portableapps.com has the "legacy version" (3.6) or actually if you really wanted to you could go back to 2. (But that won't run many things you're probably used to in this decade.) and you can install it alongside the newer versions. you can't run both at the same time without some serious configurations, but you CAN definitely install it and run it from a shortcut you create, on Windows. Just make sure the newer version isn't running when you start it. It's definitely not encouraged, but as a portable app, it's safer than a newer browser installed directly, if you have poor security procedures on your computer. It will also run on XP or earlier, if you seriously want to put an XP computer (or earlier) on the web. (About time to convert those older computers to Linux though.)

Using Firefox 3.6.28 and especially 2.0.0.20 as your everyday browser is a really bad idea security wise as they have many potential vulnerabilities that are are fixed since in current releases.

https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/

The current Firefox still runs on Windows XP as long as you have SP2 at minimum. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/26.0/system-requirements/

I wasn't saying anyone SHOULD go back to version 2 or 3, just that it is POSSIBLE. Running them portable has many drawbacks along with the benefits, as well. (Benefits being that normally a portable app, if installed on a USB drive, cannot access your data on your drive.. drawback, that older versions especially will not work correctly with flash or java, or associated programs, even if installed in a folder on your drive, AND the security issues, of course...) Just wishful thinking, I know, but it would be NICE if there were a "modern" 3.7 or 3.8 or whatever version instead of this crap they call "rapid release" 4+ versions.. I mean c'mon 10+ versions in just a few years? No way. Think if whindows came out with a new version you HAD to upgrade to every six months.. nightmare... (yes, Linux does it. and YES it's a nightmare. I run a version from (whoo hooo) two years ago because it's STABLE and works how I want, barring one or two programs that haven't been fixed in the LTS releases!) Just downgraded to FFx 24ESR on Xubuntu 12.04.3 .. we'll see how it goes.

The rapid release was intended as a way to take back more control of what goes in every release and anything that could not make it was moved to next. Granted they could have made it longer than six weeks like say ten or even twelve weeks.

To go back old slow cumbersome and delays way even at the rate that Firefox 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 was going at then is not a good idea now days as it took those who only used Releases having to wait a loooong time to see any new features and bug fixes that was not deemed safe for current release branch. Updates with Phoenix 0.1-0.5, Firebird 0.6, 0.6.1, 0.7 then Firefox 0.8 up till Firefox 1.0 were relatively fast then and then it slowed down to the crawl that people became accustomed to at times with Firefox 4.0 being the big example of what not to do with the extensive amount of time (delays, several months at four times) and stuff that was put in as a result. It just sped up in a much controlled list again from Firefox 5.0 and on in development. The problem with the old slow crawl of development of before is that anything new may take several months to easily over a year (or even longer if it got pushed to next version due to the long list of work they had at time already) to be seen by general public only using releases and also resulted in two or even three branches of releases being supported which increased the workload. Firefox would then be way behind other browsers in development and features.

Some core updates, but mostly bug and security fixes, were introduced in the _._.x releases, major changes in the _.x releases, complete overhauls in the x. releases; I don't see what the problem was. 3.6 was updated like 38 times before it was retired (3.6.38) Look at the situation now; there's a x. number increase for every release and RARELY ever a _.x update unless it's to fix a bad bug/security issue. 'Rapid' release my ass; the old way was faster and less obnoxious.

The rapid release shift has been nothing more than a version number inflation in my eyes; and everyone's jumped on the bandwagon. It's done nothing but hurt Firefox users in the end and make the differences between Firefox and Chrome even smaller.

Oh, and of course development is like 4+ versions ahead now (where do they even get these numbers?), so anything we mention now, unless it's a critical issue, won't be changed/fixed for a long time. Again, some 'rapid' release that is..

Hi DAOWAce, if Mozilla numbered Firefox 26.0 as 4.22.0 would you be happy? No, I don't think so, because what's really at stake for you are the features that get shipped. So don't be distracted by the train schedule. Mozilla has volunteers around the world giving input on everything from UI design to feature fixes. If you want different features, get involved!

The last security release for 3.6 was 3.6.28. The 3.6 was planned to end as of 3.6.19 however when Firefox 4.0 was released many were wanting to go back to 3.6 for the time being and it became the reluctant older supported release until 3.6.28.

The slow cumbersome development would have hurt Firefox far more. Also people would be wondering why Firefox release did not have a critical feature that insert browser names has had for a year already.

I don't agree. They're putting in features on a time-limited basis, rushing through and not thinking things out, and since Firefox users tend to use many different extensions, often produced by people who are volunteer maintainers and don't have the time to update to a new version every few weeks (and if something works, why change it?) this tends to break stuff EVERY release. And when you only use the browser say once or twice a month, as many casual users do, it means an update every time you use the software, which is ridiculous. If it was seamless, and the Firefox updates were not released until ALL prior extensions still worked seamlessly on the new versions, it would help, no one would care that much about versioning. If each new version looked and acted exactly like the last, no one would care...but then why bother in the first place (like Chrome, it's "I have a higher number than you" So what?) I think changing stuff so rapidly is just makework, to keep the Firefox developers busy, and possibly to make sure they never have time to fully work out the bugs in any particular version, so people will give up and go to Chrome (Google pays for MOST of the Mozilla projects.) I, personally, don't like to use a version of any software until it has been out at least two years, which gives plenty of time to have had most of the bugs fixed. Six weeks isn't even enough time to release something that isn't all screwed up in the first place, and then... you only have another six weeks to work on the next version.. making THAT one full of bugs and mistakes... it's bad software design policy, period, unless your versioning means NOTHING in the first place and version 22 is the same as version 4 with no changes except bug fixes, and to show that is the case, you call it version 4.18 or something.

Fixitman wrote: version 22 is the same as version 4 with no changes except bug fixes, and to show that is the case, you call it version 4.18 or something

If you really think this is the case then I am not going to bother discussing this with you...

The primary reason for the Major Releases are features and bugs fixes ride along with them. See the Whats new in Firefox in each Release notes. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/

Taken out of context. I'm tired of the discussion too. You didn't quote the first part of the sentence, " unless your versioning means NOTHING in the first place..." by which I meant, IN an ideal world, version 22 WOULD BE the same as version 4 after so short a time, excepting for bug fixes and security measures. Maybe my sentences are too convoluted. Six weeks is definitely NOT enough time to fix bugs. Six months isn't enough time, as evidenced by Ubuntu releases in Linux, where they're still having bugs show up a year and a half later after a release. I'd still LIKE to stick to my rule not to use any software until it has been out for two years (and that is still supported by bug fixes and security updates.) That, however, has become impossible on most software.

There's also the problem of new releases requiring new dependencies, which then break OTHER software on the system. Maybe this doesn't apply so much to Firefox, but the idea is the same when the extensions don't work with a new release, and those who have developed the extensions are not full-time programmers, able to devote their entire lives to keeping their extensions up-to-date every six weeks for a new release.

Mostly, I use a Qt based browser anymore, which, while not as feature rich, doesn't change all the time.

Come onnnn guys, The 'Libraries' feature in Windows 7 was almost universally hated and it took them 4 years (Windows 8.1) to realise! Don't make the same mistake!

That's another thing I agree on bobba84. That's why I use a QT based browser now, abandoned Chrome, Firefox, and IE, for the most part, unless I'm on someone elses computer, in which case I use an "older" version of FFx portable off a flash drive (yeah I know. some people shudder at that. Too bad) By older I'm talking from last year. This is January. That's not too bad, is it?

Hi All, sorry about the spam. If you decide you no longer want to follow thread on these forums, revisit the thread and in the right column look for

Question Tools > STOP EMAIL UPDATES