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
bug
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...
If you actually use it for work, one would think you're already aware of: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/npapi-plugins
Posted on Reply
#2
night.fox
RejZoR said:
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...
but moonfox was community developed isnt it?

Anyway, only reason why i still use palemoon is because never had problem for years. But lets see when mozilla fix some minor bugs on the next coming releases.
Posted on Reply
#4
RejZoR
night.fox said:
but moonfox was community developed isnt it?

Anyway, only reason why i still use palemoon is because never had problem for years. But lets see when mozilla fix some minor bugs on the next coming releases.
Probably the same thing as Waterfox. Firefox fork with few tweaks and compiled with 64bit compiler.
Posted on Reply
#5
bug
Prima.Vera said:
Already using at work Firefox ESR, but is slow as hell....
FF 57 wouldn't be any different. As much as I love Java, the browser plugin has always been slow as a snail (Java in general is slow to start and it gets better/faster the more you use it). And probably the application you're running isn't too optimized either.
Posted on Reply
#6
Fx
Fluffmeister said:
Not used Firefox for years but this release has piqued my interest, I must say first impressions are very good, and it is indeed very snappy.

Bravo Mozilla.
Aye, same here. I used it exclusively for years and dropped it about 5 years ago after sluggishness/instability issues.

Based upon all reports, it sounds like I just might be switching back to Firefox.
Posted on Reply
#8
zargana
I am using it since the "nightly" came out and i loved it.

As firefox user for a long time this version really kicks...

Maybe they dropped java and flash plugins but its really good.

If you still didn't compare the sound of mozilla with other browsers, especially with chrome just do it. You gone love it.

Cheers
Posted on Reply
#9
bug
zargana said:
I am using it since the "nightly" came out and i loved it.

As firefox user for a long time this version really kicks...

Maybe they dropped java and flash plugins but its really good.

If you still didn't compare the sound of mozilla with other browsers, especially with chrome just do it. You gone love it.

Cheers
They didn't drop Java and Flash, they dropped the whole NPAPI plugin infrastructure. 9 months ago. Yet Flash is still supported somehow...
Posted on Reply
#10
StrayKAT
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 :)
Chrome just brings it's whole ecosystem with it. That's why I don't use it. I don't really have any complaints, other than that I don't invest in any Google stuff... and hopefully never will.
Posted on Reply
#11
INSTG8R
bug said:
Ad blockers have been updated (and many others). The only thing I use that isn't migrated yet is NoScript.
Then again, I only use a handful of plugins on a daily basis, ymmv.
Yeah I really want my NoScript back I really don’t trust Ublock and I REALLY want Classic Theme Restorer, I HATE the tabs on top :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#12
StrayKAT
INSTG8R said:
Yeah I really want my NoScript back I really don’t trust Ublock and I REALLY want Classic Theme Restorer, I HATE the tabs on top :banghead:
What do you hate? The title bar just looks darker to me.
Posted on Reply
#13
INSTG8R
StrayKAT said:
What do you hate? The title bar just looks darker to me.
As I said I don't like the tabs on top I like them under my bookmarks toolbar...
Posted on Reply
#14
R0H1T
INSTG8R said:
Yeah I really want my NoScript back I really don’t trust Ublock and I REALLY want Classic Theme Restorer, I HATE the tabs on top :banghead:
There's a very good alternative to noscript for chrome, better than noscript IMO.
Posted on Reply
#15
bug
INSTG8R said:
Yeah I really want my NoScript back I really don’t trust Ublock and I REALLY want Classic Theme Restorer, I HATE the tabs on top :banghead:
NoScript is coming in a few days, it's been posted in this thread already. As for tabs: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1184503
Posted on Reply
#16
StrayKAT
INSTG8R said:
As I said I don't like the tabs on top I like them under my bookmarks toolbar...
Doh.. that went over my head. Like, didn't even register for some reason. I don't know anything other than tabs being on top. I think?
Posted on Reply
#17
bug
StrayKAT said:
Doh.. that went over my head. Like, didn't even register for some reason. I don't know anything other than tabs being on top. I think?
Tabs on top used to be very annoying back when tabs weren't rendered if you only had one. The moment you opened a second one, the whole page would shift down to make room for the tab headers. The moment you were left with only one tab, the whole page would shift up. But that stopped being an issue since tab headers are no longer optional.
Posted on Reply
#18
BiggieShady
It's fine until you have gazillion tabs and can't move the window without dislodging one of the tabs unless you hit that 1 cm space left from the minimize button.
Still, you can enable the window title bar at the bottom of the customize screen.
Posted on Reply
#19
StrayKAT
I see. I'm pretty limited with tabs. Maybe 2 at a time. You guys would probably laugh at me. I'm only one step away from still browsing 1990's style.

edit: Lynx was the best browser ever btw.... when it actually worked and people used html.
Posted on Reply
#20
BiggieShady
StrayKAT said:
You guys would probably laugh at me. I'm only one step away from still browsing 1990's style.
Funny you should say that, I'm 90's surfer myself most of the times unless the way content is organized forces me to open many tabs ... coincidentally ironicaly those are usually 90's style websites that give you shitload of links that open in new tabs :laugh:

I was also surprised again for some reason at firefox fat blurry font clear type rendering ... had to go into about:config and look for gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.rendering_mode and set it to 2 and restart firefox. Do the same and thank me later.
Posted on Reply
#21
R0H1T
bug said:
To all those excited about Quantum, remember the most important piece (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum/Stylo) is not in place yet, it will be enabled at a later date. You can play with it now, but it seems it still causes crashes on Win64.
So as fast as FF is now, it will be even faster ;)

Edit: My mistake, it's WebReder that's incoming, not Stylo: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/the-whole-web-at-maximum-fps-how-webrender-gets-rid-of-jank/
Well the crashes you were talking about were caused by webrender, not stylo, you can try it using the usual about:config route. I think the chrome equivalent is webgl 2.0?
Posted on Reply
#22
bug
StrayKAT said:
I see. I'm pretty limited with tabs. Maybe 2 at a time. You guys would probably laugh at me. I'm only one step away from still browsing 1990's style.

edit: Lynx was the best browser ever btw.... when it actually worked and people used html.
Hear, hear. A dozen of tabs is too cluttered for my taste as well.
Posted on Reply
#23
TheOne
Tried this last month when it was in beta on my laptop, but ran into stability problems, the final release seems to be stable, might finally swap from IE11 to FF on my main desktop for regular browsing.
Posted on Reply
#24
BiggieShady
Ahh, already back to chrome purely because of scroll bars and font rendering
Posted on Reply
#25
bug
BiggieShady said:
Ahh, already back to chrome purely because of scroll bars and font rendering
Font rendering is configurable. Scroll bars idk, I don't see anything different.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment