• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

firefox 17.0.1 released

H

hclarkjr

Lifer
http://dm-download02.mozilla.org/pu...s/17.0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox Setup 17.0.1.exe

What’s New


  • FIXED 17.0.1: Font rendering issue in Firefox 17.0 (bug 814101)
  • FIXED 17.0.1: Reverted user agent change causing some website incompatibilities
  • NEW First revision of the Social API and support for Facebook Messenger
  • NEW Click-to-play blocklisting implemented to prevent vulnerable plugin versions from running without the user's permission (see blog post)
  • CHANGED Updated Awesome Bar experience with larger icons
  • CHANGED Mac OS X 10.5 is no longer supported
  • DEVELOPER JavaScript Maps and Sets are now iterable
  • DEVELOPER SVG FillPaint and StrokePaint implemented
  • DEVELOPER Improvements that make the Web Console, Debugger and Developer Toolbar faster and easier to use
  • DEVELOPER New Markup panel in the Page Inspector allows easy editing of the DOM
  • HTML5 Sandbox attribute for iframes implemented, enabling increased security
  • FIXED Over twenty performance improvements, including fixes around the New Tab page
  • FIXED 17.0.1: Leaving Private Browsing with Social API enabled should reset social components (814554)
  • FIXED Pointer lock doesn't work in web apps (769150)
  • FIXED Page scrolling on sites with fixed headers (780345)
 
pyonir said:
And yet it's still 5 versions lower than Chrome. :whiste:
Click to expand...
and chrome is still lightyears ahead of it in terms of speed and more webpages compatible with Chrome than Firefox now.

I hate Chrome's interface but Mozilla has **** up with them trying to mimic Google only by introducing version number upgrades and not actually improving their browser.

Keep the foul language toned down in our technical forums. Thank you.

AnandTech Moderator mechBgon
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought point releases (e.g. 17.0.1 to 17.0.2) were purely security patches. Odd.

berryracer said:
and chrome is still lightyears ahead of it in terms of speed and more webpages compatible with Chrome than Firefox now.
Click to expand...

I know the feeling, but sometimes I find it irritating that if I use Google Chrome, it's got a page up straight away that I actually end up wanting to look at the next day. It's spooky, really.

Seriously though, the last time I had a browser compatibility issue was with the Google Adwords site - it only worked in IE (Out of IE9, FF and Opera). I can't remember the last time it happened before that.
 
Last edited:
It was a security patch, at least that is what Firefox said when the pop up box announced the update was out. Mine did the update this morning.
 
berryracer said:
and chrome is still lightyears ahead of it in terms of speed and more webpages compatible with Chrome than Firefox now.

I hate Chrome's interface but Mozilla has **** up with them trying to mimic Google only by introducing version number upgrades and not actually improving their browser.

Keep the foul language toned down in our technical forums. Thank you.

AnandTech Moderator mechBgon
Click to expand...

This.

And I've been having other minor issues with FF like crashes while using Flash and Java. I have since Migrated to Chrome.


1 MAJOR annoyance with mozilla and Adobe ATM is that we still don't have 64 bit support for browsing and flash in Windows. 64 bit CPUs have been available to consumers for over 10 years now and have been standard in most PCs for at least 6 years. IMO there is no reason to NOT have a 64 bit version of your browser.
 
88keys said:
IMO there is no reason to NOT have a 64 bit version of your browser.
Click to expand...

Except it will make little or no difference to performance, unless you're trying to do something like playing a web-based version of Battlefield 3. For the average user, 64-bit means one thing: System support for more than 4GB RAM. For gamers it makes more of a difference, allowing a single app to address more RAM (is 2GB the limit for a 32-bit app?). For people with high-end processing needs (e.g. enormous databases), the capacity to send more data with each CPU instruction comes into play.

What there is a serious case for badgering Mozilla about is Firefox's lack of multi-threading support. That would make a big difference to any user who heavily loads their browser with tabs/windows.
 
Last edited:
out of all the things they could be working on they waste time developing Facebook Messenger and social networking api. if i wasnt so used of using firefox for the past 7+ years i would switch to chrome. its not like firefox copies everything chrome does anyway. i dont use social networks. i guess im one of the very few people on the internet who doesnt use them. is it really necessary to be able to chat or post stuff to facebook from firefox instead of just going to the website? i dont get it. firefox has been going down hill ever since chrome came out.
 
mikeymikec said:
Except it will make little or no difference to performance, unless you're trying to do something like playing a web-based version of Battlefield 3. For the average user, 64-bit means one thing: System support for more than 4GB RAM. For gamers it makes more of a difference, allowing a single app to address more RAM (is 2GB the limit for a 32-bit app?). For people with high-end processing needs (e.g. enormous databases), the capacity to send more data with each CPU instruction comes into play.

What there is a serious case for badgering Mozilla about is Firefox's lack of multi-threading support. That would make a big difference to any user who heavily loads their browser with tabs/windows.
Click to expand...

And FF being the memory hog that it is would only further make the case for it to be available in 64 bit.

IE is available in 64 bit, and FF has been available in 64 bit in Linux for sometime. Even if the difference is marginal. I think there should come a time when all new software is up to the standard of currently manufactured hardware.
 
the Social API / FB chat stuff is purely optional.
I think they are doing that stuff to differentiate their browser from the others.. some people may like it I guess.
I do agree that they should keep on developing 64bit because eventually they will need it IMO.
 
88keys said:
And FF being the memory hog that it is would only further make the case for it to be available in 64 bit.

IE is available in 64 bit, and FF has been available in 64 bit in Linux for sometime. Even if the difference is marginal. I think there should come a time when all new software is up to the standard of currently manufactured hardware.
Click to expand...
firfox is no longer a memory hog since about 4-5 versions ago. i have 4 tabs open and have had the brwoswer open since 7 this morning and my memory is at 341mb.
 
88keys said:
And FF being the memory hog that it is would only further make the case for it to be available in 64 bit.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. If memory consumption is such an issue then the devs should work on that rather than try to make room for a bloating mess... unless anyone can make a legitimate case for a web browser using >2GB RAM?

IE is available in 64 bit, and FF has been available in 64 bit in Linux for sometime. Even if the difference is marginal. I think there should come a time when all new software is up to the standard of currently manufactured hardware.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly, it's a question of priorities though, division of resources (I'm thinking dev time here), and also legacy support. WinXP still has a significant percentage of users, and either converting to 64-bit or also supporting a 64-bit release divides either users or resources, and for what?

Multi-threading support would have a direct impact on performance for virtually all users out there. How many people are using single-core processors these days, or only run one tab/window in a session?

How many people do you suppose noticed Microsoft Office 2010 being so much faster because it has 64-bit binaries? I'm sure some people did, but they're <10% of the user base, probably more like 1% or less. However, multi-threading came first, and pretty soon after dual-core processors came along to the mainstream.

hclarkjr said:
firfox is no longer a memory hog since about 4-5 versions ago. i have 4 tabs open and have had the brwoswer open since 7 this morning and my memory is at 341mb.
Click to expand...

+1. 163MB here with multiple forum tabs open, a google result and the FB page someone mentioned. After loading the 28-tab job I mentioned (as well) it peaked at about 532MB and then went down to 470MB. Closing the 28-tab job made memory usage drop to 192MB.

Firefox tends to keep its memory usage within a percentage of total memory. I have 4GB on Win7-64 here.
 
Last edited:
didn't prompt me that an update was available or auto update after it was released.
Does it usually take a while for you guys?
 
Chiefcrowe said:
didn't prompt me that an update was available or auto update after it was released.
Does it usually take a while for you guys?
Click to expand...
I ended up checking what version of FF I'm running because of something that was mentioned on another thread, so I got the update last night / this morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top