Mozilla launches Firefox Quantum, the biggest change in it's history

[Scratch]

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52892210]
Also someone posted something earlier about how to disable Pocket. If someone could repost that I'd appreciate it. I have no use for Pocket so it's just wasting space.[/QUOTE]

about:config?filter=pocket.enabled

[Lyokanthrope]

Been using Nightly for a few months now, Quantum is friggin' great.
I've replaced Chrome on virtually everything I use on a daily basis.

My only complaints are touchscreen support is still [I]meh[/I] and there's still quite a few addons out there without webextensions variants (even though they've had, like, a year to prepare for this...)

FF ditching the old XPI addons is kind of a bummer but truth be told I didn't use that much that utilized it anyway, though not having DownThemAll! kind of blows.

[t h e]

[QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;52892377]Been using Nightly for a few months now, Quantum is friggin' great.
I've replaced Chrome on virtually everything I use on a daily basis.

My only complaints are touchscreen support is still [I]meh[/I] and there's still quite a few addons out there without webextensions variants (even though they've had, like, a year to prepare for this...)

FF ditching the old XPI addons is kind of a bummer but truth be told I didn't use that much that utilized it anyway, though not having DownThemAll! kind of blows.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I really wish the pinch-to-zoom feature in Firefox was just like Chrome's, as in closer to how you zoom in on browsers on phones rather than zooming in normally on a desktop. Does not feel right having to wait for the page to adjust itself when you zoom, and I would rather just have a scale zoom in general. Does anyone know if there's an addon or setting to change it?

[editline]15th November 2017[/editline]

This is kind of important to me; it looks like webms aren't supported yet. Though there's probably an addon/extension that will make it work, I haven't bothered searching yet. Just a heads up.

[Alice]

Anyone know why Stylus doesn't seem to actually work on Quantum? It was suggested by Mozzarella as a substitute for Stylish a few weeks ago but it doesn't allow me to save style scripts for some reason.

[Lyokanthrope]

[QUOTE=t h e;52892450]Yeah, I really wish the pinch-to-zoom feature in Firefox was just like Chrome's, as in closer to how you zoom in on browsers on phones rather than zooming in normally on a desktop. Does not feel right having to wait for the page to adjust itself when you zoom, and I would rather just have a scale zoom in general. Does anyone know if there's an addon or setting to change it?

[editline]15th November 2017[/editline]

This is kind of important to me; it looks like webms aren't supported yet. Though there's probably an addon/extension that will make it work, I haven't bothered searching yet. Just a heads up.[/QUOTE]

Huh? WebMs work fine.

[StrawberryClock]

i can confirm that after updating, quantum must surely run on black magic

[Darth-Veger]

I can see certain pages having broken CSS but other then that its smooth as fuck, glad i made the jump.

Oh my lord alt + S doesn't work for posting

[InsanePyro]

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52891749]...it's still Firefox?[/QUOTE]

I was under the impression its a separate app

[SgtTupelo]

I switched over because Chrome has a thing for me where using hardware acceleration slowly breaks the browser until I have to reinstall it. I hope Firefox doesn't have it.

[mastersrp]

[QUOTE=darth-veger;52892822]I can see certain pages having broken CSS but other then that its smooth as fuck, glad i made the jump.

Oh my lord alt + S doesn't work for posting[/QUOTE]

Which pages don't work? I have yet to find one that didn't work just as well as Firefox 56.

[turke]

Using the Linux build right now and I cannot open more than 3 tabs in 1 window, it flat out does not work. Anyone else get this?

[Van-man]

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;52890808]I'm already missing some extensions.

[url]https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/the-fox-only-better/[/url]
[url]https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/roomy-bookmarks-toolbar/[/url]

Anybody know of replacements for these?[/QUOTE]

AFAIK not possible at all thanks to the new Chrome derived extensions API

[Freezorg]

[QUOTE=Demache;52889993]I mean, that makes sense, since your actively researching something. I don't get how people can keep hundreds of tabs up [i]perpetually[/i].[/QUOTE]

Pixiv

[Corn]

Wow, I'm really digging this. I missed Firefox being good

[Darth-Veger]

[QUOTE=mastersrp;52892964]Which pages don't work? I have yet to find one that didn't work just as well as Firefox 56.[/QUOTE]

One i just spotted was this one
[URL]https://www.fanatical.com/en/game/medieval-engineers[/URL]
This works on Chrome but not in Firefox

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/XwuJacg.png[/IMG]

[hexpunK]

[QUOTE=InsanePyro;52892880]I was under the impression its a separate app[/QUOTE]

It's just a new version of the browser. They codenamed it because it was a giant change, but that's it.

[pebkac]

I was thinking of waiting a while before upgrading because many of the extensions still aren't compatible with 57, but I got updated today and I'm seriously impressed with the speed. Just go test it on a page with a ton of embedded youtube windows like this: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1446287[/url]
It opens and becomes responsive pretty much instantly while the videos load asynchronously, previously it would lock up the whole browser for like 10 seconds while everything's loading.

The UI tweaks aren't bad either, they pretty much fix all the small issues I had with the previous version.

I think I'm gonna stick with it, I don't think rolling back 5 versions with ESR is worth it. Still, missing Tab Mix, Brief and NoScript kinda sucks. NoScript is supposed to update this week while the other two aren't looking that good. Are there any other good RSS readers compatible with Quantum out there?

[Janus Vesta]

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52893556]It's just a new version of the browser. They codenamed it because it was a giant change, but that's it.[/QUOTE]

They codenamed it because it's a giant change, yet they named it after something incredibly tiny.

[DG-117]

New Firefox is great, an overall huge improvement but I'll still be hanging onto Waterfox till session manager is either updated for the new browser or I find a suitable replacement for it.

[Fate]

Weird how everyone is describing it as fast. Still seems significantly slower than either Chrome or Vivaldi on both Windows & Linux for me.

[mastersrp]

[QUOTE=darth-veger;52893451]One i just spotted was this one
[URL]https://www.fanatical.com/en/game/medieval-engineers[/URL]
This works on Chrome but not in Firefox

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/XwuJacg.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]

I just gave it a shot in FF56, and it doesn't work there either, so it's not a recent change that broke it. I'll give it a shot with ESR as well.

[editline]15th November 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=SataniX;52893938]Weird how everyone is describing it as fast. Still seems significantly slower than either Chrome or Vivaldi on both Windows & Linux for me.[/QUOTE]

With no extensions, it's about 0.2 to 1s faster than Chromium on my FX-8350-based Linux machine, and way faster than other versions of Firefox.

[editline]15th November 2017[/editline]

I tried the site [url]https://www.fanatical.com/en/game/medieval-engineers[/url] in Firefox 52 ESR as well, doesn't work there either. I think the developers of the page perhaps just optimized for Chrome and disregarded Firefox support entirely.

[Fate]

[QUOTE=mastersrp;52893950]
With no extensions, it's about 0.2 to 1s faster than Chromium on my FX-8350-based Linux machine, and way faster than other versions of Firefox.[/QUOTE]

Comparing my two most frequently used sites (Firefox no extensions, fresh install vs Vivaldi with multiple extensions)

Firefox: 2880ms
Vivaldi: 1950ms

Firefox: 3300ms, 6500ms [i]and[/i] 8300ms.
Vivaldi: 7500ms

I feel like the Load events on each browser must be defined differently.

[mastersrp]

I tried the site in QupZilla, and it works fine there, so I'm not sure why it's not doing it for the Fox.

[Flaming Spaz]

[QUOTE=darth-veger;52893451]One i just spotted was this one
[URL]https://www.fanatical.com/en/game/medieval-engineers[/URL]
This works on Chrome but not in Firefox

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/XwuJacg.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Filed this at [url]https://webcompat.com/issues/13529[/url]

I assume this is a bug from their recent site redesign though, not a bug in Firefox.

[Sgt. Napalm]

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;52890808]I'm already missing some extensions.

[url]https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/the-fox-only-better/[/url]
[url]https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/roomy-bookmarks-toolbar/[/url]

Anybody know of replacements for these?[/QUOTE]

For Roomy toolbar, do this:

Type "about:support" in your URL bar. There, click the button for opening your profile folder.

Once that opens, navigate to the "Chrome" folder. If it doesn't exist, create one. In that folder, navigate to "userChrome.css" If it doesn't exist, create it. Open that file in a text editor, and paste:

.bookmark-item > .toolbarbutton-text {
  display: none !important;
}

and save, and restart the browser. Not perfect, but good enough.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/N9xGrDH.png[/img]

[Alice]

[QUOTE=pebkac;52893657]The UI tweaks aren't bad either, they pretty much fix all the small issues I had with the previous version.[/QUOTE]
They really need to get rid of that ugly ass grey overlay on the address bar, bookmarks bar, and active tab though. If they fixed that I wouldn't mind not having CTR anymore.
[QUOTE=SataniX;52893938]Weird how everyone is describing it as fast. Still seems significantly slower than either Chrome or Vivaldi on both Windows & Linux for me.[/QUOTE]
I can't speak for Vivaldi because I've never used it but I have Chrome installed for bugtesting a userscript I wrote for another site. The only addon I have installed for it is Tampermonkey and it was even slower than FF56, let alone Quantum. And while it's only a small improvement other than the asynchronous stuff (Youtube embed loading for example) Quantum is definitely an improvement.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;52895165]For Roomy toolbar, do this:

Type "about:support" in your URL bar. There, click the button for opening your profile folder.

Once that opens, navigate to the "Chrome" folder. If it doesn't exist, create one. In that folder, navigate to "userChrome.css" If it doesn't exist, create it. Open that file in a text editor, and paste:

.bookmark-item > .toolbarbutton-text {
  display: none !important;
}

and save, and restart the browser. Not perfect, but good enough.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/N9xGrDH.png[/img][/QUOTE]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/qFnXXti.png[/img]
You can just remove a bookmark's title to get it to just be an icon. More flexible than simply not displaying the title text too since it allows you to leave a name for ones that might be difficult to identify.

[Fate]

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52895887]
I can't speak for Vivaldi because I've never used it but I have Chrome installed for bugtesting a userscript I wrote for another site. The only addon I have installed for it is Tampermonkey and it was even slower than FF56, let alone Quantum. And while it's only a small improvement other than the asynchronous stuff (Youtube embed loading for example) Quantum is definitely an improvement.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious, can you try running [url=http://jsben.ch/Y0Db1]this benchmark[/url] in both to compare? I'm curious to see if it's just my machines, or something to do with the update. It's only a simple JS metric but it explains why lots of sites feel so stupidly slow in Quantum for me.

For comparison, I get:

Chrome:
268ms
280ms
219ms
299ms

Firefox:
885ms
993ms
7086ms
15287ms

And that's with Firefox using nearly double the CPU/memory ??

[t h e]

[QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;52892548]Huh? WebMs work fine.[/QUOTE]

Strange! I'll have to double check, but thanks for the affirmation

[Alice]

[QUOTE=SataniX;52895890]I'm curious, can you try running [url=http://jsben.ch/Y0Db1]this benchmark[/url] in both to compare? I'm curious to see if it's just my machines, or something to do with the update. It's only a simple JS metric but it explains why lots of sites feel so stupidly slow in Quantum for me.

For comparison, I get:

Chrome:
268ms
280ms
219ms
299ms

Firefox:
885ms
993ms
7086ms
15287ms

And that's with Firefox using nearly double the CPU/memory ??[/QUOTE]
Firefox:

1436ms
1361ms
7379ms
15722ms

Chrome:

843ms
821ms
708ms
942ms

It's also important to keep in mind the things a benchmark like that can't measure though. Actual browser responsiveness and open times, for example. For me a site may take a bit longer to load in Firefox (though usually it's not perceptibly faster or slower) but actually opening the tab and starting to load is notably faster. Starting the browser is also significantly faster for me in Firefox with tons of addons than in Chrome with just the one and Quantum is actually a bit faster in that regard than FF56 too.

Honestly I'm actually surprised to see such a huge difference in times for that benchmark that makes me think that it's something like Speedtest.net where it may be faster in a technical sense but that doesn't necessarily correlate to real world usage. Looking at the code though I'm really not even sure why it's giving such ridiculous times for either browser though. Those first two entries are simple if else and switch blocks which are both pretty damn fast. The mapper one (third entry) is kinda weird too because it's simply setting a variable to one entry from an object. That most certainly shouldn't be taking 7 seconds in Firefox, let alone 7/10ths of one in Chrome. Can't speak for the last one since I'm not familiar with exactly what it's doing but it appears to be just checking if an item exists in the object then setting 'found' to that object, which in this test happens to be a function.

For example the first test when run completely separately on JSFiddle gives this result:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/eAwAxho.png[/img]
[url=https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance/now]performance.now()[/url] is sub-millisecond resolution. So that's about half a millisecond or so iirc to run that first test.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/wRcYMhg.png[/img]
Second test.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/QrcL0ki.png[/img]
Third test.

Not sure about recreating the final one because the _ variable seems to be making use of some framework I'm not familiar with. As you can see though, the values that benchmark gives back are incredibly inaccurate and I'm not sure where they're coming from at all. All three of those tests were under 1ms and Chrome should give similar performance. The only thing I can come up with, which if it's true then the benchmark site does a shit job of making clear, is that they're doing a huge amount of loops of each of those sets, which would again bring me back to the point of not correlating well with real world performance. You're not going to have millions or even thousands of if else checks, switches, etc. on the overwhelming majority of pages.

For reference though I looped through the third test a million times:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/XYrgooq.png[/img]
3ms. And a billion times:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/0P4ycOH.png[/img]
Still only a whopping 300ms.

[Mmrnmhrm]

Well this update can go fuck itself. Broke my speed dial addon and all the replacements for Quantum are complete shit.