back to article Mozilla teases surfers with near-final version of Firefox 3.6

Mozilla spun out a near-ready version of Firefox 3.6 over the weekend, all of which suggests that the final build of the next iteration of the open source browser could be imminent. The outfit said on Sunday that over 75 per cent of the thousands of Firefox Add-ons had now been upgraded by their authors to be compatible with …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. eJ2095

    Has any one noticed

    That firefox seems to run slower in win 7??

    Also where is the 64 bit version of it?

    1. Harry the snot gobbler

      Noticed the same

      What we want is something fast, 64bit, muticore support. Back to the original ethos of FF - fast, stable, secure. It does seem to be getting a bit bloaty lately. Now there's something to change the look of it with a single mouse click. How useful is that not going to be?

    2. A J Stiles

      The 64 bit version

      The 64-bit version is in your source code tree, where you compiled it.

      1. Trevor Pott o_O Gold badge

        I get humour and sarcasm, but.... unbelievably unhelpful.

      2. Chronos

        The 64 bit version

        Have you ever tried to compile the Moz source on Windows? It's unbelievably convoluted, needs bits of this, that and the other IDE and fails more often than not.

        Fine for us freetards (since the build against GTK2 and GCC is simples), but the Windows users will inevitably be using pre-compiled binaries.

        1. A J Stiles

          Well .....

          No, I have to admit that I've never tried to compile the Moz source on Windows. For that matter, I haven't had anything to do with Windows since XP.

          But if a package compiles successfully on every Linux distro, Solaris, Mac OS X and all the BSDs, maybe, just maybe Windows might be the problem?

    3. James Loughner

      64 Bit

      I've used the 64 bit version for several years.

      Runs great.

      In Linux

    4. Anonymous Coward

      Why do you need a 64 bit version?

      I mean, what exactly is it buying you?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nitpick ...

    > It had previously promised to deliver the next iteration of its celebrated browser

    > before the decade was out.

    The decade's not over yet. That gives them another year.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    New features, same old problem.

    Want to bet they still haven't fixed the memory leaks?

    1. Alan W. Rateliff, II
      Paris Hilton

      And useless file locking

      I run into issues with FF where it locks a file after viewing or using, such as an HTML file on the Desktop, uploaded file, etc. I would love that to be fixed.

      And Shiretoko is out there for those who want 64-bit. Without rehashing the various discussions on the various missing 64-bit plug-ins, I will say that it runs nicely and works with all my Firefox add-ons. Though you cannot run Shiretoko and Firefox at the same time.

      Paris, should she be fixed, too?

  4. Hedley Phillips

    Will it still be slow and use up all my memory?

    I now use IE more than FF because it is so much faster and doesn't consume huge amounts of memory the longer it has been running.

  5. Neal 5

    and so

    those who don't see the truth, means that 25% of it isn't ready for release, do I expect a novel backlash against FF.


    I guess it's wheatabix AGAIN for breakfast. Same 'ol same as, same as before. I'm toooooooooooooooo fucking stupid to think for myself, follow the leader, be a lemming.

    I wish mucho malware upon you, you're not safe whichever browser you use.

    Obviously WE do need more bloatware, and FF/Mozilla seem more than capable of sating that desire. At a cost to you of course.

  6. SilverWave

    ubuntu-mozilla-daily 3.6pre

    Firefox 3.6 & 3.7 Available via daily ppa

    Gain access to the latest ubuntu-mozilla-daily ppa.

    Karmic Code:

    sudo add-apt-repository ppa:ubuntu-mozilla-daily

    sudo apt-get update

    sudo apt-get install firefox-3.6

    sudo apt-get install firefox-3.7

    These packages install in their own directories so you can use 3.5/3.6/3.7 side by side.

    The new FF3.6 will be found under the name "Namoroka" in Applications > Internet.

    The new FF3.7 will be found under the name "Minefield 3.7 Web Browser".

    Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2pre) Gecko/20100109 Ubuntu/9.10 (karmic) Namoroka/3.6pre - Build ID: 20100109051341

    1. SilverWave

      Pinning the ubuntu-mozilla-daily PPA

      "I regularly use a package from the Ubuntu Daily Mozilla PPA. Unfortunately the PPA also contains snapshot builds of Firefox 3.5 and XulRunner 1.9.1, which I want to keep at their standard Ubuntu versions".

      The Pinning Solution

      To make apt-get upgrading as painless as possible set a lower Pin-Priority on the PPA, this will stop unwanted package versions from installing. Once set, packages from the ubuntu-mozilla-daily PPA will always lose in any contest with packages from other repositories, even if they have a higher version.

      Create the file:

      1. /etc/apt/preferences.d/ubuntu-mozilla-daily-pin-400

      2. Add the following to the file:

      Package: *

      Pin: release o=LP-PPA-ubuntu-mozilla-daily

      Pin-Priority: 400

      (previous 3 lines should be one after another - no blank lines).

      Use the following commands, before and after, to check that the Pin-Priority has been updated.

      apt-cache policy

      apt-cache policy firefox-3.5


    Personas Suck

    Personas suck: they require an external website to host the skins - they aren't stored locally - and that website has to be up and running otherwise your nice shiny 'persona' will revert back to the default firefox appearance.

    This happened recently where the website was down for a few days.

    It also means connecting to that website each time you fire up Firefox, informing them of your IP address and that you're online.

    I'll stick with a regular theme that doesn't involve reporting back to a website and stores everything locally.

    1. Old Marcus
      Big Brother

      Paranoia much?

      I have a site that people visit, doesn't mean I spy on everyone who comes through. In case you hadn't noticed, the normal firefox themes still work, so use them if you find the tin foil hat a bit tasteless.

  8. Bruno Girin

    Need for speed?

    There we go: a new version of Firefox is announced and the first comments are about how bloated and slow FF now is compared to IE, Chrome, pick-your-browser-of-choice and how everybody expects it to still be slow with this new version.

    First about speed: Firefox out of the box is actually quite fast. Admittedly not as fast as say Chrome or IE8. However, what tends to slow FF down are extensions: if you have a performance problem, try disabling a few and see if it makes a difference. As for bloat, if someone can tell me what functionality you would remove out of vanilla Firefox (i.e. no extensions installed whatsoever), I'd be interested to know. I'd agree that the upcoming "persona" feature is surplus to requirements but I do struggle to see what else I would remove out of vanilla FF to make it more lightweight.

    In terms of expectations, FF 3.6 is a minor version upgrade compared to 3.5 so you should not expect any major changes, this is all about incremental improvements. For major changes, we'll have to wait for FF 4.0. Performance improvements to match (or overtake) Chrome, IE8 or any browser that was completely (re-)built from the ground up in the last 18 months probably require a major rewrite of some essential parts of the rendering engine and that is an undertaking that should be left for a major upgrade, not a minor one.


    Having said this, you choose the browser that fits your needs and one good thing to say about Firefox is that since it came out it's revived the market and we now have real competition and therefore a real choice. I choose to use Firefox for the following reasons, that are probably different from yours:

    1. It is fast enough for me (and that's on a 5 year old laptop and a netbook),

    2. It displays properly all the web sites I go to, even the ones that are just tag soup,

    3. It has a number of extensions I find useful,

    4. It supports a number of W3C recommendations beyond HTML, in particular SVG and MathML,

    5. It is open source, which means that if I have an issue with it, I can easily file a bug so that it gets sorted,

    6. It is the default browser on my Linux distro of choice, which means I know it will be kept up to date.

    1. Steve Graham


      Bruno Girin: "I do struggle to see what else I would remove out of vanilla FF to make it more lightweight."

      Well, how about the database server? That, surely, has got to be high on the list of things you shouldn't include in a web browser.

      If you fix that as per your point 5, I'll take a 64-bit Linux build please.

      1. Alan W. Rateliff, II
        Paris Hilton

        Cut out the database engine?

        You mean like the Jet database at the heart of IE?

        Paris, Jet, baby!

      2. Anonymous Coward

        Database server

        There is NO DATABASE SERVER in Firefox. If you mean sqlite, then it is just a programmer's library for structured mainpulating of database files which happens to use the same SQL as real database servers. What I mean is that many programs use these small programmer's databases (e.g., very popular used to be BerkeleyDB), sqlite differs from them only in using in its API SQL, otherwise it is the same as them.

  9. Dennis Healey

    Spot on Bruno

    Its good to see some rational comment Bruno. Some of the negative comments seem to come from characters that take all the body panels off their car to save some weight, regardless of how it looked and how cold it is.

    Undoubtedly there are some problems and it can always be better, but as long as it is built with the fripperies capable of being switched off it should work for most people.

  10. OrsonX

    El Reg not loading...

    Anybody else?

    This week I have either been getting a white page or the main page has been taking an age to load (that's with Safari 4.0.4, seemingly slightly better with FF 3.5.7).

    ...obviously I need to try FF 3.6, The Reg has probably already forward optimized to the future version!

    PS: Please can El Reg consider having the comments start on the first page when I click on them & not the last page? I keep finding myself starting to read the comments half way through, ta!

  11. Benny
    Thumb Up

    To be fair

    the only reason I use FF is because of FireBug. Quite possibly one of the most helpful things I've ever come across (for front-end stuff).

    If Chrome came out with a functionally similar add-on, or IE started behaving (not that it would run on a Mac), then I couldn't care less what browser I use, but as it stands, I still have to do front-end rubbish, and FF+FB makes my life a hell of a lot easier!

    I do think its the extensions that make FF what it is, as much as they do slow it down..

    1. Davros


      right click and select inspect element in Chrome - got everything firebug delivers in a nicer looking interface.

      Back on topic, I'd use Firefox over chrome if the address bar worked properly, thats all I want!

  12. Anonymous Coward

    re: Why do you need a 64 bit version?

    Because they think it will run better, and totally overlook the much bloated memory requirements that 64bit applications have which in the case of a web browser will totally drown out any 64bit processing efficiency benefits..

    Either way, Firefox is a huge memory bloat anyway, it's also pretty unsecure these days too. Anyone with any sense would be using Opera by now, as it's really the only credible alternatie (Chrome steals your privacy, Safari is a joke full stop and Firefox is insecure bloatware, IE8 is well shockingly bad)

    1. Old Marcus


      When will people learn that no matter how secure you attempt to make a browser or OS, it will always be compromised, providing it has the audience? There is no 'magic shield' that will protect you from the world's evils, else we could step in front of a train and still be alive. A lot of it comes down to the user being (or not) a blind sheep, clicking on anything that comes their way. no browser can stop them doing that without disconnecting them whenever it starts.

  13. Tom 38


    Firefox always expands to fill the available RAM. Got no more than 20 tabs open, and firefox is pushing 600MB RSS. If I restart firefox, it will fall to ~ 200MB for the same tabs.

    It almost certainly is extensions, mainly firebug, that seem to do it. The point is that in firefox the functionality I need is an extension written in javascript, where as in chrome/safari/epiphany it is part of the browser.

    There is more crap in firefox than in a french toilet, and none of it is useful.

    1. Dick Emery

      What tosh!

      I have 19 tabs open and they have been open for ages. I have more addons running than you would believe and it's only pushing 163MB right now. Considering all the addons I run and the number of tabs open I would expect it to use more memory but nope!

      It's definitely somewhat slower than Chrome though I'll give you that. But I prefer the functionality. There are just some addons I cannot live without!

This topic is closed for new posts.