|
That's a shame. I actually use Firefox as my daily browser, but use Chrome with Battlelog as an "application shortcut", so it acts like a mini-app, with no toolbars or anything. Separates my gaming from my browsing a bit more.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:I am bummed my work is thinking about dropping firefox support simply because firefox wants to drop silverlight, flash, etc. That should be their sign to get with the times, not double down. If you need to support Silverlight, your only option is Internet Explorer 11, which is why Microsoft kept it around for compatibility after making Edge the default browser. Edge doesn't support plugins, Chrome dropped support for NPAPI plugins, and Firefox has deprecated them. mike12345 posted:So will Firefox eventually update to the 64 bit version? Or do I have to look for an alternate download link at some point, if I want to make the switch. I doubt Firefox will ever automatically upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit. It's definitely not the plan right now. They are also not putting the 64-bit download link on the website, because they don't think it's quite ready for a wide audience. Mostly due to Flash issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Applebees posted:
Uh, what Flash issues? Flash has worked perfectly fine in 64 bit Firefox builds for years at this point. You sure you're not thinking of Java, which they removed support for?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Uh, what Flash issues? Flash has worked perfectly fine in 64 bit Firefox builds for years at this point. You sure you're not thinking of Java, which they removed support for? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1185532 and the bugs it depends on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Applebees posted:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1185532 and the bugs it depends on. Yes, because resolved bugs block things all the time.  Officially, they're "waiting for some partner changes", whatever the hell that means (no seriously, I'm not sure Mozilla knows how words work anymore). I already told you how to get it last page.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:Officially, they're "waiting for some partner changes", whatever the hell that means (no seriously, I'm not sure Mozilla knows how words work anymore). I'm not sure how that's hard to interpret. Mozilla is waiting for a (business) partner to make some changes to something before they advertise 64-bit builds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I'm not sure how that's hard to interpret. Mozilla is waiting for a (business) partner to make some changes to something before they advertise 64-bit builds. It's a vague claim without meaningful disclosure, and who exactly are they in bed with that not only can't they move forward on a decade-old platform near majority adoption rate, but they can't even say who's stopping them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I'm not sure how that's hard to interpret. Mozilla is waiting for a (business) partner to make some changes to something before they advertise 64-bit builds. 1. x64 is the future (this is self-explanatory really, but by doing the above x64 kinda becomes a peek into the future) 2. People really, really should migrate away from flash. It's been years in the making, and seeing how other technologies have matured it just seems like a good time as ever to finally move on? As for java, the 32-bit builds will still cater to the people that requires it. Today there's very few sites actually requiring flash - I've personally been flash-free for +6 months, although I have to admit I keep an extra installation of chromium with PPAPI-flash for the few and far between cases where I actually need to browse such a site. Usually I just close the tab and forget about it if a site requires flash though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:It's a vague claim without meaningful disclosure, and who exactly are they in bed with that not only can't they move forward on a decade-old platform near majority adoption rate, but they can't even say who's stopping them? Sometimes other businesses don't like it when you post their proprietary information on a bug that anyone on the planet can read. That's just comes with the territory of being an open-source project that needs to play nice with closed-source companies. My guess is that the partner in question is Adobe, and it's about either Flash or EME. Marinmo posted:I have to admit I keep an extra installation of chromium with PPAPI-flash for the few and far between cases where I actually need to browse such a site. This is pretty much why Mozilla is making an exception for Flash. If you're trying to get people to convert from Chrome to Firefox, having a build where you can't use Flash at all is likely to frustrate people and keep them from switching. For the current Firefox users who actually care, the 64-bit build is out. It's just not advertised, and they aren't doing automatic conversions from 32-bit builds yet. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:Is there something you need to enable to get Netflix running native under Firefox on Windows? I've read a bunch of articles saying that it was coming earlier in the year, but Firefox still wants me to install Silverlight. I'm on 41.0.2 and would love to fully ditch Chrome here. You can do this now, as of Firefox 42: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:You can do this now, as of Firefox 42: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 Just tried it out, and I can confirm that it also works in 64-bit Firefox 42 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:Just tried it out, and I can confirm that it also works in 64-bit Firefox 42 Hm. So if Cisco's H.264 seems to work, and Adobe Flash seems to work, and Adobe EME seems to work, then it seems unlikely that any of those can be the reason Mozilla would stabilize and release Firefox Win64 and then pretend it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:So if Cisco's H.264 seems to work, and Adobe Flash seems to work, and Adobe EME seems to work, then it seems unlikely that any of those can be the reason Mozilla would stabilize and release Firefox Win64 and then pretend it doesn't exist. "Seems to work" and "works" aren't quite the same thing. For instance, Flash has some serious issues on 64-bit Firefox in CJK locales. There may be other issues as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:Hm. There are problems with Flash on 64-bit such as https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1180684 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201904 They are blocking the bug I linked before, which is why I linked it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Applebees posted:There are problems with Flash on 64-bit such as https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1180684 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201904 The former isn't even being addressed anymore and the latter appears to be a consequence of their current sandboxing method. Either way: if it was that big an issue, then either - they shouldn't even be providing a release-channel build of Firefox Win64 - yeah they said they would by now, but 'oh it's not up to it and we have completely valid reason to withhold it, but we're releasing it on the DL anyway even though it's a bad idea because we said we would' is probably not a good reason to do it - or - they should accept that philosophical rigor (that is, death to NPAPI in Win64) has consequences (that is, losing the audience that believes themselves dependent on Flash Player, which is a fair bit larger than the audience that actually is dependent on Flash Player but not other NPAPI plugins), or - they should stop playing at philosophical rigor. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Marinmo posted:I promise I'm not trolling, but why not ditch NPAPI completely and by extension go flash-free for x64? I'm thinking that keeping it in 32-bit builds for legacy reasons would also show that: I love this idea. I actually haven't encountered a site I frequent that requires flash in some time, with the notable exception of Hulu. I'm sure they're working on transitioning to HTML5, though (at least, I'd sure as hell hope so).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:I love this idea. I actually haven't encountered a site I frequent that requires flash in some time, with the notable exception of Hulu. I'm sure they're working on transitioning to HTML5, though (at least, I'd sure as hell hope so). I mean, Twitch works in that you can grab the h264 streams with VLC, but the only html5 thing it's capable of doing in a browser are the video controls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:I mean, Twitch works in that you can grab the h264 streams with VLC, but the only html5 thing it's capable of doing in a browser are the video controls. Ah, I don't frequent Twitch. Are they working on a full transition to HTML5?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:Ah, I don't frequent Twitch. Are they working on a full transition to HTML5? Yeah, hopefully the full player comes out sooner than later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:I love this idea. I actually haven't encountered a site I frequent that requires flash in some time, with the notable exception of Hulu. I'm sure they're working on transitioning to HTML5, though (at least, I'd sure as hell hope so). The only sites I find that still use flash are news sites. It's really annoying. I mean seriously, BBC, get with the Times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Online supplementary content for textbooks frequently requires some combination of Flash, Java, and, for some reason, Shockwave. I imagine they'll refuse to change their ways as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Thank god for official 64 bit. Now I only have to restart Firefox when my system actually runs out of memory instead of it starting to crap itself around the 2.5GB mark.  Of course, if they'd actually fix the (YouTube?) HTML5 video memory leak it'd be even better...
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:Yeah, hopefully the full player comes out sooner than later. There's a Greasemonkey script to force HTML5 video on Twitch: https://github.com/EchoDev/TwitchHTML5 It only works on the individual stream pages, but you can watch Twitch without Flash right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
If you want to turn off the completely ridiculous fade effect on fullscreening video, the about:config setting is not browser.fullscreen.animate, it's full-screen-api.transition-duration.enter and full-screen-api.transition-duration.leave. Set both of them to 0 0.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
 How do I disable the useless entry that repeats what's in my address bar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Read posted:
Maybe get a life, nerd. e: seriously though you need that for auto-complete mike12345 fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:Maybe get a life, nerd. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
What's the best way to save my current 32-bit v42.0 setup and try out the 64-bit version?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
hooah posted:What's the best way to save my current 32-bit v42.0 setup and try out the 64-bit version? Just copy or archive it somewhere. Firefox isn't exactly delicate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
hooah posted:What's the best way to save my current 32-bit v42.0 setup and try out the 64-bit version? 64-bit will just re-use the same profile. I guess you can backup if you want, but I didn't have any problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Looks like they're removing support for "heavyweight themes" too. Details here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1222546
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
I hope they don't follow through with that; I sure do like the Simple White and Rein themes. Is there any reason for this decision? Is maintaining theming support that difficult, or does the Mozilla staff just think Full Theme support is obsolete?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
GrizzlyCow posted:I hope they don't follow through with that; I sure do like the Simple White and Rein themes. Is there any reason for this decision? Is maintaining theming support that difficult, or does the Mozilla staff just think Full Theme support is obsolete? quote:As part of Firefox great-or-dead, we've decided to stop support for "heavyweight" themes which can do arbitrary styling and replace chrome packages. I get what he's saying but man is framing their decisions as great-or-dead really going to piss off the userbase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
To say that Mozilla has been doing a horrible job at communication is an understatement. Rather than grouping together all of these tough decisions and then trying to explain up front why they are long-term positives, they're just trickling out via blog posts and bugzilla entries. While this is undoubtedly good for tech blogs because they get to write a fresh "Firefox users are pissed" article every few weeks, it seems like a really poor strategy for Mozilla.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:Maybe get a life, nerd. You don't, it was added in the latest update I got. You can see it in the patch notes for v43.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Read posted:You don't, it was added in the latest update I got. You can see it in the patch notes for v43. I don't like it either, and on the nightly builds there's another giant pointless bar at the bottom with just a small "Change Search Settings" link. This means that out of the 7 rows, only 5 of them are actually useful. Let's hope the real/polished UI is coming later?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
xamphear posted:I don't like it either, and on the nightly builds there's another giant pointless bar at the bottom with just a small "Change Search Settings" link. This means that out of the 7 rows, only 5 of them are actually useful. Let's hope the real/polished UI is coming later? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete to false removes the visit line it seems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
I'm toying with the idea of using Firefox over Chrome since I'm looking for a browsing experience that'll be consistent across my various devices and block ads on my phone. I have a couple questions for any of you guys who've made a switch in the last few months. I hear that things are a bit slower in Firefox. Is there any reason to believe that's going to change anytime soon? I don't know if I'd notice on my desktop, but my phone sure seems faster with FF. How's SALR for Firefox compared to Chrome's? All my other extensions have 1:1 equivalents, but it looked like the two browsers' SALRs are a tiny bit different. Chrome's quick reply is a little prettier for instance. Really, in general, have you missed anything from the general Chrome user experience badly enough to consider a move back?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Meldonox posted:I'm toying with the idea of using Firefox over Chrome since I'm looking for a browsing experience that'll be consistent across my various devices and block ads on my phone. I have a couple questions for any of you guys who've made a switch in the last few months. Firefox is just as fast as Chrome for me, I don't use SALR so I can't comment on that but I can say that for me Chrome doesn't offer anything that outweighs what Firefox offers. The only feature I miss is typing a url and hitting tab to search the site. Firefox has keyword searches, which are more robust and customizable but not as quick or easy. e: Fapos posted:browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete to false removes the visit line it seems. Awesome, thanks! I'm curious, where/how did you figure out this was the right setting? Just searching in about :config with relevant keywords? Read fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Nov 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 06:38
|
|