Friday, July 8th 2011

Mozilla Ready with Firefox 7 Aurora Build

Mozilla is so frantically inflating Firefox version numbers, that its latest alpha (Aurora) build is already at version 7, less than a month after Firefox 5 final was released. Mozilla is playing catch-up with Google Chrome and Internet Explorer in the version number game. While informed users might find this silly, perhaps there is some data motivating Mozilla to inflate its version numbers, other than the fact that Google Chrome has already grabbed 20% of the browser market share, discretely updates itself, doesn't brag too much about version numbers; and the fact that Internet Explorer is back in the race with version 9 that greatly improved performance and features.

In any case, Firefox 7 is said to bring with it some new features, including faster startup time, better rendering performance, and more importantly, lower memory footprint. It also features better font rendering when GPU acceleration is enabled. An improved Sync manager syncs bookmarks and passwords instantly with your other devices. Firefox 7 Aurora (alpha, 7.0a2) can be downloaded in a wide range of languages, and for Windows, Mac, and Linux, from this page. Aurora builds can be unstable and buggy.
Add your own comment

52 Comments on Mozilla Ready with Firefox 7 Aurora Build

#1
Thrackan
by: Chevalr1c
Company-internal release, maybe. Or if one is on 5 (like me) and 7 is out, 6 will be skipped.
Nope, I'm local admin here and free to install whatever I want.
Posted on Reply
#2
EarlZ
Faster start up and better font rendering is a huge plus!
Posted on Reply
#3
1Kurgan1
The Knife in your Back
I don't understand why they care about version numbers. Most people know that one products version number doesn't mean anything about anothers. Like how ATi is going by thousands and NV is going by hundreds, must be ATi is way faster.
Posted on Reply
#4
remixedcat
I'm using the 8.0 nightly... 64 bit (with 64 bit flash beta) and it's allright... the RAM usage is higher then 5, but becuase it's not optimized yet. it does URL domain highlighting like IE8/9 does. it has a new permissions manager those are the two that stood out from 5. LOL.

FF9 nightly is scheduled for next month!!!!!
Posted on Reply
#5
Chevalr1c
by: Chevalr1c
Company-internal release, maybe. Or if one is on 5 (like me) and 7 is out, 6 will be skipped.
by: Thrackan
Nope, I'm local admin here and free to install whatever I want.
With "company-internal" I meant an internal version to be used by the Mozilla devs sorry to be unclear. And now I think about it, my guess is a bit weird b/c FF is F/OSS. Whatever...
Posted on Reply
#6
Assimilator
by: btarunr
Aurora builds can be unstable and buggy.
I think you meant, "Alpha builds can be unstable and buggy".
Posted on Reply
#7
AsRock
TPU addict
Crazy but i guess they have there reasons lol... Funny i just removed Google from 2 DELL systems this week as it was screwing them up and OMG how much space i was seeing it was taking was crazy.
Posted on Reply
#8
theJesus
by: remixedcat
I'm using the 8.0 nightly... 64 bit (with 64 bit flash beta) and it's allright... the RAM usage is higher then 5, but becuase it's not optimized yet. it does URL domain highlighting like IE8/9 does. it has a new permissions manager those are the two that stood out from 5. LOL.

FF9 nightly is scheduled for next month!!!!!
Seriously? I'm still on 3.6.18 at home lol. I went from 5 to 7 at work and noticed very little difference. In fact, the most difference I've noticed at all was from 3.6.18 to 4, and then everything after that should have just been 4.x.xx
Posted on Reply
#9
KieranD
As soon as i read Aurora i thought of Aurora illinois like the place in Waynes World lol.

Whats with the funny numbering scheme, btw im not on the beta service so im still on version 5.
Posted on Reply
#10
remixedcat
yeah a lot of people dislike the new versioning system with FF and it breaks addons... they ether need to do away with the version dependancy for addons or need to keep to .x releases.

and people are stupid for thinking that just a higher version number then the rest is the better.
Posted on Reply
#11
Zubasa
by: remixedcat
yeah a lot of people dislike the new versioning system with FF and it breaks addons... they ether need to do away with the version dependancy for addons or need to keep to .x releases.

and people are stupid for thinking that just a higher version number then the rest is the better.
Guess what?
This world is filled with uninformed and/or stupid people. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#12
ASRockIQ
i've stopped using FF since the last version of 3.x and now i use Google Chrome
Posted on Reply
#13
remixedcat
I would loose too many beloved addons if I moved to chrome... :( Plus the interface on FF is nicer.
Posted on Reply
#14
pr0n Inspector
by: Assimilator
I think you meant, "Alpha builds can be unstable and buggy".
no, it's Aurora.
nightly -> Aurora -> beta/RC -> gold
Posted on Reply
#15
7mm
Anyway, I'm far more happy with All new Opera (11.50), performing fast as usual.
Posted on Reply
#16
remixedcat
I have noticed a thing here.... a lot of people from India love opera! why is this? very intriguing....
Posted on Reply
#17
user21
by: Mr McC
They should just go ahead and call it Firefox 10.
:nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#18
Wile E
Power User
I wouldn't care one way or the other, but the FF team is forgetting one very important thing, a thing that keeps them relevant in this day and age: Extensions. These inflated version numbers are breaking extensions, for no good reason. Sure, I know how to disable that check, but most people don't, and shouldn't have to.
Posted on Reply
#20
PsiAmp
Mozilla team has a small numbers complex. IE has version 9, Opera has 11.5, Chrome - 14. Firefox has pitiful 4? lol, no user can be pleased with such a small version number.

And it doesn't matter that FF is slow as snail and has created around it an "Addon Hell". That's why I'm still using FF 3.6.1, some of my addons still don't work in 4.0.1. And without addons FF is a naked king. You can't even change keybindings without another addon.

Chrome is great for people that do not need much functionality, but fast browser that does the job.

My personal choice is Opera for being fast, lightweight and amazingly handy out of the box.

by: Wile E
I wouldn't care one way or the other, but the FF team is forgetting one very important thing, a thing that keeps them relevant in this day and age: Extensions. These inflated version numbers are breaking extensions, for no good reason. Sure, I know how to disable that check, but most people don't, and shouldn't have to.
I know how to disable the compatibility check, but some addons simply don't work with new version.
Posted on Reply
#21
pr0n Inspector
It's funny how Firefox is the only fully color manged browser on Windows, in 2011.

Wile E should know how horrible an un-managed image can look.
Posted on Reply
#22
remixedcat
the only addons that seem to have trouble are ones that bring up any special menus. like some of the downloaders and some of the IE accelerator emulating ones.

I finally got the realplayer downloader to work in V5!!! but sadly not the nightly 8.... :(
Posted on Reply
#23
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
by: derwin75
Google Chrome FTW!!!
chrome = poor copy of Opera

so Opera FTW
Posted on Reply
#24
a_ump
by: de.das.dude
chrome = poor copy of Opera

so Opera FTW
I suppose. I know Chrome obviously got its ideas from the other 3 before it was released, but their implementation is pretty dam good. Don't have a problem with Chrome here
Posted on Reply
#25
Jstn7477
No problems with Chrome either. Ditched FF way back when, because it takes so long to open and the sometimes endless Connecting... "beachball" on page loads really pissed me off.

All I need is a fast web browser with AdBlock, and Chrome fits the bill. Don't even notice it update most of the time.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment