They need to catch up with IE9 🤣

Yeah, it seems so, but it's stupid. 😀

Should just get rid of versions #'s and label them all Beta.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/ … pment-cycle.ars

Apparently they're trying to catch up with Google...

Yeah, it seems so, but it's stupid.

I know, but explain this to people who think that Chrome is now 3 times better (12.x) than Firefox (4.x). 😖

Seamonkey's at 2.2.

They know their place - the not-so-marketing one.

I still miss SM 1.1x - that was faster than today's 'fast' browsers.

btw3d wrote:

Yeah, it seems so, but it's stupid.

I know, but explain this to people who think that Chrome is now 3 times better (12.x) than Firefox (4.x). 😖

Chrome doesn't seem to display its version number very prominently at all.

I am very much anticipating FF6, as apparently it will include debugging features that might be useful to finally get to the bottom of its bothersome jerkiness.

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

Does anybody what's the point is releasing so many major versions? […]
Show full quote

Does anybody what's the point is releasing so many major versions?

It seems the changings are minor or not even noticeable.

For instance FF 4.x -> FF 5.x

And there are already some 6 betas available.

IMHO, this is becoming annoying (specially for extensions).

Oh, you mean you haven't tried Aurora 7.0 yet?

I hate Chrome for starting this trend. Those involved in Firefox are stupid to follow especially as their addin model defines a particular pain point. I've dropped back to FF4 as the latest release disabled an addin and didn't seem to offer anything new.

Its PR ratings all over again 🤣

Huh? We're already on FF5??

Meh, I'll stick with Opera 😀

Reckless wrote:

I hate Chrome for starting this trend. Those involved in Firefox are stupid to follow especially as their addin model defines a particular pain point. I've dropped back to FF4 as the latest release disabled an addin and didn't seem to offer anything new.

There is the nightly tester tool extension for that.
But yeah, with their fast changing version number more extensions will seem to be incompatible even though they only need a little version number tweak.
And you can't hope for the mozilla devs to see reason, they have a disturbing mindset which won't leave its tracks.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

They need to catch up with IE9 🤣

I thought IE was trying to catch up with Firefox. When did they switch roles?

I always thought that Mozilla named it Firefox 5 because of an important patch that plugged some big security flaw, and calling it Firefox 5 instead of 4.2 or whatever was the best way to get everyone to jump over immediately.

Just think if Microsoft had adopted that strategy we'd be running Windows with a version number measured in 1000s if not tens of 1000s 😀 Whatever their reasoning, it will surely mean less user acceptance of new versions and eventually their product.

After all, Windows 7 is not really version 7, but people would probably not be flocking to it if it had been named what it really is.

Pippy P. Poopypants wrote:

After all, Windows 7 is not really version 7, but people would probably not be flocking to it if it had been named what it really is.

Windows 7 is just a patched version of Vista that MS sold as a new version to get back at everyone who stuck with XP during the Vista fiasco. Look at the version number of Windows 7. It's not 7.x it's still 6. something. Windows 7 should have been released as a free service pack for Vista.

/\/\
True that.

Totally...

I was working in sales when Vista came out and it was a "challenging" time. The thing was that Vista wasn't really that bad in terms as a product. But it had so many thing working against it.

I mean it came on notebooks with 512MB or 1GB of Ram, shared graphics and single core CPU. Then we had issues with software not being compatible and worst of all the driver situation.

To Vistas credit, some of the manufacturers of printers or 3G cards should have been the ones to blame. Telstra took 6! months to release Vista drivers for their 3G modem. Printers or scanners wouldn't work up to a year. For some things we sold we had to get beta drivers from the manufacturers to help our customers. There also was no XP mode, which would have helped somewhat.

Many machines we downgraded to XP. We got very good at that and it was a nice little earner. Charged them for doing this...

So Vista did the hard yards. When 7 came out, drivers where available, applications had received patches and notebooks came with 2 or 4 GB of memory and much faster dual core CPUs.

But at that stage, the experience of Vista vs. 7 was very very similar...

So yea, should have been a service pack 🤣

Main reason they did this was to get ridd of the name "Vista". Because as soon as you said Vista, the customers didn't want to hear another word 🤣