Tuesday, November 14th 2017

Mozilla Announces Firefox Quantum Web-browser

Mozilla today released the Firefox Quantum web-browser for PCs. Technically version 57.0 of Firefox, Quantum comes with an overhauled user-interface, a more evolved multi-process sandbox than Google Chrome, and is geared for both performance and lower memory footprint. Mozilla claims that web-rendering performance has been doubled over the previous version (Firefox 56.0), making it play in a league above Google Chrome. It's also designed to have up to 30% smaller memory footprint than Chrome.

Firefox Quantum takes advantage of the very latest CPU instruction sets, and GPU features, to accelerate web-rendering, with a focus on keeping the interface as smooth as possible, without losing out on the quality of rendering. It also adds WebVR and and WASM support in-built, broadening its feature-set for browser-based gaming. Grab Firefox from the link below.
DOWNLOAD: Mozilla Firefox Quantum
Add your own comment

87 Comments on Mozilla Announces Firefox Quantum Web-browser

#1
Liquid Cool
W1zzard said:
Don't like the dark inactive tabs though, too distracting
W1z...

Tap on the key to bring up the menu bar...click on Tools, Add-ons...then go to Themes and switch to the 'Light' theme. Might be subjective...but to me, it seems to be running even a little better with the light theme.

Currently running Firefox 57 with Ublock Origin, Privacy Badger, HTTPS: Everywhere, and Decentraleyes without incident.

Absolutely love it....:)

Best Regards,

Liquid Cool
Posted on Reply
#3
EzioAs
W1zzard said:
Don't like the dark inactive tabs though, too distracting
It comes with 3 basic themes built in (Default, Light and Dark). Give the Light Theme a try, if the Default Theme (or Dark Theme) is too distracting for you.
Posted on Reply
#4
u2konline
lol wow it is faster. loving this so far :)
Posted on Reply
#5
remixedcat
slimjet ftw... firefucks is fucked
Posted on Reply
#6
Nihilus
Love it! My main pc only has 8 gb ram so i needed the extra room. I was often over 80% memory utilization with normal use before.
Posted on Reply
#7
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Prima.Vera said:
Does it support Java?
Doesn't appear to.
Posted on Reply
#8
RejZoR
W1zzard said:
Don't like the dark inactive tabs though, too distracting
Change to Light theme. The inactive tabs are just slightly darker than active one. The rest is basically identical.
Posted on Reply
#9
Gmr_Chick
Been using Firefox for several years and I can say without a doubt that Quantum is Mozilla's best Firefox yet. When they said it was 2 times faster, they weren't kidding! I can't believe how fast this thing is! I'm absolutely in love with it thus far. :clap:
Posted on Reply
#10
Ubersonic
Too little too late, won't win the market back from Chrome. IIRC Netscape tried a similar redesign after Firefox replaced them.
Posted on Reply
#11
RejZoR
Ubersonic said:
Too little too late, won't win the market back from Chrome. IIRC Netscape tried a similar redesign after Firefox replaced them.
Chrome isn't as good as some paint it to be. It has terrible design decisions and it's not even fast. In synthetic tests, it is, but on real webpages, it feels such a hog. Just because it's made by Google, it doesn't mean it's good. And I absolutely hate it how you can't move a single element or button in it without installing 30 extensions just to do that.
Posted on Reply
#12
john_
Firefox was already faster with multithreading support in it's latest versions, so becoming even faster than that, is a welcomed change. And fortunately, updating the 64bit version to 57, didn't messed up with the 32bit installation, that I still keep (you just don't open both versions) at version 56, because of one add on(text area cache) that I can't find anything else to replace it.

It took some years to Mozilla, but better late than never.
Posted on Reply
#13
bug
Chrome is fast, but also a resource hog. It certainly spurred other browsers into shaping up (performance-wise), but for some reason it never seem to jive well with me. Now my concern is Firefox also becoming a resource hog now that it knows how to spawn even more processes. I have no indication yet that's what's going to happen, it's just something that sits in the back of my mind.
Posted on Reply
#14
StrayKAT
RejZoR said:


Still, give it a try, Firefox is way better than god awful Chrome. Or super fast but rather limited functionality wise Edge.
Yeah, I kind of rotate between Firefox and Edge myself. Edge just because it's Windows default and I kind of like the integration. Functionality wise I just wish the bookmarks were better. It's broken, in fact. Not merely stripped down. It farts out on you after awhile of dragging favorites around in folders.
Posted on Reply
#15
RejZoR
StrayKAT said:
Yeah, I kind of rotate between Firefox and Edge myself. Edge just because it's Windows default and I kind of like the integration. Functionality wise I just wish the bookmarks were better. It's broken, in fact. Not merely stripped down. It farts out on you after awhile of dragging favorites around in folders.
Problem with Edge is that it's not configurable at all. And has nearly no addons/extensions. And syncing is clumsy and limited to Windows. Firefox and Opera are far more flexible in this regard. Firefox is also making bookmarks backups for several days back. If they poop out, you can restore them from user profile folder or within bookmarks manager.
Posted on Reply
#16
StrayKAT
RejZoR said:
Problem with Edge is that it's not configurable at all. And has nearly no addons/extensions. And syncing is clumsy and limited to Windows. Firefox and Opera are far more flexible in this regard. Firefox is also making bookmarks backups for several days back. If they poop out, you can restore them from user profile folder or within bookmarks manager.
I just use Windows, so not exactly a problem for me (and I just use an ad blocker on either browser). I am however using Firefox atm. Sometimes I just like browsing with it. I'd probably take advantage of it's syncing if I used other systems.
Posted on Reply
#17
Ubersonic
RejZoR said:
Chrome isn't as good as some paint it to be.
Things rarely are, but you don't get >50% market share by not being good. The thing that drew me to Chrome from FF all those years ago was the functionality advantages, I always find it funny when a new version of Chrome/FF/Edge comes out and the devs are like "It's now 0.02 ms faster than it's rivals!", like who cares I'm not a robot. From my perspective they all load pages roughly as fast so I use the one with the best features and the UI I prefer just like I have since 1994 :)
Posted on Reply
#18
RejZoR
Ubersonic said:
Things rarely are, but you don't get >50% market share by not being good. The thing that drew me to Chrome from FF all those years ago was the functionality advantages, I always find it funny when a new version of Chrome/FF/Edge comes out and the devs are like "It's now 0.02 ms faster than it's rivals!", like who cares I'm not a robot. From my perspective they all load pages roughly as fast so I use the one with the best features and the UI I prefer just like I have since 1994 :)
I can tell you how you gain such market share. You stamp a "Google" name on it and you spread it en mass via 3rd party affiliates. You don't see Firefox being bundled with apps. Or Opera. But I see god damn Chrome in almost every single 3rd paty app installer. avast! antivirus and CCleaner being one of the biggest ones. A lot of people have it installed or started using it because it arrived to their system in an aggressive way.
Posted on Reply
#19
bug
RejZoR said:
I can tell you how you gain such market share. You stamp a "Google" name on it and you spread it en mass via 3rd party affiliates. You don't see Firefox being bundled with apps. Or Opera. But I see god damn Chrome in almost every single 3rd paty app installer. avast! antivirus and CCleaner being one of the biggest ones. A lot of people have it installed or started using it because it arrived to their system in an aggressive way.
"A lot of people" is debatable, I'm sure neither of us has numbers to back that up. What I can tell you is most of my friends switched simply because it was faster. When some of the extensions for Firefox got onto Chrome's store there was even less of a reason to stick with Firefox. Its devs tools were also unmatched for a while.
Hate Chrome all you want, but at its roots it was faster than everything else and also standards compliant. That may have been eroded over time, but in the beginning there were compelling reasons to switch.
Until Chrome goes IE (which may have started to happen already), I believe there's room for everyone.
Posted on Reply
#20
night.fox
Seems faster than old firefox but wont give up palemoon. As you can see from screenshot that quantum is more than 2x using memory than palemoon. Same page only single tab opened.

Posted on Reply
#21
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
Liquid Cool said:
W1z...

Tap on the key to bring up the menu bar...click on Tools, Add-ons...then go to Themes and switch to the 'Light' theme. Might be subjective...but to me, it seems to be running even a little better with the light theme.

Currently running Firefox 57 with Ublock Origin, Privacy Badger, HTTPS: Everywhere, and Decentraleyes without incident.

Absolutely love it....:)

Best Regards,

Liquid Cool
Yea, that was the first thing I changed.. lol I don't like the new darker look on everything right now. I had to change Visual Studio 2017 as well... hehe But I have to say once I changed it to 'Light' I like it. It feels a lot faster. I like the blue line over the tabs as well. I never noticed that in the darker theme, but I didn't use that theme long.
Posted on Reply
#22
RejZoR
bug said:
"A lot of people" is debatable, I'm sure neither of us has numbers to back that up. What I can tell you is most of my friends switched simply because it was faster. When some of the extensions for Firefox got onto Chrome's store there was even less of a reason to stick with Firefox. Its devs tools were also unmatched for a while.
Hate Chrome all you want, but at its roots it was faster than everything else and also standards compliant. That may have been eroded over time, but in the beginning there were compelling reasons to switch.
Until Chrome goes IE (which may have started to happen already), I believe there's room for everyone.
It's not debatable. It's pure marketing and pushing of the product. Firefox is doing it with word of mouth which is slower, but more reliable for end user to stick with it. Google's pushing via affiliates is faster, but may end up just being installation with no real use in the end.

Only initial benefit back then was speed in JavaScript. Other than that, it was never particularly good. Now that others gained in speed dramatically, Chrome doesn't really have any other advantage quite frankly.

@night.fox
I hate the Moonfox because it sometimes lags whole month if not more behind Firefox releases. And now that Firefox is also 64bit, I see very little point in using it. I did in the past for the 64bit binary...
Posted on Reply
#23
R-T-B
Prima.Vera said:
Does it support Java?
Why on earth would you want to run Java in a web broswer today?

remixedcat said:
slimjet ftw... firefucks is fucked
Trident? o_O
Posted on Reply
#24
Prima.Vera
R-T-B said:
Why on earth would you want to run Java in a web broswer today?
I have my business app and web management interfaces that are on the shitty and crappy Java... Yeah, definitely is not by choice...
Posted on Reply
#25
R-T-B
Prima.Vera said:
I have my business app and web management interfaces that are on the shitty and crappy Java... Yeah, definitely is not by choice...
I'd just install waterfox or something that enables plugins as a secondary, java only browser honestly.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment