Johnno, i'm currently using it atm. :eek:
and to answer your question.
cold start up time i would say have improved slightly, and warm startups have also improved.
Also this was with a stock default install with zero extensions or anything else added on/installed.
they still have the usual issues that really really need to be addressed.
I had a lot of problems with 3.5.2 which I am now suspecting was some kind of conflict..............possibly with residual ZoneAlarm elements?
I will try the new one on a different box and see what happens.
If they follow previous form they will support 3.0.x until January 2010, by which time they should have knocked some of the rough edges of 3.5.x
I am afraid I cannot ignore it as it is too popular and I need to keep my finger on the pulse :(
A quick google on ZA & FF 3.5.2 conflict pulled up this thread over at the ZoneAlarm forums>
i have also spotted another thread over at SysOpt forums about a user whom upgraded from 3.5.2 to the new 3.5.3 and it defaulted there settings & they have ZA installed also..
:argue: ZA & FF :D
Care to explain why? you know give some details for those of us that haven't given it a proper go..
Originally Posted by ByTeWrangler
some pro's 'n cons would be nice.. ;)
I thought a lot of Opera until I tried to edit the mouse gestures.
Alright.. I hope I don't get thrown at for this..
- Almost all developers or most of them will make sure their website works with IE and FF but will not give a lot about it functioning correctly with Opera.
- FF has more Add-ons then Opera will ever have.
But if you look at it from Code development standards FF, they definitely sucks. I am sure no one likes statistics pulled from another website here but it speaks the fact.
Opera from 9 to 10 was affected by 54 vulnerabilities. Opera's patching time has been "excellent", I've heard rumors that Opera publishes vulnerability information only after getting a fix. However I have never confirmed this. Opera has passed all w3c testes.
FF on the other hand was affected by 114 + 18 vulnerabilities from 3.x to 3.5.x. Lot of Add-on's have been found to be affected by their individual set of vulnerabilities. Apart from this lot of add-on's collect user information without their knowledge. FF gets more memory consuming with ever version. Lastly Mozilla team has never been able to plug FF's memory leak post V 2.0 I guess. FF partially meets W3C standards
I really cannot see one reason which could convince me how FF has better coding standards than anyone out there.
that's because it doesn't.Opera's Presto engine is the gold standard at the moment.
No one mentioned Safari? Even though it is the most compliant with the actual standards, and has more support for both HTML5 and XHTML2 (and CSS3), then any other browser.
According to Wikipedia, Opera is the only one currently with the standards part. It's I think near the bottom. I haven't checked it this week so I'm not sure of the exact wording, but it said Opera is the only one that is 100% standards based.
Originally Posted by souleman