what is the difference between firefox 10.0.2 and 3.6.25 for windows?

| what is the difference between firefox 10.0.2 and 3.6.25 for windows?

I'm using FF 3.6 and Pale Moon 3.6. They will be
getting security updates until at least April.

I just downloaded Pale Moon 9 yesterday to try it
out. I don't see any notable changes, though I didn't
look far. I'm still using v. 3.6 because I generally don't
trust Mozilla anymore. They get almost all of their
funding from Google. They're also moving toward more
of a services/web-apps platform. The update schedule
has become so bizarre that one really has to either
ignore it or go along with auto-updates. (Thus your
question. Who's got time to thoroughly research the
changes every few weeks?)

There's a lot of nonsense planned for the future. One
example:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Silent_Update_OS_Dialogs

A plan to figure out how to bypass UAC so that FF
can update itself without you being notified. They even
have a plan to figure out how to allow commercial websites
to spam you when you're not at their sites! It would
work by having FF run constantly to listen for messages:

http://arstechnica.com/business/news...or-firefox.ars

So.... I don't know the exact differences between 3 and
9, but I would be careful in the future about accepting
any updates of anything from Mozilla without first
finding out for yourself what has changed.

DJW wrote:
> what is the difference between firefox 10.0.2 and 3.6.25 for windows?

Generally, with software, you check the "release notes" with each
release. In some cases, the release notes will have a list of bug
fixes for reported bugs, as well as new spiffy features. The
Wikipedia article for the larger packages, may summarize what has
changed.

Probably the single biggest reason to update, is when egregious
bugs are found in support libraries, such as bugs in libpng.
You'd almost swear those bugs were let in, on purpose, and the
"discovery" of the bugs, is to help force upgrading. How many
major projects, never review the third party code in the libraries ?
The mind boggles... If the software had those libraries, as
separate DLL files, we could change the DLL ourselves.

Paul

I got curious about this and started looking around.
Nil's link had a bit of info., but no real explanations.
This page has links for detailed rendering changes
for each version:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Fir...for_developers

But those pages are detailing specific script/HTML/CSS
changes that are of interest to almost no one. (For web
design, if it only works in a later version of Firefox then it
doesn't work.)

Then I came across this interesting article:

http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/arti...how_fix_them_/

Apparently the menu bar and status bar were removed by
default as of FF4! It's my impression that the Mozilla people
are generally removing features and removing choice, going
toward the Chrome approach. Yet when I tried Pale Moon 9
I didn't see any difference in things like visible menus. Pale
Moon is a slightly simpler build of FF and keeps up with the
FF schedule. It may be a good option going forward if you
don't want your browser converted into a web-apps feed.
(But I'm basing that on only a quick test of PM9.)

On 2/24/12 9:24 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> It's my impression that the Mozilla people
> are generally removing features and removing choice, going
> toward the Chrome approach.

The default is minimalist, and a lot of complaining about that in the
Mozilla newsgroups.

But you can turn most, if not all, of them back on via settings,
add-ons, etc.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0.2
Thunderbird 10.0.2
LibreOffice 3.4.5

On 24 Feb 2012, "Mayayana" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> Apparently the menu bar and status bar were removed by
> default as of FF4! It's my impression that the Mozilla people
> are generally removing features and removing choice, going
> toward the Chrome approach.

The menu bar can be revealed by pressing the Alt key, or made always
visible via a menu option. Everything the Status Bar told you can be
seen elsewhere on the screen. You now have more real estate.

| But you can turn most, if not all, of them back on via settings,
| add-ons, etc.
|

I noticed that in the article I linked they were using
an add-on to bring back the status bar. To me that's
a broken status bar. Using add-ons is an entirely
different thing from adjusting settings.

Removing settings options is a big part of why I've
given up on updating FF. I want windows rather than
tabs. I want a status bar. I *don't* want a search bar.
I *don't* want anything like Chrome. Very simple
preferences. If people have to get into research and
"tweaking" to just to make basic choices like that then
the focus has gone from providing a tool for people to
a commercially-oriented approach of trying to mold
the way people use the tool.

| Everything the Status Bar told you can be
| seen elsewhere on the screen.

I don't understand that comment. The point of the
status bar is to 1) tell me the source URLs of what's
loading into the browser and 2) tell me where a link
will take me if I hover over it. Where are you getting
that link info? (Much less the loading info.) The only
option I see is to right-click -> Copy Link Location ->
open Notepad -> Right-click Paste.

| You now have more real estate.

I already have more real estate than I need.
More real estate has become an obsessive fad.
But it's not really about real estate at all. People
have swallowed that idea without thinking about
it, yet most people now have screens far bigger
than the webpage they're viewing.

It's really about making the browser window look
more like a program window, in order to make
online web-apps look more like real software. And
that seems to be the crux of the problem. There's
no problem with options. There's no problem with
some people wanting their browser in fullscreen
mode. There's no problem with web-apps. The problem
is that they're removing choice due to ulterior
motives. (Mozilla has become almost an arm of Google
at this point. What started as a small OSS project
now has a budget well over $100 million/year -- almost
all of it from Google.)

On Feb 25, 8:31*am, "Mayayana" <mayay...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> | But you can turn most, if not all, of them back on via settings,
> | add-ons, etc.
> |
>
> * I noticed that in the article I linked they were using
> an add-on to bring back the status bar. To me that's
> a broken status bar. Using add-ons is an entirely
> different thing from adjusting settings.
>
> * Removing settings options is a big part of why I've
> given up on updating FF. I want windows rather than
> tabs. I want a status bar. I *don't* want a search bar.
> I *don't* want anything like Chrome. Very simple
> preferences. If people have to get into research and
> "tweaking" to just to make basic choices like that then
> the focus has gone from providing a tool for people to
> a commercially-oriented approach of trying to mold
> the way people use the tool.

Hi again original posted here downloading Pale moon as I write this
and will give it a try where will I find it cache folder or will it
use my FF one? Also still wondering why the two different but current
numbed versions of FF I see the 3. one being half the download sizes
as the 10. one.

| Everything the Status Bar told you can be
| seen elsewhere on the screen.

Another interesting point about that: Clickjacking
and similar tricks have become a big problem. It seems
to me that people should be encouraged to notice
where links are going. Removing the status bar is going
in the opposite direction.

---------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking

"a malicious technique of tricking a Web user into clicking on something
different to what the user perceives they are clicking on"

----------

I don't enable cookies. When I find the link above at
Google I see this in the status bar:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://e...8i-qnsCd9KtCVA

That's another form of clickjacking. Google is trying
to route my click through their server and attach a
cookie alternative to the URL.

A large number of sites use Google Analytics to track
visitors because it's easy and/or because the webmasters
don't understand how to read their own server logs.

What that means is that Google is able to bypass
cookie preferences in the majority of cases, tracking
the movements of people who use their site. The only
way I knew that was because I see Google's clickjack
URL in the status bar when I hover over the link. The
actual link blurb tells me that clicking will take me to
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking". Aside from the
status bar, there is no indication of the fact that
Google intends to route my action through their
own proxy server and tag me with an ID while
they're at it.