| 3:18 am on Nov 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The upgrade to 17.0 rendered my Firefox unusable in many ways.
In particular Manage Add-Ons didn't work; it wouldn't even open. Clicking links caused two new tabs to open and load the linked-to page in both tabs. I no longer got a warning when trying to close Firefox with multiple tabs open. I could only view streaming Netflix & Amazon in 480p even when a HD version was available.
Thankfully I've learned over the years to keep the previous version around until I'm satisfied the new version works properly, so I was able to downgrade to 16.0.2 and now everything that was broken works again.
I think the best bet these days is not to upgrade to any .0 release, opting instead to wait until at least a .0.1 version is available.
| 8:07 am on Nov 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It's the "Agile Development" wot did it. See previous discussion thread for FF 16.
| 12:40 pm on Nov 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Just checked Help->About in FireFox to see what version I was on...before I could see I was on 16, I saw the little 'downloading update' progress. Before I could think if/how I should stop it, it was done! Ready to restart!
Damn this efficiency.
Might see how long I can keep FireFox open for, to hold off this update as long as possible, if these issues are in fact wide-spread.
Mental note to come off the release update channel.
| 1:09 pm on Nov 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I just checked qand found the same thing
| 2:34 pm on Nov 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|opting instead to wait until at least a .0.1 version is available. |
Yep, that's why I hadn't installed 16 before now and will wait for at least 17.0.1
| 9:02 pm on Nov 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The normal "extended release" versions that are released at a sane 54 week intervel can be found at http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html [mozilla.org]. I've been using Firefox 10 ESR and will switch to Firefox 17 ESR. Most Firefox releases (just like Chrome releases) past version 4.0 had anything worthwhile to add more than a single blog entry about. It's a complete waste of time and the people who were for copying Google over at Mozilla should be fired for their incompetence.
| 9:46 pm on Nov 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I like Firefox more than any other browser again now that the whole "memory leak" thing has been fixed (and it has from what I've been able to determine). However, this rapid fire version release is getting strange and somewhat old.
What's the point of going from 16.0.2 to 17.0 in a matter of weeks? There doesn't seem to be anything new beyond some bug fixes.
| 9:56 pm on Nov 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Brand X version 17 must be a better product than Brand Y version 10?
I mean it's got a bigger number; that must mean a lot, no?
| 9:57 pm on Nov 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|now that the whole "memory leak" thing has been fixed (and it has from what I've been able to determine) |
It does seem to be much better. I've got eight tabs open across four tab groups and it's only using ±360,000 KB.
|There doesn't seem to be anything new beyond some bug fixes. |
There are all the new bugs introduced in 17 that have to be fixed. :(
| 3:31 am on Nov 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It seems odd to remind people here to search, esp on the obvious keyword string 'firefox 17 what's new' .... whatever, resume fudding :) FWIW I too am not a fan of this rapid change.
Portable apps (website) has older stable FF versions for development testing usage.
| 4:04 am on Nov 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Might see how long I can keep FireFox open for, to hold off this update as long as possible, if these issues are in fact wide-spread. |
If you go into Options in the Advanced section on the Update tab you can disable checking for updates. FF suggests you not do this, but if you keep up with their update cycle via sites like this you can download the update directly and install it yourself.
|Portable apps (website) has older stable FF versions for development testing usage. |
You can also download any previous release directly from Mozilla.
| 10:08 am on Nov 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Couldn’t wait to install version 1xx next year :-)
| 9:44 pm on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
This is really dumb. FF needs to slow-up and get their releases solid and more substantial. Frequent releases makes cross browser testing more difficult and costly. Other than fixes and small performance gains, what makes this worthy of wasting my time on an upgrade? Are most users going to use the HTM5 sandbox or the developer tools?
| 6:44 pm on Nov 26, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Brand X version 17 must be a better product than Brand Y version 10? |
I mean it's got a bigger number; that must mean a lot, no?
Whew! That sure makes me glad I'm on Chrome 23. So then you think it must be more secure than Firefox 17? Firefox better get in gear!
FF 8.0.1 released Nov 21, 2011
FF 21.0.0 scheduled for May 7. 2013
13 major version numbers in roughly 17.5 months means, at this pace...
17.5/13 = 1.3462 months release
79 releases until triple digits * 1.3462 months/release = 106 months from May 2013 to version 100 = 8 years, 10 months = March 2022.
Of course, the release rate is generally accelerating and may not be linear, but appears to be approximating Moore's Law, in which case, we may well see it next year kartiksh
| 8:31 pm on Nov 26, 2012 (gmt 0)|
If they really want to impress the users, the release numbers should go up 10 at a time. :)
I mean, a product with triple digits version numbers must be way ahead of everying else...
| 1:21 am on Nov 27, 2012 (gmt 0)|
| 9:35 pm on Nov 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The full version releases are as annoying as popup windows ... They're actually the only reason I've really given serious thought to stop using FireFox.
I wish they'd just 'skip a few', call the next one 30 to so they feel super cool by beating Google to it, then go back to normal subversions, except for what are actually major releases.
I don't even want a subversion release rate at anywhere near their current rate for 'major version' releases. I wish they would just Slow Down.