Tuesday, September 27th 2011

Firefox in Warp Zone, Updated to Version 7.0

A little over a month after releasing Firefox 6.0, and quickly following it up with two minor updates (6.0.1 and 6.0.2), Mozilla released its next "major" version, Firefox 7.0 into the release channel. It is now clear that Mozilla Firefox is playing catch-up with other popular web-browsers in some sort of a version number game. The three year old Google Chrome is already into version 14, with version 16 already in the dev channel.

While Firefox users will not be in for a different user interface (it's bad to drastically change it from time to time), Firefox 7 does seem to come with several under-the-hood changes. To begin with, the Windows version features a brand-new rendering back-end that speeds up Canvas, a tweaked Sync system that instantly syncs changes to bookmarks and saved passwords, support for text-overflow: ellipsis, compliance with the Web Timing specification, WebSocket protocol updated from version 7 to 8, and improved support for MathML. The only UI change is that the protocol of the page loaded is hidden. The full URL will be copied when you copy the address in the bar. Firefox 7 is launched for all platforms it's available in: Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android.
DOWNLOAD: Mozilla Firefox 7
Add your own comment

80 Comments on Firefox in Warp Zone, Updated to Version 7.0

#1
t_ski
Former Staff
Stupid version number crap has been going on forever. First version of Windows NT was 3.1. Why? Because Windows for Workgroups was already at 3.1, and if they released NT as version 1.0, people would automatically assume it was inferior to Windows for Workgroups. Same thing just happened with Windows 7. It's not version 7: it's version 6.1. Yes, Vista 2.0. But everyone bashed Vista for being crap so MS couldn't release it as anything but a different OS. Stupid verion number crap. :mad:
Posted on Reply
#2
n-ster
t_ski said:
Stupid version number crap has been going on forever. First version of Windows NT was 3.1. Why? Because Windows for Workgroups was already at 3.1, and if they released NT as version 1.0, people would automatically assume it was inferior to Windows for Workgroups. Same thing just happened with Windows 7. It's not version 7: it's version 6.1. Yes, Vista 2.0. But everyone bashed Vista for being crap so MS couldn't release it as anything but a different OS. Stupid verion number crap. :mad:
Windows 7 is similar to Vista, but definitively not Windows 6.1
Posted on Reply
#3
entropy13
I don't care, it's not like you're forced to update/use 7.0.
Posted on Reply
#4
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Easy Rhino said:
no, you need to care about everything all the time! let the tech nerd rage flow through you!!
But that will lead to the dark side!:eek:
Posted on Reply
#5
Derek12
I believe that FF devs are doing a excellent job with the Firefox 9 nightly builds with the performance. It beats Chrome in terms of speed and page loading, maybe because it has REAL GPU acceleration while Chrome doesn't (Yes it has GPU compositing in all pages enabled, but I don't see the GPU is working, unlike Firefox).
Posted on Reply
#6
RejZoR
semantics said:
rejzor turn off smooth scrolling?

Don't care for the epeen numbers from FF but w.e updates are updates. Just tell them once they hit 20 this is gonna sound stupid

FireFox 23 just makes it sound old and broken not up to date.
Then what's the point? I need smooth scrolling because wiithout it everything is choppy while scrolling. The thing is, i'm not getting this issue on my netbook with WinXP so it has to do something with either Win7, my Raden HD6950 and/or AMD Catalyst.
Everything else works fine, so if they could just fix this damn thing already and i'd be on my way.
Posted on Reply
#7
Derek12
RejZoR said:
Then what's the point? I need smooth scrolling because wiithout it everything is choppy while scrolling. The thing is, i'm not getting this issue on my netbook with WinXP so it has to do something with either Win7, my Raden HD6950 and/or AMD Catalyst.
Everything else works fine, so if they could just fix this damn thing already and i'd be on my way.
Try enabling/disabling Hardware acceleration.
Posted on Reply
#8
RejZoR
I did and the same thing happens with HW acceleration disabled. The thing is, when Firefox gets all choppy and laggy, my RocketDock that i have on my top screen edge is also lagging like hell if i pull it out.

However there must be something weird going on because i was testing Opera 11.51 few days ago and i got a very similar thing. Scrolling got a bit choppy and tabs when you open a new one didn't slide open smoothly, but they were all choppy. But the whole thing was nowhere near as horrid as with Firefox. I don't remember Chrome having such problems...
Posted on Reply
#9
random
I've uninstalled this after 6.0, browser kept timing out when I loaded multiple tabs bloody annoying.
Posted on Reply
#10
Derek12
RejZoR said:
I did and the same thing happens with HW acceleration disabled. The thing is, when Firefox gets all choppy and laggy, my RocketDock that i have on my top screen edge is also lagging like hell if i pull it out.

However there must be something weird going on because i was testing Opera 11.51 few days ago and i got a very similar thing. Scrolling got a bit choppy and tabs when you open a new one didn't slide open smoothly, but they were all choppy. But the whole thing was nowhere near as horrid as with Firefox. I don't remember Chrome having such problems...
Strange, Is this happening randomly on a specific page, ie with flash.

In my case I get lagging with Firefox only if the webpage has lots of Flash stuff, or if I open too many heavy pages (because I have limited RAM), or if I load many pages together. In Chrome I got similar issues but I think it's a memory/GDI objects leak.
Posted on Reply
#11
Widjaja
I have just updated FF to 7 and all I have to say is the changes are so insignificant I can only see this update as a stupid version number jump.
If they are going to do something, they should make the change worthy and significant.
Why improve on something kick ass only to cause more overhead and more problems.

I vouch for calling the next FF version FFF (Fire Fox Fail) because they are being dumb with this number jumping.
Posted on Reply
#12
bear jesus
Widjaja said:
I vouch for calling the next FF version FFF (Fire Fox Fail) because they are being dumb with this number jumping.
I say the next version should be Firefox ∞ so they can just give up on trying to artificially inflate the number.
Posted on Reply
#13
Widjaja
bear jesus said:
I say the next version should be Firefox ∞ so they can just give up on trying to artificially inflate the number.
Has quite a nice ring to it too.....lol

Fire Fox Infinite!
Posted on Reply
#14
Derek12
Widjaja said:
I have just updated FF to 7 and all I have to say is the changes are so insignificant I can only see this update as a stupid version number jump.
If they are going to do something, they should make the change worthy and significant.
Why improve on something kick ass only to cause more overhead and more problems.

I vouch for calling the next FF version FFF (Fire Fox Fail) because they are being dumb with this number jumping.
Nope the changes are sufficient to release an update

Anyway I agree jumping to 7 is bad, it should be 6.5 or something else.
Posted on Reply
#15
naoan
I still can't think a sound reason for all this version number debacle (on Mozilla part). :confused:
Posted on Reply
#16
micropage7
sometimes its annoying
chasing version and its like they make noodles. just add water wait for 3 minutes and done
they wanna chase chrome? come on, i feel sick of downloading 20some MB every newer version of chrome that out
Posted on Reply
#17
micropage7
bear jesus said:
I say the next version should be Firefox ∞ so they can just give up on trying to artificially inflate the number.
nice
why dont they flush the version and mark it with FF11
Posted on Reply
#18
Zubasa
n-ster said:
Windows 7 is similar to Vista, but definitively not Windows 6.2
It's not 6.2, because it IS 6.1 :ohwell:
It is the actual version number of the kernel and stuff in "Windows 7".
Posted on Reply
#19
n-ster
Zubasa said:
It's not 6.2, because it IS 6.1 :ohwell:
It is the actual version number of the kernel and stuff in "Windows 7".
pressed 2 by accident but even if the "kernel and stuff" was V 6.1, Windows 7 is sufficiently different to warrant a different name then Vista. It is in no way comparable to the inflation of version of FF.
Posted on Reply
#20
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
what ever. i will still use Opera.
Posted on Reply
#21
Widjaja
Derek12 said:
Nope the changes are sufficient to release an update

Anyway I agree jumping to 7 is bad, it should be 6.5 or something else.
Whatever the changes are I am not seeming them or noticing them off the bat.
It looks and runs just the same as the previous FF IMO.
Posted on Reply
#22
faramir
RejZoR said:
Version 7 is not bad, but i still get retarded choppy scrolling and lagging of the entire brwser and Windows GUI on my main system. If i restart the browser, all is well again. It has been like this since FF 4.0. I have no clue what the hell they are doing.
Don't worry - folks at Mozilla don't have a clue either.

It takes multiple extensions just to rework 4.x (or whatever they call it today, "7.0") into something as functional as 3.6.x. No advantages over older version, mind you, just to get the same functionality back (things such as status bar, correct order of pop-up menu etc.). They're stupid and they're going to sink what was once a good browser, just like Netscape did almost 15 years ago with transition from 3.x to 4.x and onwards.
Posted on Reply
#23
ariff_tech
faramir said:
Don't worry - folks at Mozilla don't have a clue either.

It takes multiple extensions just to rework 4.x (or whatever they call it today, "7.0") into something as functional as 3.6.x. No advantages over older version, mind you, just to get the same functionality back (things such as status bar, correct order of pop-up menu etc.). They're stupid and they're going to sink what was once a good browser, just like Netscape did almost 15 years ago with transition from 3.x to 4.x and onwards.
Im still using firefox 3.6.23 [Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Firefox/3.6.23]:nutkick::nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#24
t_ski
Former Staff
n-ster said:
Windows 7 is similar to Vista, but definitively not Windows 6.1
Zubasa said:
It's not 6.2, because it IS 6.1 :ohwell:
It is the actual version number of the kernel and stuff in "Windows 7".
n-ster said:
pressed 2 by accident but even if the "kernel and stuff" was V 6.1, Windows 7 is sufficiently different to warrant a different name then Vista. It is in no way comparable to the inflation of version of FF.
Yes. If you open up a command line and type "ver" it says "Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]."
Posted on Reply
#25
entropy13
t_ski said:
Yes. If you open up a command line and type "ver" it says "Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]."
No, it says "Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]." :cool:


:laugh:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment