SillyDog701

[Fulvio]

I, always, install a beta version of Firefox in a different folder from the default of the present, stable, version, and use different profiles for both. But it not enough, if I keep the name Mozilla Firefox for the old version, the shortcut will be overwritten with the beta version, using the same name, even if I did a Custom installation for the beta version. The net effect is that I have to create a shortcut for the existing Firefox 13.0.1. No problem, but a nuisance.
The moral of the story is that if someone wants both version he/she should rename the Mozilla Firefox shortcut. Then a Mozilla Firefox should appear, and that one is the one of Firefox 14 beta 8.
And, who cares?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1

[Antony]

I wouldn't install two different Firefox versions on the same machine. Unless one is under virtual machine.

On different computers, I do have different sets of browsers (together with different versions of Firefox, since I don't rush for the latest version just for the sake of latest).

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.15

[James]

I would also be hesitant to install two versions of the same browser on a computer even under separate folders. It would seem to me that this would be a situation in which some files from one installation might cross-over and corrupt the other.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1

[PaulD]

Yes, it can be done. Using a different installation (Firefox program) folder is the key.
But - do a Custom installation of any 'additional' level/version, and do not specify the creation of any shortcuts.
Then do a manual shortcut(s) creation.

Caution also: Because the Registry has pointers also to the 'current' (perhaps last-installed) program folder, if one clicks on a web-page link (for instance, in an email), and Firefox is the default browser, then it is likely that this 'latest' version will be invoked. This can be changed by doing a Regedit.

See HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet
and all 'FIrefox'-related entries therein. Change as required.

There also will be IEXPLORE.EXE entries.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1

[Fulvio]

My post was pretty clear, I thought, and the point is summarized in one sentence:

The moral of the story is that if someone wants both version he/she should rename the Mozilla Firefox shortcut.

I have had two versions in stalled in the past, several time, with no problem, but the name of the shortcut had been different. It seems that Mozilla Firefox is the default name of the shortcut, and if there is one shortcut of that name, the installation of a new version will overwrite The Target line, and the Start in. Had I renamed the shortcut, there would not been any issue.
In other words, there is no reason to have fears in having any number of version at the same time, provided the second, and later versions are Custom installed, and separate profiles are used. Why should there be any corruption?
Technically, I could have as many versions as there had ever been (hard drive space permitting).

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Firefox/13.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.10.1

[James]

Here is a safe way to install multiple versions of Firefox on your computer:

http://helpdeskgeek.com/how-to/install- ... a-website/

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1

[Antony]

Thanks James.

In short, you will need to install Utilu Mozilla Firefox Collection on your Windows. Interestingly enough, there's Utilu IE Collection allowing multiple standalone versions of Internet Explorer to be installed.

Mac OS X users interested to have multiple versions of Firefox installed can check out https://github.com/omgmog/install-all-firefox

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.15

[Fulvio]

I don't think that anyone has understood why I do things my way, and I know that it is safe, since I have done since the Netscape6.7 days.
My computer has installed different version for only one reason. And, it is because I am not fully convinced that the new is better. Generally, I have my latest stable version, and the previous one. Rarely, if ever I dabble with the next, still beta version, if I have two stable versions. Now, I have 13.0.1 and 14 beta8.
I am not convinced that download is safe, when one considers that different versions may have have incompatible add-on. If one version leads to different profiles, its use is the only safe way.
If this is not clear, I am done.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Firefox/13.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.10.1

[James]

From my perspective, I've never understood your need to have several versions of the same browser on one computer which you admit is an older computer. I could understand if you were a website developer and had to test different versions on your sites but other than that, I've always been mystified by it. BUT... and here's the thing... I defend your right to do what you want with your computer, Fulvio.

Now you have confused me by saying that you don't always trust the newer versions and yet you continue to run betas. That confuses me. Why not wait for the bugs to be ironed out, particularly when you admit to be wary of the latest versions? To my way of thinking... alphas and betas are meant for testing purposes and in general (not always but in general) should not be installed on one's main computer. If I want to run a beta (which I don't), I'd put it on a secondary computer like my laptop OR I'd put it on a virtual machine before I'd take the risk of screwing up my main computer. The work I do with my computer is more important to me than having the latest browser which is frequently little more than a few bug fixes anyway.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1

[Fulvio]

I supposed that not trusting a new version is confusing. But is it? Is it easier to compare two versions side by side or finding problems and having to revert to an older version. I like to compare, and, when I am done, generally, the older version goes.
What's wrong with testing betas? They don't blow up the computer as some people fear. They have been as steady as a rock, from way back, and may show development. So far, I have spent less time than I used to, in testing betas, but I install them, in case I have time to test them. At this point, I am using a rather ancient, but, still acceptable machine with WinXP-SP3. I have an old Win98SE, but it is not an option for testing.
My budget does not permit me to go get the latest computer, but, I think I am playing it safe. I have done it since I got my first computer, nearly fifteen years ago.
Does it make sense?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Firefox/13.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.10.1

[James]

To tell you the honest to goodness truth, Fulvio, much of what we ALL do makes exceedingly little sense from a practical point of view. I spend about an hour on my iPad most mornings at my favorite coffee shop with my wife across the table on hers, both reading our email, reading the news and playing a few games before we head off to work. In the evenings we each spend another hour on our desktops, she on hers and I on mine. Two hours a day that many would say are wasted and unretrievable. You evidently like to play around with browsers. Does it make sense? Really? In the final analysis, does any of this make any sense or are we just wasting precious hours of our lives? Who can say?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3

[Fulvio]

In case you did not understand, I "keep" the browsers. I don't look at them for days, at times. I, simply, want to be assured that I use what I think is the best, and look at the future.
I hate to play games, so that's my way to entertain myself. As you well know, what makes perfect sense to one person is nonsense to another.
I don't expect, and prefer no reply. I wish I could remove the original message. Obviously, it was a waste of my time.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Firefox/13.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.10.1

[James]

Whoaaa. I am not criticizing you. I say whatever floats your boat and feel free to do so. If you want to see the future and play around with betas and alphas.... that's your prerogative and more power to you. Why would you believe I'm opposed to that? As you said, what makes sense to one person is nonsense to another. For instance, my wife uses "one" browser... period. She sees little reason to look into the future and little reason to activate her dormant Firefox browser UNLESS a site will not respond correctly to her IE 9. She doesn't make a personal judgment upon the fact that I use a couple of browsers. In her view, doing this would constitute a waste of her time. She goes online to do work for a client she has, to communicate with her family and friends, to shop (oh how she loves to shop) and to read the news. To do all of that requires only one browser. I've a hunch that most people are like that although we members of SillyDog are a bit out of the ordinary, perhaps a bit geeky and definitely a bit more "into" browsers than most who couldn't care less.

Fulvio, my friend. I've seen you do this before: jump to an emotional conclusion based upon a misunderstanding of a post. Please trust me when I say that I'm not making a judgment upon the way in which you use your time. I think you've greatly misunderstood me in this thread.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1