Mozilla Firefox 58.0 "Quantum" Is Now Available for Download, Here's What's New

[angel]

Mozilla is now seeding the final release of the Firefox 58.0 "Quantum" web browser on its official mirrors, for Windows, Linux, and macOS platforms, ahead of next week's launch.

The company plans to make Firefox 58.0 official next week on January 23, but it looks like the open-source web browser is now available for download from Mozilla's official download servers. Users can grab the new release right now for macOS   Linux, and Windows operating systems, and update their installations.

Firefox 58.0 has been in development for the past two months, during which Mozilla's engineers managed to add streaming compilation and a new two-tiered baseline compiler to make WebAssembly even faster, enable WebVR by default for Mac OS X users, as well as to add support for credit card info on form autofill.

They also optimized the page load by implementing a technique to cache JavaScript internal representation, and improved page render speed for Windows users by integrating the Off-Main-Thread Painting functionality. Other than that, Firefox 58.0 comes with support for the Nepali (ne-NP) locale.

Firefox 58 ships with security fixes for Meltdown and Spectre

While Mozilla patched the Firefox 57 "Quantum" release of the web browser against the severe Meltdown and Spectre security vulnerabilities earlier this month with the 57.0.4 maintenance update, it would appear that Firefox 58 is the first release to come with security fixes for Meltdown and Spectre by default, but not without issue for older Intel CPUs.

"On Windows and Linux, Firefox crashes occasionally on Intel Broadwell-U processors with old microcode. Windows users should ensure Windows Update is set to install updates. Linux users should ensure that the distribution package for Intel microcode is installed," said Mozilla.

This release also blocks profile downgrading to a previous version, and Mozilla now recommends users to use a new profile in case of a downgrade. A crash reporting issue was fixed as well because it accidentally sent background tab crash reports to Mozilla without user's knowledge.

Again, Firefox 58.0 "Quantum" will be officially released next week, on Tuesday, January 23, 2018, when Mozilla will seed it to all supported platforms via OTA (Over-the-Air) updates. You can wait until then to update, or install it right now by downloading the binaries for your operating system using the links above.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/mozilla-firefox-58-0-quantum-is-now-available-for-download-here-s-what-s-new-519477.shtml

 

[Holmes]

I was wrong I read the article fully but I was right about fifty eight quantum (the title of the thread insinuates that fifty eight is introducing quantum when in fact its just a newer release of quantum) it is quantum but fifty eight doesnt introduce quantum for the first time fifty seven did that.  Its good to see the new fifty eight released ahead of schedule.

[funkyy]

I installed Firefox 58 over version 57 and I find it takes 24 seconds to load a page on start up. I went to Firefox help and saw that other users were complaining about the same slowness and various "solutions" were mooted such as "disable hardware acceleration", "disable add-ons and then start Firefox to try to identify if an add-on was the cause" etc. I tried the suggested fixes but it still takes the same 24 seconds to load. I also did a fresh install...same problem. I'm using Windows 7 and I have ESET Int Security installed. Firefox 57 didn't have this problem. I keep searching for a solution but nothing seems to resolve this. I don't want to do another "refresh Firefox"...I did it when the problem occurred and my bookmarks were NOT saved!! I had to do a restore system to recover them....a right pain in the donkey when they promise you "faster" and give you "slower" instead.

[Kalju]

10 minutes ago, funkyy said:

1. I installed Firefox 58 over version 57 
2. I also did a fresh install...same problem

What's the difference or what it means - over 57 and clean install? Teach me, cannot understand.

With it I agree, it's much faster than was 57. Even not needed measuring, it's visible with eye.

[funkyy]

1 hour ago, Kalju said:

What's the difference or what it means - over 57 and clean install? Teach me, cannot understand.

With it I agree, it's much faster than was 57. Even not needed measuring, it's visible with eye.

Kaiju, thanks for answering....first I just installed FF58 over FF57 and I found startup very slow. So I uninstalled FF and then re-installed it, but it is still slow to start up...usually 24 seconds.

[Kalju]

44 minutes ago, funkyy said:

Kaiju, thanks for answering....

How can help You? You're always so polite that I want to help right away ...

You can do whatever you want, always doing exactly the same way. This means that the previous Firefox files are made invisible to Windows (de-indexed) and new files are registered to the same address.
You can delete it by using the "Delete" command, uninstall it or whatever you do, always happens exact the same thing. All files are always on the hard disk as long as the older ones are replaced with the new one or you use the "Wipe" or "Shred" command to destroy the so-called free space on the hard disk - more specifically to overwrite with random data or zeros. Even the formatting won't remove them, everything will stay on hard disk and You can restore them until these files content is replaced, file will be renamed and re-indexed again. Your hard drive is always full, but it is not visible.
There's no difference how to put Firefox on your computer, everything you can change, is in the Mozilla Profile folder. However, it is not replaced by the so-called installation process, but only on a regular basis each time when Firefox is started, it may be done or automatically or manually.
If something is bad, look for the reasons in Mozilla user profile folder.

[funkyy]

Thanks again Kalju, I had a look at the profile folder and I don't see anything strange there. I don't want to interfere with it at the moment in case I cause another problem. It's 3:09am here and my eyes are falling out of my head. I'm going to bed now and I'll have a fresh look at Firefox tomorrow. It's not a very serious problem, it's just annoying me because it was starting up quickly before I installed FF58. Thanks for your advice.

[dcs18]

5 hours ago, funkyy said:

I installed Firefox 58 over version 57 and I find it takes 24 seconds to load a page on start up.

I find the latest ESR bringing the best of both the worlds — latest security updates (without the corresponding changes in code) on one side and backward compatibility with legacy add-ons; on the other.

[funkyy]

dcs18,

           I'm tempted to try your idea. In December I at last moved from Win XP to Win 7. I installed all my programs and had everything working just as I wanted. Then AVG totally destabilized my system, so I uninstalled it and installed ESET Int Security instead. As you know ESET is a bit more involved than AVG (and better than AVG) so I had to spend time finding my way around it, setting up the firewall rules, exceptions etc.When I had Firefox 57 installed it opened normally. But after installing Firefox 58 I find this 24 second delay every time I start it up. At first I thought it might be ESET, but I have Firefox allowed by the ESET firewall.

         As Kalju suggested I have had a look at the Firefox profile folder, but I don't see anything that a noob like me would recognize as strange. I really don't want to start jumping back to another Firefox because I already lot my Legacy extensions when Quantum appeared.....and I don't want to mess about with it in case I cause another totally different problem. Maybe I sound a wee bit lazy, but believe me that's not the case.....it's just that the AVG problem I mentioned briefly above took days to resolve due to it occurring several times over a 4 week period and forcing me to spend hours identifying and solving that problem.

But thanks to you and to Kalju for your input. I'm going to persevere with this startup problem and see if it "mysteriously" rectifies itself!!....always the favourite tactic of us "noobs"

[Ecarion]

13 hours ago, Kalju said:

[...]

If something is bad, look for the reasons in Mozilla user profile folder.

Just to complete.

What about the page about:newtab ? What else did it erase or broke ?

Find the folder called features (where did you install Firefox ?) then remove the preinstalled addons. Because now I will update Firefox manually in the aim to avoid this kind of bad surprise.

Don't forget to check the page about:config. Because you might need to disable several things too.

[Olexijl]

Hello together,

 

It has been a while. I usually used the old Firefox 47, but decided to upgrade to Firefox 57.0.4. Done. I also (re)made my profile, threw all the incompatible addons and updated addons as well.

 

Now, after updating to Firefox 58 I removed it, and (re)installed 57.0.4 again to test the downgrading profile data. Strange, but after updating to 58 & downgrading to 57.0.4 no problems with profile data.

 

Maybe a "clean", new 58 profile isn't working on 57.0.4, while existing, after install 58, uninstall & install 57.0.4 is still working? Can someone confirm what they say about profiles?

 

Olexijl

[Olexijl]

23 minutes ago, funkyy said:

dcs18,

  Then AVG totally destabilized my system, so I uninstalled it and installed ESET Int Security instead.

 

Try Avast, it works great!

[funkyy]

Hmmm the plot thickens...TOR doesn't open now. I get "Could not connect to TOR control port". I know that TOR is modeled on / uses Firefox in some way. So the problem that is causing  slow start up with Firefox appears to be affecting TOR as well.

[dcs18]

12 hours ago, funkyy said:

I really don't want to start jumping back to another Firefox because I already lot my Legacy extensions when Quantum appeared.....and I don't want to mess about with it in case I cause another totally different problem. Maybe I sound a wee bit lazy, but believe me that's not the case.....it's just that the AVG problem I mentioned briefly above took days to resolve due to it occurring several times over a 4 week period and forcing me to spend hours identifying and solving that problem.

When installing a different flavor (containing major changes in the code,) it's never a bad idea to start from scratch (full and clean reinstall) — yes, it's a big PITA.

 

However, if that is not feasible (for whatever be the reason) in so far as Firefox is concerned, one would be well advised to backup the Mozilla profile (C:\Users\YourProfileName\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla) and the installation directory (C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox,) or (C:\Program Files\Nightly) as well . . . . . before attempting to install the update upgrade.

[DKT27]

How about using a completely new profile, if not already done so.

[Undertaker]

On 1/23/2018 at 3:09 PM, dcs18 said:

I find the latest ESR bringing the best of both the worlds — latest security updates (without the corresponding changes in code) on one side and backward compatibility with legacy add-ons; on the other.

What happened to the v56 Nightly?

[dcs18]

3 hours ago, Undertaker said:

On 1/23/2018 at 3:09 PM, dcs18 said:

I find the latest ESR bringing the best of both the worlds — latest security updates (without the corresponding changes in code) on one side and backward compatibility with legacy add-ons; on the other.

What happened to the v56 Nightly?

Over a period of time (that nSane lapsed into a coma,) the ESR updates progressed (52.5.3 ESR is the equivalent of Quantum ~57 or even ~58, without any WebNext complications) even as the V56 remained frigid (as do all Nightlies.)

 

The latest ESR builds have addressed almost all the bugs from the Nightly (V56.)

[Undertaker]

6 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

Over a period of time (that nSane lapsed into a coma,) the ESR updates progressed (52.5.3 ESR is the equivalent of Quantum ~57 or even ~58, without any WebNext complications) even as the V56 remained frigid (as do all Nightlies.)

 

The latest ESR builds have addressed almost all the bugs from the Nightly (V56.)

I expected you to be the last person to be on the ESR build.

Still it's only 7-8 months till you can avoid the  *WebNext complications*.

[dcs18]

Those 7-8 months are a sufficient period for me to check out alternatives — ATM, Waterfox is on my radar.

 

Worse-come-worse, and if I happen to get stuck — the paranoid security setup on my outdated legacy Firefox would still be far far higher than what Mozilla would be able to integrate into their very latest WebNext releases.

[WALLONN7]

5 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

Waterfox is on my radar.

 

I've been using it... 

Welcome to old school Firefox!!!

[Undertaker]

13 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

Those 7-8 months are a sufficient period for me to check out alternatives — ATM, Waterfox is on my radar.

 

Worse-come-worse, and if I happen to get stuck — the paranoid security setup on my outdated legacy Firefox would still be far far higher than what Mozilla would be able to integrate into their very latest WebNext releases.

That's your wish and I respect it but it's not all gloomy here in the post v58 or, for that matter, even in the post v57-era. Maybe it is one of those times where you start again from scratch.

I did test Waterfox long ago, and at that time Waterfox was not par at the level of even the stable firefox release at that time(forget about betas and nightlys). But things may have changed overtime.

[dcs18]

My personal angst against WebNext is not about the security updates — it's more to do with the stonewalling of customization possibilities.

 

Now, Firefox never did possess more protection than (for example) Chrome — most folks used Firefox for its customization.

 

If I started using the humdrum WebNext — I'd miss the fact that the looks on my legacy copy of Firefox could make young, fertile virgins feel touched for the very first time.

[WALLONN7]

14 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

That's your wish and I respect it but it's not all gloomy here in the post v58 or, for that matter, even in the post v57-era. Maybe it is one of those times where you start again from scratch.

I did test Waterfox long ago, and at that time Waterfox was not par at the level of even the stable firefox release at that time(forget about betas and nightlys). But things may have changed overtime.

 

1 minute ago, dcs18 said:

My personal angst against WebNext is not about the security updates — it's more to do with the stonewalling of customization possibilities.

 

Now, Firefox never did possess more protection than (for example) Chrome — most folks used Firefox for its customization.

 

If I started using the humdrum WebNext — I'd miss the fact that the looks on my legacy copy of Firefox could make young, fertile virgins feel touched for the very first time.

 

Both of you have knowledge and I have learned a lot and I admire you for sharing what you know with us...

 

I've been using Firefox since version 3... I hated the step given in version 29... and I ended my direct relationship as soon as 56 "died" - I still set Firefox as the default on my consumers machines... So only because there is no Waterfox x86 version...
 

After more than five months using Waterfox, I feel at home again. Alex Kontos is a guy committed to what he does and has been agile at delivering solutions to any problems when they appear with every update...

 

@Undertaker

... Give it a try one more time

[Undertaker]

23 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

My personal angst against WebNext is not about the security updates — it's more to do with the stonewalling of customization possibilities.

 

Now, Firefox never did possess more protection than (for example) Chrome — most folks used Firefox for its customization.

 

If I started using the humdrum WebNext — I'd miss the fact that the looks on my legacy copy of Firefox could make young, fertile virgins feel touched for the very first time.

 

I never did try it before and never have tried it after the v57 era but I think using the userchrome.css, it is still possible to modify it to an extent that makes the virgins excited.

The CTR developer himself posted info about this for after v57 scenario.  I think it is the soul that matters and not the outer beauty.

 

2 minutes ago, WALLONN7 said:

Alex Kontos is a guy committed to what he does and has been agile at delivering solutions to any problems when they appear with every update...

 

I have no doubt that he is one of the smart people out there. But you have to understand the situation here.

He was building his fork based on the current firefox code at the time. And now, that he choses to go in a different direction, he will have to write, maintain and optimize his own code.

That's easier said than done because Mozilla is an organization there are lots of people working, with specialized area. Alex would only not have to do it all by himself but there is always a chance that when a individual (I mean, scale of Waterfox vs scale of Mozilla) maintains a fork, it is likely to die at any moment(case in point cyberfox). With an organization setup, you have continuity(and revenue).  Plus he can get bored anytime.

[WALLONN7]

2 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

I have no doubt that he is one of the smart people out there. But you have to understand the situation here.

He was building his fork based on the current firefox code at the time. And now, that he choses to go in a different direction, he will have to write, maintain and optimize his own code.

That's easier said than done because Mozilla is an organization there are lots of people working, with specialized area. Alex would only not have to do it all by himself but there is always a chance that when a individual (I mean, scale of Waterfox vs scale of Mozilla) maintains a fork, it is likely to die at any moment(case in point cyberfox). With an organization setup, you have continuity(and revenue).  Plus he can get bored anytime.

 

I got your point...

But I prefer to give way to the opposite in both cases:

1. In which the step I took is right and Waterfox thrives;
2. And the one where you are... and I'll go back to Firefox (?)...