Firefox 9.0 Download Released; From 3.6 to 9.0 in 2011

mozilla just hopped on the weird version numbering bandwagon the software of tomorrow uses. And how is that for inappropriate image??

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.

I read this article on my Chrome Browser.

Only explanation for going from 3.6 to 9.0 is the Firefox girl.

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.

You must be a virgin.

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.

you forgot Chrome...

it's at version 16....

[

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.

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...

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.

"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

Well, Chrome is the COD of web browsers in a way.

Firefox is the Windows Phone of web browsers.

I 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.

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.

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.

..and some things that haven't changed: Still crashes, still a memory hog.

And I'm as rich as Bill Gates, have a body like Arnold, smart as Newt, and have as many women as Hugh Hefner. We can be anything on the internet.

The reality is, if you're posting about this female, you're not getting much of anything, or can't get much of anything. Maybe you'd have a romp with her, most guys are that way, but when you post about someone, and think the whole world has to know you find her attractive, there's something off with that.

I wouldn't find this girl the least bit attractive, but even if I did, I wouldn't see the point in posting about it, unless she were the one writing the article. In that event, you'd at least make her feel good, and there would be a point.

Writing about how you find a picture of a girl, you don't know, you've never spoken to, and you desperately want is not only pathetic, it's shameful.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/K/6/3 [...] swbgp7.png

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

I just clicked on About... and Check for Updates on my FF8. Says my installation is up to date. Then I follow the links on this Tom's news clip, sends me to a Tom's download page, which was kinda fishy.

Visiting getfirefox.org shows me that 8.0.1 is the version being distributed. Why are you releasing FF9 Tom's? And why use your own download pages, not the Mozilla pages?

This is all just marketing semantics:
We are all just running FF 4.5 right now, but its called FF 8... Who cares? At least they are finally fixing problems, instead of ignoring them for a year at a time, like how when FF 3.5 came out as a buggy upgrade that was unstable and broke all of my extensions... I dabbled in Chrome and IE7/8 because of how bad FF was until FF 4 finally came out.

Believe whatever you want dude. I'm simply letting you know that your original comments are very closed minded and flat out rude. Saying she has a face like a moose, I can only assume that you have heard that very statement about yourself, and I picture you as a pimply faced 15 year old who thinks you are right about everything in the world. Oh wait, now I'm sinking to your level and making assumptions I know nothing about. For you to assume that I am lying about my life only tells me that you have had to do so about yourself, and I feel sorry for you.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and putting other people down (both the people who enjoy looking at a pretty girl and want to comment about it; and the girl herself) makes you sound like an ignorant pig.
Maybe I'm taking this too far on an article about about firefox, but I'd like to know what makes you think you are qualified to assess the character of the people on this forum, when your character could use some work.

Hey, at least they didn't copy Microsoft's MSE, which skipped version number 3!

It doesn't seem to have changed at all from 8.0.1, which was perfectly fine. This is with Windows 7 x64, a quad-core i5, and 8GB RAM.

I think we just found our virgin!!!

"I just clicked on About... and Check for Updates on my FF8. Says my installation is up to date. Then I follow the links on this Tom's news clip, sends me to a Tom's download page, which was kinda fishy.

Visiting getfirefox.org shows me that 8.0.1 is the version being distributed. Why are you releasing FF9 Tom's? And why use your own download pages, not the Mozilla pages?"

Must second this, I was about to download but since my own 8.0 says its up-to-date and the link isn't to the official mozilla site, I'm a bit wary.

then go direct to Mozilla's site:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla [...] %209.0.exe
or, http://www.mozilla.org/products/do [...] lang=en-US

Leave the firefox girl outta this.

Thanks for the analytical insight, Sheldon Cooper.