Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Mozilla quietly posts complete Firefox 5

updated 03:00 pm EDT, Sat June 18, 2011

Firefox 5 goes final ahead of schedule

Mozilla in a low key move has posted the finished version of Firefox 5 (direct links: Mac, Linux 32-bit, Linux 64-bit, Windows). The new version is the first of a now Chrome-like fast schedule and focuses mostly on minor improvements over Firefox 4. It now recognizes CSS transitions, has better support for HTML5 and its Canvas mode, and is tackling privacy with a more prominent Do Not Track option.

Many fixes are also underneath, such as better performance for background tabs and integration with Linux. WebGL, spelling checks, and overall network and memory use have been given boosts as well.

The final release is officially due to go public on June 21 but shouldn't be significantly different than the version posted on Saturday. Firefox 6 is already in alpha and could be in beta as soon as two weeks from now.



By Electronista Staff
Post tools:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. bigmig

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jan 2004

    +6

    Only 3 months between versions?

    At this rate they'll be on Firefox 20.0 by 2015. Apparently Firefox 5 is not compatible with all my extensions...uninstalling it. It's going to be a major pain if each version breaks some extension compatibility.

  1. exca1ibur

    Mac Elite

    Joined: Oct 2000

    +14

    Please go back to normal version numbering!

    Chrome and Firefox need to go to normal version schemes. From the description this just a bug and performance release, and does not warrant a full release number. What ever happened to normal point releases schemes. What is wrong with 4.1, 4.2, etc, with the major version being 5.0.

    More than this scheme, I hate the Flash and Chrome version numbering of 10.3.42.5.436.65. I mean, seriously WTF were they smoking? I NEVER know what version is current unless you test the damn thing against their site, which changes more often that people change underwear.

  1. facebook_Michael

    Via Facebook

    Joined: Jun 2011

    +1

    comment title

    I hope they at least fixed some friggin flash player bugs like mouse.hide() and .show() if they do.

  1. Jeronimo2000

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0

    I call BS

    4.0 is just out the door, the was no beta period for 5, and in any case... no, this would just too stupid.

  1. dawes

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jun 2011

    -6

    THIS IS A BETA

    This is Firefox 5.0 BETA. It's clearly displayed in the info page that opens when you first use it. Good research, staff.

  1. jay3ld

    Senior User

    Joined: Jul 2004

    +1

    memory use have been given boosts

    Oh great, just what I need. Firefox using more memory.

  1. UmarOMC

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    +2

    Using Nightly Build: 7.0a1

    To get your Add-Ons to ALL load use Add-On Compatibility Reporter; https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

    For those crying "Foul!" for some reason because of the short duration between version numbers- PAY ATTENTION to news sites like this one. Mozilla announced quick turn-around cycles for Firefox development MONTHS ago- look at the titles under Related Articles! The Nightly builds are alpha releases of version 7 already and, yes, with the "Add-On compatibility Reporter" Add-On ALL my 4.0.x Firefox Add-Ons load AND work with 7 as they did with 6 and 5!

  1. CmdrGampu

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2009

    +2

    @UmarOMC

    The point is why use integer numbering for incremental upgrades like this? My version of Firefox still says 4.0. If they're just going to blast to 5, then why even bother with the decimal point? Or why have 4.0.1 when there apparently isn't going to be any 4.1?

  1. Gazoobee

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Feb 2009

    +1

    meh

    The interface looks largely the same so there is no way I'm going to use it anyway.
    Firefox has a better UI than Chrome, but that's about all you can say, and that isn't saying much.

    Out of curiosity ... does anyone know why the Firefox "back" button is so big and in your face? As someone who rarely if ever uses the back button, I've always wondered about that decision.

    Is it more important to go back than forwards? Is it harder to go backwards (requiring the bigger button to push)???

    Also, why do both Chrome and Firefox have folder icons for their bookmark menus? Why is it important for the user to know that the menu of bookmarks is ultimately (in 'geek-ese'), a folder on the hard drive? Does the average user idolise their file system to that degree? Do they even care that they have a hard drive with folders on it?

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

IDrive cloud backup and sync service

There are a lot of cloud services out there, and nearly all of them can be used for backing up key files and folders. A few dedicated ...

Asus Chromebook C300

When Chromebooks hit the market back in 2011, consumers didn't know what to do with them. The low-cost laptops, powered by Google's Ch ...

Plantronics BackBeat Pro Bluetooth headphones

Looking for a pair of headphones that can do everything a user requires is a task that can take some study. Trying to decide on in-ear ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News