Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Firefox 13 Comes Online Early, Now Available for Download

Last response: in News comments
Share
June 5, 2012 12:15:38 AM

They must have fixed it, the link appears to lead to version 12 and when going to download it again says 12.
June 5, 2012 12:26:26 AM

I was expecting more updates, but at least Mozilla is on schedule unlike their FF4.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
June 5, 2012 12:27:00 AM

Bah, I meant more features wit the FF13 compared to FF12. Where's that edit button?
June 5, 2012 1:02:11 AM

Now if it were as fast as chrome and had tabs as separate processes, I'd consider switching back to it. However, nowadays, it simply can't compete well with Chrome.
Anonymous
June 5, 2012 1:18:30 AM

nope. too lazy to download it now. I wait for ff14 next week.
June 5, 2012 1:21:28 AM

Nah, I'll stick to Chrome :) 
June 5, 2012 1:28:42 AM

Most visited web site?....oh no! that means I have to hide the screen every time I start FF when someone is with me... :) 
June 5, 2012 1:30:05 AM

cantcatchupwithfirefoxnope. too lazy to download it now. I wait for ff14 next week.

Ha, but I thought it was a new version every other day (sarcasm)
Anonymous
June 5, 2012 1:33:56 AM

Yes, but it seems the only major browser that values privacy. That's worth a lot. I switched back from Chrome to Firefox!
June 5, 2012 2:25:16 AM

Quote:
Restored background tabs are not loaded by default for faster startup
Smooth scrolling is now enabled by default


WTF. Who decided on this crap?
June 5, 2012 3:09:59 AM

A Bad DayI was expecting more updates, but at least Mozilla is on schedule unlike their FF4.

A Bad DayBah, I meant more features wit the FF13 compared to FF12. Where's that edit button?


At the top of the comments, click the blue text link that says "Read comments on the forums", scroll down to your comment, and there is an edit button. This is not true for tomsguide.com articles, but it is true for tomshardware.com articles.

Also, here's a link to it right here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/15881-55-firefox-onli...
June 5, 2012 3:12:02 AM

math1337 said:
Quote:
Restored background tabs are not loaded by default for faster startup
Smooth scrolling is now enabled by default


WTF. Who decided on this crap?


... Do you want a faster browser or not? Not having every page load until you are using it speeds things up. Chrome does something similar.
June 5, 2012 3:15:56 AM

livebriand said:
Now if it were as fast as chrome and had tabs as separate processes, I'd consider switching back to it. However, nowadays, it simply can't compete well with Chrome.


Chrome max tabs on low end machines with 2GB or less: A few dozen, maybe a little more. FF max tabs on such machines: Hundreds, perhaps thousands. Not everyone uses so many, but FF is one of the few browsers (only major browser globally) that can do it without huge memory imprints. Individual processes for tabs is a huge part of why Chrome uses so much memory in comparison. There are trade-offs to consider to each approach. Regardless, FF could add multi-threading support without having each tab in its own process. Also, Chrome doesn't always have a process for every tab. Grouped tabs often share a process.

FF is also usually more stable than Chrome right now (I've had several crashes that forced me to restart Chrome, but I've yet to have such happen to my FF in a long time) and stability can be more important than speed. Besides, it's not like FF is slow anyway, especially with No-script, adblock, fasterfox, etc. They take only a few seconds to install and you're good to go after a few minutes spent setting them up if their defaults aren't as good as you want them to be.
June 5, 2012 4:07:44 AM

The Thumbs up/Thumbs Down should be used to vote up or down good, informative and useful comments. Not a tool to vote down opinions of others whom you do not agree with.
June 5, 2012 5:51:36 AM

there is an optimized version of Firefox that cuts all the crap new 'features' and removes the auto-update as well. It has better memory usage and is faster and more fluid :

June 5, 2012 6:00:54 AM

blazorthonChrome max tabs on low end machines with 2GB or less: A few dozen, maybe a little more. FF max tabs on such machines: Hundreds, perhaps thousands. Not everyone uses so many, but FF is one of the few browsers (only major browser globally) that can do it without huge memory imprints. Individual processes for tabs is a huge part of why Chrome uses so much memory in comparison. There are trade-offs to consider to each approach. Regardless, FF could add multi-threading support without having each tab in its own process. Also, Chrome doesn't always have a process for every tab. Grouped tabs often share a process.FF is also usually more stable than Chrome right now (I've had several crashes that forced me to restart Chrome, but I've yet to have such happen to my FF in a long time) and stability can be more important than speed. Besides, it's not like FF is slow anyway, especially with No-script, adblock, fasterfox, etc. They take only a few seconds to install and you're good to go after a few minutes spent setting them up if their defaults aren't as good as you want them to be.



there isn't another way to support multi-threading without creating another process (for another cpu), with it's own memory space, and so on... the same goes for the other tabs. Every one of them needs to be another process in order to take advantage of a second (or more) cpus, otherwise, only one cpu will being multi-tasking in between threads in the same process.. and for example, if one of them makes an IO operation, the hole process will wait for the IO operation to get done before continuing.. this translates to FF frozen till IO operation finishes.. (no tab switching, no animation at all, totally freezed)

Chrome uses sandboxes to isolate the memory between tabs (it's more secure) and that's not free in terms of memory
June 5, 2012 6:04:36 AM

juan83there isn't another way to support multi-threading without creating another process (for another cpu), with it's own memory space, and so on... the same goes for the other tabs. Every one of them needs to be another process in order to take advantage of a second (or more) cpus, otherwise, only one cpu will being multi-tasking in between threads in the same process.. and for example, if one of them makes an IO operation, the hole process will wait for the IO operation to get done before continuing.. this translates to FF frozen till IO operation finishes.. (no tab switching, no animation at all, totally freezed) Chrome uses sandboxes to isolate the memory between tabs (it's more secure) and that's not free in terms of memory


Actually, FF could be multi-threaded without having each tab (or tab group) as an independent process. It would simply take more work and wouldn't have the advantage of Chrome's tab/tab group sandboxing, but it would have the advantage of using less memory. It's all trade offs about what we are willing to give up for what gain.
June 5, 2012 6:39:55 AM

Hi Guys,

there is working link, when you click to download current version, just in the link replace 12.0 with 13.0 and you will start downloading the new version :) 

Here is the link:

June 5, 2012 8:43:45 AM

I'm waiting for Firefox 100.
June 5, 2012 10:28:30 AM

>"When opening a new tab, users are now presented with their most visited pages"
Would have been better to implement a speed dial. Once you start using a speed dial it's difficult to go back to anything else.

>"Restored background tabs are not loaded by default for faster startup"
YES YES YES - Maybe now that Firefox has done this, other browsers will follow. I used to use an addon/hack to force Firefox to imitate this behavior back around FF v5 or v6. Then the addon broke, but fortunately Firefox integrated it in their settings shortly after, and I've been using it ever since. Good to see that it's now default.

>"Smooth scrolling is now enabled by default"
Anything that brings the UI usability closer to Opera is fine by me. Each browser has its strong points, but the UI is definitely Opera's.

On another note, someone mentioned that Firefox could implement separate tab processes without using separate memory for each tab. This would also be a huge improvement, so long as when one tab crashes, it doesn't bring the entire browser down. This is really the primary reason one would do this anyway. I haven't had Firefox crash on me for a long time, but that's no reason not to improve crash recovery regardless. Of course I haven't been using Firefox all that much lately either, due to the fact that it's still got the most laggy UI out of all the main browsers. After opening Firefox and waiting a bit, I opened a new tab. The new tab took about 10 seconds to come up, during which the entire browser froze solid. I don't see that happening in Opera, ever, and even Chrome lags less than that.
June 5, 2012 2:22:37 PM

So this senseless version number bumping continues.
June 5, 2012 2:47:53 PM

eddieroolzSo this senseless version number bumping continues.
I'm guessing you like Chrome.

I dump Chrome when they got rid of Sidetabs.
June 5, 2012 3:22:22 PM

moonshire said:
The Thumbs up/Thumbs Down should be used to vote up or down good, informative and useful comments. Not a tool to vote down opinions of others whom you do not agree with.


Tom's is full of kids. Silly kids.
June 5, 2012 3:59:04 PM


It is nothing more than a huge pile of remux wrapped in lies. They have nothing to do with any of the significant FF-developing projects that actually shows up something: MemShrink, IonMonkey, Snappy, etc
What they do is like buying a Ferrari, boosting the 500 horsepower engine to 530, changing the seats and than they (or more like, the fans of PaleMoon and WaterFox) start claiming that they're so much batter at making cars and Ferrari should just quit.
Also, auto-update can be disabled, or refused when installing, nothing complicated.

Quote:
Restored background tabs are not loaded by default for faster startup

It was present even before, they only made it the default behavior. For haters: it can be disabled, just go to Options.

Pherule>"When opening a new tab, users are now presented with their most visited pages"
Would have been better to implement a speed dial. Once you start using a speed dial it's difficult to go back to anything else.

No matter how I look at it, it is exactly looks like Speed Dial. Take a look at it, and correct me if I am mistaken.

For those who are interested: limited multithread support is under heavy development. It won't implement the "one process per tab" way, but separating web-content and the GUI, what should be a huge improvement for responsiveness, stability and processing capacity, without using a lot of memory.
June 5, 2012 6:33:25 PM

srapIt is nothing more than a huge pile of remux wrapped in lies. They have nothing to do with any of the significant FF-developing projects that actually shows up something: MemShrink, IonMonkey, Snappy, etcWhat they do is like buying a Ferrari, boosting the 500 horsepower engine to 530, changing the seats and than they (or more like, the fans of PaleMoon and WaterFox) start claiming that they're so much batter at making cars and Ferrari should just quit.Also, auto-update can be disabled, or refused when installing, nothing complicated.It was present even before, they only made it the default behavior. For haters: it can be disabled, just go to Options.No matter how I look at it, it is exactly looks like Speed Dial. Take a look at it, and correct me if I am mistaken.For those who are interested: limited multithread support is under heavy development. It won't implement the "one process per tab" way, but separating web-content and the GUI, what should be a huge improvement for responsiveness, stability and processing capacity, without using a lot of memory.


The Pale Moon Project doesn't claim that they are doing anything other than taking FF source code and removing some things that they think are unnecessary and then giving it a new name and icon since Mozilla doesn't want people making customized version of FF and passing them off as the original. I don't recall seeing the dev for the project badmouthing Mozilla and saying that they are doing all the work and Mozilla isn't or anything like that. I use Pale moon, but I'm not being some idiot like these fans that you refer to and I can say that yeah, Pale Moon is just a customized FF that is a little faster and uses a little less memory than the original with a slightly different UI, icon, and a different name. I don't know of anyone who said that Mozilla should just quit and let the Pale Moon guys make the browser instead. The dev doesn't claim that they do any significant developing of FF, at least not the last time I checked his site.
June 5, 2012 8:31:28 PM

blazorthonThe Pale Moon Project doesn't claim that [...]

I guess I went a little overboard when I wrote that one. Actually, I have nothing against the vendors of PM, but more like the fans (nom: "or more like, the fans of PaleMoon and WaterFox"). Though, this is no excuse for badmouthing them, I admit.
It just makes me angry to see these fans hopping up and down, at every FF article/news, saying "this is so much batter", while the differences are not that significant at 95% of the time. Even if someone experiences that it works better, it is only the result of a completely new and blank profile. No outdated add-ons, no corrupted files, no toolbars, etc.
June 7, 2012 2:08:58 PM

WHERE IS THE FIREFOXY GIRL PIC THAT APPEARS WHEN THERE IS A NEW FIREFOX???... :( 
June 7, 2012 2:10:37 PM

srapI guess I went a little overboard when I wrote that one. Actually, I have nothing against the vendors of PM, but more like the fans (nom: "or more like, the fans of PaleMoon and WaterFox"). Though, this is no excuse for badmouthing them, I admit.It just makes me angry to see these fans hopping up and down, at every FF article/news, saying "this is so much batter", while the differences are not that significant at 95% of the time. Even if someone experiences that it works better, it is only the result of a completely new and blank profile. No outdated add-ons, no corrupted files, no toolbars, etc.


Ahh... I can see how that would get annoying. It's been a while since UI did a blank install to blank install comparison between FF and PM, but back with version 7, PM was noticeably faster (noticeable, granted still not by a huge margin) in many situations.... However, if anyone claims that it's so much faster that it's a whole new experience, then they're BSing you. It's not much of a difference. PM makes a bigger difference in memory usage than in actual performance, at least it did when I switched. Things might be a little different for FF now and they might be even closer. I've used FF in a couple of updates since 7 (up to 9), but I haven't done a comparison.
!