| I think it was on this group that there was a discussion a while back | about older versions of Firefox . Seems there was a particular version that | was stable and very functional , but before it got too bloated . I have | alink to the older version library , anyone remember which version was the | "best" ? |
There are stable versions periodically that get supported. Those are designed for companies and Linux builders who want to keep one version for awhile. 24, 31, 38, 45 all have those "esr" versions.
formatting link
It doesn't mean much for most people. It's more important to corproate IT people who like to test any software changes.
I currently use Pale Moon 24 with most things disabled. I then have FF 36 wwith NoScript for times when I need to allow an interactive webpage. Why 36? No real reason. I generally install a new version when necessary for some reason. If it works I avoid anything newer because these days newer is usually worse. One big factor is extensions. Newer extensions won't work with older versions. So you need to either keep copies of the older extensions or update FF to support newer extensions.
Aside from that I don't find any big differences. The Mozilla people keep breaking things, so with each new FF I install I need another 1 or 2 extensions to fix it. So far that's worked for me. I now have FF38 on a life support system of about 8 extensions and some userChrome customization. But I always fear that the next update will be unfixable.
There are also tradeoffs with functionality. Google, especially, has become obnoxious with their constant demanding of newer browser versions. But you can avoid that problem to some extent by spoofing the userAgent. (I'm on XP with FF 38 but I travel as Win7 with FF45 or some such. I update it periodically to look generic.)
It's a rock-and-a-hard-place scenario. Firefox is going downhill. IE was never safe to use. Edge has broken all IE functionality and still has the fatal flaw of being built into the OS. Chrome is spyware. Vivaldi, which many people are talking about, is extremely limited crapware. I can't understand why anyone likes it.
I suspect the big difference in preferences comes down to functionality. FF is still the only browser for people who like to get under the hood or customize. Browsers like Chrome and Vivaldi are a new trend in convenience: Consumer browsers with few controls or settings to fret about. Just lots of big buttons on the home screen to take you to your shopping destination. They repesent the changing face of computers. If you want to use a highly functional computer to do various things then you probably want FF. If you want to shop on a tablet or phone then Chrome may seem better designed. I get the feeling that the Mozilla people may be trying to straddle those two camps, creating a self-driving shopping vehicle but also allowing 3rd-parties to put back the steering wheel for people who want that.