Talk:Firefox 3.6

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance). Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .MozillaWikipedia:WikiProject MozillaTemplate:WikiProject MozillaMozilla articles

At this writing, two EDIT buttons within the page have been squeezed down to about the 7th line of the "Minor releases" section. The leftmost EDIT button is for the "Minor releases" section, and the rightmost is for the "Development" section, the previous section. I have forgotten how to re-locate the second and/or third appearing templates [Firefox TOC] and [Firefox usage share] so the EDIT buttons can land where they belong. Can someone assist? --RayBirks (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough content here to warrant a separate article? Propose that it merge with

The current screenshot on the page depicts Firefox running on Linux. No offense to Linux or Mac users, but most people use Windows, so a Windows screenshot would be preferable to the current one.-Zyrath (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we can see a very slightly different window? I dont care which version is used in any article, but to change a pre-existing picture for this reason. No thankyou. Else we'd have a wikipedia almost full of windows screenshots. YAY! Nbound (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on

I'm wondering if something is missing from this statement, however. I run Firefox 3.6, which regularly displays a pop-up message inviting me to upgrade to the latest version. However, today the message was different: it referred to the fact that 3.6 support is being discontinued, and then stated, "You will be prompted once more before being automatically updated." This appears to mean that within a few days, all Firefox 3.6 users will be forcibly updated to Firefox 11, and will not have the ability to say no. If this is correct, it definitely should be stated in this article! I have never before heard of a forcible update of a product like this, so it's certainly encyclopedic. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updates disabled COMPLETELY, and today, firefox updated without asking me. It just closed while playing a youtube video, and restarted, stating: "Firefox has updated". Now you have heard of other cases of forced updates. Firefox developers are scum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.65.95 (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

reliable sources, then you are most welcome to suggest it, but if you just want to complain about the browser and call people scum, then this isn't the place to do so. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I HIGHLY doubt that like 75% of all people use Firefox 35. I don't know anyone who uses updated firefox. Everyone i know, disabled updates, because they just destroy your browser faster than any virus could. Those percentages are what firefox WISHES for. In reality, people tend to disable updates and stick to old versions. Is there even a single person in the world, that needs OR likes the new versions? What advantages do they give? None. They do nothing but implement things for themself, so they can implement new implementations easier in the future, while screwing up everything else in the process... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.65.95 (talk)

@

reliable sources think about Firefox. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified one external link on Firefox 3.6. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804172858/http://www.rietta.com/firefox/Tutorial/backend.html to http://www.rietta.com/firefox/Tutorial/backend.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Firefox 3.6. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714122932/https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6.15/releasenotes/ to https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6.15/releasenotes/

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]