Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Firefox 9.0 Download Released; From 3.6 to 9.0 in 2011

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 52 comments
Tags :

Our little Firefox is growing up so fast.

Can you believe that we entered summer with only Firefox version 4.0, and now we're going to close out the year with version 9.0? Firefox is definitely eating its Wheaties.

Here are the changes for Firefox 9.0:

  • Added Type Inference, significantly improving JavaScript performance
  • Improved theme integration for Mac OS X Lion
  • Added two finger swipe navigation for Mac OS X Lion
  • Added support for querying Do Not Track status via JavaScript
  • Added support for font-stretch
  • Improved support for text-overflow
  • Improved standards support for HTML5, MathML, and CSS
  • Fixed several stability issues
     

Find the Firefox download links below, or use the update function in your browser.

Windows

Mac OS X

Linux

Display 52 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 29 Hide
    falcompsx , December 20, 2011 3:21 PM
    going from 3.6 to 9.0 in one year, is just stupid. Frequent updates are a good idea, sure, but lets keep some meaning to version numbers. Instead of changing the major version number for every minor update, do what we always have, call it firefox 4.8 or whatever because to the average user, 9.0 and 3.6 are indistinguishable. Same goes for Chrome. This inflation of version numbers is nothing more than a pissing contest to see who's browser sounds more advanced by version number alone. Google started it with Chrome and its a shame the others are taking notice and following the trend.
  • 17 Hide
    JamesSneed , December 20, 2011 3:34 PM
    Only explanation for going from 3.6 to 9.0 is the Firefox girl.
  • 16 Hide
    VirtualMirage , December 20, 2011 3:50 PM
    The other negative about Mozilla using whole version numbers for what is essentially an incremental update to the browser is that it makes it a pain the butt to update the browser to receive necessary fixes in a work environment that only allows approved software to be installed. When incremental updates are released and the version number is only a minor increment (say a .01 or .2 version number change), those can be installed usually without issue since it is the same major product version. But when you start changing the version number in major increments, say 4.0 to 5.0 or 9.0 in this case, the 'gods' in the approval office won't allow the product to be installed until it goes through the proper procedures (which can take weeks or months). Having to do this several times in one year by filling out paperwork, submitting, and hoping for a quick turn around for what is essentially a reliability update with some security improvements, and a few new features thrown in to give it that new car smell, is just a headache in the workplace. All because of the version number...
Other Comments
  • 29 Hide
    falcompsx , December 20, 2011 3:21 PM
    going from 3.6 to 9.0 in one year, is just stupid. Frequent updates are a good idea, sure, but lets keep some meaning to version numbers. Instead of changing the major version number for every minor update, do what we always have, call it firefox 4.8 or whatever because to the average user, 9.0 and 3.6 are indistinguishable. Same goes for Chrome. This inflation of version numbers is nothing more than a pissing contest to see who's browser sounds more advanced by version number alone. Google started it with Chrome and its a shame the others are taking notice and following the trend.
  • 17 Hide
    JamesSneed , December 20, 2011 3:34 PM
    Only explanation for going from 3.6 to 9.0 is the Firefox girl.
  • 4 Hide
    ta152h , December 20, 2011 3:39 PM
    I know they think this is supposed to help them, but their market share keeps going down anyway. So, maybe it's not a great strategy after all. It probably irritates more people than it helps. Can you imagine trying to support so many versions? What's the point? So, they aren't more than seven behind Chrome's release number?

    It doesn't seem like anyone wants this.
  • -2 Hide
    HansVonOhain , December 20, 2011 3:41 PM
    dopedmozilla just hopped on the weird version numbering bandwagon the software of tomorrow uses. And how is that for inappropriate image??


    You must be a virgin.
  • -1 Hide
    ta152h , December 20, 2011 3:44 PM
    falcompsxgoing from 3.6 to 9.0 in one year, is just stupid. Frequent updates are a good idea, sure, but lets keep some meaning to version numbers. Instead of changing the major version number for every minor update, do what we always have, call it firefox 4.8 or whatever because to the average user, 9.0 and 3.6 are indistinguishable. Same goes for Chrome. This inflation of version numbers is nothing more than a pissing contest to see who's browser sounds more advanced by version number alone. Google started it with Chrome and its a shame the others are taking notice and following the trend.


    Others? Seems like only Firefox is doing this stupid stuff. Opera sure isn't. IE isn't. Safari is Apple, so weird from the beginning, and irrelevant from the beginning. So I don't know, and don't care.

  • 8 Hide
    icepick314 , December 20, 2011 3:46 PM
    ta152hOthers? Seems like only Firefox is doing this stupid stuff. Opera sure isn't. IE isn't. Safari is Apple, so weird from the beginning, and irrelevant from the beginning. So I don't know, and don't care.


    you forgot Chrome...

    it's at version 16....
  • 16 Hide
    VirtualMirage , December 20, 2011 3:50 PM
    The other negative about Mozilla using whole version numbers for what is essentially an incremental update to the browser is that it makes it a pain the butt to update the browser to receive necessary fixes in a work environment that only allows approved software to be installed. When incremental updates are released and the version number is only a minor increment (say a .01 or .2 version number change), those can be installed usually without issue since it is the same major product version. But when you start changing the version number in major increments, say 4.0 to 5.0 or 9.0 in this case, the 'gods' in the approval office won't allow the product to be installed until it goes through the proper procedures (which can take weeks or months). Having to do this several times in one year by filling out paperwork, submitting, and hoping for a quick turn around for what is essentially a reliability update with some security improvements, and a few new features thrown in to give it that new car smell, is just a headache in the workplace. All because of the version number...
  • 0 Hide
    ta152h , December 20, 2011 3:51 PM
    icepick314you forgot Chrome...it's at version 16....


    Chrome was what he was referring to as other's copying. Therefore, it can't be one of the others, since they couldn't be copying themselves.
  • 8 Hide
    mrmaia , December 20, 2011 3:53 PM
    "mozilla just hopped on the weird version numbering bandwagon" because the everyday user hops into the "bigger version number = more advanced" bandwagon.

    I'll download this update. I meant, I WILL download it, nothing will be installed behind my back like Chrome does.

    And that blondie just made me like Firefox a bit more right now :D 
  • 4 Hide
    rohitbaran , December 20, 2011 3:58 PM
    falcompsxgoing from 3.6 to 9.0 in one year, is just stupid. Frequent updates are a good idea, sure, but lets keep some meaning to version numbers. Instead of changing the major version number for every minor update, do what we always have, call it firefox 4.8 or whatever because to the average user, 9.0 and 3.6 are indistinguishable. Same goes for Chrome. This inflation of version numbers is nothing more than a pissing contest to see who's browser sounds more advanced by version number alone. Google started it with Chrome and its a shame the others are taking notice and following the trend.

    Well, Chrome is the COD of web browsers in a way.
  • -7 Hide
    Netherscourge , December 20, 2011 4:03 PM
    rohitbaranWell, Chrome is the COD of web browsers in a way.


    Firefox is the Windows Phone of web browsers.
  • 1 Hide
    DXRick , December 20, 2011 4:37 PM
    I feel like an idiot for asking this: Where is "the update function in your browser"?
  • 8 Hide
    mrmaia , December 20, 2011 4:40 PM
    DXRickI feel like an idiot for asking this: Where is "the update function in your browser"?


    In Firefox, go to Help - About and it'll check for updates.
  • 8 Hide
    DaddyW123 , December 20, 2011 4:53 PM
    ta152h[Actually, I think most of the guys here that post about her are. She's got a face like a moose, her figure is average at best, with a thick waist, and only average bust. She's arching her body in a way that exaggerates the positive aspects of the female figure, but that's about it. But, you'll get comment after comment on her. Those are probably the virgins (not that there's anything wrong with that). Normal men aren't going to be so aroused by a mediocre female they don't know, that they have to create post after post about it. She's not exactly Marilyn Monroe or Monica Bellucci.


    I'm 31, I have a beautiful wife and a 2 year old Son. I had plenty of play in college, and I think the girl on this pic is hot! She may not be the hottest girl I've ever seen, but I wouldn't kick her to the curb if she wanted a piece... well actually I would because I'm married - but I'd be taking a cold shower directly after.
  • 0 Hide
    cybrcatter , December 20, 2011 5:01 PM
    Normal users who aren't anal retentive do not care about the numbering scheme.
    The only individuals who take note are the marketing teams and a small, vocal minority.
  • 9 Hide
    lahawzel , December 20, 2011 5:30 PM
    otacon72still a memory hog.


    http://media.bestofmicro.com/K/6/309174/original/memuse40tabswbgp7.png

    I see you seem to believe that we live in a universe where 475.3 > 1057.2.
Display more comments