I plugged in the thumb drive and loaded the portable version and to my surprise, it looked nothing like it did on my XP machine (or his XP machine for that matter) and looked exactly like the one that I had uninstalled from the Windows 7 machine. After digging through the drop down menu that says Firefox (which is the only thing that was on the toolbar in Windows 7), I found the option to add toolbars and by adding the menu bar was able to get it to look like it does in XP.
Not sure what caused it to show no tool bars at all.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 91 to 96 of 96
-
-
I'm returning to this thread, because I'm quite confused by the version numbering scheme I'm seeing for FF, particularly the portable incarnations: Ver. 4, ver. 5, ver. 6, ver. 7 (or later), with various Alphas or Betas associated. Ver. 4.x is still the official regular version ? Or is it ? How do they manage to get off on so many tangents and get ahead of themselves this way ?
I'd like to find one -- portable, particularly -- that is relatively stable, does not lose compatibility with too many of the established add-ons, and has ways of rolling back the look & feel (UI) of the program to the 3.6.x days. But that's probably a pipe dream . . . ?
I'm still using 3.6.18 day in and day out, and am too comfortable with it to change easily.When in Las Vegas, don't miss the Pinball Hall of Fame Museum http://www.pinballmuseum.org/ -- with over 150 tables from 6+ decades of this quintessentially American art form. -
I think the portable versions of FF follow the same release numbering system as the standard FF.
Since FF4, they've made the decision to release updates more regularly, and on top of that change the numbering system for releases. What would have been considered a small update a few years ago, for example FF 3.6.14 to 3.6.15, might now be a major number change from 5.0.1 to 6.*.
The new numbering system is a gimmick, IMO. I'm running FF 5.0.1, and it could have easily been released as FF 4.something.
Comments on this thread echo my views:
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/822764#answer-184326
Particularly;
"Firefox 5.0 will be more like a minor major release as if it was a Firefox 4.1 release and perhaps a improved 4.0.*"
"It seems like Mozilla is mixing up "rapid release cycle" with "major upgrade release". A rapid release cycle doesn't require a major upgrade every cycle. It would just be nice to have rapid *minor* releases within the major version number, then upgrade the major version number every year or so. This seems like more of a marketing ploy than anything, and it's messing with web development compatibility."
Also this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20072903-264/mozilla-releases-firefox-5-first-rapid-...lease-version/
""The world of the Internet is moving at a faster pace than ever, so we realized we had to start innovating faster," said Mozilla Chief Executive Gary Kovacs in an online chat today to announce the product."
Urgh.
I'd like to find one -- portable, particularly -- that is relatively stable, does not lose compatibility with too many of the established add-ons, and has ways of rolling back the look & feel (UI) of the program to the 3.6.x days. But that's probably a pipe dream . . . ?
I'm still using 3.6.18 day in and day out, and am too comfortable with it to change easily. -
Why are you using FF 4 when FF 5 is out? Also, look into Mozbackup software to protect your FF profile and restore if a problem developes.
-
I highly recommend the "Aurora" builds of Firefox 7. Memory issues finally fixed for the most part. It's made me fall in love with Firefox all over again.
-
Originally Posted by intracube
One thing I will need to do is to recall or retrace what needs to be done -- in About:Config, most likely -- in order to have a later version use my existing profile(s) and other resources. I want to minimize any chances of the later versions corrupting the 3.6 profiles or extensions, so I just installed Mozbackup 1.5.1. (Prior to that, I was zipping up the Profile trees manually, though not often enough for keeping them entirely up to date.) I realize that some things are bound not to work in the later versions. In the interim, the main thing I'm concerned with is not messing up the installed 3.6 that I still depend upon. Yesterday, the Back arrow suddenly stopped working amidst pages of Google search hits -- it kept returning to "Page 1", even if I was up to Page 9. That sort of rang a bell about some issue with the Back function I had read about online, for portable 5.0.1. I'm fine on experimenting with these later versions -- preferably as portables -- but I'm adamant about avoiding any "cross-contamination" type problems. And, in theory, that should be far less likely with something that is truly portable and self-contained. The joker in this pack might be the Profile linkage . . . but I haven't tried that YET.
Maybe the safest thing to do is to clone those Profiles, and let them have a separate existence with the later portable versions ?
Thanks for shedding some light on that version numbering business, which seems like a runaway train to me.When in Las Vegas, don't miss the Pinball Hall of Fame Museum http://www.pinballmuseum.org/ -- with over 150 tables from 6+ decades of this quintessentially American art form.
Similar Threads
-
Nintendo ds xl impressions.
By johns0 in forum Portable VideoReplies: 5Last Post: 26th Mar 2011, 19:42 -
WD TV Live Hub First Impressions
By TBoneit in forum Media Center PC / MediaCentersReplies: 3Last Post: 17th Nov 2010, 15:09 -
Personnal impressions on MEGUI
By Cunhambebe in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 0Last Post: 30th Apr 2008, 19:57 -
Samsung TX-T3093WH (HD CRT TV) first impressions
By Leoslocks in forum DVB / IPTVReplies: 0Last Post: 6th May 2007, 13:07 -
Beta 2.5 first impressions
By mesaboogieman in forum SVCD2DVD & VOB2MPGReplies: 0Last Post: 4th May 2007, 18:25