FireFox 2.0 download or wait?

So do I wait, or go ahead and install? Or are there bugs still in it?

Thanks

Kelly

 

Less buggy than a fully patched IE 6 anyway.
[SIZE= "1"](Especially considering the last cumulative security update.) [/SIZE]
Just a newbie myself, but I'd say go for it!

 

Kelly,

Go for it. I've been using it for awhile and have had no problems.

Mike

 

Hi Kelly,

The majority of the bugs were ironed out before FF 2.0 was released and, since it's an open source program, there are lots of people working on any that are found. Also, Mozilla makes security upgrades available much more quickly than Microsoft does for IE. Not all extensions have been updated to work with 2.0 yet, but I suspect that most will be within a short time.

I ran 2.0 alongside 1.5.0.7 for awhile, to compare them, but have adopted 2.0 as my default browser. I agree with -User- and Mike ... now's the time!

 

It's pretty heavy on system resources. I've only two tabs open and after ten minutes of browsing my usage is in excess of 86 Mb.

 

Maybe it's your settings or browsing style(?). I've been pleasantly surprised by how lite it is on my sys (XPsp2 w/512MB RAM).
[SIZE= "1"]Or maybe it's just that my OS loads up so much IE that the starting & usage of Firefox makes little difference![/SIZE]
In either case, no problem with sys resource usage here.

 

Kelly,

Firefox 2.0 is an excellent browser, very stable, and contains some awesome features. All browsers have bugs, and there is no such thing as a perfect, bug free browser.

If you are using an older version of Firefox, I would do a clean install.
Delete the existing version using Add/Remove
Delete the C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox folder - copy the plugins folder to a temporary location until you install 2.0.
REBOOT your PC

Install Firefox 2.0

Your Profile will be untouched by the uninstall/install.

 

James,

My 98SE system has 384MB SDRAM, and Firefox uses about 25% of system resources with maybe 3 - 6 tabs open. Thunderbird is always open, and SeaMonkey is usually open 2 - 3 hours/day. However, I use very few extensions, only Spellbound, McAfee Site Advisor, Nightly Tester Tools, and Chatzilla. I also shut down every night.

If you run a lot of extensions, and I have read that the TBE (Tabbrowser Extension) is a resource hog, that will run up your resource usage as well. So often, it isn't the program itself that causes the problem.

 

James ...

That's actually pretty low, unless you mean megabytes, instead of megabits. Task Manager reports usage in kilobytes (K), so 86 Mb (m) would be only 11,000 K, whereas 86 MB (M) would be about 88,000 K.

All that aside, I've been online for about an hour and 45 minutes, with seven tabs open, browsing actively on all of them. Task manager shows FF's peak memory usage to be just over 62,000 K. I'm running XP Pro SP2 with 1 GB DDR SDRAM, and FF 2.0 with 16 extensions.

Ramona ...

Ummm, not to be picky, but TBE usually refers to Tabbrowser Extensions. I used it for years with many incremental versions of FF, through 1.5.0.7, but it doesn't work with 2.0. It's always gotten bad press from Mozilla, but I never had a problem with it, and didn't find that it increased FF's resource usage any, if at all. I'm sure that running numerous extensions will cause increased resource usage, but not enough to outweigh their usefulness.

An important point to remember is that, no matter how much RAM is installed, the Win9x family (95, 98, Me) is limited to 64 KB for system resources, while the NT family (NT, 2000, XP) can use every bit of it. For me, that was reason enough to move from 98SE to XP 4½ years ago.

I used to see posts from Win9x users crying "Oh dear, my system resources have fallen below 75%! Whatever shall I do?" An important point for them to remember is that resources are there to be used. I found that I never needed to worry until resources got down to about 20-25%.

 

I shut down every night. I have only five extensions and do not use the tbe extension. It's being reported elsewhere by others far more knowledgeable than I that FF is a bit of a resource hog. It needs some optimization.

btw: I've changed nothing since upgrading and have seen it jump from 35,000 to 86,000.

The other issue is hanging. I can't tell you how many times this thing has given me a Server Not Found message (literally dozens of times) in the past couple of days. I never experience this with either Opera or IE 7 and never had it to this extent with FF 1.5. Really, I'm not trying to rain on your parade but I'm very dissatisfied with the browser as it now stands. In fact, I'll likely consign it to the dustbin and await updates before trying it again. It's just too frustrating to mess around with it when the other two browsers mentioned are so much more friendly. Sorry.

 

As you guys know, I look at everything, and, usually, keep all versions on my computer, with profiles of their own. I had opted to make FF2.0 my default browser, because of the propensity shown by 1.5.0.7 to be recalled from a link with a sliver of the top (blue) toolbar (I guess, it is a toolbar). Then, I started looking at FF2.0 more closely. I don't like the antiphyshing feature. I like the way it manages extentions (now addons), but, it is the slowest program I have in starting. It took well over one minute with five tabs. I cut down to three, like I did with 1.5.0.7. Both have seven extentions. 1.5.0.7 takes less than ten seconds to start, and uses a tad under 40MB RAM. FF2.0, even with fewer features at startup, takes about one minute, and about 80MB RAM.
I did not notice any memory leak in FF2.0, as reported by others. But, it is no reason to upgrade to it. I will keep using it, though, because FF3.0 is a loooong way from being developed.

 

Thanks all! I will uninstall FF1.0 Then install FF2.0.
That may have been my problem with IE7. I downloaded without unintalling the old one.
Learning alot here!
Starting to tweak the system.

Kelly

 

The most important thing is to reduce the number of Tabs. I am down to three, plus seven extentions, and FF2.0 starts in a reasonable amount of time. I am back to FF2.0 as default, especially since 1.5.0.7 is still brought up minimized when I click on a mail link.

 

Oops! Duly noted. I mentioned this due to finding the information on MozillaZine: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Problematic_extensions

 

Hi Ramona,

I'm familiar with Mozilla.org's feelings about TBE, and I've never understood them. I've been using FF since it was called Phoenix, and have been using TBE only a few days less. I have never had a single problem with it ... no conflicts with other extensions, and no excessive resource utilization, even with 98SE.

FYI, I just cranked up my old 98SE computer, which I haven't used in nearly two years, and find that I was using FF 0.8.0, dated 5-10-04, and TBE 1.10, dated 4-23-04 (current version is 2.1, dated 3-13-06), as well as TB 0.6+, also dated 5-10-04. FWIW, I had more problems with BSODs, using Win9x, than I did with resource problems.

 

Jim,

I know that some users had problems with 98SE, but I must be one of the lucky ones, as I've never had a problem. I should add that my PC is a top of the line Dell, and I know that is a factor. That's one of the reasons I've skipped XP, as I'm happy with what I have.

 

Westside ...

I made the same mistake earlier this month. Extensions are still called extensions, but they're included in "Add-ons" along with themes and, some say, plug-ins, search engines, and dictionaries. See these posts in Mozillazine.

 

Semantics! If I look for extentions, I have to click on Add-ons. I knew about this long ago, and, it did not bother me a bit.