FireFox 57 is now FireFox Quantum. Mozilla boasts massive performance and GUI improvements

[Sakkura]

Just now, Trixanity said:

Isn't the point of the new API to remove all the security problems with the 'open' API of old? By limiting what extensions can do, you improve security in a very easy way. I'm not saying it's impossible to allow low-level stuff while remaining secure but it's probably a lot of work and requires constant vigilance from Mozilla and others to make sure no extension gets past any measures they may have.

 

The new API might be crude in its approach to security and very rigid too but at the same time it's the easy way. There is also the fact they're probably catering to the masses rather than the niche audience of techies having a bunch of 'advanced' extensions. Granted, I don't think Mozilla can regain many Chrome users even by catering to them.

It's pretty dumb to distrust your extension developer community like that. And it takes power away from both those developers and the users, reducing the moddability and versatility that has been the main selling point of Firefox so far. Extension users are not niche by the way, for example adblocker usage has gotten big enough to be a major deal for the web as a whole. And extension usage will be all the more common among the Firefox user base.

 

The argument that this will make it easier for Mozilla not to break extension functionality with each new browser version is more legitimate, but even then it's a bit shaky because this time they're breaking every extension deliberately, and many of them permanently.

[Trixanity]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

It's pretty dumb to distrust your extension developer community like that. And it takes power away from both those developers and the users, reducing the moddability and versatility that has been the main selling point of Firefox so far. Extension users are not niche by the way, for example adblocker usage has gotten big enough to be a major deal for the web as a whole. And extension usage will be all the more common among the Firefox user base.

 

The argument that this will make it easier for Mozilla not to break extension functionality with each new browser version is more legitimate, but even then it's a bit shaky because this time they're breaking every extension deliberately, and many of them permanently.

I get that but ad blockers can function with the API (I mean isn't the model based on the Chrome model? And Chrome has those extensions).

One thing is trusting your dev community but it only takes one extension developer to fuck it all up. By that I mean we already see that in app stores; someone uploading crapware disguised as a legitimate app that somehow (probably bots) get exposure and get further up the ranking so that users discover them and download them. It's a great attack avenue. 

 

Compatibility between releases could easily be put on the shoulders of extension developers. I mean right now that's exactly what they do in the sense that they said "fuck your extensions. You will have to remake them within a much narrower spec - too bad if you can't" so the gap from that and just saying devs should keep up with whatever changes they put out isn't particularly big.

 

Just to be clear. My personal opinion is that they should allow some apps the 'privilege' of having lower level access via a vetting process but shouldn't allow just any submission and could at the same time add trusted developers that can submit such extensions without needing any vetting besides what could be done automatically. Probably would require the extra work Mozilla doesn't want to do.

[Ryujin2003]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

Firefox 57 also breaks all existing browser extensions, with the new WebExtensions API being far more limited. So while the extra speed is nice, the step backwards in losing extensions will likely end up losing Firefox a lot of market share. Some extensions can be remade with the new API, but the lack of functionality also means a lot of them will never return.

Plugins can be modified and fixed. Limited access is more secure for the user. Those plugins that will never return would be the same plugins that are dead. Not updated, no support, and probably not desired.

 

As someone who uses FF and not so much the extension feature, I'm not upset by the limitations. Good for them on tightening things up.

 

When they redesign and restructure their code, it's not always going to be backwards compatible, and sometimes that's for the best.

[Sakkura]

4 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Plugins can be modified and fixed. Limited access is more secure for the user. Those plugins that will never return would be the same plugins that are dead. Not updated, no support, and probably not desired.

 

As someone who uses FF and not so much the extension feature, I'm not upset by the limitations. Good for them on tightening things up.

 

When they redesign and restructure their code, it's not always going to be backwards compatible, and sometimes that's for the best.

No, they can't necessarily be modified and fixed, because the new API is severely limited. There are active extension devs out there loudly proclaiming that they'd love to continue developing, but they can't because the new API won't let them do what the extensions currently do.

 

It would be one thing to break backwards compatibility, that has effectively happened many times for most extensions, but this time they're removing functionality.

[Nup]

Just chnaged to FF a few months ago. Nice time to join, it seems.

 

[ScratchCat]

1 hour ago, raphidy said:

Half of my extensions are gone in 58, I don't have many,but like mouse gestures and lastpass add on aren't compatible yet.

Apart from the strange build yesterday I have found Firefox Nightly to be more stable than chrome 56.

The speed boost due to quantum is unreal, my atom tablet feels almost as snappy as my i5 on Firefox 55.

1 hour ago, hey_yo_ said:

How about for the first time, Mozilla is implementing multi threaded processes just like Chrome version 1 in 2008. I’m currently on the Nightly of Firefox, so far so good. 

Firefox has had the multiprocessing architecture since 54, although it didn't to that much for the performance of individual tabs.

[ScratchCat]

42 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

No, they can't necessarily be modified and fixed, because the new API is severely limited. There are active extension devs out there loudly proclaiming that they'd love to continue developing, but they can't because the new API won't let them do what the extensions currently do.

 

It would be one thing to break backwards compatibility, that has effectively happened many times for most extensions, but this time they're removing functionality.

This functionality is still a security threat. Users are basically getting a 2x improvement in performance compared to Firefox 48, most users would prefer a faster browsing experience while loosing a few extensions. Given that they are rewriting their engine I can understand the initial  limited functionality, they probably will add it in again later once everything is as it is meant to be. You don't go adding low level APIs to your just rewritten code, once everything is fixed in place it is safe to add the APIs without repeatedly breaking Compatability.

[elfensky]

I really wanted to like it, but I just coudn't live without tab groups, so I reverted to 56 and disabled updates.

 

Perhaps in the future if someone rewrites the add-on to work with the new system, as the creater said he's abandoning it after 57.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

2 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

Those extensions have to be rewritten. 

Most can't be rewritten to work with Firefox's new version.

[Guest]

have to give this a go. Trying 57 and nightly for funsies. 

 

I miss the days where FF was king and there was no other browser worth mentioning. 

[BachChain]

4 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Since the version number – 57 – can’t really convey the magnitude of the changes we’ve made

Maybe it would if you'd kept your previous versioning scheme

[Zodiark1593]

4 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Desktop FF was already good. What I really want from Mozilla is a better browser for mobile. 

 

Also there's no better way to make the browser faster and more efficient than integrating an aggressive  host/DNS based adblocker.

I really love the FF ui on mobile, but the performance as of this writing is crap. I am definitely eager for this release. If performance is good, I will move to FF from Chrome.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

This functionality is still a security threat. Users are basically getting a 2x improvement in performance compared to Firefox 48, most users would prefer a faster browsing experience while loosing a few extensions. Given that they are rewriting their engine I can understand the initial  limited functionality, they probably will add it in again later once everything is as it is meant to be. You don't go adding low level APIs to your just rewritten code, once everything is fixed in place it is safe to add the APIs without repeatedly breaking Compatability.

If you don't go around downloading random shit all the time, the security risk is negligible.

 

Removing extension capabilities to address that risk is like Microsoft removing the ability to run non-UWP programs on Windows because "it might be a virus."

 

Comparing the speed to FF 48 is kind of a red herring, as that's an old version. There's still a speed-up compared to current versions, but it's smaller and also less relevant to the user. FF is mostly already fast enough. Sacrificing functionality for speed is a tradeoff that will push many users away, since extension functionality has been the main selling point of FF until now.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

2 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

This functionality is still a security threat. Users are basically getting a 2x improvement in performance compared to Firefox 48, most users would prefer a faster browsing experience while loosing a few extensions. Given that they are rewriting their engine I can understand the initial  limited functionality, they probably will add it in again later once everything is as it is meant to be. You don't go adding low level APIs to your just rewritten code, once everything is fixed in place it is safe to add the APIs without repeatedly breaking Compatability.

Speak for yourself, I for once prefer my extensions over a couple of milliseconds of speed improvement.

[NumLock21]

Quantum?!

I went to Costco the other time and they were selling Duracell double AA Quantum batteries. And a set of kitchen knives that says HD on it.

 

Edit: It's something similar to this. Yes, you can now cut your food in glorious 1080P and at 4K!

https://www.amazon.com/Pure-Komachi-HD-Stainless-Matching/dp/B00NKWP88O

[Doobeedoo]

Great improvement. 

Personally I use Opera which is very fast for me and hundreds of tabs when needed. Also Vivaldi on thr side.

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

And a set of kitchen knives that says HD on it.

Heavy duty.

 

The blades retain their edge better.

[NumLock21]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Heavy duty.

 

The blades retain their edge better.

It says "high definition" on the package.

 

 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

It says "high definition" on the package.

 

 

Then they're talking about the sharpness of the blade.

Albeit in a stupid and not widely spread manner.

[NumLock21]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Then they're talking about the sharpness of the blade.

Albeit in a stupid and not widely spread manner.

Well marketing words, does make a product sell. Can't wait for mouse pads to be in quantum HD!

 

[vorticalbox]

>Faster and betterer

>Loads up fiurefox

>goes to a website

>clicks in url box

>types new url inside other url

>now have to type all over again

 

Seriously how long is it going to take for Mozilla to make it highlight the URL box when a user clicks on it?

[ScratchCat]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

If you don't go around downloading random shit all the time, the security risk is negligible.

 

Removing extension capabilities to address that risk is like Microsoft removing the ability to run non-UWP programs on Windows because "it might be a virus."

 

Comparing the speed to FF 48 is kind of a red herring, as that's an old version. There's still a speed-up compared to current versions, but it's smaller and also less relevant to the user. FF is mostly already fast enough. Sacrificing functionality for speed is a tradeoff that will push many users away, since extension functionality has been the main selling point of FF until now.

 

Spoiler

Firefox 56

 

Firefox 58

There is an approximatly ~20% performance boost between Firefox 56 which was released yesterday and Firefox 58 on a freshly installed Nightly. Note that the nightly had only just been installed and was also completing setup while browsing in another window. If they were tested under equal conditions the performance gain would have been even more.

This only includes the gains in the CPU limited portion. The GPU acceleration on Firefox 58 wasn't enabled for the test on Nightly, another place where it could have gained.

In the real world the Nightly install is very noticably snappier , most simpler web pages load instantly compared to 56.

[ScratchCat]

50 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

>Faster and betterer

>Loads up fiurefox

>goes to a website

>clicks in url box

>types new url inside other url

>now have to type all over again

 

Seriously how long is it going to take for Mozilla to make it highlight the URL box when a user clicks on it?

For me it highlights it automatically. What version are you running?

 

[NinJake]

59 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

Seriously how long is it going to take for Mozilla to make it highlight the URL box when a user clicks on it?

It highlights automatically...

[NumLock21]

So far opera on mobile is the only browser that magnifies when you highlight, similar to what the iphone does.