I have "important" machines that haven't been upgraded to Quantum, and I have throw-away set ups where I've tried Quantum, and it's really terrible. It seems that yet-again there is some new something added to FF (e.g., new essential UI control) where there's no explanation on what it does and how you use it. Chrome, of course, is much much much worse with UI navigation that is very difficult to understand. Things like: - Seeing a list of open tabs. - Reloading a page. - Settings. - Locating cookies that I need to remove (because youtube has some limitation, so youtube cookies need to be flushed every month or so). - Inspecting cookies. - Discovering passwords/accounts that I've used before. - Useful add-ons that, largely, make FF look like that way it used to look. - Useful add-ons that block ads (ublock origin) - Useful add-ons that deal with Flash/etc. content (Chrome is completely useless on this) - Useful add-ons that deal with screwy memory usage that I have no control over (e.g., The Great Suspender) - Not having to change add-ons because of incompatibilities. What FF developers don't understand is: a finely tuned Windows (or Mac) dialog box is much much much more useful than anything Javascript and HTML can do, e.g., even with the Windows 10 new UI paradigm, there's good ole Windows XP dialog boxes just a click or two away (like FF settings), which are easier to navigate because they are intuitive and repeatable (think: how can I describe this to someone over the phone who hasn't used this before). I've supported many users over decades. It is very rare that a new FF feature will cause a user to say "hey, that's useful" - the typical response to FF upgrades is "it doesn't work the way it did, and the new way of working makes it harder". FF doesn't explain what Use Cases they are addressing and the rationale for changes, the changes just come. But now with Quantum, it is intolerable. I just read some other incompatibilities it making the "Quantum" leap, such as bookmarks and passwords require manual important. Really? You're gonna make millions of users do this manually? And two decades later, why is printing still broken? You can render all the elements on the screen, and you know how to display the whole page when I scroll up/down, so why can't you guys figure out how to send that to PDF or to a printer? (Screenshots don't work because they are low-res.) You can't figure out how to display a virtual page, tiled as separate pages (via a page description language like PDF or PS), and then send them to the printer driver? I'm not sure what all the rush is on browser speed: for most users, their browser is idle >99% of the time as they read the page. But for all this speed, we pay for it in zillion little changes over time that just add up to: I don't want any more changes, I get no benefit from them, and there is huge/significant disruption having to reconfigure the browser every couple of months (heck, we're up to version 60 now!), but we tolerate these unwelcome changes because: (1) the users are scared of security issues that can take over our machines, so changes must be Good; (2) the users feel "I'm older, and this might be younger people who need all this change" and these users compensate with "ok, even though I'm older, I don't want to feel like I'm Old and Cranky, and so I'll be hip/cool/whatever by accepting the latest changes that surely must come from the younger folk, even though they don't help me and make my browser harder to use". In other words, given the choice between consistency and usability vs. speed, I'd take the former. Maybe there are developers who would like to stick with pre-Quantum FF and focus upon stability and usability, rather the introduction a new UI every handful of months? How can we keep FF 56?