Open letter, FireFox 4 is a mistake!
I've been a FireFox user since the original Mozilla 0.9something beta, and I have been happy with it.
FireFox 4, it seems, was rushed and released long before it was ready. It locks up. Frequently. In all sorts of different circumstances (downloading, browsing, watching video streaming, restoring after a crash, attempting to clear the download list, etc..). More often than not, I have to close it using the Windows Task Manager. It eats memory. Seriously, do you really expect a browser to consume up to and over 1 GB of memory and people to keep using it? The little add-ons are nice, but with the core functions so flawed, they are of little use.
If you google "i hate firefox 4" you get over 16,900,000 results! That's a public relations nightmare for any company! Do the devs here realize or even care about the damage being done now to their reputation? With extreme dissatisfaction numbers like that, they're going to be bleeding market share, if they haven't already! Even as I was typing this, with the Ask a New Question page the only thing I have open, FireFox locked up for a few moments.
After over a decade of using and support FireFox and it's ancestors, I'm going to be giving IE 9 a try.
Additional System Details
Not sure how often
This started when...
When I upgraded to FireFox 4
- Office Plugin for Netscape Navigator
- DivX Web Player version 188.8.131.52
- RealPlayer(tm) LiveConnect-Enabled Plug-In
- RealJukebox Netscape Plugin
- The QuickTime Plugin allows you to view a wide variety of multimedia content in Web pages. For more information, visit the QuickTime Web site.
- Adobe PDF Plug-In For Firefox and Netscape 10.0.1
- NPRuntime Script Plug-in Library for Java(TM) Deploy
- Shockwave Flash 10.2 r159
- Adobe Shockwave for Director Netscape plug-in, version 11.5
- Next Generation Java Plug-in 1.6.0_24 for Mozilla browsers
- Office Live Update v1.5
- Google Update
- User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0
HP DV6 laptop
Windows 7 SP1, all updates installed
AMD X2 QL-65
4 GB RAM
Different strokes for different folks!
FYI, Everyone posts answers here are VOLUNTEERS and do not work for Mozilla. I really doubt if anyone from Mozilla will be able to read about your complaints.
Personally, FF4 works for me beautifully! Things change continuously, and we just have to try to adapt to the new changes.
I to will agree the new graphics are a little off. I like the old Firefox and will be installing It to keep my experience with FireFox a happy one.
I have found on Windows 7 Premium 64-Bit OS. Firefox will not install in the Start Menu or Program Menu, only on the task bar an Program Files folder which is a bit frustrating for the newbie community.
I now open Task Manager before opening FF4 so I can facilitate faster shutdowns when it black screens and then locks up. I'm sorry to say 4 is a Dodo, 3.6 had become highly unstable but this piece of junk is even worse. I know many people who have now switched to Chrome and Mozilla will find it impossible to get them back.
Let's face it if this was a motor car it would be facing a full recall. Even IE is better than this lemon.
Perhaps Mozilla should do an immediate downgrade to a stable older version.
The clowns on here waffling that it is working perfectly for them are just telling porkies. It isn't working properly for anyone. They simply can't face it that at the moment IE is a far superior piece of software. Get over it.
Ah yes, about the kind of reply I was expecting to be honest, a "like it or lump it!" type of reply. Honestly, adapt? Are you saying that the constant crashes, lock ups etc. are features I should be getting used to? That over 16 MILLION results to "i hate firefox 4" is something to just ignore? I wonder how many users there are out there, like me, that have been using this software since inception and are now moving away from it because of these problem? Of course, answers and attitudes like yours make that move oh so much easier...
"FYI, Everyone posts answers here are VOLUNTEERS and do not work for Mozilla. I really doubt if anyone from Mozilla will be able to read about your complaints. "
It's a piss poor organisation that doesn't read its own forums.
Hmm, perhaps that's where the problems lie.
nfc212 -- If you hate FF so much, why are you still using it or care about it? This is my last post, because I have better things to do than arguing with things that makes no sense.
If you go back in the forums, you will see similar posts after every major release, and every update with a significant design change. It's very difficult to support software that is so easy for users to extend and customize, and major changes (the awesomebar, plugin isolation, ...) have had a lot of unexpected objections or problems.
I used to never install new versions of Firefox until there had been at least a few point updates, but I have installed Firefox 4. So far, I haven't experienced problems with crashes or poor performance, but that may be related to the way I have set up and use the browser.
Despite the size of the beta program, problems have been missed and stuff needs to be fixed. Specific feedback from real users is very helpful.
(Reports of the browser locking up more are somewhat mysterious to me. Many times in Firefox 3.6 I felt I had to wait for Firefox to clean up its cache or do some other maintenance before it would process a mouse click, but I've noticed less of that in Firefox 4. See why I say it's hard?)
Modified by jscher2000
How does some vague 16 thousand results suddenly translate into 16 million results? as you added three zeros for some reason.
Always the same thing with every major release, somebody who things version X sucks and previous version Y rocks. Would you believe there were those who thought 3.6.* sucked and still do and love 4.0.
"If you hate FF so much, why are you still using it or care about it? This is my last post, because I have better things to do than arguing with things that makes no sense."
Why are you defending a program that is let's face it a dud? Just because FF has been such a good browser for so long it doesn't mean it is a sacred cow. If this version is trash it is trash. I just wish they would admit it and get on with fixing it or simply withdrawing the version.
"How does some vague 16 thousand results suddenly translate into 16 million results? as you added three zeros for some reason.
Always the same thing with every major release, somebody who things version X sucks and previous version Y rocks. Would you believe there were those who thought 3.6.* sucked and still do and love 4.0. "
Hmm, appears to be over 20 million now. Sand and ostriches spring to mind here.
Modified by nfc212
And here's one those 16,900,000 search results.
Google is way ahead of us, folks.
They already show over 15 million results for i hate firefox 5
This is not to cast any doubt on the fact that every new version of Firefox has problems, but just to say that search engine hit counts are not helpful in getting them solved.
Well at the rate that people are abandoning FF the only cross browser testing will be between Trident, Webkit and Presto.
K-Meleon is just about a dead duck now isn't it?
The only other really viable Gecko browser is Flock and that is aimed at the Facebook brigade.
nfc212 wrote: Hmm, appears to be over 20 million now. Sand and ostriches spring to mind here.
You are doing it wrong, is the problem. When I posted I found at time I got about 16,600 results with a search of "i hate firefox 4" on google.
In the OP it was If you google "i hate firefox 4" you get over 16,900,000 results! while you decided to do the much more generic search of i hate firefox 4 without the quotation marks where you are going to get results that include anywhere from one to all four in same location. It could be searching for I hate or I hate Firefox or I hate Firefox <insert older number> and such.
I have been using Mozilla browsers for a very long time and I am done when 3.6 is no longer supported. Don't like 4 layout at all :(
Modified by olphuk
The real problem I have with this browsers is what they have done to the cache folder. Their mission statement "Mozilla's mission is to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the web." You can read this and more about this at http://www.mozilla.org/about/mission.html. With this in mine examine the new cache folder with FF 4. They have created 16 sub folders in the cache folder. In each of these 16 sub folders you will find a folder for each piece of cache that is loaded when you go to a web site. This alone makes it impossible to check your cache and see what they are doing. But wait, it gets even worst for a company claiming to promote openness. They are breaking up into pieces and placing them randomly in to separate folders. For example, if you like to watch videos or play some of the flash games online your in trouble with this browser. If you watch a video or play a game and move to another web page and decide to come back and see the video or play the flash game again, your going to have to wait for it to download again. The files has been stored in different pieces and FF 4 can not reassemble them so it can play the video or game for you again. But wait, you thought that was bad it gets even worst for a company claiming to promote openness. I did some simple testing and found something I think borders on sinister intent. First thing to do to test this is clear out your cache and verify that it is empty. Then go to a simple sites that you know will not load your cache with to much data. Then type about:cache in your address bar and press enter. Write down 2 of the numbers under Disk cache device. They are Number of entries: and Storage in use:. Now go to the cache folder and look thru all of the sub folders and what your going to find is that neither of these numbers add up. I used a reall simple site and my Number of entries was 30 and my storage in use was 1.3MB. This is where it get oh so interesting. When I went thru all the sub folders all I could find was 6 entries and they only added up to 500KB. I then ran CCleaner and it reported that it cleaned 1.3MB from my cache and even tho the cleaning process was fast I was able to count more then 6 cache entries. At first I could not believe what I was seeing so I did this multiple times using different sites and each time the numbers did not add up. For reason that escape me Mozilla has seems to have gone to the dark side and has decided to hide things from us when it comes to our cache folder!!!! I ask each of you not to even download FF 4 but if you do check out what they are doing with cache and then email them and ask them why they are doing this. Ask them what they are hiding and why are they making cache a secret and forbidden place on your hard drive. It has always been my experience that when someone or some company starts to hide from you what is going on while your surfing the web, it is for reason that are not going to benefit you. The way they have set up the cache folder in FF4 has a sinister benefit for someone and that someone will not be the users. This is the latest from a company who mission statement is to promote openness.
I think this last post is a little alarmist... If clearing the cache doesn't really clear it, I'm sure security researchers (white hack and black hat alike) will scream bloody murder. If they find a way to resurrect cached data, it will not stay secret for long, and then the developers will have to fix it.
If the question of what is and isn't cleared from the cache worries you and you don't want cached files to linger, use Private Browsing mode for such sensitive matters.
For more interesting conspiracy theories, as well as insight on why videos are bounced out of the cache so quickly, check out this thread: Firefox 4 - Concession to the Copyright Police? • mozillaZine Forums.
By the way, the reason there are so many cache folders is to provide acceptable performance for much larger caches on less well designed file systems.
Modified by jscher2000
Mozilla really screwed the pooch. I downloaded Firefox 4.0, installed it, loaded it and immediately lost all respect for the browser. Who in the blazing hell thought it would be a good idea to move the tabs to the top of the page? That is so counter-intuitive. When needing a new tab, I just want to mouse up to the top of the current page and open a new tab, not to the top of the screen. And why did they feel the need to move the Home button to the right side? The whole layout is just so idiotic I cannot BELIEVE this is Firefox. Really disappointing.
Those issues are easily rectified. Right-click a toolbar and de-select Tabs on Top, and for the Home button simply open Customize and move that button to where you you think it should be located.
I feel that for some reason, you have either not read my post, or totally misunderstood it. I did not complain about it not clearing my cache or have any fear of a black hat getting into my cache. My cache clears just fine by running CCleaner which I stated in my post. My problem is that it appears that Mozilla is hiding something concerning my cache. Please read the part about only being able to find 6 out of 30 entries in the very sinister way they are setting up the cache folders. When I right click the cache folder and click on properties, it said I had 1.3MB of data in cache which agreed with what about:cache said I had. CCleaner even said I had 1.3MB in the cache folder when I cleaned it. When I added up the 6 files out of 30, it only came to 500KB. Where are the other 24 files and why can I not find them. Please remember I got the numbers about how many and how much from about:cache Disk cache device. When numbers do not add up I started to get the pucker factor going. As far as this being set up this way to handle less well designed file systems, that sounds good but does not hold water. The only files system in play here is the one designed by Mozilla for FF4. They have a cache folder that has 16 sub folders. If that was the only problem here I could almost live with that. The problem to me gets worst when they have to make a new folder for each file coming from the web site I am visiting. Lets look at that part as far as how efficient that its. I open to my home page and the server starts to download to my cache the files I need to view the page. The browser has to stop and create a folder then place the file in that folder. It does that for each file coming from the server. If there is 250 files then 250 folders have to be made. That alone eats click clock cycles for no reason. Think about what I said. The program has to stop and create a folder for each file coming from the server. To me tho it gets even worst when I play a video. It has to take the time to break that video into separate pieces and then create a folder for each of these pieces. Now that has got to hurt performance and run time. Just more clock cycles being wasted to make someone out there feel good about how they can hide things from us. Finally with FF 3.6 The video file and the flash games I play are in my cache and when needed I can go and look at them. I have tested that again just to make sure I am not blowing smoke in this reply. If anyone would like a simple test to prove this, use Downloadhelper to download a video file to your video folder. With FF 3.6 it will get the file from cache and it will only take a second or 2 to do the download. Same thing happens with flash games. Now upgrade to FF 4 and try the same thing. Downloadhelper will not be able to find the video or flash game in your cache and will have to go to the web site and download it all over again. Now does that sound like a well designed file system. Please take the time to explain to me how wasting clock cycle to make folder and break videos and flash game up into pieces but then save the pieces in separate folders is a efficient and well designed file system. FF 3.6 cache folder and its method of saving files in the cache folder was simple secure and efficient. FF 4 method is overkill and makes one wonder why and what Mozilla is up to. Also, take the time to read the history of Netscape and how their arrogance led to their downfall. If Mozilla insist on sticking to the current path it is on I will gladly use FF 3.6 until it rolls over and dies. Then switch to chrome or another browser and sit back and watch the number of people using FF declines to the point that we will call it Netscape II.
@TWB404, it is my understanding that in older file systems, there are severe performance problems when a folder contains a very large number of files. Because Fx4 is designed to scale up the cache from a default size to 50MB in earlier versions to much larger sizes (mine shows it can grow to a little more than 1GB), the developers decided to split the cache into multiple folders. Maybe they created more folders than necessary, but I don't think it's conspiracy or effort to hide things from you.
The video caching issue is discussed in the thread I linked above.
Regarding the test comparing the stated cache contents to the files on disk, I'm not sure how both about:cache and CCleaner found 1.3 MB but when you counted manually, you found only 500KB. Did you include the files in the top-level cache folder as well as the ones in the 0-F folders?
I haven't had time to do my own comparison. (For anyone who wants to try it, I recommend creating a new profile so you don't have to clear your actual cache. Managing profiles.)