Status
Not open for further replies.

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
Good riddance: FF 3.6 was the version that was so unstable, I switched to Chrome... So glad they are on a rapid release cycle now: FF has been much improved since the 3.6 debacle...
Ironically, I bet that with there being no more FF 3.6 releases, did they finally make it stable?
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]keyanf[/nom]I wouldn't have stuck with 3.6 if 4 didn't refuse to run ANY add-on, even newly installed ones.[/citation]

yea, i remember that,
now addons if they were made for 4, can usually run on the latest with a small tweak, there are some exceptions like down them all which will not run properly unless its made for that release.

thats the reason i stuck with 3.6 untill i moved over to nightly 8,
than whan i got my ssd, i moved to release 8 and now over to waterfox 10
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Why are people still still using 3.6 now anyway?[/citation]
i stuck with it as long as i did because of memory efficiency, only having 3gb of ram at the time... when i heard that 8 was around 3.6 level efficiency, i jumped to it, mainly to try, it used a bit more ram, but less than 4 and 5 ever did, pluss it handled a crap ton of tabs better so i stuck with it even though it used more ram...

if i had a low ram system right now, i would use ff 3.6 on it, because of how i use the internet, a bit more ram at start up pays for itself when you load up 50 some tabs.
 

joe nate

Distinguished
Oct 17, 2009
92
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Why are people still still using 3.6 now anyway?[/citation]

Personally? Because I've tried Firefox 4, 5 and 10 and every one of them was laggier, buggier or otherwise slower than 3.6. I haven't tried any of the other ones, but I have no idea why, in my experience, 3.6 is just so stable and fast compared to everything else I've tried, thus, I've stayed with it.

I wonder if the GPU acceleration they added to the browser actually slows it down, because I have a high end system, and offloading stuff to a GPU when my Intel i7-970 can more than handle anything a browser may encounter might create small delays that wouldn't be there in the CPU-only 3.6.

But ultimately, I don't know why. I just know in my experience, firefox 3.6 (with it's addons like adblock plus) has been the most responsive, fast and reliable browser that I've tried.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Why are people still still using 3.6 now anyway?[/citation]
Version 3.6 was the last official version of firefox to support PPC Macs. Some people just didn't want to throw their $1,500 investment away easily, but they can download tenfourfox 12, which takes advantage of PPC's AltiVec hardware acceleration. Mozilla claimed, if i remembered correctly, that ppc macs don't have the hardware to take advantage of the new features of firefox four. Besides Adobe dropped support after Flash 10.1.
 

BWMerlin

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2003
131
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]bunnywanny[/nom]Some people just didn't want to throw their $1,500 investment away easily,[/citation]

First of all a computer is never an investment and secondly your computer is the better part of six years old, I think it is fair call for companies to stop supporting such a relic of the past.
 
[citation][nom]joe nate[/nom]Personally? Because I've tried Firefox 4, 5 and 10 and every one of them was laggier, buggier or otherwise slower than 3.6. I haven't tried any of the other ones, but I have no idea why, in my experience, 3.6 is just so stable and fast compared to everything else I've tried, thus, I've stayed with it.I wonder if the GPU acceleration they added to the browser actually slows it down, because I have a high end system, and offloading stuff to a GPU when my Intel i7-970 can more than handle anything a browser may encounter might create small delays that wouldn't be there in the CPU-only 3.6.But ultimately, I don't know why. I just know in my experience, firefox 3.6 (with it's addons like adblock plus) has been the most responsive, fast and reliable browser that I've tried.[/citation]

Funny thing about that... I'm running FF (more accurately, Pale Moon which is built off of FF) 11 and it is far faster than anything except for my Comodo Dragon (based off of Chromium) and even then, it's pretty close. It's also the most memory efficient browser I've ever had. It has Palemin, Adblock Lite, Fasterfox, NoScript, and Ghostery. Palemin keeps it's memory usage in check and it never goes over 50MB or so of memory usage, usually staying at or below 10MB of memory usage, regardless of how many tabs I have open (which can reach from the dozens to the hundreds).

As for pure responsiveness and speed, my Comodo Dragon installation beats out everything else, even if it's not by a huge margin, including FF 3.6.x. Even my Palemoon browser beats FF 3.6.x significantly.
 

gsacks

Distinguished
Jul 31, 2008
176
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Why are people still still using 3.6 now anyway?[/citation]

For the reasons sighted in the article. In a corporate environment, most users need to stick with the software approved by their company, and most users also do not have administrative rights to their machine, so they could not update even if they wanted to break policy.
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Why are people still still using 3.6 now anyway?[/citation]

Because there are some who don't know what is a software upgrade, and are probably still running on Windows xp SP2.
 

ntrceptr

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2006
97
0
18,630
0
3.6 would open almost instantly on my PC. Every version since takes very long to open and sometimes I wonder if it's loading at all since there is no indication of it. Then like a minute later it pops up.
I will be switching browsers soon by just too lazy.
 

livebriand

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
1,004
0
19,290
1
[citation][nom]gsacks[/nom]For the reasons sighted in the article. In a corporate environment, most users need to stick with the software approved by their company, and most users also do not have administrative rights to their machine, so they could not update even if they wanted to break policy.[/citation]
Yeah, but Chrome and Firefox can be installed to the local AppData folder without admin privileges. (or you can use a portableapps copy)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS