Firefox 5 Release in June

[James]

Mozilla has set an aggressive schedule for the next version of Firefox, slating the release of Firefox 5 for June 21.

If it meets that schedule, Mozilla could crank out Firefox 6 just two months later.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/224795/w ... k.rss_news

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0

[Antony]

Gosh!

Do they really need to rush out a new (major) updates so frequent? Or are they simply going to lost their credibility that people would start to feel they only jump a major version number to boost the downloads? I wonder what sort of major new features/improvements Mozilla can create within 8 weeks time.

I believe it is safe to say that there are a huge number of people who would just download Firefox again because a new (major) version has been released. If, as I am predicting, the new (major) release contains hardly any major new features, Mozilla is playing the version number game. Clearly, another dirty tactic to add to the Mozilla's book of deployment.

Allow me to bring an analogy, from Mac OS X 10.0 (Cheetah) to 10.4 (Tiger), the release schedule was about one major revision a year. Guess what? Apple haters used this release frequency (comparing to Windows XP, no new Windows only SP) and bashed Apple, we even have records to proof in SillyDog701 Message Centre.

Then, it took 2 years gap for OS X 10.5 Leopard to release, another two years for 10.6 Snow Leopard.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.11 Firefox/3.6.16

[Anonymosity]

So are there so many problems with FF4 that FF5 must be rushed out? Or maybe the developers have found more features to copy from other browsers, and feel that a new version must be created with these copied new features?
I do wish these people would stop being such copycats. Why can Firefox not be unique? It can still be a good browser without dumbing it down or moving buttons and other features around just because someone else is doing that.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko Firefox/3.6.16

[James]

I don't think "this" is how it is done.... that is, just rushing out some copycat features.

My stepson works for MS. Right now he is working past Windows 8. He's under a non-disclosure act so he cannot share anything with us. But the point is that in the world of software and hardware, if you are going to remain successful you have to have developers and engineers who are working ahead of where you currently are. Our current browser is not perfect by a long shot. But when I look at it, it's a far-sight better than what we had a few years back. Remember browsers before tabs? I can't even imagine surfing today without tabs. But someone or many people had this idea and it took time to develop it. And this is what is going on right now with Mozilla and every other group that wishes to remain relevant. You can't sit still on your laurels or you will be gone... pure and simple.

Another thing that has to be faced is that the world of PCs is changing. In a few years mobile devices will outnumber PCs and more people will be doing their communication and surfing on these. Even now, more young people use texting and IM than e-mail. E-mail as we know it, particularly pop mail, is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

I applaud FF for looking ahead and having a "plan" to develop new ideas for their browser. I can't wait to see what is coming next. That's just one of the reasons that I would never go back to an outdated suite idea (i.e. Opera, Seamonkey) which will always remain irrelevant in the browser world. Its day is over.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0

[Anonymosity]

Looking ahead is fine, but these guys lately have been copying others. Chrome has done away with menu bars and status bars, so Mozilla has to do that too. Safari and IE moved the reload button to the right end of the address bar, so Mozilla has to do that as well. Opera, Chrome, and IE (so I am told) have dumbed down the addressfield by greying out everything but the hostname (and sometimes the prefix of that), and the developers have been thinking about doing that as well, according to some comments on the Mozilla newsgroups. Where did people get the idea that the prefix of a hostname is not important, anyway?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko Firefox/3.6.16

[James]

Looking ahead is fine, but these guys lately have been copying others. Chrome has done away with menu bars and status bars, so Mozilla has to do that too. Safari and IE moved the reload button to the right end of the address bar, so Mozilla has to do that as well. Opera, Chrome, and IE (so I am told) have dumbed down the addressfield by greying out everything but the hostname (and sometimes the prefix of that), and the developers have been thinking about doing that as well, according to some comments on the Mozilla newsgroups. Where did people get the idea that the prefix of a hostname is not important, anyway?

Look... it's all part of a smart business model. You can accuse them of "copying" but that is the reality of how business is done today. Firefox is infinitely customizable so you have the option of moving buttons wherever you choose to locate them. Chrome, Opera and IE have not "dumbed down" their address fields at all. The expression "dumbing down" is a very poor choice of words. In truth, the former way was more of a cluttering up of the screen. We don't need a myriad of buttons, address and search fields, bars for everything and anything in order to surf the internet. Firefox has not yet combined their search engine field with their address bar AND THEY SHOULD in my opinion. It's old school to leave it over at the side. My wife likes to surf with apps pinned to her task bar and so she chooses to use IE9. I don't care for that and so I choose to continue with FF and I use their bookmark bar. I don't like the idea of pinning sites to tabs because this simply takes you back to your last session rather than simply back to the site itself. In other words, in my view it is not as efficient as the MS idea of pinning a site and/or app to the task bar. Thus, I choose to use the bookmark bar and thereby can readily go to my favorite sites.

If Mozilla wants to remain viable then they've got to pick up the best ideas of their competitors and put their own twist on things. The truth is, browsing with laptops and desktops is rapidly becoming dated anyway. The predictions are that mobile devices will surpass these older means of browsing within two years. My stepson who works for MS seldom brings his tablet or laptop when visiting. He is always on his smart phone... browsing, checking the web, emailing, texting and so forth. Suites are yesterday's answer to the internet. Pop mail is fine for businesses but for personal use they're dated and rapidly losing ground to other ways of communication. We're showing our age when we insist upon using these programs.

The idea of huge version upgrades to inflate the number of downloads (as Mozilla pulled with version 4) is evidently no longer seen as desirable. So, Mozilla has decided on more frequent version upgrades with less publicity and I personally think this is a better way to go. We don't need ten thousand betas before the next version upgrade. This past year was ridiculous and I think Mozilla realized it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0

[Anonymosity]

Look... it's all part of a smart business model. You can accuse them of "copying" but that is the reality of how business is done today. Firefox is infinitely customizable so you have the option of moving buttons wherever you choose to locate them. Chrome, Opera and IE have not "dumbed down" their address fields at all. The expression "dumbing down" is a very poor choice of words. In truth, the former way was more of a cluttering up of the screen. We don't need a myriad of buttons, address and search fields, bars for everything and anything in order to surf the internet. Firefox has not yet combined their search engine field with their address bar AND THEY SHOULD in my opinion. It's old school to leave it over at the side. My wife likes to surf with apps pinned to her task bar and so she chooses to use IE9. I don't care for that and so I choose to continue with FF and I use their bookmark bar. I don't like the idea of pinning sites to tabs because this simply takes you back to your last session rather than simply back to the site itself. In other words, in my view it is not as efficient as the MS idea of pinning a site and/or app to the task bar. Thus, I choose to use the bookmark bar and thereby can readily go to my favorite sites.

Would you mind telling me why having the reload button at the opposite end of the address bar is preferable to having it at the same end as the back and forward buttons? I simply do not see any advantage to that.
Opera 11 has certainly dumbed down their addressfield. They have greyed out all but the domain name and the suffix of the hostname. Just where did those people get the idea that prefixes in hostnames are unimportant? And to add injury to insult, they locked the colours of the text in the addressfield so that they cannot be changed. I do not agree that seeing the entire URL is cluttering or unimportant. I like to be able to read easily all parts of the interface. I also like to be able to theme any part of the interface.
As for the Firefox interface, I like the separate search box. For one thing, I can set up a search for something and the search engine will open in a separate tab from the one I am currently using.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko Firefox/3.6.16

[humpd]

I hope they fix the memory usage problem because I often get warnings about processor use going way up when using FF 4.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0

[James]

Agreed. Memory usage needs to be addressed. As for the other complaints... there will always be people who are dissatisfied with whatever is the final result. It's too this or it's too that or it's not enough this. In short, you can't please everybody. Evidently the vast majority (tens of millions) love Firefox 4 and I've no doubt that the bulk of those who downloaded version 4 cannot wait for version 5 as well.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0

[Fulvio]

I have, always, been curious about new developments. I try every "nightly" which comes out. Nothing terrible has happened, on account of my efforts. So, I looked around at the nightly download site. All I have seen are alpha versions of 4.0.1 and, the newest, 4.2.
Then, I did a search, about Firefox 5. One site said that there was a preview of Firefox 5, and there was a crummy link to the download. Eventually, I managed to work to make the link work, and it opened the nightly page for 4.2. I have not looked at this thing. It may not, even, be the correct one, but I will look at it.
And, another site stated that:

"The first Aurora release is still labeled as version 4.2a1pre and is not likely to change its version number to version 5.0 until it will go into beta on May 17.

This much to clarify a much too long, and undocumented thread.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16

[Fulvio]

I thought that I would keep this separate. I got a nightly, and I wanted to keep my three profiles alone. My first impression is that I detest this thing. I got a Personal Toolbar folder, but have been unable to make it show up in the Bookmark folder. I tried to drag and drop the various folder, and was successful with only one, the Ntscp one, from which I got the Sillydog site. Two other folders disappeared. They are no longer in the Personal Bookmark folder, nor anywhere else. for some reason when I cut a bookmark from a folder, and try to Paste it in the Bookmarks Toolbar, I keep getting the Sillydog URL.

An addition. Probably, I will not stay with this monster very long. In first place, my default 3.6.16 started opening from a link, using the newly created Firefox 4.2 profile. The same thing happened with 4.0. The problem went away, when I unchecked the box don't ask next to the profile name. Why is the last come, first served?
When I tried to give a feedback, I was told that I had to download the latest beta. And, although I selected this site as home page, the nightly opened with the nightly website. I found the home button to the right of the Search bar. Probably, it is the same in FF 4.0, but at least, I don't have to remind it which home page is which.
Otherwise it is fast enough, but it gobbles RAM as much as 4.0, or worse, hitting 100 MB with no tab opened, and minimal paraphernalia.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.2a1pre) Gecko/20110412 Firefox/4.2a1pre

[Anonymosity]

That is the problem with trunk builds. They are extremely experimental, and you never know what is going to be broken. I tried the bleeding edge builds for a while, but they were too frustrating. Branch builds for Windows have the worst bugs fixed, and they work for the most part.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko Firefox/3.6.16

[Fulvio]

That is the problem with trunk builds. They are extremely experimental, and you never know what is going to be broken. I tried the bleeding edge builds for a while, but they were too frustrating. Branch builds for Windows have the worst bugs fixed, and they work for the most part.

This is the theory. By definition early versions are problematic. But, I have tested early versions from way back, and only Netscape 6 was a problem, and remained that way, until replaced by Netscape 7. And, I did not like Thunderbird 3.x, and I ,still, don't like it. For me it is not a matter of bugs, but, rather of design. I reported this issue for Thunderbird, and contacted the Firefox 4.2/5.0 developers. They like to make changes, but do not realize how obnoxious they can be.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16

[Anonymosity]

I like the Thunderbird 3.1.* branch. Version 3.0.* fixed the Mac date bug which was present in the Version 2 branch, but it was difficult to set up new email accounts if you were using POP3. With 3.1.*, new accounts are much easier to set up.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko Firefox/3.6.16

[Fulvio]

Let's leave out Thunderbird 3.0. Just for the record the Aurora project, for 5.0 is operating, and I am using a 5.0 a2 nightly. So far, the issue of not opening by modifying the Target line of the shortcut is, still, not working. When, I click on the shortcut, I am presented with the profile manager, although the desired line is highlighted.
And, I don't dare to place a check mark next to "don't ask...". If I do, the selected profile will open as default, whether I want it to open the program with it.
It seems that the new design does not like multiple profiles, associated with other versions. It, almost, seems like the developers want to force the user into utter simplicity. With one Tab, and, just this site open, Firefox uses up 90 MB of memory.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0a2) Gecko/20110416 Firefox/5.0a2