Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Firefox 3.6

  1. #1
    Firefox 3.6
    VegasGeorge's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    893
    Specs:
    iMac, and Macbook Pro
    Firefox 3.6
    This version seems much better. It is a lot faster, and is working smoother on my Mac. I may be tempted to use it.

  2. #2
    Firefox 3.6
    McBie's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,675
    Specs:
    2013 MBA 13" - OS X 10.10.5
    I have been running it for the past 3 hours and it is indeed a nice piece of work.

    Cheers ... McBie
    A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.
    The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.

  3. #3
    Firefox 3.6
    CrimsonRequiem's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 24, 2008
    Posts
    6,004
    Specs:
    MBP 2.3 Ghz 4GB RAM 860 GB SSD, iMac 3.4 GHz Intel Core i7 32GB RAM, Fusion Drive 1TB
    Thanks for the heads up. Didn't realize that they had a new version out. Going to test it out. Hopefully it works with all my add-ons. >_<"
    死神はリンゴしか食べない。

  4. #4
    Firefox 3.6
    vansmith's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 19, 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    19,395
    Specs:
    2012 13" MBP (2.5 i5, 8GB)
    I've been running 3.6 in either beta form or RC form for the last few weeks. It is a step up from 3.5 but really it's just an evolutionary update and not really revolutionary. So far in my experience, running 3.5 would be fine if getting 3.6 proved to be hard (for some reason). That said, I would recommend the update if you can get it (which shouldn't be too hard).
    Important Links: Community Guidelines : Use the reputation system if you've been helped.
    M-F Blog :: Write for the blog
    Writing a Quality Post

  5. #5
    Firefox 3.6
    CrimsonRequiem's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 24, 2008
    Posts
    6,004
    Specs:
    MBP 2.3 Ghz 4GB RAM 860 GB SSD, iMac 3.4 GHz Intel Core i7 32GB RAM, Fusion Drive 1TB
    Quote Originally Posted by vansmith View Post
    I've been running 3.6 in either beta form or RC form for the last few weeks. It is a step up from 3.5 but really it's just an evolutionary update and not really revolutionary. So far in my experience, running 3.5 would be fine if getting 3.6 proved to be hard (for some reason). That said, I would recommend the update if you can get it (which shouldn't be too hard).
    It does seem a lot speedier, launch time as well. Only problem is that it doesn't support my tab preview add-ons. T_T"

    Fast dial still works, so I'm somewhat still happy. >_<"
    死神はリンゴしか食べない。

  6. #6
    Firefox 3.6
    vansmith's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 19, 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    19,395
    Specs:
    2012 13" MBP (2.5 i5, 8GB)
    It is faster (don't get me wrong) and it does fix that annoying application focus problem (reason enough for me to update) but most people would be just as well served with 3.5. Especially if one avoids JavaScript heavy web applications, you're not going to notice much. Plus, if you're using a lot of JS heavy applications, you would be using Safari or Chromium anyway.

    I just read this on the Ars Technica review of Firefox 3.6: "In a discussion about the Firefox roadmap, Mozilla informed us that they regard process isolation for plug-ins as a very high priority and hope to roll it out to users in a 3.6.5 update." That would get me to tell everyone to switch to 3.6 without a doubt.
    Important Links: Community Guidelines : Use the reputation system if you've been helped.
    M-F Blog :: Write for the blog
    Writing a Quality Post

  7. #7
    Firefox 3.6
    XJ-linux's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 02, 2007
    Location
    Going Galt...
    Posts
    3,418
    Specs:
    MacBookAir5,2:10.9.5-MacMini3,1:10.9.5-iPhone6,1:8.3
    It's running much faster than Safari and Opera on my system. I may have to consider switching if it turns out to be reliable as well. So far I'm optimistic and looking forward to seeing how well my add-on's function.
    Never judge a man, untill you have walked a mile in his shoes...
    That way you'll be a mile away from him, and you'll have his shoes.

  8. #8
    Firefox 3.6
    vansmith's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 19, 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    19,395
    Specs:
    2012 13" MBP (2.5 i5, 8GB)
    XJ, have you tried the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha? The new "Carakan" JS engine is in that build and it is ~ 10x faster than the current one in 10.1 (and the 10.2 alpha). It also has full Cocoa support so it integrates (fairly) well.

    Last I checked, Safari and Chromium still had an edge on Firefox in terms of JS performance (the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha gives Safari a run for its money too) but as we all know, there is more to the web than just JS.
    Important Links: Community Guidelines : Use the reputation system if you've been helped.
    M-F Blog :: Write for the blog
    Writing a Quality Post

  9. #9
    Firefox 3.6
    XJ-linux's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 02, 2007
    Location
    Going Galt...
    Posts
    3,418
    Specs:
    MacBookAir5,2:10.9.5-MacMini3,1:10.9.5-iPhone6,1:8.3
    Quote Originally Posted by vansmith View Post
    XJ, have you tried the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha? The new "Carakan" JS engine is in that build and it is ~ 10x faster than the current one in 10.1 (and the 10.2 alpha). It also has full Cocoa support so it integrates (fairly) well.

    Last I checked, Safari and Chromium still had an edge on Firefox in terms of JS performance (the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha gives Safari a run for its money too) but as we all know, there is more to the web than just JS.
    You know, I just switched to the Dev stream a few days ago and haven't had much time to play with it. I may mess around with the latest and greatest of the Safari-FF-Opera-Chrome releases this weekend though. Opera 10.5-pre is a bit sluggish right now for me, though every website I visit is it's first hit so nothing is really "broken in" yet so to speak.
    Never judge a man, untill you have walked a mile in his shoes...
    That way you'll be a mile away from him, and you'll have his shoes.

  10. #10
    Firefox 3.6
    dtravis7's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 04, 2005
    Location
    Modesto, Ca.
    Posts
    28,477
    Specs:
    iMac late 2007 10.11.b4, iMac 2008 10.10.5, Macbook2007 10.7.5, Mac Mini 10.7.5, iPhone 3GS Note 8!!
    Quote Originally Posted by vansmith View Post
    XJ, have you tried the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha? The new "Carakan" JS engine is in that build and it is ~ 10x faster than the current one in 10.1 (and the 10.2 alpha). It also has full Cocoa support so it integrates (fairly) well.

    Last I checked, Safari and Chromium still had an edge on Firefox in terms of JS performance (the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha gives Safari a run for its money too) but as we all know, there is more to the web than just JS.
    I have had very good results with Opera 10.5 Pre-Alpha also. Very impressed with it overall and NIGHT AND DAY faster than older releases.

    I have been using Firefox 3.6 like Van from the RC at least and I like it better than 3.5 for sure. Faster here both on the Java tests and seems nicer overall in normal use. I like it. It JS performance is a lot better than 3.5 but like Van said, it's still behind the WebKit engine in Chrome and Safari and the new Opera Pre-Alpha engine.

  11. #11
    Firefox 3.6
    vansmith's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 19, 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    19,395
    Specs:
    2012 13" MBP (2.5 i5, 8GB)
    10.5 pre-alpha truly does deserve the title of pre-alpha. It's a bit of a rough browser and some of the features aren't incorporated yet into the Mac build such as HTML5 video (which is only in the Windows/Unix build). One thing I don't get about Opera is why the default theme is done in such a way that hovering over the toolbar buttons turns the button a light blue. I thought this would change with the move to Cocoa but evidently it didn't. Regardless, it looks like Opera is moving in the right direction with their browser and finally addressing some of my major concerns.
    Quote Originally Posted by dtravis7 View Post
    I have had very good results with Opera 10.5 Pre-Alpha also. Very impressed with it overall and NIGHT AND DAY faster than older releases.

    I have been using Firefox 3.6 like Van from the RC at least and I like it better than 3.5 for sure. Faster here both on the Java tests and seems nicer overall in normal use. I like it. It JS performance is a lot better than 3.5 but like Van said, it's still behind the WebKit engine in Chrome and Safari and the new Opera Alpha engine.
    It really is night and day isn't it? Like I said, the Opera team is really putting some work into the browser part of Opera as opposed to focusing solely on extraneous browser features like Opera Turbo and Opera Unite. As for the Firefox, it is a marked improvement but one question I'm still left with is, despite noticeable improvements, how come (in my experience) WebKit based browsers (and now the Opera pre-alpha build) are considerably better with JS?
    Important Links: Community Guidelines : Use the reputation system if you've been helped.
    M-F Blog :: Write for the blog
    Writing a Quality Post

  12. #12
    Firefox 3.6
    nabl's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 13, 2007
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    256
    Specs:
    2.1GHz MacBook with 4GB RAM, Mac OS X 10.6, iLife and iWork 09
    Quote Originally Posted by vansmith View Post
    As for the Firefox, it is a marked improvement but one question I'm still left with is, despite noticeable improvements, how come (in my experience) WebKit based browsers (and now the Opera pre-alpha build) are considerably better with JS?
    I'd say it has to do with WebKit's philosophy. While Firefox started with speed in mind (it was supposed to be a fast, lightweight version of the Mozilla browser, right?), it seemed to have lost that goal with time. So, even if speed is once again a priority for them, they'll have to make up for any regression that took place during their lax period(s). Having said that, I could have missed something in Firefox's goals along the way; it's just the way I see it from the bit I've followed.

  13. #13
    Firefox 3.6
    vansmith's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 19, 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    19,395
    Specs:
    2012 13" MBP (2.5 i5, 8GB)
    Good find. I especially like this part:
    Common excuses people give when they regress performance are, "But the new way is cleaner!" or "The new way is more correct." We don't care. No performance regressions are allowed, regardless of the reason. There is no justification for regressing performance. None.
    They don't mess around do they? As for Firefox, yes, it developed as a lightweight browser out of the original Mozilla codebase (I believe). That said, over time, it appears to have gotten "quite heavy" which is a bit disappointing.

    Many of you may believe that I don't like Firefox based on what I've said. On the contrary, Firefox is my primary browser with Opera in second.
    Important Links: Community Guidelines : Use the reputation system if you've been helped.
    M-F Blog :: Write for the blog
    Writing a Quality Post

  14. #14
    Firefox 3.6
    Rottie's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 23, 2009
    Posts
    336
    Firefox 3.6 out now
    Hi folks,

    For those of you not aware, Firefox 3.6 is now out.

    Release notes here

    Enjoy.

  15. #15
    Firefox 3.6
    vansmith's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 19, 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    19,395
    Specs:
    2012 13" MBP (2.5 i5, 8GB)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rottie View Post
    For those of you not aware, Firefox 3.6 is now out.
    That was the point of this thread .
    Important Links: Community Guidelines : Use the reputation system if you've been helped.
    M-F Blog :: Write for the blog
    Writing a Quality Post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. [Help on Firefox] How to see "Web Inspector" on Firefox??
    By khan0721 in forum OS X - Apps and Games
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-22-2010, 10:21 AM
  2. Do I need Firefox
    By michaelmckeever in forum OS X - Apps and Games
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-25-2008, 12:23 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-18-2008, 06:28 PM
  4. Firefox 2.0.0.1
    By dolphin01 in forum OS X - Apps and Games
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-24-2006, 11:06 AM
  5. Firefox
    By Cadams in forum Switcher Hangout
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-09-2005, 11:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •