Ask Slashdot: Life After Firefox 3.6.x? 807
Mooga writes "I am a hard-core user of Firefox 3.6.x who has chosen to stick with the older, yet supported version of Firefox for many years now. However, 3.6.x will soon hit end-of-life, making my life, and the lives of similar users, much more complicated. 3.6.x has been known for generally being more stable and using less RAM than the modern Firefox 10 and even Chrome. The older version of Firefox is already having issues rendering modern websites. What are others who have been holding onto 3.6.x planning on doing?"
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:2, Informative)
for example, PPC Macintoshes can't run a version of Firefox later than 3.6x
A PowerPC iMac I have is more than adequate for light office use, and will probably keep running for several more years.
But no PPC support for later browsers will send it to the landfill before that.
--- Eventually we'll be unable to access websites that rely on features in recent versions of flash, java or html5.
The memory bugs are being fixed (Score:2, Informative)
http://blog.mozilla.com/nnethercote/category/memshrink/ [mozilla.com]
Start there. They are working thru the memory issues. They have a pretty good idea where they are at (and how to fix them). They just figured out a huge one with a common plugin (mcafee) that they do not control.
They are also building in metrics to help people find the bugs instead of 'in task manager it is using 1.5 gig' (about:memory).
All in all I have been pretty happy with the 4-10 series. The only thing that pissed me off was the movement of controls. "learn yet another layout..." sort of thing.
Most of the speed increase for this last version came from the memshrink project (it was a decent one too).
If you are seeing crazy memory metrics they have steps they would like you to help them with to get it fixed...
Make your own fork (Score:4, Informative)
I'll skip the obvious question about why you don't like new Firefox or other browsers and try another tact.
Since this is all open source software, why don't you find like minded people and make a new fork based on Firefox 3.6? If you want to go older than Firefox 3.6, you can always use K-Meleon. [sourceforge.net]
Two Choices (Score:4, Informative)
You have essentially two choices: stay on 3.6 after EOL and deal with it, or upgrade.
Staying on 3.6 (Which I have to do one one machine because it's a G4 Mac and already has no support) is an option, but eventually, depending on what kind of websites you frequent, you may get pwn3d. But if you restrict yourself to known-good websites, and use extensions like AdBlock, FlashBlock, and possibly GreaseMonkey, you can probably coast along for years.
Upgrading to a new browser (Especially on Linux) is also not a terrible idea. Firefox 10 is actually pretty good about RAM use (Better than Chrome 17, for my uses), and you can set the interface to match Firefox 3.6 so you don't have to re-train yourself to the new look and feel. It's even a bit more snappy than Firefox 3.6, and it does have some nice features for web-centric users (Like pinned apps, and Firefox sync).
I understand the "I'm staying here" feeling, but unless you're willing to make some serious compromises, you're on your own.
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:5, Informative)
I was screaming about RAM usage because it sucked back then too.
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:5, Informative)
3.6 did use more memory than 2. Every later version used more and more memory up until version 8. Version 8 still used more memory than 3.6. Version 10 may or may not use more memory, but from version 8 forward the browser is way faster. Version 3.6 was rock solid stability wise for a long time. It's old now. I moved off it sometime last year. Version 10.0 is the new long term support version. It's the only logical choice to run now. I found 4, 5, 6, 7, and even 8 to be less stable. Which ought to be expected. 3.6 was after all a .6 version and not a .0 version, with many more bugfixes along the way. 10.0 is twice the disk size as 3.6, but again it's going to be WAY faster, but perhaps not much different on the memory landscape. The poster should begin migrating now, before support ends.
That is if you're one of those people who believes in keeping your system up to date, security patch wise. Kind of pointless to change the locks once everything is cracked open and stolen. So I guess I'm saying UPGRADE NOW to 10.0, while you have a choice.
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:5, Informative)
Check out TenFourFox [floodgap.com]. Current versions of Firefox, compiled for PowerPC Macs.
Re:Luddite refuses to upgrade. News at 11. (Score:2, Informative)
I hope you're simply misinformed. It's not like Mozilla stopped pushing security fixes for it - in fact, that's what is motivating the submitter to ask this question, so that he avoids the very situation you so hyperbolically described.
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:5, Informative)
But no PPC support for later browsers will send it to the landfill before that.
--- Eventually we'll be unable to access websites that rely on features in recent versions of flash, java or html5.
You can always put Linux on it. Even the latest [ubuntu.com] Ubuntu runs on PowerPC, which I expect includes an updated Firefox.
The disadvantage is no Flash, but you really shouldn't be running Flash on PowerPC anyway because the latest version has serious security unpatched vulnerabilities. And Flash is slowly disappearing anyway -- your iMac will probably be more useful a couple years from now when Flash is dead than it is now!
Get the extended release version (Score:5, Informative)
I'm in the same boat, I just (two weeks ago) switched from 3.6 to 10. I still have 3.6 installed just in case, but so far I'm adjusting.
In order to have some stability though, try the ESR version, it's what I'm using. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html [mozilla.org] And if you want to read the FAQ, go with http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/ [mozilla.org]
So far, there are a few hiccups. There were a few add-ons that didn't make the switch, but they were rarely used, so I haven't noticed their absence yet. The tab size is annoying and I haven't figured out how to fix that yet. The old about:config fix doesn't work, and the userchrome.css fix just screws things up more.
I did need to readjust the default layout, the lack of a refresh and stop button is just annoying, but they're easy to add back. I like having a user interface, so yeah, that.
Noscript and Adblock plus work. I recommend the "status-4-evar" addon to get the status bar back.
Overall, I haven't noticed the slowdown or memory consumption. Of course, everyone's mileage will vary.
One new feature, at least new for me, is that you have FF restore all your tabs after you close your browser, but when you start back up, the tabs won't load unless you click on them. I really like this feature. Back in 3.6, it could take a really long time to restore a browsing session.
Overall though, the shock of switching isn't as bad as you think.
I think I should probably end this post with instructions on doing a side-by-side install. Before installing anything, make a copy of your firefox profile. Then edit the 'profiles.ini' to reflect this, it's up a folder or two from the profiles. In the profiles.ini, make a new name, something like myff10stuff for your profile. Then, get the ESR build and install to a different folder, but do not start FF at the end of the install. Edit the existing FF shortcut or make your own, but put -P on the end. it should read something like
"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox 10\firefox.exe" -P myff10stuff
All that is because the profile manager doesn't let you copy an existing profile. You can delete, rename, or create a new one, but you can't copy. You'll probably want to do the same thing to the 3.6 copy and use the 3.6 profile.
Re:Hard-core user? (Score:5, Informative)
No, you should upgrade to 10.0.
Here's three simple reasons:
1) New LTS version. It's going to be around for a while.
2) 10.0 is the fastest version, since maybe forever with Mozilla/Firefox.
3) No more default incompatibilities with add-ons. By default all plug-ins/add-on are compatible. Only those marked incompatible by the authors are incompatible.
The smart user will be doing testing on 3.6 now, before official support ends. So when it ends any known issues can be dealt with. Nothing worse than having to scramble to upgrade because of some newly discover security flaw. Scrambling leads to hurriedness which leads carelessness which leads to mistakes which leads to the darkside ... taking over your servers.
Re:As users, we're getting fucked over. That's why (Score:5, Informative)
In the past, upgrades usually brought at least some benefits. There'd be useful new features
The reason 3.6 can't render some web sites is because it doesn't have the new features.
Re:Luddite refuses to upgrade. News at 11. (Score:5, Informative)
They'll stop providing security updates in a month, though, so it's certainly obsolescent and will be obsolete shortly.
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:5, Informative)
ya, they are missing out on all these awesome new features Mozilla has added.
Like.........umm........
HTML5 support.
Memory leaks are finally mostly fixed.
Memory usage is drastically reduced.
UI lag has been partially fixed.
Performance is massively improved.
The UI is more compact by default, though you can move the tabs back to the bottom and reinstall the status bar if you want.
[Addon incompatibility was addressed in 10, the browser no longer auto-disables add-ons after update; yes, that was dumb but they finally fixed it]
Re:Firefox 3.6 has lower RAM usage? (Score:4, Informative)
http://i.imgur.com/RaZt7.png [imgur.com]
I suggest setting this setting. It will load the tab only when you click the tab itself, making loading a lot faster (and this only works only when you restore tabs on the first launch).
Re:Not an issue (Score:4, Informative)
Woah, what Firefox 10 are you running? I've been running it for 2 hours and it's already at 400MB of RAM, and the 2 hour mark is just because I restarted it to release the gig and a half it was using.
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:4, Informative)
Dear luddite, get off of the internet. Please. Win 2k is 1.5 years beyond its extended support end date. http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?c2=1131 [microsoft.com]
While you're whining about apps and OS that can't run in 512MB ram, the rest of us have blazing fast desktops that never touch swap, because 16GB of ddr3 ram is something like $100-150 today. It costs more money to sit around whining than it does to get more ram than you know what to do with.
Profiles gone? I don't know what you're talking about. Start any modern firefox with the flags -no-remote to prevent opening another window of an existing firefox instance, and -profilemanager to open the profile management/selection window. I have all my shortcuts changed to start it that way by default.
My mobile has more ram than your computer.
Re:As users, we're getting fucked over. That's why (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a full list [caniuse.com] of web features that 3.6 doesn't support and FF 12 does. If you use a website that employes any of those technologies, you'll lose some of the experience you were supposed to get.
And web developers won't care. I think this is an important note. Old IE users (6/7/8) make up a large enough chunk of the web that legacy support for them is considered a higher priority for most, but FF 3.6 users are very much a minority, so you can't expect any support going forward.
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:4, Informative)
The easiest is to install Opera, the only browser with official Windows 2000 support AFAIK and start looking at what your next step is going to be to get off Windows 2000.
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why the anxiety? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not luddism to decline to upgrade something that's working effectively, especially when the upgrade has high cost and questionable benefits.
I would argue that when the "something that's working effectively" is a computer where you have to ask whether it meets the spec for Windows XP, and which is out-powered by many cellular telephones, the "high cost and questionable benefits" goes out the window.
Consider: you can buy a cheap laptop for $400 or so. If you don't mind recycling your old monitor, you can get a cheap desktop for $300 or so. For that, you get a system that is *significantly* faster, which should equate to a large savings in time, not to mention the ability to run a modern OS, which brings security advantages. And that's without even considering the electricity savings that could be had by building a system with a modern 80plus power supply.
Just doing a basic pricing on the cheapest system I can build on Newegg, try:
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138326 [newegg.ca] ($60 - cpu/motherboard/vga, via c7-d 1.8ghz dual core, mini itx)
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811154061 [newegg.ca] ($40 - case, mini itx/atx, with 240W power supply)
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313102 [newegg.ca] ($20 - memory 2x2GB DDR3)
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152181 [newegg.ca] ($80 - hard drive, 500GB)
Total cost, $200. And half of that is the hard drive, so if you're willing to salvage the old hard drive and throw in an IDE to SATA conversion kit, you can put it together for about $120. And that's a computer that will run Windows 7 (I've run Win7 x32 on a Via c7 1.5GHz system with 2GB of RAM, and it performed relatively well). Linux would fly on it. It'll still wipe the floor with a 10+-year old Windows 2000 system in performance, and it'll use a fraction of the electricity, possibly low enough to cover the initial $120 outlay within a few months (and certainly within a year). And you don't need an optical drive, because Windows 7 and Linux can both be installed from USB. (even if you did want an optical drive, it only adds $20 to the equation).
So no. It is luddism to refuse to upgrade it. Either that, or a false sense of economy.
Moore's law and memory capacity (Score:4, Informative)