# Firefox Quantum



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

Firefox just automatically updated overnight to Firefox Quantum....

It would have been nice if it asked me first, or gave me the option to keep the old version....

Or warned me ahead of time, and I would have disabled automatic updates until all the bugs were worked out....

The annoying thing is that all of my add-ons are gone now, and I can't get them back because they are not compatible with Quantum....

This is more than a little bit important because my password program is now gone....

Thankfully, it is available on Google Chrome or I would have been screwed....

I still don't know why it updated to a beta version when it doesn't offically launch in stable form for another month....

Not happy....


----------



## CloudChaser (Nov 7, 2013)

This just reaffirms my plans. Never turn off the laptop, never close firefox.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

That is one thing with Firefox. You have to turn off the automatic updates if you don't want any changes. I usually just let it go because most of my add ons are not that big a deal to me. There is a way (I think) to disable the compatibility check but I don't remember it.

They are constantly updating Firefox. It's annoying.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Aug 10, 2014)

Firefox has been rather unpleasant lately because of some changes they are doing. I'm not sure what Quantum is, but their facebook page said it's supposed to be considerably faster. 
Usually you can disable automatic updates in the options.

Since version 57.0 they are moving to WebExtentions addons, so all the old addons are becoming unusable.
Most important of them, at least for me, are TabmixPlus and Firebug. I can't live without them. The thing with Firefox addons is they are community contributed, so people just don't have the time to completely re-write them to be compatible with WebExtentions. So they are becoming unsupported one after another. It's really sad.
I'm statying at Firefox 53.0 until this migration is done. And if my addons aren't ported to newer version I'll just stick with 53.0 until it becomes unusable. Then I'm going to Opera.
Won't even touch Chrome.


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

Quantum doesn't officially launch to a stable version for another month....

Why would they automatically update to a beta version?

Did anyone else using Firefox automatically update to Quantum today?

My friend was using my computer last night, at first I thought he did something....

But Firefox is in the news today so I guess it was just a coincidence....

The thing that annoys me is that they did not ensure that addons would work with this new version....

I know its up to the addon developers but Firefox most popular ones are no longer working on this new version....

Yes, they will probably be fixed soon....

But don't update to a beta version, and make sure that your most important extensions will work from day one....

That is unless my friend inadvertently caused the update....

The only program that I have automatic updates disabled on is my version of utorrent....


----------



## Arbre (Mar 9, 2014)

I was reading about Firefox Quantum the other day. I want to try it to see how much better/faster it is, but I'm currently using Firefox 55. Extensions won't be working on it though? That would be very inconvenient.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*

Wait... what?

Are you saying your Firefox application got randomly updated to beta without you actually installing it?

That doesn't just "happen". Firefox 57 release comes out in November. We're supposedly getting 56 today.

57 will break all add-ons that are not WebExtensions. If the devs for those add-ons (now marked LEGACY) haven't ported them, their functionality will cease.

Mozilla hasn't done such a good job with letting people know... aside from the hints here and there.

The only way you received "Quantum" Firefox now is because you already had Firefox Beta on your machine.

I advise you check the release schedule for further input.

EDIT:
Please note that Firefox Quantum relates directly to Firefox 57. They're just calling it that now... it was the name of the project, but now that it's hit Beta, it's being dubbed something special.

Also note that Firefox release is not the same as Firefox Beta. I advise you verify what channel you're using via About Firefox.


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

I woke up this morning and am now using a different Firefox....


I didn't manually download or request any updates....


I am now using Firefox Quantum 57.0b3


And yes the add-ons are gone, more precisely disabled and listed under 'Legacy extensions'....


Only about a quarter of the top rated and most popular add-ons are compatible with Firefox 57....


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

I manually downloaded Firefox 56....

All of my add-ons are back and functioning....

My bookmarks are now on the left side of the screen instead of the right which is super annoying....

But other than that, back to normal....


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



WinterDave said:


> I woke up this morning and am now using a different Firefox....
> 
> I didn't manually download or request any updates....
> 
> ...


That's not normal behavior. I'll check in a bit to see if there's a bug for that; but as far as I'm concerned, if you didn't manually update it, there is no way Firefox itself would switch to a different channel/version all of the sudden. The only exception in this case is for Beta as it's being upgraded to Quantum A.K.A. FF57. This would require, however, that you had Beta installed to begin with.

The only logical assumption is either you already had Beta on your machine and didn't notice until now or someone accessed your computer and messed with it.

Are you absolutely sure you didn't have Firefox Beta installed instead of regular Firefox?



WinterDave said:


> I manually downloaded Firefox 56....
> 
> All of my add-ons are back and functioning....
> 
> ...


Typically, it's been noted that downgrading from a certain channel to another might cause some issues (e.g. Beta to Regular Firefox).

Whether or not that's the cause of what you're seeing now is uncertain. I'm positive there's a way to get that (the bookmarks) back to where you had it before, however.

32-bit is suggested to maintain comparability with certain plugins, but I don't foresee that being valid in the future. 32-bit also has a memory cap with respect to how many tabs the program can have open.

If you use a lot of tabs when browsing, I'd suggest using 64-bit (which requires reinstalling).

Otherwise, you shouldn't notice much difference yet. Once Firefox Quantum comes around in November, you'll have no choice but to use alternative add-ons or switch to Firefox ESR which will support legacy add-ons for a period of time until it too gets revamped with Quantum.

EDIT:
If I'm not mistaken, moving forward with Quantum will only allow 64-bit versions of Firefox. So, when you saw "64-bit" before, that was normal.

Mozilla has made notice that they're going to eventually move everyone to 64-bit somehow through an update. That alone shouldn't have affected you in the way it did, however.

I'll get back to you unless someone else does..


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

Thanks, I uninstalled the 32 bit version and went to a 64 bit version....


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

Oh crap! I just went to check which version of Firefox I have and it downloaded an update and now if I close/restart the browser it's going to do something! 

Somebody please tell me it's not going to break! I'm so sick of this crap happening. I don't want some stupid beta junk that doesn't work!


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

Mine seems like a unique case, you just got updated to Firefox 56.0 which came out today and works with no problems....

I somehow got updated to 57.3 beta which is not supposed to be launched for another month....


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



tehuti88 said:


> Oh crap! I just went to check which version of Firefox I have and it downloaded an update and now if I close/restart the browser it's going to do something!
> 
> Somebody please tell me it's not going to break! I'm so sick of this crap happening. I don't want some stupid beta junk that doesn't work!


Your bookmarks/history and add-ons should still be there.

The update you're receiving is most likely for Firefox 56. I just got an update today for it.

Don't worry. :grin2:


----------



## goldenratio (Sep 21, 2017)

That's why I *always* disable automatic updates and allow only manual checking and downloading of updates for any software owned by big companies, open source or not. They can't be always trusted to be in our best interests.

That said, it's fairly easy to revert to an older version of Firefox. Mozilla has an archive of previous Firefox versions for Windows, Mac, and Linux so you can revert if needed. https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

And tehuti88, if you're concerned about losing anything, create a copy of your current Firefox profile folders before closing your browser and restarting. All they did was download a package to your computer. As soon as you restart the browser, the package will open and rewrite files in your Firefox directories.

In Windows, there are two profile locations you'll have to copy. In Mac, I think it's just one.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

@*goldenratio*

It is often suggested not to do that as you leave yourself vulnerable to unpatched security issues.

Whether or not that will affect you in the near future is debatable, but it is also worth mentioning that add-ons will likely cease receiving updates after a time as well.

This means they too are prone to more vulnerabilities and therefore rendered less effective depending on their purpose.

If you have the relative means to assure that you won't get affected by anything while on the web (e.g. security add-ons), you can be reasonably assured that you won't get infected with malware.

It doesn't eliminate it entirely, but nothing is perfect.

If you really want to avoid the Quantum update for a while longer, I'd much rather suggest using Firefox ESR which will still support legacy add-ons as well as receive security updates.


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

Guess I have ticked that I don´t want any automatic updates when downloading Firefox recently. They were only pain in the *** in the past.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

@WinterDave

From what I can tell, and based on what I've seen here and here, I can only assume that you somehow unknowingly "upgraded" to Beta at some point earlier where it eventually updated Firefox to Quantum as it did for everyone else using Firefox Beta. In your case, it did that today all at once. The reason you saw the specific minor update was probably because it depended on the major update. You received both at the same time apparently.

The Beta version you mentioned earlier was released on the 26th of this month--which happens to be the same day Quantum was released for Beta. It was most likely a minor update, but it was still under Quantum. The only way the updates were delayed on your system is if you didn't use Firefox until today or something else prevented it from doing so.

This suggests that you could have been on Beta this entire time but only received the major Quantum update today. This is also a possibility depending on how they distributed the update as well as your update settings at the time. However, assuming that you normally allow updates, I find it unlikely the major Quantum update got delayed like that. It is possible, however, that the update reached you yesterday, but only got applied this morning. Again, this largely depends on how often you use Firefox. I'm not too knowledgeable on their update distribution process, and perhaps someone else can fill in on that, but I have seen occasions where certain updates are delayed for some people. A friend of mine received Firefox 55 a day later than I had received it and we hadn't the darndest clue why.

Regrettably, I cannot find information suggesting a bug that could cause what you've said has happened.

I'm not an expert on this stuff, but knowing what I know, I can only assume that somehow your Firefox got "upgraded" to Beta via installation or you've had Beta all this time but updates didn't get to you.

This may not be what you wanted to hear, but from my understanding, Firefox cannot upgrade to Beta without some sort of user intervention.

Upon consideration that your Firefox did in fact upgrade to Beta somehow (on its own), that would prove a most damning flaw.


----------



## Maslow (Dec 24, 2003)




----------



## goldenratio (Sep 21, 2017)

@That Random Guy

What you say makes sense from a security standpoint (and there are other ways to protect yourself than automatic updates, of course). But it's important to consider other standpoints carefully, considering the pros and cons, before updating.

Some interesting computer-related news, meanwhile, before updating your browser :

https://forum.manjaro.org/t/w3c-rej...yan-lunduke-everybody-should-watch-this/31395

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/google-will-survive-sesta-your-startup-might-not

https://www.reddit.com/r/netneutrality/

That's why making an educated decision on things like automatic updates, whether it be browser or OS, by first being aware of other things, is important. You never know if an update will take away a lot of your personal freedom / customability.

Firefox Australis did that at first. It took away a lot of customability that I liked, and Mozilla didn't particularly care for those users who felt the same way I did. The only way to do that was through an add-on called Classic Theme Restorer. It will not continue into Firefox 57 and beyond.

So, as you see, I have good reason for not setting things to automatic update. Who knows, DRM/EME may no longer be optional and will be forced in future browser updates. Other unwanted things, even worse than that, could also be implemented.

I'll wait to see what others say about Web Extensions before updating to Firefox 57 and beyond, regardless of any security vulnerabilities of not updating.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

@*goldenratio*

You're preaching to the choir (I mean that in a good way; read on...).

It is generally a wise decision to make certain of compliance with regard to the requirements and needs so mandated by the party using the thing, but I'd like to think they have good reason for distributing the updates.

Incidentally, I couldn't agree with you more with regard to customization. The old add-on environment allowed so much greater reach with respect to what it could touch within the browser itself.

I actually use CTR myself and only found out about its cut-off about 6-months ago. I was devastated, to be honest. I even tested Pale Moon for a while, which is basically a fork of Firefox pre-Australis.

I honestly detest Australis as much as the next guy, and the new photon UI doesn't seem to drift that far off from it. I do like the square tabs, however. It appears they're making _some_ attempt to bring back classic implementations with regard to UI.

To alleviate some frustration, I direct you to a page dedicated to some UI tweaks that are possible on 57+-courtesy of the creator for CTR himself (God bless him).

With regard to privacy, however, the only thing I can say is to use the right add-ons. Many privacy-centric and security-centric add-ons will be ported to WE, which will work on 57+. Firefox is arguably the only browser out there that gives a damn about privacy. Opera coming in a close second, from my perspective. I apologize for the language.

I've literally vouched for CTR in just about every place I could think of and I failed to get through to them. You might actually see my posts on certain blog posts and YouTube videos hosted by Mozilla themselves...

In the end, I can relate that certain change isn't good. I feel that Mozilla could've gone a different way with this-and they've certainly damned a lot of creators in the process of this change, but I can also agree with their reasoning/justification behind the change.

I don't agree with their ending implementation, and I certainly don't understand why they're limiting customization to the extent that they are, but we cannot stop the change.

Whether we like it or not, it is coming. Without CTR, we will have to resort to userChrome.css for as long as they let us.

Until the time comes to give it up, I sincerely suggest switching to Firefox ESR. You can still use CTR there and it will support all the legacy add-ons. The bonus is you get security updates long after 57 comes around.

Ride out the wave and use the time granted by that endeavor to make sure it's worth it. By the time Quantum reaches ESR, you should have enough insight and perspective to make the jump.

Regardless of the inconvenience their decision has made, I cannot recommend the use of unsupported/outdated versions of software.

Best be to 'ya,

T.R.G.


----------



## goldenratio (Sep 21, 2017)

@That Random Guy

Thanks for your well written post. You're preaching to the choir too (in a good way too)... 

Most of what you're saying (including ALL of your first post to me) I already knew.

The square tabs are one thing I liked about pre-Australis Firefox, and one reason I started using CTR. It's great to see that Firefox 57+ has the capability to do that, in addition to other customizations. That's new info to me, because I haven't really read up on it in a while.



That Random Guy said:


> Whether we like it or not, it is coming. Without CTR, we will have to resort to userChrome.css for as long as they let us.
> 
> Until the time comes to give it up, I sincerely suggest switching to Firefox ESR. You can still use CTR there and it will support all the legacy add-ons. The bonus is you get security updates long after 57 comes around.


Yeah, technology changes over time and clearly we'll have to give up some things eventually. I know you're right about that. Thanks for the suggestion.

I know what you mean about Mozilla. At least you tried to vouch for CTR anyway. I'd still be wary of Firefox future updates and do them manually if I were you, though.


----------



## goldenratio (Sep 21, 2017)

Fyi @That Random Guy, I made several edits to the above post.

My earlier words didn't come out as friendly as I intended. Oh well. That happens to me once in a while when I'm tired. Sorry about that.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*

@goldenratio

Think nothing of it!

Valid points were made that I forgot to consider.

In my experience, I've had more things fixed when I've applied updates, but it goes without saying that the possibility of those updates breaking something or introducing a new vulnerability is always present.

It's kind of like cat and mouse, if I put that correctly.

I suppose it's just become natural for me to give the benefit of the doubt to open source projects! :grin2:

Regards,

T.R.G.


----------



## forgetmylife (Oct 1, 2011)

have fun when they start filtering your search results deciding for you what is and isn't fake news...


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



forgetmylife said:


> have fun when they start filtering your search results deciding for you what is and isn't fake news...


:haha


----------



## TheInvisibleHand (Sep 5, 2015)

Its time to man up and start using Opera.


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

That's what you get for using a ****ty browser from a ****ty company. Take it from an old web developer who's used all of the browsers and had to write code for them... stick with Chrome and you'll be much happier, and so will web developers. Then they will make better web sites and everyone will be happier.


----------



## Maslow (Dec 24, 2003)

finallyclosed said:


> That's what you get for using a ****ty browser from a ****ty company. Take it from an old web developer who's used all of the browsers and had to write code for them... stick with Chrome and you'll be much happier, and so will web developers. Then they will make better web sites and everyone will be happier.


Yeah, I'm satisfied with Chrome. I'd prefer to use an open source browser, but Chrome has some good developer tools and I can use URLs like *somesite.localhost* for websites that I'm working on. Can't do that with Firefox.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



TheInvisibleHand said:


> Its time to *man up* and start using Opera.


:int

Is there something in particular about Opera that pulls you in? Something that other browsers presumably don't have?

I'm curious.


----------



## TheInvisibleHand (Sep 5, 2015)

That Random Guy said:


> :int
> 
> Is there something in particular about Opera that pulls you in? Something that other browsers presumably don't have?
> 
> I'm curious.


When i use Chrome or FireFox my laptop temperature goes to 45- 50 C. When i use Opera it stays around 38-42.


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

TheInvisibleHand said:


> When i use Chrome or FireFox my laptop temperature goes to 45- 50 C. When i use Opera it stays around 38-42.


That's cause Opera is for noobs.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



finallyclosed said:


> That's what you get for using a ****ty browser from a ****ty company. Take it from an old web developer who's used all of the browsers and had to write code for them... stick with Chrome and you'll be much happier, and so will web developers. Then they will make better web sites and everyone will be happier.


Interesting. Who did you have to write code for?

Firefox has undoubtedly had its ups and downs, but It's been better recently. IMO, it's one of the best for privacy (if you know how to use it). Others might suggest TOR, however, which is technically still based off of Firefox code.

I sincerely doubt this will have any affect on web sites getting "better", however. Rendering is handled and matched nearly the same by all popular browsers--Microsoft's being the one exception.

The mind boggles as to why people still bother to use IE. Dues go to the developers for Edge, but it just doesn't cut it for me after using Firefox for years.

Anyway, that's my two-cents... :grin2:


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

Well, mine updated to 56 and seems to be okay so far. I hear "new version" and my mind automatically goes to Windows 10 Creators Update and I freak out. :afr

Weirdly, when I loaded Firefox the other day, it had made a few changes to the icons on my toolbar (some sort of screenshot thing?...I use the one that came with Windows, thank you very much :con ), and I had to change those back, but that was before this update. So I don't know what that was.

I've had some crap luck with Chrome on my laptop. Didn't work for some reason and I'm too tech illiterate/easily frustrated to bother figuring out why. I can't use Flash in Firefox and I have to avoid skins/themes, but aside from that it's been okay so far.

Anyway...freakout over. :smile2:


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



TheInvisibleHand said:


> When i use Chrome or FireFox my laptop temperature goes to 45- 50 C. When i use Opera it stays around 38-42.


I do recall that being an issue with Firefox in the past, but I'm not too familiar with Chrome and its issues.

Firefox is supposed to be getting a complete make-over in November... might be worth another test.

It is normally considered that heat is a health-degrading factor in any PC. Some argue nay for HDDs, but I beg to differ...

If alternatives can't do it well enough, I see no wrong in using Opera for the reason you've stated. Of course, you are free to use whatever you like. Not trying to say otherwise... :grin2:

Just saying... might be worth another peak when Firefox Qauntum comes around in November.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

@tehuti88

I believe you're referring to the new Screenshots tool in Firefox.

Believe it or not, Firefox did have a native screenshot ability before, but it was hard to access and its use wasn't as granular. The new tool provides a more user-friendly implementation.

Incidentally, I also just use Snip It on Windows... I get more control over what I want. The tool in FF only captures the page content (if I'm not mistaken).

As for "Creators Update", I hear 'ya... wasn't too happy with it when it came around. I hear we're getting another "creators update" in October or something...


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

That Random Guy said:


> Interesting. Who did you have to write code for?
> 
> Firefox has undoubtedly had its ups and downs, but It's been better recently. IMO, it's one of the best for privacy (if you know how to use it). Others might suggest TOR, however, which is technically still based off of Firefox code.
> 
> ...


I meant that I had to carefully write code that would work in all the major browsers the same way. There wasn't as much consistency between browser rendering in the 90's. But then I've also written code for my own browser extensions, and it would be nicer if there were only one browser. Wishful thinking.

The main reason I hate Firefox is because I bought their Firefox OS phone which was the best phone OS I've ever messed with. I even spent about a year teaching myself how to write apps for it. That was going to be a new business for me. Then of course they discontinued it because they weren't able to compete with Android. Couldn't they have figured this out before actually launching the OS and encouraging people to develop apps for it?



That Random Guy said:


> Firefox is supposed to be getting a complete make-over in November... might be worth another test.


This is the problem with Mozilla. They keep experimenting and changing things without really knowing if it will work out or not. Launching operating systems then discontinuing them. No serious developer wants to deal with that.


That Random Guy said:


> It is normally considered that heat is a health-degrading factor in any PC. Some argue nay for HDDs, but I beg to differ...


My opinion is that your hardware is going to be obsolete before it gets worn out, so might as well push it to the limits.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



Maslow said:


> Yeah, I'm satisfied with Chrome. I'd prefer to use an open source browser, but Chrome has some good developer tools and *I can use URLs like somesite.localhost for websites that I'm working on. Can't do that with Firefox.*


:int

Have you been able to do this on Chrome without actually using a web server? I've been able to test local sites with any browser so long as I've had a web server installed/configured.

The URL you mentioned above seems like something I'd see where a web server is involved...

I'm not sure as to whether or not that's true due to my unfamiliarity with Chrome...


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



finallyclosed said:


> This is the problem with Mozilla. They keep experimenting and changing things without really knowing if it will work out or not. Launching operating systems then discontinuing them. No serious developer wants to deal with that.


I'm sorry to hear of your lost opportunity with Mozilla in that case. Understandably, I'd feel a bit cheated if I put an effort to learn something that would later give no benefit.

It is my understanding that Mozilla had made the decision for the change a while back.. so what we're expecting was something well-planned and within reason according to them.

This change upset a lot of developers and a lot of users. I naively attempted to get them to keep something to satisfy everyone (via vain means), but their reasoning was/is justified. Whether or not their final implementation and ultimate new direction is worth it in the end is up to discussion, as you've most likely found online. I feel like they're pleasing a minority and not a majority.

I'm not expert in this field, and I'm not developer, but I've heard that there are _some_ benefits for developers.

For instance, supposedly, it is predicted that the new add-ons accepted by Firefox will be more "homogeneous" with other browsers standards. They suggested that it will be easier to deploy add-ons on different browser granted they're compatible. They made the use of mentioning Firefox and Chrome and how a particular add-on on Firefox would only have to be altered slightly to work on Chrome.

Whether or not that proves to be true can only be told in due time.

I don't agree with the change, but I agree with their reasoning. I just don't see why they had to "fix" those issues in this manner.

As for hardware... I kind of just keep things until they junk out (i.e. I don't upgrade often). I tend to take care of my things... I don't OC my PC though. Not sure on number there.

I consider heat a less controlled issue in Laptops than on desktop PCs.

EDIT:
I agree, however, that certain parts are more likely to become outdated before they brick out or show signs of degradation.

I've just always been more weary with laptops due to their unfavorable constraint of not being upgradable in the same sense that desktops are.


----------



## Maslow (Dec 24, 2003)

That Random Guy said:


> :int
> 
> Have you been able to do this on Chrome without actually using a web server? I've been able to test local sites with any browser so long as I've had a web server installed/configured.
> 
> ...


You do need a webserver. You need to modify your .hosts file plus the webserver vhosts file to make it work. It makes it easy to run multiple sites on your development machine.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



Maslow said:


> You do need a webserver. You need to modify your .hosts file plus the webserver vhosts file to make it work. It makes it easy to run multiple sites on your development machine.


I see--in that case, I should be able to get the same thing on Firefox. :grin2:


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

That Random Guy said:


> I see--in that case, I should be able to get the same thing on Firefox. :grin2:


Firefox is basically chrome with just enough buttons and names rearranged to avoid a copyright lawsuit.


----------



## Maslow (Dec 24, 2003)

That Random Guy said:


> I see--in that case, I should be able to get the same thing on Firefox. :grin2:


Last time I checked, Firefox ignores the .hosts file.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



Maslow said:


> Last time I checked, Firefox ignores the .hosts file.


I presume that to be valid, however it wouldn't surprise me if Firefox did have a way to do it (or an alternative).

I've never tested out more than one site at a time before. Firefox did what I needed to do, as did all other browsers I used to test.


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*!*



finallyclosed said:


> Firefox is basically chrome with just enough buttons and names rearranged to avoid a copyright lawsuit.


Given the recent changes and it's eventual transition, most would agree with you on that. :grin2:


----------



## Arbre (Mar 9, 2014)

I installed it today. So far it seems good. It's fast. Three extensions I use aren't compatible with it yet, but maybe they'll be updated.


----------



## Lohikaarme (Aug 28, 2013)

I've been using it all day, loving the speed so far 
My only issue is with the lack of extension versatility as well, I don't think I'll ever forgo Chrome as my basic browser for that reason.


----------



## Arbre (Mar 9, 2014)

Lohikaarme said:


> I've been using it all day, loving the speed so far
> My only issue is with the lack of extension versatility as well, I don't think I'll ever forgo Chrome as my basic browser for that reason.


Really? One of the reasons I've always used Firefox instead is because it had more extensions. I don't use Chrome though, so I shouldn't be too surprised if it caught up to Firefox or even surpassed it, especially since Chrome is more popular. I think Firefox still has all the extensions I need. I only use around 8.


----------



## Lohikaarme (Aug 28, 2013)

Arbre said:


> Really? One of the reasons I've always used Firefox instead is because it had more extensions. I don't use Chrome though, so I shouldn't be too surprised if it caught up to Firefox or even surpassed it, especially since Chrome is more popular. I think Firefox still has all the extensions I need. I only use around 8.


I've spent years tailoring Chrome exactly how I prefer it, it'd be hard for me to part with it at this point since some of the extensions I'm using don't have Firefox equivalents that I know of.

I can imagine Firefox surpassing Chrome one day though, it has improved a lot compared to the clunkier, laggier past versions.


----------



## Arbre (Mar 9, 2014)

Lohikaarme said:


> I've spent years tailoring Chrome exactly how I prefer it, it'd be hard for me to part with it at this point since some of the extensions I'm using don't have Firefox equivalents that I know of.
> 
> I can imagine Firefox surpassing Chrome one day though, it has improved a lot compared to the clunkier, laggier past versions.


That makes sense. I'm the same with Firefox. I looked to see if Chrome has the extensions I use, and for a bunch of them it either doesn't have it or has an inferior version of it. I hope Firefox will continue to be a good browser since I prefer it because it's open source and has better privacy.


----------



## Canadian Brotha (Jan 23, 2009)

It updated automatically & I really hate that. A few add ons I like are no longer compatible so I’ll have to find equivalents for them otherwise I’ll get used to it


----------



## ShatteredGlass (Oct 12, 2012)

I've primarily been a Chrome user for years. I was interested when I read about Firefox Quantum because it allegedly does a better job of memory management, battery conservation, and performance optimization. I'm writing this in the browser right now. I'll have to test it more extensively, obviously, though it hasn't given me any issues in so far with 5 tabs on my cheap laptop. I've mainly noticed that switching tabs is snappier than it ever was in Chrome.

I also like supporting Mozilla as a company.


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

killed my old extensions. Me no likey.


----------



## Glue (Oct 26, 2010)

I don't like that they removed the refresh button. Besides that it's okay, I guess. Uses like 1/3 of the memory the old one used so that's cool


----------



## noonecares (Oct 12, 2017)

rikaichan add-on for reading japanese doesn't work anymore


----------



## Blue Dino (Aug 17, 2013)

Glue said:


> I don't like that they removed the refresh button. Besides that it's okay, I guess. Uses like 1/3 of the memory the old one used so that's cool


They move the refresh button all the way to the left near the Back/Forward buttons. It took me a while for look for it. Stupid me.


----------



## Glue (Oct 26, 2010)

Blue Dino said:


> They move the refresh button all the way to the left near the Back/Forward buttons. It took me a while for look for it. Stupid me.


Holy ****, how did I miss that? :lol. Thanks!


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

finallyclosed said:


> Firefox is basically chrome with just enough buttons and names rearranged to avoid a copyright lawsuit.


Chrome was the one who copied Firefox, which was Netscape Navigator well before Google was ever created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox



ShatteredGlass said:


> I've primarily been a Chrome user for years. I was interested when I read about Firefox Quantum because it allegedly does a better job of memory management, battery conservation, and performance optimization. I'm writing this in the browser right now. I'll have to test it more extensively, obviously, though it hasn't given me any issues in so far with 5 tabs on my cheap laptop. I've mainly noticed that switching tabs is snappier than it ever was in Chrome.
> 
> I also like supporting Mozilla as a company.


I have yet to use 57, but they have had memory leak problems for the past 10 years. Maybe it is because I use Ad Blocker and Video Downloader, but when you have hundreds of tabs open, and then close them, the memory is still being used until you shutdown the browser and reboot the computer.


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

Piece of junk's finally been forced on me. "It's _sooooooo_ much faster!" is the first thing it tells me. Now it lags every damn time I open something in a new tab. :bah Plus many of the links in my frequently visited sites are now gone (previously twelve or something, now only like six). Huge waste of space.

And butt-ugly blocky tabs, and they've moved the refresh and added a favorites button where it used to be (_exactly_ like Chrome--hmmm) so now I have to be careful whenever I go to refresh the page lest I bookmark it instead.

I can put up with it but it'd sure be nice to have my other frequently visited sites back, AND an end to this stupid lagging. I thought it was supposed to be faster (that was _literally_ their only selling point when they first surprise-installed it), but I'm sure not seeing it.

ETA--I don't even do the heavy-duty crap everyone else seems able to do on their computers, either, like watching lots of videos/listening to music, streaming stuff, gaming, making art, having dozens of tabs open (don't know what I'm doing wrong but I've _never_ had a computer that could handle that), whatever. Just regular browsing.


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

Classified said:


> Chrome was the one who copied Firefox, which was Netscape Navigator well before Google was ever created.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox
> 
> I have yet to use 57, but they have had memory leak problems for the past 10 years. Maybe it is because I use Ad Blocker and Video Downloader, but when you have hundreds of tabs open, and then close them, the memory is still being used until you shutdown the browser and reboot the computer.


It doesn't matter who copied who first, because now Google is the one paying developers to work on Chrome, then Firefox copies them using open source slave labor and uses a lot of their code and ideas. Quite a bit of Firefox actually uses Google's API's sometimes.

I mean, it's only natural for the leader in an industry to be copied by pirates. And Mozilla has a long history of ripping off other browsers, all the way back to it's roots in Mosaic when the founder of Mozilla stole the code for Mosaic when they wouldn't promote him.

I didn't mean it like it was a pissing contest though. It's just a fact that they are almost identical other than the small differences in the UI, and a few built in privacy features that you'd have to install an app for in Chrome. You can rest assured that no new version of Firefox is going to be significantly faster than the newest version of Chrome, or vice versa. Any web browser is going to be impressively fast when you first install it because you haven't loaded it down with extensions yet.

Sad to say it, but Mozilla is mostly a marketing company. Selling you "free/open" software as better than whatever it was copied after.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

finallyclosed said:


> It doesn't matter who copied who first, because now Google is the one paying developers to work on Chrome, then Firefox copies them using open source slave labor and uses a lot of their code and ideas. Quite a bit of Firefox actually uses Google's API's sometimes.
> 
> I mean, it's only natural for the leader in an industry to be copied by pirates. And Mozilla has a long history of ripping off other browsers, all the way back to it's roots in Mosaic when the founder of Mozilla stole the code for Mosaic when they wouldn't promote him.
> 
> ...


 I don't particularly like Mozilla (for different reasons) but your take on them as well as their new browser is inaccurate my friend.

-Quantum genuinely uses multiple cores. Chrome as well as previous versions of Firefox had a half baked attempt at parallel execution. Every main thread effectively did not share memory - which reduced the possibility of errors but meant big chunks of execution were essentially single threaded. The most obvious problem with this approach happens when you open multiple tabs - performance drops through the floor.

-Quantum, will not only use CPU cores more effectively across multiple tabs (see above) but it's execution model also means that it has the ability to use multiple threads for the same web page. Things like social media sites that have a bunch of different interactive boxes on screen (such as a news feed, a chat box, a friends list etc.) will be a lot faster and won't gum up your PC.

-Again, I don't particularly like Mozilla but to say that they don't come up with anything is inaccurate. They created their own programming language (RUST), browser engine and web renderer in order to take advantage of multiple cores.

*TL : DR

Firefox Quantum is several times faster than Chrome (both on a single web page or multiple tabs) - if you have a new-ish computer or are planning to buy a new one in the next few years you will notice an even bigger performance improvement because newer computer hardware will finally be fully utilised by a web browser. I've had my doubts over Firefox in the last few years, but this new version has changed my mind. It's literally a game changer. *


----------



## funnynihilist (Jul 29, 2014)

Using it for a few days now, don't notice much difference.


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

Paper Samurai said:


> I don't particularly like Mozilla (for different reasons) but your take on them as well as their new browser is inaccurate my friend.
> 
> -Quantum genuinely uses multiple cores. Chrome as well as previous versions of Firefox had a half baked attempt at parallel execution. Every main thread effectively did not share memory - which reduced the possibility of errors but meant big chunks of execution were essentially single threaded. The most obvious problem with this approach happens when you open multiple tabs - performance drops through the floor.
> 
> ...


I see they've done a good job again at marketing their latest update as the be all end all of web browsers. The fact still remains that Google will come out with the same update in a few months and there won't be any difference between them again. However, all the fan boys who Firefox bought with their advertising will be enslaved forever, and probably guilt tripped into writing code for them.

Anyway. The differences between the two are so minimal that only a paranoid schizophrenic would truly appreciate it. However, I admire Google's advertising principals far more than Mozilla. I know some people will be shocked by that statement, but when you've been working with them both for so long, certain things start to become clear.

I notice they did change the UI look in Quantum. Good for them. Way to make the update seem bigger than it really is. Or is it really a quantum computing browser like the name suggests to the technically naive?


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

finallyclosed said:


> I see they've done a good job again at marketing their latest update as the be all end all of web browsers. The fact still remains that Google will come out with the same update in a few months and there won't be any difference between them again. However, all the fan boys who Firefox bought with their advertising will be enslaved forever, and probably guilt tripped into writing code for them. Anyway. The differences between the two are so minimal that only a paranoid schizophrenic would truly appreciate it. However, I admire Google's advertising principals far more than Mozilla. I know some people will be shocked by that statement, but when you've been working with them both for so long, certain things start to become clear. I notice they did change the UI look in Quantum. Good for them. Way to make the update seem bigger than it really is. Or is it really a quantum computing browser like the name suggests to the technically naive?


I have to ask, what are you basing some of these claims on ? I'm a programmer myself - and even though I have a tech background I don't expect anyone to take my opinions at purely face value -- so I've given a pretty good explanation above on why this latest version of Firefox is currently the best performing browser available. This isn't some kind of marketing spin, software is an objective field - the ability to better utilise resources will always make your program faster than those that don't.

& Google Chrome btw, is based on the open source Chromium project with small modifications. Anyone with an internet connection can literally look at the code base and see it's limitations - chief among them being that single threaded execution issue. Other sources:


> RAM Usage
> 
> In our early tests, Quantum does appear to be a significantly lighter than Chrome. On my 2015 Macbook Air, I tried opening the same 9 tabs in Chrome and Firefox (Gmail, a YouTube video, Reddit, a Mashable article, a Verge article, a post editor in the Digg CMS, Chartbeat, ESPN, and Google Docs) - compared to Firefox, Chrome used 3 times as many processes (15, compared to 5) and almost 40% more RAM (~1800 MB, compared to ~1300 MB): *
> 
> Digg.com*





> As you open more tabs in Quantum, it takes up less memory than opening up multiple tabs in Chrome. On my Asus laptop with an Intel Core i5, it runs six processes for 20 open tabs, while Google Chrome runs 21 processes for 14 tabs. Note that after opening the 10th tab, Quantum begins to show a squiggly loading sign on new tabs. *
> 
> The Verge*





> Firefox Quantum is the first web browser that actively taps into the power of your computer's multi-core processor. Most browsers, like Chrome, aren't coded with attention to multi-core chips. Given the speed of modern multi-core processors, that's not much of a hindrance - but it is a hindrance. There's unused power lying idle. Firefox Quantum aims to tap into those extra cores by putting them to work. This smart resource allocation means Firefox Quantum is technically the quickest browser on the market, depending on your benchmark.
> 
> *Digital Trend*s





> On the Speedometer benchmark, the pre-Quantum Firefox release scored 45, compared with 70 for Firefox Quantum. JetStream is one of the most thorough JavaScript benchmarks around, incorporating tests from Google's Octane and the WebKit Sunspider benchmark. Firefox Quantum scored 151 on JetStream compared with 144 for Google Chrome.
> 
> *PC MAG *


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

Did you actually read my post? I said that Chrome will update their browser with the same technology to keep up anyway, so there won't be any difference. If I'm picking a browser, I'm not going to make a decision based on which one got the most publicity once from a small speed improvement. I look at the long track record of their business practices. If you chose based on which one is faster, you would end up switching browsers every few months.

Sorry, I don't have the energy to explain any more than that over such a small issue. I have real things to get done in my life.

One more thing. A fast browser means very little when we are all still having our bandwidth throttled. I'm sure it's a good technology in the long run, but it means very little to my decision about which is better at the current time. And unless one of them gets a complete monopoly, then they will always be essentially the same code. There is no other possible outcome.


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

Also, I have Chrome and Firefox open at the same time, and now my streaming video in Chrome is lagging once in a while. I have a Core i7 processor in my gaming laptop, so I think Firefox Quantum could be causing it. I haven't taken the time to debug it yet, but it seems like a likely culprit.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

finallyclosed said:


> Did you actually read my post?


 Just from the last page, this has been your progression:



> *You can rest assured that no new version of Firefox is going to be significantly faster than the newest version of Chrome, or vice versa. Any web browser is going to be impressively fast when you first install it because you haven't loaded it down with extensions yet.*


 Got it, Firefox will never be significantly faster. (from your perspective)


> * Anyway. The differences between the two are so minimal that only a paranoid schizophrenic would truly appreciate it. *


 Oh ok, so there is a slight improvement over Chrome, but it's minimal ?


> * I said that Chrome will update their browser with the same technology to keep up anyway, so there won't be any difference. If I'm picking a browser, I'm not going to make a decision based on which one got the most publicity once from a small speed improvement.*


 So there is an improvement, but Chrome will catch up anyway - so (in the future) there won't be a difference?


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

Paper Samurai said:


> Just from the last page, this has been your progression:
> 
> Got it, Firefox will never be significantly faster. (from your perspective) Oh ok, so there is a slight improvement over Chrome, but it's minimal ? So there is an improvement, but Chrome will catch up anyway - so (in the future) there won't be a difference?


Either you are stupid, or you are just trying to get to me. You do know what the word significant means, yes? It's not some tiny improvement that gets hyped to promote a browser brand.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

finallyclosed said:


> Either you are stupid, or you are just trying to get to me. You do know what the word significant means, yes? It's not some tiny improvement that gets hyped to promote a browser brand.


 You're taking this a bit too personally. All I've tried to do here is attempt to move the discussion past sport team-esque tribalism to something more objective. And given that this is a Tech subject, it can and arguably should be viewed from an objective angle.

For the record as well; words like 'fast', 'significant', 'improved' typically should be avoided past the early stages/or when things turn to a meaningful discussion. Because they are not precise, they do mean different things (even if just slightly) to different people. But with that being said Firefox Quantum to me at least is 'significant'; using 40% less RAM and 1/5 the of CPU power on technology that is 2-3 years old ! Just imagine what the boost is going to be on newer hardware.

I'm not here to start unnecessary fights though - I use to in fairness, but not any more - you don't seem willing to engage rationally so I'm just going to bow out and leave this thread to go in what ever direction it wants.


----------



## Chevy396 (Jul 10, 2017)

Paper Samurai said:


> You're taking this a bit too personally. All I've tried to do here is attempt to move the discussion past sport team-esque tribalism to something more objective. And given that this is a Tech subject, it can and arguably should be viewed from an objective angle.
> 
> For the record as well; words like 'fast', 'significant', 'improved' typically should be avoided past the early stages/or when things turn to a meaningful discussion. Because they are not precise, they do mean different things (even if just slightly) to different people. But with that being said Firefox Quantum to me at least is 'significant'; using 40% less RAM and 1/5 the of CPU power on technology that is 2-3 years old ! Just imagine what the boost is going to be on newer hardware.
> 
> I'm not here to start unnecessary fights though - I use to in fairness, but not any more - you don't seem willing to engage rationally so I'm just going to bow out and leave this thread to go in what ever direction it wants.


I'm the one trying to tell you they are pretty much the same, but you accuse me of sports team tribalism? I didn't read anything past that. Waste of my time. And no, it's not personal, just idiotic.


----------

