digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The 25 Firefox Extensions You Didn’t Know You Needed

dp.onabun.com — Great list of firefox extensions that tend not to make it onto everyone else's top 10 lists. Here are great addons that deserve a bit of limelight

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • aerofan897, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Fantastic list! I found Stylish (css equivalent of greasemonkey), update notifier, and the extensions that allow you to rearrange/delete items in the status bar and right-click menus to be very useful.

    With the Stylish plugin, get the script to clean up Pirate Bay from http://userstyles.org/ - much better!
    • mzkw, on 10/12/2007, -38/+4I can do all this, and a lot more and faster, with Opera. No need to download 7587886687 different files to do this standard crap.
    • InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -36/+2Opera rules.
    • joel2127, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Yes. This is a very cool list.
    • pomegranate, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6yes, and how much bigger does that make the download? and how much more RAM does Opera take to include functions that not everyone wants, that are optional in Firefox?
    • peanutz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I really hate to make a post about FF into a debate about Opera, but Opera's installation file is much smaller than Firefox's in spite of having more features (including a powerful email client) than FF. On my computer Opera takes less RAM for the same number of tabs. After 15 tabs FF is unresponsive, while in Opera I have nearly 30 tabs open all the time. Extensions really slow FF down.
    • vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5@pomegranate: Are you kidding? Opera 8.5 is 3.7 MB, Firefox 1.5 is 4.9 MB. Opera also uses less RAM, especially because Firefox has an ugly memory leak. Please do at least a modicum of research before you mouth off.
    • Ankh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2There's no XSLT support in Opera, compared to Firefox's full XSLT support, which is a big diffierence dealing with the displaying of XML files.
    • arthur, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5It's not a memory leak, it's a "feature!"

      http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html
    • Devz0r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Ankh: Opera 9 supports XSLT. In fact, Opera 9 supports a lot more than Firefox. Ever looked at the Acid 2 test in Opera 9? It even shows this if you have javascript settings just right http://my.opera.com/chuanz/homes/files/acid2.png
    • Ankh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, I checked, it really supports xslt now. It's my bad, I am obsessed with firefox and didnt noticed opera 9 beta is already released.
    • vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@arthur: That is a ridiculous explanation for the memory use of Firefox. When I run Firefox it consumes increasing amounts of memory, depending on the time it has been running. Consumption of over 100 MB RAM is not unusual. How do 8 cached pages explain 100 MB of RAM use? It doesn't. I'm sorry, that just doesn't explain anything!
  • Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3the more extentions you have the more bloated firefox becomes, which is why i chose it in the first place over IE.

    its bad enough that its no where near the 6MB download of the original .4 phoenix
    • mrpackrat42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Firefox 1.5.0.2 is a 4.87MB download, which is nowhere near 6MB, so I suppose that's sort of true.
    • silenceHR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5bloated? no, it isnt.... if i want i can have 100 extensions, but i still wouldnt call FF bloated. why? cause every single one of those 100 is _MY_ personal choice. noone forced me to put them there. it would be bloated if it came with all extensions already in package, but it doesnt, does it?

      geeez...
    • Izzie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm the proud owner of firefox.txt a 0byte text file. Sure it does nothing and is completely useless in its current state, but it is definitely not bloated.
      come on ! look around, feature-wise firefox is ages beyond any modern browser.
  • kraghavk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The link does'nt seem to be working. I got a page telling me that wordpress is unable to contact the database server on localhost.
  • Arch4ngel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1No extension needed at home.

    At work I use Web Developer. Nothing else needed. Believe me. You don't want another bloated software like IE
  • caluml, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2Another MySQL powered website, no doubt.
  • stevenmunro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Google Cache - http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:KBlviywWD_oJ:dp.onabun.com/wp/2006/04-17/25-firefox-extensions/+&hl=en&gl=nz&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
  • yensed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2All the "Top 00 firefox extensions" are getting annoying. Each list lists the same extensions that all the other ones list. Reported as old news.
    • bitemegates, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0not only is it re-posting of old information, but have you looked at that list? most of those extensions are worthless. I used none of them. I do have a few others I use and like in Fire fox, but this list is bad. No digg :(
  • tulpe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0What? They forgot LastTab?
    http://timothyhumphrey.name/firefox/

    never leave home without!
  • IAmAI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I am quite simply amazed by the variety and innovativeness of some of the extensions that are available.
    • Izzie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1most of these are just port to firefox of already existing features in other software.
      *cough* opera *cough*
      a big chunk has been considered non-notable or not worth to be included by firefox dev team.
  • crunk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+625 firefox extensions that don't make it onto most peoples top 10.... ;-)
  • Avili, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2down and it'll probably say

    you need fasterfox
    session saver
    mouse gestures
    greasemonkey
    adblock

    i use only fasterfox and adblock and firefox eats up enough memory as it is. It's a good browser, but it still sucks because of the memory it eats. I can easily set javascript to restricted and disable active x components in internet explorer and at least it won't take up as much resources. I'm running two windows - one is sitting on google's main page (the barren white page with just the search box and one google image logo) and this digg page and its at 118mb of resources (even after clearing the cache and database of page file it keeps). Firefox is somewhat overrated, it was great in its former build - but now its progressively getting worse and they keep selling out to google - "oh yes google, we'll make your search engine default"--> "sure, we'll let you package your toolbar with our software" and in the future it'll probably be bundled in!
    • Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4134mb RAM used with 6 tabs open, 7 extentions installed.

      I have 1GB of RAM, so I'm not too bothered.

      Firefox developers are making money from partnering with Google. If they're earning money to work on Firefox then they don't need a job to work elsewhere, meaning more time spent hacking Firefox and turning it into a better product.

      And now that Google are giving Firefox free advertising on their home page, it's a two-way street!
    • vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Xiol: 134 MB RAM is *a lot*. You probably don't have any other apps that come close to that usage. I have, at the moment, several 'heavy' apps open; Word, Outlook, Ethereal (java), Visual Studio, and none of them uses more than 45 MB. Then there's Firefox @ 80 MB with 4 tabs open. That's not cool.

      And even if you have 1 GB of RAM you _should_ care. It can slow the computer down, especially over time if the RAM gets fragmented. The chances of Firefox crashing also increases over time, probably because of the memory use.
    • Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@vuzman

      It is the largest RAM user by far - I have Outlook, 2 mstsc sessions, jedit and a large amount of background apps running all the time. I never said it wasn't the biggest.

      I'm not too bothered about RAM fragmentation either because I shut my PC down at night when I leave work and Firefox is pretty much open all day. Dont notice much.
    • Izzie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Xiol

      if the google patnership give firefox devs time to improve firefox, why exactly is firefox getting worse over time, now it is even slower than the mozilla suite it originated from.
      http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

      it doesn't bother *you* to have FF eat up a lot of RAM, but that doesn't make firefox an efficient browser resource-wise.
  • PeeOnYou, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Honestly. How many of these "Best list of:" posts do we need to go through in a month? Enough already. This is probably the 50th firefox extension list. It's really getting rather old.
    • TheGentleman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Amen!
    • sanjay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Honestly. How many of these "Enough of these posts" comments do we need to go through in every post? Enough already. This is probably the 50th firefox extension list and each one has atleast one such comment!!!

      Why cant you understand that if its getting dugg, then its useful to some, and if its useful to somebody it might be useful to more.
      if its not useful to you just ignore...
      its not that hard to ignore once you try.

      Wordpress has been diggfu**ed...again!
      will check it out later and see if it has something new...
    • Eldoo77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Honestly! How many of these "Enought of these Enough of these posts" do we need to go though in each post?
  • RpgActioN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Can you need something without knowing about it?
  • unrealed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4the link's broken....
  • numb401, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Digg effect? the link used to say something Wordpress nows its out cold.
    • stevoc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Word Press links get closed almost as soon as they go on digg... lol.. stupid bandwidth limits, they should either improve the download limit or just deissallow linking to digg, as soon as you see a cool digg you cant get on to it
  • bradbeattie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Pfft. They didn't even mention the two that are of utmost importance. Adblock and FiltersetG. SiteAdvisor is nice too, but by no means as necessary as the other two.
    • zadatak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think you missed the point of the article. It's supposed to be the best of some of the more obscure extensions.
  • Paul_in_NC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would probably Digg it, but the site is suffering from the Digg effect I think...I'll check back later and see if it is available then. Thanks for the sub. Paul.
  • heresy_fnord, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Wow! I didn't know I needed those!

    /unhelpful
    • boycy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you actually READ the article instead of just whining about it you'd see that it's not the same Firefox plugins it's actually different. As someone else said, if it's of use to someone it gets dugg!
      I dugg it as it has some decent ones I've not heard of before (and yes I have seen all the other lists).
      So there.

      EDIT: damn, meant to reply to kmartshopper. Sorry!
    • heresy_fnord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haha, I was going to say. I am however just trying to be funny for those that are choosing to mod me down. Sorry!

      I for one like firefox. When I said "unhelpful" I meant my own personal comment was unhelpful, not the article.
  • kmartshopper, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Unlike that stupid chain letter going around promising to lower the price of gasoline by boycotting Exxon -- which will never work, if everyone would STOP DIGGING every article that mentions the same Firefox plugins they wouldn't make it to the front page.

    Christ, I should stop complaining and start writing a program to take the list of plugins for Firefox off the official page and autogenerate a ***** blog with a few lousy Firefox plugins that everyone knows about and perhaps occasionally some ads. Then to make things interesting I could put it on a shared hosting server with a kick ass 200 mhz (but it runs Linux so it has to survive anything, right?) and... profit.

    Go ahead, mark my comment down -- I hope that at least 5 people will see this and agree, that's all I ask for on this Wednesday. I love digg, but I wish people could ***** think for themselves and stop digging articles because other people dugg them.
  • kev2me, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Google Cache:
    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:http://dp.onabun.com/wp/2006/04-17/25-firefox-extensions/
    • superkicky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If you'd read the previous comments you'd have seen that there are already 2 links to the Google caches... ;)
  • utch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I made a mirror: http://utchbe.googlepages.com/
  • digiteyes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i dont know what kind of computer all you complaining FF is a memory hog. On my work computer I have ff with about 11 extensions installed plus themes. W/ 6 tabs open my memory usage is only at 60MB. My machine is a run of the mill compaq that the company leases and only has 512MB of memory.
  • PBoiIceBerg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I really wanted the Search as you type toggler extension. Anyone have link to a direct download? The link on the page takes me to a weird site.
  • popularme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1eh don't need them.
  • frankinuld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Suspended account. We broke it.
    • matx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Must of used all his bandwidth! I didn't do it! wasn't me! it was that guy, over there!
    • CubiX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1diggers got the poor guy suspended :)
  • POPOEVER, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, I think 25 extensions really slug the Firefox, I moved on to Opera just because its speed and low RAM usage, after all, we don't only just browse Internet on our computer, I don't like my job be slowed down by a web browser, that's ridiculous~~~
  • Catharsis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm in contact with my hosting provider and am working to get the page back up ASAP.
  • Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I really hate to make a post about FF into a debate about Opera, but Opera's installation file is much smaller than Firefox's in spite of having more features (including a powerful email client) than FF. On my computer Opera takes less RAM for the same number of tabs"

    Are you using a computer from the stone age?!? ram use I can understand being a issue but firefox install file size?!? There's not that big of a difference from opera file install size and firefox's.
    • Izzie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sir, you just missed the point here.

      If you happen to find yourself with only a 56k internet connection available, and a fresh OS install, having to download 1 more MB is quite a difference. Even with the most recent computer. and I'm not talking about the extra MB from the 15-20 extensions you have to add to get the modern browser features FF is lacking.

      and if you took a minute to think you'd probably have figured out that when a software is downloaded 100,000,000 times, 1 MB turns into 1 terabyte.

      now with those 2 simple examples you should be able to understand why size matters.
  • AdverseE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lesson to all those who wish to post a top whatever list about Firefox: Consult your host's bandwidth limit. Digging can lead to host suicide.
  • Catharsis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok, the site is back up. Installed Digg Defender at the moment, hopefully that will help.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.