|
Geemer posted:So, outside of Flash biting the dust, it should be smooth sailing? Flash is the only plugin that will work with 64-bit, and every add-on will work just the same as with the 32-bit builds.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Firefox 64 is immediately significantly faster, especially as far as the UI is concerned on my Windows 10 Surface Pro 3. Also, it finally fixed the issue where selecting text input boxes didn't automatically bring up the on screen keyboard when in tablet mode. I'm very happy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
pandaK posted:Hi there, I originally asked this in the W10 thread, but in hindsight it fits here way more: I've managed to at least enable the other quality options (480p-1080p, before I could only see 360p) by toggling media.fragmented-mp4.ffmpeg.enabled to true, but videos on the old flash player just send me errors. Firefox still doesn't seem to be hooked properly to the proper media features installed on my computer as it errors out when I try to listen to a podcast mp3 in browser.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Geemer posted:Firefox 43's 64-bit version is now actually on the downloads page instead of being hidden on the FTP. I've been running 64-bit developer edition for months, it's great. e10s lights some of my favorite extensions ON FIRE, but otherwise great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Is e10s available in the release channel? There's no checkbox in the preferences where the wiki tells me to look
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:Is e10s available in the release channel? There's no checkbox in the preferences where the wiki tells me to look I enabled it following the instructions here: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/3wxkqh/today_i_moved_back_to_firefox_use_64_bit_async/ It seems to be working fine for me on FF43, but I also only have 4 add-ons and they aren't unusual ones. You can see add-on support here: http://arewee10syet.com/
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Can some one please tell me how to block the log in drop down menu in the top right hand corner of twitter? I use ublock. Thanks fapos. Jippa fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
You can just right click on the white background and select block element, or add "twitter.com###signin-dropdown" to your filters in the options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
Geemer posted:Firefox 43's 64-bit version is now actually on the downloads page instead of being hidden on the FTP. Outside of Java everything works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
Only downside to Firefox 43 is that Classic Theme Restorer can no longer make the search bar act like it did in previous versions. Which kinda sucks. Updating to the current Classic Theme Restorer beta doesn't solve the problem either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Will 32 bit auto-update to 64 or do you have to delete the old 32 install and put on x64?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Mad Doctor Cthulhu posted:Only downside to Firefox 43 is that Classic Theme Restorer can no longer make the search bar act like it did in previous versions. Which kinda sucks. Updating to the current Classic Theme Restorer beta doesn't solve the problem either. You can make the search bar go back to how it previously worked, actually. In the options menu for Classic Theme Restorer, click on General UI (1) and there should be a checkbox labelled "Old search (experimental)".
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
If anyone else hates the "search for blah on Google" in the awesome bar, about:config and set browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete to false. God help me if I ever somehow end up with a vanilla install of Firefox again because it feels like I've had to make about 20+ tweaks just to remove all of the annoying poo poo they've added over the years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Will 32 bit auto-update to 64 or do you have to delete the old 32 install and put on x64?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Alereon posted:64-bit is a different version of Firefox, if you have the 32-bit version installed you will continue to receive 32-bit updates. 64-bit also uses the same profiles. RZApublican posted:You can make the search bar go back to how it previously worked, actually. In the options menu for Classic Theme Restorer, click on General UI (1) and there should be a checkbox labelled "Old search (experimental)". Thanks! This worked like a charm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Without treading into the actual stupid argument, there's an excellent extension for FF that filters this phrase into "skeletons", and the full form into "skeleton warriors". i need to redownload this ngl
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
I use foxreplace which lets you make custom word lists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
I went and bit the bullet on 64-bit, setting it to install in \program files\ instead of \program files (86)\, so now I can at least run 32-bit if 64-bit breaks anything. But so far, so good. It actually feels more responsive than 32-bit, so that's pretty nice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:If anyone else hates the "search for blah on Google" in the awesome bar, about :config and set browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete to false. God help me if I ever somehow end up with a vanilla install of Firefox again because it feels like I've had to make about 20+ tweaks just to remove all of the annoying poo poo they've added over the years. This is what I wanted to ask but couldn't figure out how to, and you answered it. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
If I wanted to change to 32-bit but preserve add-ons' settings, how would I do that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
hooah posted:If I wanted to change to 32-bit but preserve add-ons' settings, how would I do that? Just install the 64 bit version. They share the same profile, and any settings and addons will carry over. Just don't run them both at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
What that man said. Even the nightly/alpha builds will use the same profile from a different install location.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Oh, I didn't know Firefox (or any program for that matter) was that smart. Cool!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
It's because the profile is stored in ~user/appdata/local which doesn't require additional permissions to access or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
So they've finally started releasing x64 versions. Can I just install that on top of my old 32 bit installation or would I have to export+import extensions, bookmarks etc using MozBackup? edit: vvv whoops, sorry! edit again: I've got extensions.checkCompatibility.43.0 set to false in about:config, but after upgrading from x32 to x64, the browser disables some "incompatible" extensions anyway. What gives? edit: found a solution: set xpinstall.signatures.required to false. PirateBob fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:So they've finally started releasing x64 versions. Can I just install that on top of my old 32 bit installation or would I have to export+import extensions, bookmarks etc using MozBackup? that question is answered on this page, just a few posts above yours even
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
So if anyone is wondering why the mute tab button isn't working on some tabs anymore it's apparently an issue on Adobe's end with the latest version of Flash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Geemer posted:So, outside of Flash biting the dust, it should be smooth sailing? Flash still works fine. It's Java that doesn't really work. Oh well!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Flash still works fine. It's Java that doesn't really work. Oh well! Java not working is a feature. Flash continuing to work is a bug.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:Flash continuing to work is a bug. Does that mean you have a patch for Shumway ready to make it work on all Flash content on the web?  (Seriously though, I think it's perfectly reasonable to prioritize not breaking things that are still fairly-common on the web.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Does that mean you have a patch for Shumway ready to make it work on all Flash content on the web? The proper fix is to publicly shame the gently caress out of anyone that's already HTML5'd their poo poo for mobile but won't serve it to computers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
That doesn't help users in the short term. There are already precious few reasons a person would stick with Firefox (add-ons and ideology are about the only ones), so I think it's wise not to give users another reason to switch to Chrome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:That doesn't help users in the short term. There are already precious few reasons a person would stick with Firefox (add-ons and ideology are about the only ones), so I think it's wise not to give users another reason to switch to Chrome. If you read what Firefox's devout have to say they already think Firefox is becoming too much like Chrome, so that wouldn't change much. Also Mozilla claims killing plugins is about security when Flash is on the level of 'not blocking ads' and 'not doing software updates' in terms of making your computer a security goatse and is still specifically whitelisted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative, do you have Flash installed? What do you do when you encounter web content that is only available in Flash? To most users simply choosing not to consume Flash content is not an acceptable option. If it is acceptable to them, users can simply NOT install Flash. I'm all about making correct security choices for users but Flash is still too large of a part of the web.
Alereon fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Let's get a working JVM in JS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Sir Unimaginative, do you have Flash installed? What do you do when you encounter web content that is only available in Flash? To most users simply choosing not to consume Flash content is not an acceptable option. If it is acceptable to them, users can simply NOT install Flash. I'm all about making correct security choices for users but Flash is still too large of a part of the web. I turn off Flash in IE and Chrome as a matter of course. I'm already trying to live my life without Flash Player and aside from one thing involving jury duty of all things I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Keep in mind web sites have had half a decade of iOS and three years of Flashless Android and declining PC adoption rates to contend with, so at this point I'm forced to conclude that anyone not at least trying to move off of Flash doesn't care about themselves or the future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:declining PC adoption rates to contend with Citation really needed, as all data leads to the conclusion that people just need to buy new systems less often (I'm using a 4 year old laptop for instance, it runs more than well enough).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:That doesn't help users in the short term. There are already precious few reasons a person would stick with Firefox (add-ons and ideology are about the only ones), so I think it's wise not to give users another reason to switch to Chrome. Yep.Flash may suck but there's a couple sites I need it for (including one that's a subscription video streaming service that's only a year old ) and losing it would make me use other browsers much more frequently. Of course I haven't even seen any major changes since the OS X version has be already been 64 bit for years Thauros fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Flash is less and less of a necessity. My problem is that when sites do convert to HTML5 they tend to only support Chrome because Chrome drives development of new video streaming standards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
I open Chrome when I need to use flash, which is rare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:36
|
|
