Serious bug in Findbar Tweak since 1.4.1

This addon has a serious bug since 1.4.1 version (this means that 1.4.18 is also affected). If I have many tabs opened, and then I start typing in the findbar, the Firefox freezes for several seconds. This is really annoying.

Start your PC and when the Windows has been loaded, start Firefox with at least 100-200 tabs. Now open the findbar and start typing. You will hear high HDD usage and Firefox will freeze for a few seconds. This bug have never happened with Findbar Tweak 1.3.4 or older versions. So there is something wrong in 1.4.1 and newer versions.

Tested with Firefox 24.5.0; the addon versions tested: 1.4.18.; 1.4.1 and 1.3.4

The bug occurs only in cold start (first startup). To test it again, you'll have to restart your computer.

My thinking: this addon is probably loading something to the RAM at the cold start (first startup/use). And if you use it later, it won't freeze the browser, because the things have already been loaded. But as soon as you restart your PC, the RAM will be cleared, so the bug is going to happen again at the next use. Hovewer this bug never occured in 1.3.4 and older versions.

This bug is very annoying, please fix it! And please do NOT abandon older Firefox versions like Firefox 17 and 24!

Unfortunately I have to drop support for firefox 28 and below. There are just too many changes between firefox versions to keep the add-on working on all of them, so I will only be able to support 29 onwards (for now, I may even only support 32 and up, but that's still a future decision). I'm sorry to disappoint you.

If you're willing to upgrade your firefox and install the latest beta version of FBT available on its homepage in the Development Channel, then please re-open this issue if that bug still happens. Otherwise I'm afraid there's really nothing I can do about this.

I bet it would be a small fix that you could do easily. Please just make at least only this fix for older Firefox versions. With a small, 1.4.19 update. And then you can forget these versions...

I'm not sure it would be such a small fix, because FBT actually doesn't load anything like that to RAM or anything. Whatever it does on a cold start, it does the same on restarting the browser. So I would have to do a lot of digging around to find out what is causing this.

And I'm sure this would be a laborious process, and you would be involved as I would almost bet this is a conflict with another add-on you may have (otherwise a lot more people would be complaining, including myself).

Plus, I don't even have the code for 1.4.18 anymore in my hard drive. I'm already rewriting a lot of the add-on code to improve performance, but these rewrites need the latest versions of firefox I'm afraid.

Also, I receive notifications over here even from closed issues. I did receive your e-mail afterwards, but it's not like I'm on the computer 24/7. So, you know, patience and all that. :)

Then what causes the HDD usage and freeze for a few seconds? It happens only on cold start. If you restart Firefox only, it won't reload the browser, because it's already in the RAM. (This is why the cold start term exists.)

The bug was tested on 3 different computers (XP, Vista and Win 7).

Note that many tabs, about at least 100 must be opened, and you can notice the bug. (And the more tabs opened, the freeze time increases.)

No, there is not confilct with other addons. It happens every first use after boot. And when I was testing it, I had only this addon installed.

The source code is on the addons.mozilla.org, under the "view older versions" link (or something like that).

And about notifications. I sent my reply in a few minutes after your reply.

And about notifications. I sent my reply in a few minutes after your reply.

I meant that github lets me know that you commented here, so you don't need to confirm by e-mail.

And yes I know the code is on AMO, but I would still need to re-learn what was written in it, as I already only "know" the current work-in-progress version that I have locally. This is a big effort (and also very time-consuming) which I just don't think is worth it.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you really won't convince me to do this. If you do experience this bug with the latest beta in firefox 29 then I will fix it then.

I wanted to tell you this bug a half year ago. However, I forget to tell you.

But when I saw that the new beta version of your plugin supports only Firefox 29 and later, it REALLY scared me. I knew that there is no chance for this bug to be fixed for Firefox 17 anymore... :-(

I can blame myself too, because if I would sent you this bug a half year ago, you may would fix it for the good Firefox versions. (Or, in other case, you would have planned it to fix it, but the fix would be done only for Firefox 29 and later...) Now I don't know what could I do.

If I may ask, what's your reason for not updating firefox?

Maybe with a text comparer (Notepad ++ has this feature with a plugin) you can compare the code of 1.3.4 and 1.4.1. And if you find the part that is about startup/loading, you may will notice what is probably the bug.

(But I can confirm that the latest stable release, the 1.4.18 is also has this bug.)

I could use github for that, it still wouldn't help without a lot of digging, as if it was something obvious I would have seen it already.

And technically that's not the latest stable release, the beta is, as 1.4.18 isn't 100% compatible with Firefox 29.

Why I don't want to use Firefox 29 and later is because of the changes from Mozilla. The Australis UI is terrible, unusalbe and NOT user friendly. Moreover, it has several not restorable changes too. And several addons does not compatible with it.

There was an addon, called "Luddite UI" which was the best addon to restore Firefox 3.6 features.

The problems with "Classic Theme Restorer" is that it doesn't restore the Firefox 3.6 features (only Firefox 4-28), so it's useless.

Unfortunately the Luddite UI is abandoned forever by it's author. The author gave up the fight with Mozilla and switched to SeaMonkey.

The beta version is shown as "Experimental".

But if you consider to take over and continue the development of Luddite UI, I will be happy to upgrade. :) https://addons.mozilla.org/hu/firefox/addon/luddite-ui/

(SeaMonkey is also technically Mozilla btw ;) )

Well yeah, if you attach yourself to older software, it's likely that things will start breaking in the future. Case in point, a lot of changes were made to the find bar between firefox 24 and 25, so it's more than possible that if you updated to the latest version, you wouldn't experience this bug anymore. No piece of software lasts forever.

And the ongoing software you should always keep updated precisely for this reason (although of course that's your choice).

I find the new UI much more intuitive, fast, streamlined and prettier (the last one is my personal opinion of course). It's also worth it to push developers of old add-ons to update to this new version, it's much easier to work with actually, developers just need to re-learn a few things, but once they do, the add-ons will be even easier to maintain.

The problem is that to keep things compatible with old versions requires a lot of extra code. I dropped over 700 lines of code and simplified a lot more when I dropped compatibility for older versions in FBT (bb59c4eff45232785887b801abf1e77453fdb867 : near the top: "Showing 53 changed files with 1,073 additions and 1,751 deletions. ").

The beta version is shown as "Experimental".

It's true, I'm still working on it, and it still has a few problems and will probably have more as I add the many new features I'm planning, which is why I haven't released it yet, as I'd like to test it further still. But (regarding Firefox 29 and above) it's much more compatible.

But if you consider to take over and continue the development of Luddite UI, I will be happy to upgrade.

I'm sorry, but that's not happening for the same reason I'm not keeping compatibility with older versions of firefox in FBT. Lots of different modes = maintenance hell; I would never create/maintain an add-on of this kind. My advice: keep an open mind and try the new firefox UI for a few days, take your time customizing it and looking for add-ons to replace the functionality you've been losing if you really need it. It's worth it. These kind of things will keep happening, whether you choose to remain, update or change browsers altogether, you just have to decide which choice is more worth it. ;)

[quote]"Well yeah, if you attach yourself to older software,"[/quote]

No. I attach myself to the best, most usable software.

"it's likely that things will start breaking in the future."

The Mozilla developers should learn that if something is not broken, don't fix it.

"No piece of software lasts forever."

It's not hardware. The software does not "rust".

"And the ongoing software you should always keep updated precisely for this reason"

For what reason? The problem is that Firefox is getting much worse and worse with each new version. The developers at Mozilla always remove features, add new bugs (yes bugs) /problems to Firefox. This is why I don't update. (Except if someone make an addon to restore the UI changes.)

"I find the new UI much more intuitive, fast, streamlined and prettier"

This new UI is much worse in every way. This is the worst UI ever in the history of Firefox. It is much less customizable (despite they lie that it is more customizable) and user hostile. And many people agree with me. (If you don't believe me, look at the Classic Theme Restorer. It keep getting more and more popular.)

The Firefox developers should have to fix the memory leak and change Firefox to multithreaded software. If they did this instead of the crap new UI, I would be happy to update. But they alwas do what they should not (instead of what they should)...

"The problem is that to keep things compatible with old versions requires a lot of extra code."

Ok, I accept it. I understand that you alone can't support all versions forever. (Remember that this problem is caused by Mozilla developers and their stupid Rapid release system.) But the only thing that I ask from you is to fix only at least this one bug for older Firefox versions. This would be the last update / support for older versions. After you fixed it, you can forget about older versions forever... (This is why I would be happy even with just only this one fix.)

" I'm sorry, but that's not happening for the same reason I'm not keeping compatibility with older versions of firefox in FBT. "

No. I'm talking about that you don't need to make compatible Luddite UI with older Firefox versions because it is already compatible with them. I'm talking about that if Luddite UI was compatible with new Firefox, I would use the new Firefox version gladly.

"My advice: keep an open mind and try the new firefox UI for a few days, take your time customizing it and looking for add-ons to replace the functionality you've been losing if you really need it. It's worth it."

I'm already open mind. I've already tried out the new Australis Firefox. But if something is totally unusable, irritating and user hostile, it is unacceptable. It's ridiculous and shame that the user have to waste a LOT of hours / days to find hundreds of addons that fix the problems with the new Firefox version. But the addons can restore / fix only a part of the problems, not everything. Therefore the user have to learn programming just to restore a small feature. Moreover, basic features have been changed / ruined, not only the UI. And what happens if the addons authors abandon their addons (like Luddite UI)? And again, it's just a waste of time to fix something that should have never been changed by Firefox developers.

Today all the browsers are the SAME when we're talking about UI. Uh, wait, there are only TWO (2) browsers to choose from. The Chrome and Firefox. Safari is now only for MAC. Opera is died a while ago (now it is just a new skin for Chrome). Firefox developers copied everything bad from Chrome (UI, and everything why people choose Firefox over Chrome), but they did not copy anything good like multi process (however multithread causes less memory usage so it would be better than multiprocess).

Huh... it is a long comment.

No. I attach myself to the best, most usable software.

That's debatable of course, what's useful to you may not be to me. But something that I've noticed in my few years developing add-ons is that easily 95% of the people making this claim are mistaking "useful" with "used to". I.e., just because you're used to something does not make it more useful than something else.

I'm only making an observation based on my own conclusions, if this applies to you or not only you can decide, but judging from your words I really don't believe I'm too far off. Take Luddite UI as an example. From its screenshots, one third of the browser window is just for toolbars, and a bunch of them, very old-fashioned. Sure, if you're used to them then it won't really make a difference in the browser usability, but take any new user and see if they'd choose that bulky old-fashioned UI over the new Australis UI; most of them wouldn't. That's what intuitive and streamlined means. The fact that you prefer an old UI and are used to it doesn't invalidate the new UI usefulness, or that Mozilla has been doing its best to keep its users interests first.

I stand by my advice, with one addendum, give it a try for long enough to get used to it.

The Mozilla developers should learn that if something is not broken, don't fix it. It's not hardware. The software does not "rust".

You're obviously not a software developer, software does "rust". ;) Things don't change only because they're broken, they change for a myriad of reasons, but in short they change because they have to change. Case in point, I'm rewriting FBT almost completely, not because it's broken (1.4.18 works almost perfectly in Firefox 28), but because it needs to evolve: add new features, make it more accessible, improve performance, improve the looks, etc...

I've been following Australis development closely for about a year now (and this particular project has been under development about since Firefox 4 by the way, this is not a "recent" change!). I've also been following FIrefox development in general for a bit longer. I can tell you with conviction that none of their decisions were as half-assed as you think they were. There were debates, studies, tests and ultimately final implementations with the sole goal to improve the browser.

The developers at Mozilla always remove features, add new bugs (yes bugs) /problems to Firefox.

Adding new things, or even changing old things, always introduces bugs. On a project as big as this, of course there'll be bugs. Hence the rapid release cycle (which you also seem to dislike with no foundation for doing so I assure you), so that all these new bugs can be dealt with quickly and ensure the user always has the latest security and performance fixes.

It is much less customizable (despite they lie that it is more customizable) and user hostile.

It actually is much more customizable. Except that users (and add-on developers!) need to re-do their customizations, and sometimes this admittedly is not as simple as checking a box or clicking a button. Of course that, if the add-on developers don't want to do this, it's firefox that will look bad for not supporting these add-ons, but what can they do? Hold the evolution of their browser indefinitely so that a few add-ons keep working?

The Firefox developers should have to fix the memory leak and change Firefox to multithreaded software. If they did this instead of the crap new UI, I would be happy to update.

Now here's another one that really irritates me, and please note that you didn't make a question, or pose a concern you have, but rather made a declaration as if it was a fact.

When they do release a multi-process firefox, many more add-ons will break than they did now with Australis, this is a promise as I know what changes this implies. And you (and everyone else claiming for this change) will just come out and say once again "Why do they insist on changing what's not broken? I want my add-ons back." and many add-on "developers" will once again "give up" because "Firefox keeps changing and doesn't think about me and I created an add-on and I want it to work automatically forever and ever."

Dude this is hypocrisy at its greatest, and this statement really irritates me. I've seen this happen countless times already in bugzilla and other mozilla-related places, and I said nothing because that's not my place. But I will not accept these statements in my add-on's forums because when they're made without any sort of research into what's actually happening behind the developer curtains, they are just incredibly disrespectful towards mozilla and makes add-on developers, and I mean actual developers as in the ones that make an effort of keeping their code updated, seem like maggots following the orders of the "great dictators at Mozilla"...

Firefox code changes. They do their best to keep current add-ons working, I've seen countless bugs in bugzilla about ways to keep current add-ons working in Australis, (I've followed many of them and they were not easy!), as well many more similar bugs for doing the same in multi-process firefox. But some changes are still necessary, and so sometimes adapting must also be done on the add-ons side.

I do my best to keep my add-ons updated. I realize that my add-ons are only a small part of firefox, and I don't pretend that only my add-ons make firefox useful and without them you might as well change browsers. I evolve, I change the code not because it's broken, but because it needs to be changed. I realize that firefox itself must do the same on an even larger scale sometimes, and I need to adapt for firefox and not the other way around.

Most of all, I don't appreciate you claiming that I'm a sucker for going along with all mozilla decisions, or that they're bad decisions just because a few developers throw a tantrum and stop updating their add-ons "because firefox changed something". Firefox changes to improve, always. If the add-ons don't change together with firefox they won't improve together with it either. When I have a problem with something in Firefox I don't expect it to guess and serve my every whim, I communicate with mozilla, and guess what, they listen and respond and most often I get what I needed from them.

Remember that this problem is caused by Mozilla developers and their stupid Rapid release system.

I won't even get into this one. Just wanted to say that once again this is very disrespectful to the work done in getting new versions quickly and as bug-free as possible.

But the only thing that I ask from you is to fix only at least this one bug for older Firefox versions. This would be the last update / support for older versions. After you fixed it, you can forget about older versions forever... (This is why I would be happy even with just only this one fix.)

No. Like I said, this is probably not an issue any more starting with Firefox 25. And I will ensure this doesn't happen in Firefox 29 (which I'm pretty sure it already doesn't).

No. I'm talking about that you don't need to make compatible Luddite UI with older Firefox versions because it is already compatible with them. I'm talking about that if Luddite UI was compatible with new Firefox, I would use the new Firefox version gladly.

You didn't understand me on that one. From what I read, Luddite UI introduces many different types of UIs for old firefox versions. Each one looks differently, and probably is applied differently. To test them all, implement them all, and most of all maintain them all is a hell of a work. I (or really anyone who works for free) just don't have the time for that.

I'm willing to bet that the reason that its developer quit was not because "firefox changed", but rather because "there are far too many versions of firefox to maintain so many different layouts on them all correctly".

Firefox developers copied everything bad from Chrome

They copy from Chrome what is worth copying from Chrome, likewise for IE, Opera, Safari, etc. (I know of specific examples from all of these. Who doesn't want an all-in-one browser with all the most useful features of all these browsers anyway?)

Also, Australis is not copied from chrome at all (not to mention that Australis began development before Chrome looked like... well, Chrome). I'm looking at it right now, I still don't understand why people make this claim... Chrome looks like IE only a little more edgy and beige. Firefox is much more spacious, feels smoother and is much more easily customizable and readily accessible. The new menu panel is a beauty and much more easily used and understood by both the novice and experienced user. Ditto for the new customization mode.

Huh... it is a long comment.

So is mine. And mine was a bit harsh too. But I really don't appreciate many of the things you said. Consider this, you buy a car, and you treat it well. Ten years later it dies for some reason, and fixing it is either impossible or just too expensive to consider. So you go to the manufacturer and demand the same model from that same year, because you claim it's more useful or better looking or whatever. But that car hasn't been produced in years already, they don't have any stored. But you want it from the manufacturer directly, so they can assure you of its quality.

What would they do, just build it again (where they don't even have the facilities for it!)? Dismantle a new model and hammer it so that it looks like the model you like? Or try to convince you to buy the new model, and when you refused and insisted on the old model they would just turn their backs on you because that's just not gonna happen, not because they're mean but just because it's not possible?

In the end, you'll end up going to maybe a mechanic that happens to have that model you want. And you repeat the process for the next 30 years, every ten years you need a new one. What happens when every mechanic realized that that old model just isn't worth it to have and work on and have the skills and equipment for because it doesn't provide as much money for his business as the new models do? Do you buy a llama and put a bumper sticker on it saying "The new Chrysler sucks"?

"just because you're used to something does not make it more useful than something else."

You're wrong. It is nothing to do what I'm used to. It's fact that there were many useful features that the developers have removed.

Luddite UI give back the quick and easy access of basic features, and restores the removed features. It is just 4 rows to get access to basic features. You might have a small screen if it is a problem for you. It is nothing to do what I'm used to. I'm talking about facts. The new crap minimalist UI is unusable. It is fool-proof because the user can't do anything. You're wrong. A lot of users would choose the browser that have useful features. The fact that you prefer a new UI and are used to it doesn't invalidate the old UI usefulness. Mozilla just pushes it's users to Chrome. If they copy chrome and both borwsers look the same and both as minimalist, but Chrome is faster, what would keep users to Firefox? Nothing.

"I stand by my advice, with one addendum, give it a try for long enough to get used to it."

I stand by my advice, with one addendum. If something is unusable and irritating, it's not possible to use to it.

"You're obviously not a software developer, software does "rust"."

I see that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about that if something is already perfect, the developers should not change and ruin it.

"Things don't change only because they're broken, they change for a myriad of reasons, but in short they change because they have to change."

Your sentence have no sense. Some things can change because in the capitalism, the developers want to sell a new product. No matter if it have any sense or not. But it's a free software. If someone is got bored with the old UI, he can choose any theme he want. But don't shove down on people's throat the radical changes. The mindless developers think that they know better what people "want". The biggest problem is that they don't give any option.

"Case in point, I'm rewriting FBT almost completely, not because it's broken (1.4.18 works almost perfectly in Firefox 28), but because it needs to evolve: add new features, make it more accessible, improve performance, improve the looks, etc..."

Until you don't remove useful features (so keep the actual features), but add new useful features, and you don't minimalize/reorganize completely the aready organized UI, there is no problem.

"I've been following Australis development closely for about a year now (and this particular project has been under development about since Firefox 4 by the way, this is not a "recent" change!)."

It's a shame that they wasted this many time on something that is bullshit (even the basic idea). They could have to spend this time on fixing bugs like ancient memory leak.

"There were debates, studies, tests and ultimately final implementations with the sole goal to improve the browser."

And what is the result? More and more people leave Firefox.

"so that all these new bugs can be dealt with quickly and ensure the user always has the latest security and performance fixes."

And as quickly the user will get new bugs. This is what the users get with the crazy rapid release system. With the original system, there was the 3.6 main version, but the users sill often got the security and performance fixes. And the user was not frustrated and annoyed with the non-stop UI and feature changes, and the addons were not broken as often as today.

"It actually is much more customizable."

The opposite is the truth of what you said. Because it is much less customizable. You can't even move the backward/forward buttons. You (and Mozilla) call this as "more customizable"? It's ridiculous.

"Hold the evolution of their browser indefinitely so that a few add-ons keep working?"

You still don't understand. In the old system, one main Firefox version was released in about 1 year period. So the addon developers had enough time to work. Users didn't have to fear of the new Firefox versions to break their addons and functionality. But now, in a 6 weeks cycle, everytime a new main version get released so both users and addon developers have to worry about it.

"When they do release a multi-process firefox, many more add-ons will break than they did now with Australis,"

What irritates me is that you don't understand what I'm talking about. Multithreading (not necessarily multiprocess) would be a significant improvement, because it would utilize multicore processors. Losing some addons because of this is not as pain, because it would worth the change. But breaking addons for the new UI have no sense. Australis UI is worth nothing.

"following the orders of the "great dictators at Mozilla" "

But everything proves it.

"I don't pretend that only my add-ons make firefox useful and without them you might as well change browsers."

Your Findbar Tweak is one of the most important and useful addons. If you would abandon it and it would not work in the future Firefox versions, I would not update my browser until someone create a similar addon (or take over it's development).

"I evolve, I change the code not because it's broken, but because it needs to be changed. I realize that firefox itself must do the same on an even larger scale sometimes, and I need to adapt for firefox and not the other way around."

It's good until it does not affect the actual features and customizability. So until the changes only adds new features and options, but keeps the already available features and options, there is no problem.

"Most of all, I don't appreciate you claiming that I'm a sucker for going along with all mozilla decisions, or that they're bad decisions just because a few developers throw a tantrum and stop updating their add-ons "because firefox changed something"."

It doesn't matter from the point of view of user experience. It doesn't matter whether the addon developers don't update or Firefox developers break addons. The result is the same. I just said that Firefox developers cause the majority of problems. Why do the user need more addons? Because the Firefox developers remove many features and ruin the UI. Why do the addon developers abandon their addons? Because the Firefox developers break something in each 6 week rapid release.

"Firefox changes to improve, always."

Firefox is getting even worse with each update.

"If the add-ons don't change together with firefox they won't improve together with it either."

If the Mozilla didn't switch to the rapid release system, the addon developers could catch up to Firefox.

"I communicate with mozilla, and guess what, they listen and respond and most often I get what I needed from them."

Are you joking? It is a well known tend nowadays that Mozilla doesn't listen it's users. They shove down their will on their users' throat.

"getting new versions quickly and as bug-free as possible."

In the old system, the new versions were released as often as today, but those versions were not main verions. They were security, stability and bug fixes. People got these quickly. Everything was stable and predictable.

"No. Like I said, this is probably not an issue any more starting with Firefox 25."

And how do you explain that 1.3.4 does not have this bug? Only 1.4.1 and above is affected.

"I'm willing to bet that the reason that its developer quit was not because "firefox changed", but rather because "there are far too many versions of firefox to maintain so many different layouts on them all correctly"."

Don't belie him! Read his description! He clearly describes that he'll abandon it because of the changes in Firefox.

"They copy from Chrome what is worth copying from Chrome,"

The opposite is the truth of what you said. I clearly described the reasons.

"likewise for IE, Opera, Safari, etc"

Opera and Safari doesn't even worth to mention, because basically they does not exist anymore.

And who wants all browsers to be the same dumb? If someone wants an all-in-one browser, he can use an older Firefox version with Luddite UI. Now that's all in one!

"Also, Australis is not copied from chrome at all"

Again, you're saying the opposite of the obvious fact. The fact that many others noticed too.

The new UI is as dumb as Chrome's ui (even the icons have the same arrangement). There are a lot of unused, wasted space, less customizability, confusing menu, less features, unreadable text on background tabs, ...

"Ten years later it dies for some reason, and fixing it is either impossible or just too expensive to consider."

This is called "Planned Obsolescence".

But your example is totally irrelevant. The software doesn't wear out. You can use the same software after 10 years without any problem. However if they create HTML6 and every website will use/require it, of course you won't have any chance, but upgrade. But it won't happen in the foreseeable future. And it's only for borwsers (because the use of browsers is dependind on the 3rd party servers). If someone's work is to create documents, and he use Word 2003, why sould he have to buy the 2013 version? He can use 2003 without any problem. Same is with Photoshop and everything.

If the software will be significantly improved, this is a good reason to upgrade. For example if Firefox 35 will be multithreaded and the memory leak will be fixed, I will consider to upgrade. (It's a balance. Are the new features at least as useful as pain the lose of old features? Or do I have any alternative addon to restore old functionality? (For example I didn't upgrade from Firefox 3.6 until I find addons to restore the functionality and fix the new bugs. At that time, the newest Firefox was around 9.0.))

You think that I'm against evolving, but you're wrong. I support evolving, but only in the good direction. A new software should be able to know everything that the old, but even more. Othervise it's regression.

You managed to skip over the reasons and facts I mentioned, and even contradict yourself a little at the end, with more arguments. l2fdwg1_1

I'll just answer this point because it completely baffles me.

And how do you explain that 1.3.4 does not have this bug? Only 1.4.1 and above is affected.

I've told you why this happens. The find bar had a lot of changes done to itself between firefox 24 and 25, and so FBT also interacts differently with it. It's highly likely that this bug is gone in newer versions because I don't see it myself, and because no one else has mentioned anything of the sort. Yeah sure, it's probably something changed between those two versions, but if that's no longer an issue there's nothing for me to fix.

On the other hand, if you want to use an older firefox version, I don't see why you can't use older versions of add-ons to go with it too. If 1.3.4 works fine for you, then use that.

You tend to ignore the arguments and facts that I mentioned. You can't accept the truth. You contradict yourself in your every sentence.

"I'll just answer this point because it completely baffles me."

No, you still didn't answer this.

"because I don't see it myself"

If you don't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You just didn't test it properly.

"and because no one else has mentioned anything of the sort"

Probably they just didn't notice it. Probably because it happeons only once per startup. (And not as many people open more tabs than 5-10 at once.)

"if that's no longer an issue there's nothing for me to fix"

It's still an issue, but you simply don't want to deal with it.

"On the other hand, if you want to use an older firefox version, I don't see why you can't use older versions of add-ons to go with it too. If 1.3.4 works fine for you, then use that."

This is what I was talking about in my whole previous comment, but now it's obvious that unfortunately you are not able to understand it. It's annoying that I clearly explain the facts in a very long comment, but you are still talking nonsense. I said that I like evolving, but only in the good direction. The reason why I want to use the 1.4.18 is because it's improvements. But unfortunately it has a new bug, not only improvements. Anyway, writing to you is just wasting my time.

Quicksaver / FindBar-Tweak

Serious bug in Findbar Tweak since 1.4.1 #141