You can download it and see. In my testing, Firefox today kills Firefox from back then in performance. JS is about 30 times faster. Start-up is about 5 times faster. Rendering is much faster. UI responsiveness is way ahead. It's a slam dunk. Go get Firefox 1 for yourself and give it a try.
I don't care what the "reasoning" is - this is just ridiculous versioning. At this rate in 2020, we'll be using Firefox 153. It will be confusing for the users.
No, you won't be using Firefox 153. You'll be using simply "Firefox". Version numbers are for internal project tracking only. The released product is simply "Firefox". If it was done for the MARKETERS, wouldn't you expect Firefox versions to advertise their version number? Well, they don't. Have you even looked at any of the latest versions to see that?
"which raises the question that why Mozilla hasn't considered a Firefox OS?"
Mozilla has considered a Firefox OS and decided against it.
Slashdot really should have published a link to this response from Mozilla http://blog.jprosevear.org/2011/05/13/webgl-security/
You're taking this wildly off topic. Evercookie depends on a large group of features and this is a mitigation for one of those features.
It's nice to have this in the latest versions of all the popular browsers (Firefox, IE, and Chrome) and it took cooperation from Adobe to make that happen. Good on them too.
Boris is 100% correct. Mozilla shipped this feature in Firefox 4 and if you have the newest Flash version, it "just works."
This story's headline is misleading. It should be "IE, Firefox, and Chrome..." because IE shipped it first, Firefox shipped it second, and Chrome just now got around to shipping it.
This is "usage" as measured by the number of visits to websites across the world using different operating systems. There is no bias here because of what system the machine came with. This is the system as it's running when connecting to the Web.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-quarterly-200803-201102
Linux is below 1% and falling. Linux on the desktop is almost imperceptible.
Vista and 7 both "require" a GPU powerful enough to do that, so MS can get away with not keeping a software renderer in the browser.
Um, no. Microsoft cannot get away without a software render in the browser even on Windows 7. There are far too many GPUs on Win7 systems that they don't support or don't support them. There are also plenty of places that the "renderer" doesn't use the GPU.
I know it's a common thing on
- A
But shutdown, it wasn't just one careless blog post. It was infused through out the entire campaign around IE9 and the IE10 developer preview. It was in the stage presentations, the press briefings, the blog posts and more. This wasn't some silly little slip. This is Microsoft's well-reasoned attack on the other browsers.
Maybe the engineering team for IE doesn't deserve this but they are the ones that chose to work for a company known for this kind of dishonesty. There are several other organizations out there employing browser developers and if I was an IE dev, I'd be seriously considering whether or not I wanted to work for a company that shits all over my great work with that kind of ugly marketing.
Vendor makes up nonsense technical jargon in an attempt to co-opt the Web and other vendors call them on it with humor. No need for follow-up stories.
You've just described all currently shipping browsers.
I program, therefore I am.
