Talk:Firefox 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Speed of Firefox 4.0b[edit]

The article mentions Firefox still lags behind on speed in comparison with other browsers. But iirc, the new JIT JavaScript engine isn't (entirely) integrated yet, that is due somewhere in August. Any comparisons till that time are useless imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Tab Candy[edit]

Perhaps the new interface for managing large quantities of tabs, Tab Candy, should be mentioned since it isn't going to be released as an addon, but rather as a core feature in Firefox 4. (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Beta 2 Screenshot?[edit]

Could the screenshot be updated to beta 2? (I don't know Wiki's policies well enough to know if this is fair game) Regards, (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a newer screenshot for you using the latest daily build which includes changes to the appearance of the tab bar. Also, I've enabled tabs-on-top to illustrate the new functionality. Zoef1234 (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. :) I thought it would be beneficial to readers to see a more updated screenshot. (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Needs updating again!

Hardware Acceleration[edit]

I didn't read the article, but searched it for acceleration, and apparently it doesn't mention that Firefox got hardware acceleration.[1][2] -- (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Firefox has two kind of HW ACCel:

  • rendering acceleration (D2D on Vista/7, XRender on Lin, Quartz on Mac (not available, yet))
  • compositing acceleration (D3D9 on XP, D3D10 on Vista/7 (with D3D10 card), OpenGL on Mac and Linux (Linux support is not available yet)

The rendering acceleration first introduced to Beta with Beta5, and compositing acceleration (layers) first introduced to Beta with Beta7.

This should be described within the article.

--WonderCsabo (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge Firefox Sync with this article?[edit]

In my opinion, Firefox Sync should be merged into this article. Opinions, ideas? --Darth NormaN (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, Firefox Sync is an add-on for Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 and a built in feature of Firefox 4.0 It should be on its own like all other Mozilla Labs projects. --Chris Ssk talk 19:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see this from both angles, but Chris is right. Sync, while introduced with Firefox 4, isn't exclusive to it. It is fine article on it's own. However, if we must merge it with something, Firefox would be a better place. Lucasoutloud (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we don't have to. I was only suggesting it, since its going to be shipped as a part of Firefox 4 if you guys think its better to keep it separated, I'm fine with that, too. But think about it, it started as a MozLabs project, thus as an experimental plugin. Now that it became part of Firefox 4 and the fact that older versions of Firefox won't be supported anymore (in a year or so) and that the plugin won't work with Firefox 4 (because its already built-in) the point of Sync being an add-on will no longer be reasonable. We could put it like the following: "started as a project, planned to become part of Firefox" or something like that. --Darth NormaN (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point, but it is still a plug in for previous versions, and people will continue to use those versions. It is not exclusive to Firefox 4, so the article should stand alone. Should it be seconded, I will remove the banner about merging. Lucasoutloud (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright. --Darth NormaN (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Is that an alright as in "take it down" or "when someone else says so"? Lucasoutloud (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The first, be sure to remove the banner from Firefox Sync, too. --Darth NormaN (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please add sources![edit]

"Various sources continuously dispute performance results of the popular browsers with each firm supporting their own browser." => source? "Independent tests also differ with some claiming Firefox 4 is fastest; others say Opera, Internet Explorer 9, Google Chrome." => source? "Firefox 4 is, however, undisputed to be better performing than its predecessors." => source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just go ahead finding the sources you allege to be missing by yourself instead of complaining anonymously? ;) --Maxl (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


Minefield, the alpha release, isn't mentioned and is much different than the beta. Should we give it a mention, page, section, or something along those lines? Lucasoutloud (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Firefox 4[edit]

Hi, Firefox 4 is the only browser that can display Wikipedia properly without stuffing it up like other browsers. I think that should be mentioned in the article. (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of the timeline[edit]

The timeline needs to get a nicer layout(table, timestream?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move - January 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move provided that other articles in the series are moved as well. No action at the moment; awaiting multiple move request. Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox 4Firefox 4 — I think this is an uncontroversial move, but the target - Firefox 4 was tagged as an Category:Unprintworthy redirects so at least one person disagrees. Firefox 4 is the official name of the browser, Mozilla is the name of the company responsible. There is no need to include the company name in the article title, the official websites just refer to it as Firefox 4. Already, a third of the traffic goes towards its redirect as opposed to its current page. - hahnchen 23:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Mozilla Firefox 4 is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Since other Firefox versions have the format Mozilla Firefox <version> I disagree with the move. 1exec1 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that the other Firefox versions were to move as well. This product is generally referred to as Firefox, even on Mozilla's own site. If we move this, the other versions should be uncontroversial. - hahnchen 20:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, if we move all versions, it's don't disagree1exec1 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other affected pages[edit]

Other versons:


Any I've missed?

My inclination is to move the other versions that currently say Mozilla... but leave the category and the other two miscellaneous articles alone, but perhaps that's not very logical. The best way to do this would probably be to relist this move request as a multiple move request, which will send a heads-up to the talk pages of the other versions.

We would then need to deal with the category etc. separately if desired.

Other thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that. If you want to make it a multiple nom, don't bother with the formality, and just make talk page notices linking here. I only nominated this article, because I wanted to get it moved before Firefox 4 is released. - hahnchen 19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Understood (when is that likely to be?) and I'm just looking for the best way forward, as at least one contributor has indicated support but made it conditional on the other moves also receiving approval. Andrewa (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move -- March 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move all per discussion above and below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Mozilla FirefoxFirefox — See above. I'm a little reluctant to support a move of Mozilla Firefox/History of Mozilla Firefox/Features of Mozilla Firefox since it is a very common disambiguater. Marcus Qwertyus 01:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

    • Generally support, though as a technical matter I think this request should be moved to Talk:Mozilla Firefox, not only because it makes more logical sense, but also because the bot isn't doing the notifications properly with it like this. --Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Support, per nom. mabdul 09:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Support Looking at the opening lead and the article in general show no use of "Mozilla Firefox". Neither is it commonly used - Google gives an overwhelming (wow btw thats the biggest search result I have ever had):
  • "Mozilla Firefox" = 46,300,000
  • Firefox -"Mozilla Firefox" = 446,000,000 (and Firefox 373,000,000)
Chaosdruid (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Search results on Google Books are better. Any search query over 100,000 is going to be ridiculously skewed. I'm not sure Firefox -"Mozilla Firefox" is a valid search term. Marcus Qwertyus 18:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
To be honest that's how I have done it for a long time, but some info is here " " and - Chaosdruid (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yes "mozilla firefox" has fewer results than firefox -"mozilla firefox"… but look for the love of gebus at the results. <headdesks> ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mozilla Firefox 4 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mr RM bot, the problem is the link you put gets me back here, is the discussion still in progress? Also Firefox 4 has been formally released today as seen here but as I add it has been release it says someone else is editing the article,here is where I saw the announcement <url></url> (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 4 is limited to Mac OS X Leopard and higher[edit]

I've tried installing it on Mac OS X Tiger, it isn't supported. Perhaps the article should clarify it. (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Acid3 results in Performance section[edit]

What's with showing the Acid3 test results in the Performance section? Developers have stated that, by design, Firefox 4 won't score 100 on the test, since it's not relevent anymore. I suggest the score is deleted, since it's deceiving, provided it doesn't add any meaningful content to the Performance section. More info: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviews (for Reception section)[edit]

"Firefox 4's one drawback is that, like its competitors, it uses massive amounts of RAM.";txt

"For those who frequently keep many tabs open and want a way to tame them, it's clearly the best browser out there." "That leaves you with an enviable choice: Google Chrome if outright speed and performance are a priority, or Firefox 4 if a more fully featured browser is what’s called for."

StevePrutz (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Section: Avoidable Data Loss Issue[edit]

User Jovianeye attempted to undo this new section, saying "please discuss this on the talk page as it is an internal issue and uses refs from mozilla's discussion forums"

Section was reinstate by me with message "Not internal - affects estimated 25m users; sources cited are public"

Note that on 3 March 2011, when Mike Beltzner heard this issue might be made public he confirmed the public nature of the discussion, saying by email:

The entire discussion is public[1]. We are not planning on making any more changes here for Firefox 4. I appreciate you giving me a heads-up.

cheers, mike


The link was included in his message.

This is a significant issue because of the number of users who will be affected by data loss the first time they attempt to save their session after upgrading to Firefox 4. As stated in the article category, exact numbers are not known; a conservative estimate would be as follows:

A quarter of Firefox users sometimes exiting Firefox expecting it to save their tabs. 25% of 400,000,000 = 100,000,000.

A quarter of those having set their own home page. 25% of 100,000,000 = 25,000,000.

Of those 25m, a significant proportion are likely to have large sessions with important data. Finding out about this issue in the Firefox 4 article can prevent such data loss.

RedactionalOne (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This what you had written
By default, Firefox 4 does not prompt to save the session (tabs and windows) on exit, something it did throughout Firefox 3[1]. Instead, it either exits with no prompt or informs the user they are about to close multiple tabs, depending on operating system and exit method. The user is not informed that their session has been saved at this point[2]. On next start, those who have kept the Firefox home page get a button on it called ‘Restore Previous Session’; other users get no clear indication that their session has been saved or how to restore it[3].

From January 2011, members of the Firefox community began alerting the developers to the danger of users losing sessions due to not being able to locate them before they were overwritten by another session[4]. It was also pointed out that the quit dialog, still present in the code though only available by changing a hidden preference, was fully compatible with the new on-demand session restore feature, and could easily be reinstated in order to avoid this data loss[5].

The Firefox developers admitted to having no idea what percentage of their 400 million users had customised their home page and so were susceptible to this issue[6]. However, feedback from Beta users on saving of tabs was overwhelmingly negative[7].

On 28 February, 2011, Firefox director Mike Beltzner, against the advice of members of his development team, made a decision not to address the issue of potential data loss prior to the shipping of Firefox 4.0[8].

  1. ^ "Mozilla Firefox Developer Forum". Retrieved 25 March 2011. 
  2. ^ "Mozilla Firefox Developer Forum". Retrieved 25 March 2011. 
  3. ^ "Mozilla Bugzilla". Retrieved 25 March 2011. 
  4. ^ "Mozilla Bugzilla". Retrieved 25 March 2011. 
  5. ^ "Mozilla Firefox Developer Forum". Retrieved 25 March 2011. 
  6. ^ "Mozilla Firefox Developer Forum". Retrieved 25 March 2011. 
  7. ^ "Firefox Beta Input". Retrieved 28 February 2011. 
  8. ^ "Mozilla Firefox Developer Forum". Retrieved 25 March 2011. 

This needs to be edited because its extremely detailed and affects the neutrality of the article. Additionally, I did read a few of the sources you have mentioned. The sources seem like a nested loop, one thread going to the next and the next. Ref 7 which mentions about the feedback is IMO not reliable for claiming the feedback was overwhelmingly negative. This needs to be copyedited. Paragraph 1 has useful information for readers of the article but the rest, IMO, is not needed because it mentions corporate discussions (though it may be in the public domain) and might be irrelevant. --Jovian Eye (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality? In an article mainly written by Mozilla?! It goes some way to RESTORING the neutrality of the article. Refs 1 & 2 are the same; this is deliberate as the source for the two items being referenced is the same, and I'm not aware of a way to have two [45]s. Ref 7 has been updated to reflect the content at the time of the 'Retrieved' date. Note that the feedback buttons are on the betas and we're now beyond 4.0 release, so this explains the different feedback. Viewing any date range around the time of the Beta 10/11 releases will give similar feedback.

It is a complex subject. If you can think of a way of presenting it more clearly I'm open to suggestions and you can present them here. In the meantime I'm reinstating the section because I think this is information that a significant proportion of readers of this article will find useful.

RedactionalOne (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


Right, so you've re-edited your message, questioning the need for paragraphs 2-4. Addressed below:

Paragraph 2 gives the time frame. If this had not been discovered until the day after final release it would not count as avoidable. It also discusses the actual danger: that the user's session will be overwritten before they can locate it. The part about how easily this could have been averted - by simply 'flicking a switch' - again is critical in understanding how easily this data loss could have been averted.

Paragraph 3 covers the numbers affected, again critical. If we were only talking about a few hundred users out of 400m this section wouldn't warrant adding. We are more likely talking 20 to 40 million users, but, without better data, I have omitted an actual figure. As I mentioned above, the feedback link has been updated - it now shows the feedback between Feb 27 and 28, the time it was originally accessed. Most of the comments talk of unexpectedly lost tabs.

Paragraph 4 is about the unilateral decision made by Mike Beltzner, three full weeks before final release, and against the advice of key members of his development team. Again, this speaks to the avoidable nature of what happened, as well as giving a time frame. I don't see how it can be fine to mention Beltzner in the History section but not here - I question the neutrality of that. This wasn't an accidental process; all those maybe tens of millions of users will have him to thank for their lost data. Beltzner himself is not secretive about his decision, as mentioned above.

RedactionalOne (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User InverseHypercube has marked this section with the 'Unbalanced' tag (27 March 2011). What viewpoints are neglected here? This section is careful to avoid quantifying the seriousness of the issue, or even estimate the numbers affected. It deals solely in facts, and can, in fact, be said to underplay the issue (deliberately so, in favour of encyclopaedic neutrality).

There is an opinion I'm aware of that this is not a major issue (though no explanation of on what grounds). But since the seriousness is not quantified in the article, I don't see how that can be relevant.

I don't think this section should be about opinions. Dealing in fact is at the heart of the Wikipedia philosophy, and the facts are as stated in the section currently. We know from beta user feedback that large numbers were losing sessions from Beta 10 - the time the 'Save & Quit' option was removed - due to failure to locate them. And we also know that the numbers affected will be large - because the user base is large.

There is a related issue, not currently touched on in the section: The reason for removing the 'Save & Quit' option was the addition of on-demand session restore. That feature is seriously flawed because only one session is saved at a time and doing such innocuous things as starting Firefox and closing it without doing anything at all will overwrite the saved session without warning. So simply knowing that saved sessions are available from the History menu is not sufficient to avert data loss. This affects ALL Firefox 4 users, not just those who have set their own home page, and should probably be added to the section with expedition.

If people want to look for bias in the Firefox 4 article they should look to the Reception section. 'Reception' is nothing to do with numbers downloaded in the first 24 hours. If your software has a sufficient user base and those users are urged to update immediately due to 'security and stability' issues you're going to see high numbers downloading on the first day.

So what is your point, InverseHypercube? If none are forthcoming on the Talk page within the next 7 days I will consider the 'unbiased' claim unverified.

RedactionalOne (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag Notes

OK, so I've looked into the use of the 'Unbalanced' tag on articles like this one and, while I'm sure well-meaning, InverseHypercube has erred in a couple of respects: (a) This category of tag should be accompanied by an explanation on the Talk page, and (b) heavily monitored articles should include a Talk page discussion prior to adding the tag. See

In fact, this section has received edits from several users, and is hopefully approaching a point where it has some degree of consensus. So removing the tag.

You are encouraged to discuss issues here prior to adding similar tags.

RedactionalOne (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of Reception Category?

User Mephiles602 moved this to the Reception category (29 March 2011). There is a tenuous link to Reception in the mention of Beta feedback, but really this is a separate issue - a design fault, the impact of which is only now starting to be widely felt. It's going to need expanding slightly due to the issues of on-demand session restore as mentioned above, and having it in Reception just muddies that section, I think. I doubt the peacocks gloating about download numbers will want it there anyway.

The Reception section should be improved to include some actual information on reception - download numbers of 4.0 are going to mainly depend on numbers of users being prompted to upgrade from 3.6, and do not reflect how the product is being received.

If some sort of verifiable information comes to light about user feedback/complaints on the data loss issue it could warrant inclusion in Reception, but currently I think it would just confuse things. Reverting.

RedactionalOne (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This reads like you are using wikipedia to try and get your bug fixed. The "developers having no idea what percentage of users" paragraph seems a bit unnecessary. I'd ditch that. Otherwise, I hope they fix your bug for you so we can remove the paragraph.DavidRF (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. This is overkill about one small feature issue. Steven Walling 05:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


User Steven Walling attempted to remove two paragraphs 3 & 4 from this section, citing neutrality. Well, if this is the Steven Walling featured on the Mozilla wiki - - I'm not sure he's the best person to be arbiter for that. The reasons for the information in those paragraphs have already been explained - see 'Paragraphs' above.

RedactionalOne (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove it then. I still think you are using wikipedia to gripe about your minor bug. FWIW, that page you provided shows that Mr. Walling is actually a wikimedia foundation member posting there instead of vice versa.DavidRF (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
DavidRF, you have said that you think this is a 'minor bug', but not explained why. You think a change that has been known by the developers would cause some users to lose their session since at least November 2010 - - and is likely to cause data loss for users numbering into the tens of millions is a 'minor bug'? Why? What would count as a major issue for you?
If there was a computer virus going about causing a similar level of damage, there would be no questioning the seriousness. So just because it's a deliberate act by software developers instead of virus writers it doesn't warrant public scrutiny?
It's hardly surprising that two Wikipedians could be found to support suppressing such a contentious issue. But without justifying your position it doesn't hold water. So please justify or undo.
Re Steven Walling, his inclusion on the Mozilla wiki must surely indicate some sort of association with Mozilla - unless that wiki is attempting to compete with Wikipedia and have articles on everything!
As for the claim I'm trying to get this 'minor bug' fixed for my own benefit, well that's totally illogical: once someone knows their session is available from the History menu this is no longer an issue. That is the primary reason the issue's inclusion here is important. But as most Firefox users won't read the article prior to using Firefox 4, I would certainly be pleased if Mozilla would address this quickly. And I would hope you would be too.
RedactionalOne (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC) ETA, RedactionalOne (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the burden of proof is on you to explain why there should be any type of section here at all. Why is your bug more important than all of the other bugs that are in the product? I don't see similar sections in Firefox 3.6 or Firefox 3.5. If there was a general section on issues where several were listed in sequence, that would make more sense. The presence of only your issue in this section makes it sound like a really big deal like it crashes all time or it has a "pentium bug" but you yourself mention above that the workaround isn't a big deal. Why the fuss again? Plus, I still question your motives. You've created a wikipedia account for the sole purpose of creating this section to complain about your one bug. They didn't listen to you at the mozilla forums so you're going to leverage the high page-rank status of the wikipedia page to complain? Not cool.DavidRF (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I second what DavidRF has to say. You're simply trying to get your bug fixed through Wikipedia. --Jovian Eye talk 14:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh and as for the wonky accusations of conflict of interest... anyone can create an account on Mozilla wiki, just like here. It's totally open, and just having an account there doesn't imply that I have a point of view about Firefox. I made the account because I represented Wikimedia at one of their events, showing people about how to get involved in Wikipedia. I've been editing here as a regular volunteer, just like you, for years thanks. Steven Walling 17:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Steven, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification, although there isn't any reason Mozilla staffers shouldn't edit this article as long as they follow the guidelines, which you haven't: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." -
All you've said is "Agreed. This is overkill about one small feature issue" - an opinion, and a surpising one given the scale of this data loss. Oh, and, in the History notes, "this is very WP:POINTy and is not neutral", breaking another guideline -
DavidRF, the reason this is a big issue is that this is a planned changed which developers have known will cause users to lose sessions since November 2010:

"The UX team would like to see this [removal of quit dialog with Save & Quit button] in beta8 if possible, so we can get some feedback on any potential 'OMG, my session is gone and I can't figure out how to get it back' issues, so we have time to adjust in beta9 if that's indeed a problem." -

This was over four months before final release, and yet Mozilla failed to take any action to notify users who'd set their own home page: no message on quit, no message on startup and, as far as I know, nothing even in the release notes or anywhere easily discoverable in the online help.
This was not a 'bug', it was a deliberate change that they knew would cause data loss. They didn't (a) inform those affected so they could avoid that loss or (b) find out how many users would be affected, something they could have easily done using Test Pilot. Furthermore, if time was the issue they could have simply 'flicked a switch' to get the quit prompt back as a stop-gap. Developers voiced their concern in an 82-comment thread:

"True, we can't just blame users for not dealing with our UI. I also share the concern that users may not remember whether their previous session was worth keeping when starting Firefox again." - Dão Gottwald.

"I actually think that among the population of people using session restore, the amount of people having configured their homepage to something different might be quite high, as I'd connect both to the type of customization made by advanced users. And we should care about those people as they are often peers in our marketing chain that try to spread the word about Firefox." - Robert Kaiser.

"I have concerns to.[sic]" - Asa Dotzler.

Mike Beltzner shut this discussion down and made a unilateral decision not to address the issue, saying "...the feedback from our 2.5 million beta users has not given us strong concern that this will be a problematic change for the *majority* of our users." The point, of course, is that with a user base of 400m, a minority of users can still be a huge number.
So that is the issue, and I trust I have now explained it to your satisfaction, such that you will undo your hasty deletions.
RedactionalOne (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC), ETA RedactionalOne (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
We haven't actually deleted it (yet anyways). Its still there. We just pared it back. I still don't understand why you think your bug is such a big deal. There have been dozens of reviews of the software now that its released. These reviews have been unexpectedly mixed, but I haven't heard anybody talk about this issue of yours. If someone wanted to write a well-balanced section giving an overview of the weird quirks present in this release and a broader summary of the migration issues users have encountered (and not just your one bug) then I would support that. But why your one bug and not all the others? "Guideline breach"... come on. Why have you taken this one bug so personally?DavidRF (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep going on about it being a 'bug', when it was a deliberate change in the pipeline for months? The data loss these estimated tens of millions of people are going to experience is avoidable, and it should have been avoided. Mike Beltzner made a decision which goes against the welfare of the user and the spirit of Mozilla, and readers of this article have a right to know that.
Yes, there are plenty of migration issues and quirks in 4.0, for instance the fact that Windows 7 and Vista users get a totally different UI to everyone else. And yes, of course there are many serious bugs. But these are actual bugs - unintended behaviours that have yet to be addressed. The issue I've tried to represent here is of another magnitude altogether. It's good to know, however, that you would support such a section.
Note that, as noted in "Part of Reception Category?" above, this is not a 'reception' issue - it's a design issue going back months before it first appeared in the betas, and has another component as yet not detailed - the loss of sessions by users who do know where to find them.
As noted already, as soon as a user realises the sessions are being saved and are then available from the History menu it is no longer an issue for them. (In my case, I backed up my profile folder anyway, so never lost data.) My motive is simple: I am (as some of the developers tried to do) advocating for the user, and making information available to some Firefox 4 users, at least.
RedactionalOne (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If it was a deliberate change planned ahead and yet none of the major press covering the release wrote about it, then it's even less worthy of treatment in the article. If it was a new bug, then it was fine to do a little bit of synthesis original research by combining links to the forums, bugzilla, whatever. But if it's a feature that no secondary sources covered, then it should be included. The encyclopedia does and should rely primarily on secondary source material, not combinations of primary sources. Steven Walling 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
So how does the information on usage share not count as original research? Contributors have just gone to StatCounter and interpreted the browser graph there (and not in an entirely unbiased way, judging by the unmentioned strong uptake of Chrome 10).
The feature that Mozilla was planning was on-demand session restore, and there may well be articles that can be cited on that - I'll take a look. Basically, what I've done here is detail behaviours in two different software versions. I don't think this necessarily advances a new position, but I can now see that it rides a bit close to the wave. I will have a look for suitable citings. DavidRF was just suggesting a 'Migration Issues' section, which would be a useful addition and which this issue would fit into very well. But, depending on interpretation, finding suitable tech site articles for that could be problematic. Tech sites have agendas, and they're typically into comparing what's new. Anyway, I'll take these requirements on board and see if there are better cite sources available.
RedactionalOne (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole section is quite obviously just the person who started a thread on dev.apps.firefox following through on his "threat" (in private email to Mike Beltzner) to "bring this issue to the press." This has obviously failed, because there are no citations for "data loss" on Google News in reference to Firefox 4.

I recommend this section be deleted (and have done so), as it has not been a notable issue in any way since Firefox 4 was released.

Full disclosure: I am a Mozilla employee.

HoserHead (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. RedactionalOne: I actually agree that it's nonsense that FF4 would not save sessions properly, but Wikipedia is not the place to bring up this issue. An encyclopedia describes "what is", not what each of us thinks "should be", and this is not the forum to keep pushing this particular aspect of Firefox 4's release. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found to back up the importance of this topic, that is. Steven Walling 01:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
HoserHead, your stated issue for removal is "This is not a notable issue." I don't see how that can possibly be a valid reason, given the scale of the data loss and that it now appears Beltzner's rush to get 4.0 out was to get the run on Chrome 10, putting a browser war ahead of the interests of users. Your reasons for questioning my content differ strongly from Steven Walling's. There is a legitimate case for the 'original research' argument, especially for some of the text that had already been pared back. I don't see that your reason can be said to be legitimate, and your neutrality is in question as a Mozilla employee. Note that my email to Mr Beltzner was in no way a threat and this was stated. It was a heads-up - one for which he thanked me. This issue is still not mentioned in the release notes, which is extraordinary. If Mozilla no longer cares about the user, it has lost its way. And as you probably appreciate more than Steven, the removal of all reference to the issue in this article will cause further data loss to unsuspecting Firefox 4 users.
Steven Walling, you're saying there is nothing from the deleted section that is both of value to the reader and not problematic under SYNTH? As stated above, I strongly dispute HoserHead's reason for deletion, which seems quite different from yours and motivated by damage limitation.
RedactionalOne (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to throw in my two cents here, I think this entire discussion is moot until someone can provide a reliable source stating that this is a common issue/concern for Firefox users. Wikipedia is the only place I've seen this mentioned, and a quick Google search for both "firefox 4 data loss" and "firefox 4 restore previous session" is not yielding results. The section read as a very technical and specific complaint by someone for whom this was of personal importance, and RedactionalOne has not made a compelling case for why this belongs here. It's clear that RedactionalOne has some problems with Mozilla and the way that Firefox 4 was developed, but without any source supporting these concerns, it has to be removed. Furthermore, it is not the job of Wikipedia to provide technical support - users that experience data loss should not be looking here for answers. Arguing about this further isn't going to change anything until something can be shown to make this relevant.
Prophetman (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It's precisely the fact that nobody - let alone notable sources - has reported on this problem that led me to remove this section. It's not notable. It hasn't come up in our (Mozilla's) tech support channels as a major issue. If I wanted to limit damage, I'd advocate for the "issue" to be fixed. What I want is a better Firefox 4 article on Wikipedia - and the article is better without this section.
HoserHead (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
RedactionalOne: yes, unless secondary sources can be produced, that is what I am saying. Steven Walling 16:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Prophetman, what I've not found in searches is any documentation on either on-demand session restore or the Firefox menu in the Firefox online help - just amazing. I am a fan of Firefox, and this issue isn't enough to turn me to Chrome. What I'm not a fan of is a decision being made to (seemingly) put the browser war ahead of user welfare. It is the job of Wikipedia to provide pertinent information. People often refer to it before upgrading or first using software. And I'm pretty sure they'd be more interested in averting data loss than the fact that Firefox 4 has overtaken IE SIX!
HoserHead, you are entitled to your opinion that this is not notable. However, I note that Firefox online help is inundated with queries on it: - over ten pages' -worth - and we're only 10 days into the launch. Personally, if it was me losing a session I'd work out what was wrong. If it had been overwritten before I could locate it I wouldn't file a helpdesk request. As noted by Robert Kaiser above, a lot of the people most likely to maintain large sessions are also power users, and these are less likely to file helpdesk requests at the drop of a hat. If you want to demonstrate that this won't affect many people, get Test Pilot to gather data on the number of users with a custom home page (not what that page is). If the figure is under 5% I'll consider this not notable.
RedactionalOne (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Section: Migration issues[edit]

This is as per a suggestion on 29 March by DavidRF: "If someone wanted to write a well-balanced section giving an overview of the weird quirks present in this release and a broader summary of the migration issues users have encountered (and not just your one bug) then I would support that."

The section presents the information necessary to avoid data loss, without actually mentioning it as an issue, so this is hopefully less contentious. Information is verifiable simply by downloading Firefox and testing the procedures. However, citings are also given. It would be quite nice to add screen grabs of the Windows 7 interface above the Windows XP one to illustrate the difference.

RedactionalOne (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


This section should not include a miscellaneous assortment of things a Firefox 3 user might find useful but can reasonably be expected to be quickly discovered without issue. The issues represented in this section are of significance because they relate to a major change in user experience – as outlined in the Mashable link – are not easily discoverable and not well documented on the domains. Reasons for current inclusions are as follows:

Introductory paragraph: Provides the link to the primary research, as well as partly explaining the poor documentation. (It may also be relevant to mention lack of online help documentation, although this is problematic cite-wise, and may be unnecessary.) Note that the phrase “Users face some issues negotiating these changes” is not specifically cited, as this is felt unnecessary. However, sources such as beta feedback confirm this:

Session data: The two paragraphs deal with two separate data loss issues. The first paragraph is about losing the session due to not being aware that it’s been saved. The second paragraph relates to users who are familiar with on-demand session restore but not that they can lose their session simply, for instance, by opening and then closing the browser (or by another user doing so on their browser).

Firefox menu: This is a major change in feature interaction, but only presented by default to Windows 7/Vista users – a migration issue for IT managers with mixed platforms. It is not easily discoverable for users on other operating systems, as turning off the Menu bar is counter-intuitive.

Teachmeslc added 2 lines (1 April 2011) about the Import Wizard, but these didn’t inform the reader how to access it and included a direct external URL, which I believe is not permitted: If someone wants to validate this as a reliable source it could be added as a cite note for the revised text.

RedactionalOne (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent Pages button

MattLavigne added the following on April 15, 2011:

On the Navigation Toolbar, The 'Recent Pages' button has been removed from the Back/Forward button group. In previous versions, this button would display a drop-down showing the recent history for the current tab. This list can still be easily accessed, however, by right-clicking on the Back/Forward button group.

This has been removed as, "This section should not include a miscellaneous assortment of things a Firefox 3 user might find useful but can reasonably be expected to be quickly discovered without issue." - see above. There are a number of such issues, and some a lot less discoverable than Recent Pages. For instance, the 'Subscribe to this page' button has been moved from the Address bar to the Bookmarks menu. Every new piece of software is going to involve changes. The reasons that those previously included are considered notable are detailed above.

Note also that the behaviour of right-clicking the Back button itself has existed in Firefox right back to Firefox 3.0.

If borderline notable, non-major features are to be added to this section, it would probably be better to add them to a sub-section called something like 'Other changes' beneath the other sub-sections.

RedactionalOne (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


I believe some mention should be made in the article about the striking similarities in appearance between FF4 and Opera 10.0 (and all versions after 10.0) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 4 is NOT available for 64bit Windows![edit]

Is there any reason why this is nowhere mentioned in the article? I think it's very important to future users of the product who go to WP first to get informed about the browser. -andy (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

??I use Vista 64 and Windows 7 64 bit and Firefox is fine on them. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
He probably means the 64 bit version of the browser itself, which was originally planned for FF4, but got pushed back to 5 or 6 (I think). --illythr (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Firefox 4.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Firefox 4.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup Boxes in User Interface[edit]

Do we really need 3 of those? I think we should delete 2 and move 1 to the top of the section argionember~ master of all (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Stable Version Update[edit]

Isn't the most stable release version 9.0.1? Ngmcs8203 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. This is the Firefox 4 wiki. Move on. Nothing to read here. Ngmcs8203 (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firefox 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)