Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've got a number of extensions installed and only lost the use of one (rarely used) extension when I installed FF5. Haven't fiddled with it much yet but from what I've seen so far the interface is essentially the same as that of FF4.
IMO, at this time there is no compelling reason to upgrade to FF5.
FF has actually created a bit of a problem for themselves in the enterprise space. They've shortened the time between major version releases which has a negative impact on corporations that use FF as their standard. It requires lots of testing before a company will standardize on a browser version. I have clients, fortune 500 clients, that are still using IE-6 as their standard!
For consumers though FF5 really doesn't offer anything compelling over the 4.x.x.
I have neither but do use both Firebug and some other web development add-ons, it's not a one size fits all situation.
If you are happy with leaving your system open to any javascript embedded in any website, I'm happy for you but I care a bit more about my security than to leave that door wide open.
You have too many extensions then. NoScript and AdBlock are all that are needed.
Wow. I wouldn't have expected such a narrow view from you on this, AN.
I don't use either of those, and I disagree that either one of them is "needed." NoScript broke more sites than not when I tried it, and I don't mind the ads very much. I'd rather support a site by viewing (and maybe even clicking on) a few ads than by forcing them to charge me for access. Running a site costs money. Is it really too much to ask of you to view a few ads in return for whatever you're getting from it?
Wow. I wouldn't have expected such a narrow view from you on this, AN.
I don't use either of those, and I disagree that either one of them is "needed." NoScript broke more sites than not when I tried it, and I don't mind the ads very much. I'd rather support a site by viewing (and maybe even clicking on) a few ads than by forcing them to charge me for access. Running a site costs money. Is it really too much to ask of you to view a few ads in return for whatever you're getting from it?
If you are happy with leaving your system open to any javascript embedded in any website, I'm happy for you but I care a bit more about my security than to leave that door wide open.
As swagger mentioned it's too much of a hassle. I don't frequent sites I need to be concerned about, I certainly wouldn't claim to be bullet proof or legitimate sites can't be exploited. That I recall I've had two issues with malicious intent in about 15 years that I'm aware of. One was downloaded by a friends kid and another was ironically right after a full reformat before being able to update windows, that particular exploit only required the computer be connected.
In the event my machine does get compromised I'm only a few hours away from full reformat/reinstall, I wouldn't even bother with trying to remove it.
I upgraded from 4 to 5 and I can't even tell a difference
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
