Browsers: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0?
What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0?
by Syrinx77 - 10/17/08 5:06 PMNoticeably better than 2.0? They fix the security bug I'd heard about when it 1st came out?
thx
Works fine here.
by MarkFlax
- 10/18/08 4:51 AM
In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77
I've been using it since it was issued, and it seems stable and a little faster. There's a new 3.1 out in Beta, and the talk is it is even faster, but I will wait for the official version before trying it.
Mark
Yes and yes...
by John.Wilkinson - 10/18/08 8:47 AM
In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77
Firefox 3 is noticeably faster than Firefox 2, and the original security flaws have been patched in subsequent releases. Also, as Mark noted, Firefox 3.1 is slated to be released soon, offering slight increases in overall performance and dramatic increases in Javascript performance. (Firefox 3.1 beats Google's Chrome now.)
What uses Javascript you ask? Everything from the Cnet universal login at the top of the page to Yahoo Mail, My MSN, Google Docs, etc. It's often one of the slowest parts of a webpage to load, so a boost there is significant.
John
Firefox 3 - Yes but...
by Zouch - 10/31/08 8:12 PM In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77Firefox 3 does seem to be noticeably quicker than version 2, particularly on image rendition BUT many of the extensions and add-ins from Firefox 2 don't work. I only use a couple but what do you know - neither work in Firefox 3! I'm sticking with V2 until at least Realplayer streaming video download works.
And the new interface is quite dreadful! There is a partial 2" theme for V 3.0.x but it doesn't work with 3.1 beta and it still has the awful format for the drop down and download menus that V3 introduced. V2 was so much tidier.
Your mileage may vary.
Security bug?
by 3rdalbum - 10/31/08 10:38 PM In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77Not only did they fix the one that was around at launch, but they've fixed several that your Firefox 2 still has! Security flaws are unfortunately a fact of this life, and one small known flaw shouldn't stop you from updating your software.
The interface has changed a bit... I wish the old Downloads window was here. But really that's the only bad thing. Most extensions have been updated, and those that haven't been updated have usually been superseded by different ones that do the same thing but better.
I'd highly recommend upgrading either by downloading Firefox 3, or by downloading a different browser based on Firefox 3 (like Flock, which is a bit slower but has a massive array of features).
Firefoox 3.0
by patcheye.com - 11/1/08 12:53 AM In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77Syrinx77 -
Much better than 2.0. They fixed bugs, increased its speed, and all around bettered the system. The only thing I would recommend is that you back up your old 2.0 bookmarks as they disappeared when I upgraded. No sweat for me because I always keep a backup of bookmarks, ever since I still used IE. MY copy had a bad habit of eating them almost daily. I got into the habit of both bookmarking and copying the URLs and pertinent info to a text file that I made into a web page, with login and password. Firefox bookmarks wonderfully well in 3.0 and there are add-ons if you don't like the sidebar and display, look at all the add-ons and pick and choose themes and extensions to get just the browser you want. If you were to look at my browser and my son's, you would only know they were both the same browser by the words "Mozilla Firefox" in the upper bar, and that's more of a windows issue. I have a friend with Linux who got rid of that bar completely and controls "close" "minimize" & "restore down" by the keyboard. Saves a tiny bit of real estate on a laptop screen. Anyway, I love the new security, speed and customization.
Not noticeably
by richteral - 11/1/08 2:36 AM In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77Doubtless improvements were made but they are all but invisible, under the hood. The "styling" is definitely a regression compared to FF2, and a letdown to me. Comparisons will soon become moot, though, since if I remember it right, as of December FF2 will not be updated. So if you haven't got it already, FF3 is coming to your house soon anyway.
firefox 3 v firefox 2
by insanecatlady - 11/1/08 8:03 PM In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77I noticed that it got slower and slower. I cant really compare with two as when i was using two i was on a dinosaur of a computer. Im now running an uptodate new comp but firefox just seemed to get slower and slower so ive uploaded the latest one and it seems fine again now.
Im running vista so im sure that doesnt help
Just Fine @ 3.0.3
by timwerx - 11/1/08 9:45 PM In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77I'm now using the latest (3.0.3) and it works great for me -- no crashes, no problems, and fast enough. Definitely worth a try, I think.
Having a different experience
by Brooke_M - 11/2/08 6:15 AM In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77I am actually having a different experience than others who have posted. I started using Firefox about 18 months ago and got hooked because, like most others, it wasn't Microsoft IE, the incorporation of tabs, and all the great add-ons. The one major trouble I had with 2.0 occurred when opening PDF files ...it would slow down or completely lock up. So I was looking forward to 3.0. But actually I became pretty disappointed after using 3.0 for a while. First, I find that it takes forever to open the browser up ... on average about 1.5 - 2 minutes, and sometimes longer! I have also found that I have trouble re-opening Firefox after I have just closed it (I get a message that indicates that Firefox is already running in the background.) And, it can be sluggish during normal use (time needed to open a webpage). It became so sluggish that I tested Chrome, and am now using that because it is so noticeably faster. Of course I give up a lot because Chrome cannot match Firefox in terms of functionality and add-ons. Anyone else have these problems? I am using Toshiba Qosmio G25 with 2 mg RAM (max), purchased about 3 years ago, so I have a fairly recent system.
Odd...
by John.Wilkinson - 11/2/08 6:43 AM
In reply to: Having a different experience by Brooke_M
Slowness and temporary freezing while opening PDF files is normal for the Adobe plugin, but those issues have been greatly resolved with Adobe Reader 9 and the default settings. (It now lets you start navigating the page, and other tabs, while the remainder of the PDF is still being downloaded, something it did not do previously.)
However, the load time is horrendous...it should only take a few seconds. Here are two things that come to mind:
1.) Press Ctrl + Shift + Esc and switch to the Performance tab...report on Physical RAM, Paging File (virtual memory), and CPU usage levels, used and total available. It could be a background process is consuming too much in the way of system resources.
2.) Press Windows + R and type in firefox.exe -p -no-remote, create a new profile, and load it, then report the results in speed/performance. It could be one of your extensions has a memory leak or other design defect.
Let us know.
John
P.S. The 'Firefox is already running' error occurs when you try to launch Firefox before it has been fully removed from memory, so while the window is gone some part of it remains running. You can kill the process firefox.exe in Task Manager if you wish to fix the issue when it occurs.
Firefox 3
by timwerx - 11/2/08 6:50 AM In reply to: Having a different experience by Brooke_MI once had problems similar to yours with Firefox 2. I created a new profile for myself and that solved the problem. I have an older notebook with 900 MHz and 512 MB RAM, far less than you. For me, Firefox takes around 35 seconds to open the first time after a boot, and only 7 or 8 seconds to re-open after closing.
Your Firefox not fully closing is definitely something that needs looking into. Perhaps a totally clean install?
Good luck to you.
try foxit reader
by justchuck69 - 11/2/08 10:18 AM In reply to: Having a different experience by Brooke_Mtry foxit reader as it uses a lot less system resources then adobe does
foxit reader can handle most of what adobe reader does
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/
gl and tc
chuck
Seconding the Foxit suggestion
by UKposter - 11/16/08 9:36 AM In reply to: try foxit reader by justchuck69I've used Foxit for all of my PDF needs for about 18 months and it's worked well. I got rid of the massively bloated Adobe program, the bloat may well contribute to your loading problems.
Foxit loads fast, doesn't drain my computers' resources like adobe does, I thoroughly recommend it, just set it as your default PDF software when you need it and it should all be working much faster.
very fast but not as fast as minefield
by justchuck69 - 11/2/08 10:13 AM In reply to: What's The Verdict on Firefox 3.0? by Syrinx77very fast but not as fast as minefield ( the next firefox )
both firefox 3 and minefield are very stable too
lots of option ( and add ons ) are starting to work with both firefox 3 and minefield now
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
