Download Firefox 3

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: astroidea
It would help to state the god damned download day before asking for a pledge.

Download day: The day Firefox 3 gets released.
When that is remains to be set.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Sigh, FF3 RC1 kept giving me bluescreens when running certain flex web apps. Apparently it's not compatible with my laptop's video card confused: err wtf..). I went back to 2.0.0.14, and I have no issues.

 

[effowe]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: astroidea
It would help to state the god damned download day before asking for a pledge.

Download day: The day Firefox 3 gets released.
When that is remains to be set.

^^ This is true, the official day is TBD, but will be in June.

Official Page where the date will be announced. You can also sign up to be informed when they have a date.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: pontifex
when they make a version that loads in less than 20 seconds, i might care.

lol@u

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Deeko
I will say this...I am running FF3 beta and it takes significantly longer to load than IE7. I have no addons whatsoever.

Not if you are using Vista!

Superfetch kicks some serious ass.

 

[n7]

All i have to say is that they'd better fix the microscopic non-enlargeable "Add a Bookmark" box, since in RC1, it's effing stupid.

 

[EvilYoda]

I've been running it since beta 5 and now RC1...I like how the went back to alt-c to clear your download history. That pissed me off. It's working fine for me, with low memory usage.

 

[cubby1223]

Am I lame for using SeaMonkey for my browser? I use it because it most closely resembles Netscape 4! Yeah, I don't like change.

Perhaps someday I'll get Firefox, but I really don't have a need to.

 

[zanejohnson]

I tried firefox once, it got uninstalled after about 15 minutes. IE7 is just better. it's part of windows, it does everything i need a browser to do. and it's not a memory hog, and it's nice and snappy loading pages, i noticed firefox was a little slower at loading large java based pages, etc...

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: pontifex
when they make a version that loads in less than 20 seconds, i might care.

Hm, and i thought the 5 seconds it took for mine to initially load (first load after boot) was bad.

 

[cKGunslinger]

FF3 seems to have finally closed up that annoying memory leak/issue, but until they get some important addons updated (GoogleBrowserSync,) I stuck with v2.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: zanejohnson
I tried firefox once, it got uninstalled after about 15 minutes. IE7 is just better. it's part of windows, it does everything i need a browser to do. and it's not a memory hog, and it's nice and snappy loading pages, i noticed firefox was a little slower at loading large java based pages, etc...

You might want to try Firefox 3 before you dismiss it by the performance of previous versions.

Firefox 3 Takes The Lead On Speed

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: astroidea
It would help to state the god damned download day before asking for a pledge.

That's exactly what i thought when i saw that on their homepage earlier today.

FF: Come help be part of history!!
Me: ok...well when?
FF: ummmm idk yet.

 

[tyler811]

Never have used it but I know several people here do. So I posted the story. Hell I am still on IE 6

 

[Number1]

The latest version crashes every time I visit the something awful forum,

check it out with firefox at

something awfull

 

[rh71]

How's memory management these days? I gave up on it a long time ago when having the browser opened with lots of tabs, closing the tabs would not give me back my RAM.

Tell me they addressed that... http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/rh71/ffmemory.gif (yes it was 2005).

 

[Anubis]

fuck that

opera >FF

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: rh71
How's memory management these days? I gave up on it a long time ago when having the browser opened with lots of tabs, closing the tabs would not give me back my RAM.

Tell me they addressed that... http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/rh71/ffmemory.gif (yes it was 2005).

They have.

http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03...irefox-3-memory-usage/

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: pontifex
when they make a version that loads in less than 20 seconds, i might care.

Why would you want them to make a version that loads slower?

Mine opens in 1 second.

i don't want them to make it slower, i want them to make it faster.

Well they already make a version which loads in 1 second...and you're asking for something that loads in less than 20 seconds? That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps you should complain about your slow, outdated computer system instead of a piece of software which loads just fine.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Number1
The latest version crashes every time I visit the something awful forum,

check it out with firefox at

something awfull

Works fine for me.

FF3 RC1 w/ AdBlock Plus and ForecastFox installed

 

[antyler]

I proudly pledged

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Microsoft Auto-Update has probably far exceeded 5 million downloads in a single day.

Also, I'd assume patches and other things for games like World of Warcraft and such have also done so.

If you read the article, the record won't count updates. Its for full software.

Please show me where the article states that the record will not count updates/patches in future record attempts.

The ONLY mention of the word "update" in the article says

"One of the biggest hurdles faced is the fact that a download is the transmission of the entire, fully functioning Firefox 3 -- not just an update."

Your article excerpt defines Download as the transmission of entire FF3, not just update. Doesn't it therefore follow that updates don't count as a download?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: pontifex
when they make a version that loads in less than 20 seconds, i might care.

Why would you want them to make a version that loads slower?

Mine opens in 1 second.

i don't want them to make it slower, i want them to make it faster.

Well they already make a version which loads in 1 second...and you're asking for something that loads in less than 20 seconds? That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps you should complain about your slow, outdated computer system instead of a piece of software which loads just fine.

-he told his setup, and it's not slow nor outdated.
-You still don't make sense.
-When you read a post, do you skip every other word for a fun challenge?