works?

  170. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 12.0 (Apr 23, 2012)

    Fast and clean. Firefox may be catching up with Pale Moon finally.

  171. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 12.0 (Apr 23, 2012)

    Wow, noticeable improvement in speed and loading of pages. Want even faster rendering? Go to about:config and enable SPDY. This is also the last version that will work on Windows 2000 and older OSes. Can't wait for Fx13. Major speed and performance boost coming. Woot!

  172. 4 out of 5 stars
    asaenz

    Reviewing 12.0 Beta 6 (Apr 19, 2012)

    Would be nice if people that complain about websites not displaying correctly would post a couple here to test out. FF is my primary browser and I have no plans of changing soon. Look forward to using 64-bit version that isn't nightly version.

  173. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 12.0 Beta 6 (Apr 18, 2012)

    I gave this a try and I must admit, on my Win 7 64 bit system it rocks pretty well. Seems as fast or faster as the latest Pale Moon Version.

    @Bruno........you are not even worth calling a troll.
    @ Blaxima....I'm not sure what you are on about. I visit many, many graphics intensive pages, including those with an assortment of videos. I have never seen this FF broken image icon you are talking about.

  174. 3 out of 5 stars
    Uriel

    Reviewing 12.0 Beta 4 (Apr 4, 2012)

    If Roboform doesn't start supporting the Blue Moon browser, I'm gonna have to drop Roboform as well.

  175. 1 out of 5 stars
    McAleck

    Reviewing 11.0 (Mar 17, 2012)

    Firefox is a goner. They just can't keep up with Google's development pace because they're not used to it. The fact that they've decided to push out new releases as frequently as Google has taken a serious toll on Firefox. Instead of getting better with each release, it's just becoming worse.

  176. 3 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 12.0 Beta 1 (Mar 16, 2012)

    "top lighting speed"?!?! I'm thinking people that are fapping over this browser really aren't testing the others.

    It's (supposedly) at version 12 and all of the issues I've always had with this browser remain with any improvements to them being only slight at best. A perfect example of something that irks me is that stupid broken image icon that ff put all over a page until it is able to load them. Other browsers don't and just load the images faster. It's not uncommon for me to go to a video and image intensive page and see all (that means IE too) the other browsers have loaded the page while ff is still replacing that icon with the image.

    Chrome really has surpassed this but I wouldn't touch that vanilla spyware anymore

  177. 3 out of 5 stars
    PaulWilliams

    Reviewing 11.0 (Mar 14, 2012)

    I hate to say it, but version 11 is a big step back for Firefox. In the few days I've been using it, webpages that loaded perfectly on Firefox 10 are now loading incorrectly. I would have learned to accept it if it only happened a couple times, but it's happening all to frequently. This version has serious problems and should have never been allowed out of testing. I'm going to switch back to Firefox 10.0.2.

  178. 4 out of 5 stars
    dejavu

    Reviewing 11.0 (Mar 14, 2012)

    The Troll is trolling!!! :-)
    About my default browser: every version new add-ons with problems!

  179. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 11.0 (Mar 14, 2012)

    oh for God's sake bruno70, are you really that stupid? It's not Windows 11, it's Firefox ver 11 for Windows. Where do trolls like you breed?

  180. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 11.0 (Mar 14, 2012)

    Seems faster & I haven't had any issues.

    For more info on enabling SPDY go:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY

  181. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 11.0 (Mar 13, 2012)

    Yup, 11 final was built last night and will go live today if not already. If you download and install it and it has a Build ID of 20120312181643 you are good. In terms of speed, it seems snappier. You can finally turn on SPDY with this version. No issues installing over 10.0.2 for me.

  182. 5 out of 5 stars
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 11.0 Beta 6 (Mar 6, 2012)

    I like the direction FF is going, it can only get better.

    There is a great add-on that actually prevents just about all tracking, it makes very interesting viewing even if you are not paranoid - http://www.abine.com/dntdetail.php

    I have no connection with this writers of this add-on, I actually saw it a couple of weeks ago on a UK PC magazine forum I frequent.

  183. 5 out of 5 stars
    kstev99

    Reviewing 11.0 Beta 6 (Mar 6, 2012)

    Great browser. The last BETA ran fine on my computer,so I'll give it a 5 but I recently started using Palemoon. It's hard to beat for overall speed . I wish more Chrome users would give it a shot like Input Overload. I doubt that you would want to go back. Mozilla browsers remain the most customizable of any.

  184. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 11.0 Beta 5 (Feb 29, 2012)

    Can't be that buggy.
    Used previous version without issues.

  185. 5 out of 5 stars
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 11.0 Beta 5 (Feb 29, 2012)

    I give it a 5 for what it does and out of years of loyalty.......Palemoon is much better on my Win 7, 64 bit machine however, for those of you who dont want to wait until version 13. Glad to hear they might switch to a better compiler and drop support for 2000 and XP Sp1. But I've heard this before and been left hanging.....Palemoon until then

  186. 2 out of 5 stars
    carlvui

    Reviewing 10.0.2 (Feb 19, 2012)

    I see Mozilla is trying hard and I wouldn't contest the fact it has many great features I have always liked, but it seems the development environment is either unwilling or have difficulties to follow Mozilla's new development philosophy and market policy of releasing a brand new main version in every six weeks, not mentioning, they are still buggy and need a lot of fixes.

    Upgrading to v10 now, I would lose three main and useful extensions of my Kaspersky internet security softpack, moreover even the latest Java Console 6.0.31 and many other minor extensions in the add-ons as they are not compatible with FF and Mozilla disables them all.

    It seems Mozilla doesn't mind upsetting or even losing a a considerable part of its most dedicated and loyal user base if the their business interests of advancing Firefox's features and technologies requires such a scarifies.

    No problem. I still appreciate and like FF, but I have a fill of their bugs and headless hasty development project and now as I have to choose between my IS softpack and FF, I opt for my Kaspersky IS soft and I will see where to go as there are always more choices; Chrome, Opera or even if everybody thinks I am an idiot, I will turn back to IE if it is necessary.

    I know, that no one is forcing me to use cutting edge that might have compatibility issues, but yes they do if they cease to deliver security updates and go to kill the old one. At this moment I am using v3 until I get security updates or it works and then let me see something else. Many thanks for the nice v3 Mozilla, and good bye now.

  187. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 10.0.2 (Feb 19, 2012)

    Hugh G. Rection - I doubt that very much, they do say if you have to brag....

    Where are these idiots coming from - As for FF getting better, looking forward also for later versions.

  188. 4 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 11.0 Beta 3 (Feb 19, 2012)

    Pale Moon is still faster & smoother on a half decent PC, good to hear MZ are ditching the old Win versions - Pity it's not yet though.

    Until them I will continue to use PM which is far better than Chrome which I used & defended for some time.

    As for the reviews from 'TROLL' I can only wonder if He/She ever attended school.

  189. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 10.0.2 (Feb 17, 2012)

    Huge Erection / Hugh G. Rection....really? Of course, it's some 15 year old. Or just Bruno70 double-trolling. In any case, this is just a minor update to fix a couple issues and one security bug. I keep reading lots of good news coming down the pipe for version 13 though. Can't wait.

  190. 5 out of 5 stars
    reddy.shyam

    Reviewing 10.0.2 (Feb 17, 2012)

    Hugh, It just means Firefox 10.0.2 for Windows. They just write it the other way around.

  191. 1 out of 5 stars
    Hugh G. Rection

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 14, 2012)

    I agree with Bruno70.
    What the hell is "Windows 10.0.1" when Windows 8 has
    not even been released as a beta version yet?

  192. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sekypapa

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 13, 2012)

    Much better and faster than the previous - I like it :)

  193. 5 out of 5 stars
    tontito

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 11, 2012)

    Betanews need to unallow less intelligent people from posting in here...

    I really enjoy this version, tomshardware tests are saying that even v9 beats chrome :)

  194. 4 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 10, 2012)

    Pale Moon much better, sorry chaps. You know it;s true.

  195. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 10, 2012)

    This point release just reverts one thing that a few people were having a problem with, nothing more. But on another note related to speed or rendering, if there are those of you out there in Chromeland smokin' the ganj stating that Chrome is leaps and bounds faster than Firefox, try enabling Pipeling (you know, the feature that's been around for 6+ years) in Firefox (Chrome is developing their own similar technology called SPDY). Go to about:config, set network.http.pipelining to true, restart Firefox. Clever tricks to make Chrome *seem* like its rendering faster does not make it a faster browser.

  196. 3 out of 5 stars
    kb3grz

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 10, 2012)

    I like using Firefox however this version 10.0.1 has a bug it always checks your extenstion compatabilty on start up and it hijacks you homepage even though you have it set in the browser options.

  197. 5 out of 5 stars
    TROLL

    Reviewing 11.0 Beta 2 (Feb 10, 2012)

    browser war rulez :-)

  198. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 11.0 Beta 1 (Feb 6, 2012)

    Some real good fixes are going into v11 onward and those of you advocating Waterfox and others will be pleased to hear that Mozilla *officially* will kill support for Windows 2000 / Windows XP SP1 from version 13 onward. They are moving to a newer compiler that will GREATLY boost the performance of Firefox. About time. So, like, yay and stuff.

  199. 5 out of 5 stars
    grum36

    Reviewing 13.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly) (Feb 4, 2012)

    i enjoy the x64 version since firefox 4 speeder than x32 but where are the aurora, beta and rc x64 !!!!!

  200. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 10.0 (Jan 31, 2012)

    Unfortunately, 1 plug in i use allot (real player download) doesn't work. Everything else is fine. As for spammer Blaxima, go back to using mosaic, its about ur speed.

  201. 5 out of 5 stars
    egg83

    Reviewing 10.0 (Jan 31, 2012)

    Have noticed the improvement in speed since the 8.x versions, overall, seems to be heading in the right direction. All my Firefox extensions work fine, rendering of sites is not problematic. Hope to see the improvements keep coming!!

  202. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 10.0 (Jan 31, 2012)

    I really wish Opera would work on the sites that this and Chrome do so I can stop needing 2 browsers.

    With Google's draconian views on privacy I'd rather this or Pale Moon be my number 2 but in spite of the glowing sentiments here, this browser simply does not perform nearly as well as the other 2. Page loading times and resource consumption have always been an achilles and wild version number jumping aside, they still are.

  203. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 10.0 (Jan 31, 2012)

    Just installed 10.0 final and it's running fine. Glad to see that Mozilla decided that beginning with 10.0 they will mark as compatible all plugins/addons even if they are not built to run with 10.0. Now, all the whiners with their obscure plugins can quit complaining that it's Mozilla's fault their plugin developers hasn't gotten off his or her respective posterior and updated the plugin...in 3 years. Mozilla, it's taken you long enough but better late than never.

  204. 5 out of 5 stars
    pfg

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 6 (Jan 25, 2012)

    Firefox is now ten years ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  205. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 6 (Jan 25, 2012)

    The amount of increased performance Mozilla has been squeezing out of Firefox since 6.x is amazing. 10 is very polished 9.0 as far as I can tell. 11 on up is where the new features start getting merged. But I have to admit that they are holding back the performance of Firefox by continuing to keep in support for ancient OSes like Windows 2000 or earlier. I've seen what Pale Moon can do when the legacy cruft is trimmed out and it's truly what the Mozilla devs should consider doing to stay relevant in the performance arena. They caught up well enough to Chrome in terms of performance but because they continue to maintain legacy compatibility, they'll never beat Chrome. Hey Mozilla devs, drop support for anything older than Win2K and take a hint from the Pale Moon devs and you'll get back all those users you lost to Chrome.

  206. 4 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 5 (Jan 19, 2012)

    Hope when 10 goes final Pale Moon release it in eventually, if you like FF you will LOVE Pale moon esp. under Windows. (its true)

  207. 5 out of 5 stars
    niknetpc

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 4 (Jan 12, 2012)

    Best just got better! Now waiting for bruno70..;)

  208. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 4 (Jan 12, 2012)

    I don't see or feel the speed increase from 9.0 to 10.0 as I did going from 8.0 to 9.0 but it seems a little snappier overall. Most of the stuff they wanted to improve and put into 9 that wasn't fully baked is going into 10. Looks like the add-on compatibility mode *might* be turned on by default for this version. All those whiners whose ancient and dead add-ons the developers are no longer updating or supporting will allegedly work in some capacity. Overall, it seems Mozilla has finally gotten Firefox to where it'll render benchmarks of my-browser-is-faster-than-your-browser war irrelevant. Now if they would just fix the damn issue with printing blank pages that have a SWF image/anim I'd be happier (see bug 590951).

  209. 3 out of 5 stars
    harryrai

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 3 (Jan 6, 2012)

    i just downloaded the latest version... it rocks..
    performance ok...but cool

  210. 4 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 3 (Jan 6, 2012)

    The best FF available at the moment, sorted most of my major issues the 9.xx, still prefer Chrome but FF is still nice.

    Still managing to be nicer in 2012 made it so far :-)

  211. 2 out of 5 stars
    bigspud

    Reviewing 9.0.1 (Jan 1, 2012)

    this is just junk, no wonder everyone is switching to chrome.
    i think google paid $300 million to mozilla so they would sabotage firefox.
    mozilla needs to go back to v3.6 and just do minor tweaks.

  212. 5 out of 5 stars
    ghosten

    Reviewing 12.0 Alpha 1 - Nightly Build (Dec 26, 2011)

    what a nice experience with this nightly! thank you Firefox people....perfect! top lightning speed and reliable

  213. 3 out of 5 stars
    outofspace

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 1 (Dec 25, 2011)

    we're waiting for Firefox 232....

  214. 3 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 1 (Dec 23, 2011)

    BTW Version 9 has had an incremental update to 9.0.1. Unusually this has not broken extensions & themes.

  215. 5 out of 5 stars
    martylynn72

    Reviewing 12.0 Alpha 1 - Nightly Build (Dec 23, 2011)

    This version for an alpha is pure blazimg fire with no problems so far on my home built quad core AMD. Runs stable. Adobe Flash works fine.

  216. 1 out of 5 stars
    HeilNizar

    Reviewing 12.0 Alpha 1 - Nightly Build (Dec 23, 2011)

    v12 Already? Hahahahahahahaha

  217. 5 out of 5 stars
    Eeyan

    Reviewing 10.0 Beta 1 (Dec 22, 2011)

    Just downloaded this version (v10 B1) It seems crisper and snappier than v9.

  218. 5 out of 5 stars
    reddy.shyam

    Reviewing 12.0 Alpha 1 - Nightly Build (Dec 22, 2011)

    Excellent! A 64bit finally straight from mozilla. Nice! Looking forward for the stable version.

  219. 1 out of 5 stars
    TROLL

    Reviewing 12.0 Alpha 1 - Nightly Build (Dec 22, 2011)

    No reviews yet.

  220. 5 out of 5 stars
    Terumo

    Reviewing 9.0.1 (Dec 22, 2011)

    To Uriel
    Well ther you go, Chrome have don a better job that Firefox then.
    Chrome is the best anyway.

  221. 5 out of 5 stars
    DrTeeth

    Reviewing 9.0.1 (Dec 22, 2011)

    Reasons for using Firefox, in no particular order:-
    1) Extensions
    2) Bookmark sidebar so bookmarks always visible (unlike Chromium - I don't use Google-branded release)
    3) I do not have to click mouse to activate the bookmarks sidebar or main window (like with IE)

  222. 5 out of 5 stars
    TC17

    Reviewing 9.0.1 (Dec 22, 2011)

    Still my favorite browser.

  223. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 9.0.1 (Dec 21, 2011)

    9.0.1 sent out just a few hours after version 9 was released. Curious. Either way, still the best browser out on the market..

  224. 5 out of 5 stars
    PaulWilliams

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    I've loved Firefox for a long time, but after a while I got irritated with it's instability so I turned to Google Chrome. Chrome is acceptable, but overly simplistic and lacks customization not to mention Google's aggressive marketing. Firefox's best features are it's Extensions, Live Bookmarks, Clean Interface, Access to Advanced Settings and Speed. I can't get used to any other browser and I've tried them all.

  225. 5 out of 5 stars
    Uriel

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    Still the best browser. The only reason Google Chrome popularity is increasing is because of all the sneak installs that come with freeware.

  226. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    Still the best and not ripping off code to enhance their browser. Yeah, I'm looking at YOU Google. Please report @Bruno to the Betanews people or just tell Betanews to fix the Syntax of the file forums so syntax Nazi's like Bruno will write proper reviews.

  227. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    Still the best browser out there. No browser comes close as far as add on's and features. Speed, really dont difference between and of the top browsers.

  228. 2 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    In all fairness & because I did a C image last night installed this version of FF. It's a pretty good browser (edit: no it's not) but as a Chrome fan I still feel it's losing points with each release to Chrome. Maybe they need to start again with a blank sheet?

    It would be churlish to say or rate FF as rubbish as it's not, (edit: yes it is) but i can see why Chrome is adding users & FF is losing them. Chrome can be fully setup in less than 5 mins, FF takes some time as does my old favorite Opera.

    For whatever reason Chrome does to me to have the edge on speed, neither is it as clunky, my home page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news crashed on several occasions, I haven't had this with Chrome as long as I can remember. M developers need to get a grip & visit the planet earth. I did give it 3 stars but after living with FF this morning that has gone to 2 stars.

    It will be interesting to review FF next xmas as if they don't pull something out of the hat sharpish I see FF going further downhill which would be a shame as competition is always a good thing & I don't even count IE.

    @bruno70, what are you on?

  229. 1 out of 5 stars
    HeilNizar

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    @smaragdu
    Well said sir, Firefox developers spoiled it big time.

  230. 4 out of 5 stars
    tontito

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    Hey smaragdus, how long have you been spreading that crap reviews without testing new versions?

    Are you writing just to increase your post counts?

    A lot of things changed since version 6 and 7, maybe you should try before reviewing anything else...

  231. 1 out of 5 stars
    smaragdus

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    The guys from Mozilla ruined the best browser ever with version 4 so I was forced to switch to SeaMonkey (which uses the same great Gecko engine but allows more customization and the GUi is not ruined).

    Firefox has been crippled in every possible way since version 4 (the beginning of Firefox downfall):

    - preposterous version numbering- it is absurd to release buggy versions without thorough testing, it is absurd to try to catch up with Google Chrome version numbers, it is absurd to torture add-on developers- most of them develop add-ons in their free time so they cannot keep to this crazy release contest with Google Chrome and as a result many add-ons turn out to be incompatible with every new Firefox version.

    - removal of everything useful, for example- RSS icon from the URL bar. The classic Status Bar has been removed and replaced with the terrible add-ons bar (the +(close) button is just idiotic, the visible bars could be customized from Options menu). So users are given no options to customize the browser. Firefox developers (Asa Dotzler and the like) are deaf to users’ opinions, suggestions and feedback and it seems that their target group is not the power users but the ignorant masses (an example of their absurd logic- only 10% of Firefox users use RSS feeds, so then let’s remove it entirely from the URL bar with no option of enabling it, which will have only one effect- those who has been utilizing it will suffer while those who have never been aware of what RSS means will most likely not notice the difference at all).

    - imitating other browsers’ GUIs- copycatting from Opera and Google Chrome will not make those who prefer Opera and Google Chrome like Firefox and switch to it. On the contrary, those who have been using Firefox for years will be disappointed since one of the reasons of choosing Firefox has been its GUI. As a result of the GUI change Firefox lost its identity.

    - removal by default of http:// – this is sheer idiocy since it prevents users from copying/sharing/saving/publishing the exact URL address of a web page.

    - with every new release Firefox becomes more and more resource-hungry, less stable and slower.

    I can elaborate more on Firefox collapse but I don’t have the time. In brief- Firefox looks like Opera/Google Chrome now but performs much worse- it starts slower, loads pages slower, crashes often, it has been stripped of functionality and customization options, with every new release there is a large number of add-ons that would not work being incompatible, and has adopted a ludicrous version numbering (for less than a year the version number doubled- for 7 years of development Firefox has reached version 3.6+ and for 9 months it accumulated to 9/10) that does not illustrate the actual development.

    Before version 4 I recommended Firefox to everyone and installed it to my friends’ machines. I do this no more.

  232. 3 out of 5 stars
    lovenuke

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    Thanks for sharing all useful links..

  233. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 9.0 Final (Dec 20, 2011)

    It may technically be the final build, but it still installs as a beta. This is confirmed by the "you are running a beta" welcome screen post-installation.

    It's not "final" until it hits the main Mozilla download page.

  234. 5 out of 5 stars
    ali4ek

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 6 (Dec 19, 2011)

    Released 9.0:
    ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/9.0/

  235. 3 out of 5 stars
    Jammerdelray

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 6 (Dec 14, 2011)

    Going to try the new beta out, was experiencing blue a few blue screens, nvidia driver crashing (latest one) which only happens when firefox 9 beta 5 was running, I'm guessing a bug with hardware acceleration.

  236. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 5 (Dec 9, 2011)

    Chrome, Chrome, Chrome. Really? SO much better? I tried it and I didn't see what all the fuss was about. Clever algorithms to make it *appear* the page is loading faster than it actually is is just snake oil to me. Sure, it's easy to steal the features of firefox and make a *better* browser when you've got tons of highly paid programmers doing the work. It's easy to make a *better* browser when you can fully see what's in someone else's code and fix what's wrong and stuff it into your browser and call it progress. The fact of the matter is Firefox is a bit late to the speed and performance game but it has caught up with Chrome. Firefox is a totally different model of development than Chrome so quit complaining. To all the naysayers who say Chrome does not copy or steal from Firefox code: why is Google *SO* hell bent on finishing an HTTP Pipelining solution (something Mozilla browsers have had for, oh I dunno, 5+ years) before Firefox 9 goes gold? You do the math. Firefox is still my browser of choice. Bruno's real name is Gil Masen.

  237. 1 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 5 (Dec 9, 2011)

    Too little too late, nothing like as fast or as easy to setup as Chrome.

    Expect to see FF losing more ground to Chrome in the coming months as FF struggles to find its way which it lost a year or so ago.

    @bruno, what are you on about?

    @Monkey – Regardless of your defence of FF it is losing ground & looking at any graph it’s pretty obvious that this is going to continue.

    As you say Chrome does load faster, for whatever reason is not relevant, the fact that it does this is sufficient for the majority of users that have no knowledge of programming. Let’s see how things are in maybe a years’ time, that fair I think.

    Your spirited defense of a sinking ship is fair dink-um. Oh & BTW If I want to complain I will, OK?

  238. 5 out of 5 stars
    Roman Pillow

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 5 (Dec 8, 2011)

    It's getting better where it needs it the most, under-the-hood optimizations and speed. Great !

  239. 1 out of 5 stars
    elopez17

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 5 (Dec 8, 2011)

    would Adobe Flash Player work with beta 9 ?

  240. 5 out of 5 stars
    niknetpc

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 5 (Dec 8, 2011)

    MOZILLA FIREFOX (v9) 9.0 Beta 5 - FOR WINDOWS - (For Bruno70) :)

  241. 4 out of 5 stars
    johnk119

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 4 (Dec 6, 2011)

    people they're allowed to call their revisions anything they want either use them or don't... and it doesn't mean it's for windows 9 it means its the 9th version... it's nice to see such an educated person out there

  242. 3 out of 5 stars
    HeilNizar

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 4 (Dec 1, 2011)

    Mozilla has gone wild with their versioning conventions :D

  243. 4 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 8.0.1 (Nov 28, 2011)

    This browser doesn't coordinate well with my system security program. The browser is just fine, so I'll have to check with my security folks to see what's up.

  244. 2 out of 5 stars
    jenusi

    Reviewing 7.0.1 (Nov 25, 2011)

    dump firefox, get chrome at www.google.com/chrome

  245. 4 out of 5 stars
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 3.6.24 (Nov 22, 2011)

    3.6.x (now at 24) still works great on just about everything. All my plugins/addons remain functional and in tact and browsing each and every day is a pleasure. I like me some status bar!

    I really don't like that Mozilla has taken on the Chrome schedule It's not only a mess for plugin/addon writers and the like, but for anybody trying to get their company to actually consider Firefox as an option.

    Hope I don't have to leave 3.6.x anytime soon.

  246. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 2 (Nov 17, 2011)

    Works fine for me on XP and Win 7. And now, to get rid of Bruno70: Contact the Betanews team and get his account removed. He's either Noam Chomsky or a Noam Chomsky's favorite student. In any case, the only way to get him kicked off is to write to Betanews and get him removed.

  247. 4 out of 5 stars
    bataraja

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 2 (Nov 17, 2011)

    I still can not believe that the world is so full of ret***s! Come on! Windows 9? Really? Folks, turn on the brain before you comment on this piece of software! This is a beta 2 version of Firefox 9 for Windows 7/2000/2003/Vista/XP! And btw, nice work you guys from Mozilla! ;)

  248. 4 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 8.0.1 (Nov 17, 2011)

    Nice but still losing ground to Chrome.

  249. 4 out of 5 stars
    Bala7

    Reviewing 9.0 Beta 1 (Nov 10, 2011)

    *** off topic alert ***
    In our age of Twitter and rap music it's very sad how American En has been butchered. A testament to the abysmal standards throughout the American public school system. Confusing uses of grammar, poor syntax, poor understanding of verbs proceeding proper nouns and we have what I suspect are American born posters illiterate of their own language.

  250. 3 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 8.0 (Nov 7, 2011)

    Two bugs that see immediately with new version

    1)On installation, theme switched to default. If this is intentional than it is bad idea.
    2)Firefox process does not stop when browser window get closed. Very annoying and inconvenient when restarting Firefox after updating addons.

    Also I do not remember Firefox to take so much memory from the start. What is going on with memory management?

  251. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 8.0 (Nov 7, 2011)

    So far so good. All themes and add on's worked. Still the best browser out in about. Though allowing spammers like Bruno to voice bs is a little annoying.

  252. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 8.0 (Nov 7, 2011)

    To anyone wanting to spew against Bruno70, he's a troll who is just pointing out the fact that the syntax of the sentence "Mozilla Firefox (v8) for Windows 8.0" does make it *sound* like it's for Windows 8.0. Although the rest of the 99.999% of us understand that it is not for Windows 8.0 but Firefox 8.0, we score it accordingly. It's just the user Bruno70's way of downrating for the sake of downrating until Betanews fixes the syntax mistake.

    As far as the final of 8.0 is concerned, it's running great here. All my addons work fine. Maybe addon developers finally got the hint that they should keep up work, eh?

  253. 5 out of 5 stars
    jeck

    Reviewing 3.6.22 (Nov 4, 2011)

    I never had any real problems with v3; I believe I was using v3.6.18 when I first upgraded to v4.01.

    The only reason I upgraded was to see if v4 would handle heavy flash environments better than v3. V3 does handle Flash well, but in heavy Flash environments, at least for me, it tended to slow down and degrade a lot. V4 does handle the heavy Flash environments better than v3 and is faster overall, but v4 has problems.

    Firefox v3 is the most stable and reliable browser I've ever used and I had no problem with my add-on extensions with v3 either.

    v3 is still my favorite and I highly recommend it. If they can make the newer versions as stable and reliable as v3 then they will once again have a great browser, but they haven't achieved that yet.

  254. 4 out of 5 stars
    jeck

    Reviewing 5.0.1 (Nov 4, 2011)

    Firefox is my default browser; I won't use IE and I won't use Chrome. IE is still IE with all of it's problems and doesn't hold a candle to Firefox, no matter the version, and it MS so you know they're being nosy. Chrome I've heard works very well with Flash, but it's still the nosiest browser out there then add the fact that it's not configurable. I have Opera installed, but only use it for certain things. I've also tried Apple Safari and oh yeah it's fast, but there are just some facets of Flash it just can't handle and of course it's not at all configurable.

    So, that brings us back to Firefox; I upgraded to version 4.01 from version 3 as v3 handled Flash pretty well, but in a heavy Flash environment it tended to slow down and degrade a lot more. V4 seems to be able to handle the heavy Flash environments much better and is much faster overall that v3.

    My one complaint with v4.01 is that it crashes quite a bit usually when there is a lot of page switching going on. Other than that is great.

    No change with v5; it still crashes with heavy page switching. Other than that I have not problems with it.

  255. 5 out of 5 stars
    asaenz

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 6 (Nov 1, 2011)

    Some versions are already being prepared for Win 8 (touchscreen version that might be released in 2012) but I don't think that is the intent here. Currently using Ver 8 with no major problems and using Nightly ver 10 (allows for real 64 bit installation) with no major problems other than a few addons not working.

  256. 5 out of 5 stars
    aszure

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 6 (Nov 1, 2011)

    @Bruno You are a retard. It's v8 of Firefox, not Windows 8

  257. 5 out of 5 stars
    egg83

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 4 (Oct 21, 2011)

    Have been using this version since it was in alpha stage, and I think they got it right on this version. Virtually all my extensions work, is far more responsive performance wise, and is not such a freaking memory hog as the previous versions. Now they have a true contender in the browser wars!

  258. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 4 (Oct 21, 2011)

    A-1 for a beta that doesn't behave like one.

  259. 5 out of 5 stars
    Tallpaultn

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 3 (Oct 14, 2011)

    I've been using Mozilla Firefox 8.0b3 since it came out earlier today & I must say I'm very impressed--it works great for a beta version. It Is by far the smoothest running version of Firefox on my WinVista SP2 that I've used & I've tried almost every version that Mozilla has released. Resource usage is low & my add-ons are working as expected also. Thanks & please keep up the good work--looking forward to future releases...

  260. 5 out of 5 stars
    StormChild

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 3 (Oct 13, 2011)

    @WebWarp: have you seen my post right before yours? 8.0 is the version of Firefox, and it runs under Win2K to Win7 (Win8). I'm using Firefox 8.0 beta, and I just like it.

    8.0 is the version of Firefox, right? ;))

  261. 4 out of 5 stars
    WebWarp

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 3 (Oct 13, 2011)

    Great - But not for windows 8.. Don't know why publisher has written so...??

  262. 5 out of 5 stars
    StormChild

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 2 (Oct 9, 2011)

    bruno70: you're a dumb*ss, aren't you? The 8.0 is the version of Firefox, you know - I assume you will post your misunderstandings here @ fileforum in the future, but I don't know, why is it good for you?

    Back to Firefox v8b2: faster and more stable than the previous releases with one-two minor bugs, so for me it's 5/5.

  263. 1 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 2 (Oct 9, 2011)

    Not worth the effort of downloading let alone installing. Does not get any less clunky. had it's day. Time for you all to move on.The Fat Lady is about to sing.

    BTW RE: bruno70', Is this man for real? He seems to live in some sort of parallel universe where others understand what he is talking about because I don't.

  264. 3 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 9.0 Alpha 2 (Nightly Build) (Oct 7, 2011)

    No ((((( traumadoc ))))) I was saying what I said because I am getting tired of people coming into this forum & making the statement that they don't have windows 9 and so on & so on. If you don't understand that reasoning, I can't help you. So just shut up & take your trolling a** someplace else.

  265. 4 out of 5 stars
    Bala7

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 2 (Oct 7, 2011)

    Changes for 8.0
    http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/log

  266. 4 out of 5 stars
    SuzzyWoozy

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 2 (Oct 7, 2011)

    Don't bother download, go get version 10.0a1 (early alpha tough, available on FileForum), which works just the same but at least you have the chance to experience the latest "innovations".

  267. 3 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 2 (Oct 7, 2011)

    Ok so no version of 8 will start for me on any computer.. do I have an addon that it doesn't like or something?

  268. 3 out of 5 stars
    westor

    Reviewing 8.0 Beta 2 (Oct 7, 2011)

    What the **** any changelog for the 8.0 beta 2 is not available ?

  269. 3 out of 5 stars
    Luc72

    Reviewing 7.0.1 (Oct 7, 2011)

    Nothing of special... again after installing or removing an addon the browser should be restarted..

  270. 2 out of 5 stars
    cricri_pingouin

    Reviewing 10.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Oct 3, 2011)

    I'm not normally the kind to complain about something as intangible as version number, but this is becoming ridiculous.
    I just upgraded to 7. Now, there's 8 beta available, fair enough. 9 alpha as well? Oh, hum, okay, I'll just ignore it as usual. What, there's 10 alpha as well?
    Way to confuse the consumer.
    Also the reason I prefer Firefox over Chrome is the abundance of addons, but the runaway version number train doesn't give a chance to keep their compatibility tag up to date, and if you patch them manually, it's at your own risk.
    To conclude: ridiculous. If the sole purpose is to overtake Chrome in version number, why bother with standard increments: just call the next one v69 and give addons developers a break.

  271. 1 out of 5 stars
    UrieI

    Reviewing 7.0.1 (Oct 2, 2011)

    This browser sux, bloatware and spyware is what you get.

  272. 3 out of 5 stars
    Ryusennin

    Reviewing 10.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Oct 2, 2011)

    No better, no worse than the last six versions. It's increasingly bloated, but it's functional AND it now passes Acid3 -- at long last!

  273. 1 out of 5 stars
    Bart Welson

    Reviewing 7.0.1 (Oct 1, 2011)

    Their "Better Memory Management" has stumbled into the same pit as their previous "Tab Isolation" and "Full Hardware Acceleration" new feature LIES.

    People do not like to be lied to. Definatelly not if it becomes a habit.

  274. 5 out of 5 stars
    tontito

    Reviewing 7.0.1 (Oct 1, 2011)

    People still try to put it down but it is getting better.

    I have also noticed the memory optimization.

    It seems more people have they eyes open: http://lifehacker.com/58...net-explorer-9-and-more

  275. 5 out of 5 stars
    soldier1st

    Reviewing 7.0.1 (Sep 30, 2011)

    Firefox finally got better. Version 4,5 were terrible but Version 6 was decent but 7 is even better.

  276. 3 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 7.0.1 (Sep 30, 2011)

    Firefox seems to have lost direction. This version is, at best, usable. It's certainly not very intuitive and my system indicates an increase in resource use. The users have shown a great deal of patience, time for Firefox to put up or shut up.

  277. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 7.0.1 (Sep 30, 2011)

    So they have to release a bug fix just a couple days after this supposed major release. What a pathetic attempt to not look like the new kids on the block and keep pace with Chrome's stupid version numbering scheme.

    How bout a true portable version and not one made by a third party that still leaves folders all over the host computer?

    50% improvement in memory consumption? Prove it because my test certainly can't. Check out many of the independent test and you'll see how this browser consistently finishes behind the others

    With all the version numbers floating around the differences are hardly noticeable. It looks and feels outdated

    I apologize if this review is somewhat hostile but Mozilla and some of its user base tend to be the most aggressive in trying to pull the wool over our eyes

  278. 1 out of 5 stars
    UrieI

    Reviewing 10.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Sep 30, 2011)

    FF is bloatware and now they have a new alpha and beta release every single day.
    FF is dying - RIP!

  279. 1 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 10.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Sep 29, 2011)

    FF builds will be overtaking Chrome soon. Strange how the Chrome knockers haven't noticed this. FF = Clunky garbage.

  280. 2 out of 5 stars
    ONISURGE

    Reviewing 10.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Sep 29, 2011)

    Let's just get version 20 up here already.

  281. 1 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 28, 2011)

    OK, here's the thing:

    This five week "major release" cycle is complete rank stupidity and BS. It breaks add-ons unnecessarily, plays havoc with corporate installation strategies and is indicative of an unsustainable dev strategy created by 13 year olds.

    Stop The Nonsense.

    Have major revisions that ARE major revisions a couple of times a year at most and shoehorn the rest into point releases. I don't give a damn about your marketing posturing and neither does anyone else with a functional brain.

    ZillaLand, you're NOT doing yourself any favors in either ConsumerLand or CorporateLand.

    I'm going to give this release a ONE. It actually merits a FIVE because it is excellent code but it's getting a ONE because the "management" behind it (and I use the term extremely loosely) needs to get their heads from between their collective buttocks.

  282. 2 out of 5 stars
    pfg

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 27, 2011)

    After opening two windows packages and can not connect.
    Needs work and I think eventually that the version 3 which is good.

  283. 3 out of 5 stars
    HeilNizar

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 27, 2011)

    When are they going to start releasing portable version without having to use clumsy ones made my portable-apps and others?
    Its 2011, portable please.
    2 stars less for that.

  284. 5 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 27, 2011)

    Not available at the real firefox download page yet. It still wants to give me the 6.2 version. Is Mozilla just being slow to update the download page or what. For me the 7 beta out did the 6.2 in every way. I'm waiting till I can get the final 7 from Mozilla directly.

  285. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 26, 2011)

    Don't see much of a change between the last beta and this final version. Finally nice and polished and using far, far less resources than before. Too bad the Mozilla guys didn't use that memory leak finding program many versions ago as it would have kept more folks in the Mozilla camp. Still, maybe this version will bring 'em back. Worthy of a 5 star rating.

  286. 5 out of 5 stars
    penguin22

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 26, 2011)

    As a Firefox user that switched to Chrome as my primary browser around version 3.5, this version if the milestone marker that has officially made me switch back. It makes me very happy that I can finally give Firefox a 5 rating as for some time I could not consciously do so.

    I know people have complained about the rapid version number increase, but what Mozilla has been able to do as a result is consistently improve the issues that affect users the most; performance being the biggest improvement that 7 brings.

    I still do use Chrome for a quick search here and there, but Firefox with some very useful extensions, a session manager that never mysteriously loses my data (using Tab Mix Plus for this), support for RSS bookmarks, bookmark icon synchronization with Xmarks, more intuitive Download Statusbar, etc., is home for me.

  287. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 26, 2011)

    All my add on's made it over. And I have noticed an increase of speed while browsing. First increase I have seen since probably 3.5.

  288. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 26, 2011)

    FirefoxFuture releases
    Firefox BETA Version 7.0 @ wikipedia
    * Vastly improved memory use(up to 50% better) and increased speed[43]
    * Added a new rendering backend to speed up Canvas operations on Windows systems
    * Bookmark and password changes now sync almost instantly when using Firefox Sync
    * Added support for text-overflow: ellipsis
    * Added support for the Web Timing specification
    * Added an opt-in system for users to send performance data back to Mozilla to improve future versions of Firefox. This can be enabled by installing an add-on
    * Fixed several stability issues

    Mozilla Firefox Beta Release Notes
    Please see the complete list of changes in this version. You may also be interested in the list of changes in the previous version.

    Firefox 7 is lean and fast | Nicholas Nethercote
    Nicholas Nethercote
    Developer
    Mozilla Corporation

    @OAKsider
    Mozilla takes Firefox version numbers to the next level… by removing them | ExtremeTech

  289. 5 out of 5 stars
    OAKsider

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 6 (Sep 23, 2011)

    Still the finest browser around (thanks a lot to extension developers)... but I think Mozilla, or a few key people there, are starting to go insane (see: version naming scheme).

  290. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 6 (Sep 19, 2011)

    Oh snap, 100% on Acid3 Test since the last beta!? Not that Acid3 is a big deal but glad the Mozilla team finally got in line with some of the other browsers that score 100%. Very noticeable speed improvement over Beta 4 and 5. Mozilla needs to stop trying to copy what Chrome devs are doing with version numbering because it is just dumb. Add-on devs who aren't keeping up on the SDK...well, don't go blaming Mozilla if your add-ons don't work. Complain to the Dev of you Add-on because the newer SDK has some great features. Keep it rockin' Mozilla team.

  291. 5 out of 5 stars
    kstev99

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 5 (Sep 9, 2011)

    Keeps getting better and Faster! Very stable. Memory usage is a lot less than previous versions.
    Looks great with the QSQ theme, but that's just a personal preference.

  292. 5 out of 5 stars
    TC17

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 5 (Sep 9, 2011)

    Far better than Chrome is. Chrome is so lame it still doesn't have a "print preview" that EVERY other browser has had since they were originally released.

    Also, this is a beta version of Firefox, not a final version.

  293. 4 out of 5 stars
    nvic

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 5 (Sep 9, 2011)

    Using v6 currently. Good browser, but update frequency is ridiculous. Once every 3-6 months is reasonable for major updates, but once every 6 WEEKS?

    Half my addons have to be forced to run because makers can't keep up with them.

  294. 1 out of 5 stars
    pfg

    Reviewing 6.0.2 (Sep 7, 2011)

    Version 6,0,2 Cannot view Add-ons

  295. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 3.6.22 (Sep 6, 2011)

    {{("Mozilla Firefox (v3.6) for Windows")}] 3.6.22
    or
    Mozilla Firefox (v3.6) build 3.6.22 for Windows
    or any thing but
    "Mozilla Firefox (v3.6) for Windows 3.6.22"

  296. 5 out of 5 stars
    TROLL

    Reviewing 3.6.22 (Sep 6, 2011)

    Windows 3.6.22 is never released just Windows 3.11

  297. 1 out of 5 stars
    nilst2006

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 3 (Sep 1, 2011)

    Once a good browser. Now: with all new versions, every 6th week, it has become a pain in the ... !

  298. 5 out of 5 stars
    ali4ek

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 3 (Sep 1, 2011)

    Amazing browser, faster and better than Chrome and Opera.

    Still no alternatives to at least the following extensions:
    Tab Mix Plus
    QuickDrag
    MinimizeToTray

  299. 3 out of 5 stars
    ecvogel

    Reviewing 6.0.1 (Aug 31, 2011)

    Getting aouyed at the please upgrade to 6 and now 601. I had to take 6 off because most of my plugins do not support 6 yet...

  300. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 6.0.1 (Aug 31, 2011)

    An update for: Revoked the root certificate for DigiNotar due to fraudulent SSL certificate issuance (see bug 682927 and the security advisory). Works well for me.

  301. 5 out of 5 stars
    StormChild

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 2 (Aug 27, 2011)

    Updated from 6.0 to 7.0b2 - works like a charm. It gets faster with every release, plus the memory footprint gets lower, so don't be a troll - give it a try! 5/5 as usual.

  302. 2 out of 5 stars
    man friday

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 2 (Aug 26, 2011)

    Been less and less impressed with each release, getting slower as it goes

  303. 5 out of 5 stars
    French_Pastiches

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 2 (Aug 26, 2011)

    Fine... as usual

  304. 2 out of 5 stars
    Banquo

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 1 (Aug 20, 2011)

    I have used Firefox since it was called Phoenix, but it's time has come and gone. The people in charge at Mozilla have become desperate trying to get this aging program caught up with other modern browsers, and they aren't even coming close.

    The rapid releases and throwing sensible version numbers out the window, the continued memory and stability problems and the horrible excuse for an interface they brought out in 4.0 are just a few of the issues.

    I gave Chrome another shot last week and after a few days of tinkering with it and installing the extensions I want I said farewell to Firefox and removed it from my system.

  305. 1 out of 5 stars
    sjc001

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 1 (Aug 19, 2011)

    This is already obsolete with version 9.

  306. 5 out of 5 stars
    alshawwa

    Reviewing 7.0 Beta 1 (Aug 19, 2011)

    bruno man grow up will ya

  307. 4 out of 5 stars
    dannyboy832

    Reviewing 8.0 Alpha 2 (Aurora) (Aug 19, 2011)

    Moron, its typed misleadingly but anyone with *some* intelligence understands.

    9.0 alpha is better.

  308. 4 out of 5 stars
    djb247365

    Reviewing 9.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Aug 19, 2011)

    Actually, I'm running this in a "portable" setting, and so far, so good. No issues whatsoever, and my add-ons work perfectly, despite most of them not being technically compatible with this version. I notice somewhat of an increase in speed with each upcoming version, and this one is no exception. So far, Firefox 9 is very quick and for me, it's very stable. It can only get better from here.

  309. 4 out of 5 stars
    traumadoc

    Reviewing 9.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Aug 18, 2011)

    DoHickey, are you REALLY that much of a moron? You really ARE THE ONLY person that has this reading inability. It's called "two lines of text" and not "one continuous line. Nobody but you is stupid enough to believe there is a Windows 9 or anything else. The rest of us have brains. I guess 'god's" brain to you is still "Beta."

  310. 4 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 6.0 (Aug 18, 2011)

    I had to go back to version 5.1 after one day of 6.0 use.
    It was clunky and hung up on the oddest little things. Using the 5.1 is very quick to respond. I will stay with the 5.1 until they tweak the the 6.0 to fix issues. I know I can't be the only one having this problem or the only person still using Windows XP because of financial reason a new system or computer is out of the question..

  311. 3 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 9.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Aug 18, 2011)

    OK beta news, please fix the wording of this information. Mozilla Firefox (v9) for Windows 9.0 Alpha 1.
    A better way is to say Mozilla Firefox version 9 alpha-1 for windows.
    There are people that have nothing better to do than to say dah! I don't have windows 9. Read it and see that they have a point about the wording of this. It's stupid and you have been told before about this wording situation.The same goes for the other Firefox beta's that you are listing. The wording is the same as this one, like someone got hit with a stupid stick while typing it out.

  312. 1 out of 5 stars
    sjc001

    Reviewing 8.0 Alpha 2 (Aurora) (Aug 18, 2011)

    It is already obsolete with version 9 out...... Why bother?

  313. 1 out of 5 stars
    sjc001

    Reviewing 9.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Aug 18, 2011)

    They have to be joking.... How dumb do they take us for?

  314. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 3.6.20 (Aug 16, 2011)

    Bruno70, you're and idiot.

  315. 5 out of 5 stars
    some guy

    Reviewing 3.6.20 (Aug 15, 2011)

    bruno70 hey Einstein this is not a operating system

  316. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 6.0 (Aug 15, 2011)

    6.0 ups the game in terms of both speed, performance and memory usage. More HTML 5 support is nice, at least for Win 7 users. It does score a lower HTML5 score on XP but I am guessing Win 7 has many things XP doesn't as is why Win 7 scores higher. This is what Firefox 5 should have been like. Still, a welcome improvement. Keep up the good work Mozilla.

  317. 4 out of 5 stars
    UniversityofKentucky

    Reviewing 8.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Aug 5, 2011)

    Keep in mind this is an alpha. my biggest complaint is a lag during scrolling. others have posted similar comments on mozilla's site. other than that, it runs fast and quite well. stability (as expected) is not 100%, and it has crashed on rare occasions. 4/5

  318. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 4 (Aug 2, 2011)

    Why is some one posting versions of Firefox here using this confusing syntax ?

    see my proposal in the Discussions

    My rating here is purely an attempt to offset the negatives resulting from misunderstandings.

  319. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 4 (Aug 2, 2011)

    No change from beta 3. Running stable for me and add-ons work fine.

    Please write to the Betanews crew and get bruno70 kicked off. He's obviously a spambot.

  320. 4 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 3 (Jul 26, 2011)

    I notice memory use has lowered greatly, which was a major issue in the previous version.

    bruno70, is some kind of apelike creature that has evolved sufficiently to type.

  321. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 3 (Jul 26, 2011)

    @TraumaDoc: Bruno is purposely giving it a bad review using the usual troll tactic for confusing the title of the file for the version of Windows. It's intentional.

    Beta3 seems to be ok with my extensions and add-ons and no change in terms of bugs or issues. Works for me.

  322. 4 out of 5 stars
    traumadoc

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 3 (Jul 26, 2011)

    They are finally doing some reasonably good work on this new version.

    -----
    bruno70

    Fake! Its Windows 7, there is no Windows 6.0
    -----

    Dude (bruno70), you can't be serious, right? You are drunk or just lacking any IQ? It's version 6 of the program - this has NOTHING to do with the version of Windows. Windows 6? Nobody but YOU thought such a stupid thing !!

  323. 5 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 2 (Jul 18, 2011)

    Impressive speed gains over 5.0, both in launching and rendering.

    They might yet keep me from moving to chrome if these performance enhancements keep on coming.

  324. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 2 (Jul 18, 2011)

    Hmm, HTML 5 test score has gone down from Beta1. What is going on here Mozilla? Dis-implementing something not yet stable? No issues for me though and works well with my addons (AdBlock + and FlashGot).

  325. 1 out of 5 stars
    TomK2542

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 2 (Jul 18, 2011)

    Link is broken again.

  326. 4 out of 5 stars
    PaulWilliams

    Reviewing 5.0.1 (Jul 16, 2011)

    Mozilla Firefox is a very good browser, but occasionally crashes and displays web-pages incorrectly. I've tried all the browsers and they each have their own problems, not one is completely usable. Google Chrome is Firefox's greatest competition, but it has some serious faults (Print Preview, Pop-up Blocking, Password Exporting and Opening File Types by Default). They don't have Google's money to burn, but they make due with what they have. I hope Mozilla's accelerated release cycle improves it's stability and usefulness. I'm not ready to abandon Firefox just yet.

  327. 4 out of 5 stars
    psypress1

    Reviewing 3.6.19 (Jul 12, 2011)

    FF3 is still the only version that many of my extensions and external apps like FDM will work correctly with, despite devs claiming they've been updated for v4-5. I'm not positive who to blame for this, but considering how slow and crash-prone FF 4 and 5 are, I suspect its Mozilla's failing. I'll run 3.x till I can't anymore. Its sad how most apps are getting worse with every new version. Frankly I've yet to see anything that FF 4 or 5 offer that's worth upgrading for.

  328. 2 out of 5 stars
    dejavu

    Reviewing 5.0.1 (Jul 12, 2011)

    Mozilla Foundation...and my Add-ons?

  329. 5 out of 5 stars
    Monkey_Punch

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 1 (Jul 12, 2011)

    Good improvement over 5.x in terms of speed and has more HTML 5 spec additions. Scores higher on the HTML5 test which is good. Sofar, stable for me. @acey99, the HTML5 spec is not complete. Last call for revisions was May31st, 2011. Why are you complaining about lack of HTML5 completeness? It won't be determined as "complete" by the W3C until 2014. Parts of HTML5 are stable but the changes are ongoing. Jeez!

  330. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 1 (Jul 11, 2011)

    Download link not working.

  331. 1 out of 5 stars
    TomK2542

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 1 (Jul 11, 2011)

    Link not working

  332. 5 out of 5 stars
    acey99

    Reviewing 6.0 Beta 1 (Jul 11, 2011)

    Love my FF, BUT...
    the more oft updates, the new versioning & the lack of NEW HTML 5 features is pissing me off.
    I mean get on the ball here guys, get all the HTML 5 stuff working then add new stuff.
    Fix The memory leaks.
    you're be hind Opera & Chrome for HTML 5 support, & almost IE 10.

  333. 3 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 8.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Jul 8, 2011)

    Whomever is in charge of posting these programs on here needs to stop using this form of heading. It draws more flies than dog poop on a hot day.
    If you don't know what I'm talking about, just read the heading & think of windows version numbers. I for one am tired of reading the stupid comments about it.

  334. 2 out of 5 stars
    Zero-Point

    Reviewing 8.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (Jul 7, 2011)

    Trolls will be trolls.

    Edit: ...because there's other, more meaningful comments about Firefox...

  335. 1 out of 5 stars
    gerry_g

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 28, 2011)

    FireFox is no longer a "product". It depends upon add-ons that don't keep pace with the fast major version release cycle Even "compatible" add-ons seem to give you blank URLs in the address bar. I had to go back to 3.6.18 just to stay working.

  336. 1 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 24, 2011)

    How do I hate thee. Let me make this easy. I don't like anything about thee. You're like a very bad Google Chrome.

  337. 3 out of 5 stars
    Jazz150

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 24, 2011)

    I am a writer and was disappointed that spellcheck in English is missing from the latest version. I rely on it and it's annoying that it is not available.
    Please add this as an option ASAP.

  338. 1 out of 5 stars
    carlvui

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 24, 2011)

    They disappoint me.
    V4 was just released and already disposed, gets no more updates or fixes.
    Here comes V5 just immediately after V4 by forcing users to install newer and newer versions. V6 and V7 is just going to be released soon, and of course V5 will be abandoned by Mozilla in no time.
    What the hack do they take users for?

    Mozilla states it requires more than 512MB of RAM but in reality consumes a full 1 GB of RAM. And not only simply buggy i.e. works with incident but capable to mess up the whole computer.

    Now, that does it. I uninstalled it again.
    My suggestion, wait until Mozilla comes to their senses and starts playing fair.

  339. 5 out of 5 stars
    some guy

    Reviewing 3.6.18 (Jun 21, 2011)

    DudeBoyz you are completely right I will stick with this as long as they keep supporting it, all my plug-ins work again ! that's really will I use FF the plug-ins.

  340. 5 out of 5 stars
    dejavu

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 21, 2011)

    Now Official:

    http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/

  341. 5 out of 5 stars
    mfarmilo

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 20, 2011)

    This is the Release Candidate. That means it MIGHT be the final release, unless something drastic happens that forces them to build a second one. It's due to go final this week.

    However, I give it FIVE stars since it's an excellent program, and marking it down to 1 star (like some) just because it's not necessarily the final would be stupid. You mark the program according to how good it is, not according to how well fileforum got it right in labelling it.

  342. 1 out of 5 stars
    Ramp4me

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 20, 2011)

    FAKE

  343. 5 out of 5 stars
    dannyboy832

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 20, 2011)

    Can people stop trolling.

    OK, its not for 'windows 5.0'
    OK, its only an RC, but who cares, mozilla RCs are as stable as finals anyway.

    The thing about internet arguments is, even if you win, you're still retarded

  344. 2 out of 5 stars
    traumadoc

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 20, 2011)

    Dude, if you REALLY think you are so smart and know so much more than everyone else, why don't you be smart enough and download your English release from the directory you show us and install it - then find out what the hell version it is - it's not so difficult to see the "you are running the beta version" or something or another that gets loaded on the first start page of the program. THIS IS A DAMN BETA FOLKS - THE final version HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED!!! Don't install this and then come complain that something doesn't work. This is still BETA!!

    ---------------------
    juanito1968

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 19, 2011)

    4 all of user stating FX 5 Final is a fake; u r kindly invited 2 ck out ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/5.0/win32

    Choose the language u do prefere n u'll get the final FX 5 release.

    That's all up 2 u folks.

    Cheers.
    ---------------------

  345. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 19, 2011)

    RE: claims of fake or beta...
    I unpacked this file to one folder and Firefox Setup 5.0b7.exe to another folder and used Freecommander's (Synchronize folders) and found significant changes with newer dates. This is, imho, very genuine and I appreciate it being available here.

    My review:
    Wow this is a major improvement over Mozilla Firefox (v4) for Windows

    I have found functionality for all my add-ons that are currently incomparable with v5 either in the new version or in other add-ons. I have had no lagging or crashing. Seems to load a bit faster than Mozilla Firefox (v3.6) for Windows. Seems to open multiple tabs a bit faster than Mozilla Firefox (v3.6) for Windows
    running:
    Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Build 2600
    Service Pack: Service Pack 3
    LOL from: File:
    Thanks for your interest in Firefox 5

    We aren't quite finished qualifying Firefox 5 yet. You should check out the latest Beta.

    When we're all done with Firefox 5 it will show up on Firefox.com.

  346. 5 out of 5 stars
    juanito1968

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 19, 2011)

    2 Trauma Doc:

    about:buildconfig
    Source

    Built from http://hg.mozilla.org/re...elease/rev/7b56ff900c2a
    Build platform
    target
    i686-pc-mingw32
    Build tools
    Compiler Version Compiler flags
    d;D:\mozilla-build\msys\mozilla-build\python25\python2.5.exe -O e;D:\mozilla-build\msys\builds\moz2_slave\rel-rel-w32-bld\build\build\cl.py cl 14.00.50727.762 -TC -nologo -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -GL -wd4624 -wd4952 -O1
    d;D:\mozilla-build\msys\mozilla-build\python25\python2.5.exe -O e;D:\mozilla-build\msys\builds\moz2_slave\rel-rel-w32-bld\build\build\cl.py cl 14.00.50727.762 -GR- -TP -nologo -Zc:wchar_t- -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -wd4800 -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -GL -wd4624 -wd4952 -O1
    Configure arguments

    --enable-application=browser --enable-update-channel=release --enable-update-packaging --enable-jemalloc --enable-tests --enable-official-branding

    mozilla-release - changeset - 68331:7b56ff900c2a
    summary | shortlog | changelog | graph | tags | files | changeset | raw | bz2 | zip | gz
    Automated checkin: version bump for firefox 5.0 release. CLOSED TREE a=release GECKO50_2011061514_RELBRANCH FIREFOX_5_0_RELEASE FIREFOX_5_0_BUILD1
    author ffxbld
    Wed Jun 15 14:16:21 2011 -0700 (at Wed Jun 15 14:16:21 2011 -0700)
    branch GECKO50_2011061514_RELBRANCH
    changeset 68331 7b56ff900c2a
    parent 68326 f1acd88f828e
    child 68332 399c17274099
    pushlog: 7b56ff900c2a
    Automated checkin: version bump for firefox 5.0 release. CLOSED TREE a=release

    mozilla-release - pushlog
    From: To:
    summary | pushlog | graph | tags | files | bz2 | zip | gz
    Page 1
    Changes pushed with changeset 7b56ff900c2a
    User
    Push date [To Local] Changeset Patch author — Commit message
    ffxbld
    Wed Jun 15 14:46:29 2011 -0700 8402d25cc890 ffxbld — Added tag FIREFOX_5_0_BUILD1 for changeset 7b56ff900c2a. CLOSED TREE a=release GECKO50_2011061514_RELBRANCH
    399c17274099 ffxbld — Added tag FIREFOX_5_0_RELEASE for changeset 7b56ff900c2a. CLOSED TREE a=release GECKO50_2011061514_RELBRANCH
    7b56ff900c2a ffxbld — Automated checkin: version bump for firefox 5.0 release. CLOSED TREE a=release GECKO50_2011061514_RELBRANCH FIREFOX_5_0_RELEASE FIREFOX_5_0_BUILD1

  347. 2 out of 5 stars
    darrylp

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 19, 2011)

    Cannot believe that the day after Adobe release an Acrobat update which finally integrates Acrobat X into Firefox 4, Firefox 5 is released and Acrobat X is no longer compatible!

  348. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 19, 2011)

    Works just sparkling fine on my notebook.

  349. 1 out of 5 stars
    hugh750

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 19, 2011)

    stay away from firefox 5 beta
    i tried it on my laptop it has windows xp home edition on it and every time i rebooted it i would lose my desktop, to get it back i would have to close my laptop to put it into sleep mode then log back in.
    after i uninstalled firefox i was able to get into my desktop

  350. 1 out of 5 stars
    Juhandra

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 19, 2011)

    If firefox loses its userbase, it's because of FAKE finals you jacks spread.

  351. 3 out of 5 stars
    FixXxeR

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    Betanews, GET YOUR RELEASES RIGHT!

    ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/5.0/win32/en-US/index.html

    Please note that this link says:

    "hanks for your interest in Firefox 5
    We aren't quite finished qualifying Firefox 5 yet. You should check out the latest Beta.

    When we're all done with Firefox 5 it will show up on Firefox.com."

  352. 5 out of 5 stars
    Uriel

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    Simply outstanding. Very fast and better than the competition. I'm certain that within a couple of years, Firefox will blow away the competition hands down. It's the way of the future!

  353. 5 out of 5 stars
    reviewer

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    bruno70, they perhaps they could have worded the title better.
    as say
    Mozilla Firefox (v5) 5.0 for Windows

    They were obviously referring to Firefox 5.0 and not Windows 5.0.

    Oh and Firefox 5.0 is not officially as Mozilla cannot really block the ftp.mozilla.org like thy can with releases.mozilla.org and the release can still be pulled before the release date of June 21 as pulled releases before release has happened before.

    http://releases.mozilla....rg/firefox/releases/5.0/
    Thanks for your interest in Firefox 5

    We aren't quite finished qualifying Firefox 5 yet. You should check out the latest Beta.

    When we're all done with Firefox 5 it will show up on Firefox.com.

  354. 5 out of 5 stars
    New Doraemon

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    To traumadoc: I can't believe that you're so blind. Firefox states that it's a beta because it's a WEBSITE link. It still loads the beta page of their website but that doesn't mean that the application is actually a beta. Probably they'll update the link when the release is offcial so you will install the same EXE file and NOT show that it's a beta. Also, there's no feedback button in the browser, so...

  355. 1 out of 5 stars
    JethroB

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    v.5.0 18-Jun-2011
    Add me to the list upset by the lack of BETA identification

  356. 1 out of 5 stars
    Bart Welson

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    1 star for being lamejacks spreading beta products labeled as finals in your sruggle with MajorGeeks for being the biggest crapsite in file spreading.

  357. 1 out of 5 stars
    Lsavagejt

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    It hosed my AVG Link Scanner and KIS virtual keyboard. Mozilla aught not bandy words about like "Final". If it's the "Final Beta" then they should say Final "Beta". Whers are the "Site Favicons", and if Firefox "Final Beta" integrates so "elegantly" with "Windows" antivirus software, then again, why is it incompatible with AVG and KIS, or does Mozilla mean "Windows" as in "Windows Security Essentials", and not security software running on "Windows"? Arrgh, Avast ye scallywags!

  358. 3 out of 5 stars
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    I'm still not able to get past losing the Status bar, and not all my plugins / addons / extensions work with anything past 3.6.x

    I'm not sure that version 3.6.x won't be sufficient for some time to come. I still like the thing better than Chrome, but the more Firefox starts working and looking like Chrome, the more reason I have to just switch all the way over to Chrome.

  359. 2 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    They warn people that 5.0 will break some websites' functionality and it does.

  360. 1 out of 5 stars
    TROLL

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 18, 2011)

    Come on put download links. Not just fake.
    http://fileforum.betanew...refox%20Setup%205.0.exe

  361. 4 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 17, 2011)

    This build works fine for me.
    And I have heard enough from people talking about Windows 5.
    Come on people get a grip on your brain.
    It's just how it's worded in the description, get over it already.

    June 20 at 11:09 PM eastern time
    Download link on this site pops up a window that says this. 550 Permission denied. I tried several times with different browsers.
    Also after installing (fresh install not upgrading) And after a restart. I have some troubles with flash presentations not loading.

  362. 5 out of 5 stars
    mgsetzer

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 17, 2011)

    @anon2402 You're probably joking... this isn't for the mysterious windows '5'... windows 7 is just fine.

  363. 4 out of 5 stars
    Pkshadow

    Reviewing 5.0 (Jun 17, 2011)

    Ok, my fault here, sorry forgot that Betanews & others get the final release URL before they/Mozilla changes the install restart splash page.

    Have deleted the post I had up saying splash screen tells me this is a Beta release.

  364. 5 out of 5 stars
    eMbAh

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 7 (Jun 16, 2011)

    What is the reason to use this over Aurora?

  365. 5 out of 5 stars
    davidtb

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 6 (Jun 15, 2011)

    Here's a plus for Major Geek's site. They put the program out there and they omit the comment boxes.
    I get the impression you people have no idea what you're saying, and have too much time to say it.

  366. 5 out of 5 stars
    Orbitration

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 6 (Jun 15, 2011)

    Against my usual better judgement.. (:) )
    I started my current version with : firefox -p
    and made a new profile and took the checkmark out of the Don't Show on Startup box.

    Then I chose a Custom Install option and renamed the install folder to Mozilla Firefox5 to keep my working version working.
    I copied my working profile with its addons to the new profile folder, and when I started up version 5, it installed all but 3 of my addons !
    It works fine apparently, I'm rather impressed .

    The functionality and look are about the same as my 3.5.19 version, also, and with a little Customizing the placement on the toolbars, is virtually the same.

  367. 3 out of 5 stars
    anon2402

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 6 (Jun 15, 2011)

    it's for Windows 5.0. Too bad. I wanted to upgrade, I have windows 7. Mozilla should consider who they are developing for. Windows 5.0 is not too widely used..

  368. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 6 (Jun 15, 2011)

    My preferred browsers are Chrome & Opera with no extensions as any extension(s) will slow your browser down. I recently bought 'Ad Muncher' so I don't need browser ad blockers anymore.I had another play with Firefox & to perfectly be honest it's OK.

    FF isn't the way I like a browser to be, but out of the most popular browsers out there now there isn't a bad one & I think its now down to personal preference. Whatever floats your boat!

    Have I changed my mind? - Yes, it seems so.

  369. 4 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 6.0 Alpha 2 (Nightly Build) (Jun 11, 2011)

    mark my words
    soon chrome will be the most used browser
    I still like ff

  370. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 6.0 Alpha 2 (Nightly Build) (Jun 10, 2011)

    Took back the negative review as it's an OK browser I prefer Opera & Chrome. But I'm not going to pull FF down just because 2 idiots pull Chrome down. I've used it extensively & I think all 3 browsers are down to personal preferences.

  371. 2 out of 5 stars
    pjafrombbay

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (Jun 3, 2011)

    It pains me to say this but I agree with SlapShot. I have been a loyal Firefox user ever since it was released. However it has become almost unusable (on Windows 7 Home Pro). Its got nothing to do with extensions or memory leeks or whatever, it just seems to be lousy code.

    Well I've made the switch to Google Chrome (on both PC's) and I can see no reason to return. Chrome is still not as good as Firefox was when it was at its best.

    Somehow I feel very sad, like an old friend dying.

    Addendum: I've just installed Firefox 5 Beta 3 and it seems to be running much better than the stable version 4. Lets hope it continues to do so.

    Regards,
    Peter

  372. 5 out of 5 stars
    tontito

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 3 (Jun 2, 2011)

    This is soo much less pain in the a** then IE9.

    Love it

  373. 5 out of 5 stars
    butthead

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 3 (Jun 2, 2011)

    @Input Overload: how about stopping the trolling? Mozilla is finally on track with quicker release cycles. The most trustworthy free software browser, 5 stars.

  374. 1 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 3 (Jun 1, 2011)

    Clunky garbage, not a patch on Chrome or Opera. Losing market share as Firefox can't find which direction to go in. Many 'new'' features are either 'borrowed' from Chrome or Opera.

    It had its day as every dog has, but with FF this was yesterday.

    djb247365 - 'It may not be as quick as Chrome'. You are dead right there.

    @ Butthead, those are my opinions using several browsers with my work & based on empirical evidence & not dreamed up but those who never even install software they 'review'. if you don't like my opinions when they conflict with your narrow minded fixed herd like outlook - Tough, your options are limited.

    Now go and bugger off as I will write a review I bloody well consider to be honest & truthful & my opinion, just as you wrote your misguided opinion.

    Learn to live with the fact it's OK to disagree with others, it killing them that's wrong.

    I stand by my review. how you tried all the main browsers very recently? - I have!

  375. 5 out of 5 stars
    reviewer

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 3 (Jun 1, 2011)

    bruno70, not a fake as perhaps they could have worded the title better.
    Either
    Mozilla Firefox (v5) for Windows, Firefox 5.0 Beta 3
    or better
    Mozilla Firefox (v5) 5.0 Beta 3 for Windows.

  376. 4 out of 5 stars
    djb247365

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 3 (Jun 1, 2011)

    Say what you want about Firefox, for me, it's a really complete and functional browser. There's some pretty nice features and lots of customization options with all the different extensions and themes. It may not be as quick as Chrome, but it's fast enough to get through my daily browsing, so definitely no complaints there at all.

    So far, so good with this Beta 3 version. I've actually tried the Aurora (6.0) and Nightly (7.0) builds as well and they worked just as good without any problems. I would stay away from 64-bit builds though, because I tried those too and they weren't too stable for my liking.

  377. 5 out of 5 stars
    Phat Esther

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 3 (Jun 1, 2011)

    Windows 5 = XP
    parrots

  378. 5 out of 5 stars
    alshawwa

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 3 (Jun 1, 2011)

    Phat Esther

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 3 (Jun 1, 2011)

    Windows 5 = XP
    parrots

    windows 5 is not xp parrot , windows 5 is 2000 , windows 5.1 is xp :)
    but the post has nothing to do with windows 5 it didnt mention windows for unless if you dont have common sense reading it , firefox v5 for windows version 5 beta3 , so if opera v11 for windows version 11.1 means that there is windows 11.1 BH

  379. 1 out of 5 stars
    reviewer

    Reviewing 7.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (May 30, 2011)

    Just so people know, This is NOT even close to being a actual 7.0 release as it is just a Nightly build that get updates each day (sometime unstable depending on checkins that day), something a real release does not get (check for updates in "Help->About Nightly" to see what I mean). These nightlies can have problems as for example there was a brief patch in May28 build that was later backed out but caused problems for user who used the May.28 build as many Extensions did not work properly that day. I ended up reverting to May27 nightly for a couple days in order to use my extensions.

    This is why the Trunk and branch nightlies were using codenames before (Namoroka for 3.0.*, Shiroteko for 3.5.* branch nightlies for example) as it helped greatly in keeping people (and websites like this one) from jumping to conclusion that these are stable build material when it may not even remotely be. Mozilla for some reason reverted this practice during development of Firefox 4.0 and now sites like these are jumping the gun.

    The new process of development is a bit different and faster now.

    Originally Fx 5.0 was on Aurora branch and Fx 6.0 was on Nightly. Then Fx 5.0 was recently moved to Beta channel and the Fx 6.0 was moved to Aurora while the (potentially unstable) Nightly (which this is) continued as Fx 7.0 currently.

    If any of you are serious about testing these current Nighty builds then see forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=23

  380. 1 out of 5 stars
    reviewer

    Reviewing 6.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (May 30, 2011)

    StormChild, this was NOT a 6.0 release as it does not exist and this was just a nightly build in the Nightly directory when it was posted then. It does not exist now as the 6.0 moved to the Aurora channel while the 5.0 went from Aurora channel to Beta channel.

    This was just a classic case of "jumping the gun" where the poster of this so called 6.0a1 upon seeing a newer version number and posting it hoping to be seen as the first. These nightlies test builds used to use their codenames so as to prevent this misunderstanding but Mozilla decided to revert this practice as of during the then 4.0 development.

    The only release newer then 4.0.* right now is the 5.0b3 for beta testing.

  381. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 2 (May 28, 2011)

    Fact \noun \?fakt
    1. knowledge or information based on real occurrences
    2. a piece of information presented as having objective reality

    So how pray tell Overboard is it a fact when the facts of independent tests have Opera, Chrome and even Safari scoring better?

    It doesn't seem to matter what iteration, be it v4, 5, 6 or 7(they're all the same) they all perform adequately but clearly not better than the competition. It's slower, less functional and it still uses more memory having multiple processes running.

    If there weren't better alternatives available then this would be a 3 at best. Considering it steals ideas from the others and NEEDS a dedicated user base to create functionality that is standard in some competitors.

  382. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 7.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (May 27, 2011)

    It simply does not perform as well as Opera, Chrome and even Safari (for windows, if you can believe that).

    Version numbers aside, this is the same ol' lemon.

  383. 3 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 7.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (May 27, 2011)

    What the H is with the freaky numbering system? First Ubuntu turns to crap, now FF is going strange? Pretty soon I'll have to start using Win7 to get away from all the nonsense, thats ironic.

  384. 4 out of 5 stars
    djb247365

    Reviewing 7.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (May 27, 2011)

    Actually 7.0 is working great for me, no issues and it's quick enough to get my work done. The only issue I have, is the Xmarks extension not synchronizing as it should. That will probably be fixed when that extension gets it's next update. Other than that, my other add-ons work great and I have no problem using this 7.0 Alpha build. Mozilla should've never gone the route of Google, in releasing major browser versions every few weeks. That's rather ridiculous. Every major version should have major changes. There are no major changes here, only minor, which is why I still consider this the same as Firefox 4

  385. 1 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 7.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (May 27, 2011)

    Looks like they are trying to catch Chrome up with versions. I wonder if those who complained about Chrome versions do the same with Fireflop?

    I have really gone off Fireflop, you might as well use IE9.I see they keep stealing ideas off Chrome & Opera.

    Clunky & slow.

  386. 4 out of 5 stars
    alcaholjunkie

    Reviewing 7.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (May 27, 2011)

    Not had many problems with nightlies, always use them. ^_^

    bruno, the "7.0 alpha 1" is the FireFox version number, not windows version number.. -_-

  387. 3 out of 5 stars
    Frazzled

    Reviewing 3.5.16 (May 24, 2011)

    Firefox 4.0 Has worked pretty good, except that they didn't bring forward from 3.5 the 'STOP' or the (X) Button ! I find this quite annoying when the odd web sight loads offering to scan your computer for you and you decide to use the Task manager to close Firefox ,then you restart Firefox And Firefox 4.0 Reloads the Same problematic page and There is NO 'Stop' in 4.0 it makes for an interesting 20 minutes trying to get Firefox 4.0 back going again! I'm going to see if I can get back to Firefox 3.5 without loosing everything!?

  388. 5 out of 5 stars
    Output Overboard

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 2 (May 23, 2011)

    The best - FACT! Getting better day by day.
    Maybe too complicated for 51 year old effete British punks.

  389. 5 out of 5 stars
    StormChild

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 2 (May 23, 2011)

    bruno70: you have proven your unworthiness. Reviewing without understanding is dangerous... Firefox is the best, so rate it about its usability and functions, and not about your misunderstanding!!

  390. 5 out of 5 stars
    StormChild

    Reviewing 6.0 Alpha 1 (Nightly Build) (May 23, 2011)

    bruno70: you're not too clever, eh? You wrote a review just to prove you're not understanding this is Mozilla Firefox v6.0. And you have rated it like sh*t, dumb*ss!

  391. 3 out of 5 stars
    linjinhuan

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 2 (May 23, 2011)

    I was simply browsing for relevant blog articles intended for my project research and My partner and i happened to stumble on yours. Many thanks for this helpful material!
    Jewelry stores Beaded jewelry

  392. 1 out of 5 stars
    SlapShot

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 22, 2011)

    FIrefox has become a complete disaster. Shame on Mozilla for releasing this

  393. 4 out of 5 stars
    PaulWilliams

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 21, 2011)

    I understand people's frustration, but overall it's a very good Internet Browser for Windows 7 and a definite improvement over version 4.0. I've tried them all, but ultimately I keep coming back to Firefox. Internet Explorer 9 is still slow, Opera 10 doesn't have many add-ons and Google Chrome (My 2nd Choice) lacks customization and doesn't have a working Print Preview feature or a NoScript equivalent.

    I suppose I have to forgive the fact that they stole most of the GUI design from Opera and it's not quite as fast or crash proof as Google Chrome. It's strength has to be that it's reasonably fast, very customizable and has many excellent add-ons (NoScript is my favorite). As long as it keeps improving and they don't rush it to market like last time, I'll continue using it. If not then I'll keep trying alternatives until something better comes along.

  394. 5 out of 5 stars
    SteveJohnSteele

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 2 (May 21, 2011)

    Wow is this fast :-)

    Compared to FF4 - FF5 (Aurora) feel 15-20% faster.

    Most noticeable speed improvements in switching tabs, forward and backwards, scroll page.

  395. 5 out of 5 stars
    Artem S. Tashkinov

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 2 (May 21, 2011)

    @bruno70

    is actually lying:

    ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/5.0b2/

  396. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 2 (May 21, 2011)

    Better than ever! Even Chrome!

  397. 1 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 2 (May 21, 2011)

    Lost thier way & can't find the way home. Very disappointing, no wonder people are moving to Chrome in droves this is to frankly a piece of junk. No stars.

  398. 1 out of 5 stars
    carlvui

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 17, 2011)

    It seems the new Mozilla development project is the typical example of the "trust in the mechanism" .
    Careerists, aggressive, unscrupulous, overly self confident managers make business plans and they plow through users, critics and even their own developers.

    The old saying haunts: " to make something good, first everything must be battered down."
    They grew ignorant and arrogant, flexing muscles until the word Firefox drops out the dictionaries. It won't happen in a day but surely will, I think.
    Very good, go on Mozilla and we will see. You are full of it.
    I regret I ever used your browser.

  399. 2 out of 5 stars
    fraksion

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 12, 2011)

    Mozilla isn't even considering all the negative reviews users give on its forum. They just lock the threads now like here: http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/797148

    Users complain because FF4 hangs, crashes and lags to typing or actions. It feeds on RAM, over 1 gb in the same PC where 3.6 works flawlessly. I could even accept that I'm on 6gb, but it crashes for no reason at all. And while with the interface changes ppl may become used to (personally I don't care because I use gestures) the browser perfomance has gone downhill. Mozilla get your s*** together, you are turning ppl away.

  400. 1 out of 5 stars
    nilst2006

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 6, 2011)

    Too resourcehungry ! Still don't respect if You tell it not to send crashreports, it still nag You about it if it crashes. It doesn't remember where You downloaded pics last time (if You clean all history). Have nagged Mozilla about it, they do nothing. Have asked them to make a lite version. They do nothing.

  401. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 6, 2011)

    I find 5 to be faster than 4 in startup and page rendering.
    Almost twice as fast as Opera 11.10

    Guess it depends on your OS and computer.

  402. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 5, 2011)

    It may look like Opera and mimic aspects of Chrome but it sure doesn't perform like either.

    Still slow and still resource hungry. I don't notice any improvements in this version from the last and the last version ranked only slightly ahead of IE9 in most independent test. That puts it behind Safari and well behind Opera and Chrome.

    Not even the rhetoric of zealous fans will save this browser if this is how it is going to progress.

    3 stars but I'm docking it one for having multiple processes running

  403. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaleScience

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 5, 2011)

    Firefox 4.00 and 4.0.1 for WIN NT STILL has SERIOUS problem:
    HANGS the Browser window until restarted

    when any applic such as Mail executes an Add or Insert File Attachment
    immediately produces error disabling window (inaccessible 'beeps' until restart..

    "Filepicker was unexpectedly closed by Windows"

    Note that using Internet Explorer v9 does not experience this problem

    Please FIX or I need to revert to V3.15 as I insert and attach files daily so now I need to run two Browsers since I installed firefox V4

  404. 4 out of 5 stars
    asaenz

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 5, 2011)

    Briefly tried it and it seems to work okay so far. Version numbers, in the past, have been mainly a reflection of difference of browser engine. Barely in beta stage at this point ... I believe it states that when you start it up ... so it is basically in an Alpha stage for now and they are requesting some useful feedback on some new features one of which is called channel switching to and from Aurora/Beta.

    update: wow it does use a lot of memory just for sitting there without doing anything except waiting for me after I start it up and let it sit for an hour or so.

  405. 3 out of 5 stars
    Zero-Point

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 4, 2011)

    "Gets to look more like Opera all the time." Fixed.

  406. 3 out of 5 stars
    uberfly

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 4, 2011)

    Version 5??? WTF?

  407. 4 out of 5 stars
    some guy

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 4, 2011)

    wow 4 & 5 have a complete GUI copy of Opera but other then that still a great browser

  408. 5 out of 5 stars
    Kimoeagle

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 4, 2011)

    I find it annoying to read of those who are expressing displeasure at how Mozilla chooses to number their versions of Firefox. What difference does it make??!! The important thing is: DOES IT WORK??!! And, does it work well?? All of the browsers have come a l-o-n-g way from Kaleidoscope, and we have not had to pay for the countless hours of development that went in to the products. Get a grip, WebWarp. Get a grip, Aegis69. Focus on what is truly important!!! I have been trying Aurora for several weeks now, and am VERY impressed. I trust that Firefox V5 will be the same - if not better- browser.

  409. 5 out of 5 stars
    WebWarp

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 4, 2011)

    @Aegis69
    Please explain the problem in a rapid version numbering, I cannot see the problem, its a decision made for a reason (probatly the same as chrome's).
    And just to correct you, the Mozilla Foundation is not a company ...

  410. 3 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 4, 2011)

    Gets to look more like Chrome all the time.

  411. 1 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 5.0 Beta 1 (May 4, 2011)

    Ok what the hell are these idiots doing? If its an incremental version, like 4.2 or even 4.5, fine name it as such. WHAT IS THE POINT of raising the full version number every three weeks now??? Who is running that damn idiot company???

  412. 4 out of 5 stars
    craigun

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 2, 2011)

    Best version of FF yet, and it is fast!

  413. 3 out of 5 stars
    Hergest

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 2, 2011)

    Hate the new interface. I gather it can be tweaked to make it look normal again, but why is it so hard to do? I need several add-ons to achieve it.

    Love FF3; sticking with that.

  414. 5 out of 5 stars
    TC17

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 2, 2011)

    Despite the outright blatant lies by some here, Firefox is NOT slow. In fact I would say its faster than Chrome. Just the other day I noticed a web page that had a lot of graphics on it, and Chrome was jerky scrolling, yet I tried Firefox on that exact same page, and it was as smooth as could be. (I was only using Chrome to see what was improved on it).

    Chrome is so lame, the last version I tried, still didn't have the basic ability to print preview a page. That is just pathetic.

  415. 2 out of 5 stars
    grizzlyadams

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 2, 2011)

    Their big mistake was changing stuff that didnt need changed, and ignoring all the things that DID. Wheres the ability to disable those retarded hotkeys that F up everything you typed?? Why is everybody copying Chrome, the browser that does nothing except spy on you?? Stupid, stupid Mozilla.

  416. 1 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 2, 2011)

    Clunky, slow, every dog has it's day and FF has been overtaken in usability by Chrome. I removed this piece of junk & now use Chrome & Opera both superb.

    More like Fireflop. Total bloated crapware, if you have a brain avoid it.

    BTW It is, try it slow. try it on a fast 100 MegBit connection, then try Chrome, that's a proper test.

    FF = Crapware at it's very worst.

  417. 5 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 4.0.1 (May 2, 2011)

    For those complete morons complaining how the addons no longer work, hey have you tried google?

    Idiots.

    https://addons.mozilla.o...-compatibility-reporter/

  418. 5 out of 5 stars
    mytake4this

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 27, 2011)

    -Update-
    Changing the rating up to 5 from 4. Apparently I was wrong about the page rendering. I had the NoSquint add-on set to change both font and whole page to say 120% which is wrong. Reset it to font (text) to 100% then ZOOM both Text and Page to ___% which for me most pages at 145% look fine and it works just fine. I was getting an improper text alignment and tried the Disable NoSquint and tested the page rendering and it sill looked off. Well, it likely had recalled the settings in Firefox, so my re-test was in error. Sorry Firefox Mozilla team, as I dead wrong, and the FF4 is rendering correctly set as from when downloaded, or using NoSquint set the way I just described above.

    All said and done, I think the new Chrome10 is still going to be tough competition for Firefox. I have several add-ons making FF4 as good, if not a better choice, but many people never tweak a browser, so Chrome may be a better pick for them. I altered the toolbar setup and now after using just a row for bookmarks and one for tabs, have something as compact as Chrome -- will other people do this? Once tweaked, with wonderful add-ons, I am not 100% happy with Firefox 4.

  419. 1 out of 5 stars
    Plumber

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 25, 2011)

    I made the mistake of updating from Fx 3.6 to Fx 4.0. I hate it.

    Speed improvements? Where? I don't notice page loading having improved. I do notice that whenever I open a menu in my bookmarks, the saved favicons get loaded one-by-one, which never happened with 3.6. The icons slowly bleed into view. It's annoying. I don't see a faster startup speed. I do see plugin-container.exe devouring CPU, same as always.

    The theme I used with 3.6 no longer works. I'm not a fan of the Fx 4.0 default theme, especially since it doesn't work well with my preferred Tab Mix Plus tab color setup.

    I use lots of extensions. Literally 80% of them stopped working with Fx 4.0. This is so fun to deal with every time I install a major update. No, seriously, I love it.

    I also "love" how I no longer have a status bar. I didn't have anything of value there, really! Those 6 extensions I had that used the status bar--BAH!--who needed them? Away with Fire.fm, NetVideoHunter, and the rest. The new "Add-on Bar"? Not the same.

    Lost extensions. No improvements. Crap interface. Time to look for an alternative.

  420. 1 out of 5 stars
    carlvui

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 24, 2011)

    I think Mozilla just managed to kill themselves with the release of v4.
    Why an earth did they have to do this after a successful march ahead with v3?

    The best thing in FF3 was, that it was different from the others.
    Now they copy Chrome, FF4 has become Chrome.
    If so, then let it be Chrome.

    FF4 is buggy, slow and needs 512MB of RAM and 200MB of hard drive space.
    Chrome is faster, not that buggy and needs 128 MB of RAM and 100 Mb of free disk space.
    Easy to make decision which one will be installed on my PC.
    Instead of upgrading to FFv4 I will install Chrome.

  421. 4 out of 5 stars
    anonswgeek

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 24, 2011)

    was working fine for a day or so..then a crash in file picker dialog box..i prefer Opera, its quicker.

  422. 1 out of 5 stars
    Hall9000

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 24, 2011)

    Worked great for a day. Now not only crashes but freezes to hell. Where is the damn zero rating! Before you asked, I'm not the only one having this problem.

  423. 4 out of 5 stars
    bigspud

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 23, 2011)

    extension hell, going back to 3.6.
    extensions are what make ff, non compatable extensions should disabled with update to v4, i dont have time to go through 30 extensions to find out which one broke ffv4. hope fully by ffv4.1 extensions will be updated.

  424. 5 out of 5 stars
    F1Racer

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 23, 2011)

    Great update. Really tidy new look and more room too. Best browser just got better.
    Get this and the NoScript and ReadItLater addons and you have a nice setup.

  425. 5 out of 5 stars
    more10s

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 23, 2011)

    Great browser!
    if you experience memory leaks, make sure you don't run Adblock 1.3.3...there is a severe memory leak going on if you use Adblock 1.3.3 with Firefox 4, just google "firefox 4 does not release memory when adblock is enabled".

  426. 4 out of 5 stars
    asaenz

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 23, 2011)

    Main thing that bothers me at the moment is its memory usage ... hope a memory leak wasn't reintroduced. When I have 4+ GB of memory on my computer I might not worry about it as much but I have to be careful with my 2 GB.

    update: those of you considering leaving 3.6x for this might want to wait because either it or the addons aren't working properly and you're better off staying with something that works well unless you enjoy beta testing.

  427. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 22, 2011)

    No crash issues here (never had any with betas either).

    @jeffdavison, try loading in safe mode.

    Just super!

  428. 5 out of 5 stars
    Alpha258

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 22, 2011)

    Works much better with online apps than Chrome! Speed is about the same with normal web browsing. Awesome!!

  429. 1 out of 5 stars
    jeffdavison

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 22, 2011)

    Not ready for final release...Crashes immediately when trying to open. Tried an automatic upgrade from within 3.6.15 and a fresh install after a complete reoval of the old version. Still can't get the dog to bark....stillwon't load and still only shows the crash report. Went back to old version which worked and still works perfectly. V4.0 is still BETA as far as my experience tells me....very low ratring becuase it won't even load and start with out a fatal crash........ on a tangent note, what's taking Minefield so long???????

  430. 1 out of 5 stars
    SoundMix

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 22, 2011)

    IE9 has MUCH better security and is better in most other areas as well.

  431. 5 out of 5 stars
    westor

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 22, 2011)

    Good, Firefox 4 is looking very nice!

  432. 5 out of 5 stars
    Uriel

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 22, 2011)

    The best browser ever. It's open source compared to Google Chrome spyware and IE 9. My "Google Sharing" extension is broken for now, but like many other extensions and skins, we will have to wait for updates on them.

  433. 5 out of 5 stars
    kstev99

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 22, 2011)

    Wouldn't use any other browser.

  434. 5 out of 5 stars
    mfarmilo

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    As usual, a truly excellent program.

  435. 3 out of 5 stars
    PaulWilliams

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    It's an improvement. It does seem faster and more accurate. The color scheme is nice, but nothing special. I can see that they copied the Drop-down Tab at the Top Left from Opera, not very original. Nothing much to dislike about it for me, but not exceptional either. For waiting so many months I expected something more creative. Still Infinitely Better than IE9.

  436. 1 out of 5 stars
    Calc_Yolatuh

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    More of the same, ever since 3.0

    Plus: Tabs on top, easily discoverable single menu button, better isolation of plugins/extensions. (XP netbook)

    Minus: First crash ten minutes after installing (already filed on it), poor download manager, bad CPU usage, awful sync experience, turns out memory and rendering are worse than 3.6 after all.

    UPDATE: Downrated to a 1. Many small things are broken, for example Alt key does not summon the menu in Fullscreen mode. More difficult to intentionally open the same tab twice. Awesomebar is worse than ever. Password pop-up is still a password pop-up even if it non-modally obscures content at the top of the page now. Unfortunately it is not possible to disable the tab bar.

  437. 5 out of 5 stars
    NightFright

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    Finally, Firefox also catches up with the recently updated Chrome and IE. It's definitely faster than before, by much actually, and gives you much more space for website viewing (just like Chrome already did ages ago).

    What I like much about this new version is how addons are handled. While I preferred to keep copies of the addons on my hard drive in case I needed to reinstall, now you just go to the addons tab, type in the name of your addon and you have it right away, no need to browse through the website any more. This is as easy as it can get. Also, the ability to sync settings is a huge help if you are working at more than one workstation throughout the day/week.

    I was a little disappointed that the download manager really did not change at all, it is still a separate window popping up when you download something and not as well integrated into the GUI as you have it in Chrome. Still, if you install the "Download Statusbar" addon, you get this problem fixed easily (if it bothers you).

    The only REAL bummer is the poor font rendering when using hardware acceleration. While you could turn it off to get back the sharpness you know from 3.6.x releases, you would lose the main advantage of the new version. Actually, IE9 has the same issue since it has something to do with Direct2D. While this problem already got addressed with some recent Windows update, it seemingly didn't help much since it still exists. Something Microsoft has to fix, so you can't blame Mozilla for this.

    Max rating for this still. With the font rendering fixed, it will finally be fully enjoyable.

  438. 5 out of 5 stars
    Artem S. Tashkinov

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    It's the final release.

    It will be officially announced on March 22.

    (Actually RC2 = final)

  439. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    I'm very impressed. Big improvement on v3. On a par or higher with Chrome as far as my somewhat crude speed testing shows. Got FF as default at the moment.
    Some nice extensions etc. Maybe a bit high on memory use but as memory is cheap it should not be an issue unless you have an old PC you can't add RAM too but with a little housekeeping it should run fine.

    It's got to the point as I see it, Chrome, Firefox & Opera are all decent browsers, all with their strengths & weaknesses. You take your choice.

  440. 5 out of 5 stars
    ye110mann

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    Compensating for the last two negative ratings. If you want 64-bit get Minefield.

  441. 1 out of 5 stars
    Gazer_XXII

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    Yes, there is a 64bit version of Firefox. It's called Minefield.

  442. 2 out of 5 stars
    rjparker1

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    I like Firefox, however it becomes bloated with all those add-ins.

    I switched to chrome. I still have the same amount of add-ins.. But my question is Firefox TRUE 64-bit yet?

    Chrome is still 32-bit I know, but if Firefox isn't 64-bit I am not switching. I still try it, but nothing seems to get better..

  443. 5 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    Chrome is a good browser but Firefox is still the best IMO.

  444. 4 out of 5 stars
    Zoroaster

    Reviewing 4.0 (Mar 21, 2011)

    Firefox 4 Final = Firefox 4 RC2 (up to the checksum)
    I've always liked Firefox, for sentimental reasons, but as far as my system is concerned, this version 4 is not faster, and when compared to Opera 11 is slow.
    The improvements over 3.6 I notice are faster starrtup, much better RAM management, greatly improved GUI, common operation center for extensions, skins, plugins, scripts, userstyles. Not a revolution, but remains Number 1 in terms of privacy and security, should it be a NoScript extension which has no equivalence on other browsers. Hardware acceleration on old systems is not handled to the top, even disabled, on full-screen video here. Version 4.01 is expected soon, hoping issues will be corrected.

  445. 3 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 16, 2011)

    I have a couple of issues with this release.
    I have several entries for the plugin-container listed in my task list.
    The add on page is really slow and seems to take a lot of resources while it's up.
    The one that really bothers me is when I clear history it launches adobe acrobat reader. Then the reader doesn't show up, It just sits in my task list.
    Otherwise it's fast and not all that bad looking either.
    I do miss seeing the status bar at the bottom.
    Because of the issues I have I rate it a 3

  446. 4 out of 5 stars
    mytake4this

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 13, 2011)

    This is a very good browser. I moved the address bar down to the bottom, now called an add-ons bar and have more space, with almost as much window room as Chrome. That is almost. Since Chrome now has most of the extensions I do need, and is simply faster and leaner, with more window space, I have moved it to the top of my list, and use FF4 less now. Sure, FF still has more extensions, which is a good thing, and SeaMonkey even has email app included, but Chrome is not simply slicker. I found an extension for adding double click to close a tab, a neat little reminder add-on, AdBlock, a Yahoo mail watcher, so I am pretty much happy with Chrome now. I recalls the site settings for last size used, is real fast to start-up, and is solid - no crashing.

    When not using Chrome, FF4 is a great second choice now. And SeaMonkey is nifty, but I am running T-Bird with Lightning so....

  447. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 11, 2011)

    Complaints about it not being at the top tier as far as performance are valid, even if I think they're occasionally misguided (prioritizing synthetic benchmark performance over all other considerations), but I honestly don't get the complaints about Mozilla "not innovating". The tab grouping, sync, and addon subsystem all have clear advantages over the competition and the features often represent industry firsts.

    I've been using Firefox 4 as my main browser since beta 4, and while it was really rough initially (see previous review), I'm very happy with the way it's turned out.

    Performance, while not the best, is more than adequate. Multi-tab resource usage is among the best available. It's second to none in features and extensibility with an addon architecture more powerful than any of the other browsers out there.

    The only thing still missing is sandboxed tabs processes. Combine this feature with NoScript and something like Web Of Trust and you have a level of security that even Chrome can't touch. Chrome's "NotScripts" is decent, but it's not as mature or comprehensive as NoScript simply because Chrome's addon subsystem isn't as powerful and doesn't allow some of the more fundamental security measures available under the Firefox implementation.

    Firefox is my main browser and Chrome is a backup that I use a couple of times a week as a browser for visiting guests and for (rare) really performance-intensive web applications. I like them both, but Firefox is still the king as far as I'm concerned.

    I actually like Chrome a LOT, but there are four big reasons why Firefox remains my main browser:

    1. Tab Syncing
    2. NoScript
    3. VideoDownloadHelper
    4. DownThemAll

    No amount of extensions I can currently install for any other browser can replicate the functionality they offer.

    Some people (who are usually a bit odd) take the whole "browser war" personally, and turn reviews into part of their little crusade. It's easy to pick these people out, and it's easy to tell that they're rarely worth listening to.

  448. 1 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    Every dog has it's day & FF was at the top but no longer. To be honest after actually installing FF again (A rare thing on this site to actually 'INSTALL' a program you review) it's a piece of junk. Ugly, clunky, IE8/9 'gasp' is a better choice.

    I use Opera/Chrome devs & I've had all three running this week, yes FF4 as well. Firefox was good but time moves on, & time has left version 3 & 4 well & truly behind.

    Unless you like a plethora of memory hogging, browser slowing crappy extensions, which moronic cretins think makes them 'Power Users'. Some hope!

    This time next year I predict Chrome will be the most used browser, maybe behind the herd instinct of IE users who don't know how to change their browser if given a bar of gold.

    I work in an interesting facet of IT & see the changes from the inside out..

    Prospero424, likes to hear himself talk but knows bugger all.

    asaenz, What you running a 286?

  449. 5 out of 5 stars
    UniversityofKentucky

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    I'm using 4.0b13pre, as well as the new RC on Win7 64-bit without problem. Chrome is slightly faster, but (the gap (particularly for javascript) is closing fast. Both chrome and ff have made major strides for non-IE browsers. I use both.

  450. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.5.16 (Mar 10, 2011)

    NOD32...
    Get a Avira or at least Avast...

  451. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    5/5
    But could start faster, especially on cold startup

    Also Opera ripped menu from Mozilla, not Mozilla from Opera.

  452. 4 out of 5 stars
    asaenz

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    Been using FF for years and don't have any plans of changing soon but I do have other browsers on my desktop in case I need them including a version of Chrome and Opera. If every program I had running used 200k to 400k I would soon run out of memory and be using a rather sluggish computer which shouldn't be the case with modern computers. Sometimes program code is poorly written with loss of efficient logic, poor use of routines, and/or a bad choice of compiler so there is room for improvement once the basic program is debugged and operating as intended. Examples that comes to mind are utorrent and CIS that use memory efficiently and I'm inclined to use them over others and my computer runs fast and with "snap" because the memory isn't congested.

  453. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    My review was actually of this release so my comments remain the same but I always laugh when I see pompous remarks like d***justice's that never fail to show who the real moron's are. and d***, you're(not your) the moron

    d***justice
    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    also this is 2011. if your still complaining about a computer program using too much memory your a moron

  454. 5 out of 5 stars
    Artem S. Tashkinov

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    Blazingly fast, a must upgrade for all 3.x users.

  455. 5 out of 5 stars
    OAKsider

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    Still the best browser with the best add-ons and a damn fine interface. I don't know why people mind all the betas, it is exciting to see the progress with each release, as long as there aren't any show-stopping bugs (I didn't notice any) and add-on developers can keep pace. On memory use, I trust the Mozilla team and, as said, there's typically plenty of RAM to spare these days.

    Example of Firefox excellence (my browser right now). Stratiform, Omnibar, Barlesque, Tabs in Title Bar (style or userChrome mod), etc. http://i.imgur.com/SiUij.png

  456. 3 out of 5 stars
    dickjustice

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    love firefox but have found it too slow on certian websites that other browsers load faster and i don't know what people do with there PC when they have flash crashing on firefox.

    also this is 2011. if your still complaining about a computer program using too much memory your a moron

  457. 4 out of 5 stars
    HeilNizar

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    Firefox is no longer just a browser, it's a life style, I love it and can't even imagine using something else, the best browser EVER.
    I just hate how much memory it uses.

  458. 1 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    This browser is a joke, and not a funny one! Whoever wrote this should report to the rack.

  459. 5 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 4.0 RC1 (Mar 10, 2011)

    My favorite browser!

  460. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 12 (Mar 10, 2011)

    Uses more memory than Chrome and Opera(which is using too much lately).
    Renders slower than all the other browsers.
    Has a new process(plugin-container) that runs along side it.
    Nice interface though it's a rip of Opera.
    Has a nice new status bar though it's a rip of Chrome

  461. 4 out of 5 stars
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 3.6.14 (Mar 4, 2011)

    This browser with a series of good, established plugins / addons gives a pretty solid browsing experience. Not perfect, and I'm not happy with some of the changes they are forcing into the 4.x series, but for now 3.x is doing ok.

  462. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 3.6.14 (Mar 3, 2011)

    I haven't had FF on this PC for a while so to be fair I duly downloaded it, added Fasterfox, a few themes, and Adblock+.

    I can understand why others like it but to me it seems clunky & ugly compared to the two browsers I usually use, Opera & Chrome.

    Fortunately we are all different & FF was as fast as anything I've used, so I think it's getting down to personal preferences with the top browsers. I removed FF & am sticking to the browsers I have on. Nothing wrong with FF though!

  463. 5 out of 5 stars
    kstev99

    Reviewing 3.6.14 (Mar 2, 2011)

    The best, most customizable browser ever!

    Although I am now using Version 4 Beta 12.

    It's close enough to final version to be very stable and adds some nice features. Tried Google Chrome at work, hated it. Besides there are trust issues with a browser from a company that relies on advertising revenue and tries to sneak a toolbar into nearly every shareware/freeware installation.

  464. 5 out of 5 stars
    butthead

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 12 (Mar 2, 2011)

    Slavic:

    1. Tabs on top, page loading indicator, single button system menu, Panorama, Sync are not examples of Chrome copying, but Opera copying and Panorama is not copying anyone, it is a completely new approach.
    2 Add-ons setup without restart are available in Firefox 4 if the extension is written with Jetpack. The reason Chrome and Opera does not require restart is because their extensions are of simpler type.
    3. Acid3 is by no means a benchmark how the browser will fare in rendering real web pages, also read: http://limi.net/articles/firefox-acid3

  465. 5 out of 5 stars
    SineWave

    Reviewing 3.6.14 (Mar 1, 2011)

    The only thing that bothers me in FF, and it's quite specific so not really a shortcoming for just like 99% of the people, is that it doesn't show some pictures [buttons, backgrounds... I don't mean pOrn.. it shows it alright :)] when I change the colours to my preference - white letters on black background. It only started to happen since v3.6 I think, but I'm not sure.

    Regarding v3.6.14 in general, I can swear I experienced some nice speedups, again in everything from startup time to rendering.

    I also install FF without even thinking to all of my clients and nobody complained about it, ever. The only problem is - some sites still need IE to use them properly, but in my view - that's their problem and they should recompile their s***ty HTML code for FireFox compatibility. I mean, everybody knows that MS is still trying to push their own version of HTML... so they could have monopoly, of course, what else...

    Everybody is pursuing monopoly and proprietary formats of all kinds, just to try to squeeze out every last cent out of poor people in the end.

    Anyway, FireFox and a few essential plugins rule. There's no need pondering much about it. I only wish they invest more time into smashing all the bugs and into optimising the code as much as possible. It still consumes too much memory in my opinion. Way too much. It can't work on an older PC with 128 MB RAM [for example] properly. Why using so much memory for a few pages [on tabs]... beats me.

    Cheers!

  466. 5 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.6.14 (Mar 1, 2011)

    While it on occasion can be glitchy and the plugin architecture is unsustainable from a corporate point of view, this remains my personal preference and the best pick for an enthusiast who loves configurability and privacy. It's biggest problem is also its greatest asset: plugins. They make an otherwise lacklustre browser a worthwhile experience.

    FIVE stars.

  467. 5 out of 5 stars
    ukexpat

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 12 (Mar 1, 2011)

    @tickleonthetum

    You can move the tabs below the menu bar and toolbars

  468. 4 out of 5 stars
    tickleonthetum

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 12 (Mar 1, 2011)

    This new version of Firefox is shaping up nicely. Unlike others, I don't like the new interface. I prefer my menus at the top, then a toolbar, then the tabs, and finally a fixed status bar at the bottom. However, I'm sure the extension makers will have one to put it all back where it belongs!

    For a beta this is pretty good, there are the odd crashes, and memory usage is a bit high, but the days of programs running in KB of memory are long gone and as we demand more and more features and support so the programs will get bigger.

  469. 5 out of 5 stars
    UniversityofKentucky

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 12 (Feb 28, 2011)

    68MB here. Seems fairly stable. Not perfect on html5, but that's a working draft according to the w3c. Follow this link to see how many hard blockers are left.

    http://canweshipyet.com/

  470. 3 out of 5 stars
    lang999

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 12 (Feb 28, 2011)

    features from old browser is removed.
    And its not that fast compared to IE9 beta.

  471. 3 out of 5 stars
    Slavic

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 12 (Feb 28, 2011)

    I am glad that Firefox developers eventually were able to re-invent the Chrome interface, for instance, I was waiting for the right place of URL link preview since beta 6 (about half of year!). Tabs on top, page loading indicator, single button system menu, Panorama, Sync are another examples of good Chrome re-invention. I only can wish developers to discover the process-per-tab feature, add-ons setup without restart and solve the last 3 tests of Acid3... Seriously, better late than never, but it's too late for me, I switched to Chome some months ago :(

  472. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 12 (Feb 28, 2011)

    No memory problems here (uses much less than Chrome).

    Running just fine.

  473. 5 out of 5 stars
    sn0wy82

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 12 (Feb 28, 2011)

    Excellent browser- flash seems to crash less and all my add-ons (10+) seem to now be compatible.Also had no issues with memory leaks which proved an issue with previous beta builds. Cant wait for the final release!

  474. 2 out of 5 stars
    HeilNizar

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 11 (Feb 21, 2011)

    OMG, its memory hungry, 200 - 300 MB???? WTF

  475. 5 out of 5 stars
    cltx99

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 11 (Feb 9, 2011)

    After using Chrome for a long time, I noticed that on my three computers Chrome began to slow down and render pages slowly, after working perfectly for a long period. So, I tried FF 4.10 and now FF 4.11. Needless to say I'm very pleased with performance and extensions. I also downloaded the latest Chrome 10 beta and it's as bad as it was before, but not quite as good as FF. Hats off to the folks at Mozilla, they've done a good job and I assume are making a strong comeback. I must admit though I miss Chrome when it was working like a finely tuned engine.

  476. 5 out of 5 stars
    mfarmilo

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 11 (Feb 8, 2011)

    An excellent browser as always, and version 4 seems to be coming along very nicely. A number of addons are already compatible, and more should be updated as the release draws nearer.

  477. 2 out of 5 stars
    ghammer

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 11 (Feb 8, 2011)

    Beta 11?
    Really?

  478. 2 out of 5 stars
    Banquo

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 11 (Feb 8, 2011)

    Seems the same as beta 10. I'm sticking with Firefox 3 as long as I can.

  479. 3 out of 5 stars
    egg83

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 10 (Jan 26, 2011)

    Have used the betas for a while, have had some rendering problems on certain sites, but not a huge deal. Also had a few extensions that were inoperable, I can get that too. Has been in beta stage for a long time, thought it would have gone to final release. Am starting to wonder about Firefox......

  480. 2 out of 5 stars
    Banquo

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 10 (Jan 26, 2011)

    How the mighty have fallen. Was it really necessary for them to blatantly copy Opera's interface? They should have concentrated on fixing the memory issues and performance instead of trying to be a UI copycat, Firefox 3 had a good interface already but now it's ruined.

  481. 4 out of 5 stars
    smanofsteel76

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 10 (Jan 25, 2011)

    Not a bad browser but there is not enough here for me to switch from Google Chrome. Even on Windows, Google Chrome is like a mini operating system for the internet which comes complete with notifications, extensions, apps, themes, sync, and more. Firefox 4 seems to be playing catch up but Chrome still has more stuff going for it. I also hate restarting after installing extensions. LONG LIVE GOOGLE CHROME!

  482. 5 out of 5 stars
    CobraPL

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 10 (Jan 25, 2011)

    The Best !

  483. 3 out of 5 stars
    SteveJohnSteele

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 10 (Jan 25, 2011)

    10 Betas!
    and how many RCs I wonder?

    I like Firefox but I wish they would get on with it.

  484. 4 out of 5 stars
    zapatero

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 10 (Jan 25, 2011)

    It still has a printing bug. When a text page is printed to PDF, it produces a graphical PDF, very large and non-searchable.

  485. 2 out of 5 stars
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 10 (Jan 25, 2011)

    I'll be sticking with Firefox v3.x for a long time, it looks. No status bar - how's that a good thing? I use it all the time, and so do many addons. It's incredibly useful.

    Second, version 4.x changes the design of the browser in a way that I'm just not happy with. I'm not a Chrome guy - I'm a classic layout guy. I use the Past Modern theme and it's very space efficient and looks great. I don't need to have a total redesign shoved down my throat.

    Also, constantly changing the code in a way that makes addons incompatible time after time is really getting annoying. Version 4.x just breaks too many things to be immediately useful to me.

    And even though this is Beta / RC 10, it's STILL noticeably less stable than the 3.x line.

    As with a few other releases lately, it's just not ready for prime time - and I don't think it will be for a few more stable releases. Maybe 4.5 would be worth revisiting, but for now, 3.x with great addons like NoScript, Adblock Plus and Flashblock is plenty good enough.

    I use CCleaner to manage my cookies in conjunction with Firefox 3.x and find that works well for privacy. Hopefully it will stay capable until 4.x gets on its feet. I'm not anxious to make the leap to 4.x, but know in time it will probably be forced on us in order to get better support for HTML5, SVG and some other improving technologies. I just want 4.x to really be better before I have to make the leap.

  486. 5 out of 5 stars
    darthbeads

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 10 (Jan 25, 2011)

    Cybercreep999 doesn't like it? I'm sold!

  487. 1 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 18, 2011)

    buggy ..... avoid

  488. 2 out of 5 stars
    xpplus

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 18, 2011)

    True Firefox 4 Beta 9 is extra slow
    Firefox 4 is ugly to Vista and win 7 ugly Themes »

    right now is Firefox 3.6.13 faster than Firefox 4,
    yes hope Firefox when it comes out faster and more stable

  489. 1 out of 5 stars
    Keverin

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 15, 2011)

    ugly, slow, full of memory leaks, all the bugs that were there 10 years ago still are.

  490. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sjamaan

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 15, 2011)

    Fast as ray of light., low memory ussage and no major bugs so far. Best version of FF so far and the best browser for my needings beyond any doubt.

  491. 3 out of 5 stars
    ballyhairs

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 15, 2011)

    It uses a huge number of memory.
    They should concentrate on making it fast, small, functional.. etc
    And not kill computers with g** eye candy sh**

  492. 3 out of 5 stars
    cltx99

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 15, 2011)

    Tried it on my LGE500 laptop. Seemed buggy. Not overly impressed. Probably would be better on my Dell Studio XPS desktop. Extensions seemed to be screwed up.

  493. 3 out of 5 stars
    lang999

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 14, 2011)

    eats up all of ur ram

  494. 5 out of 5 stars
    sn0wy82

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 14, 2011)

    The only browser I'll ever use. Dislike Chrome far to ugly with a lack of useful addons. IE would never be my first choice nor my last!

  495. 4 out of 5 stars
    klavc

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 14, 2011)

    I would really like and Firefox really needs to get a full sandbox as Gogole Chrome and Adobe Reader have.

  496. 5 out of 5 stars
    thartist

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 14, 2011)

    Betanews could spew an article on whether Firefox is too late or not.
    Btw, excellent if a little boring.

  497. 3 out of 5 stars
    smanofsteel76

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 14, 2011)

    Chrome is still better! Firefox 4 is too little too late.

  498. 2 out of 5 stars
    Snow Queen

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 9 (Jan 14, 2011)

    Mozilla development team, and especially UI designers should be dumped.

  499. 3 out of 5 stars
    finnlayer

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 8 (Dec 31, 2010)

    fire fox is ok browser, it sticks on webpages and freeze on them, crashes a lot when it does this, but i encounter problems on explorer and chrome freezing on web pages. I use at lest the 3 browsers, when you have Mal ware effecting on one, them you can use the other to help you get on the web, i think the blab on browsers wars is stupid one, the amount of space on hard drives today, would it kill you to use more or a lest have plenty than just one. if your not happy then there is apple safari ..

  500. 1 out of 5 stars
    Firenze

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 8 (Dec 21, 2010)

    Time is ripe for switching now that the biggest value of FF (AdBlockPlus) is getting ported to much better browsers Chome and Opera.

  501. 4 out of 5 stars
    MikeTechno

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 8 (Dec 21, 2010)

    This is a good browser for sure, but Firefox seems to be falling farther and farther behind Google's Chrome and Opera in terms of real innovation. Firefox is no longer the leader when it comes to innovation and advancement when it comes to web browsing. They aren't really pushing the envelope like they use to. It seems like they have gotten way too conservative and lost their edge to the competition. Chrome wins on speed and Opera wins on features and innovation today. Where does that leave Firefox? Even the Minefield alphas still lack any real creative innovations yet it seems. Sadly, the Firefox developers don't appear to be anywhere near as aggressive or as gutsy as they use to be in terms of leading the pack and pushing the web browsing technology envelope. All the excitement in this space now seems to be firmly split between Chrome and Opera.

  502. 3 out of 5 stars
    zapatero

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 8 (Dec 21, 2010)

    Still produces a huge-graphical PDF when printing to PDF a text page. Chrome is better for me.

  503. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 3.6.13 (Dec 10, 2010)

    Still a decent browser, Most of the PC's I care for have it installed & the owners are more than happy.

  504. 5 out of 5 stars
    sn0wy82

    Reviewing 3.6.13 (Dec 9, 2010)

    The only browser I'll ever use!

  505. 5 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 3.6.13 (Dec 9, 2010)

    Loooove this browser :)

  506. 4 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Dec 2, 2010)

    I'm loving this. Firefox with no addons or extensions is something I wish was permanent. It's always been the weak link in this browser anyway. The only reason I don't give it 5 stars is its a beta.

  507. 2 out of 5 stars
    LakotaElf

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 14, 2010)

    I am sorry, but I do not see much about this firefox4 that I like, I took it out of my computer. When they removed the status bar that totally ruined it for me. I also found the url bar was quirky but it is a beta. I did not see it as much faster than firefox 3.6. I am going to move on, all this browser war junk is getting more than boring now.

  508. 3 out of 5 stars
    Slavic

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 12, 2010)

    For me, the best FF4.0 beta was Beta 3 (it's still available on filehippo.com): no Sync, no Panorama, simple single-column menu on Firefox button and the status bar where it has to be (!). Unfortunately, after that beta developers have chosen the wrong road. It's still possible to make available the previous UI and make all excessive features optional, but I heavily doubt in that...

  509. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 11, 2010)

    MUCH improved from the beta 6 as far as speed. I'm seeing across-the-board gains in perceived responsiveness, startup speed, and rendering speed on every machine I've installed it on.

    The status bar (at the bottom of the browser) has been permanently removed. You can still bring up an "add-on bar" at the bottom, but it has reduced functionality. Because of this major interface change, you need to keep an eye out for extension compatibility issues. I ran into some MAJOR showstopping ones before I got things ironed out.

    Direct2D rendering is finally good enough for daily use by most people with compatible hardware. And the new addons browser is finally working.

  510. 3 out of 5 stars
    belylal

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 11, 2010)

    Firstly, it's better than the previous versions.
    Add-ons didn't really work for me, it's not much faster than previous versions, it's visibly slower than Opera and/or Chrome...and, it started laging after a while, but then it could have been just the site I was on at that moment (Facebook)...
    Better than the previous versions, any, but for me, not good enough to be my primary browser...

  511. 4 out of 5 stars
    Yours Truly

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 11, 2010)

    Mostly I like what I see and experience in the freshly released Firefox 4 beta 7; however I do not care for where the Firefox Button (button with sub-menus) is placed. I'd prefer to see the Firefox Button and the Tab Bar be combined to save space (then that extra space could be allotted to web page viewing). If not the Mozilla organization, then I am hoping that someone will develop an extension to do just that, combine the Firefox Button with the Tab Bar, and reclaim wasted space to be used for the view port area.

  512. 5 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 11, 2010)

    Where did the progress bar go?
    I've looked all over in the view settings and in the options & can't find it.
    I also want the stop button on my toolbar & can't find that either. Oh never mind, I found the darn stop button (on the other side of the url bar) what is it doing over there?. Plus I don't want the refresh & stop combo.
    Surfing is fast, but the add on pages take forever to load.
    At least download helper works with this one.
    With all the things I have said in this posting, I still give it a 5.

  513. 5 out of 5 stars
    DACWILSOL

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 11, 2010)

    Default browser now. Renders all sites correctly. Speed is improved.

  514. 5 out of 5 stars
    TC17

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 11, 2010)

    Much better than Chrome

  515. 5 out of 5 stars
    mlazzaro

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 11, 2010)

    Running very fast to me. All my addons are updating to version 4, only echofon stop working in this version.

  516. 1 out of 5 stars
    Bart Welson

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 11, 2010)

    Still as slow as before, horrible UI, snail load times, good options removed and replaced by junk.

  517. 2 out of 5 stars
    RitoSwan

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 7 (Nov 11, 2010)

    The fleeding userbase is right, Firefox is a dying cow.

  518. 5 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 3.6.12 (Oct 28, 2010)

    this is very fast
    try
    http://www.crystalidea.com/speedyfox

  519. 3 out of 5 stars
    dejavu

    Reviewing 3.6.12 (Oct 28, 2010)

    What happened? More and more slow! Chrome or opera on horizon with same add-ons and bye FF!

  520. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 3.6.11 (Oct 19, 2010)

    Lagging further behind Chrome on speed, although the future might change that. Still a nice browser & unbeaten with extensions & themes. Although for sheer speed it looks like Opera is the tops, my brain don't support milliseconds though.

  521. 5 out of 5 stars
    krakokainer

    Reviewing 3.6.11 (Oct 19, 2010)

    this browser is kickass yo

  522. 3 out of 5 stars
    SuzzyWoozy

    Reviewing 3.6.11 RC3 (Oct 15, 2010)

    come on guys! even Internet Exlorer 9 is faster than this!

  523. 4 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 3.6.11 RC3 (Oct 14, 2010)

    this is a nightly build

  524. 4 out of 5 stars
    jorgosch

    Reviewing 3.6.11 RC3 (Oct 13, 2010)

    Did they fix the bug in this release that no history was shown or used as suggestion in the location bar?

  525. 1 out of 5 stars
    soundchazer

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 5 (Sep 10, 2010)

    It is not ready yet... it behaves more like an alpha than a beta. Several pages that I visit will not load correctly (if at all), it crashed on me twice in one day, it mucks the cookies (I went back to 3.6 only to discover I had to clean my cache and certain cookies since I lost access to yahoo mail and gmail).

    Oh... and this is a CPU and memory hog... would take a constant 25% of my CPU processes.

    I'm baffled with all of these issues this is called a beta.

  526. 1 out of 5 stars
    JeremyP

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 5 (Sep 8, 2010)

    All pages I went to were blank, and when Firefox was loading I got an error about an internal network security error.

    Don't think I'll be running this Beta, thanks.

  527. 2 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 5 (Sep 8, 2010)

    Buggy
    videos do not load

  528. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 3.6.9 (Sep 8, 2010)

    No problems with ESET SS here, good browser but not as good as Chrome.

    Robmaniac44, I thought you were using 'Seamonkey', if you can't find a good browser for Windows, I think your problems are not the browsers. Just a thought. :-)

  529. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.6.9 (Sep 8, 2010)

    Thats ESET problem not Mozilla...

  530. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 5 (Sep 7, 2010)

    @Galifray

    I've seen that many, many times before, and it's always been something in the user profile that causes it. Once you create a new user profile for Firefox, the problem goes away.

    I've never had the problem on my own system, so I'm not sure exactly what causes it, but I've seen it on plenty of machines I've worked on.

    @JeremyP

    Close Firefox and then start it again. The problem will go away.

    Review:

    LOTS of major changes in beta 5 over beta 4. Kind of surprising, actually. New download status behavior, new drop-down interface, hardware rendering now enabled by default if supported, and new font rendering.

    So far, I haven't had any stability problems, but the hardware rendering system still has a few bugs to work out. For instance: videos embedded on web sites often don't render properly, even when they're not even playing.

    I can't really decide if I like the new font rendering system or not on Windows. It's just... different. I guess time will tell.

    Most of my extensions have progressed to the point that they at least offer nightly builds on their websites that work with these betas, and more are being updated every week. So nice, steady progress on that front.

    Tab candy is nifty, but needs to be refined before I'll use it on a regular basis. Looks promising, though. And that kind of innovation is part of what keeps me coming back to Firefox.

    Performance improvements over 3.x are slight, but noticeable. It's not gonna be the fastest kid on the block no matter what, but that's not really important to me as it's certainly fast enough.

    If this were a final build, I'd give it a 4 because of the bugs and idiosyncrasies to be worked out. But for a beta, it's remarkably stable and usable, and I find it to be a big improvement over the 3.6 versions.

  531. 3 out of 5 stars
    Galifray

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 5 (Sep 7, 2010)

    This is getting to be a bad habit. Every beta of Firefox 4.0 has the same issue when I try to upgrade. It crashes instead of upgrading. So every restart enters a repeating loop of start the upgrade, check extensions, crash, ask for error report, close down and repeat. Yeah, it's probably something to do with using the 32-bit version (because of Adobe Flash) on Windows 7x64, but still...

  532. 5 out of 5 stars
    craigun

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 5 (Sep 7, 2010)

    I'm happy with the way Firefox is heading! This is so much better then the current version 3.6.

  533. 3 out of 5 stars
    ye110mann

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 4 (Aug 29, 2010)

    Hopefully, this isn't the beginning of another bloatware. The list of unnecessary or inferior new "features" is increasing.

    But the worst are the constant crashes. It may be the GPU acceleration which I enabled.

  534. 5 out of 5 stars
    mancubs

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 4 (Aug 24, 2010)

    i am a newbie to fire fox ,i have got sick and tired of explore so it means that fire fox is going o be my browsers now it kinda rocks for me have tried all the others too,

  535. 5 out of 5 stars
    XXXXXXX

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 4 (Aug 24, 2010)

    cgmark-Thanks for the Info!

    Also check this page about D2D and links to test it out:
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/GFX/Direct2DDemo

    Firefox 4 Beta 5 running Beautiful!

  536. 4 out of 5 stars
    Kelson64

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 4 (Aug 24, 2010)

    I have never been a big fan of add ons, so what I want in Firefox is a fast, smooth and secure browser with good built-in features. Firefox 4 beta 4 is certainly fast.

    The app tabs feature is working a bit better with this new version. Firefox now remembers your app tabs after you close the browser. However, I still don't see a way to "lock" a tab, preventing me from browsing to another site on that tab.

    My biggest problem with Firefox at this point is font smoothing. I am not the youngest guy in the world, and I don't have the best eyesight. Firefox by far renders fonts the worst of any browser I use. I'd really like Firefox to implement a font smoothing feature, so that it gives us old guys a chance to actually "see" text on websites. I run websites for a living, and I simply can not use Firefox for browsing/updating my own sites. This makes Firefox a less viable option of my default web browser.

    But overall I am very pleased with everything else about Firefox 4, Beta 4 right now.

  537. 4 out of 5 stars
    cgmark

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 (Aug 13, 2010)

    If you have windows 7 you can enable gpu support so the gpu will handle scrolling, fonts, animation, video, etc

    To enable D2D and DW support in Mozilla Minefield:

    * Point your web browser to: about:config
    * Agree to the warning message if presented
    * Search for value: gfx.font_rendering.directwrite.enabled
    * Set gfx.font_rendering.directwrite.enabled to true (left click it)
    * Search for value: mozilla.widget.render-mode
    * Set mozilla.widget.render-mode to 6
    * Restart Minefield

  538. 1 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 (Aug 12, 2010)

    Wow this is a big cpu pig
    now I need a new computer just for this

  539. 4 out of 5 stars
    ahjefri

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 (Aug 11, 2010)

    Nice UI but is not to the level of Opera UI,

    Where is the new tab button, Missing in action,, or what,

    Plugins container uses so much CPU, keeps my laptop fan working all the time, this is also in version 3

    other than most of extensions do not work, it is a step forward ,

    I still found opera 10.6 is nice experience, it simply rocking fast.. while others still lagging behind including chrome, IE not even in the picture.

  540. 5 out of 5 stars
    conan1873

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 (Aug 11, 2010)

    IS THIS A BETA?

  541. 5 out of 5 stars
    CobraPL

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 (Aug 11, 2010)

    THIS IS BETA
    THIS IS BETA
    THIS IS BETA
    THIS IS BETA
    THIS IS BETA

    so most extensions will not work.
    Is that clear ?

  542. 3 out of 5 stars
    jorgosch

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 (Aug 11, 2010)

    @Kelson64
    Thanks for the heads up... no extensions, no update.

  543. 2 out of 5 stars
    Kelson64

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 (Aug 11, 2010)

    Honestly, there's no reason to bother with this beta. Firefox has always been about the add-ons, and none of them really work with beta 3. The new app tabs are still not working properly. Ultimately, this is just a basic browser, and therein lies its weakness . . . as it doesn't perform as well as other browsers on the market.

  544. 5 out of 5 stars
    UniversityofKentucky

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Aug 10, 2010)

    Acid3 test scores 97/100 for FF 4.0 beta2. FF 3.6.8 scores 94. So improvement there. Note Chrome scores a perfect 100.

  545. 1 out of 5 stars
    TC17

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Aug 9, 2010)

    I'm really sick of every update of Firefox breaking its addons. Every time it breaks all the addons. There is no excuse for this. It does it whether its a beta or not, any minor update, and your screwed out of your addons.

  546. 5 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Aug 8, 2010)

    I like the fact that there are few extension offerings. I would like it if this were permanent.

  547. 5 out of 5 stars
    Frankie122

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Aug 5, 2010)

    It is faster, and more stable too.

  548. 1 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.6.8 (Aug 2, 2010)

    In addition to its many other problems this browser has contaminated my ESET Smart Security so that it will only update using Mozilla Firefox. I've reported this issue to ESET and am waiting for an answer.

    I wouldn't use this browser if they gave it away with a goldmine.

  549. 5 out of 5 stars
    vortal

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Jul 28, 2010)

    Agree with the other comments here.
    FF4 is shaping up nicely and damn it is quick.
    Really want my addons now, LastPass is working but not others.
    Good bye Chrome :)

  550. 5 out of 5 stars
    sn0wy82

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Jul 28, 2010)

    Finally Firefox is developing into something worth using. The only downside is the slow pace of developers making their addons work with it!

  551. 5 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Jul 28, 2010)

    Wow, that renders fast. C'mon addons!

  552. 5 out of 5 stars
    Lee Wilkerson

    Reviewing 3.6.8 (Jul 28, 2010)

    I've been using and updating Mozilla for about a year now, and with one exception (v3.2 I think) It works just great. Better'n iexplore any day.

  553. 4 out of 5 stars
    Kelson64

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Jul 27, 2010)

    This is improving, and I like app tabs feature. However, I might be doing something wrong. Whenever I shut down the browser, the app tabs disappear. Aren't they supposed to be permanent? Also, if I have an app tab open, if I click on a bookmark, shouldn't it open it in a new tab . . and not where the app tab is? The only thing I don't like is that the app tabs do not seem to be permanent at all. Of course, I may be doing something wrong .. and if so, please enlighten me!

  554. 4 out of 5 stars
    jorgosch

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Jul 27, 2010)

    Lots of useless reviews and fanboys. Still, it's Firefox, but Firefox is nothing without plugins.

  555. 5 out of 5 stars
    CobraPL

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 2 (Jul 27, 2010)

    It is nice. Of course addons do not work YET, but browser itself works like a charm.

  556. 4 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 3.6.8 (Jul 26, 2010)

    No problems now. But you have to do clean install of Firefox and all extensions. Especially if you used Lastpass. When you install and uninstall some extensions,, problems with crashes will start to come up. So clean install is recommended.

  557. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 3.6.8 (Jul 26, 2010)

    Stable, fast, free & heaps of extensions & themes. One of the best.

  558. 5 out of 5 stars
    anomoly

    Reviewing 3.6.8 (Jul 26, 2010)

    No issues at all period.
    Hey roj. IE misses you.
    How do you spell QA? Is this a trick question?

  559. 1 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.6.8 (Jul 26, 2010)

    Oh look, another "golll-eee I frakked up again" update, a day after the last "golll-eee I frakked up again" update.

    And it's STILL doing the "server not found" BS - on 7 (SEVEN) machines, five different users and three different version of Windows. The problem has gone on for year with successive releases - that's long enough and almost as stupid as the memory leak that plagued the browser for two years.

    Can you clowns even spell QA ) of course fangurlz like anomoly can't even read and understand so the question is rhetorical for them)?

    ONE stars for a dev team that clearly needs to get it in gear.

  560. 1 out of 5 stars
    sld

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 Preview (Jul 25, 2010)

    The 1 star is for the lousy software reviewer. b3pre does NOT mean beta 3 preview, it means pre-beta 3 build i.e. Minefield nightly build. beta 2 isn't even out yet, please do not mislead your readers.

  561. 5 out of 5 stars
    cgmark

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 Preview (Jul 25, 2010)

    Notice it says PREVIEW
    A preview is an early version of a beta revision

  562. 5 out of 5 stars
    onawim

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 Preview (Jul 25, 2010)

    Personally, I think others are just trying to mar the product. Firefox is a good browser and when version 4 is released, it will showcase a good product even better. 5 stars and keep up the work.

  563. 5 out of 5 stars
    XXXXXXX

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 Preview (Jul 23, 2010)

    This is a nightly build and it is not ready for prime time. I still rate it a 5 because the program is still in developing stages but it is the best of the best browsers.

  564. 5 out of 5 stars
    mfarmilo

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 Preview (Jul 23, 2010)

    I'm giving 5 stars because this is an excellent program. But what idjit saw fit to put a PREVIEW of beta 3 up here, when mozilla haven't even released beta 2 yet ? You're getting folks posting serious reviews on this based on an assumption it's the latest beta, and it's NOT.

  565. 4 out of 5 stars
    ye110mann

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 Preview (Jul 23, 2010)

    Beta 2 isn't even out yet. Stop posting pre-releases! I'm running the first build of Beta 2 now. App tabs are here but they don't yet eliminate the navigation bar so they're of limited use. Would be nice if there was an option to always hide the nav bar when at a specified URL like mail.google.com. I don't really need the tabs to be open all the time. Also would be nice if when I type in the nav bar, bookmarks get prioritized. Would like to run bookmarklets from the nav bar too. In general, Mozilla needs to a lot of work with navigability.

  566. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 Preview (Jul 23, 2010)

    Still extremely slow on start up and renders slower than other browsers. It also seems to have more page rendering issues then it used to.

    Despite what blind fans say, this browser is clearly trying to play catch up with much better pieces of software like Chrome(- the security issues) and Opera. If this is the best Mozilla can do, then it's time to hit the bricks. Either that or dump more money in to promoting like they have done in the past because it surely doesn't go in to producing

  567. 5 out of 5 stars
    UniversityofKentucky

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 Preview (Jul 23, 2010)

    Slava - though i have a 64-bit os, i don't see the utility of a 64-bit browser (or word processor, for that matter). I have never used MS IE 64-bit browser, and generally use FF 32-bit browser. This FF beta seems to run quicker. I do look at Chrome from time to time b/c of the speed, but do most serious work with ff.

  568. 5 out of 5 stars
    Slavic

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 3 Preview (Jul 23, 2010)

    The version 4.0b3pre is in fact the trunk build, i.e. version in development which has not reached beta status yet, it's planned as public beta some time later, around 6th August. For me, most prominent feature of upcoming b3 is the Windows x64 version, which already works very smooth, but has lack of plugins yet, I hope they will be added soon. Available here:
    ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/
    Upcoming beta 2 is in 1-2 days before release after QA tests, link to build 1 is here:
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases/Firefox_4.0b2
    Very promising!

  569. 4 out of 5 stars
    saadsaleem

    Reviewing 3.6.7 (Jul 22, 2010)

    Just make sure that you delete your complete history and off-line files if you are unable to open Gmail or render other sites properly.

  570. 4 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.6.7 (Jul 21, 2010)

    Input Overload:

    Jackass, just because YOU never had the issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone with any experience in IT knows that - even neophytes. Just where does that leave you?

    In any event you'll note that the changelog for this release includes fixes for "stability issues", a useful euphemism for "we frakked up yet again". You'll also note that others had the "Firefox sits there with its thumb up its azz and its mind in neutral trying to load a page" issue with the previous release, specifically the one I flayed.

    Kids today...

    FOUR stars for finally getting it right... after messing up yet again.

  571. 5 out of 5 stars
    xsnred

    Reviewing 3.6.7 (Jul 20, 2010)

    The only problem I have had with FF is that a page will not load , just sits there trying to load. If I hit the stop button and reload, the page comes up. I try the same page in Chrome and no problem. Chrome is certainly faster but FF is my browser of choice. I just loaded .7 so I'll see what happens there. If anyone can tell me why I get that slow load, would be much appreciated.

  572. 2 out of 5 stars
    maddy143ded

    Reviewing 3.6.7 (Jul 20, 2010)

    keeps messing my system,,,, keeps on crashing while running GM scripts, for no apparent reason.
    the same script is running alright in Chrome, FF 3.5.1.

    3.6.6 was a dud, lets hope 3.6.7 is better.

  573. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 3.6.7 (Jul 20, 2010)

    From my point of view not quite as fast as Chrome 6 but an excellent browser that keeps getting better. One of the best!

    roj, I suggest you purchase 'PC's For Dummies' as I have never had any dropped sites or other problems you have. I can assure you it's either your ISP or you don't understand PC's.

    rog:- P.S. You seem a very angry person & as I'm from the UK the term 'Jackass' means nothing to me. The problems you have seem ongoing as it's not with just one or two builds you are having issues. I spend my working life in server rooms and I assure you the problem is yours. Wrap the PC up take it back to the shop (Store to you) & tell them you lack sufficient intelligence to own a PC. Hopefully after a few minutes conversation with you they will agree & give you a refund.

  574. 5 out of 5 stars
    Zoroaster

    Reviewing 3.6.7 (Jul 20, 2010)

    No problem, fast 'n' smooth. Comments like those of roj always stun me. I've been using Firefox since version 2.x, I've never-ever encountered roj's tribulations :) Not one crash, with 80 extensions and all traditional plug-ins...
    I think some users should take care of their computer before blaming the world and the others :)

  575. 5 out of 5 stars
    soldier1st

    Reviewing 3.6.7 (Jul 20, 2010)

    awesome as always.

  576. 5 out of 5 stars
    ye110mann

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 15, 2010)

    Works perfectly for me. Disable add-on compatibility check and edited the userChrome.css to move the tabs to the title bar, giving me an extra line of web content. Still waiting on other promised features like app tabs and possibly a file browser.

  577. 1 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.6.6 (Jul 12, 2010)

    Once again the twits at ZillaLand show their inconsistency. This is a problem that resurfaces every couple of point releases, gets righted mysteriously and then recurs two or so releases later again.

    What problem is this?

    Firefox will sporadically and for no apparent reason suddenly start dropping sites. It will claim that sites are not available but if refresh is done four or five times (or the browser dumped and reloaded), the sites will magically come up. In fact it did that just now posting this review. 3.0 used to have this problem. It went away with 3.5. Now it's back.

    This was also in evidence a couple of point releases ago and was "fixed" until the current release. Before that, it was in evidence several releases prior and was again mysteriously "fixed". The changelog never ever iterates what was fixed. This is repeatable on different networks using different machines and completely highlights Firefox's ever present flaw and nemesis:

    SUSTAINABILITY.

    I am sick and tired of seeing this browser fall on its azz due to poor development practices and testing.

    Anyone for .7?

    ONE star for repeated stupidity.

  578. 3 out of 5 stars
    uberfly

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 10, 2010)

    Holy crap. I imagine they took Opera to their developers and said "make it look EXACTLY like this"...

  579. 2 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 8, 2010)

    Visually, this is terrible. If this is the direction they are going in, than they have jumped the shark for sure. Like Windows vista/7, this trend towards min. buttons and toolbars is totally annoying. I'll stay with the 3. series and never upgrade to this version.

  580. 3 out of 5 stars
    fudgetunnel

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 8, 2010)

    Broke all but one of my extensions. Feedback didn't work. Uninstalled within 5 minutes.

    Not ready for human consumption.

  581. 5 out of 5 stars
    mfarmilo

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    Excellent program, I've been using it for years and it just keeps getting better.

    I'm a little surprised by Hilbert's comments. The only thing his rant achieves is to show that he doesn't have a clue about how addons work. Addon makers themselves include within the addon a range of Firefox versions the addon will work in. When Firefox loads addons on startup, it will block an addon if it doesn't explivitly say it can run in this version of Firefox. Of course the addons he's trying won't work in version 4. That's because the writer of the addon hasn't included version 4 as 'working' so Firefox refuses to run it. It's just plain daft to blame Firefox for that. It's up to the addon writers to release new versions that support Ver 4.

  582. 4 out of 5 stars
    SteveJohnSteele

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    Good but still needs work.

    Sidebar for everything... History and Favorites open in sidebar - BUT downloads STILL open in a separate window - imho all these need to open in sidebar (or tab) - add to that source code (and several others I haven't thought of)

    Each tab in separate process, as well as plugins.

    The ability to pause everything (flash, gif, sound etc) on tabs that are not currently being viewed.

    I sort of agree with Hilbert concerning addons.
    Perhaps some 'go-between' layer would allow better backward compatibility.
    Browser / compatibility layer / Addons

  583. 4 out of 5 stars
    Andy Dean

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    Hilbert why not have a rant at the extension makers for not keeping up.
    Overall this version is running fine, a little faster than previous versions and I love the tabs at the top :)

  584. 1 out of 5 stars
    Hilbert

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    UPDATE (original post at end):
    --------------------------------------

    @mfarmilo: Re my criticisms of Firefox 4 beta.

    Unfortunately, I'm all too familiar with how add-ons work in Firefox; moreover, how Mozilla has implemented versioning control within Firefox is fundamental to the problem. Suffice to say, except in rare circumstances, versioning should be ignored in Firefox or at most, the program should only issue warnings when users install earlier-version add-ons. (And I don’t need any spurious lectures on security or of program stability as they're not germane to the fundamental points I'm making here--security is a totally separate argument altogether and programming APIs should be stable standards subject to well regulated change control processes and not jumping about like lotto ball numbers.)

    Let's look at the Mozilla Firefox add-ons problem holistically, in such an approach we're not interested in how add-ons actually achieve what they do--as that is a matter of engineering detail--but rather we should focus on how the user perceives and reacts to the outcome which they're supposed to deliver. Now, in the broader context of the PC environment, consider how these issues affect the viability of Mozilla's flagship product, Firefox:

    1. Can you seriously imagine what users would say or do if Microsoft brought out a new version of Windows which would not run most of the user's programs? There'd be utter outrage and rightly so. Witness Vista--even when a small percentage of programs failed to run on it, the consequences were sufficiently bad to affect Microsoft's bottom line. The question has to be asked as to why Firefox is so special--so fickle or so fundamentally different that it cannot comply with the expected user norm, as does MS Windows.

    1.1 In the absence of any better reason I've heard so far, I'd contend that the incompatibility issues, inter alia, either result from fundamental design flaws or limitations in Firefox's design/architecture--or the lack of foresight in the initial design thereof or it's that Mozilla keeps changing its mind, or it's both. Is Firefox a design failure, directionless or both?

    1.2 Even if Firefox and its plug-ins/add-ons are free then users' and IT staff's time usually is not. Simply, users will not tolerate being continually mucked about in this way.

    1.3 Making excuses for Mozilla simply because it's perceived to be the underdog in the long running war with Microsoft simply doesn’t hold water, it never has. Bad design is still bad design, bad coding is still bad programming no matter who does it. And here we're all ill served by Mozilla making every new version of Firefox incompatible with previous ones, especially so given the long time Mozilla has been producing Firefox.

    2. From the program's inception, Mozilla has failed consistently and repeatedly to code into Firefox certain key features that are and have been a vital part of Internet Explorer's specification/function for years. Effectively, Firefox's implementation of Web browsing is a poor and substandard experience to that offered by Internet Explorer simply by virtue of it using only a subset of IE's key functions. When Mozilla decided to downsize the ailing bloated Netscape, its minimum specification should have been 'all the key operational functions of IE 5' and some icing on the cake to entice users away from IE. What Mozilla actually gave us with Firefox wasn't even all the cake let alone any decent icing! We did however get lots of anti-Microsoft propaganda and hype (even if MS well deserved it).

    2.1 One case really stands out: I'm specifically referring to the fact that in every edition/version of Firefox to date including the new version 4 beta, Mozilla failed to include the key function to save a Web page as a single (archive) file, specifically Internet Explorer's 'Web Archive, single file (*.mht*)' format, the MHTML/MIME HTML, RFC 2557, which Microsoft correctly and adroitly incorporated within Internet Explorer 5 as far back as 1999--long before Firefox saw the light of day!

    2.2 With respect, if at this late juncture of the browser debate, the reader fails to understand the significance saving a Web page to a single archive file, then perhaps he or she shouldn't be in this discussion. [In this information age where increasing data entropy is of concern for many--especially archivists, librarians, researchers and dare I say even students, it simply does not make sense to save a Web page as multiple files spread out over different directories so as to easily get lost or be separated in transport or in the archiving process; or for parts--files--to get gobbled up by duplicate eliminators and cleaners etc.] Incidentally, as well as IE, the Opera browser also incorporates saving Web pages as MHT files as a native inbuilt function and it has done so for quite some considerable time.

    2.3 Ordinary users have very little conception about how a Web page is stored in bits and pieces and usually do not understand why when they sent a stored page across a network or the Internet that it usually displays in some very broken fashion if at all--nor should they need to as the problem ought not exist. Instead of leading by example and contributing to further development of RFC 2557 standard--which incidentally is sorely needed--Mozilla has chosen abrogate its position of power and responsibility by ignoring the issue altogether. Clearly, Mozilla couldn’t care less about such users; presumably it does not perceive them as part of its geeky market, which only further attests to the common belief that Firefox is not a browser for the ordinary user but one written by geeks for geeks.

    3. Yes, I can hear '…but there's Firefox add-ons for MHTML' roar from here. Correct, there's add-ons UnMHT and Mozilla Archive Format (MAF/MAFF) for Firefox. However, this is the thrust of my point--neither of the latest versions of these add-ons works in the Firefox 4 beta. Almost every time Mozilla updated Firefox, point version or otherwise, users who wanted to save Web pages in single archive files were thwarted, they simply couldn’t use Firefox until the add-on writers had graciously rewritten their products. Essentially for users who use MHTML files, Firefox was unusable, and quite often it was so for long periods. Before UnMHT came upon the scene there was an inordinately long period where 'Mozilla Archive Format' was not updated at all which left its users who updated Firefox high and dry, the only viable option left was for them to revert back to IE which they usually did

    3.1 Mozilla's failure to incorporate such a key function into Firefox was an unacceptable policy decision as it left users vulnerably exposed to a part time add-on/extension writer who had insufficient time to adequately develop the product. Moreover, it's also a clear failure of Mozilla's policy of 'we-can't-get-a-big-bloated-program-to-work-properly-so-let's-build-a-small-one-by-leaving-key-functions-out-and-then-leave-users-to-the-vagaries-of-part-time-add-on-writers. Heaven forbid, is this really the best way to develop key software in the 21st Century? I think not.

    3.2 Right, I accept that Microsoft was initially responsible for the problem by giving Internet Explorer away 'free' and thus undercutting the viability of other browser manufacturers. Nonetheless, Mozilla has perpetuated the problem and it must accept much of the responsibility for it. It has never acknowledged the serious limitations of its present add-ons development methodology--at least to ordinary users--nor has it taken adequate and prudent steps within the development process to overcome such limitations, it blithely goes on its merry way with an attitude of hang the concerns of ordinary users. This attitude is especially abhorrent in recent years given now that Mozilla's financial viability is reasonably well assured.

    4. For many thinking IT people, Mozilla's Firefox was potentially a godsend as it offered great potential for escaping the clutches of the buggy virus-prone Internet Explorer. However, in practice, this often turned out not to be the case.

    4.1 Many IT departments, Help Desks etc. found that Firefox compatibility issues and ongoing updates to be a major operational and deployment headache and they continue to do so. These issues are not just hypothetical problems but rather ones of considerable operational significance that have a substantial affect on the operation of an IT department. Here's a short and incomplete list:

    * As stated, Firefox broke and continues to break plug-ins and add-ons whenever it is upgraded. This problem represents significant deployment and maintenance costs for such operations.

    * Firefox has ongoing compatibility issues--a la the MHT/MHTML problem. Moreover, it's very questionable whether recent changes in Mozilla's development policy with respect to add-ons etc. will solve the broader problem of what is to be included with or excluded from Firefox's inbuilt functions.

    * Firefox obfuscates users' data files, thus it's difficult for users (and time consuming and costly for IT staff) to trawl through Firefox's user-file detritus to find lost data or to transfer it to other programs. (In the real world of daily IT operations, this is a much bigger problem than most geeks and Firefox aficionados would ever suspect.)

    * Even the seemingly simplest of issues has become a significant issue for many IT departments. For example, Firefox 'Bookmarks' are not directly interchangeable with those of IE's 'Favorites', nor are they directly exportable to IE's format (and to a degree they are obfuscated when the 'Bookmarks' file is examined by other programs, text editors etc.). Whilst Firefox has an importer and backup for 'Bookmarks', it has no export function--as is the case with so many programs whose programmers arrogantly assume that their program is the definitive one from which no one would ever need to export data. Again, to solve these problems users have had to resort to various add-ons that usually break every time Firefox is updated.

    4.2 Instead of Firefox being the best solution for many IT departments it has become more trouble than it is worth, thus more often than not, the choice has been to remain with troublesome, virus-prone Internet Explorer--but it's a product whose plug-ins rarely broke! Even now, I know of organizations that continue to use the dreadful IE 6 simply because zealots and geeky programmers at Mozilla prefer to give development time over to their own interests in preference to that of the ordinary hapless user. It's quite a disgrace really, the fact that Mozilla thinks and works in this way means it's done the computing industry a significant disservice.

    5. To make matters worse, Mozilla often does not fix well know problems, even serious bugs that its programmers have known about for years still remain within Firefox. For example, the well-known and annoying bug in Firefox's printing where printed pages contain badly formatted data and or where only a few pages of say a dozen or so of those displayed are actually printed, is still present in the new Firefox 4 beta. Here's a current example of this printing problem which I came across whilst testing the Firefox 4 beta. It's a common enough Web page in which one would not expect to experience a printing problem:

    http://www.search-autopa...cleDetail.jsp?id=130652

    The Web page only prints to about half way through the displayed screen content (for me it printed up to the end of the sentence which ends '…where paint is not to be removed').

    5.1 I personally have referred this problem to Mozilla on occasions over recent years and I know others have too, yet this serious Firefox bug still remains ignored by Mozilla's developers and has done so for far too long. This is such a major bug, that for some IT departments, it alone is considered serious enough to have Firefox banned on the grounds that it does not meet the fitness for purpose criteria, which essentially means that it does not work in a key and vital area of its functionality. Again, it's just another instance of where zealot Mozilla geeks prefer to work on their own more popular agendas rather than fix key (but boring) issues which are important to ordinary users. BTW, current versions of Opera all print the aforementioned page without difficulty.

    6. If you think I'm overstating the case then you solitary programmers and computing types should think again. You simply have not worked in a Help Desk or IT department where Firefox updates are just dreaded, as dozens of users will experience plug-ins and add-ons that afterwards will no longer work. Nor have you felt the wrath of management when things suddenly fail to work after a Firefox upgrade, or of the effects on the morale of IT staff when your accounts department fails to pay overtime or consultant's fees incurred in rectifying Mozilla's f%#@-ups.

    Firefox is not a standards-setter but rather a poor follower. Except in areas where its geeky programmers want to lead it, Firefox leads only from behind and it always has. Opera for example has always been a much better leader; even though it's not a market leader, but it's usually the one from whom others including Mozilla have regularly pinched new browser ideas. Unfortunately for many ordinary users, machinations over Firefox updates and add-ons will be of little or no concern as Firefox remains without sufficient enticement to make them change from Internet Explorer.

    I've been a longstanding critic of Microsoft for many years so it's been hard for me to write such critical words about a product that ought to have eaten IE for breakfast years ago. That's a fact, believe it as you may[1].

    What I find so disconcerting is why so many users and programmers alike are so thankful for such small mercies. Why is it that so many are prepared to continually put up with software that has been so badly engineered, both functionally and ergonomically, which if it were any other product other than software, would be the subject of consumer legislation and lemon laws--but when given a minor paint job here or there--it is then perceived by them as a major breakthrough or advance in the state of the art? It is little wonder that we remain mired in MS Windows security issues and such whilst there's so little critical debate over this issue of software quality. When it comes to software, it is as if the Internet has forced us all into a consensus of accepting that the lowest common denominator will actually do, it's effect is as if we'd been weened forcibly off the notion that software quality and the performance of software actually does matter.

    Furthermore, it's been thus for a long time. In September 1994, SciAm published a seminal article by W. Wayt Gibbs on the problems of software development, 'Software's Chronic Crisis - Trends In Computing'. This perceptive and insightful article, which ought to be compulsory reading for all within the software industry especially developers, explores the problematic depths of software development, and it is just as relevant today--probably more so--than when it was written some 16 years ago. All Mozilla Firefox development issues to which I've referred are encapsulated therein, issues are so concisely explained that even Firefox's developers should have little difficulty in understanding them:

    http://www.cis.gsu.edu/~...SciAmSept1994.html#Ref1

    Key issues and problems have changed little since then, if anything they're worse now than they once were. Since this article was published we've witnessed the whole vulnerability debacle of Microsoft's Windows and Internet Explorer with their seemingly-endless number of security holes not to mention thousands of bugs, ongoing fixes and of course paid upgrades which automatically propel users into the next level of the same. In practice it seems we've learned little or nothing since then, even supposed mavericks such a Mozilla have fared little better, for they've just produced more of the same with cherries on top.

    An original September 1994 issue of this SciAm takes pride of place in the computing and programming section of my bookshelf where it remains a constant reminder and leveler whenever I get too excited over software that the industry purports to be new and wonderful with bells on top. Perhaps BetaNews/FileForum's readers could do worse than to place copies in their own libraries.

    --

    [1] I don't believe anyone would have the stamina to consecutively read another post of mine, but the proof is here: http://www.betanews.com/...lorer-6-ills/1265215653

    P.S.: it seems I've been dueling with @mfarmilo previously, he's also the recipient of this other long post about Microsoft (URL directly above). Perhaps we should meet for coffee one day, I'm sure we'd get along famously. :-)

    -------------------

    ORIGINAL POST:

    Here's my uninstall feedback comments to Mozilla:

    "Plug-ins/Add-ons, as usual, are broken AGAIN!! What the hell's wrong with you all at Mozilla that every major and many minor versions of Firefox have been incompatible with earlier add-ons??? You've been screwing up the add-ons for years. This time it's a record--of the 9 common widely-used add-ons that I've tried on Firefox v4--NOT ONE single one has worked!!

    DO YOU IDIOTS REALIZE, THAT FOR THE USER, THIS IDIOCY IS EQUIVALENT TO THAT WHENEVER MICROSOFT BRINGS OUT A NEW VERSION OF MS OFFICE/WORD THAT IT WOULD NOT READ DOC FILES FROM THE PREVIOUS VERSION? RIGHT, NOT EVEN MICROSOFT WOULD DO SOMETHING AS IDIOTIC AS THIS.

    WE'RE 30+ YEARS DOWN THE TRACK IN PERSONAL COMPUTING--70 IN MAINSTREAM COMPUTING--AND PROGRAMMING IS NO LONGER AN EXPERIMENTAL EXERCISE ANYMORE. GOT THAT! YOU--MOZILLA--STILL APPARENTLY HAVEN'T HEARD OF THE TERM 'BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY' OR THAT IT'S A SERIOUSLY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR MOST USERS--NOT TO MENTION THE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF LOST AND WASTED HOURS YOU HAVE CAUSED PLUG-IN DEVELOPERS BY HAVING THEM REWRITE CODE.

    IT IS NOT ONLY A DISGRACE BUT IT'S TRULY UNPROFESSIONAL; ALSO IT'S A WASTE OF HUMAN EFFORT TO MUCK SO MANY ABOUT. HOW MANY MILLIONS OF TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THIS IS A MAJOR/SERIOUS ISSUE?? SUCH ARROGANCE IS ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE; IT COULD NOT HAPPEN ANYWHERE ELSE EXCEPT IN THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY AND BY A MOB WHO HAS TAX EXEMPT STATUS--IN NO OTHER INDUSTRY ANYWHERE WOULD SUCH UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT BE TOLERATED.

    AS USUAL, I WILL CONTINUE TO USE OPERA, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO RECOMMEND TO MY CLIENTS THAT THEY AVOID FIREFOX AND OTHER MOZILLA PRODUCTS. YOU LEAVE ME WITH NO OTHER CHOICE."

    Why are many of you other reviewers so content and happy to score broken goods so highly? No wonder the quality of software is in such a bad state.

  585. 5 out of 5 stars
    zapatero

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    Using it since yesterday, no problem so far. Good.

  586. 5 out of 5 stars
    belylal

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    This version of Firefox is just as fast as Opera or Chrome, but better. It just feels better, more professional. Add-ons still not working but the way this is going that won't be a problem in the future. I've been using Chrome for a while now and it's great, compared to this version of Firefox though it's just to minimalistic, too simple. Firefox gets the job done just as nicely and just as quickly without being minimalistic.
    Firefox is back on track with this one...

  587. 5 out of 5 stars
    pjb

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    Nice update from the previous B1. Works really well, especially using the tip from thartist via KillerZ123 - addon's work ok. The only ones I have had to disable are Xmarks (as it won't sync) and Tab Mix Plus (as it causes my tabs to become irregular sizes)

  588. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    Noticeable speed increase.

    Don't care much for tabs on top but at least they've kept an option to keep them as before.

    Can't wait for final version!

  589. 5 out of 5 stars
    tontito

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    nilst2006 that really looks like a stupid comment.

    test the software then comment.

    I whish i could delete your comment...

  590. 4 out of 5 stars
    Diam0nd

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    A lot better than before.
    But the design looks almost exactly like Opera. I mean, all browsers looks very similar these days, but here even the coloring, buttons, etc looks EXACTLY like Opera. Lame ;/

  591. 5 out of 5 stars
    cool_guy

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    Beautiful and sleek design. The new revamped UI is absolutely beautiful. Looks awesome on Aero Well done! We need something like this for Thunderbird. I have placed the tabs at the bottom as they seem to be better matching the Aero UI in my own opinion.

    Can't tell on Windows 7 whether there are any start-up performance improvements due to superfetch misbehaving. Every time you start Windows (sometimes it would take FF 1 second to start literally and sometimes 7 seconds). 5 stars from me but pay attention on the start up speed or the score will go down.

  592. 1 out of 5 stars
    nms04

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 7, 2010)

    ugly and slow as hell!

  593. 5 out of 5 stars
    thartist

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 6, 2010)

    ADD-ON COMPATIBILITY: disable add-ons compatibility check under about:config by adding add new boolean 'extensions.checkCompatibility.4.0b' and set to false. Restart FF.

    Credit to KillerZ123, works perfect for my addons.

  594. 1 out of 5 stars
    xsnred

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 6, 2010)

    I read a good review over at Lifehacker which some good screen shots too. My jury is still out on this new build. Redesigning the UI is all good I guess, but I hope it will be as functional as 3.6. I have been a big fan of FF but lately I have been using Chrome a lot because of the clean interface and speed. I like simple and FF4 doesn't look clean and simple. I'm sure it will be extremely functional for the business community that needs all the makeover you're going to get. I'm only giving it a 1, but then again I haven't tried it yet. Sorry, don't like betas.

  595. 1 out of 5 stars
    smaragdus

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 (Jul 6, 2010)

    An awful course of development of both Firefox and Opera, why should they copycat the terrible piece of wood called Chrome? Firefox 4 does not look good. I am not apt to correct its terrible design with the use of themes. The tabs are anti-ergonomic. It seems that Firefox and Opera will force me to make either Safari or K-Meleon my default browser. A great disappointment.

  596. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.6.6 (Jul 3, 2010)

    @ ZenWarrior - delete Mozilla folders in Documents, should helps...

  597. 5 out of 5 stars
    Stevefarrell

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 Candidate (Jun 30, 2010)

    I tried this beta 1 until I discovered that the public beta 2 is available. Its called 4.0b2pre. Now just hoping they include the GPU acceleration in the next build. This new build is certainly faster than 3.6.6 but most of my addons are incompatable.

  598. 5 out of 5 stars
    TheDevilHimself

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 Candidate (Jun 30, 2010)

    Now I have tried Mozilla Firefox 4.0 beta 1 for a couple of days, and it works perfect, its fast and smooth, no s*** here. I use a medion Akoya mini computer and I haven't noticed any problems at all. Normally I use Google Chrome latest beta version and I like it so far, but this new Mozilla beta version is good and I will shurely continue for a couple of days more.

  599. 5 out of 5 stars
    rstat1

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 Candidate (Jun 29, 2010)

    @b0mmel I'm pretty sure the UI is still a work in progress. Which means its gonna look unpolished.
    Note that this isn't even 4.0 Beta 1, its a candidate build to be labeled Beta 1 should it pass the necessary testing.

  600. 3 out of 5 stars
    lucianct

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 Candidate (Jun 29, 2010)

    the UI in windows7 could have been better. the strata40 and stratabuddy addons do a lot better job with firefox 3.6 than firefox 4.0b1 without any addons

  601. 2 out of 5 stars
    b0mmel

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 Candidate (Jun 29, 2010)

    Seriously underwhelmed. The interface looks very unpolished, the browser is slow to start and lags when scrolling on many sites. Feels like driving a 20 year old worn out car. Tested it only on a netbook, but Chrome 6, IE9 DP 3 and Opera 10.60 all perform excellent on it.

    I realize this is Beta 1 but I expected a lot more.

    Actually 1 star but I'll give it 2 for the sake of the old times.

  602. 4 out of 5 stars
    elitegangsta

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 Candidate (Jun 29, 2010)

    Nice operation, seems pretty stable on my system. Top tabs need to shift left about 4 pixels, only flaw i've noticed so far. I'm liking the new interface though, nice and clean.

  603. 4 out of 5 stars
    pjb

    Reviewing 4.0 Beta 1 Candidate (Jun 29, 2010)

    Works well, tried it this afternoon.
    Add-ons tend not to work at the moment, but that is down to the provider.
    Am sure add on updates will arrive shortly.
    The GUI is ok, would like to see the first tab flush left with the rest of the left interface,

  604. 5 out of 5 stars
    xsnred

    Reviewing 3.6.6 (Jun 28, 2010)

    I, like DaComboMan, have tried every browser out there but I always come back to FireFox. That doesn't mean it is the best, it means it's the best for me. I read all the bad reviews about crashing and what nots but I very rarely have a problem. I use it mostly at home and don't need 45 tabs opened and then complain that it crashes. To clarify something, I do like the other browsers and think they perform to what the makers say, but I like Firefox for me.

  605. 4 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 3.6.4 (Jun 25, 2010)

    Pros:
    You can put all plugins into "out of process" block with just one change in about:config.
    Since I installed Flash 10.1, I have not seen any crashes or crash logos due to Flash. It is a huge deal.

    Cons:
    Could be faster. It is plenty fast for normal use, but you do not want to be slowest browser on the net.
    Problems with some JavaScript applications. I had to block Disqus talkbacks because it crashed Firefox all the time. Engadget.com used to freeze for 20 seconds every time article opened.

  606. 1 out of 5 stars
    ZenWarrior

    Reviewing 3.6.4 (Jun 24, 2010)

    I've not been able to start Firefox without it immediately freezing since updating to 3.6.4. Goodbye, Firefox.

  607. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 3.6.4 (Jun 23, 2010)

    I used to be an Opera user for years but moved to Firefox a few months ago & it just keeps getting better. A great browser.

  608. 5 out of 5 stars
    UPieper

    Reviewing 3.6.4 (Jun 23, 2010)

    V3.6.4 is much better than previous 3.6.x versions as far as memory consumption is concerned

  609. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 3.6.4 (Jun 22, 2010)

    Have been testing all latest releases from Opera, Maxthon, Google Chrome and Safari but still keep coming back to Firefox. Allways a dynamite browser!

  610. 5 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 3.6.4 (Jun 22, 2010)

    This is the best browser. Fäck chrome !!!

  611. 5 out of 5 stars
    bopb99

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 5 (Jun 15, 2010)

    Find this release very interesting with the speed improvements they have done. Can't wait for the final version.

    @thartist
    Oh please.
    You find it boring, whoehoeboehoe...

    It's a normal UI for a browser.
    That it doesn't gets flashier constantly is something you will have to live with.
    Besides, it's better than Chrome's or IE's UI.

    About the addons, they also check for the version number. That's why there is that message about saying you need firefox.

  612. 5 out of 5 stars
    thartist

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 5 (Jun 14, 2010)

    hmmm this alpha5 looks as boring as firefox always did even with the new glass.
    i'm holding my expectations till the 4.0 new interface is implemented.

  613. 5 out of 5 stars
    juanito1968

    Reviewing 3.6.4 RC1 (Jun 3, 2010)

    This is not RC1; is the Build # 6 of the Beta release.
    Check http://releases.mozilla....ightly/3.6.4-candidates/ and/or http://ftp.mozilla.org/p...ightly/3.6.4-candidates/ for any further information.
    FileForum or Mozilla mistake?

  614. 4 out of 5 stars
    fudgetunnel

    Reviewing 3.6.4 RC1 (Jun 2, 2010)

    Yes, RC1 still has the memory leak.

    Try this:

    Start fresh browser.

    Crt-alt-del > Windows Task Manager> Processes> Firefox.exe (and plugin-container.exe)

    Note memory usage.

    Open 5 Youtube videos in seperate tabs. Play for a few minutes.

    Close all tabs.

    Note memory usage now.

    Both the Plug-in Container and Firefox executable will remain bloated.

    Fail.

  615. 5 out of 5 stars
    Zoroaster

    Reviewing 3.6.4 RC1 (Jun 2, 2010)

    So far so good. New separate processing threads for browser plug-ins (Adobe Flash, Apple Quicktime and Microsoft Silverlight to start with) reveals itself by means of a 'plugin-container.exe' localized in the Mozilla Firefox folder, and works at this time perfectly well. Strange to read a flash file and see the firefox.exe cpu rate stay way down.... whilst 'plugin-container.exe' is doing the hard work! Nevertheless, total cpu usage for firefox.exe + plugin-container.exe when reading a flash file was lower than for firefox.exe alone on version 3.6.3.
    Splendid, crossing fingers for more positive experimentation.

  616. 1 out of 5 stars
    alanladd

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 3 (May 19, 2010)

    Would love to rate Firefox 3.6.3 however, I can't as Firefox will not open for me. My previous version (don't ask because I don't know and I uninstalled it) worked fine but I decided to update. Went for 3.6.3. Installed but will not open. Uninstalled 3.6.3 and downloaded 3.5.9 but that won't work either. Am about to give 3.7 alpha a go but I'm not holding out much hope. GIVE ME BACK MY FIREFOX - I hate to slowness of IE.

  617. 1 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 3 (May 17, 2010)

    I am reporting on Firefox 3.6.4b4. Do not install it. Day after I installed it, Firefox stoped working. It went to offline mode and stoped functioning.

  618. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 3 (May 8, 2010)

    @ ubermann - no memory leaks anymore...
    Firefox has now the best memory management... :)

    http://www.tomshardware....hrome-opera,2558-4.html
    http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
    http://arstechnica.com/o...y-than-ie-and-opera.ars
    http://avencius.nl/conte...-opera-950-memory-usage
    etc... ;)

  619. 2 out of 5 stars
    ubermann

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 3 (May 7, 2010)

    Still Memory leaks?
    I gave up on firefox since 3.x

  620. 5 out of 5 stars
    4122

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 3 (May 6, 2010)

    Very stable....even with the latest beta version of Flash. I'm not experiencing any of the stability problems Borisf98 is even though I'm running a bajillion extensions myself.

    Maybe I'm just lucky.

  621. 3 out of 5 stars
    Vivek Kowshik

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 1 (May 5, 2010)

    A print bug that I had pointed out in version 2.x has now reappeared in 3.6.3. Almost any website which is spread over multiple pages, gets completely disoriented and has missing sections and blank pages for no reason, when printed to a pdf document. This is immediately visible when we see the preview of a page. Increasing the zoom factor causes more of the contents to get lost.
    This is a big problem when we need to store a pdf for future reference. It appears there is very little attention being paid to the printing ability of the browser these days, and more time being spent on just about everything else.

  622. 3 out of 5 stars
    Galifray

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 3 (Apr 26, 2010)

    After a long absence from using Firefox, I decided to try out the latest build. I found it funny that Mozilla's Add-ons Site kept telling me that I needed Mozilla Firefox to install add-ons. Amusing, if only for the comedy of being told on Firefox that I needed Firefox, and YES, it was with the few add-ons that were supposedly for use with 3.7 a4. Even with Nightly Tester Tools installed I got the same message about needing firefox. Though oddly, I could install the same extensions and themes via the add-on dialog and search that is part of the browser. Oh, I like the new settings, especially the privacy setting, but... Firefox is banished from my computer once again.

  623. 1 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 1 (Apr 25, 2010)

    Not under any circumstances update to 3.6.4beta or any version with plugin container. Mozilla should not be pushing it. It is not ready. Also do not install latest Flash betas and release candidates. I had my Firefox crashing twice per hour. I thought it was because of one of my 80 extensions and gazillions of scripts I installed. But it was not the case. After I downgraded to Firefox 3.6.3, removed Adobe Shockwave, and uninstalled latest Flash, problem seemed to be solved. Knock on the wood.

  624. 5 out of 5 stars
    softapo7

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 1 (Apr 24, 2010)

    This one is fast, faster than Chrome or Opera. Best thing out there.

  625. 4 out of 5 stars
    fudgeworth

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 1 (Apr 23, 2010)

    Still has memory leak.

    Try this:

    Start fresh browser.

    Crt-alt-del > Windows Task Manager> Processes> Firefox.exe (and plugin-container.exe)

    Note memory usage.

    Open 5 Youtube videos in seperate tabs. Play for a few minutes.

    Close all tabs.

    Note memory usage now.

    Time to fix this fellas.

  626. 4 out of 5 stars
    budzis

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 1 (Apr 21, 2010)

    -> Uriel

    Google Chrome is open source too.

  627. 5 out of 5 stars
    Uriel

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 1 (Apr 21, 2010)

    The main problem concerning Google Chrome is that they have a lot of data about you. They do record everything. Forever. In many ways, the information they have paints a more complete picture of you than even your best friend would know about you. So if you forget when your friend's birthday or what their favorite color is, give Google a call. They will tell you. Firefox, on the other hand, is open sourced. Experience programmers check the code all the time and know it is safe.

  628. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.6.4 Beta 1 (Apr 20, 2010)

    On a 3+ year old system upgraded with a 1.5 year old processor, 4 GiB RAM, Firefox is using 90 MiB after 1 hour of use. I've visited about 60 sites, have 6 extensions installed, and have used it heavily. I use Firefox constantly. I wouldn't mind if it used 10x the memory it uses now. After all, *that is what memory is for.*

    CPU wise I can't get it to crack 10% unless I load say a video on youtube. It then cracks about 30-40% in 1080p. Again, this is what I expect. I'm not running the latest and greatest hardware here, so I know it only gets better with better hardware.

    I do have a concern with the new plugin-container process. I never had issues with plug-ins previously. Why would I want a process simply to monitor the behavior of the plug-in? If a plug-in crashes on a particular site, I simply no longer visit the site. My plug-ins are more important across all the sites I visit than the sites I visit. Thankfully I don't see crashes with plug-ins. I removed java years ago from my personal systems because it's simply too insecure and bloated. I am seriously considering removing Flash, because I do want to progress the standards-based ideals of html5. But for now it stays, lazy I suppose.
    4.7 stars, rounded up to 5.

  629. 2 out of 5 stars
    glassdesigns

    Reviewing 3.6.3 (Apr 6, 2010)

    I love this browser because I have it customized just the way I like it. Unfortunatly its performance just keeps getting slower. Due to the slow performance I find myself using Chrome more and more. Chrome might not have the extensions I have grown used to in FF, but this is a compromise I have been willing to accept in order to gain performance. Come on Mozilla, if Chrome can run smoothly, why can't FF. Two stars for you, for lack of keeping up with the compatition.

  630. 5 out of 5 stars
    dotnetnightmare

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 3 (Apr 6, 2010)

    3.7a4 is the current alpha I am reviewing. The launch speed is dramatically improved and page rendering is fast! I used this in side by side comparison with chromium and F.F. was faster at loading web sites! I hate chrome {DISCLAIMER}. FF has a better visual appeal and those that use Windows 7 want an attractive interface. I have nightly tester plugin to force install omnibar and new glasser (SzymekPL version) and with Midnight Glass Aero 7 theme from DeviantArt, this is stunning. Speed, Performance, Appearance, Stability, from a browser that is aged and mature in development. Nothing is ever this good. Maybe they could develop my next wife.

  631. 4 out of 5 stars
    uberfly

    Reviewing 3.6.3 (Apr 5, 2010)

    I stick with Firefox due to its plug-in community, and the 3.6 release FINALLY fixed a many year old packet protocol bug. It's memory usage infrastructure though has got to change. If you leave Firefox open for a few days, memory usage swells to 400 + meg causing sluggishness and stuttering in the browser. Opera on the other hand can sit for a week and rarely pass 20.

  632. 3 out of 5 stars
    Meeky

    Reviewing 3.6.3 (Apr 4, 2010)

    Slow as molasses, memory leaks everywhere (as a test, go ahead and leave a tab open overnight and see the memory rise for no apparent reason), more crash prone than 3.5.x versions, etc.

    Mozilla seems to be going backwards with their browser. Suffers from too many programmers and not enough quality control. When Chrome gets more polish and extensions, I'm dumping Firefox.

    Oh and a tip: If you want a faster Firefox experience, try Pale Moon. It's like Firefox but for people whose computers are newer than their college bound children.

  633. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 3.6.3 (Apr 2, 2010)

    If you havent taken the time to GOTO
    Firefox Features page you should do and really have a good look around you may find out some things you had missed. Just yesterday I wanted to zoom in om a graph JPG and I though what was that pluggin I saw once... Today I went to the features page and found:
    """"""""Quote""""""""""""""
    Full Zoom
    Visit your favorite news page and read the caption under the picture—or view the picture itself in a size you can see. An elegant new zoom feature lets you swoop in and see entire web pages. They scale in the way you’d expect them to, with all the elements of a page’s layout expanding equally, so you can zero in on what matters.
    """"""""/quote"""""""""""""""
    LOL its been there for a while now and I didn't even know D'oh!

  634. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.6.2 (Mar 25, 2010)

    No memory issues, ever. uses about 100-200MiB typically, which is fine on systems with 2+ Gigs RAM. No other browser has the extensibility that Firefox, and trust me I try out the alternatives CONSTANTLY. I have given up on Opera until they get an extensible architecture like most decent browsers. MY INTERNET, MY WAY.

  635. 5 out of 5 stars
    sammCA

    Reviewing 3.6.2 (Mar 25, 2010)

    This 3.6.2 seems to have fixed a performance problem with alpha blending (background darkened) and temporarily overlayed DIV boxes/images.

  636. 4 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 3.6.2 (Mar 24, 2010)

    Finally Firefox starts normally. Now it takes 3-4 seconds, before it took 9-10. Menu does not freeze anymore. But it started to crash much more often. Nevertheless, looks like they fixed most of bugs in this version.

  637. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 3.6.2 (Mar 24, 2010)

    No memory problems here. borisf98 with 70 extensions it of great wonderment to me how Firefox even manages to start up. Still can't make my mind up which I prefer either Opera or Firefox, I can't stand Chrome.

  638. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.6.2 (Mar 24, 2010)

    I haven't seen any actual EVIDENCE of (a clean install, no add-ons) Firefox having a memory leak since the 2.x versions, just lots of supposition. Firefox 3.5+ actually performs VERY well compared to other browsers as far as memory usage if you normally keep more than a couple of tabs open.

    Police your add-ons, police your add-on, police your add-ons. Can't say it enough.

    Mozilla's busy working on multi-process/sandbox browsing as we speak. That should help the situation with poorly-coded add-ons, or at least make it a lot more transparent.

    I like Chrome and Opera (especially Opera Mini) and even IE8, and I use them all daily, but I always come back to Firefox.

  639. 3 out of 5 stars
    verdecove

    Reviewing 3.6.2 (Mar 23, 2010)

    Memory problems. Leaks memory like I have never seen it before.
    I close FF and if try to reopen it for another session and it tells me I need to close it first.

  640. 4 out of 5 stars
    Lsavagejt

    Reviewing 3.6.2 (Mar 23, 2010)

    Ff leaks memory so badly that I had to install CleanMem, which is an excellent tool, but still, one shouldn't have to use a memory tool just to run a browser. Maybe it's some of the extensions I use which are the culprits. I don't know how to determine that, none the less, I can only give this a 4.

    Then again, no browser that I know of today deserves a 5.

  641. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 3 (Mar 21, 2010)

    5/5

  642. 3 out of 5 stars
    ukexpat

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 3 (Mar 18, 2010)

    Folks, it's an ALPHA, that's even earlier than a beta, so it is bound to be buggy and break extensions...jeez...

  643. 1 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 3 (Mar 18, 2010)

    They win a prize for the a very buggy alpha
    and they break alot of web sites
    worst alpha ever!

  644. 2 out of 5 stars
    stevvie

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 3 (Mar 17, 2010)

    ALPHA 3? but Alpha 4 is here already and it's the WORSE one yet. More and MORE addons are broken. There's more USELESS stuff being added and messed with EVERY time they do a nightly build. OHH and it's still MILES slower and Incompatible than Opera NOW. At this rate they will have almost none of the great addons working by the RC and thats what makes firefox great, The addons.

  645. 3 out of 5 stars
    Kelson64

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 2 (Mar 3, 2010)

    Let's not forget that this an Alpha - and Firefox alphas have traditionally not been that good. This is especially true when compared to Opera's recent Alpha release, which blows Firefox's Alpha right out of the water.

    Firefox is still going to have its dedicated users. There's no question that it is a good browser. The question is whether Firefox 3.7 will gain in the speed and stability areas. If they don't, this browser could be in some trouble. But as I said, this is an Alpha. It's too early to tell.

  646. 4 out of 5 stars
    JeremyP

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 2 (Mar 3, 2010)

    I'm on 3.6; changelog for this noted the plugging of many memory leaks, yet to my mind it is even worse; at times, with 6 or 7 tags I have gone well over half a gig, closing all but one, nothing is released. This is clearly a factor in slowing down Firefox; I am loth to use another browser as I like and am used to the interface.

  647. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 2 (Mar 3, 2010)

    Mozilla may drag behind with regards to latest Opera but an opinion/review is wanted here on an Alpha which i find quite good on my OS!

    Can't wait for final version!

  648. 2 out of 5 stars
    stevvie

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 2 (Mar 2, 2010)

    This used to be the best browser by far. But the lately it's getting slower and more pages don't show correctly and more plugins don't work or don't work as they should. Plus Opera 10.5 has upped the game and is more compatible and FASTER by far than firefox, come on Mozilla

  649. 2 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.5.8 (Feb 27, 2010)

    It's really sad. I've used this browser for many years and it was definitely the best. Now I won't touch it. I call it the update a day browser. I get warnings from NOD32 when I try to install it. I can and do ignore Windows warning messages, but when I get warnings from NOD32, I pay attention.

  650. 4 out of 5 stars
    LakotaElf

    Reviewing 3.5.8 (Feb 18, 2010)

    @JEDWARDP-

    Quite right, it was do to Ghostery extension and I have removed that and all worked properly. But this was not evident in the beginning, it took a bit to find it but I did with the help of others on the Mozilla website. So Ghostery was removed and all works alright now. Just to say, some extensions are quite problematic at best, so all should be aware of that...

  651. 5 out of 5 stars
    JEdwardP

    Reviewing 3.5.7 (Feb 14, 2010)

    When I experienced the problem described by reviewer LakotaElf, it was due entirely to a buggy extension (Ghostery, in my case), rather than with Firefox itself.

    Otherwise, it has been, and continues to be, the best browser I've used on both Windows and Linux, and continues to best both IE and Opera.

  652. 3 out of 5 stars
    Phat Esther

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 1 (Feb 12, 2010)

    Please make sure that the Web address (URL) is correctly spelled and punctuated, then try reloading the page.

    213 20100208231821

    500 Unknown command.

  653. 5 out of 5 stars
    dwight_stegall

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 1 (Feb 11, 2010)

    This is in responce to what someone said above about "What's the point? They announced 3.7 was dead."

    During the releasing of FF 3.6 I talked with the head of Firefox on their IRC Channel (who's name escapes me at the moment) that 3.7 wasn't necessarily dead. He said they hadn't made any decision about what to do with it. Evidently they decided to proceed with it. :)

    I like this Alpha2pre. It runs like a race car.

  654. 5 out of 5 stars
    xkronite

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 1 (Feb 10, 2010)

    3.6 ? 3.7 ? 4.0 ? All I can say is thing FLIES !! Once you get past the few minor add-on "incompatibilities" it blows 3.6 away. In fact it appears even more compatible with previous add-on's than the switch from 3.5 to 3.6. A little User Agent tweaking here and a little force install there - and NO issues AT ALL ! Can't wait to see the final cut - Awesome job guys !

  655. 5 out of 5 stars
    stevvie

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 1 (Feb 10, 2010)

    but Alpha 2 has been available a fewdays, so whats with the alpha1 links ?

  656. 5 out of 5 stars
    mfarmilo

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 1 (Feb 10, 2010)

    Another one confused here. I too read just the other week they were going straight to 4.0 now, and 3.7 had been dropped.

  657. 5 out of 5 stars
    Banquo

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 1 (Feb 10, 2010)

    What's the point of this, they just announced that there would be no 3.7

  658. 5 out of 5 stars
    some guy

    Reviewing 3.7 Alpha 1 (Feb 10, 2010)

    first woot

  659. 4 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.0.17 (Feb 9, 2010)

    The only truly functional version of Firefox. The 3.5 versions are are a joke, and not a funny one. I prefer to use it without addons which are the source of most of Firefox's problems. I'm waiting for a Firefox that has the necessary addons pre-loaded. If you want choice go to a candy store. I want a browser that works right from the box.

  660. 4 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 3.6 (Feb 8, 2010)

    I am taking down all complains from earlier post. They were caused by buggy extensions and not by Firefox itself. However I want to add some more complains.

    1)Firefox starting time is way too long. I have decent processor and memory RAM. So 6-10 seconds to open a program windows without loading first tab is almost unacceptable.

    2)Many extensions conflict with each other. It is about time to force testing them for incompatibility.

    3)Before installing extension, and I have about 70 of them, I want to know how much it will slow my browsing experience that I may be able to find alternative one that hogs less resources.

    Still, I do not see myself quitting Firefox. IE does not have any extensions. Chrome reports 100% of what you do to Google. Opera looks ugly. I have left with hope that Mozilla will start making more than slight improvements that it has done so far.

  661. 3 out of 5 stars
    Casper75

    Reviewing 3.6 (Feb 4, 2010)

    It was somewhat hard for me to actually rate this but I have been a FF user for years & I've always looked forward to new releases of the browser only to be disappointed with it's speed & performance, There is also the problem of the memory leak issue which has been around for a long time & yet Mozilla has failed to address this issue. As for customisation Firefox dose do well with many add ons & themes available & that's the only reason why I'm giving it my rating.

  662. 4 out of 5 stars
    Alexander-GG

    Reviewing 3.6 (Feb 2, 2010)

    What's up with Mozilla addons page? I can't reach it about 5 days for now. I can not install adblock plus from the official homepage as well.

  663. 3 out of 5 stars
    nms04

    Reviewing 3.6 (Jan 24, 2010)

    better than 3.5 ... but i realy can't see the point to use ff as my primary browser ... way to slow (ever tried to invite up to 800 facebook friends to an event by using ff??? it's slow as hell!) ...
    my browsers of choice
    1. opera
    2. chrome
    3. ff
    4. ie

  664. 3 out of 5 stars
    MikeTechno

    Reviewing 3.6 (Jan 22, 2010)

    I'm still having a hard time being impressed with this browser. Firefox keeps releasing new versions of this program but with very few actual, visable, noticable advances in technology in them. I just don't see this program advancing much at all over the past eight months (from a usability standpoint), while its competitors appear to be advancing significan'tly. I STILL don't see anyone interating a screen capture feature the way Maxthon 2.x has been able to do now for well over a year. (Easily one of the most useful features ever built into a browser!) Why exactly should I be using FF religiously again? Somebody remind me. This program just feels dated relative to its competitors today.

  665. 5 out of 5 stars
    catchpole

    Reviewing 3.6 (Jan 22, 2010)

    IE/Opera fanboys goin crazy

  666. 5 out of 5 stars
    dhry

    Reviewing 3.6 (Jan 22, 2010)

    Haha. Just in case you didn't know, "It Broke My Plugins" whiners, you can add extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6 and extensions.checkCompatibility in your config to force all plugins to load into any version, betas included. I use this and every beta and RC of FF 3.6 successfully loaded every single one of my 15-odd plugins, including OpenDownload. It definitely loads slow on my Core2Duo with a WD Black SATA drive, but for some reason with exactly the same plugins and version on a slower laptop, it loads in about 2 seconds instead of the ten it takes on the desktop. I'm still trying to make sense of that, but great browser nonetheless.

  667. 4 out of 5 stars
    mdmower

    Reviewing 3.6 (Jan 21, 2010)

    Pros:
    - Well recognized on the web, so almost all web pages render correctly (web devs actually make code allowances for Firefox to render correctly... yes even Firefox isn't perfect when it comes to standards interoperability).
    - Too many add-ons to shake a stick at.
    - Personas are a neat addition to make standard.
    - Live bookmarks
    - Content (blocking) policies for XUL devs

    Cons:
    - The browser is quite slow to load (with and without all add-ons disabled)
    - Browser requires restart when add-ons are installed, updated, disabled, or enabled.
    - Whole browser runs as a single process, so one bad website can cause a whole session to crash.

    Other:
    - To the user looking for a screen capture utility, try the FireShot add-on for Firefox.

  668. 5 out of 5 stars
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 3.6 (Jan 21, 2010)

    Internet Explorer is sooo twentieth century...

  669. 2 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.6 (Jan 21, 2010)

    Holy Crap!

    It didn't break a single one of my nine plugins, including the Black Stratini skin (I like my FF to be as much like IE in appearance and functionality as npossible without the drawbacks).

    Be Still My Pounding Petunia Patch!

    EDIT:

    It killed two extensions.

    TWO stars for the same old half-azzed BS.

  670. 4 out of 5 stars
    anomoly

    Reviewing 3.6 RC2 (Jan 21, 2010)

    Other than the google sharing xpi. & the user agent switcher xpi (iphone 3.0), Opera blows ff away. I like opera cause it allows for site specific preferences. With FF, it's all or nothing. Plus FF portable uses tons of resources just sitting open on a blank page.
    Personas (one-click skin changer) for FF is nice too. Too bad it can't compete with opera. Just wish I could get the google sharing xpi to work for opera. I switched from google to yabigo (yahoo, bing, google) search. FF has it's uses. Too bad they are so few. Oh yeah, all my (3) addons broke in 36rc2 so still at 357 portable

  671. 5 out of 5 stars
    Jen Smith

    Reviewing 3.6 RC2 (Jan 18, 2010)

    Noticeably smoother performance over 3.5. Seems pretty solid, been using 3.6 since beta and have yet to have any issues with it. No compatibility issues with any of the addons that I'm using. Still fairly weak with Windows 7 integration though, but not a critical issue for me. For me, still the best and most flexible browser out there.

  672. 4 out of 5 stars
    taxis

    Reviewing 3.6 RC2 (Jan 18, 2010)

    Pro:
    - stable
    - open source
    - user-friendly
    - reasonably efficient (slower than Chrome, but faster than IE)
    - add-on concept allows individual trade-offs of simplicity and functionality

    Contra:
    - no preconfiguration for high privacy (e.g. preconfigured to send data to Google to obtain automatic search suggestions), no help for the technically naive user on privacy threats and settings related to privacy
    - misleading advertisement (suggesting you don't have to worry about security once you switch to Firefox, "100% Bio" ads in German language)
    - compatibility of add-ons with newer versions not yet solved

  673. 3 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.6 RC1 (Jan 15, 2010)

    There's just no compelling reason to run Firefox in Windows. Setup and configuration time is a huge negative. Addons, addons, I don't need no stinking addons.

    The people who write Firefox seem to have no idea about what people use a browser for anyway.

  674. 4 out of 5 stars
    anonymouscowturd

    Reviewing 3.6 RC1 (Jan 11, 2010)

    Much better than beta 5, which was very crashy. This one seems far more solid. Now all we have to do is wait another couple of months for all our personal favourite addons to be properly updated. Addons. Firefox's greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

  675. 4 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.6 RC1 (Jan 8, 2010)

    When I'm browsing on a netbook or an older or underpowered notebook or other mobile device, I prefer Chrome. Hands down. When I'm browsing on a modern desktop or desktop replacement laptop, I prefer Firefox. Hands down.

    When using contemporary mid-to-high end hardware, (almost) every browser out there renders most pages near enough to instantly that the benchmark performance of individual browser versions really only matters to geeks and dedicated webapp users. There are exceptions, of course, although I can't imagine they're all that widespread.

    I like the improvements they've made to 3.6, which I've already detailed in my reviews of earlier builds. But the Windows 7 jump list support as well as tab thumbnail previews are still GLARINGLY absent from this release candidate. Mozilla really have fallen behind their competition in this regard, and I know the architecture supports these features because I've seen them tested in nightly builds. So if these features don't make it to the already-delayed 3.6 release, I'll begin to have serious concerns about whether or not the Mozilla team can keep up with the rapid-fire pace of browser development these days.

    I know they're working on a complete revamp of the interface, but they've had almost a year to get jump lists and tab previews working for Aero. Because of this, excuses would only wear paper thin at this point. They need to get some features that are tangible to the AVERAGE end user out the damned door or they're going to be perceived to be treading water no matter how many improvements they make under the hood.

    Anyway, performance is good, features (aside from the glaring exceptions above) are top-of-class, extensibility is second to none, and integration with/support for major web sites and enterprise services is second only to Internet Explorer.

    And while Chrome has many of the extensions made popular with Firefox, the plugin back-end of Chrome simply isn't powerful enough (yet) to implement some of the more advanced capabilities offered by Firefox plugins like NoScript, which still make Firefox the most secure browser in the world when used properly.

    Still the best all-around browser unless performance is a major concern. Hopefully I'll be able to give the final release a 5. I was expecting just a bit more from this RC.

  676. 5 out of 5 stars
    CobraPL

    Reviewing 3.6 RC1 (Jan 8, 2010)

    "Very advanced" and "better" Opera 10.50 fails, as always, to handle correctly Country Story game on Facebook. FF and IE8 work ok. So, simply, Opera does not handle all webpages correctly - especially if flash is on them.

  677. 5 out of 5 stars
    WhiteZero

    Reviewing 3.0.17 (Jan 6, 2010)

    It's 3.5.7, not .17

  678. 3 out of 5 stars
    LakotaElf

    Reviewing 3.5.7 (Jan 6, 2010)

    I have no idea why Firefox does this, but the problem I have with it, is when I close it down, it does not close at all. I have to shut it off via the task manager. Most generally I will have to do this 3 times out of 5 or others things like ccleaner will not clean it out, thinks it is open yet and it is. This seems like a simple thing to fix, however, I am no expert, but it is becoming now a annoyance as it has been going on for several update they have made. Anyone have any idea why?

    This is the only browser that I have experienced this phenomena with.

    So I can only give it a three star rating. I am not sure it even deserves that, but I do like Firefox. I must say, Flock browser is looking good these days.

  679. 2 out of 5 stars
    maddy143ded

    Reviewing 3.5.7 (Jan 5, 2010)

    i have been using FF lately, but only to play mafia wars or other zynga games. as most of my extentions require grease monkey. nothing else works.
    other then that my numberone browser is opera. i have about 10-15 tabs open in opera at any moment, and never have i seen it hang or crash due to that. firefox/ I.E. and even chrome use similar resources to just open one or two tabs vs. operas 10 or more tabs. i just wish that opera had better Flash and other media integration then i would remove all other crap orm my desktop.
    i have been using opera since 2000 and i will probably use till 2020. and more.
    how people can keep praising Firefox or chrome as fastest is beyond me. i have a 512k dsl connection, and most of the time i receive around 55kbps dl speed for torrent and all. in this net scenario when i open my opera with all its tabs (usually not less then 10) it not more then 40 - 50 secs to open all of them . and as for tabbed browsing opera had tabbed browsing even when there was no Firefox.
    enough about opera. its after all the best.
    Firefox 3.5.6 was the slower then 3.5.5 so will see if 3.5.7 has any improvements. other then that its actually a hassle to find and install all those add ons to just make the browser work as i want it to. if we all had so much time it would be better to design our own browser. why cant the designers of FF build it in such a way that it actually i don't have to install a add on if i want the FF optimized and use less resources. i mean if they can build a browser surely they can add the same optimizations done by Firefox optimizer?

  680. 3 out of 5 stars
    Zero-Point

    Reviewing 3.5.7 (Jan 5, 2010)

    Midnite12, let's not get ahead of ourselves--Firefox has NEVER crashed for you, AND you've been using it since day ONE?!

    In any case, I find it amusing how barebones Firefox is; you really need an addon for every feature. Case: you need an addon to give it performance. They might as well have kept it at Phoenix v0.2 (I can't remember exactly which I started using it at, 0.2 or 0.3, maybe 0.1). That really was barebones, although it was zippy--out of the box.

    I don't use Firefox as my primary browser (Opera), but I keep it around for rare circumstances where Opera fumbles. I am using it less and less by just going to those sites with IE, though. My main reason: addon management. If I am not going to really gain any features without addons I might as well use something already installed and widely available.

  681. 5 out of 5 stars
    biggman15

    Reviewing 3.5.7 (Jan 5, 2010)

    @Aegis69
    Wow! that really helped! Thank you!
    My firefox has been running sluggish lately, and I think you just saved me from having to do a clean install!

  682. 5 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 3.5.7 (Jan 5, 2010)

    For those of you complaining about Firefox speed, startup or whatever, try this addon;

    https://addons.mozilla.o...-US/firefox/addon/11198

    Check the 2 boxes, and hit the button, Its automatic after that.

    How a $50million a year company could have missed this simple optimization is beyond me.

  683. 1 out of 5 stars
    alexdalarge

    Reviewing 3.5.7 (Jan 5, 2010)

    Firefox is so slow now a days I don't bother using it. The only good thing it ever had was extensions, now Chrome has got them I don't think I need to open Firefox again. If you want to test betas try Opera 10.5..
    Fastest browser about. Unstable at the moment, still don't crash as often as Firefox though.
    I won't be downloading this or updating Firefox..
    Firefox is the new IE.. Everyone and their gran is using it.

    @ Midnite12 Firefox isn't the fastest, Opera 10.5 is. Do your research. As for the most secure, I'm ROFL. Try looking up Secunia browser vulnerabilities and then say that xD

  684. 3 out of 5 stars
    MikeTechno

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 5 (Dec 30, 2009)

    Firefox is falling farther and farther behind now every week it seems. With Opera now out with their very advanced 10.50 pre-beta release and Google Chrome continuously moving forward all the time, Firefox has a long way to go to catch up. I'm even using the pre-beta release of Firefox 3.7a1 and there is nothing in there that even comes close to what Google and Opera are doing already. Not sure why Firefox has fallen so far behind but unless they start paying attention to what the competition is going and make some effort to answer their advancements, they are going to be left in the dust.

  685. 5 out of 5 stars
    Alpha258

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 5 (Dec 21, 2009)

    I have been using Chrome for a good while but I still have to come back to using FF because it is a smarter browser. While Chrome is fast, its still a bit like a top athlete that had no real education.

    When designing websites putting localhost in the address bar of Chrome make it foolishly do a Google search for localhost when FF does the right thing and bring up my Xampp menu. Chrome portable has since been deleted from my usb memory stick and FF has earned its place.

  686. 4 out of 5 stars
    MichaelDHam

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 5 (Dec 20, 2009)

    I know it is still in beta and as for what I use Firefox for it WILL NOT load game on my Facebook account as the 3.0 still ...also 3.5 version got to get worse in it's regenerations that went forward. I like Firefox and will keep trying these beta's till they I hope get it right..it is speedy and that is good..when they get the loading of games from freezing up...then I will go back to it ...if not...will have to try others and yes..even IE whatever version it is...for a more permanent browser.

  687. 5 out of 5 stars
    anonswgeek

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 5 (Dec 18, 2009)

    working great here too. swicthed back from Opera. this beta version seems much better than beta 4. its fast.

  688. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 5 (Dec 18, 2009)

    Yeah this version is working great.

    FF-->Chrome-->FF. I go back and forth. Two great browsers.

  689. 5 out of 5 stars
    Midnite12

    Reviewing 3.5.6 (Dec 15, 2009)

    As of today, 3.5.6 is still Beta, but should be final by tomorrow or soon after. I fail to understand why some of you state that FF crashes, since I have never, ever experienced that and I've been using FF since day one!!
    Perhaps something in your Windows settings is causing that.As for the Ad ons, only use the important ones and that will keep FF lean. Want to reduce the amount of system resources FF uses, install Firefox Ultimate Optimizer and see the difference.
    This is still the best, fastest, most secure and reliable Browser available, bar none!!

  690. 5 out of 5 stars
    the_root

    Reviewing 3.5.6 (Dec 15, 2009)

    This is still a Beta.

  691. 4 out of 5 stars
    MichaelDHam

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 4 (Nov 30, 2009)

    The 1st time I used it on Facebook, especially in games online it froze up and still does. Also rendered the wheel on my mouse to be useless when scrolling. Other than that, it's speed was really nice. Hope Mozilla patches this one soon. I really like Firefox, just not this one "yet"...yes I know it is BETA.

  692. 5 out of 5 stars
    4122

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 4 (Nov 30, 2009)

    UPDATE TO BELOW: GreaseMonkey was just updated to work with 3.6. Upping my rating to a 5. I'll be back later to adjust if necessary.

    Great piece of software. I'd be using it now except GreaseMonkey doesn't work right even with tweaks thus one star deduction from the rating.

    Everyone should quit using Nightly Tester Tools & start using Addon Compatibility Reporter. It provided functionality to report back to the Mozilla team which add-ons are working & which ones aren't.

  693. 4 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 4 (Nov 30, 2009)

    Would be great if greasemonkey worked. And yeeeeeeeeeeeeaah I mean without the tester tools or extension tweaks.....

  694. 3 out of 5 stars
    xsnred

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 3 (Nov 18, 2009)

    Here is the definition for Beta for those who complain that this kind of software is crap.

    Preliminary or testing stage of a software or hardware product.

  695. 5 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 3 (Nov 18, 2009)

    With "Nightly Tester Tools" add-on, all of mine work just fine.

  696. 4 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 3 (Nov 18, 2009)

    This beta:
    - Started in safe mode the second time I launched it.

  697. 5 out of 5 stars
    dhry

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 3 (Nov 18, 2009)

    This build of beta 3 disabled almost ALL my addons, despite the fact that I set extensions.checkCompatibility to false. Not good. Went back to beta2 (which seems pretty stable)

    I agree with previous reviewer; I'm a new convert to Firefox Preloader. Thanks for the tip!

    Edit: Installed "Nightly Tester Tools" addon. Restarted FF build 2. Upgraded to build 3 from within FF. Restart. Addons disabled once again. This build is BROKEN. Going back to build 2 until they fix it.

    Edit 2: For those interested, I got the following solution from a developer, which worked. "The preference has changed so that it only applies to a specific application version. You would need to set extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6b to false to disable compatibility checking for the Firefox 3.6 betas. Alternatively, you can install the Add-on Compatibility Reporter[1] extension which will set the preference
    for you and also allow you to report incompatibility to the add-on author. See http://kb.mozillazine.or...ompatibility#Background for examples of preference names for other versions."

    Upgrading to 5 stars again.

  698. 3 out of 5 stars
    gawd21

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 16, 2009)

    I love FF, but this is the worst version that I have ever used. It crashes, and is slow. After closing my tabs, I closed the browser and when I reopened FF, it opened all of my tabs back, each in a new window. Come on people, this is getting to be to much. I will go back to 3.0.15.

  699. 1 out of 5 stars
    us3r

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 2 (Nov 16, 2009)

    Firefox is getting worse and worse every release. Even normal web browsing is getting painfully slow with the latest releases. I like the extensions and all the customization stuff, but this fk turtle is too fk slow to browse the web. Even Internet Explorer is better on that field.

  700. 2 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 13, 2009)

    By attempting to be all things to all people Firefox has become nothing to anyone. The last version, 3.54, crashed my system. They desperately need to make this browser leaner and meaner. That means eliminating many of the addons.

    I'm currently using Seamonkey which has fewer choices, but is very fast and much easier to use. They have eliminated Turbo and that was an excellent choice.

  701. 3 out of 5 stars
    Galifray

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 2 (Nov 11, 2009)

    After years of using Firefox, I left it behind when Safari and then Google Chrome came out. I am mentioning that so you understand my point of view. I decided to try Firefox 3.6 beta 2 and to see for myself if my issues with Firefox had been solved.
    The verdict, no, my issues since 3.0 have not been solved. They are, in fact, worse. I don't need nor want a corporation to be my nanny telling me where I can or cannot go and what extensions I can or cannot install into the browser.
    Sure, many won't mind or may like having their hands held, but not me.

  702. 5 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 2 (Nov 11, 2009)

    If you install Firefox Preloader it will start up faster than any other program !
    it takes a half of a second to start on my computer now....

    starts up slower is a thing of the past

  703. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 2 (Nov 11, 2009)

    "Prospero424:
    If you're running the 3.6 beta 1, you will be automatically updated to beta 2 and for subsequent releases after that. If you're running the 3.5.5 stable version, you will be automatically updated to the 3.6 final once it's finished.

    I honestly don't understand how this could confuse anyone."

    Perhaps because Mozilla has never "automatically updated" people to new point revisions previously? There was no automated upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 or 3.0 to 3.5, the user has always had to manually install it or request it on prompt. The only automated installs have been 3.0.x or 3.5.x

  704. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 2 (Nov 11, 2009)

    5/5

    @ Blaxima - dont forget that Firefox in OPEN SOURCE !!!
    thats why you see ALL bugs...
    you will never experience this in Opera or IE... because they are CLOSE SOURCE... and you even dont know kow many bugs was there...

    thats why you argument is invalid...
    but you probably not understand because you are Opera fanatic fanboy...

  705. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 2 (Nov 10, 2009)

    If you're running the 3.6 beta 1, you will be automatically updated to beta 2 and for subsequent releases after that. If you're running the 3.5.5 stable version, you will be automatically updated to the 3.6 final once it's finished.

    I honestly don't understand how this could confuse anyone.

    (mjm01010101: Mozilla does indeed automatically update to point releases, just not immediately. They give corporations and other controlled environments a good long while to migrate first before they basically "end of life" the old point release by pushing out the new one. If you were still running a 2.x version, for example, you would indeed be prompted by the automatic updater to migrate to 3.5.x at least once. Mozilla is planning on releasing 3.6 as an automatic update to 3.5.x immediately upon release (as they do for minor releases) because there are no major interface or architecture changes. FYI...)

    Firefox has the most vulnerabilities REPORTED most of the time simply because it's the most actively developed open-source browser out there. Believe it or not, this is a good thing. Heck, the guy who ran the study being quoted even said he runs Firefox personally and that there's no reason to switch or to consider Firefox "less secure" than other browsers.

    Besides, if you run Firefox with NoScript, you're far safer than you would be with ANY other browser. I'm not aware of any other browser that lets you control scripting and code execution privileges on a per-site basis like it does. Highly recommended.

    Anyway, the Beta 2 seems to have fixed a couple of little bugs I noticed with Beta 1, including a really annoying one where the Firefox window would just disappear completely on startup unless you were opening Firefox maximized. Also, the Windows 7 taskbar thumbnail previews for open tabs seems to work much better now.

  706. 1 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 2 (Nov 10, 2009)

    Why does FF keep getting a separate download for each release while all other programs just get updated?

    Well someone said I was making things up in regards to my complaints towards this over hyped piece of steaming tripe. So then I offer this http://www.computerworld..._44_of_all_browser_bugs

  707. 5 out of 5 stars
    jendal

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 6, 2009)

    Firefox 5/5
    Internet Explorer 2/5
    Chrome 5/5
    Opera: 3/5

  708. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 6, 2009)

    @ Blaxima - a looser you are...
    or simply Opera troll, giving 5/5 for Opera and only 1/5 for Fx, funny...

    Opera is slower than Fx and use more ram... Chromium now is the fastest and Opera is only faster than IE...
    stop f**ging about it, its true...
    look test etc, even betanews have it...
    http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
    http://arstechnica.com/o...y-than-ie-and-opera.ars
    http://avencius.nl/conte...-opera-950-memory-usage

    Fx like Opera or even Chromium is the same secure...

    but whatever I will told you you will still give 1/5, because you are Opera fanboy...

    @ roj - so report bug on bugzilla, lulz...

  709. 4 out of 5 stars
    KayNine

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 6, 2009)

    Well... I used Opera even before it was free, and I think I'll always will. But occassionly I also fire up Firefox, as well as Safari. I'd say: if it's not Internet Explorer, it's a good browser. Well... Chrome is a different chapter... I haven't decided yet wether it is to be trusted or not. Still I gave it a try and am not convinced at all by it's usability.

    But for the other three (FF, Opera, Safari): they are good and on par, every one has it's advantages and disadvantages, we're not living in a perfect world. Choose by your liking, but rate fair!

  710. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 6, 2009)

    So far I haven't seen the usual obnoxious Opera fanboys who basically come here just to rate down Firefox provide a SINGLE piece of evidence that shows Opera is faster and/or more resource efficient. None. They haven't even bothered to make up the usual sort of travesty of a weighted benchmark. They must be getting desperate.

    You guys know that you CAN prefer one browser and still admit that another is good, right? These are web browsers, not football teams.

    Anyway, actual benchmarks performed by neutral parties have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Firefox's resource usage is on par with all of the other major browsers, even though this wasn't always the case; Firefox version 2.x was a PIG. They have also shown that it's about in the middle of the pack as far as performance - below Safari and Chrome but ahead of Opera and Internet Exploder. I'm not just talking about Betanews' own browser benchmarks, I'm talking about pretty much EVERYBODY'S benchmarks. You can dismiss people who actually, you know, recognize reality all you want, but it won't change the facts, especially when you provide no evidence at all other then your personal convictions to bash this browser.

    I use Chrome, IE8, and Opera (under Unix) on a daily basis, but Firefox is and will probably remain for the foreseeable future my mainline browser simply because I have more control over its capabilities and because it is so widely supported by software and internet services. While I like these other browsers (yes, even IE8), I find myself missing features/add-ons of Firefox when using them and switching between one of them and FF out of convenience or frustration.

    But really, I don't even feel I need to convince anyone. The fact is that it's pretty darned easy to distinguish between the usual sort of measured reviews mixed with constructive criticism and the spittle-flecked rantings of single-browser fundamentalists who seem far, far less interested in actually reviewing software than they are in territorial urinating.

  711. 1 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 5, 2009)

    Crashes sporadically when closing with multiple tabs open, Dumbazz error - typical "memory at xxx cannot be read" even after clearing all cookies.

    Can you say "3.5.6"? Yes, boyz and girlz, I knew you could.

    ONE star for poor QA.

  712. 3 out of 5 stars
    madmike

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 5, 2009)

    Troll my a rse ,lol well you cant knock firefox too much, it got people away from IE - which is a good thing. This updates doesnt seem better or worse, but I thing the future for F/Fox looks a tad shaky as Chrome - The B`stad child of Google is gathering pace.

  713. 4 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 5, 2009)

    404: Page not found after installed.
    Firefox: we'll update you, it may not be a quality update, but we'll update you anyways.

  714. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 5, 2009)

    Fact- Blaxima is a troll. If u took the time to test this browser for real, not just spewing ur bs, You would see its one if not the best browsers out there.

  715. 1 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 3.5.5 (Nov 5, 2009)

    My testing and overall impression still remains the same as it always has and that's in spite of all the (false)claims and rhetoric FF is resource heavy, slow and not feature rich. The plug-ins are still great but I credit the community for making them and thats only because FF lacks those features out of the box. Honestly, FF is the Apple of browsers, all hype but in reality tripe.

    If people would actually give some of the others a REAL chance you would see how this piece hampers your browsing experience. IE is not what it once was, Chrome is a snappy bare-bones browser and Opera is a feature rich one.

    In the end all the rhetoric does is hurt people who cheat themselves of something better thanks to their blind brand faith.

    EDIT @Sven123456789, you mean the way you did with Chrome, Norton, VLC, etc.? Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb

  716. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 1 (Nov 1, 2009)

    For whatever reason, the actual Firefox interface (in Windows, at least) in version 3.5 - window and tab management and the responsiveness of buttons, etc. - always seemed a lot slower than 3.0 even if the underlying rendering engines were faster. This was true on every machine I tried it on be it a slightly aged Athlon X2 Windows XP system, an obsolete Pentium 4 system, or a brand new quad-core beast running Win7 x64.

    This 3.6 Beta seems to have not only fixed that, but to have improved the responsiveness notably even over version 3 and the older 2.x versions AND the rendering engines have been improved. Sure, it still starts up slower than the competition, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for the extra features I rely on. It's more than fast enough on my modern machines, and resource usage is comparable to the most highly-regarded competition, now.

    Some of my add-ons have been updated, most haven't. But that was easily fixed by just installing the Nightly Tester Tools add-on and clicking on "Override all compatibility" to disable the version check. Update: Mozilla has released their own extension called "Add-on Compatibility Reporter" that offers this same functionality (enabling extensions that haven't been updated for new versions) along with automating the problem reporting process for individual add-ons. Great idea, and it seems to work fine.

    The interface improvements they added for Windows 7 will be nice when complete, but they still need a little work before 3.6 is ready for a final release. For instance: most of the time the thumbnails of the tabs that are supposed to pop up from the Windows 7 taskbar when hovering over the Firefox icon degenerate into blank placeholders after a few minutes of activity, and Firefox has to be restarted to get the true thumbnails of your open tabs back. The ctrl-tab tab switching mechanism seems to work flawlessly when enabled in about:config, though.

    Also, the new mechanism for updating the user about out-of-date plugins (rather than just add-ons) is something that has been sorely needed, and something that the other major browsers need to get on top of. Mozilla's back end for this functionality is going to take some time to develop, though. There's a lot of popular plugins that they don't track yet.

  717. 1 out of 5 stars
    Bart Welson

    Reviewing 3.6 Beta 1 (Oct 30, 2009)

    Same s*** in a different bottle.

  718. 5 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 3.0.15 (Oct 29, 2009)

    I still use it.......
    3.5 does not work with my computer

  719. 3 out of 5 stars
    smarterthanyou

    Reviewing 3.0.15 (Oct 28, 2009)

    Why is this version of Firefox still being developed? Considering Firefox is used by very few businesses and is used mostly for personal use there is no reason to continue to fix bugs once a new version (like 3.5 or 3.6 for example) comes out. Firefox is the best web browser ever invented, but three stars for an useless update.

  720. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.6 Alpha 1 (Oct 28, 2009)

    5/5...
    but stlll waiting for speed improvement, especially startup & AJAX & CSS

  721. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.5.4 (Oct 28, 2009)

    hedley = typical operaf** troll

  722. 3 out of 5 stars
    some guy

    Reviewing 3.5.4 (Oct 27, 2009)

    funny you said that I just tried to log in with fire fox 3.5 under linux Ubuntu 9.04 and it FAILED to allow me to put my user and pass word in. The only reason I use Fire Fox is because of the twits at Opera still don't get the concept of adblock+ if they would put such a system in Opera my mind would be made up. I find Opera to be more stable on most site's like Digg.com and so on. No fan boy here he who makes the better browser wins...

  723. 5 out of 5 stars
    bittermann

    Reviewing 3.5.4 (Oct 27, 2009)

    @hedley...wow way to nitpick!

    Opera certainly has a LOT more issues than you can shake a stick at...

    As usual stable, fast and all the add-ons you'll ever need. Can't wait for version 3.6.

  724. 3 out of 5 stars
    hedley

    Reviewing 3.5.4 (Oct 27, 2009)

    First load after upgrade is slow for all browsers.

    well i dont have this kind of problem in Opera Browser

  725. 5 out of 5 stars
    gundamboyzack

    Reviewing 3.5.4 (Oct 27, 2009)

    The download is for 3.5.4 Beta 3...
    Once again we jump the gun.

  726. 5 out of 5 stars
    wyldman

    Reviewing 3.5.3 (Sep 10, 2009)

    First load after upgrade is slow for all browsers.
    Firefox always rocks.

    And yes I use several other browsers.

  727. 5 out of 5 stars
    Zoroaster

    Reviewing 3.5.3 (Sep 10, 2009)

    True Love. Remember that movie with Grace Kelly and Bing Crosby? I accept the laughs for the comparison, but more I live with Firefox, more I love. Some softwares are like that, not only you don't get fed up, but you actually appreciate them more and more. Firefox is a fantastic browser, providing freedom, security, quality, speed. Firefox must certainly love ma as well!

  728. 2 out of 5 stars
    TomWibbaert

    Reviewing 3.5.3 (Sep 9, 2009)

    I wonder what it all needs to take a full half a minute on its first load.

  729. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.5.3 (Sep 9, 2009)

    If you don't like Firefox, why are you continually using it?

  730. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.5.2 (Aug 25, 2009)

    @ Sephiroth... - Fx is now faster and uses less memory than Opera...
    http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
    http://arstechnica.com/o...y-than-ie-and-opera.ars
    http://avencius.nl/conte...-opera-950-memory-usage

    and who cares about passing Acid3... its only static benchmark like 3DMark...

    and you are Operaf** like I can see, because giving 1...
    nice fanboy we got here...

  731. 1 out of 5 stars
    Sephiroth...

    Reviewing 3.5.2 (Aug 25, 2009)

    Why FF its so slow in the last release?, old version work fine but not anymore. And when FF will pass Acid3?

    @Virtual_ManPL: I not fan of anything, I use FF until the last version that work really slow in my machine, and not say anything about Opera in this comment, you did this, if you can't tolerate one star, screw you! I tell the true.

  732. 4 out of 5 stars
    GerritWittesaele

    Reviewing 3.5.2 (Aug 24, 2009)

    3.5.2 is a huge step forward regarding resposiveness, but still
    it suffers from the royal pain in the a** Adobe.

  733. 5 out of 5 stars
    Crusader

    Reviewing 3.5.2 (Aug 20, 2009)

    Each new version is better. Very fast and easy to use. Great navigator.

  734. 5 out of 5 stars
    nugro

    Reviewing 3.6 Alpha 1 (Aug 11, 2009)

    greasemonkey doesn't work :( but expected of an alpha, no hiccup so far.
    excellent piece of software, deserve 5 stars but i still prefer Opera.
    now just where is the cosmestic change?

    @Sven123456789
    enable smooth scrolling on advanced option, d'oh

  735. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.6 Alpha 1 (Aug 10, 2009)

    Seems just a bit quicker than 3.5 in Windows 7 on my system. Also, it fixes the only real complaint I had about 3.5, which was the lack of responsiveness of toolbar buttons during heavy I/O activity. Really annoying...

    Once my plugins are updated for 3.6, I'm going to make the switch whether it's released as final or not.

  736. 4 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 3.6 Alpha 1 (Aug 10, 2009)

    So far so good. Used this for a few hours. Adblock worked, so thats always an important add on to have. If i have one minor gripe, the scrolling on a webpage using ur mouse seems a little touchy in this version.

  737. 5 out of 5 stars
    commander2001

    Reviewing 3.6 Alpha 1 (Aug 10, 2009)

    runs nice and fast love it so far

  738. 5 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.5.2 (Aug 5, 2009)

    Just keeps getting better and better.

  739. 4 out of 5 stars
    elitegangsta

    Reviewing 3.5.2 (Aug 4, 2009)

    Been working excellent as always from Mozilla on my systems at both home and office. Windows Vista, 7, and XP tested. Highly recommend and have found nothing to complain about yet.

    Fast, stable, light, clean, simple to use, renders pages excellent, customizable, fairly secure. What else is there to want?

  740. 3 out of 5 stars
    anomoly

    Reviewing 3.5.2 (Aug 4, 2009)

    This review is for the portable version 352. Minimized or open it uses ~ 70MB. I was not impressed with the dailymotion video At All. Quality was not even as good as utube. I use ff portable only for the torbrowser. K-meleon ccfme 096.3 blows ff away with half the mem usage and half that when minimized, & k-meleonccfme is portable by default. Also there was no way to block flash in ff port which in k-meleon I block by default.
    Very nice browser but just a tad bloated? K's not perf but works well for the most part.
    Efficiency will always win.

  741. 3 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.5.2 (Aug 4, 2009)

    3.5.x had had a few serious bugs in it. It was the first time FF had crashed on me in a long time, and I also got "Firefox is still running now quite a bit."

    Strange because I ran the RC's for ~5 months without issue.

    This is sad. Don't tell me to rebuild my profile. I worked hard to get my profile where it is today.

  742. 4 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 3.5.2 (Aug 4, 2009)

    while its a great browser, recently started getting this 'another instance is running' msg, pages that do not load completely or just specific sites seem to hang firefox on exit and its annoying

    i hope this isn't a sign that things are about to get buggier, years of using firefox and never really had an issue

  743. 5 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.5.1 (Jul 30, 2009)

    I'm using this as my default browser. It's the first time I've done so. Very fast and easy to configure.

  744. 2 out of 5 stars
    us3r

    Reviewing 3.5.1 (Jul 28, 2009)

    This browser is so slow. If not the add-ons I would switch to other browser long time ago. Firefox 3.5.1 has terrible performance on Windows XP. It runs a little better on Win 7 but not that much. I'll try Chrome 3 for some time. If it proves stable and functional enough I will switch for good. I just can't stand the slowness of Firefox anymore.

  745. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.5.1 (Jul 22, 2009)

    @ ailef - for me update works...

  746. 3 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.0.12 (Jul 21, 2009)

    Having used 3.5x, I can say that this version has a HUGE bug where sites that are interactive (such as online ordering sites, banking sites or art galleries) time out and drop connections CONSTANTLY. 3.51 does not exhibit this extremely annoying behavior.

    My advice:

    Get off this broken platform and upgrade.

    NOW.

    THREE stars for a product that I didn't realize was as defective as it is until I experienced an alternative from the same devs.

  747. 1 out of 5 stars
    ailef

    Reviewing 3.5.1 (Jul 18, 2009)

    hey firefox people ! it's when you want to fix the update for vista x64 !
    always the same thing, the update never stop trying update but is not able to, when will u fix that ? in 10 years ??

  748. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 3.5.1 (Jul 16, 2009)

    Mozilla to release urgent 'chemspill' Firefox update next week

    View the release notes

    Description of Release

    This is a chemspill release which will address a critical bug found in Firefox 3.5. We are taking a few ride-along fixes as well.
    Specific Plan for 3.5.1

    We need to verify bug fixes, especially the fix for the bug that prompted this release bug 503286. In addition we will go through the usual checks for our maintenance releases: smoketests, basic functional tests, l10n spot checks, and updates checks.

    Test Results

    * Verifications: nearly all completed
    * Smoketests and BFTs: PASS
    * l10n Spot Checks: PASS
    * Updates: Pass(beta)
    Thanks for helping us beta test Firefox 3.5.1

  749. 5 out of 5 stars
    Jammerdelray

    Reviewing 3.5.1 (Jul 16, 2009)

    Pros: Rock Solid, Lightning fast (250% faster than 3.0 version), tracemonkey engine executes JavaScript fast as well, Private Browsing is awesome, tons of great new features and more granularity in privacy cleaning and the list goes on of all the excellent features.

    Cons, Conflict with steam, Tracemonkey engine exploit (3.51 fixes this)

  750. 3 out of 5 stars
    Jtaylor83

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 12, 2009)

    3.5 is a pain in the butt. New changes to the tools menu which it sucks: Clear browsing history to Clear Recent History and the new private browsing which I'm about to test it.

    Firefox is not a resource hog, it's buggy and it's junkware. I don't like the new features. Email Mozilla and tell them to change it back or else you'll switch back to IE8.

  751. 4 out of 5 stars
    Alexander-GG

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 12, 2009)

    It's not so good as it was expected. A bit faster than 3.0.11, but not as fast as was announced. Slow start up time. Page rendering is at the top as always. But speed? Opera is still in beta, but it's much faster. i think, the final version of Opera will beat the Firefox in all aspects. Using both - FF (as default browser) and Opera.

  752. 1 out of 5 stars
    starwars97

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 10, 2009)

    Firefox is so wrost ever! Internet Explorer 8 rules!

  753. 5 out of 5 stars
    alshawwa

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 8, 2009)

    still the best " in my opinion" , you cant judge who is better than who if you cant feel the deference , on my machines , firefox outperforms the others " chrome safari IE 8 and opera" i dont do benchmarking , but its based on the websites that i frequently visit , with firefox they render faster load faster and its doesnt crash.

  754. 4 out of 5 stars
    Ozon

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 4, 2009)

    Sure is fanboy in here. I have to laugh at the benchmarks vs. real usage. Sure, the benchmarks makes it look fast but that's on vanilla Firefox and we all know damn well nobody uses vanilla Firefox. How about they add the top 5 or 10 addons to see the real world difference? Firefox hogs memory, hogs CPU, the tear away tabs idea were taken from Chrome and Opera and implimented in a clucky way and worse of all, you can't turn it off, Flash makes the browser crawl to a standstill, auto detect unicode encoding sucks and throws up blocks even when you have the necessary fonts installed, the Find As You Type feature on the Firefox site has a screen shot of the Next and Previous buttons and when you actually use it, it's some crappy bar with no features except the text field, etc.

    Look, this browser is good but don't just ignore some of its shortcomings just because you happen to use it. That's just plain dumb.

  755. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 3, 2009)

    Hmm, no changes compared to RC3...
    but still for me the best browser...

    customizable with addons is AWESOME !!! xD

    P.S. Why ppl still taking about memory problems...
    Firefox have the BEST memory optimization (finally...), based on tests and my experience...

    2GB is STANDARD in todays PC, tomorrow will be 4-8GB...
    who cares when other browser can eat 50MB memory lower...

  756. 3 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 2, 2009)

    I hate to do this but so far I have lost all my Gmail passwords and two other passwords for forums I visit as a result of updating to 3.5. I strongly suggest that any one updating from a 3.0x version use the Password Exporter 1.1 or copy down all of your important passwords before updating. In fact I wish I had backed up my profile. I know better and yet I did not simply copy the profile to a safe place. My fault.

    I am voting 3/5 because I believe caution is needed with this update and perhaps a lower rating will help make that point.

  757. 3 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 1, 2009)

    Well I don't see any change in this "final" from the last RC which means yet again in my testing this uses far more memory and more importantly higher cpu load (as the image in my last post shows). Honestly, it has always and still does feel pretty sluggish to use.

    @ Aegis69-
    It's funny you should quote half of my sentence and exclaim that I shouldn't add useless posts because a simple click on your name shows nothing but your spamming of the other browsers with (once again) assertions they use massive amounts of memory (neglecting cpu load) through no tests of your own. I don't know about you but I use my computer and not one in some test lab so the results I get matter to me most (hence my "useless post earlier).

    It's easy to see when school is out for the summer but Aegis69 my friend, you've still got a lot to learn.

    @Virtual_manPL-
    You were tasteful in your response but just to let you know, a portable version is not a modified version. All that is done is an exe is created basically by copying some regestry keys and that exe runs along side the unmodified program and creates a profile folder locally (ie a usb stick). Therefor the problems that are expressed are issues with the core not the portable exe. Since I use Opera Portable it was only fair to compare it to Portable Firefox.

  758. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 1, 2009)

    The memory usage issue is kinda silly, because by any measure out there Firefox no longer uses EXCESSIVE amounts of memory unless there's a serious problem.

    But I may as well report my own results. I compared memory usage on my Windows 7 x64 install with a fresh install of Opera 9.64, Safari 4.530.17.0, and Chrome 3.0.189.0. I opened up 12 tabs from the most common sites I visit (I usually have about 8-15 tabs open, so I settled on an even dozen). These sites include a couple of heavy flash sites (YouTube and Last.fm), a couple of text-heavy sites (long threads on forums like Fark and technical forums), a couple of commerce sites (like Newegg and Amazon), a couple of news sites (like Ars Technica and CNN) and a couple of software download sites (BetaNews and Download.com)

    Firefox 3.5 Final - 139,444KB
    Opera 9.64 Final - 160,732KB
    Google Chrome 3.0.189.0 - 258,556KB
    Safari 4.530.17.0 - 154,252KB

    But here's the kicker: this was with SEVENTEEN extensions and TWELVE plugins installed in Firefox 3.5: Personas, Weave Sync, and a bunch of some of the most popular extensions and plugins.

    And Firefox still runs faster than Opera, though a bit slower than Safari and Chrome, though Opera, Safari and Chrome do start up MUCH faster (this is still Firefox's Achilles' heel, and probably always will be)

    Your mileage, of course, will vary. Everybody uses a different set of websites and a varying quantity of open tabs on a regular basis, but I did try to get a good spectrum of classes of sites and I think 12 open tabs isn't unusual by any reasonable measure.

    Side observation: Opera was the only browser that didn't let me simply drag my open links from a Firefox address bar to its own address bar. I had to manually copy and paste.

    Anyway, these are all excellent browsers, and I rate all of them highly, here. Firefox is simply my favorite, and it just happens to use less memory. Honestly, memory usage isn't something I think about anymore unless it's ridiculous (I remember Firefox version 2 using over half a gig of memory with just a few tabs open after a few hours!). I'm much more concerned with features, responsiveness, and ease-of-use.

    The minor problem I described below is still present, unfortunately, but I can live with that for now.

    Otherwise, version 3.5 has given me everything I hoped it would. And the new version of Mozilla Weave with ID support is incredible.

    The best got better.

  759. 3 out of 5 stars
    bigmama

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jul 1, 2009)

    1 Opera
    2 IE
    3 FF
    4 Safari
    5 Chrome

  760. 5 out of 5 stars
    Casper75

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    Whenever their was a major release of Firefox & the speed of the browser was mentioned as one of the exciting new features I was extremely disappointed because it just wasn't true but FF 3.5 has totally restored my faith in the browser, I love the private browsing feature which is on all the time & the speed has improved a great deal & it leave FF 2 & 3 for dead. As for the problem of memory use I have had no issue in relation to this what so ever & nearly all my extensions work fantastic so if you are someone who has ditched Firefox in the past then maybe you should give it another try.

  761. 4 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    I rate it a 4 just because of a customization issue.
    The new tab icon on the tab bar can not be removed.
    You can not close the current tab if only one is open, without creating a new tab & then closing the first one. Hiding the tab bar does is not a fix for this. Before clearing my private data I have always closed all tabs, just a a safety practice to make sure everything is cleared. Now I have extra stuff to do that I didn't have to deal with before.
    Those are the only issues I have with the 3.5 version.

  762. 3 out of 5 stars
    jspratjr

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    Nothing special

  763. 4 out of 5 stars
    coover

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    Better than Google Chrome 3 ... Chrome 3 has rendering problems and the Chrome Bookmarks Bar must be left open in order to access Bookmarks. In addition, the Firefox installer allows you to see that the installation is actually taking place. Chrome's installer does not.

    Better than Opera ... While Opera render's properly, and, in fact, does most things very well, it does not have an option (as Firefox, IE 7 and 8, Safari, and even Chrome does) to open automatically to more than one "home" page. Yes, with Opera, it only takes a couple of clicks more to get those pages in tabs, but IT DOES TAKE A COUPLE OF CLICKS MORE to actually do so. Without the ability to open multiple home pages, Opera is an inferior browser.

    Better than Safari? ... maybe, probably, I haven't really given Safari a fair examination. In the brief time I've spent with it, i don't like it.

    Better than IE? ... Actually, i like both IE and Firefox. IE has it's advantages, Firefox has it's advantages. I guess it really amounts to whether or not you actually hate Microsoft and whether or not you like and use Firefox extensions. The extensions are really Firefox's strength and it's weakness. Why a weakness? Because the extensions are not written into the browser or approved by Firefox, and they seem to break every time an update is made to the browser. Updates are frequently made to keep the browser secure, but sometimes Firefox users, afraid that they'll lose their favorite extension, decide not to update. That can be a fatal mistake.

  764. 5 out of 5 stars
    dejavu

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    And in the end....
    1º Firefox (great job in 3.5)
    2º Opera
    3º Google Chrome

  765. 3 out of 5 stars
    anonymouscowturd

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    Testing Firefox 3.5 final against Opera 9.64. Both Vanilla installs on a clean XP SP3 Virtual machine.

    Tabs opened (and in this order)
    bbc.co.uk/news
    fileforum.betanews.com
    cnn.com
    reuters.com
    slashdot.com
    digg.com
    reddit.com

    Firefox memory usage 94,300K and increasing CPU fluctuating between 0-20%
    Opera 92,072k cpu fluctuating between 0-2%

    Close Reddit.com
    Firefox 99,192K cpu fluctuating between 0-40%
    Opera 53,448k cpu fluctuating between 0-9%

    Close Digg.com
    Firefox 102,368K cpu fluctuating between 03-19%
    Opera 53,664k cpu fluctuating between 0-2%

    Close Slashdot.com
    Firefox 90,888K cpu fluctuating between 03-25%
    Opera 52,276k cpu fluctuating between 0-2%

    Close Reuters.com
    Firefox 87,016K cpu fluctuating between 0-20%
    Opera 52,188k cpu fluctuating between 0-5%

    Close CNN.com
    Firefox 81,980K cpu fluctuating between 0-33%
    Opera 52,188k cpu fluctuating between 0-8%

    Close Fileforum.betanews.com
    Firefox 79,028K cpu fluctuating between 0-11%
    Opera 46,708k cpu fluctuating between 0-8%

    Close bbc.co.uk/news
    Firefox 70,136K cpu no fluctuation
    Opera 46,569k cpu no fluctuation

    These figures are from windows task manager only.
    I don't know why cpu is fluctuating so much on Firefox, maybe it's because it's downloading the blacklisted sites in the background?
    Either way Firefox still consumes more memory than Opera whichever way you cut it. No doubt Aegis69 will throw another kiddy tantrum about this.
    Anybody care to do a similar test with the Opera Betas?

  766. 5 out of 5 stars
    Joco

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    Wow! It's fast! So far working better than 3.0.11, some Add-ons no longer work but I guess they will be updated in a near future.

  767. 5 out of 5 stars
    Vexii

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    Very nice and fast. 5 stars

  768. 5 out of 5 stars
    egg83

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    Waited till final release came, am testing, performs very well. Noticeable speed increase while surfing, no rendering problems thus far. Private browsing mode is nice. A few plugins are broken, but probably will be fixed ASAP. Great job, Mozilla!

  769. 5 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    Response to Blaxima who says "For me I could care less what some links say..."

    Ok so you are gonna ignore all the evidence like a religious person?? Great. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, then buzz off and don't bother voting.

  770. 5 out of 5 stars
    AlphaBetaGamma

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    It's faster for me than 3.0.11 on Vista x64, and Adblock Plus and NoScript work fine, so what's not to like?

  771. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.5 Final (Jun 30, 2009)

    An excellent release.

  772. 4 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.5 RC3 (Jun 28, 2009)

    Didn't notice any difference between this and the previous RCs, but I did notice something that didn't happen with the 3.0.x versions that I hope they fix before the final release:

    With all three of these RCs, clicking on certain parts of the interface (folders on the bookmarks toolbar, for example) doesn't work while the browser is performing some activity, such as loading a page. You have to click several times or wait for the browser to finish whatever its doing, THEN click the button you want.

    Now, this may not seem like a big deal, but it gets REALLY annoying after a while, and the problem is substantially aggravated if you're using older hardware.

    As I mentioned: this never happened with releases previous to the 3.5 builds, and it happens now with all three hardware and OS combinations I use on a daily basis.

    Please fix, Mozilla! 3.5 is fantastic, otherwise.

  773. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.0.11 (Jun 26, 2009)

    @ TC17 - no1 cars what do you will use...
    and changing Firefox to IE... HAHAHA...
    I will understand to Opera or Chromium, but IE... LMAO...

  774. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.5 RC3 (Jun 26, 2009)

    @ Prospero424 - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
    you should report it...

    IMO better than Opera, Chromium and Safari...

    the LOWEST overall memory usage, yep its true if you use build from Mozilla, not others modified builds...
    http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
    http://dotnetperls.com/browser-memory
    http://avencius.nl/conte...-opera-950-memory-usage
    http://www.kejut.com/browsermemory
    etc...

    and see by yourself not opening only 3 tabs... but in OVERALL statistic when surfing...

    FASTEST than Opera in AJAX & JS due to now engine with JIT, but it will be probably changed due to Opera 10 introduce Carakan engine and Opera will be boosted up ;)

    but nvm memory usage (I have 2GB RAM for something, not for doing nothing...) and speed less or more... [but I dont negate the lower RAM usage and faster browser are better)

    Mozilla Firefox for me is powerful because of the addons like:
    -Adblock Plus
    -DownloadThemAll!
    -FireFTP
    -Flagfox
    -Greasemonkey
    -NoScript
    -Personas for Firefox
    -Session Manager
    -Yes popups

    and of course Opera innovations like:
    -Fast Dial
    -Mouse Gestures Redox

    I cant browse without it ;)

    But still Firefox have the largest time startup when you are opening the first time browser after PC restart...
    Its SHAME !!!

    Peace !!!

  775. 3 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 3.5 RC3 (Jun 25, 2009)

    Seeing as some people feel name calling is an appropriate response I will try another approach. It really doesn't get any simpler than testing things for yourself.

    My portable Opera 10 beta build 1589 (which is not a MS product) vs. a barbones(ZERO plugins)portable FF 3.5 RC2.
    Both just opened with the same 3 pages and no browsing on any of the pages.
    http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9349/compare.png

    Notice not only the memory usage but the cpu usage as well and like I said this is before any browsing which sends FF much higher because of the way it caches pages.

    For me I could care less what some links say because it's my computer and my usage that ultimately affects me

    Firefox just doesn't have the usability of Opera without the need of plug ins which more times than not creates incompatibility with new builds and of course higher memory consumption. Page rendering for me was the only advantage FF had over Opera but that hasn't been the case for sometime now.

  776. 4 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.5 RC3 (Jun 25, 2009)

    Firefox Achilles heel IS the extensions and themes system, and I agree they have NOT done a good job communicating this to developers and end-users how these changes to basic operation can and will effect system stability or upgradability.

    I have had extensions effect functionality of the browser.

    Having said that, I've seen the same happen to Microsoft Outlook and Word far, far more often, to the point of corrupting files like normal.dot and the .NK2 file within Outlook.

    You have to take some degree of responsibility when you design extensible and open platforms. I think Mozilla has improved, but it isn't as good as they can get.

    So I'm rating this a 4 this time, but overall my average of Firefox is probably 4.9. It is just so much more powerful with ABP, noscript, greasemonkey, to name a few, that this instability is WELL WORTH IT. I still never see crashes in Firefox, the cause of a crash is java, and even then it's rare.

    As for the memory use: I can confirm Opera uses 6MB less than Firefox with my sample tabset open.

    But on a 6 gig 64-bit system, that is .1% difference. I would have to open hundreds of instances of firefox for it to make a measurable impact on my system. Opera can't block scripts like FF can, block ads granularly (only by static file,) it can't customize Craigslist with image previews like I can with greasemonkey, it can't customize Google Reader with 4 different customizations.

    I don't understand this memory argument issue when we're talking a less than percent difference in browsers, and DECREASING over time!

  777. 3 out of 5 stars
    anonymouscowturd

    Reviewing 3.5 RC3 (Jun 25, 2009)

    Aegis69, there's something seriously wrong with you. That "moron" that you referred to doesn't mention MS at all in your quote. Quite how that makes the person an MS shill in your mind is anyone's guess.
    Have a cup of tea and chill out. He's talking about a browser not your mum. Get over it.

    Back to the review. This release still takes up way more memory than Opera and most definitely still feels slower to use benchmarks or no benchmarks.
    I'll stick with Opera and carry on using Firefox for development only because Firebug is so useful.

  778. 4 out of 5 stars
    zapatero

    Reviewing 3.5 RC3 (Jun 25, 2009)

    I do not see many changes. Somewhat faster for loading pages, memory use is as high as always (187 MB at this moment), not that this matters much to me. It does not work in many financial and banking pages. I use it because of the extensions.

  779. 4 out of 5 stars
    GezusKryst

    Reviewing 3.5 RC3 (Jun 25, 2009)

    I don't know about performance, and did you really time it to see if you go those improvements? But the memory usage is much better.

    IE8, with its separate processes for each tab, almost seems like a step backwards. Every tab takes an additional 20MB of memory on my system, and more when pages are loaded into them.

    Firefox is staying pretty lean, even with multiple tabs open.

  780. 5 out of 5 stars
    sn0wflake

    Reviewing 3.5 RC3 (Jun 25, 2009)

    A million times better than any other browser.

  781. 5 out of 5 stars
    sturgess

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 22, 2009)

    It's a five, fast and stable, been using it since betanews supplied the link yesterday. I've been everywhere, and it has not failed me once, a smashing browser.

  782. 4 out of 5 stars
    wilson389

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 21, 2009)

    From a novice user point of view, I am pleased and satisfied with the layout rendering and the performance of this release. I do not find any big flaws so far, but there are a few issues I would like to mention about.

    Although Firefox 3.5 has DNS prefetch by default, the feel of performance improvement is not as obvious as the Firefox 3.0 with "DNS prefetch" add-on. I also noticed that the browser may have problem in rendering tables in forum. The contents in the table are shrinked and compressed to one side. Some minor issues.......I like the icon of Firefox 3.0 better than the new icon of Firefox 3.5.

    The multiprocess in the future releases sounds wonderful to me, I 'm looking forward to this feature.

  783. 5 out of 5 stars
    9kkd02p3p2

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 20, 2009)

    All this talk about incompatible add-ons was true. But not any more.
    Mozilla has created Jetpack to deal with this.

  784. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 20, 2009)

    First off, I'd like to say that anyone who's had an extensive career in the IT industry knows that those - regardless of claims they may make to experience and expertise - who respond with name calling and insults rather than addressing valid, politely-made points are almost invariably not to be listened to. The "fanboiz" stuff is almost always a case of psychological projection.

    Second, tabbed browsing in Firefox is NOT an add-on. No, they weren't the first to implement it, but is that really important at this point?

    Thirdly, if there is, as so many "experts" here like to claim, a way that Mozilla should have implemented the add-on system that preserves flexibility and power while never "breaking" any third-party software WHY HAS NO ONE ELSE BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS? If it's as easy as you suggest, why don't you go out and do it? I suspect most people with pretensions to expertise here wouldn't have the first clue as to how to even begin to answer that question.

    Yes, occasionally breaking add-ons causes problems that I have complained about right here in the past (I mention it in my reviews of Firefox 0.8 in 2004 and of Firefox 2.0.0.12 in 2008), but the fact is that no one here knows how bad the alternative could have been. And personally attacking the developers over something you almost certainly know little or nothing about is, at the very least, dishonest and counter-productive.

    I agree that the performance improvements have been overblown by many in the tech journalism field as well as some reviewers, but that's not to say that they're completely unnoticeable or nonexistent. It's just that the improvements are only visible to most people in certain environments. In this case, it's usually in media-rich implementations, which are increasingly important to most people. But no, the performance improvements aren't exactly going to blow your doors off unless you use a lot of webapps.

    I'm still not aware of any credible source who's been able to prove that these latest versions suffer from a "memory leak". Yes, the browser will often use more memory over time. This is normal behavior as long as it's not allowed to interfere with the performance of other application during nominal use and, of course, as long as the memory usage isn't unreasonable with regard to the tasks being performed. As I've pointed out before: Firefox still uses less physical memory with more than a few tabs open than other browsers (like Safari and Opera and Chrome), yet nobody accuses them of having "memory leaks". This has been confirmed by independent sources like Browser World, Slashdot, and Cybernet. But it's only fair to note that memory usage inconsistencies can be and often are caused by add-ons, so always be on the look-out for that.

    Anyway, it's perfectly fair and beneficial to point out ways in which Mozilla could improve Firefox. They've still got some work to do, and these suggestions and complaints are a part of what these reviews are all about. But constant (and sometimes baseless) harping and moaning laced with personal invective isn't going to improve ANYTHING.

    Oh, and "innovators" spearhead things like (as pointed out above) Jetpack: https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/ and Weave: https://labs.mozilla.com/projects/weave/

  785. 3 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    I just have to respond here to some of these ill informed posts. Most of the add-ons make this browser more usable but it also makes the slow loading Gecko engine even slower. Whats worse is that a good majority of the add-ons achieve usability that is taken from another browser that has such features out of the box already. This is why it is better to customize through ini's and custom buttons rather than an add-on system which impacts performance. Don't get me wrong, there are a few very useful add-ons.

    Despite all the rhetoric around here the performance difference is not all that noticeable and neither are the claims of the fixed memory leaks. Stability seems to becoming more of an issue.

    Innovators invented tabbed web browsing, imitators use add-ons

  786. 5 out of 5 stars
    univofky

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    TP, this is not the ideal solution, but it is a solution. Take one of your addons, like Save Image in Folder 1.2.6. Use IE to download the .xpi file. Unzip this file. Open "install.rdf" and change MaxVer to 3.5. Rezip all files back and make sure extension is .xpi. Using FF, File, Open and open the xpi file. Installation will proceed normally for the addon mentioned above (I just tested it). Your mileage will vary. I tried to explain earlier that sometimes the fault lies with the xpi and not the browser. The source code for FF is beyond me and I can't explain why .xpis sometimes fail regardless of changing this variable.

  787. 3 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    I have to say a lot of people are behaving like the typical ZillaLand fanboiz, right down to the "let me read with what I sit on instead of what my eyes are mounted in".

    I like the browser.

    I use it daily.

    It's my browser of choice.

    It's architecture was "designed" (I use the term extremely loosely) by a bunch of 13-year old wannabe propellerheads and is neither intelligent nor sustainable, a FACT highlighted by the broken plugins with each point release.

    The fact that the browser has come as far as it has is VERY laudable given its inherent disadvantages BUT IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE.

    ZillaLand needs to get its head out of the ground and actually DEVELOPE an architecture.

    I've worked in this biz for 20 years and have participated in more software projects than most of you have underwear and the current road is NOT the way to go.

    Of course, the average system acumen level as evidenced by the replies here is pretty much in common with those who developed the architecture to begin with (about as deep as the average teaspoon) so it's not surprising that we get l33t l1ttl3 boi gam3r responses.

    The senior members here however will note, recognize and acknowledge the truth.

    THREE stars for a browser that has achieved what it has primarily by brute force developement rather than intelligence nd no amount of rhetoric, regardless of source or tone, is going to change that simple, blatantly obvious and utterly undeniable FACT.

  788. 5 out of 5 stars
    tp

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    I quickly noticed the performance increase.. And much better plugin readiness from the last major release.. Only 11 of my 45 addons aren't ready.. Enough that I won't be rolling back... These are the addons that I will miss:

    - Histogram Viewer 1.1.0
    - LogMeIn, Inc. Remote Access Plugin 1.0.0.406
    - MeasureIt 0.3.8
    - Save Image in Folder 1.2.6
    - Yet Another Smooth Scrolling 2.0.20

    I just have to chime in response to roj (his post is above me how appropriate). It is possible to be a know it all without bashing regular users just because they are not high and mighty developers like you boast to be. Somehow I knew that giving a simple opinion was going to arouse the likes of you...

    Update in response to univofky : I did find the tweak to disable compatibility checking..(adding boolean 'extensions.checkCompatibility' = false in about:config) It seems to work fine and I will just use that and re-enable it periodically until things catch up...

  789. 4 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    Pretty good. I can see the speed increase. So far no problems to report. Like usual, and its not the browsers fault, only 7 of my 14 add on's came over. But the all important adblock worked.

  790. 5 out of 5 stars
    4122

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    I love the ability to add extensions and customize my browser to operate the way I wanted it to. Remove the ability to use addons and extensions one may as well use IE, Opera, or Chrome.

    If you still want to use Firefox and don't want to use any addons you can do that, too. Just don't try to take away my addons which make my browsing experience very enjoyable.

  791. 5 out of 5 stars
    MichaelDHam

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    Installed RC 2 and have *not* had a problem at all, did have it shut down in 3.0.10 version once due to a website problem I believe but seemed to work better in 3.0.11 and all since including this one. I was a devoted IE fan till a friend got me to give Firefox a shot and not will not use anything else. These RC's are ready for final release in my eyes and my opinion. All that seem to have the problems seem to be here and there for the most part and the world as to with electronics
    is not perfect in all cases and depends on the individuals set up for the most part.
    Firefox is alway a KEEPER! Hopefully the full release will be soon!

  792. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sammo

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    My favorite browser. I recommend Tete's build for faster performance - http://www1.plala.or.jp/...009/en-US/software.html

  793. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    As far as I'm concerned this is RTM quality, and has been for months.

  794. 5 out of 5 stars
    UniversityofKentucky

    Reviewing 3.5 RC2 (Jun 19, 2009)

    TP, this is not the ideal solution, but it is a solution. Take one of your addons, like Save Image in Folder 1.2.6. Use IE to download the .xpi file. Unzip this file. Open "install.rdf" and change MaxVer to 3.5. Rezip all files back and make sure extension is .xpi. Using FF, File, Open and open the xpi file. Installation will proceed normally for the addon mentioned above (I just tested it). Your mileage will vary.

  795. 4 out of 5 stars
    waffull

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 18, 2009)

    Must speedier.. Looking forward to a final release and hope that better gmail 2 is updated:) Can't give it a 5, after all, it's only an RC:)

    DoHickey... You can set ff to not show the tab bar if you only have one page open (Tools --> Options --> Tabs --> Uncheck: Always show the tab bar)

    That may solve part of your problems and also give you more screen real estate:)

  796. 5 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 18, 2009)

    So far only 3 things I do not like about this version.
    I can't seem to remove the new tab button from the tab bar.
    If only one tab is open I can't close it to bring up a blank, I have to open a new tab & then close the first one.
    A couple of sites wouldn't work, the weather radar wouldn't loop.
    I have all of the plug ins required to do this.

    Other than those 3 little things, it's not bad at all & it's fast.
    Good work Moz

    PS. Thanks Waffull, but I like having a blank page up before I clear personal data. So if I can't clear the page & have a blank, I have a problem with it.
    The current version does this & I'd like it to carry over to the new version.

  797. 5 out of 5 stars
    mfarmilo

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 18, 2009)

    Excellent program. I downloaded this build myself straight away yesterday when I saw it here. But looking on the Mozilla forums today they're currently saying the final RC1 has still not been released.

  798. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 18, 2009)

    All but one of my ~20 add-ons worked even with the preview (beta 99) build as well. That's a MUCH better ratio than past milestones had.

    Speed's great, no compatibility or rendering problems. No crashes under Windows 7 64-bit or Windows XP 32-bit.

    As far as the add-ons architecture debate: yes, Mozilla has historically had problems with "breaking" add-ons with milestone updates. Could they have done a better job? Sure, and I've criticized them for exactly that right here on BetaNews in the past. But the fact is that neither you nor I know the specific technical hurdles they were facing, and pretending you do for the sake of argument is a bit sanctimonious.

    The fact is that no other browser has an add-on/extension system NEARLY as diverse or powerful as Firefox does, nor are they nearly as consistent across platforms. Opera has a few good ones, but the sheer volume and raw capability of them isn't even close. Google Chrome says they're gonna have them sometime in the indefinite future, and they still don't even have a usable Linux version. So criticizing Mozilla for not doing what NO ONE else has been able to do also seems a bit unreasonable.

    But if you really think the architecture could or should be designed to make any plug-in authored at any time in the past or the future work FOREVER, that's not just unreasonable, that's stupid. But perhaps that's not your contention.

    Not a perfect browser, and not the fastest browser, but definitely the most capable and flexible. I only use other browsers as backups these days.

    Oh, and BTW. This version installed right on top of Firefox 3.0.10 while the betas (including the preview) installed in a separate directory in case you wanted to go back to the old version without reinstalling. So perhaps we won't be seeing an RC2 after all despite the implications of the "RC1" title. Also, the "about" page simply reads "Version 3.5". It doesn't even note that it's a release candidate. I thought that was interesting.

    mfarmilo: http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5/whatsnew/

  799. 5 out of 5 stars
    4122

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 17, 2009)

    I have to be the conflicting opinion here. I upgraded from v3.0.10 first to v3.5b99 and now v3.5 RC1 and all 27+ extensions I am using are working perfectly.

    I have to commend the extension authors this time around getting their products in shape for the v3.5 release ahead of schedule.

    TIP: Make sure to visit http://addons.mozilla.org and manually check for updates to your extensions. I found at least three had silent updates that did not bump the version number, but did bump the maxversion in the extension's code.

    P.S. These ratings are to rate the browser itself not the extensions. If you have a complaint about extensions there are other places to do that.

  800. 5 out of 5 stars
    Mumoto

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 17, 2009)

    lol, Roy that's like saying "Make Windows vista applications work on Windows 3.1"

    Ofcourse new versions of Firefox will BREAK addons, if you have problems with that use the older versions or tell the addon-developers to come off their lazy asses and update their addon.

    Furthermore 3.5 RC1 seems to be a hell of a improvement over 3.0.1

  801. 4 out of 5 stars
    emanresU deriseD

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 17, 2009)

    Roj is absolutely correct. The continual breaking of extensions and plugins has ALWAYS pissed me off. It's a ridiculous state of affairs. Users end up reliant on freeware authors who may never update their software.

    Note to the confused: This IS a review of the browser, not of extensions. It's Firefox that has such a lousy extension update system.

  802. 3 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 17, 2009)

    As per normal, it breaks plugins. That is a MAJOR Achilles Heel in the FF "architecture" (I use the term loosely) and speaks volumes as to its lack of sustainability.

    How about you guys in ZillaLand actually deal with that issue permanently for FF 4.0?

    To those who do not have the acumen to comprehend the trivialities known as "backwards compatibility" and "architecture", let me spell it out for them in Mister Rogers terms:

    A Point Release Should Not Break Plugins.

    Hell, even new releases should not break the plugins of the previous release, especially since (unlike operating systems) there are not seven year intervals between those releases.

    THREE stars for a good browser with a half-assed architecture.

    Let the flaming begin - I'm sure the "Faithful" will now get their panties in a bunch over the undeniable and obvious.

    PS:

    The extension "architecture" IS part of the browser and when it falls on its ass, as it invariably does, THIS IS the place to showcase that criminally repeated stupidity.

  803. 5 out of 5 stars
    Juhandra

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 17, 2009)

    Beats the other browsers by a mile.
    Slick, configurable as you like, fast, and stable.

  804. 5 out of 5 stars
    Vimes

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 17, 2009)

    Excellent browser. Well supported with an impressive choice of plugins which, imo, make this the browser of choice. Although Chrome is now starting to use plugins it will take a while before they mature. I do like Chrome but it is the plugins for FF that make me keep coming back to use it.
    If only Opera would develop a plugin system similar to FF, rather than the widgets it uses, it too would be on my short list of browsers to use.

  805. 5 out of 5 stars
    sn0wflake

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 17, 2009)

    Best browser ever. I use it at work and at home. The Read It Later plugin makes it easy to bookmark sites and access them at home and at work. Adblock Plus removes all kinds of ads. It really makes websites load faster and makes them look like the webdesigner intended to.

  806. 5 out of 5 stars
    kindbud1

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 17, 2009)

    come now, shallot. don't be an operatard.

  807. 1 out of 5 stars
    shallot

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 16, 2009)

    Or just use Opera...It has everything you need built right in...You don't need to maintain Gazillion addons and extensions which makes FF usable...

  808. 1 out of 5 stars
    Sammo

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 16, 2009)

    I basically love Firefox and have been running the 3.5 betas with really good luck. This RC1 will not even start up at all. Not ready for prime time. Because of this I give this release just 1 star.

  809. 5 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 16, 2009)

    Install MR Tech Toolkit to make your addons compatible, it might not work with all of them but it worked fine with mine.

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/421

    Att: Sammo

    Start Firefox in safe mode, disable a few extensions till you find the one casing the problem. FF 3.5 RC1 works perfectly, you'll find its an addon causing problems.

  810. 3 out of 5 stars
    dink

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 16, 2009)

    Most of my add-ons are incompatible with the rc. Gonna have to go thru the same thing again as I did when FF3 first came out. Not happy about this. Hopefully this will be resolved before the final release

  811. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 16, 2009)

    Sweet. This means 3.5 release likely in the next 1-3 weeks.

  812. 5 out of 5 stars
    UniversityofKentucky

    Reviewing 3.5 RC1 (Jun 16, 2009)

    3.5b99 is running flawlessly. Much faster, accepts most add-ons, resolves pages nicely... I was hoping Mozilla would counter the speed of Google Chrome and it looks like they have. Bravo!

  813. 5 out of 5 stars
    keir

    Reviewing 3.0.11 (Jun 13, 2009)

    wow. I think it did close for no apparent reason once last night, but although it's early days it looks like in 3.0.0.11 the memory I like I've had for so long I can't remember when it started is finally gone, or at least much improved.

  814. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.0.11 (Jun 12, 2009)

    TC17:
    It's you.

  815. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 12, 2009)

    This is the first version of the 3.5 development builds that I've felt perfectly comfortable using on a daily basis. The past betas just weren't "done" enough.

    No problems with rendering, improved performance, especially on Java-heavy sites, and all my vital add-ons (most really popular ones) are working.

    Also, I like the little (and big) interface and aesthetic changes they've made.

    It actually uses LESS physical memory than Chrome does with more than a few tabs open, even if the tabs aren't separate processes like they are in Chrome (which I like and rate highly here). And now Firefox's performance is at least comparable, even if Chrome is still a bit faster.

  816. 5 out of 5 stars
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 3.0.11 (Jun 12, 2009)

    As I write this on Firefox it's using around 3400 meg of Memory & very few CPU cycles. I was an Opera fan for many years & moved over to Firefox a few months ago. Firefox is a great browser & 3.5 will be even better if the beta's I've tried are anything to go by.

  817. 5 out of 5 stars
    jafo818

    Reviewing 3.0.11 (Jun 11, 2009)

    TC17 obviously it's your installation or extensions... I've used Firefox 1, 2, and 3 extensively and never had the 99% CPU problem you describe.

  818. 4 out of 5 stars
    alcvanamelsvoort

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 10, 2009)

    I've been a Firefox fan since version 1.0 but would change immediately to Chrome if it worked with Lastpass and Xmarks or similar. I find no improvement in speed or memory, none whatsoever.

  819. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 9, 2009)

    No extension issues (I have 7 common ones installed.)
    No rendering or performance issues. Extensions in Firefox bring me far more functionality than any other browser, so I don't even really bother anymore. Loading a page with no ads versus loading it .09 seconds faster, I'm going to go with no ads.
    Never could get multiple tabs as a homepage in Opera. Their help system was ghastly, as well.

    alcvanamelsvoort (above) You GOTTA be smoking something if you don't think there are speed improvements to Firefox since version 1. Load up 4 tabs for a homepage in FF 1.0, and 4 tabs for a homepage in 3.5pre and tell me there isn't a difference in loading the pages and responsiveness between switching tabs.

  820. 5 out of 5 stars
    methuselah

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 9, 2009)

    b99 feels a little faster than beta 4. (although that might be due to some 3rd party extensions not being updated yet.) Adblock+ and NoScript goth working, which are the most important ones for me.

  821. 5 out of 5 stars
    reidyn

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 9, 2009)

    I would have preferred to be able to award a solid 4 1/2. This is a better browser than 3.0 and as explained by the Foundation, the overhauled Javascript engine and several other internal changes have warranted a .5 version leap. Quite a feat, to improve the Javascript performance by 250%.

    To address a couple of remarks below, I too am disappointed that the extension writers didn't just go ahead and set "maxver" to 3.5 final after the extensions related code had been totally nailed down (beta 3 or 4, I forget). That would have prevented so many extensions from appearing to break when in reality they will work fine. Mine all did. That's the extension authors' faults, more so than Firefox, though I wonder if it might be possible in the future to do something like what Google is doing and arranging for extensions to work independent of what happens in the browser along the way. Go get the Ngihtly Tester Tools extension and use it to force them all to work in the meantime. That's quite easy and it does the trick.

    As for performance, let me be more precise than the reviewer directly below me. At least with respect to Javascript performance, it goes like this: IE is very distantly behind the rest of the pack. Opera is actually next to last but still well ahead of. Firefox is somewhat ahead of Opera. Chrome and Safari are running neck and neck vying for #1, but final Safari 4.0 and the latest Chrome dev build has Chrome ahead by a nose. Both are quite a bit faster than everything else. I really don't have objective performance figures for overall page rendering. Various reports put all of the browsers fairly close together on that. As for responsiveness, subjectively I'm giving that to Chrome, followed by Opera, then not terribly far behind is Firefox, and IE is well behind. I don't know where to place Safari because it feels kinda fast one day and kinda slow the next. Firefox is much more responsive with no extensions than it is when you do as I have and load it up with a ton of them.

    With memory usage, I totally disagree with the poster below. I've seen others conduct memory usage testing, and I've conducted my own, with interesting results. Firefox is actually pretty much leading the pack over a typical usage session for memory usage. Safari, in my testing, was much higher on memory usage than everything else, and the rest all fell somewhere between Firefox and Safari. I kind of expected Opera to be at the top and didn't find this to be true.

    Firefox is still king of the hill with respect to extensions, as no one can even touch its current ecosystem. I'm personally using Chrome most of the time because of the raw performance (responsiveness, rendering, javascript) but when I'm not using Firefox I seriously miss the extensions that I've come to enjoy. Furthermore, Firefox has an unparalleled bookmark management system with a fantastic inclusion of tags. I'm waiting for the others to catch up in this respect. Because of this, and the XMarks server sync addon, I'm still using Firefox as my primary bookmark manager. I just wish I could sync with the others more easily.

  822. 5 out of 5 stars
    Nehemoth

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 9, 2009)

    Build 99 no beta 99

  823. 3 out of 5 stars
    coover

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 9, 2009)

    As usual, Firefox's major weakness reared it's ugly head on this version ... half the extensions do not work. This is extremely common with all Firefox updates. Eventually, the extension writers will catch up with the browser writers, but it won't happen immediately.

    The browser is still a memory hog, which, I guess is ok if you have lots and lots of extra memory, and it is still a bit slower than Google and on par with Opera and IE in speed.

    If this is your favorite browser, I'd guess it will stay your favorite browser. Nothing seems broken except several extensions.

  824. 5 out of 5 stars
    arvind

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 9, 2009)

    Been using Beta 4 for a while now.. but damn, this version is really fast!

  825. 5 out of 5 stars
    Jammerdelray

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 9, 2009)

    Very fast, lots of new features and standards compliant, stable. Also can't wait for the RC!

  826. 4 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 99 (Jun 9, 2009)

    Can't wait for the official RC !

    Only a few extensions fail to work.
    Speed is excellent (page rendering), at least at par with Opera 10.

  827. 1 out of 5 stars
    TC17

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Jun 8, 2009)

    I'm very close to totally giving up on any Mozilla product. For years now, Firefox has had the problem of 99% cpu usage. And its not all flash content causing it either. Yet it NEVER gets fixed. It will work fine for a while, then it will start acting up, and it doesn't matter whether its in XP or Vista. Its extremely annoying and I think I'm going to start using some other browser... probably IE8.

  828. 4 out of 5 stars
    TGB72

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Jun 4, 2009)

    Same resource consumption than v3 and little more faster than previous versions. Opera 10 beta1 is way more fast and it consume less memory..
    Loading warp.net without flash plugin demmand 42MB of RAM with FF, same site with Opera 10 loading all the flash stuff took 36MB and even with the animation Opera load that site faster.
    Anyway FF still being a great browser (compared to GC or IE), and his strongest point are the plugins, I still keep it for plugins like Scrapbook.

  829. 5 out of 5 stars
    statm1

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (May 29, 2009)

    Oh come on Mastertech.. Do you even know why the ACID3 test was made? The author purposely picked things that no one really needs to have right now to be in that test. ACID 2 was necessary. But ACID3 is just where we should head to not automatically be.

    All current (Windows) browsers right now IE8, Chrome 2/3, Firefox 3/3.5, Safari 4, Opera 9.6/10, they are all standards compliant browsers, because they all support CSS 2.1. IE8 is the only one of those, to my knowledge, to support every single aspect of CSS 2.1. The ACID2 nor the ACID3 does not test every single aspect of the 2.1 spec.

    And since HTML5 and CSS3 are not a final standard yet its alittle hard to support them fully since the specs kinda change.

  830. 1 out of 5 stars
    Mastertech

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (May 12, 2009)

    Standards support my ass, Firefox still does not pass Acid 3!

    http://www.FirefoxMyths.com

  831. 3 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (May 4, 2009)

    Ever since the .9 release, I've been getting myriad "cannot connect" errors on multiple different machines under both XP and Vista. When you look the error up, you get some trite nonsense from ZillaLand claiming a firewall setting is at fault. Guess what? I don't run a firewall.

    Get off your azz and fix this nonsense, ZillaLand. It's clearly something you did wrong since .8 as when I revert to .8, all is sweetness and light. We know .9 was a mess and .10 was supposed to clean up said mess.

    Get a bigger broom.

    THREE stars for an extremely annoying BUG.

  832. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (May 1, 2009)

    Work like hell with JIT default enabled !!!

    @ nilst2006 - than report bug...

    @ anomoly - and we browsing net with minimized browser LULZ...

    stop fucing about memory leaks etc, look on this test...
    http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/8030/94797547.png
    and see Fx isnt that worst like you can see...

    and P.S. Memory is cheap in these days LMAO...

  833. 1 out of 5 stars
    nilst2006

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 29, 2009)

    Can't import bookmarks from IE or Opera. Script Error. Can't restore from json or likewise. Script error. WORST version ever !!!

  834. 1 out of 5 stars
    anomoly

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 29, 2009)

    K-meleon blows this crap away
    k-idle and minimized uses like 5mb of mem
    ff-same uses like 64mb
    if it weren't for that I may have played with it more

  835. 5 out of 5 stars
    Nefarious

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 29, 2009)

    I like the beta a lot, seems faster than it was before and still keeping the old stuff working.

    The correct way to try a beta and still use your outdated addons would be getting the "nightly tester tools" addon and using "overwrite all compatibility" for the ones that didnt got directly working at least until the addon gets an update.

  836. 5 out of 5 stars
    Lsavagejt

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 29, 2009)

    I like it....a lot.

  837. 5 out of 5 stars
    AlanS2001

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 29, 2009)

    The best by a long shot, plugins or not. As per plugins not working when upgrading, you can't blame the browser just because no one has updated the plugins to work with newer versions of firefox.

  838. 1 out of 5 stars
    LakotaElf

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 28, 2009)

    I hate to say this as I have used Firefox a long time now, along with a couple of others. But it seems to me that Firefox is going downhill, beta or not. It is a resource hog and has been for a long time. Every time we upgrade, plugins do not work or something else breaks. I think I am tired of this now and will move on to another browser. I would like something that works nicely when it upgrades, I am beginning to wonder if anything does. 3.5 beta 4 does not cut it with me at all, not at all. Good bye Firefox...

  839. 1 out of 5 stars
    Djuzan Belic

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 28, 2009)

    The miserable CPU hogging and memory hunger are still there, nothing has changed under the hood.

  840. 4 out of 5 stars
    T_LOKZz

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 28, 2009)

    For it to get better changes have to be made. Face it Firefox is losing a lot of users to Chrome, I am a Chromium user myself. They need to make some major changes. Just be like everybody else and wait for a plugin update that makes it compatible or do it yourself.

  841. 3 out of 5 stars
    coover

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 28, 2009)

    Plugins - Firefox's "strength' and Firefox's "weakness". I have just installed 3.5 Beta 4 (interesting numbering as Beta 1, 2, and 3 were all version 3.1) and as soon as I did, I got a list of plugins that no longer worked.

    When Firefox was introduced, plugins were frequently cited as the reason people changed from another browser to Firefox. But everytime Firefox "improves" the browser, it breaks the plugins. Can't we get a browser which doesn't need plugins that break whenever the browser is updated?

    Firefox is a good browser, but it could be better. Build it so it does not break plugins or doesn't need plugins.

  842. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 28, 2009)

    Speed is fine when you include extensions that remove the crap portions of the web.

  843. 3 out of 5 stars
    us3r

    Reviewing 3.5 Beta 4 (Apr 28, 2009)

    I like Firefox for its compatibility with many websites, innovative features, lots of useful addons, but the developers should give it some speeeeeeeeeed. This browser is so slow comparing to its competition like Opera or Safari. And why Firefox 3.5 does NOT pass Acid 3 test with 100% score?!

    http://acid3.acidtests.org/

    http://people.opera.com/...tern/performance-1.html

    http://people.opera.com/...tern/performance-2.html

  844. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 28, 2009)

    Simply the best browser for me...
    Extensions are pure win !!!

    @ DaComboMan - simply disable compatibly check...
    about:config =>
    extensions.checkCompatibility "false"
    and
    extensions.checkUpdateSecurity "false"

  845. 4 out of 5 stars
    DaComboMan

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 28, 2009)

    With all respect for Firefox beta, this one failed to import at least 80% of my extensions. Wait for the official version.

  846. 5 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    Opera has all the g**ness I need in order to be a fully g** g**tard, without installing extensions which is hard.

  847. 5 out of 5 stars
    wyzwyk

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    While some other browsers may get better marks on the ACID 3 test, open faster, render pages quicker and are more secure Firefox remains king of the browsers by virtue of its enormous feature set. The add-ons give the user the ability customize the look and feel that the other browsers can only dream about.
    As for bigmamma......Presently Firefox has about 22% of the market share and Opera 0.7%. That means that for every Opera user there are over 31 Firefox users. Kindly tell us Bigmamma, if Opera is such a superior browser compared to Firefox then why isn't it reflected in the numbers? You give Firefox one star? What kind of nonsense is that? Be gone with you little Opera troll.... back under the bridge from where you came.

  848. 5 out of 5 stars
    bufftbone

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    ye ha!

  849. 5 out of 5 stars
    kindbud1

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    bigmama is obviously a complete operatard.

    firefox is awesome.

  850. 5 out of 5 stars
    jspratjr

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    Excellent!!

  851. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    Not sure what the issue is with some users and there extensions. I got 17 of them, and all of them came over. The newer beta versions, 3.1 or 3.5= whatever they call it, is a different story. As for the troll who gave this a one, come on. None of the top browsers are bad. Your just being a moron.

  852. 5 out of 5 stars
    Lawrence01

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    I love firefox!

  853. 1 out of 5 stars
    bigmama

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    Ugly. Opera has whatever I want without adding several extensions. Opera gives you a better browsing experience

  854. 5 out of 5 stars
    JParish

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    @ballyhairs: Actually, Firefox was not the first one to make tabbed browsing. I can remember using NetCaptor way back in the day (1998). I don't know if any else did it first...

    Firefox is a great web browser.

  855. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.0.10 (Apr 27, 2009)

    "You’re now running Firefox 3.0.1."

    Yeah they *might* want to consider renaming that version number for purposes of clarification.

    edit: Looks like Mozilla fixed this.

  856. 3 out of 5 stars
    jspratjr

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 22, 2009)

    Nice - after updating to 3.0.9 all extensions quit working. Fix is here:

    http://support.mozilla.c...omments_parentId=334120

  857. 5 out of 5 stars
    ballyhairs

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 22, 2009)

    @steviejay2002
    Obviously you don't know anything about Firefox, you just made fool of yourself by even mentioning such a thing that Firefox invented, they call it customize andt here you have whole lots of things to drag and drop... new tab, huh? lol
    The best browser ever, still missing save settings and add-ons option, I guess I will have to keep on using MozBackup till it becomes a built in option.

  858. 5 out of 5 stars
    doctorsmith

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 21, 2009)

    @ steviejay2002
    The New Tab Button can be accessed the same way as it has for every version of Firefox, right click anywhere on the Navigation Bar and select customize, bingo there's a menu with all the little buttons you could wish for including the New Tab button, just drag the button you want to where you want it ................. something I think even opera and IE users can manage, although maybe not.

    used FF for years here and love it

  859. 4 out of 5 stars
    steviejay2002

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 21, 2009)

    Yeah the missing 'new tab' button is something IE & Opera have had for ages. Can't think why one isn't in FF, CTRL & T just isn't good enough

  860. 2 out of 5 stars
    bigmama

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 21, 2009)

    I prefer Opera and IE8 as alternative. I cannot use Firefox. Opera has the features I want without installing extensions...

  861. 5 out of 5 stars
    Mumoto

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 21, 2009)

    mjm01010101:
    There are several reasons for software to not work properly on some systems.

    For example:
    - Too many processes running
    - P2P downloading
    - Spyware/viruses
    - Computer configuration messed up

    Vista is a hog itself unless you tweak it down like I did.
    Performance-wise 64-bit SHOULD run faster most of the time but we're talking about a webbrowser not Crysis.

    64-bit Vista and XP have crap hardware and software support sooo I rather wait a few OS'es before switching over.

  862. 5 out of 5 stars
    andeemac2006

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 21, 2009)

    To the guy that had the message about removing IE8 might harm Fiirefox,
    Well all I have to say is That XP SP3 was brought out to make people move to Vista !!!! it nearly messed up my Instalation of Xp SP2 that i had on my old PC for 4 years
    This is what they do when your not doing what they want .

  863. 4 out of 5 stars
    FixXxeR

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 21, 2009)

    mjm, how does using 64 bit operating systems give you more credibility? Is it just because he has 4GB and is running 32 bit? That is not an argument. I still do it and wont use 64 bit until my hardware is better supported. To me, 32 bit is still the SMART way to go. A browser should work the same on either platform, or close to the same.

  864. 3 out of 5 stars
    darthbeads

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 21, 2009)

    mjm01010101@:

    I'm not sure how using a still under-supported OS environment lends someone credibility when reviewing a browser that should work just fine on either platform....

  865. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.0.9 (Apr 21, 2009)

    borisf98, perhaps you should be using a 64-bit Operating system before you review software? It might give you a touch more credibility.

    Sure it is an argument. You plainly tout your ignorance when you run an operating system and waste a Gig of RAM.

  866. 4 out of 5 stars
    utomo

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Apr 13, 2009)

    add an easy way to speed it up
    something like this

    http://www.google.com/se...=ie7&rlz=1I7IRFA_en

  867. 4 out of 5 stars
    utomo

    Reviewing 3.0.8 (Apr 13, 2009)

    New Browser mostly Use New Tab Instead of new Windows.
    But Look at The Firefox.
    There is No Button which can be used to open new Tab. Only New Windows (which is not too much used)

    Look at other Browser. all Have new way to open new tab.
    IE 7 and IE 8, Chrome, Opera, ETC

    Note : I know we can use CTRL + T but a Button will be easier.

  868. 4 out of 5 stars
    myboy

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Apr 5, 2009)

    Browser is relatively stable. Sky-high memory usage when visiting sites with Flash. For some reason, a few settings that would make it use less memory are not an option by default (such as config.trim_on_minimize or for those with less memory, browser.cache.memory.capacity). Also enable TraceMonkey for faster browsing.

    They should incorporate the extension Download Statusbar and be done with it. The default manager sucks.

  869. 5 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 3.0.8 (Apr 5, 2009)

    This version works rather well, I'm happy with it.
    Not much else to say, it works and I've had no problems.

    One question that I hope someone can answer.
    When uninstalling IE-8 why do I get a message box saying that Firefox will be effected when I uninstall IE-8?.
    If Firefox is a true separate entity from IE, why would I get this message?
    Something seems fishy about this.

  870. 3 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 3.0.8 (Mar 28, 2009)

    2 last releases are full of bugs

    3.0.7 is a memory hog which was not the case with previous releases.

    3.0.8 disabled all plugins in navigation bar.

    Hopefully next release will fix those problems. Vista 32/ 4GB RAM.

  871. 5 out of 5 stars
    sn0wflake

    Reviewing 3.0.8 (Mar 27, 2009)

    Still the best!

  872. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 3.0.8 (Mar 27, 2009)

    Please use this link if the ftp is over loaded
    www.mozilla.com/en-US/products/download

    All my plugging worked with this update and install was fast and clean.
    [url=http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0.8/releasenotes/]See what's new in Firefox 3.0.8[/url]
    [url=http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/]View the top new features[/url]

  873. 5 out of 5 stars
    giwo

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 16, 2009)

    While Firefox 3.0.7 rarely seemed slow to me, I've noticed an improvement in 3.1b3 when loading just about any web site. Also privacy mode does exactly what the name suggests, allowing the user to browse without concern for cookies or history. Another nice new feature is the ability to clear browsing history for a limited time frame, ie the past hour.

    So far I have yet to encounter any glitches or crashes while using this build, a definite improvement over 3.1b2, which had several issues finally resulting in me reverting back to 3.0.x.

    With the constantly improving (and already great) browser from Mozilla paired with AdBlock and NoScript, I can't think of a single reason to use another browser.

  874. 5 out of 5 stars
    mfaccone

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 15, 2009)

    I used to hate Mozilla and Firefox. But as of the last few builds, I've come to like it better than IE. It really has matured well.

  875. 5 out of 5 stars
    GrailKnight

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 14, 2009)

    Working fine here. Faster then ever and low memory usage.

    Its a keeper.

  876. 1 out of 5 stars
    Djuzan Belic

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 13, 2009)

    It's still as slow and memory hungry as it ever was.

  877. 5 out of 5 stars
    midnighter_9999

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 13, 2009)

    No problem so far! All sites are loading really quick, great improvement from 3.0.7.

    Read reviews saying that Safari and Chrome seem to be faster, but hey, Firefox is highly customizable! This makes up for the defects. Its a complete browser!

    Competition comes when Safari and Chrome start incorporating add-ons. But I think, that will affect its performance. We'll see.

    Heres a tip btw - Completely uninstall Firefox, as in remove from local settings etc and from the registry too - then install FF3.1 b3 - I've noticed a HUGE improvement when I did this. Its sure worth a shot!

  878. 5 out of 5 stars
    tomkaten

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 13, 2009)

    This is truly the best browsing experience available these days. Extensions are what makes this browser amazing.

    Speed ? Well, it's not slower than anything out there, certainly not slower than Chrome or Safari and it crushes them both on features.

    So there you have it... Firefox is fast, ultra customizable, slick and just plain usable. Who wouldn't want to use it ?

    I've been using the 3.1 beta since it first came out without a glitch. No random locukups, no funny looking elements, nothing. Two minor problems on two different sites, both addressed in this version, which seems even faster and more responsive. All my previous extensions work just fine, with the exception of my most vital one: Firegestures, lol. But the Nightly Tester Tools fixed that in no time, with no side effects.

    I highly recommend this beta. It's rock solid, fast and feature-full. My single standing gripe is related to the cold startup time, but it's worth the extra two seconds for all the goodies you're getting.

  879. 4 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 13, 2009)

    Editing my review after about a month of use. This browser has crashed about 3 times in the past week, so I reverted to a fresh profile 3.0.9.

    Hopefully they fix up the remaining bugs.

  880. 3 out of 5 stars
    johnk119

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 13, 2009)

    is this a joke?

  881. 3 out of 5 stars
    emanresU deriseD

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 13, 2009)

    The extension system sucks, with some things that should be built in pushed aside. The update system REALLY sucks, and it's extremely annoying when an update comes out. It's too stupid to know if the current user is a "Limited User" (under Windows XP), and it will keep trying to update itself--over and over, ad infinitum. But of course it cannot, because the user does not have access rights.

    But what REALLY sucks about Firefox is that while it performs well out of the box, it's devoid of features. And after you've accumulated a few extensions to get the features you want, the performance goes down the toilet. Just WHY do I need to install an extension to obtain "Add Bookmark Here" menu functionality? Why, when I want to manage a bookmark folder, do I either need to open the Library window and hunt for the folder manually, or install a "Manage Folders" extension? Oh--let me guess--some morons will whine that these extra menu items constitute "bloat"!

  882. 5 out of 5 stars
    bittermann

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 13, 2009)

    The best just keeps getting better!

  883. 3 out of 5 stars
    What-A-Waste

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 13, 2009)

    Is it just me or are other Firefox users unable to rearrange/resize window panes within Yahoo Mail?? But no wait.. It must be a bug for FireFox and Windows because on my Mac OSX 10.5.6 I can rearrange/resize window panes in Firefox just fine..

    If I try to rearrange/resize in Windows, I can grab a window frame edge and move it, but it won't set when I release the mouse button.

    Anyone seen this within Vista and XP??

  884. 5 out of 5 stars
    sn0wflake

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 12, 2009)

    Paul Skinner: Nobody gives a damn about Windows 3.1. It's like complaining that you can't drive your Ford T on the express way because the car doesn't meet the minimum speed requirements on those kind of roads.
    I see you point in complaining about the postulated support for Windows 3.1. The Firefox team should remove that part and just deduce it to any 32- or 64-bit Windows version.

  885. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 12, 2009)

    I know this may be a bit too much info but I think its important.
    Just think it would be nice to link to the Beta information
    http://www.mozilla.com/e...efox/3.1b3/releasenotes/
    Firefox 3.1 Beta 3 Release Notes

    This is the fifth development milestone and third beta release of Firefox 3.1, the upcoming version of the Firefox web browser. Please read below for more information.

    About this Beta

    Firefox 3.1 Beta 3 is the fifth development milestone and third beta release of Firefox 3.1, the next version of the Firefox web browser. While this release is considered to be stable, it is intended for developers and members of our testing community to use for early evaluation and feedback. Users of the latest released version of Firefox should not expect all of their add-ons to work properly with this beta.

    What’s New in Firefox 3.1 Beta 3

    Firefox 3.1 Beta 3 is based on the Gecko 1.9.1 rendering platform, which has been under development for the past 9 months. Firefox 3.1 is an incremental release on the previous version with significant changes to improve web compatibility, performance, and ease of use:

    * This beta is now available in 64 languages - get your local version.
    * Improved the new Private Browsing Mode.
    * Improvements to web worker thread support.
    * Improved performance and stability with the new TraceMonkey JavaScript engine.
    * New native JSON support.
    * Improvements to the Gecko layout engine, including speculative parsing for faster content rendering.
    * Support for new web technologies such as the and elements, the W3C Geolocation API, JavaScript query selectors, CSS 2.1 and 3 properties, SVG transforms and offline applications.

    Developers can find out about all the changes and new features at the Mozilla Developer Center.

  886. 5 out of 5 stars
    realalexpc

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 12, 2009)

    firefox is a superb browser and is changing all the time. if not for the fact that javascript animation performance is the slowest of ALL browsers and almost half as fast as Google Chrome.

    my question is, when, oh when, will firefox improve the graphic and animation speed of firefox to be even remotely close to chrome?

  887. 5 out of 5 stars
    smanofsteel76

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 12, 2009)

    I have had no problems with Beta 3 in Windows 7 but it keeps crashing in Windows Vista. Anyone else having that problem?

  888. 4 out of 5 stars
    Paul Skinner

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 12, 2009)

    Pretty good product.
    Doesn't live up to its billing of working with Windows 3.1 though :P

  889. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sammo

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 12, 2009)

    I've been running 3.1b3 for a few days and I can tell you that it is the fastest Firefox yet.

  890. 5 out of 5 stars
    alanpalmer

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 12, 2009)

    With 3.06 I had occasional freezes and problems with pages loading forever. If I closed down the browser and tried to reopen it I'd get a message saying it was already running. Using Task Manager to try to end the process had no effect and I was forced to reboot Windows.

    So far, with 3.07 I've not had this problem.

    Of course, the problem may have been in an extension rather than Firefox itself...

  891. 4 out of 5 stars
    chadamus

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 12, 2009)

    This gets me every time 'Mozilla Firefox for Windows 3.1'...

  892. 5 out of 5 stars
    anonswgeek

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 3 (Mar 12, 2009)

    been running this beta 3 update for a few hours now and all is fine. no crashes. a good speed improvement over 3.07 i like the new icon to open a new tab. pressing ctrl-t does the same though.

  893. 5 out of 5 stars
    anonswgeek

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Mar 12, 2009)

    3.1b3 has been released today. i notice a good speed improvement over 3.07

  894. 5 out of 5 stars
    JRobert

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 9, 2009)

    (silly trolls!)
    Just as solid as the last point release, with, presumably, a few fixes. Absolutely no issues after upgrading (OS 10.5.6).

  895. 5 out of 5 stars
    sn0wflake

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 9, 2009)

    Best browser in the World!

  896. 5 out of 5 stars
    Skyfrog

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 8, 2009)

    Works perfectly fine, and not slow at all unless your computer sucks. Pay no attention to the nitwit trolls.

  897. 1 out of 5 stars
    JCookes

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 8, 2009)

    Gets slower, and slower, and sloooower, and slooooooooooower.

    Try Opera 9.64 for a REAL browser.

    FF is only good for the work third-party people do, the browser is pure crap.

  898. 2 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 7, 2009)

    Pretty much useless. Not only did Firefox crash, but it took my system down with it. Either fix the browser or take it out of the game.

  899. 5 out of 5 stars
    XtC4UaLL

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 4, 2009)

    @johnk119:
    Changelog 3.0.7: http://tinyurl.com/auddbl

    @emanresU deriseD:
    In the Mozilla release process RCs *are identical* to the to be released versions if no other RCs are needed.

  900. 5 out of 5 stars
    johnk119

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 4, 2009)

    How about telling us what's new in this version?

  901. 5 out of 5 stars
    buenamierda14

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 4, 2009)

    Get the message "Thank for you..blah...this beta.
    "About" doesnt show this as a beta though.

    Has happened before.

  902. 4 out of 5 stars
    emanresU deriseD

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 4, 2009)

    "Thanks for helping us beta test Firefox 3.0.7"

    Eh?

    The About box doesn't show that it's a beta. Update Notifier caught the update and didn't say it was a beta. This site doesn't say it's a beta...

  903. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 4, 2009)

    Better than Chrome: Has extensible architecture, better privacy, better installer. Firefox doesn't crash, Chrome does.

    Better than Safari:Better installer, doesn't have Apple smugness, extensible. Another browser that loves to crash.

    Better than Opera: Not by much, but Opera doesn't have adblock+, noscript capability without serious tweaks and even then it's not the same. If I didn't use FF, Opera would be my #2.

    Better than IE: Well, anything is better than IE, come on! IE makes you reboot your whole machine just to patch it! This browser is riddled with zero-days that even security companies are too bored to publish! This browser has terrible standards support! This browser sucks dockeysack at javascript and rendering! Horrible!

  904. 4 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.0.7 (Mar 4, 2009)

    Add-on quality and the updating process for same leave A LOT to be desired - they're both a mess. The whole plugin architecture is fundamentally flawed in that regard and the folks at ZillaLand show no signs of maturing enough to address this. Despite the claims of the fanatik fanboiz, Mozilla is NOT the future because it's not sustainable for the reasons iterated above and is nowhere Joe Average Consumer oriented enough. That entire aspect needs to be rethought form a consumer and business perspective to be credible.

    That being said, this is my browser of choice. I put up with the spotty add-on architecture and quality control because it does what I want. IE8 is indeed significantly faster and so on and so forth but I personally prefer the mix and match concept that Firefox gives me.

    Would I recommend this for everyday consumer use?

    Not on your life.

    The product and concepts are FAR too rough-edged. Would I recommend it for enthusiasts who know what they want and are technically savvy enough to go looking for it?

    Yes.

    I give this FOUR stars because despite its obvious shortcomings, it gets the job done for those who appreciate what it has to offer and can put up with the foibles.

    But to those who crown this as the king:

    The Emperor is NOT wearing new clothes.

  905. 3 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.0.6 (Feb 24, 2009)

    With the availability of new addons for Internet Explorer, Firefox is well behind the curve as far as speed, setup, and ease of use. Mozilla needs to get its act together or its use will shrink.

  906. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.0.6 (Feb 3, 2009)

    It loads up in roughly 1 second on my Core 2 Quad 3.33Ghz machine with multiple tabs being restored and with over a dozen add-ons installed. Not that unusual with a fast CPU and hard drive.

    No, not as quick as Chrome in loading up and in running many webapps. But I use both on a daily basis, and I have to say that Firefox's performance as far as handling lots of open tabs and switching between them is noticeably faster than Chrome (once it gets loaded up, heh), especially on older hardware like Pentium 4 platforms.

    Of course, for security reasons Chrome creates an entirely separate thread for each and every tab, while Firefox does not. That most likely has a lot to do with the performance quirks.

    Firefox may not be the fastest or the flashiest, but it is by FAR the most flexible and (at least from a developer's point of view) most powerful browser, and the performance is quite good even if it's not at the top of every benchmark.

    Still the King.

  907. 4 out of 5 stars
    sturgess

    Reviewing 3.0.6 (Feb 3, 2009)

    artfuldodga
    Reviewing 3.0.6 (Feb 3, 2009)
    "takes less than 1 second to load, ablock, noscript, and a few other security related addons loading. core2 duo T8300 2.4ghz "
    Really, less than a second, phew. That's bloomin' impressive artfuldodga. Anyone yet managed to break the half second barrier ? Now that would be awesome, up and running in half a second, we can but dream. I'll give it a 4, nice browser but not as fast Chrome, and certainly not as fast as the version of Firefox that the artfuldodga has been supplied with !

  908. 5 out of 5 stars
    LakotaElf

    Reviewing 3.0.6 (Feb 3, 2009)

    Works well, I like it and always have. But why does everyone act like UFO's landed when FireFox makes a new build. They do it often as all software makers do or did I miss something.

  909. 4 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 3.0.6 (Feb 3, 2009)

    takes less than 1 second to load, ablock, noscript, and a few other security related addons loading. core2 duo T8300 2.4ghz

    addons are the usual cause of slow load times, and anything that has large listings and settings to load, though my adblock has a rather large couple lists loaded it still loads in less than 1 second, remove adblock and loading is instant, i wouldn't install more than 5-10 much needed addons

    i've done a video if its that hard to believe @sturgess
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQjsadxCpvI

  910. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.0.6 (Feb 3, 2009)

    I timed this on a core2duo e8400 and it took 4 seconds to load 4 tabs to completion with adblock + and noscript loaded.

    Opera took 4 seconds as well with the same tabs.

  911. 4 out of 5 stars
    Djuzan Belic

    Reviewing 3.0.6 (Feb 3, 2009)

    I'm a long time Firefox user, but for me (as for about any other user) the browser gets slower and slower to start over a period of time.

  912. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 3.0.6 (Feb 3, 2009)

    Still boots slooooooow and page rendering for me is slower than Opera 10 and Chrome. Still IS and always has been a resource pig.

    I used this on sites my old Opera had problems with but while Oprea 10 seems to choke up on much fewer sites now the thing is that this chokes up on most of those sites now too which was never the case

    These last 2 releases have been quite unstable for me as well. FF seems to be slipping even lower than I thought they were which isn't a good thing with Chrome performing the way it does. People will probably migrate to Chrome (instead of Opera) if this keeps

  913. 2 out of 5 stars
    huerix

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 21, 2008)

    I don't know if it is one of my add-ons, which ALL seemed to be disabled at first with this release, or the build itself, but I have been having freezing issues; not stabile enough for me when all the others so far have been!

  914. 2 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 20, 2008)

    Doesn't add its own listed addons. It listed All-in-One Sidebar as an addon but didn't load it. At present, you're better off with the Seamonkey Browser. It's much faster and probably more secure.

  915. 5 out of 5 stars
    tylerhw

    Reviewing 3.0.5 (Dec 19, 2008)

    This venerable browser still excels over all of the rest. Although Google Chrome is turning into quite the handy web browser it's still missing add-ons to make up for missing functionality. 5/5 for being the best browser out there.

  916. 3 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 2.0.0.20 (Dec 18, 2008)

    If people were to move with the times Adrian, they would be using Opera which is far better than the (once again) overated FF3 which is only a slight improvement on v2 and still suffers from the pain in the arse of plugins and themes needing to be updated, however I give Mozilla credit for still supporting this version. Too many times people are forced to migrate away from things they are more than satisfied with so its good to see Mozilla is letting people have a choice!

    As for this release I honestly don't see any improvements or degration. Its still a compitent browser but the slowness of it have made me use Maxthon as my rarely used second browser now

  917. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 2.0.0.20 (Dec 18, 2008)

    So much for .19 being the last version!

  918. 5 out of 5 stars
    christoofar

    Reviewing 2.0.0.20 (Dec 18, 2008)

    I'll stick w /v2 till they update all the themes & addons I've come to enjoy & depend on are ported over to v3

  919. 3 out of 5 stars
    butthead

    Reviewing 3.0.5 (Dec 18, 2008)

    Still missing basic features like proper spatial navigation, mouse gestures, ui for cloning tabs, function to merge windows etc etc. Add a horrible about:config implementation, nonexisting display of program & profile paths, poor installer (difficult to run several instances of the browser), horrible setup and handling of profiles, messy preferences ui etc etc.

    Firefox lacks basic browsing feature and is definitely the copycat in the browser market, but not a good one.

    I've used this browser since its 0.x days, but the development is not promising.

  920. 5 out of 5 stars
    kindbud1

    Reviewing 2.0.0.20 (Dec 18, 2008)

    I agree that people should update to FF3, but that's no reason to give this a 1. Don't be a retard.

  921. 1 out of 5 stars
    Adrian79

    Reviewing 2.0.0.19 (Dec 18, 2008)

    move with the times people!! 3.0.5

  922. 4 out of 5 stars
    Banquo

    Reviewing 2.0.0.19 (Dec 16, 2008)

    Avoid 2.0.0.19 since it's really a downgrade, the only change is they removed the phishing protection. It's also the last version, the 2.0 line is now discontinued. If you must stick with 2.x stay with 2.0.0.18 for a while longer, though eventually you will want to move to something else for security reasons. Kind of a shame, I really hate Firefox 3.

  923. 5 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 3.0.5 (Dec 16, 2008)

    Please amend the link "Homepage:"
    from: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

    TO: http://www.mozilla.com/e...efox/3.0.5/releasenotes/

    It only takes seconds to save sight users combined hours of searching and aggravation. Lets keep this sight the best by doing our best. ;^)

    What’s New in Firefox 3.0.5

    Firefox 3.0.5 fixes several issues found in Firefox 3.0.4:

    * Fixed several security issues.
    * Fixed several stability issues.
    * Official releases for the Bengali, Esperanto, Galician, Hindi, and Latviann languages are now available.
    * Replaced the End-User License Agreement with a new "Know Your Rights" info bar on initial install.
    * When installing multiple signed XPIs simultaneously, previous versions of Firefox would fail.
    * Fixed several issues found in the accessibility implementation.
    * Added the ability to send OS-specific system notes in the crash reporter.
    * See the Firefox 3.0.4 release notes for changes in previous releases.
    complete list of bugs fixed

    get the latest version of Firefox 3 here
    Download a Firefox version that speaks your language

  924. 4 out of 5 stars
    Sativarg

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 16, 2008)

    Please amend the link "Homepage:"
    from: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

    TO: http://www.mozilla.com/e...efox/3.1b1/releasenotes/

    It only takes seconds to save sight users combined hours of searching and aggravation. Lets keep this sight the best by doing our best.

  925. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 2.0.0.19 (Dec 16, 2008)

    MHTML is not a finalized standard, and due to the files looking different on pretty much every browser, I can see why Mozilla ignores it. Not even IEx or Opera can save every page with consistency.

    Users should have migrated off of this version of Firefox by now to version 3.

  926. 5 out of 5 stars
    Adrian79

    Reviewing 3.0.5 (Dec 16, 2008)

    best browser on earth.

  927. 5 out of 5 stars
    keiichi999

    Reviewing 3.0.5 (Dec 16, 2008)

    FF already has a patch system :P

  928. 5 out of 5 stars
    kindbud1

    Reviewing 3.0.5 (Dec 16, 2008)

    Yeah, beta test?

    The About Box seems to indicate a final version.

    Odd.

  929. 5 out of 5 stars
    arossetti

    Reviewing 3.0.5 (Dec 16, 2008)

    Thanks for helping beta test Firefox??? Guess this isn't quite final...

  930. 4 out of 5 stars
    netean

    Reviewing 3.0.5 (Dec 16, 2008)

    I'm getting fed up with download the whole application just for a couple of bug fixes.. Can't they implement a patch system, it would be so much easier!

  931. 5 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 3.0.5 (Dec 16, 2008)

    I was mistaken. Problem was with ZoneLabs Firewall which for some reason does not like FireFox.

  932. 4 out of 5 stars
    Adrian79

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 10, 2008)

    everytime I install one of there betas I loose all my bookmarks!?!?!?!

    so i'm waiting until final

  933. 5 out of 5 stars
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 10, 2008)

    Excellent for a beta.

    The new Java rendering engine really is noticeably faster. I was a skeptic until I tried it on several of my machines. If you don't believe me, just compare 3.1's performance with 3.0's while browsing quickly through something like Last.fm. It's just far, far smoother.

    Privacy mode is nice, but not exactly an innovation.

    Yeah, most of my extensions haven't been updated, yet, but that's far more a fact of life these days than it is a complaint.

    No rendering problems I can find during normal use...

    I wish they hadn't postponed the new tab switcher, but if it's not ready yet it's probably for the best.

  934. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 8, 2008)

    Do not smite the beholder of life and death.

  935. 4 out of 5 stars
    LakotaElf

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 8, 2008)

    Yes Firefox is good and I use it, but the way some people in this forum act you would think Jesus had returned. It is computer software, not a matter of life and death.

  936. 5 out of 5 stars
    bittermann

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 8, 2008)

    The best browser just got better. Fast stable and way more secure than IE. As long as they keep fixing the security flaws as fast as they find them they have a winner...

  937. 5 out of 5 stars
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 8, 2008)

    Storytellerofsci-fiction thats a great name for you, since the story you are telling is pure science fiction.

    Firefox is about the bust out, this release is huge and will be a game changer.

  938. 5 out of 5 stars
    The MAZZTer

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 8, 2008)

    Storytellerofsci-fiction is speaking of a trojan which AFAIK does NOT exploit Firefox... it simply installs an add-on in Firefox.

    However, Firefox IMO takes sufficient steps to prevent malicious add-ons from being installed from within the Firefox UI (which is not the case here!)

    I repeat... the trojan infects the user's PC through other means (trojans typically have the user open an e-mail attachment or download and run a file manually, IIRC this one is a download) and does NOT exploit any flaws in Firefox. Any legitimate program can add add-ons to Firefox, and so when your computer is already completely compromised it's no surprise that malware can do exactly the same thing.

    For more information read this: http://blog.johnath.com/2008/12/08/firefox-malware/

  939. 5 out of 5 stars
    mdmower

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 8, 2008)

    This beta is running without incident on my Vista 32-bit thus far. Most of my add-ons are now available for 3.1. Rendering speed is leaps and bounds faster than 3.0.

    Storytellerofsci-fiction, would you care to back up your claims with any EVIDENCE?

  940. 2 out of 5 stars
    Storytellerofsci-fiction

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 2 (Dec 8, 2008)

    I can't believe people buy into Mozilla's crap in the ways that they do. "A more secure and safer browsing experience", oh please sell that "crap" to someone "who refuses" to learn any better.

    You can't add a bunch of extensions (I.E. Add-Ons) to "anything", without allowing a lot of places to crack the Utility.

    Their selling "pie in the sky folks and your buying it". Stay faithful they'll disappoint you all eventually or you'll just "wake up". I use Firefox 3 but don't be looking for a crap load of extensions in my Browser....ha ha ha.

    What bull****. I have to giggle so bad when folks talk about how secure it is. Hell there was a exploit just released to target Firefox that hides itself as a Greasemonkey script... Too Funny.

    I guess 20% percent of Browser Market share was the tipping point for the Malware writer's Firefox is in their gun sites now. Enjoy your more safer browsing experience folks.... ha ha ha. Do you actually read the articles before you post the links folks.......

    http://www.techjaws.com/tag/firefox-exploit/

    Or go over here for more detail that an exploit dude.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/154931/.html?tk=rss

    It just doesn't sit there hiding and doing nothing read a little more talk a little less..cya.

  941. 3 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 1 (Nov 28, 2008)

    It seems that Seamonkey is making faster progress than Firefox and in many ways is the better of the two browsers. The hassle of testing this browser isn't worth the risk. Especially as I'm running 64bit Vista.

  942. 1 out of 5 stars
    analphatester

    Reviewing 2.0.0.18 (Nov 27, 2008)

    Open .MHTML in any browser is the minimum.
    Firefox not able open .MHTML files.
    How old are Netscape, Mozilla or FF project or called anyway?
    Least could be a minimum.
    other
    Many people runnin XP,Vista and wondered why making program for Win9x?
    simple
    Win9x better than XP

  943. 3 out of 5 stars
    borisf98

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 24, 2008)

    3.04 version works fine on Windows XP, but does not on Vista SP1. Multiple crashes and freezes.

  944. 2 out of 5 stars
    TC17

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 23, 2008)

    I don't understand why Firefox NEVER can display flash animations without dragging your high powered cpu down to a crawl. Its been this way for years. And its dang annoying when IE doesn't even have this problem. Firefox seems to always be loaded with bugs, something IE also rarely has. The ONLY reason I continue to use Firefox is due to the spyware built into IE by Microsoft.

  945. 1 out of 5 stars
    SlapShot

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 22, 2008)

    I love using Firefox but this latest release, 3.0.4. is just awful, a lot of crashes

  946. 1 out of 5 stars
    ubermann

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 18, 2008)

    V3 is slowly starting to act more and more like iexplorer.
    V3 got horrible bugs and you can see that on many many users reporting that its a memory hog with up to 100meg used RAM.
    It sometimes cant kill its thread and stays active in background without notice to the user and makes your OS pretty slow without the user haveing any idea what is wrong.
    Its becoming the target for more and more virus and script writers as its getting used by alot more people so that is the new target.
    And its far from fast any more.

    V2 was ok to use and i have no complains at all.
    But tabbed browsing i have to call Opera cuz firefox in standard mode does not use tabs very good but opens up the program instead and that demand RAM.

    For new computers this is not a big problem but it is still a problem that is not solved yet and does not seem to be solved either.

    Kill of V3 and continue V2 as that one was on right track.
    Opera is ALOT better if you give it 1 day or 2 and i can promise you that you wont switch back again.

  947. 1 out of 5 stars
    McAleck

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 13, 2008)

    after upgrading to 3.0.4 from 3.0.3 my firefox keeps crashing the instant I open it. They effed up something royally.

  948. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 13, 2008)

    @ horsecharles - powerless because extensions not being compatible ?!
    what are you talking about...
    You can simply compatible all extensions with NTT extension or in about config...

    and I test hourly build Fx3.1 and Its faster than Chrome, Opera...
    only Safari is better...

    see by yourself...

    http://dromaeo.com/
    http://www2.webkit.org/p...ider-0.9/sunspider.html

  949. 2 out of 5 stars
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 13, 2008)

    I can't believe how slow this thing still is. Loads slower than Photoshop CS4 and thats just to speed dial. Renders slower than Opera and while the plugins are great having to constantly rely on people to find the time to update every plugin most new releases break is a joke. It's still a memory hog despite what fanboy(and girls) say. I trust what my process manager says over their hot air.

    BUT, BUT, my biggest gripe about this program is the way it mimics apple in its intrusiveness. When I use a portable app I want it only my usb stick and I don't want it creating folders on the C drive. Bottom line here is that it installs itself in areas I don't ask it to

  950. 4 out of 5 stars
    roj

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 12, 2008)

    Who cares about install time? That's pretty cheap if that's all you have to brag about - and indeed that's all there is to brag about. When it starts for the first time after any login, it's dead slow out of the starting gate - and everyone knows it although the apologists bend over backwards to make excuses for it.

    I also agree that it has no corporate or mass market future, not the least because it's not sustainable from an extension perspective and without those extensions, it's useless. New versions inevitably break things and pages that display perfectly in IE (right here on FileForum is a good example) do not under FF. Of course there will be arguments that the IE Tab extension remedies that - but the extension architecture is broken as iterated above, so the "point" is moot.

    It's a nice enthusiast browser but the hype about enhanced speed and security over the competition are just the result of fanboi blinders and have absolutely no foundation in reality.

    I'll give it a three and a half star rating rounded up to FOUR because it's usable in its current incarnation - which is more than I can say for its predecessors. That of course is contingent on adding at least six or seven carefully chosen extensions which of course will undoubtedly break (AGAIN!!) when 3.1 makes it out the door.

  951. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 12, 2008)

    Install using the -ms switch and it installs in under 7 seconds.

    Let's see IE or any other browser do that with a patch/security fix.

    Yes the -ms install is unattended silent install.

    Many corporations run and support it fine. I work for one of them, and we encourage FF use throughout our domain and support it fully. I have taught a few classes to our users the direct advantages of using Firefox with extensions over IE, and we see about a 40% adoption rate. I don't knock IE in these classes, I just show how firefox can do things a tad better.

    Any corporate IT manager can package FF as an MSI or script out installs in seconds. You can easily lock it down to prevent tinkering, in addition.

    We have FF set as default browser in a kiosk environment. There has never been an exploit with hundreds of users tinkering.

    In our practice area, even our main vendor supports firefox, and our single largest client encourages its use over our site-to-site VPN because of the ease of use with setting up profiles and proxies.

    Now I will admit extensions and themes breaking on major releases. I'll readily admit that that is FF achille's heel. Even modern themes for the current version have quirks, so I myself stay away from them. But you put extensions such as adblock, noscript, and greasemonkey, and it really lets you control the web, as opposed to vice versa.

    And I like Chrome's feel, but it isn't extensible yet and I doubt they'd be cool with adblocking, since that is google's bread and butter.

  952. 4 out of 5 stars
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 12, 2008)

    HEY MJM: What does that -ms parameter do? Unattended install? Got a linky explaining it? Thanks

    REVIEW:

    This is not a bad browser at all. But it is not nearly as good as it could / should be for an OpenSource project, imo.

    I think the concept of a slim initial client that can be extended via plug-ins is a sound one. But the way that it is implemented in this project leaves a lot to be desired.

    Updates to the browser have frequently broken not only plug-ins, but skins as well, and that is simply not necessary if the coding was done more effectively, with compatibility in mind.

    Many tools that USED to work with Firefox no longer do, and waiting for those that are left alive to be updated to work with the latest Firefox release can be incredibly annoying.

    I very much like that Mozilla has not gone the way of IE 7 and Opera 9 and changed the order of interface elements.

    I have grown used to having the order of appearance as follows:

    Menu Bar
    Tool Bar / Address Bar
    Links Bar
    Tab Bar

    I find it to be familiar and productive, and think that this skin - PAST MODERN - is an incredibly well-done and efficient creation, in terms both of size and functionality and represents the way third party contributions should be done, imo.

    https://addons.mozilla.o...n-US/firefox/addon/7249

    I'd still prefer to give this program a core value of 3.5 instead of a 4, but feel on the Windows side at least, it is closer to a 4 than a 3.

    Firefox for Linux is a completely different animal, and if I was rating the Linux version, I'd have to hammer it for how poorly it renders fonts in comparison to Opera.

    I like that you can easily disable the "Awesome Bar" and that you can enable active Spell Checking, which is a very, very good feature and very well implemented in Firefox, imo.

    So, with all of that said, and the fact that this brand new release seems to work fine installed over the top of the previous release (nothing seems broken), a rating of 4 it gets.

  953. 2 out of 5 stars
    horsecharles

    Reviewing 3.0.4 (Nov 12, 2008)

    Virtual_ManPL Nov 1, 2008
    Version: 3.0.3

    The BEST browser for me !!!
    Secure, fast, stable and powerfull with extensions !!!
    ________________________________________________

    Yah, right... see how slow, unstable & powerless this build(as most new builds) is vis a vis extensions not being compatible.

    Also, pray that an announcement re a total new redesign from the ground up for v 4 or 5... and perhaps a totally different new name... doesn't rear its ugly head.

    Rating:

    for personal use, if you can tolerate the constant redesigns & resulting incompatibilities-- 2.5

    for production / mission-critical: 1-- and that's being generous.

  954. 1 out of 5 stars
    BelgianWaffle

    Reviewing 2.0.0.18 (Nov 12, 2008)

    I would really prefer Mozilla putting in effort fixing holes and all the other problems in version 3....

  955. 5 out of 5 stars
    ubermann

    Reviewing 2.0.0.18 (Nov 12, 2008)

    Ahh i hope they continue v2 as v3 made me go over to Opera (found it much better. when you try it for 1 day or 2)
    I have had several computers and on everyone since the birth of V3 i get a bug where firefox is still running in the background after i closed it down.
    I have seen it on my brothers computer also.
    Its no small bug cuz its sitting in the background and eating ~50 meg ram and consuming alot of cpu time.
    I never ever had that on V2 and i dont use ANY addon or such for V3.
    But after trying opera it was like when i switch from explorer to firefox, it was so much easier to browse the web.
    Firefox dont even use the so called tabs when you start it.
    In opera you only use 1 window with tabs so its alot nicer to your RAM and it feels alot faster everything i do in it.

  956. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Nov 1, 2008)

    The BEST browser for me !!!
    Secure, fast, stable and powerfull with extensions !!!

  957. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 1 (Nov 1, 2008)

    The BEST browser for me !!!
    Secure, fast, stable and powerfull with extensions !!!

  958. 5 out of 5 stars
    Virtual_ManPL

    Reviewing 2.0.0.17 (Nov 1, 2008)

    The BEST browser form me !!!
    Secure, fast, stable and powerfull with extensions !!!

    But its time ppl to migrate on Fx 3

  959. 5 out of 5 stars
    alanpalmer

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 1 (Oct 16, 2008)

    Seems OK. I'll wait for the final, though.

  960. 5 out of 5 stars
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 1 (Oct 15, 2008)

    Wow!

  961. 5 out of 5 stars
    morganevans

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 1 (Oct 15, 2008)

    @camelon02: It's your mouse. Right click works fine for me.

    @mjm01010101: Stop whining about insignificant features like 3D tab switching - you don't have to use it Extensions are part of Firefox's life-blood, so please don't knock the effort of a hell of a lot of people. Again, you don't even have to use them.

  962. 3 out of 5 stars
    camelon02

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 1 (Oct 14, 2008)

    This is the first time I've had an obvious problem with a beta or alpha version of Firefox. Right-click would not do anything for me in the 3.1 Beta 1. I was able to use the 3.0.3 without any problem, but no matter what site I am on, my right click on the mouse and on my laptop touchpad would do nothing. Yikes!

  963. 4 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.1 Beta 1 (Oct 14, 2008)

    For the first time in a long time, I am marking down Firefox. This is the start of feature creep that is outside the realm of the original tenets of this browser: lean browsing, standards compliance, secure browsing.

    Somebody please fork FF and bring it back to its roots of browser ONLY, no extraneous extensions or add-ons or 3-d effects.

    Sad. :(

    morganevans (above) If Betanews wants its users to review software, that is what I will do. It is not whining when I am dissatisfied with the direction a product I love is taking.

  964. 1 out of 5 stars
    wdc

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Oct 1, 2008)

    stupid toolbars and buttons, staying with v2.xx

  965. 5 out of 5 stars
    rhy7s

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Oct 1, 2008)

    Steve1209 said:I had a Firefox ICON & an IE ICON on my desktop, I wanted to compare the two. When I clicked on my IE ICON it had been changed to open Firefox instead of the IE8 beta which had been working before.

    You sure that wasn't a url link? Firefox won't have replaced IE8, but it does give you the option of being your default browser. Re: the release, solid as usual, no complaints.

  966. 2 out of 5 stars
    rebradley

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 29, 2008)

    This is the first time I've ever had a problem with Firefox. The password manager is broken. You have to log on to passworded sites every time you restart firefox 3.03. Hope that 3.04 comes out soon and it fixes this. If not I may have to check out some alternatives.

  967. 1 out of 5 stars
    Steve1209

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 28, 2008)

    Hi rhy7s,

    NO it wasn't a URL, my IE8 ICON on my desktop was changed to open FF after I downloaded this version! I understand the default browser BUT why would FF change IE8 beta 2 desktop ICON to open FF, just to make sure I'm going to do this download again & make sure what happens, I'll update this again when I'm done with this reply!

    Steve

  968. 5 out of 5 stars
    ArKay74

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 27, 2008)

    Security fixes, nothing to review but nice to have I guess.

  969. 4 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 27, 2008)

    Couldn't download it either from here also. But went to Firefox's homepage to get it. Which is listed above right. Seems to be a small fix.

  970. 5 out of 5 stars
    mikeyx11

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 27, 2008)

    Great software. Nothing beats Firefox when used with extensions such as Adblock Plus, WOT, Piclens and Video Downloadhelper.

  971. 5 out of 5 stars
    Banquo

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 26, 2008)

    That was a quick release, but 3.0.2 was apparently broken. Changes: "Fixed a problem where users were unable to retrieve saved passwords or save new passwords."

  972. 5 out of 5 stars
    Genital.Joe

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 26, 2008)

    "Good alternative browser" bigmama? Alternative to what?
    Lovely review.

    This with AdBlock Plus, and R.I.P. extensions is pure safe surfing heaven. Nothing comes close. With the extensions and themes, what better alternatives are there?

  973. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 26, 2008)

    Moz blocking.

  974. 5 out of 5 stars
    spiked

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 26, 2008)

    This is currently declared beta, but I believe the directory path on the ftp site reflects the fact that this is a VERY minor fix to 3.0.2 and thus the beta will probably become a final release as-is, after a short sanity-check period. Firefox 3.0.3 fixes only one bug which unfortunately happened to be considered a show-stopper for some users of 3.0.2 (unable to retrieve saved passwords or save new passwords).

  975. 2 out of 5 stars
    bigmama

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 26, 2008)

    good alternative browser

  976. 5 out of 5 stars
    Andy Dean

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 26, 2008)

    Not a beta. It's under the releases section on their ftp site.

  977. 5 out of 5 stars
    LordSky

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 26, 2008)

    This is a beta1 release to fix the retrieve/storing password issue.

    http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0.3/releasenotes/

  978. 5 out of 5 stars
    Adrian79

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 26, 2008)

    wow that was quick!!

  979. 5 out of 5 stars
    catchpole

    Reviewing 3.0.3 (Sep 26, 2008)

    new update already? last one was about 2 days ago...weird. still best browser there is.

  980. 5 out of 5 stars
    ballyhairs

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 24, 2008)

    The king of browsers

  981. 5 out of 5 stars
    Somnambulator

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 24, 2008)

    i dont think it's a beta since it shows up on FF updater (gives an erorr that it cant DL)

  982. 5 out of 5 stars
    Orbitration

    Reviewing 2.0.0.17 (Sep 24, 2008)

    Personally, I do not like FF 3. I don't like the incompatiblity with my most used addons, I don't like the database bookmark system, and I don't like the location bar functions.
    Not to mention, I have a good 7Mb DSL service and a fairly fast computer, I noticed no speed differential in the two.

    I hope they keep FF2 around a lot longer, it does everything I need in a browser.

    Call me old fashioned, but I prefer XP Pro over Vista, too. Go figure.

  983. 5 out of 5 stars
    acey99

    Reviewing 2.0.0.17 (Sep 24, 2008)

    ok, as much as I love FF. I gotta know, why release more of the bug ridden 2.0 series, hasn't everybody been pointed to FF3 ?

    Note to the mozilla group:
    Kill FF < 3

    why,why why? :(

  984. 4 out of 5 stars
    Ryusennin

    Reviewing 2.0.0.17 (Sep 23, 2008)

    Security update.

    http://mozilla.com/en-US...x/2.0.0.17/releasenotes/

  985. 5 out of 5 stars
    dejavu

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 23, 2008)

    Excellent final release 3.0.2!

    ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0.2/win32/

    OR

    http://releases.mozilla....la.org/firefox/releases/

  986. 5 out of 5 stars
    ModderXManiac

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 23, 2008)

    http://www.mozilla.com/e...efox/3.0.2/releasenotes/

    It's a beta release people.

    This has undoubtedly with the help of my fellow geeks(not necessary the people on BN, some people here are positively mindless)all over the world became the greatest browser for those who want to make the web their own, to navigate in whatever way suits you.

    It has its quirks and a few little annoyances, but there is nothing better...Google Chrome, while faster, it will never measure up to this anytime soon.

  987. 5 out of 5 stars
    sjc001

    Reviewing 2.0.0.17 (Sep 23, 2008)

    Why is there still new version 2s of Firefox?

  988. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 23, 2008)

    Let's see.
    IE: every patch requires a reboot of the OS, interrupting work product and increasing my "TCO,"

    or firefox, where an install of a patch can take 5 seconds using -ms switch and I'm back up and running.

    Yeah, tough choice.

    As for BN releasing the file "early." 1. BN doesn't host it, they link directly to ftp.mozilla.com , and 2. BN just links to it when it is greenlit. The mozilla update pages are the last to get updated.

    ModderXManiac - check your link. See how it's not beta? Now you get it.

  989. 5 out of 5 stars
    arossetti

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 23, 2008)

    I have to agree at least in part with preinterpost on this one...though the file is from Mozilla, it is clearly a BETA build and should be relabeled as such. Great browser, though.

  990. 5 out of 5 stars
    jafo818

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 23, 2008)

    Awesome browser. I'll wait tete009's build though.

    preinterpost, you're an idiot. The file isn't being sent from BetaNews, it is sent directly from Mozilla's FTP site.

  991. 3 out of 5 stars
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 23, 2008)

    There's a lot to like about this browser, but there are a lot of things that aren't so great as well.

    First off - to get rid of that "Awesome Bar" junk, try this:

    Type this into the address field: about:config

    Change browser.urlbar.matchonlytyped = TRUE instead of FALSE

    If you still get some sites listed when you type in entries, try deleting the bookmarks off of your Bookmarks Toolbar. I think that's a bug of some kind and annoying as heck too. I only found out by accident.

    Now - the Past Modern theme is about the most space efficient and cool one ever, so that's good. Tab Mix Plus is another great thing to have installed.

    Thankfully, this 3.0.2 update doesn't seem to actually BREAK any extensions or themes, which is one of the most annoying things about this application.

    And I agree that the bookmark handling just does not feel intuitive.

    I like that you can have a bunch of tabs open and choose to "Bookmark All Tabs" so you can recall them as a group, and I really like the Bookmark Toolbar.

    But trying to organize all of those bookmarks can be a chore after a while. I really wish they would rework / rethink bookmark management. Fund some usability studies, get some ideas and come up with something that is more intuitive when dealing with bookmarks in bulk.

    I'd give this thing a 3.5 if that was an option, but it isn't and I just don't think it merits a rating of 4.

    There are too many quirks, rendering issues and niggling compatibility annoyances.

    Plus, it seems that I get more pop-up stuff in Firefox than in Maxthon 1.6.

    If you can be patient and spare the time to find the right extensions that will give you the functionality you need / want, then you should be good to go for the most part.

    But man, tracking some of those down can really be a pain, especially if they up and "Broke" the compatibility with some of those extensions when they did an upgrade to the browser.

    I do like the "Check spelling as I type" feature, but would really like to have them build in the ability to define and automatically recall the starting location and window size when starting the app.

    Firesizer is a cute little extension, but it doesn't allow you to define the starting location, and you need to manually pick from the list on the status bar.

    I'd rather that they just built the feature into the core program. I'd even like it if they would allow you to save various "layouts" that you can easily recall when needed. Sort of like how they have it setup in Free Commander.

    So, all that said, it's a nice option, but it's still in need of some serious streamlining, especially in the development process. Stop breaking our favorite themes and extensions when you issue a new update, ok?

    Lastly, they have GOT to do something about that urlclassifier3.sqlite file. That thing just gets HUGE. There has GOT to be a better way to handle the protection than creating a huge bloated file that goes under your "Documents and Settings" area.

    It's like the "pagefile.sys" thing - you don't want it included in your backup, so do us a favor and move it to the Program Files area so when we drag and drop our D&C folders to our external backup drives, we don't have to carry all that baggage with it. Thank you in advance, Mozilla.\

    If you don't want that big old file, I think I found a way to avoid it. No guarantees though, but here's the link:

    http://ychittaranjan.wor...qlite-woes-on-firefox-3/

    Enjoy

  992. 1 out of 5 stars
    preinterpost

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 23, 2008)

    The rating doesn't go for the program (doesn't make a difference to FF...) but to BN.

    You post this crap here while the internal FF update doesn't find it and the FF site does not mention it on the release notes link (neither do you post any release notes yourself). So you vomit this binary out here (as a site pick), which who the hell knows where you found it - as you did several times (some of which misleadingly calling a Beta a Release). This is ultra lame quality control.

    Folks - something as essential as a Browser (you prob do online banking with it and what not) you do NOT want to pull from BN. Take it from the official FF site or the inline update.

  993. 3 out of 5 stars
    bigmama

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 23, 2008)

    good but it's my 3rd choice.

  994. 4 out of 5 stars
    Diam0nd

    Reviewing 3.0.2 (Sep 23, 2008)

    Good browser. Definately better than IE. Still, not even close to Opera, imho.

  995. 5 out of 5 stars
    DoHickey

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 15, 2008)

    This thing is wickedly fast.
    What else can I say? Nothing.

    Great work folks.

  996. 3 out of 5 stars
    myboy

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Sep 13, 2008)

    Memory and CPU usage is crawling back up again. Choppy scrolling when there is a fixed background image. Firefox would freeze for a few seconds mid-scroll. Flash support is wonky in that it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't (the cure, Flash 10 beta, is worse than the disease). Also, there's a disturbing trend of software programs automatically installing Add-ons without the browser being physically open so I can deny them from installing in the first place. And even if I accidentally allowed it to be installed, why is the "Uninstall" button allowed to be greyed out (Java Quick Starter for example)? And finally, when you close Firefox, it still stays in the task manager until is SLOWLY releases the memory that it is using up.

    I don't know what's happening but there seems to be a regression. I liked the betas a bit more. This version seems slower and clunkier.

  997. 4 out of 5 stars
    Undesired Username

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 9, 2008)

    When I first saw the title of this post--"Mozilla Firefox (Shiretoko) for Windows 3.1", I kept thinking, "Why would they make a version of Firefox for Windows 3.1?" LOL

    I agree about how extensions and plugins are a mixed bag of evil. You really need them to make Firefox worth using, but dealing with all of them separately, and the compatibility/versioning issues, is a real pain.

    The saying "Too many cooks spoils the broth" is common in English as well. (There are variations of the saying, but the point remains the same.)

  998. 4 out of 5 stars
    tannenwheel

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 8, 2008)

    BruddaMan, while i agree that the internal version system of addons is a pain in the butt (because it categorically forces restriction of compatibility, where compatibility is actually given under the hood), you should know that this is easy to fix with the "nightly tester tools"-addon.

    i use firefox but i will always downrate it a little, because there are so many stupid things about it, that could be fixed so easily, if someone had a vision and authority. how do you translate "zu viele köche verderben den brei"?
    ah, yeah, google knows: too many cooks spoil the broader .. (lol, mash pap porridge whatever)

  999. 3 out of 5 stars
    BruddaMan

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 8, 2008)

    its not good that upgrades break extensions and themes and you have to wait for new updates and that sucks. extensions are good and you can choose what to put in and only use a features that you want or need and not have to settle for too many bloat features you dont need. but you need extensions to make it worth using.

  1000. 5 out of 5 stars
    godofthunder

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 8, 2008)

    2 browsers are GOD. OPERA & Firefox.

    The more they battle it out, the better and safer they get.

    @photonboy > > Be weary of CHROME. Do not use for your internet banking. READ THE EULA!

  1001. 5 out of 5 stars
    anomoly

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 7, 2008)

    Already this version is portable so I overwrote the folder and wow. FAST.

  1002. 5 out of 5 stars
    Ian C.

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 6, 2008)

    Had to update Tab Mix Plus to the latest development version. Other than that everything else went smooth. Another great alpha release.

  1003. 4 out of 5 stars
    wognum

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 6, 2008)

    For Windows 3.1

  1004. 5 out of 5 stars
    photonboy

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 6, 2008)

    No problems noted. Updating can sometimes break plugins because they may be linked to the version number.

    No Beta yet.
    The Beta was delayed apparently until October.

    Google Chrome.
    I'm now using Chrome. After reading how it was created I was very, very impressed. Things are split into separate processes which run independently. For example, one Tab has no bearing on another and a hung Javascript call won't hang the whole browser because processes run parallel/independently. (It needs more plugins and options but Google said they're concentrating on rock-solid stability firt.)

    I think Google Chrome is going to end up my main browser.

  1005. 5 out of 5 stars
    Ryusennin

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 5, 2008)

    3.1 alpha 2?

    Wait a sec... 3.1 beta 1 has been available for two weeks now.

  1006. 4 out of 5 stars
    Darkman00

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 5, 2008)

    I am using currently FireFox 3 (3.0.1 actually or something like that) when it comes to FireFox...

    As a regular user.. do you recommend me to switch to this Beta 3.1 (or whatever it is called) .. or just wait until it will become an official release from FireFox (FireFox 3.1 say)?

    Thanks :)

  1007. 5 out of 5 stars
    JeRrYFaR

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 5, 2008)

    So far so good.. Had to use Nightly Tester Tools to get my extensions working. I read posts where Mr. Tech worked, but I couldn't get it working without NTT. So far no crashes or issues I can see. Certainly seems faster too.

  1008. 5 out of 5 stars
    rseiler

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 5, 2008)

    AsianAngel, TraceMonkey is only in the nightly builds, not in Alpha 2.

  1009. 2 out of 5 stars
    SimSalabim

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 5, 2008)

    I used to use Firefox 2.

  1010. 5 out of 5 stars
    AsianAngel

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 5, 2008)

    I have been REALLY looking forward to this release with the TraceMonkey JavaScript rendering engine. ^__^ This should be a lot of fun to try out. ^__^

  1011. 2 out of 5 stars
    bigmama

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 5, 2008)

    i used to use opera

  1012. 5 out of 5 stars
    Scary Guy

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 2 (Sep 5, 2008)

    "Mozilla Firefox (Shiretoko) for Windows 3.1 (alpha 2)"

    You have no idea how funny that is to read in the title.

  1013. 4 out of 5 stars
    aszure

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Aug 31, 2008)

    I think that a browser its itself is a fairly insecure tool. Many things are sent plain text, browsers are susceptible to and aid in the distribution of spyware/malware. So to say, "well FF isnt secure" is just stating a fact. There would be more infections to opera if there were more opera users. That being said, FF3 is much better and faster than FF2. With a workaround, you can get FF2 extensions working fine. I have used it since its big ol release day, and never use IE. If I need to render something with IE, then I use the IE Tab for FF and problem solved.

  1014. 4 out of 5 stars
    tannenwheel

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Aug 17, 2008)

    its still an insecure browser like IE. you may loose your work, if you click on the following link, as you will have to restart (kill) the browser and dismiss the saved session.

    http://swampsupnostrils.teks.no/1.html

    opera has a "stop executing scipts"-checkbox on those dialoges which will create an endless loop otherwise, and prevent you from accessing the GUI/other tabs, the close button, the hotkeys.

    firefox has no good popupblocker. it will block either everything and you have to create thousand exeptions manually. or nothing. and without adblock its popup horror like in 1995 with IE 3

    i do use firefox btw. thats why it bothers me.

  1015. 1 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Aug 5, 2008)

    Major disappointment with this final release. The web page speed is good. But after that its all down hill. I hate the new url drop down menu screen. Which you can't seem to erase no matter what you do in the privacy settings. The bookmark management is a mess. I always like the original mozilla, than Seamonkey bookmark set up. Firefox 1.5 and 2 weren't great, but were manageable. This is terrible. Most of my plug in's didn't come over. I know i have read theres ways to get around that, but the point is, why should you have to. Like IE7, Firefox has sadly jumped the shark.

  1016. 5 out of 5 stars
    anomoly

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 29, 2008)

    Installed & uninstalled faster than any program in recent memory and wrote only one reg entry I think.. Overwrote my portable FF and all extensions and everything works fine. Apparently MrTech Toolkit really is a blessing for ff as shiretoko states the only addon I have that works of the 12 I use is sxipper and I don't see any difference other than the browser now has a japanese monster name.

  1017. 5 out of 5 stars
    asmithz

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 28, 2008)

    Shiretoko / Gecko 1.9.1 Alpha 1 introduces several new features:

    * Web standards improvements in the Gecko layout engine
    * Test API for the element
    * Support for using border images
    * Support for JavaScript query selectors
    * Several improvements to the Smart Location Bar
    * A new tab switching behavior

    Won't work enless I disable my firewall, but I do that anyway, so I am fine with it.

  1018. 5 out of 5 stars
    darthbeads

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 28, 2008)

    Sorry Adrian79 & TGB72 if you were too stupid to do a complete profile backup before installing an ALPHA program.

    In my experience, this alpha of 3.1 is fantastic. The new features are already well implemented, and the list of bugs is -- or seems to be -- relatively short.

  1019. 1 out of 5 stars
    Adrian79

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 28, 2008)

    thanks for the tip below dude, I had some issue with 3.0beta 2.. i was pissed!

    actually, still using 2.0.0.16

  1020. 1 out of 5 stars
    TGB72

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 28, 2008)

    This alpha version should be portable, it erased all my firefox profile including extensions and all the data of scrapbook, f**** cr*p.

  1021. 4 out of 5 stars
    Terry6v

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 28, 2008)

    Is this the same as the 3.01 that is installed from the browser update tool? Would like to know before I comment on it..

  1022. 4 out of 5 stars
    coover

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 28, 2008)

    I put this on my Windows 3.1 machine and it didn't work (SOB). Oh well, it works fairly well on my Vista machines.

  1023. 5 out of 5 stars
    burfadel

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 28, 2008)

    Thats exactly what I thought when I first saw it! Instead of calling it 'Firefox fox Windows 3.1', they should call it (and for that matter exery version across every platform) 'Firefox x.xx for [os]' in this case, 'Firefox 3.1 for Windows'.

    I was going to give it 4 for this naming error, but since Firefox would normally be rated a '6' :D I thought 5 would be more appropriate ;)

  1024. 5 out of 5 stars
    statm1

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 28, 2008)

    At first glance you might think that wouldn't you.. lol

  1025. 4 out of 5 stars
    alanpalmer

    Reviewing 3.1 Alpha 1 (Jul 28, 2008)

    For a moment, I thought that this was a version of FF that runs on the Windows 3.1 OS ... I wondered why anyone would have bothered. ;)

  1026. 3 out of 5 stars
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 25, 2008)

    Choosing a browser is a zero sum game. They all have their quirks and problems. This browser shows programs that are no longer on my system.

  1027. 3 out of 5 stars
    Mick Leong

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 23, 2008)

    Ever since ver 2+ firefox have been giving me problems with SVG graphics. It just plain refuse to display them when firefox 1.5 works beautifully.

  1028. 5 out of 5 stars
    cricri_pingouin

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 20, 2008)

    Works well for me, no complaints so far. I did have to modify some compatible version numbers in a couple of add-ons since 3.0, but everything runs well.

  1029. 4 out of 5 stars
    pwned32

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 19, 2008)

    in 3.0 adblock plus worked fine.. now it no longer works

  1030. 5 out of 5 stars
    Landsnes

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 19, 2008)

    Impressive!

    I find v3 of Firefox better and much faster than v2. It's refined and optimized!

    Highly recommended!

  1031. 1 out of 5 stars
    analphatester

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 18, 2008)

    if FIREFOX dont want we use it
    we dont use it
    rest in peace FIREFOX
    good bye

  1032. 5 out of 5 stars
    Ryusennin

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 17, 2008)

    @Alan

    http://tmp.garyr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7031

  1033. 5 out of 5 stars
    Joco

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 17, 2008)

    Installed over 2.0.16, works perfectly. Bookmarks, saved login/pwd are all preserved. No problem either regarding AdBlock Plus plugin. May be Flash player is broken but I think I can sort that out later. I like better the GUI of v3 I think I'll stay with it for good.

  1034. 5 out of 5 stars
    alanpalmer

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 17, 2008)

    It works excellently. @Adrian79: that was a beta, this is version 3.01. I shouldn't think you'll lose any bookmarks this time.

    I delayed for a while because almost no extensions would work with any of the early betas I tried, so I went back to version 2. If Tab Mix Plus gets updated soon I'll be a happy bunny; all the other extensions I use work fine.

  1035. 5 out of 5 stars
    osric

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 17, 2008)

    hedskes: As stated in the Security Advisory, the "feature" that you require has been removed from this version onwards to avoid a security vulnerability. As a workaround, you may add those websites as your homepages and set Firefox to show the homepages when it loads.

  1036. 5 out of 5 stars
    Adrian79

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 17, 2008)

    i'm sticking with 2.0 for now, last time i checked a beta out for 3.0 i lost all my bookmarks!!!

  1037. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 17, 2008)

    Firefox 3.0.1 fixed several issues found in Firefox 3.

    * Fixed several security issues.
    * Fixed several stability issues.
    * Fixed an issue where the phishing and malware database did not update on first launch.
    * Under certain circumstances, Firefox 3.0 did not properly save the SSL certificate exceptions list.
    * Updated the internal Public Suffix list.
    * In certain cases, installing Firefox 2 in the same directory in which Firefox 3 has been installed resulted in Firefox 2 being unstable. This issue was fixed as part of Firefox 2.0.0.15.
    * Fixed an issue where, when printing a selected region of content from the middle of a page, some of the output was missing (bug 433373).
    * Fixed a Linux issues where, for users on a PPP connection (dialup or DSL) Firefox always started in "Offline" mode (bug 424626).

  1038. 5 out of 5 stars
    hedskes

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jul 16, 2008)

    I used to start Firefox with a batch file containing this:

    START /MAX firefox "http://mozilla.com/|http://spreadfirefox. com/|http://getfirefox.com/|http://mozilla.org/"

    This worked fine until Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1.0.
    Now the URL is not splitted anymore by the pipe (|), so instead of opening Firefox with multiple tabs I now only get a single tab with an error message.

    I think this has something to do with:
    http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2008/ mfsa2008-35.html

    How can I start Firefox from the commandline with multiple tabs using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1.0?

  1039. 5 out of 5 stars
    joeshmoe7

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jul 16, 2008)

    Works great, just installed it over 3.0, no problem with anything.

    EDIT: umm well it says i reviewed 3.0 - that's odd, this is for 3.0.1 :)

  1040. 5 out of 5 stars
    GrailKnight

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 16, 2008)

    Working fine here and no high memory usage.
    68 extensions installed and stable as can be.

    Just a 5 no more no less.

  1041. 5 out of 5 stars
    turistas

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 16, 2008)

    i just tried to open 5 tabs in firefox 3.01 and opera 9.5. both used about 100mb of ram, i like firefox better;)

  1042. 5 out of 5 stars
    darthbeads

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 16, 2008)

    Paul Skinner said:

    "It gets 2 for being better than IE and 1 for having Firebug, but loses 2 for using so much memory when it isn't necessary."

    Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but isn't doesn't 2 plus 1 minus 2 equal 1?

    2+1-2=1.

    Yep. Pretty sure it does.

    Then why did you rate it a 3?

  1043. 5 out of 5 stars
    Cris3

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 16, 2008)

    Firefox uses less memory then any of the other major browsers. Here an article comparing them:

    http://www.infoworld.com...ns_memory_battle_1.html

    Firefox rocks...!

  1044. 3 out of 5 stars
    Paul Skinner

    Reviewing 3.0.1 (Jul 16, 2008)

    It gets 2 for being better than IE and 1 for having Firebug, but loses 2 for using so much memory when it isn't necessary.

    *Edit* For smartarse above:

    2+1 = 3
    5 (max score) -3 = 2

    I was refering to where the other two points out of the 5 went.

  1045. 5 out of 5 stars
    davidtb

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 16, 2008)

    I thought it worth mentioning that anyone can participate by downloading Gran Paradiso (FF3) or Bon Echo (FF2), get nightly builds, and be a part of the project.

  1046. 5 out of 5 stars
    mytake4this

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 16, 2008)

    FF3 works fine for me, with one exception. It can lose the sub folders in bookmarks. I have Opera, so I exported as HTML, all the bookmarks to a folder on Windows, then Imported the bookmarks and moved them to tool bar bookmarks. I work off the toolbar links.Once I got the bookmarks working, everything is fine. And there is Ad Block for FF3. That said, FF2 is also excellent. Only lagging browser, in my view, is the IE6 & 7.

  1047. 5 out of 5 stars
    jgra

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    IhavehadnoprovlemswithFF3,sometimesitgetsstuckwhen
    tomanytavsareopenvutheysoislife...

    IcantwaitforFireFox7

  1048. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    Only issue I had with FF3 was adblock isn't supported (and for some reason the extension blocker doesn't block it.) I upgraded to adblock + and no issues since.

    FF3 is far more stable for me otherwise.

  1049. 5 out of 5 stars
    DonGato

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jul 15, 2008)

    A really good release of Firefox. It's outstanding the speed increase in rendering pages and handling multiple tabs (I mean more than 20). Also much more stable than version 2, at least for me.

    The "awesome bar" is really useful. At first I didn't like it much but after a couple of days I wouldn't know what to do with out it.

    By this time Extension/Theme support is quite alright. Major extensions and themes are already being supported.

    And I do some custom tuning on userChrome to reduce the bookmarks menu. If you want to reduce it then just add these lines to userChrome.css:

    /* Remove Bookmarks menu unused items */
    #subscribeToPageMenuitem,
    #bookmarksMenuPopup menuseparator[builder="start"],
    #bookmarksMenuPopup menu[label="Recently Bookmarked"],
    #bookmarksMenuPopup menuitem[command="Browser:BookmarkAllTabs"] { display: none !important; }

  1050. 5 out of 5 stars
    rburly

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    I had so many problems with FF3 that I had to drop back to FF2. Fortunately Mozilla has continued with these last two upgrades. The best browser stays the best. FF3 just came out too early.

  1051. 4 out of 5 stars
    dejavu

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    I don't use FF3 yet. Firefox 3=Room Full Of Bugs!

  1052. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    security fix... great for those who wanna wait a bit before goin to 3.0

  1053. 2 out of 5 stars
    us3r

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    It's weird. Why do they still support version 2.0 ? There wasn't any updates for months because of version 3.0 development. And now AFTER official Firefox 3.0 relese they go back to version 2.0 instead of making necessary fixes and improvements for version 3.0.

  1054. 3 out of 5 stars
    bigmama

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    good

  1055. 5 out of 5 stars
    anonymous_user

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    3.0 is the final version but version 2 is still being supported. 2.0.0.16 is just security fixes.

  1056. 5 out of 5 stars
    Adrian79

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    home page shows version 3.0 as final?!?

  1057. 5 out of 5 stars
    ballyhairs

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    Walmart!

  1058. 1 out of 5 stars
    pjafrombbay

    Reviewing 2.0.0.16 (Jul 15, 2008)

    I checked the Mozilla website; there DOES NOT seem to be a version 2.0.0.16 of Firefox!

    Where does this one come from?

  1059. 3 out of 5 stars
    bigspud

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jul 8, 2008)

    oink, oink, the memory hog is back.
    153megson ff3, same site on ie is 86megs.

  1060. 1 out of 5 stars
    analphatester

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 5, 2008)

    trojan server
    access localhost any
    full file system
    and make open all ports for hackers

  1061. 5 out of 5 stars
    Joco

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 2, 2008)

    After installing, the about screen will show up and there is a link to the release notes: http://www.mozilla.org/p...es.html#firefox2.0.0.15

  1062. 5 out of 5 stars
    pforbes

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 2, 2008)

    Excellent. Thank you for keeping version 2. It allows me using the same explorer on dual boot XP-98 for both OS.
    BTW I use 98 for old programs and, more important than that, as an excellent substitute for the recovery console: in case of need you only have to start with 98, delete XP and copy-paste a previous copy preserved on an external HD, which means restoring XP from scratch in less than 5 minutes. No need of killing Win98 at all!.

  1063. 2 out of 5 stars
    Mick Leong

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jul 2, 2008)

    Yes its overrated. There are more problems with v3 compared to v2x.

    It cannot save some web pages now as it keep waiting to grab photobucket linkes images etc. It should just ignore timeout files and continue to save the rest. Saving web pages now uses the download file control to save and causes current file transfer to abort in some situations when trying to save some "badly designed" web pages or pages that firefox cannot handle.

    They have now grabbed 10 (7 rows+2 line) rows of my bookmark dropdown list. Space is a premium on widescreen laptops!

    It has lost the ability to set min font size and therefore cannot be used to view some sites that uses very very small fonts. Why do they keep changing the plugin interface? Why does every version causes current plugins to fail?

    I am gonna back to v2....

  1064. 5 out of 5 stars
    Trgiaol

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 1, 2008)

    I'm not a big fan of Firefox 3, glad to see they're still updating 2

  1065. 2 out of 5 stars
    RedBoar

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jul 1, 2008)

    Slow, overrated and incompatible with Firefox add-ins, what a waste of a release.

  1066. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 1, 2008)

    im guessing this is just a bug-fix release but cant someone post a changelog?

  1067. 4 out of 5 stars
    cladeas

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 1, 2008)

    if you're still using Win98SE, you need to KILL YOURSELF.

  1068. 5 out of 5 stars
    christoofar

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 1, 2008)

    Glad to see they are still updating v2 for the time being.
    My experience w/ v3 so far , has been less than optimum

  1069. 5 out of 5 stars
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 1, 2008)

    1. Because they don't like the loss of some extensions. (For instance adblock (the first one) doesn't work on V3 and some people don't want to change extensions.)
    2. Because they aren't ready for it.
    3. Because they like how V2 works.

    My brother refuses to upgrade past 1.5 because of visual changes and the fact that Control+W no longer closes the browser (it closes tabs.)

  1070. 5 out of 5 stars
    SteveJohnSteele

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 1, 2008)

    odd!

    I was surprised to see a new version of Firefox 2.

    Why would people use 2.0.0.15 when 3.0 was released a short time ago?!

    Still a very good browser.

  1071. 5 out of 5 stars
    1uk3

    Reviewing 2.0.0.15 (Jul 1, 2008)

    etalmar: The link was for Firefox 3 and was then changed back to Firefox 2 - that's why I wrote my comments for FF3 here.

  1072. 4 out of 5 stars
    Xmetalfanx

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jul 1, 2008)

    Despite what some have said, I have only had some minor problems with Firefox 3 .. mainly having to take a few seconds to update an addon or two... right now out of the @50 addons I use to use all the time with 2.x ... only "MAF" doesn't work with version 3.

    Some also say, that sites do not display right ... really that is the webmaster's problem. I for instance, try to make my site exact in all (recent) browsers .. i really dislike seeing web developers write sites that are "IE only" so if you use Opera or Firefox, the display is all off.... if your really unsure of 3. ... Stick with 2.0.14 ... or get Version 3 and then go get "Firefox 2.0.14 Portable" (thats what I use when i need to save a page with "MAF" :D

  1073. 4 out of 5 stars
    paulm84

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jun 25, 2008)

    for me it needs work still freezes and lot of themes dont' work on 3.0 yet

    it's fast and has a lot of great features but i think i will wait for a few more updates before i give it a solid test run

  1074. 1 out of 5 stars
    Mastertech

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jun 22, 2008)

    Wow, still does not support web standards (fails Acid3) and is highly insecure:

    http://secunia.com/advisories/30761/

    What an unbelievable security joke. Get the facts:

    www.FirefoxMyths.com

  1075. 3 out of 5 stars
    glassdesigns

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jun 21, 2008)

    I love this browser for the way you can customize it. I do however take exception with the high memory usage. I'm seeing at least a 10% increase in memory usage from the previous 2.xxxx release. Considering it is being advertised as improving memory usage I am very disappointed. I am also not seeing any speed improvement. Maybe your tests can show better numbers but to the human eye they can't be noticed so I don't count that as an improvement. You can always blame it on addons but I am using the same ones in both versions so that is not an excuse. Speed and memory usage are not improved in this release in the real world. I don't care what your lab results are. Give us a truly lean fast browser. That is what you promised. You haven't delivered.

    Follow up:
    To be as fair as possible I tested this on a fresh install of Windows. After doing this I still see no difference in performance from my previous review. Actually now after running it for almost a week it has crashed on me 8 times. I don't think I ever had version 2 crash on me that many times ever. I fail to see what all the excitement is about with this version. I would like to know what all this faster hype is based on. I am raising my rating to 3 just because I believe Mozilla should get some credit for such a successful advertising campaign. They certainly have brainwashed the public on what they have delivered here.

  1076. 5 out of 5 stars
    ballyhairs

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jun 21, 2008)

    The best just got even better, Unbelievable how good this browser is, time to donate I guess

  1077. 2 out of 5 stars
    Orbitration

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jun 20, 2008)

    Firefox 3 is a loser for me. Pages won't load, login pages won't load, click on links, they go nowhere.

    I'd already about had it with the new 'improved' location bar, and I cannot stand the new interface with it's double lines, listing of my own freaking bookmarks... I can search my OWN bookmarks, thanks, without them constantly showing in the 'history' dropdown.

    I unistalled 3 just now, went back to 2.014, and EVERYTHING works again. I can login to my secure sites like before, blah blah.

    Guess I'll just wait for 3.5 or something, cuz' this ain't gettin' it.

  1078. 1 out of 5 stars
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jun 20, 2008)

    Major disappointment with this final release. The web page speed is good. But after that its all down hill. I hate the new url drop down menu screen. Which you can't seem to erase no matter what you do in the privacy settings. The bookmark management is a mess. I always like the original mozilla, than Seamonkey bookmark set up. Firefox 1.5 and 2 weren't great, but were manageable. This is terrible. Most of my plug in's didn't come over. I know i have read theres ways to get around that, but the point is, why should you have to. My one google plug it says thats it can't install it because the site doesn't have a secure status. ITS FRIGGEN GOOGLE. You must be kidding me. Like IE7, Firefox has sadly jumped the shark.

  1079. 2 out of 5 stars
    Flebbo

    Reviewing 3.0 (Jun 20, 2008)

    There must be something really wrong with this version. CPU usage is really high and sometimes it goes up to 99% and freezes...
    I never had this problem with the former release. Please fix this!

  1080. 4 out of 5 stars
    etalmar

    Reviewing 2.0.0.14 (Jun 20, 2008)

    Before I begin my review, I would like to say to reviewers "mackley", "1uk3" and "revparadigm" - if you carefully read the title of this browser review, your comments are supposed to pertain to Firefox version *2* - not Firefox version 3.

    Now that we know what browser we are actually discussing,
    I have been using Firefox 2 on a daily basis as my primary browser for a little over 7 months now and I have grown to like it very much, especially the add-ons plugins that you can choose from, which I feel is the main selling point of using Firefox.

    As far as more secure, less secure, secure enough, that point can always be debated ad infinitum, so I am leaving it alone. I have read far too much about that to date. ALL browsers have security issues of varying kinds - enough said.

    The main reasons why I am rating Firefox 2 a "4" and not a 5 is due to 2 things - poorly designed scrollbar functionality and mediocre right-click options for revising bookmarks. Neither of these features work as well as in IE 6. Now one would think that those features would be so basic and rudimentary that Mozilla would have designed them right the first time, but that is not the case, not even with current version 2.0.0.14.

    Firefox 2 is a very good browser, especially for my aging Win98SE OS, but it still has a lot of important improvements to make in order to convince me to stop using IE 6 for good.