Firefox 3.6alpha1

[stwschool]

Nice. I'm running it now, all my add-ons working fine, and speed to rival Chrome. Not bad at all.

[YeOK]

Nice. I'm running it now, all my add-ons working fine, and speed to rival Chrome. Not bad at all.

Mine updated to Firefox 3.6alpha2 and I find it the same speed as 3.5. No where near the speed of the latest chrome.

[K.Mandla]

Why is this not in the repositories yet?!!

:lolflag:

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[gjoellee]

I have tested both Chrome 3.0.195.6 BETA and Firefox 3.6 Alpha1, and the speeds are quite similar. Chrome is still a little leap ahead, but Firefox is has to be Chrome's "arch enemy" :P

[JillSwift]

I have tested both Chrome 3.0.195.6 BETA and Firefox 3.6 Alpha1, and the speeds are quite similar. Chrome is still a little leap ahead, but Firefox is has to be Chrome's "arch enemy" :P
But not it's "Gentoo enemy"?
Is it it's "OpenSUSE enemy"?
How about it's "Fedora enemy"?
No one's anyone's enemy under Ubuntu. ;) :)

[speedwell68]

Personally I see no point in comparing Firefox to Chrome/Chromium purely based on speed. Yes, Chrome is faster than Firefox, but Chrome is no where near Firefox in terms of actual functionality.

[gjoellee]

But not it's "Gentoo enemy"?
Is it it's "OpenSUSE enemy"?
How about it's "Fedora enemy"?
No one's anyone's enemy under Ubuntu. ;) :)

Why should OpenSUSE be Chrome's arch enemy? Neither openSUSE, Fedora, Gentoo or Ubuntu are web browsers.

Though if it was a joke, I got it :P


Oh, by the way. Firefox 3.6 is codenamed Namoroka.

[stwschool]

Well the functionality is why I'm not on Chrome (I can't live without Tree Style Tabs and Download Helper). The speed bugged me though and this release is faster than Swiftfox 3.5 so it'll be interesting to see how fast Swiftfox is when it's based on 3.6 code.

[lovinglinux]

Why is this not in the repositories yet?!!

:lolflag:

Sorry. I couldn't resist.


I don't want any "Namoroka" thing with a horrible blue logo. I want Firefox 3.6. Where is it? :lol:

When I thought the forum would finally be free of Shiretoko name complains, here comes Namoroka 3.6.

Now, seriously...

I haven't tested it yet. I'm still compiling 3.5.2 right now, but I will take a look at 3.6 when it's done and update my benchmarks (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1193567). I guess today is compiling day. Unfortunately, my system will take 4 hours to do both ](*,)


Well the functionality is why I'm not on Chrome (I can't live without Tree Style Tabs and Download Helper). The speed bugged me though and this release is faster than Swiftfox 3.5 so it'll be interesting to see how fast Swiftfox is when it's based on 3.6 code.

That sounds interesting.

[SpriteSODA]

A browser without AdBlock is not a browser at all, and for that Chrome will never beat Firefox. (It'll never have adblocks of course as Google makes most of it's money from advertisments).

[FuturePilot]

Why is this not in the repositories yet?!!

:lolflag:

Sorry. I couldn't resist.


I don't want any "Namoroka" thing with a horrible blue logo. I want Firefox 3.6. Where is it? :lol:

When I thought the forum would finally be free of Shiretoko name complains, here comes Namoroka 3.6.


I know, what is this Namoroka thing? This clearly isn't Firefox!!!!!11

:lol:

[joey-elijah]

A browser without AdBlock is not a browser at all, and for that Chrome will never beat Firefox. (It'll never have adblocks of course as Google makes most of it's money from advertisments).

But it does have adblock extensions. Two! Both are proper .crx add-ons (Chrome Extensions). Maybe do some research next time!

http://d0od.blogspot.com/2009/08/top-chrome-extensions.html

and adblock plus is @ http://ruzanow.ru/extensions/adblock.crx

i've yet to come across any adverts using them - so it's on a par with Firefox!

As for thinking Chrome will never allow adblockers - you forget Chrome and Chromium are open-source: people can make whatever add-on's they want to.

[spier]

... (It'll never have adblocks of course as Google makes most of it's money from advertisments).

A bit off topic:

Using CHROMIUM, would the boss be the same?

[lovinglinux]

I have already compiled and installed it. I'm impressed. Some extensions are not working, even with the compatibility check disabled, but it really has better performance, even with 35 extensions installed and running.

Here is my benchmark comparison chart since Jaunty release:

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=124167&stc=1&d=1249840668

What is really amazing is that when I first installed Jaunty, my Firefox 3.0 benchmark got only 200 points and now I get 1242.

Who needs Chromium? It would be perfect if Firefox could create a separate process for each tab.

[stwschool]

I have already compiled and installed it. I'm impressed. Some extensions are not working, even with the compatibility check disabled, but it really has better performance, even with 35 extensions installed and running.

Here is my benchmark comparison chart since Jaunty release:

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=124167&stc=1&d=1249840668

What is really amazing is that when I first installed Jaunty, my Firefox 3.0 benchmark got only 200 points and now I get 1242.

Who needs Chromium? It would be perfect if Firefox could create a separate process for each tab.
I believe that's what they plan to do. I also recall seeing somewhere that the 1-process-per-tab thing isn't in linux chrome/chromium.

[lovinglinux]

I believe that's what they plan to do. I also recall seeing somewhere that the 1-process-per-tab thing isn't in linux chrome/chromium.

It is in Chromium for Linux.

[CJ Master]

Namoroka. NAMOROKA?! WHO COMES UP WITH THESE NAMES?!

*cough* sorry...

I'm a speed adict though, I have to admit. ;)

[starcraft.man]

Personally I see no point in comparing Firefox to Chrome/Chromium purely based on speed. Yes, Chrome is faster than Firefox, but Chrome is no where near Firefox in terms of actual functionality.

I'll never understand the speed freaks who need it over everything. Most sites I browse are due to server issues, be it long distance, overloaded or just plain insufficient bandwidth. Firefox isn't the fastest, and maybe it never will be but I rarely find pages that are so js laden that the page load is longer than download. IMO, it's the whole experience that counts as speed pointed out.