Gizmo's Freeware Forum

Gizmo's Freeware Forum (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/)
-   Internet, Web Apps and Networking (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/internet-web-apps-and-networking/)
-   -   Firefox 3.6.3 released (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/internet-web-apps-and-networking/3757-firefox-3-6-3-released.html)

Anupam 02. Apr 2010 08:14 AM

Firefox 3.6.3 released
 
Firefox 3.6.3 has been released. This has been a very quiet update.

This version fixes the security vulnerability which security researcher Nils exploited in the Pwn2Own 2010 contest held recently. You can find details here:

http://www.mozilla.org/security/anno...sa2010-25.html

This release fixes just this single security vulnerability. It is said to be critical... and therefore, all are advises to update to this version, as soon as possible. The download is available officially from the Mozilla Firefox site.

Release Notes : http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox.../releasenotes/

Kyuzo 02. Apr 2010 11:20 PM

My Firefox updated itself this evening. I really can't say enough about this great software. I know Chrome is supposed to bury Firefox, but since I began using Mozilla, it's been a flawlessly-performing piece of software. I don't believe it's ever once crashed on me and updates quickly and easily.

Thanks for the "heads up", Kyuzo.

Anupam 03. Apr 2010 07:45 AM

You are welcome :).

I agree, Firefox is a great software, and I have used it for years. But, since news was confirmed of vulnerability in Firefox 3.6, I started to use SRWare Iron... and now I am using it more and more. After using SRWare Iron, Firefox feels bloated to me. Also, Firefox is slower than SRWare Iron/Chrome.

Although Iron has crashed on me a number of times, when using bookmarks, and I have occasionally experienced heavy memory usage, I am still using it more than Firefox these days.

Recently held Pwn2Own contest in which Chrome remained unhacked, also pushed me to keep using Iron, which is based on Chrome.

But yes, I do agree, Firefox, with all its add-ons, provides a complete browsing experience. I never had any problems with Firefox anytime, with websites not opening correctly, or crashes or anything like that.

Firefox has been planning to shift to webkit engine. That would be very interesting, as webkit engine is known to be quite fast. It will be quite interesting to see what happens when Firefox gives competition to Chrome in terms of speed. Looking at the Chrome being unhackable, because of its sandboxing feature, we may see that happening in other browsers too. Although, that leads to heavy memory consumption IMO, because every tab is treated as a process... and when the whole browser crashes, like it happened to me a few days ago.. you have to kill process for every single tab... can be quite a pain.

Kyuzo 03. Apr 2010 04:27 PM

I have had a problem with Firefox lately and I wondered if its "bloat" was the cause or if my current ISP's security suite is the culprit. Firefox used to load in an instant when the icon was clicked upon, but now my Firefox is much slower to load. I had heard of complaints about the program's size, but I'm still not sure.

I have to admit to being drawn to Mozilla since it is an altruistic "underdog" of sorts (I tend to do that...). Perhaps computing is not the place to be a romantic! :D

Anupam 03. Apr 2010 07:29 PM

Firefox has always been slow to load at start up, and its a chronic problem now. As the Firefox installation gets older, it gets slower. I think one of the main reason is that Firefox stores the information in Sqlite database, and it takes time to gather that information on startup. So, the more bookmarks, or the more extensions you have, more time it will take for Firefox to startup. Also, Firefox checks for add-ons updates on startup... and that also contributes to the delay. That is my understanding of it.. and I am not sure of what I wrote... but it should be true, if my logic is correct. That's why various utilities which claim to make Firefox faster, use vacuuming of the database of Firefox.

Kyuzo 03. Apr 2010 08:51 PM

I would imagine you're quite correct. I can't recall exactly, but an (somewhat anti-Firefox, pro-Chrome) article I read mentioned sqlite (I have no real idea of the inner workings of Firefox). Someone in the comments section ( :D ! ) suggested setting Firefox to work with Windows 98 (I don't recall the term, just right-click the icon and change FF in settings). Although some commented that it worked for them I could tell no difference.

It's no huge bother, just something I've noticed as the program has gone through its revisions.

Regards, Kyuzo.

Anupam 03. Apr 2010 09:02 PM

Slow startup has always been problem of Firefox since earlier versions. It was said that things would improve with Firefox 3.6, but this was not to be. Speed of loading of webpages has increased considerably, which is quite good, and I think more needed. But, the slow loading remains the same.

I have observed that as Firefox installation grows old, startup time increases. I have also noticed that when I do total un-installation, and re-installation of Firefox, the startup time decreases considerably. So, if it feels that it has become too slow to load up, you can try re-installing it. Take backup of your important things first though, like bookmarks, extensions, themes etc. I use FEBE for backup, works great.

Also might be worth mentioning, that another member had a really big problem with slow startup, ranging to 4 mins :eek:. The problem was it seems he had not been cleaning the temp files, and other browser related material regularly... specially the flash related material was the cause. When the flash cookies, etc were deleted, Firefox loaded really quick. So, regular cleaning with software like CCleaner will help too.

Rhiannon had posted article on that recently, on how to deal with flash cookies.

BleachBit, a CCleaner type cleaning software is able to remove the flash related material very well, apart from cleaning other things.

sa1 03. Apr 2010 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26191)
Firefox has been planning to shift to webkit engine.

Where did you get this news? At the very best I know that there's a plan to integrate webkit's javascript engine and firefox's tracemonkey to get the best of both worlds for use on Firefox.
There is no danger to Gecko whatsoever as far as I know and webkit isn't going to replace it.
Quote:

That would be very interesting, as webkit engine is known to be quite fast.
My views on browser speed:
I agree that Firefox is slower than Chrome but really as far as I can tell speed differences in javascript and rendering performance is close to imperceptible on most sites today, Gmail being an exception being perceptibly slower on IE. The point of javascript performance today in many browsers is to be "future"-ready.(and marketing :p)
The "future" being when IE upgrades its Javascript performance so that sites can begin using complicated scripting.
The one area where speed differences are perceptible yet is not measured by most benchmarks is application speed. The lagginess, the hangs, freezes,etc and I think that is where Firefox is way behind other browsers except IE.
In that case a switch to Webkit from Gecko isn't going to help even a bit.

Anupam 03. Apr 2010 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26270)
Where did you get this news? At the very best I know that there's a plan to integrate webkit's javascript engine and firefox's tracemonkey to get the best of both worlds for use on Firefox.
There is no danger to Gecko whatsoever as far as I know and webkit isn't going to replace it.

Ah yes, that's the correct news!! Thanks sa1, for correcting the news. Don't know where I had read it, and I did not remember the exact words.. that's why I said Firefox was planning to move to Webkit engine. You are correct with the news that you gave :). Thanks again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26270)
I agree that Firefox is slower than Chrome but really as far as I can tell speed differences in javascript and rendering performance is close to imperceptible on most sites today, Gmail being an exception being perceptibly slower on IE.

I agree, there is not much difference between Firefox and Chrome in terms of speed, but still, there is tiny amount of difference. I can really feel the difference in opening Gmail on Firefox, and on Chrome/Iron. Gmail and Google Reader open way faster on Iron/Chrome than on Firefox. On Firefox, Gmail seems to crawl and then open, but on Iron/Chrome, its like a breeze.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26270)
The one area where speed differences are perceptible yet is not measured by most benchmarks is application speed. The lagginess, the hangs, freezes,etc and I think that is where Firefox is way behind other browsers except IE.
In that case a switch to Webkit from Gecko isn't going to help even a bit.

I have not experienced hangs, freezes, crashes with Firefox. Yes, its slow to startup, but otherwise, I have not experienced crashes with Firefox. Very very rarely. So, I don't agree with your point that its way behind other browsers. I have had more crashes with K-Meleon, and Iron.

Also, in terms of memory use too, Firefox performs better. Chrome/Iron use sandboxing feature, where every tab is treated as a process, and I have observed, this feature takes more memory for the same number of tabs open... than Firefox.

sa1 03. Apr 2010 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26275)
I have not experienced hangs, freezes, crashes with Firefox. Yes, its slow to startup, but otherwise, I have not experienced crashes with Firefox. Very very rarely. So, I don't agree with your point that its way behind other browsers. I have had more crashes with K-Meleon, and Iron.

Also, in terms of memory use too, Firefox performs better. Chrome/Iron use sandboxing feature, where every tab is treated as a process, and I have observed, this feature takes more memory for the same number of tabs open... than Firefox.

Firefox can't really be blamed for the crashes which are usually caused by some addons. When I used it crashed as often as once in fifteen minutes which I think was because of some conflicts between some addons. I didn't have the patience to switch to safe mode and diagnose my issue. Same could be said about hangs etc. Addons rather than the browser itself are often to blame. But then if a browser itself is incomplete without the addons then it should take steps to prevent conflicts. (And Chrome does that with different processes for each extension.)

About your second point I have to say that increased memory usage on Firefox always seems to come with a slowdown.(Memory leak by some extension? perhaps). However on Chrome/Opera I have to say that high periods of memory usage have not corresponded to a slowdown.
Also in Chrome a tab being closed reclaims that memory unlike in Firefox. So that's better memory management on the whole.

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 05:58 AM

I have the "advantage" of a slow internet connection on one PC. The advantage comes from being able to see in the status bar many of the various steps that occur after one clicks on a link :D.

One other observation I made with Firefox 3.6.3 (and I'm not sure this is not applicable to older versions or other browsers), was this:

I had about 5 tabs open of a newspaper site (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/). I wanted to save the content of all the tabs for offline reading. The default names were not too helpful so I entered my own.

I expected the saving to be instantaneous. But there was a perceptible time for each tab as I saved. It was as though the browser was checking with the original site all over again although nothing appeared in the status bar. So why the lag? Any clues?

These are all relatively tiny files together taking up a total 961 KB.

I also saw a very quick checking for viruses. What does Firefox 3.6.3 use? Does it call upon the resident AV, Avira, in my case?.

If I check a file with Avira, it is more time-consuming. So how does Firefox do it quickly and without any "splash screen"?

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 08:55 AM

You have a slow internet connection, and that's why the saving of webpage took time. It can't be instantaneous, because the data on the webpage has to be saved. As you said, it was 961 Kb. On a slow connection, even that amount of data will take some time to save. You cannot blame Firefox for that.

I have a 128 Kbps internet... with download speed of 9-14 kbps... so even 961 Kb of data saving takes time.

Don't know about how Firefox checks the downloaded files for virus.

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26315)
You have a slow internet connection, and that's why the saving of webpage took time. It can't be instantaneous, because the data on the webpage has to be saved. As you said, it was 961 Kb. On a slow connection, even that amount of data will take some time to save. You cannot blame Firefox for that.

I have a 128 Kbps internet... with download speed of 9-14 kbps... so even 961 Kb of data saving takes time.

Don't know about how Firefox checks the downloaded files for virus.

1. I'm not blaming FF in anyway. What I meant to say was that a slow connection let me see things that I otherwise wouldn't notice. Nothing more was implied.

So my question remains: let's say we view a page and the FF status bar indicates done. Now I want to save that page to my hard disk. I would imagine that since the information contained in that page is already on the PC, it would be immediate (irrespective of the speed of the connection).

2. Re. the virus checking, here's a link but I don't know how reliable it is:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.do...r.scanWhenDone

Quote:

In Firefox 3, if a Windows user has an antivirus program installed, it is launched to scan files when they finish downloading. During testing of the feature, concerns about delays and double-scanning files surfaced. As a result, this preference—controlling whether the virus scan is automatically triggered—was created.

Starting in Firefox 3.7 (3.7a3pre nightly builds since 2010-03-06) this preference also controls whether or not the Windows security policy checks are applied for downloading and launching executable files.

sa1 04. Apr 2010 09:19 AM

I would expect a browser to save whatever it has already downloaded though I'm not sure about the behaviour of browsers. Does checking "Work offline" and then saving work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26315)
I have a 128 Kbps internet... with download speed of 9-14 kbps... so even 961 Kb of data saving takes time.

P.S Whenever you try Opera don't forget to try Opera Turbo. It is intended entirely for people like you because it can compress data 2-5 times. In fact I switched conclusively to Opera after rotating browsers for a while only after this appeared as a feature in a beta build.

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26320)
I would expect a browser to save whatever it has already downloaded though I'm not sure about the behaviour of browsers. Does checking "Work offline" and then saving work?


P.S Whenever you try Opera don't forget to try Opera Turbo. It is intended entirely for people like you because it can compress data 2-5 times. In fact I switched conclusively to Opera after rotating browsers for a while only after this appeared as a feature in a beta build.

1. I haven't tried that :o

2. Yes, the Turbo really works but the great thing about FF is that I can change the background colour overriding page colours whereas I couldn't see how to do that in Opera.

In Firefox, it is in Tools > Options > Content > Colors. I find it useful (less strain on the eyes) to have a light grey background as opposed to pure white.

Some functionality is lost in some pages so I turn on this feature when I know my way about the site and have a lot of reading to do there.

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26320)
I would expect a browser to save whatever it has already downloaded though I'm not sure about the behaviour of browsers. Does checking "Work offline" and then saving work?...

Very interesting! It gave a couple of download failed messages when I saved in Work Offline mode. But I got what I wanted and will remember this trick :)

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vasa1 (Post 26306)
I expected the saving to be instantaneous. But there was a perceptible time for each tab as I saved. It was as though the browser was checking with the original site all over again although nothing appeared in the status bar. So why the lag? Any clues?

I was replying to this question of yours. Maybe you were talking of the lag, before the actual download began?

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26320)
P.S Whenever you try Opera don't forget to try Opera Turbo. It is intended entirely for people like you because it can compress data 2-5 times. In fact I switched conclusively to Opera after rotating browsers for a while only after this appeared as a feature in a beta build.

I have tried Opera, and used the turbo feature, and its good. But, I don't use Opera that much. I like the new look of Opera. It has been inspired by Google Chrome... they did away with the menu bar. Should have tried something original. The color combination looks good though. They were claiming it to be fast, but I really could not feel the difference. In fact, it still feels slow to me compared to FF 3.6 or Chrome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26283)
About your second point I have to say that increased memory usage on Firefox always seems to come with a slowdown.(Memory leak by some extension? perhaps). However on Chrome/Opera I have to say that high periods of memory usage have not corresponded to a slowdown.
Also in Chrome a tab being closed reclaims that memory unlike in Firefox. So that's better memory management on the whole.

I have not experienced slowdown with Firefox anytime. I have experienced this on K-Meleon and Iron though.

Well, for the same number of tabs open, Chrome does take high memory. Your point is correct though. But, I think in Firefox too, if a tab is closed, the overall memory that Firefox is taking, should go down too.

sa1 04. Apr 2010 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26326)
I was replying to this question of yours. Maybe you were talking of the lag, before the actual download began?

He is saying that since he is already viewing the page, downloading the page is done at least once so why do that again? The transfer on saving should be from cache to hard-disk. not from web to hard-disk.

Quote:

It has been inspired by Google Chrome... they did away with the menu bar. Should have tried something original.
You have never fiddled around with old versions of Opera, have you? The Show menu bar option has been there for long, but it became enabled by default in 10.5 . I don't think suddenly enabling that option is a radical change from their skin earlier prompted by a new browser.
The only thing Chrome brought was removal of title-bar.
Both Firefox and Opera people maintained earlier that removal of title-bar should be a preference for the Window-manager(WM) and not the application. On both forums you would find people pointing out to options on the Window-manager to disable the titlebar. (The default WM on Windows doesn't have this option, but all linux WMs and other Windows WMs have this.). Seems like both Opera and Firefox have changed that stance now.

Quote:

In Firefox, it is in Tools > Options > Content > Colors. I find it useful (less strain on the eyes) to have a light grey background as opposed to pure white.
Are you sure preferences>web pages>background color is not what you want?

Quote:

Very interesting! It gave a couple of download failed messages when I saved in Work Offline mode. But I got what I wanted and will remember this trick
Nice to know it worked.

Quote:

But, I think in Firefox too, if a tab is closed, the overall memory that Firefox is taking, should go down too.
Its complicated. Let me try and enumerate different browsers and their behaviour as I have understood it.
In Opera, memory is not instantly reclaimed when tabs are closed. There are two benefits and two disadvantages. Page content can be cached in memory so next time page will load faster and will use less bandwidth. Javascript compiling can also be cached in memory so next time you open the web page the javascript will run directly as native code.
However the benefits of sandboxing are missing and the memory usage is high.
(Garbage collection is done when Opera is minimized if you want to use another app with Opera.)

In Chrome, memory is instantly reclaimed when tabs are closed. Page content however cannot be cached in memory and will be fully redownloaded next time. The benefits of sandboxing are there. Memory usage remains high due to sandboxing. Javascript is compiled in Chrome. However compiling cannot be cached as it is incompatible with sandboxing. So every time you run the web page the javascript has to be recompiled.

In Firefox, memory is not instantly reclaimed. Page content can be cached so pages load faster the next time and with less bandwidth. Memory usage(assuming no extensions) is still lower than Opera or Chrome. Benefits of sandboxing are missing. Also Firefox doesn't yet have a full Javascript compiler but only a interpreter with minimal JIT so a discussion about cached javascript compiling is void here.

I am not an expert and this is what I have learnt by reading about these engines on the web. So it can be slightly inaccurate.

Edit: The effect of Javascript compilation caching is not visible on benchmarks that run the javascript once like Sunspider and Peacekeeper but is visible on Mozilla's Dromaeo which runs the same code 5 times and there is a talk to increase this to correctly reflect real-world webpages.
(see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Dromaeo )

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26363)
...
Are you sure preferences>web pages>background color is not what you want?
...

I tried that this way:
Tools > Preferences > Web pages:

Unfortunately it says "Choose preferred fonts and colors for pages without specific styles".

sa1 04. Apr 2010 04:56 PM

Create a file user.css in styles folder in the Opera installation directory with the following text. I don't know much of css and tried on only one or two pages so tell me if this doesn't work as expected.

body {background-color:#cccccc;}

P.S This is really getting offtopic now.
Edit: If you want to change frequently this option save in someothername.css and change filename in preferences>advanced>content>style options. Change it back to user.css when u want to disable it. A button can be created to easily do this but I don't have the time now.

Kyuzo 04. Apr 2010 05:00 PM

Perhaps off-topic, perhaps not, but may I ask: When you posters use your alternate browsers, do you uninstall IE, or keep it. One computer columnist in our local newspaper recommends uninstalling IE if you go with an alternate browser. I'm afraid I don't quite see the logic in that (to save space, perhaps), but I'm not a computer columnist.

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26363)
He is saying that since he is already viewing the page, downloading the page is done at least once so why do that again? The transfer on saving should be from cache to hard-disk. not from web to hard-disk.

Ah OK, so that's what he was saying. Sorry, I misunderstood. Things were not clear for me, from his post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26363)
You have never fiddled around with old versions of Opera, have you? The Show menu bar option has been there for long, but it became enabled by default in 10.5 . I don't think suddenly enabling that option is a radical change from their skin earlier prompted by a new browser.
The only thing Chrome brought was removal of title-bar.

Well, by menu bar, I meant the bar with File, Edit, View etc. You are referring to title bar in your post. Title bar is where the title of the page appears. Both are different. Chrome does not have both. There is no title bar, as well as no menu bar. And Opera have adopted the same too. Menu bar was there for Opera before... but they have done away with it, and the browser now seems like Chrome, there is no denying that fact.

And yes, I have used older versions of Opera... but not much... so I wouldn't know about Opera in that detail.

Thanks for explaining about the caching and memory use of different browsers.

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyuzo (Post 26367)
Perhaps off-topic, perhaps not, but may I ask: When you posters use your alternate browsers, do you uninstall IE, or keep it. One computer columnist in our local newspaper recommends uninstalling IE if you go with an alternate browser. I'm afraid I don't quite see the logic in that (to save space, perhaps), but I'm not a computer columnist.

I keep IE. I still have IE6 on my PC :D. But, I never use it. Some sites require IE to function correctly... and that's why I keep it. Also, I think IE is difficult to remove from Windows, and requires workaround to remove. The main TSA site has such an article to remove IE. So, its better to keep it IMO, rather than go through hoops to remove it.

sa1 04. Apr 2010 07:50 PM

I am saying that there was an option to remove menu bar(The file edit menu) so thats not something original done by Chrome. Also the entire menu/toolbar setup of Opera is fully customisable since forever unlike Chrome. However removal of title bar is something Chrome brought to the game.
Edit: If you need to see a browser that is unoriginal don't point at Opera or else the same thing can be applied to firefox etc for tabs . Look at Maxthon's interface and what it has done with version 3.

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 07:54 PM

Well, Chrome has done away with both the Menu Bar, and the Title Bar... and its only now that Opera has come with this new look. Its definitely inspired by Chrome.

sa1 04. Apr 2010 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26383)
Well, Chrome has done away with both the Menu Bar, and the Title Bar... and its only now that Opera has come with this new look. Its definitely inspired by Chrome.

The argument is becoming rather pointless. If you would have followed the entire Opera skin history with menu bar disabled you would see so little change in 10.50 that it would be hard to believe its anything but evolutionary even if it inspired by Chrome. Unlike Maxthon which has changed its entire interface to become Opera or Chrome-like. Have you seen the new bookmark manager in Chrome dev build.? Seems a complete ripoff of some browser. Had you seen tabs when Firefox ala Phoenix came out? In your words, they should have done something original instead.

Such arguments can go both ways so we should refrain from making such statements about software and help users choose the best browser in a objective way.

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 08:44 PM

Well, my motive is not to make petty arguments, just saying what I saw, and felt. My immediate reaction on seeing the new Opera was that the look is like Chrome. I don't know about the browser's history in detail though. I haven't used Maxthon at all, so I really can't say anything about it. Browsers have been picking up on features from each other. With so many browsers out there, it really is quite a competition.

Sometime ago, Firefox mock themes had come out, which had tabs with the look of Chrome. I was thinking to myself, why are they trying to get a look like that.. which would seem an imitation. I like the Firefox present tab look the best, and wish they will not change it. Meaning to say, if Firefox also change their look later by getting inspired from another browser, I would not like it.

Anyways, yes, looks will not matter much... what will matter is how the browser performs ultimately.

sa1 04. Apr 2010 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26394)
Well, my motive is not to make petty arguments, just saying what I saw, and felt. My immediate reaction on seeing the new Opera was that the look is like Chrome. I don't know about the browser's history in detail though. I haven't used Maxthon at all, so I really can't say anything about it. Browsers have been picking up on features from each other. With so many browsers out there, it really is quite a competition.

Sometime ago, Firefox mock themes had come out, which had tabs with the look of Chrome. I was thinking to myself, why are they trying to get a look like that.. which would seem an imitation. I like the Firefox present tab look the best, and wish they will not change it. Meaning to say, if Firefox also change their look later by getting inspired from another browser, I would not like it.

Anyways, yes, looks will not matter much... what will matter is how the browser performs ultimately.

I am sure Opera and Firefox are customisable enough so that if you don't like it you can change it, unlike Chrome. Don't doubt your motivations but we are all biased in favor of our favorite browsers and sometimes we have to see how objective our way of judging browsers is especially if we are not just an end user but also referees on a freeware site.
The day Opera 10.5's first build was released, on the same day or 1 or 2 days ago Firefox 4 mockups had been released and a popular tech blog went as far as to say that Opera 10.5's 'real build' was copying from Firefox's 'mockups'.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.