Why People Don’t Upgrade Their Browser – Part IV

Web technology moves quickly, and we at Mozilla do our best to balance our values of keeping users safe and secure with also ensuring that we are giving users the ability to make choices about the software on their computers. We can’t keep up with the cost of providing security updates to older versions forever, though, so we’ll often try to encourage users to migrate to the latest version. A few weeks ago, we made another such offer to our Firefox 3 users, explaining that we were not planning on supporting that release anymore and asking them to upgrade to Firefox 3.6:

In the past, soliciting feedback from users has helped us understand why users were opting to not upgrade, so this time around, people who clicked on the “No thanks” option above were directed to a survey. Over 40,000 people were kind enough to share their thoughts with us.

So what do the results look like this time?

Let’s start by taking a look at responses to the first question:

Over half of the respondents stated that they were simply content with Firefox 3. And compared to what we saw last survey, far fewer users selected “Other reason.” Still, a quarter of users took the time to give an alternative explanation, so exploring these answers can definitely help us gain additional insight. A list of the most common phrases entered into the “Other reason” text field is presented below:

Two things immediately jump out:

  • First, confusion over cost has virtually disappeared — this had been a problem previously.
  • Second, the vast majority of comments are now about a lack of time.

The lack of comments about costs is a pleasant surprise. Acting on feedback from the last survey, we revised the update prompt, highlighting that the upgrade is free in two places. It seems that this simple addition was enough to eliminate most of the confusion.

The update prompt itself may also partly account for the rise in “no time” comments. With prior upgrade initiatives, users saw an advertisement and button similar to what you see below:

Users could then click “Get the new version” to initiate a 30-second update procedure. This time, however, instead of seeing a typical software dialog box, people encountered the update prompt via the Firefox “Whats new” page and were presented with the customary green Firefox download button.  Hitting the button also initiated the update, but via the more involved process of downloading and installing a fresh version of the browser.

Pushing out the update in this way was a one-time situation, and we’ll revert to the usual process and software dialog box in the future. To alleviate this issue further, we should also perhaps add to the prompt some indication that updating Firefox is relatively quick and painless.

Next, lets turn to Question 2. This was a free form text box so we manually read through a random sample of 10% of the responses and parsed them into categories.

Firefox 3.6’s compatibility, both with add-ons and with specific websites/applications, remains a key issue (although user perception might be playing a small role as well). On the other hand, general stability and performance issues are cited considerably less often: crash and speed comments together account for 11% of responses, down from the 25% we saw last survey.

Our two main insights from above are also evident here. Cost comments have essentially disappeared from Question 2 as well, although they previously made up 7% of responses. And again, time concerns have become a real sticking point for users.

The rise of these “no time” responses, coupled with the still considerable “too many updates” category, has triggered suggestions that extend beyond prompt and wording revisions. For example, some propose that updates occur automatically in the background unbeknownst to the user (à la chrome), perhaps with an easy option to downgrade (unlike chrome).

Clearly, we are a long ways from making any major changes to the update process, but we’d love to hear your thoughts on any of this!

51 responses

  1. alanjstr wrote on :

    I know a lot of work has been going into making Firefox’s performance faster, including shutdown and startup. This will help with the “time” perception. Also, you might want to put that a typical upgrade takes 5 minutes. Maybe an obvious option to “download now, install later”

  2. Dan wrote on :

    This is very valuable information, I’m impressed with the response.

    I sympathise with the “not now / no time” responses. If you’ve got something to do, you don’t really want to take time out to update your browser. I think this could be helped:

    (Don’t install updates automatically by default. This will probably cause more problems than it will solve.)

    Search for updates as at present (in the background). If found, *download* the update automatically (in small, non-bandwidth-hogging chunks – as at present if you click “Hide” after choosing to update). Then, when it has been downloaded, notify the user (as at present with the wait-for-idle timer). In the resulting dialogue you will now be able to tell the user that updating will be a quick process starting immediately, or when they restart.

    Some technical changes will be needed to prevent an automatically downloaded update from applying unless the user has agreed to it. Then, clicking Update will simply take as long as setting the new “apply this update on restart” flag.

    There should probably be a 3-way pref for this, defaulting to the behaviour described above with an option for the current behaviour, and an option for “fully automatic minor updates”.


  3. Brian P. wrote on :

    Next time at the end of the survey tell them that they could have updated Firefox in the time they took to take the survey.

    Part of the problem could be the long startup time. That should get better with the ongoing startup work. I’m not sure if after an update you get a warm start up or a cold one though. I’d guess you get a cold one.

    I don’t get the “in the background” part. Isn’t the default to download the update in the background before offering the update? Or is that only for minor updates? If it is then if possible switch to doing the download in the background before offering the update. Also you can’t do the actual update without closing the browser so you can’t do that in the background.

    The update situation is still better than Opera and Adobe Reader. Those updates are done with an installer. Which means I get new shortcuts that I don’t want in my quick launch bar and on my desktop. Thanks for not doing annoying things like that.

  4. Kyle Huey wrote on :

    I’d like to know what “old computer” means. AFAIK no platforms were dropped between 3 and 3.6 and if anything the demand on computer processor/memory has gotten lower from 3 to 3.6 …

  5. Michael Lefevre wrote on :

    I don’t have actual data to back it up (although you can see it’s a frequent issue by doing a Google search for people looking for help), but Chrome’s automatic silent updating seems to generate a lot of complaints, so I don’t think that would be the way to go.

    I guess at least having the file downloaded would save some time, but making any assertions about how long it will take seems risky. Saying something like “an upgrade typically takes less than 5 minutes” means that it’s really going to annoy people if their case doesn’t turn out to be typical.

    Lastly, I guess the “too many updates” may be a general thing as well as a Firefox thing. Between Windows, Adobe Reader, Flash, Java, Quicktime, Skype and other frequently-installed stuff, most users are getting prompted to update something several times a month, and it gets to be a bit of a chore…

  6. SilverWave wrote on :

    Auto-update would be OK for users with no extensions.

    Auto-update would be OK for users with extensions that can ALL be updated.

    As more extensions are Okayed the updates are pushed to more users.

    Ensure that the upgrade can be undone.

    Allow power users to turn Auto-update off.

    Or in the upgrade tell the user that all their extensions can be updated:

    “No worries we have checked and all your extensions will work after a upgrade.”

  7. Kizza wrote on :

    I think the reason everyone said, “no time” was that to get this screen they would have already installed an upgrade. This happened on an old computer running 3 – it downloaded and installed a security patch for version 3 then immediately said I needed to upgrade again.

  8. Kurt (supernova_00) wrote on :

    Users might think that updating requires the system to restart. Maybe stress that that is not needed.

  9. johnjbarton wrote on :

    Offer reluctant users other choices. For example:
    “Download in background and offer to upgrade me later”
    “Install a trial version of Firefox 3.6 but keep Firefox 3.0 for now”

  10. Justin L. wrote on :

    How about giving users the option to update next time they restart Firefox?

  11. Ian M wrote on :

    Provide an option to automatically install security updates (only). Leave it as a non-default option for now, and see what the takeup is. Personally, I’d choose that.

  12. Tiago Sá wrote on :

    I hate Chrome’s update system, mostly because it has a program constantly running in the background against my consent, but also because it’s a lazy solution for this problem. Well, Chrome is a lazy solution all around…

    Please, DO NOT go for mandatory automatic background updates that run without the user’s consent. I’m perfectly ok if you include it as a default option, but please make it always possible for the user to control how often and when his browser upgrades what.

    The way I use it is I have Firefox automatic upgrade turned on, so I know what I’m supposed to upgrade, but my extensions (which are many) are not automatically upgrading: I do that manually, and only for the extensions I want (there are one or two which I don’t upgrade on purpose, like Personas or StrataBuddy).

    I’d think one big problem that some users may have with automatic upgrades, or even with any upgrades at all, is that there will be changes to the software that they may not welcome. Mostly UI stuff. I think it’s important to keep a sense of consistency in the UI, even if it changes. Do NOT do what IE did, changing the buttons all around the place and whatnot. That’s, in my experience, one big reason why some people don’t upgrade.

    I think it’s also very important to emphasize the most important reason for users to upgrade their Firefox, and a reason many seem not to be understanding, and, in my opinion, you don’t seem to be explaining: security. Since Firefox is mostly secure all around, people tend to forget how dangerous the web is. I think I don’t need to explain this. But it’s important that people understand that if they don’t upgrade, THEY WILL HAVE SECURITY ISSUES. Bold. Caps. Underlined and with a big ass font.

    I find that a word that usually works is “virus”, but it may not be a good idea to threaten the user, or even use the word virus where you’re supposed to establish a sense of security. This is just an idea, though. People are scared of viruses, even if their biggest pain in the ass is malware and adware…

    Also, props for not caring about older versions. This is one big failure on microsoft’s part, and I’m very happy that Mozilla doesn’t fall for that trap. Old Firefox users are no Firefox users at all. If they don’t keep up with the web, then they’ve fallen of the wagon. Going back to pick them up at the cost of the rest of the crowd is a very big mistake. Keep showing them update notices, and keep improving the update process, so that those who really want to upgrade (even if they don’t know it yet) CAN, but ultimately we have to respect those who don’t want to upgrade, be it because if their ignorance (“not broken don’t fix it”, “add on incompatibility” and whatnot, that’s stupidity) or because of their informed choice, we have to respect that they want to keep using a specific version of Firefox. It’s just that they just aren’t Firefox users anymore. Because of their choice, not Mozilla’s.

  13. Mircea wrote on :

    I think security updates should be installed automatically a la chrome. I would keep the semi-automatic process for other updates mainly for extensions compatibility reasons.

  14. Scott Rubin wrote on :

    The #1 thing you can do is not necessarily to upgrade automatically in the background, but to eliminate restarting the browser entirely. I should be able to upgrade, downgrade, add extensions, remove extensions, add themes, remove themes, all without ever restarting the browser.

    A lot of the time I don’t upgrade is because I’m busy at that very moment browsing something. I’ll be getting directions on my way out the door, and I don’t want to restart the browser right now. I then perform the update at a later point in time, when I can deal with a restart.

  15. Christopher Jung wrote on :

    @Kyle Huey — you’re right. “Old computer” actually refers more to perceived issues; i.e. people mistakenly believing that their computer is incompatible, or just anticipating a priori that their computer cannot handle the new version.

  16. Firefox Advocate wrote on :

    Want people to upgrade the software? Give them one of three things:

    One – Make the new version faster and tell the user about it. Everyone wants things to go faster.

    Two – Solve a security problem and tell the user about it. The user will upgrade because he doesn’t want a bad thing to happen

    Three – Solve a reliability problem and tell the user about it. For version 3.6.4., the text could be something like “59% of Firefox crashes are caused by plugins, and this new version of Firefox prevents plugins from crashing Firefox. Would you like to upgrade now?” Most people will click “Yes.”

  17. Gabe wrote on :

    The Paint.net project (which gets frequent updates) recently added an option to its update prompt: download and install when I exit.

    I think this is a great solution. It lets the user know that they will get the updated, but not until they are finished working so it does not interrupt them.

  18. rossy wrote on :

    “Old Computer” means that computer runs slow and/or is cantankerous. “Upgrading” is associated with putting a bigger, more memory hogging program on their computer that makes it slower. Thus, people don’t want to upgrade. These users have been pushed by every software asking, demanding, begging to receive updates that usually DO take up more space, memory, and computational power away from a flailing computer. Thus, they’ve come to disbelieve “yet another used car salesman” asking them to update. If you can tell users that the update will _free_ space and _free_ memory and _free_ computational power (truthfully), why, then you’ve got it made.

    Updates: I feel like every time I start up Firefox, there is a new update to (possibly download) and must be applied. In the world of instant gratification we live in today, having to wait extra seconds to download and apply security updates every time I turn around, is a big no-no. Is it possible to asynchronously launch/browse with FF while it applies security updates?

  19. steve wrote on :

    When I open FF I want to browse *now* so I say No to the update. By the time I close FF I have forgotten all about it.
    Perhaps an option to have everything related to the update happen in a different window or have it run in a diff tab would be good. My main issue is that I don’t want to have to wait to research why a client’s BlackBerry is having issues getting mail or whatever while I have to get some stupid screen with bright buttons out of my way.

    How about an option to download and apply update once I CLOSE Firefox, ala Windows applying updates during the Shutdown sequence? The down side to the Windows thing is that it’s regarding the OS so even if I’m in a rush to shut down I don’t want to cancel, but with FF if I’m in a rush it’s no big deal to me to cancel it, so no down side there.

  20. Merk wrote on :

    Bet this would help . . . give the user three choices.

    1 – Download and install the free upgrade

    2 – Download the free upgrade now, but install it later, the next time I restart Firefox (this will occur in the background and will not interrupt your current browsing session)

    3 – No thanks.

  21. Ben McCann wrote on :

    Go the Chrome route! Most people don’t want to have to think about things like this and will do whatever is easiest.

  22. cgt wrote on :

    Please, do NOT add automatic updating. Maybe you could make an option to turn it on (that is off by default), but seriously, do NOT automatic updating. It is very annoying when software does things automaticly that you have have not told it to do.

  23. Anon wrote on :

    The people who are against the silent & automatic update like Google Chrome has are a very vocal and very small minority.

    Do it, with the “if all extensions are compatible” caveat suggested above.

    I’ve heard nobody complain about Chrome’s updates, but a HUGE number of people say they hate firefox because they have to update it every single time they run it (between extensions and actual firefox updates).

  24. Marco wrote on :

    I have always upgraded Firefox no matter what, even when extensions aren’t compatible. Having extensions working matters more to some than others, unfortunately extension authors don’t always have the time available to get it updated right that second like we want them to 🙂

    I am glad the older versions are being eliminated, makes it easier to move onto new standards and I hope this continues as the trend.

  25. jeffrey wrote on :

    I think the Mozilla needs to make a browser where by default all the upgrades are for the backend only. That is not UI changes. If you want the changes you have to go to settings and except them. Or download the Firefox Installer.

    This will satisfy all the “Happy with FFx3” people because most of them just don’t want to get used to a new UI. User would stay up to date and secure and wouldn’t be afraid of autoupdate.

    For this to work the UI would need to be separate from the backend. That means no Gecko. This is why this would be a experiment at first (like firefox once was).

  26. BiK wrote on :

    Different kinds of users prefer different approaches.
    IMHO Computer savvy users require more control over what’s going on under the hood and behind the screens. While they’ll appreciate non-hassle in the background updating, I would assume it’s enough that one update goes wrong (Flash?) to make them mistrust the process enough and put the reigns back in their hands.
    Your average iPhone user, however, just wants the thing to work out of the box without tinkering and actually knowing that much about your about:config, compatibility checks, add-ons clashing, bars disappearing, acid3, HTML5 etc.
    While I’m more of the 1st, the other 3 people in my home are definitely the 2nd, as I assume are most computer users are these days.
    I have to say that I would go with the Chrome approach for the masses.

  27. steve wrote on :

    The isn’t broken why fix it =[ The reason we still have so many old copies of ie out there

  28. Scott Klement wrote on :

    Speaking for myself… I often am in the middle of an important task that I can’t interrupt. I have someone waiting for me to look something up or get something done. And right in the middle of this task, the silly thing interrupts me and asks me to update.

    I’m happy to update. But I would rather not be interrupted — I just want to get my task done. I’ll update later, when I’m not in the middle of a time-sensitive task.

    IMHO, this is a flaw in the way this survey was conducted. Your research should be looking into why a user NEVER updates, not why they didn’t take the update option at the moment you presented it to them. So when they said no, you got a lot of “Later”, and “No Time”, etc.

    Just my opinion.

  29. Dan wrote on :

    On my computer, the biggest reason is incompatibility with add-ons. Not sure how the compatibility issue works (who determines this? Mozilla? author? both? neither?)

    The extensions, excuse me, now they’re called ADD-ONs (can we please not change again to plugins, widgets, etc…. a google search already is fragmented between add-on / addon / extension / etc…) triple the pleasure & efficiency of my browsing & work. If I had to give up even one of them, it’d be a step backwards. A very serious security update might get me to update anyway, but generally not.

    On my sister’s computer, the issue is totally different. (Vista laptop). She cannot upgrade from within FF, some error comes up, I can’t recall what it is. So she always has to manually download, shut down FF, run the installer, then restart. This is enough of a barrier to stop her. Googling the error code gives some spotty answers, but no fixes. Oh well, it’s great & it’s free & there’s a workaround, so no complaining here.

  30. Detrus wrote on :

    You need to understand the typical user flow. A person does not open a browser to think about how awesome Firefox is and how dangerous the web is. They open it to check the weather, watch something or find something.

    It is never, ever, ever ok to interrupt this. It doesn’t matter if the update takes 3 seconds or 0.2 seconds, it must not show any buttons, not present any interruptions. The user must go on browsing, they don’t need to know what the word update means just like they don’t know what a CPU is.

    Chrome’s automatic updates are a good model. It doesn’t bother users with the complexities of programming, updating, etc..

    Extension compatibility must also be handled seamlessly. Rework the APIs so that breaking compatibility is less likely. Notify extension developers when their product breaks, so they can update it, and then once they do, you can push both browser and extension updates to the user. You’ll also have to track which extensions actually get used, not just ones that are installed, don’t bother people with updates to extensions they rarely use.

    If an extension that’s frequently used doesn’t get updated by its developer for months, then you can bother the user about it.

    For large updates that require a reboot, the notification for those should happen two or three minutes into the browsing session, preferably during low user activity like reading, not writing.

    This update problem is very important. New versions must be distributed within weeks, so that site/app developers can take advantage of new features. It’s tied to the progress of the web as much as developing the browsers themselves. It should be a standard.

  31. Dhruv Mittal wrote on :

    I typically refuse to upgrade software, particularly web browsers, until there is support for all the add-ons, programs, or features that I use.As such, I switched to Windows 7 as soon as it became available, and install updates to programs like itunes as soon as possible, but I am waiting to see what Fedora 13 brings before I switch from F11. For Firefox, this means that I update when the add-ons I like have compatible versions, or if the add-on can work well without the compatibility check.

  32. jc wrote on :

    I’ve held back from 3.6 for one reason, the theming engine. It seems to break the way my entire browser feels. On my computer with a larger scrren that I run it at a higher dpi, 3.6 seems to ignore the dpi setting on the computer, while 3.5.9 displays fine. All the other ‘minor’ changes just annoy me. And yes, not all my extenstions work.

  33. Mia Junk wrote on :

    Being a technical professional and living on the edge, I typically upgrade all my OS’s and applications for extra functionality, bug fixes and security fixes.

    However despite wanting to upgrade FireFox to 3.6.3, I will NOT upgrade from 3.5.8 yet because doing so unnecessarily disables many of working my add-ons and extensions even though compatibility checking is turned off in my existing configuration.

    FireFox 3.5.8, as currently configured on my system with these 110 or so add-ons works perfectly and I should be able to upgrade with them in tact. It is the applications themselves which makes FireFox so functional so it is important that usability of them is preserved when upgrading.

    I find this mindset similar to when Intel introduced 64 bit processors but ignored user requirements and did not provide backward compatibility for 32 bit applications on 64 bit Itanium processors. They learned their lesson the hard way and eventually introduced x64 processors with 32 bit application support that then help recapture their lost market share.

    It’s not just about the browser, it’s as much about the functionality and applications (add-ons and extensions) that can be used within the browser that give FireFox it’s die hard following. Whilst competing browsers have a lot of catching up to do, this lack of backward compatibility will force some users to not upgrade to the latest FF versions and others to seek new browser alternatives to ease their frustration.

  34. Firefox Advocate wrote on :

    How about popping up something when the user EXITS the browser? At that point, people are not in a rush. Maybe they are about to walk away from their computer.

  35. Raspy wrote on :

    It is quite simple. Make it possible to have auto upgrade. But let the user be able to decide whether he wants to or not to change it. Offer that choice first when he is installing Firefox and have ti always changeable in the browser options.

    Make it that the default setting is set to not auto-upgrading. And most of your problems are solved.

    People who didn’t want to upgrade their browsers for whatever reasons still won’t be forced having it updated against their will and the users ho wouldn’t mind getting the updates but don’t have the time won’t even have to think about it.

    Also maybe let there be an option if they just want to have security version updates or to have auto update to a new major version.

  36. Color Management wrote on :

    There is no real color management in new FF versions. I keep on using last correct functioning 3.0.19 version.

  37. Lucas wrote on :

    On my work I can not upgrade because of IEtab not available for 3.6. I am really dependent on that, for a few business applications.

  38. dan wrote on :

    Best think would be, that Firefox update(or upgrade?) itself when stability and security fixes are there and only asks when new thinks get added or major steps included, like 3.x to 3.5 or 3.5 to 3.6 is there

  39. Alan wrote on :

    I think that to deal with the “Addons/Extensions compatibility” issue, when the update dialog pops up it should check to make sure that all addons will work in the updated version (like when you first run the update) and state it to the user “All your addons are compatible!”
    If an addon isn’t compatible say what add on it is and give an option to upgrade anyway or stay with current version. Some users mightn’t care or forgot it was still installed and not use it any more and upgrade anyway.
    If an incompatible addon is found, FF could check every so often, maybe once a week, if an update to the addon is released that makes it compatible and then launch the update dialog box again saying that “All Addons are now compatible!”

  40. another_sam wrote on :

    I think auto-upgrade (eg 3.5 to 3.6) enabled by default is needed to keep 1 billion users safe (the it-unaware ones).

    Equally I think there must be an option to allow users to disable auto-upgrades.

    I simply would add an option to enable/disable auto-upgrades in Preferences > Advanced > Update panel. Enabled by default.

    Automatic security and stability updates (eg 3.6.2 to 3.6.3) should be only preventable from about:config.

  41. another_sam wrote on :

    I forgot to explicit: auto-upgrade should act when a product reaches the end-of-life stage. So currently this should have effect for 3.0.x, not for 3.5.

  42. J. Couprie wrote on :

    The automatic update program violate a security rule : Never use an administrator account when you you can surf with a limited user account.
    With a limited user the malware cannot install except if it use a vulnerability to increase its privilege to obtain administrator right. This is said to divide by 4 to 5 the risk. The drawback of the limited user is that it cannot install automatically Firefox or Thunderbird directly.
    So I NEVER use the automatic update program and I download the complete version with my limited account to a known place, go offline and install it with an administrator account. I know that this fool your statistics but it is your fault : development should be more security oriented.
    When do you plan to offer a 2 steps procedure with download in limited mode in a known place then after disconnection from the net use of a administrator account ? This may be more difficult to implement that the present bad solution… I think that with Vista or 7, a limited account can run a program with administrator right by giving administrator password but I am not sure that it is possible with XP.

  43. Ale wrote on :

    A lot of people can’t upgrade the browser because they have not the admin privileges on that computer.

    Why not a chekbox in the firefox installation procedure:

    “Install updates and patches automatically: Yes, never, only for patches, etc…”

    the same way that windows does, without the need to enter the admin password?

  44. Alex wrote on :

    What would be fantastic for small business would be to have the user run Firefox with limited rights (better security) because it would be run from a limited user account set up by their IT Administrator, but when the Administrator install the program the first time, a component to update Firefox with administrative rights would install and keep the software automatically patched if we want. I suggest we are able to tune it. Personally, I would automatically install all security patches to my users so I don’t loose time over trivial updates that are mandatory for Internet security, but leaves the big upgrades off so I can choose when to install them. Also, I would appreciate a way to quickly install Firefox with the settings I choose to anybody without manually changing the settings after installation.

  45. Hunnter wrote on :

    Honestly? Because upgrades for most software usually means useless additional features that end up bogging the software down needlessly.

    Whatever happened to snap-ins? You know, the thing where you never loaded some of the functionality in to a program unless it was requested?
    Plugins and Extensions / add-ons follow this trend.
    But developers feel the need to add even more functionality in to their applications, some that people might not even want.

    Incompatibility with previous versions shouldn’t ever happen unless a seriously huge change is done. (serious being rendering engine changes huge)
    Sadly, in Firefox, there has been so many incompatibility issues due to things changing so much.
    There needs to be a more solid, standardized system where things absolutely cannot break because they haven’t been upgraded since version 1.
    APIs shouldn’t need to be changed, backwards compatibility should be built in to them from day 1. I’m sure we remember DLL Hell. (although that was more-so due to bad documentation)
    A lot of good add-ons have been lost due to incompatibility in so many applications, even in things like Chrome and Firefox.

    And the worst culprit of them all is the inability to DOWNgrade if you hated the upgrade.
    I can’t count how many times i have hated an upgrade because it changed for the sake of change, usually just to add some crappy shiny buttons and menus in most cases.
    Program upgrades should keep a backup of core settings, or even ask you if it should back it up in case you need to downgrade for whatever reasons.
    In the case of browsers, your profile gets upgraded to a new system and it is essentially impossible to go back.

  46. Marvin wrote on :

    Every time I turn on my computer lately I am asked Do you want firefox to make changes to your computer.? I have a new computer that works fine. I don’t want anyone making changes to my computer. As often as I am receiving these messages,How do I know that someone isn’t trying
    to hack my computer.These updates are coming entirely too fast. I don’t know whether to trust
    this stuff or not so I feel more secure leaving things just like they are. Why don’t we have an option to turn off these messages instead of just being given a choice of someone making changes to my computer or not?
    thank you

  47. Don wrote on :

    Here’s my reason for not upgrading to 3.5: that’s where Firefox jumped the shark a bit. Too much bloat, too many resources used. And the 4.0 betas have too many glitches and a crap GUI. I’ll stick with 3.0.19 until I absolutely cant’ use it anymore.

  48. jojo wrote on :

    damn FF, so many addons dont work after the latest FF upgrades (which avg about one a week!!!!!) by the time add on app developers get the app running for a version, FF has been upgraged twice..

  49. Ed wrote on :

    Discussions are currently ongoing regarding the next iteration of the “more scary” version of the upgrade billboard message. Chris, don’t know if you knew/wanted to chime to to help guide things based on the findings above:


  50. pheldespat wrote on :

    Since there are so many “no time right now” answers, I’d suggest removing the “Never” button in the update prompt. Either that or make it so if the user clicks “Never” a confirmation dialog with a stern/scary warning appears.

More comments:1 2