Phoenix 0.2 Web Browser: Lean, Mean Mozilla 561
GonzoJohn writes "Linux Orbit reviews the Phoenix 0.2 web browser: 'I've never been a huge fan of the Mozilla web browser. It's too big and too slow in my opinion. I like the Opera web browser a lot, but it is closed source, ad supported (for the free version) or costs money (if you want to get rid of the banner ads). Opera is almost exactly what I'm looking for in a web browser as far as features are concerned: fast, browser window tabs, mouse gesturing, and I can configure the interface a little. It has its problems, no doubt. Java and Javascript are big tripping points for it to name just a few. But speed is what I'm looking for.
Then along comes Mozilla's Phoenix web browser.
Phoenix still uses a lot of the Mozilla code. In fact, Phoenix code is based completely on Mozilla code, so the development should move rather quickly. Here is a link to a road map for what it's developers think is a close time-line for its development. Although still in heavy development, I have found Phoenix quite useable and stable even in the early 0.2 release and I continue to download the nightly release every day.'"
Roadmap Link (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the link to the roadmap: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/phoenix-ro admap.html [mozilla.org]
neurostarChimera (Score:5, Funny)
Chimera is here [mozilla.org]. It might be nice to see Chimera and Phoenix share ideas, programmers, resources, and code, but both projects seem to be doing OK so far as separate entities.
Besides, if they merged the projects, they'd have a very confusing animal for a logo: flaming bird with the head of a male lion, the body of a goat, and the tail of a snake: a 'phimera'.
Since the new project would also be Mac OS X -native, they really should also crossbreed this new 'phimera' with Hexley [hexley.com] (the Darwin mascot), a duck-billed platypus with horns. The result would be a horny duck-faced lion with a goatee that lays flaming serpent eggs midair.
I think you can see now the grave importance of keeping these two projects separate.
-Mark
Re:Chimera (Score:3)
Chimera needs to stick on the path that it is on right now. It's working. I'm fairly sure more mac users are downloading chimera as opposed to Mozilla. A quick browser that takes advantage of OS X's native technologies, services, and interface is a guaranteed winner.
IE (Score:3, Troll)
Re:IE (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, I know, it starts fast because MS ties it so tightly to Windows, it doesn't really do CSS right, it is a security nightmare, etc, etc.. but the bottom line is, considered as a TOOL, IE 6 is the best there is. I rarely have fewer than 10 browser windows open or minimized, 99.99% of pages always render right (because designers have to test with it), and it is extremely stable -- crashes perhaps once-twice a month on average.
Even though it is still behind, I hope like anyone that Mozilla's rapid improvement continues (with projects like this) and it becomes a superior solution.
The thing that still scares me is 'why?' -- IE is solid enough that Mozilla needs to do something more than just reach parity to get any real foothold, at least on Windoze. Cm'mon, AOL, switch!
Re:IE (Score:5, Insightful)
The post contains several reasons why IE sucks "it doesn't really do CSS right, it is a security nightmare" but the conclusion is "Mozilla still doesn't come close to IE".
Goddamnit, use the "quickstart" option. Your only complaint is solved.
Mozilla has so many handy features like popup-blocking, tabs and so much more than IE that it beats IE hands down.
couldn't agree more (Score:5, Informative)
Add to that already-beautiful list of "mozilla is sweeter" features:
Portability - I can use the same browser on my linux box at home as I can in the windows labs at my university - which is great, IMO.
Mozilla Composer/Mail/Add-ons - free stuff that people forget are included with the full install - you shouldn't ignore those nice freebies.
There are several other "cool" things I like about Moz, like zoom ( ctrl + ), image blocking by server, etc. - but I don't know if IE implements these as well.
Moz isn't perfect, no. But it is my favorite. Phoenix is pretty sweet though - it may steal my browsing crown soon.
Re:IE (Score:5, Funny)
Whoops. I think you mean:
IF isMicrosoftSoftware THEN
dontSwapOut
END IF
Re:IE (Score:3, Interesting)
99.9% of pages render right on it because in the past they had to use it. My site conforms to W3C standard precisely and as a result it fails to render properly in IE6. Oh well. Mozilla renders my site perfectly (along with every other w3c-compliant browser out there). As long as myself and other fellow web-designers develop with compliance in mind, it appears that MSFT will be the one playing "catch up". Unless of course, they decide to "embrace by abandoning" features of the standard they don't agree with.
and it is extremely stable -- crashes perhaps once-twice a month on average.
Crashes what? The browser crashes, or the browser crashes your system? With IE6 I can see how this is a concern. Hence, another reason why I choose Mozilla. Coupled with all the extra features that it offers and portability, I've finally replaced IE forever. MSFT will likely _NEVER_ offer a popup-killer option because too many of their corporate rapists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H bedfellows wouldn't allow it.
Targeting the Standards, DE Jure and De Facto (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm writing this using Konqueror 3.03-13 on RedHat 8.0. I prefer Linux. (I switched to OS X and switched back to Windows/Linux). I have no bias toward MS or IE, nor any against Moz or Konq or Opera or the W3C.
The adoption rate among business users is the key reason IE is the target browser for web designers today. AOL probably had a lot to do with that, too. We'll see if AOL can switch the target back to the standards. I think, rather, AOL using Gecko in its service software will push for MSIE compliance in Mozilla development. Perhaps as an obscure option. I guarantee if that happened--if Mozilla developers added a "MSIE" compatibility mode to Mozilla, the adoption rate of Mozilla would increase dramatically. Something to consider. . .
Re:IE (Score:5, Informative)
SWEET MERCIFUL CHRIST ON A MOTORCYCLE TALKING ON A MOBILE PHONE!@$ This thing is fast as hell.
I'm really glad it did not go the way of Mozilla interface, which looks like Netscape. Part of the Mozilla trouble is just that. People presume it's the "old" netscape and are reluctant to keep it on their systems.
Furthermore, I love it how Phoenix does not integrate into your OS like a multi-headed hydra. Tabbed browsing is a plus. Still achievable with netcaptor [netcaptor.com] on IE 5.x/6.x but not a native application.
This will be the browser I will use on Win2k when they figure out how to dock the google toolbar [google.com] on it.
Also, many windows users confuse the IE loadtime with page render time. It's a common misconseption. I am sold on Phoenix.
browser requirements (Score:4, Funny)
tabbed browsing
full DOM support
full javascript support
intelligent form autofill
intelligent address bar
full porn support
Re:browser requirements (Score:2)
That's Porn Per Minute rate.
Re:browser requirements (Score:3, Informative)
I noticed that loading large tables of thumbnails is quite slow on Mozilla. Very slow compared to other browsers. 100+ images can really task Mozilla. Checking Bugzilla, it seems to be a known problem, but I couldn't find an exact bug for this problem, a few evangelism bugs on coding styles mostly.
Re:browser requirements (Score:5, Informative)
Re:browser requirements (Score:4, Informative)
One of my favorite web browsing features comes from a project called Pornzilla [netscape.com], an effort to turn Moz into a better poon-viewing platform.
At the link above, there's a neat little javascript-bookmarklet which will open a new window and populated with all images linkd to on any given page. You can then save just the images en-masse or view them without clicking to and fro a bunch.
Yes, it's a neat invention for porn surfers. It's even better for any kind of web artwork or to check image links on a page you're developing. Unfortuneatly, it chokes on donkey balls on sites that check referrer headers before serving images.
Re:browser requirements (Score:4, Informative)
Not anymore -- bbaetz, darin, and I fixed bug 123293 in August. If you find any specific sites or command sequences (such as "linked images" followed by View Image followed by Shift+Reload) that fail to send the referrer header in 1.2alpha or later, please file a bug and cc me.
Weird Weird Weird (Score:4, Interesting)
I LOVE IT!
The best thing is that I can customize it so that in full screen mode, my most common bookmarks, an address bar, a google search bar, a go button, and navigation buttons are all in one thin line up at the top freeing all my screen space!
It's also the fastest browser I've ever used under either Linux or WinXP and (in the 10 seconds I've had to use it) seemingly solid.
There is only one thing missing that may force me back to mozilla: the inability to "block images from this server," i.e., to get rid of ads.
Re:Weird Weird Weird (Score:5, Informative)
That feature is targeted for the 0.3 release (October 8th) according to this [mozilla.org] (search on page for 'Image blocking').
Re:Weird Weird Weird (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Weird Weird Weird (Score:2)
The Slashing Edge (Score:2)
My copy of the later came in the mail today, so I could do just that, except I've already seen Slashdot today, so I guess I'm old news.
There should be a name for installing the latest thing, poping to Slashdot and finding that thing reviewed. (The Slashing Edge ?!) Triple points for first post, too.
Re:The Slashing Edge (Score:4, Funny)
just installed this ... (Score:3, Informative)
Nightly builds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm why download nightly builds of a usable, stable application?
If it's usable and stable, why not wait for the next point release?
Re:Nightly builds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the version number in this case is accurate: this is an 0.2 and will act like one from time to time. You can actually expect noticeable changes from day to day.
Beating on nightlys gives immediate feedback on the effects of changes made that day - catch serious bugs early. Being a tester is a way to contribute greatly to a project as Joe User. And if there's a bug that's really been annoying you, you can get the fix straight away instead of having to wait until the next full release.
I think Phoenix is doing it this way because that's how Mozilla does it - and it works very well for Mozilla - and therefore because they can (being in the Mozilla build system).
Re:Nightly builds? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right, I never even considered that. I think I'm starting to blur the lines between Alpha/Beta/Release, and I know I'm starting to ignore version numbers. (eg. Mozilla 1.0 ~= Netscape 7.0)
Re:Nightly builds? (Score:2, Insightful)
People should test releases if they can
Re:Nightly builds? (Score:2)
This is the only way open source projects that you enjoy will advance.
Re:Nightly builds? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't say it is bug free, stable and usable are completely different.
Stable - Doesn't crash all of the time (pretty much an opinion)
Usable - Also opinion
Bug Free - See Fantasy
Re:Nightly builds? (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything happens very quickly, stabilty is often just a plus for the testers and programmers.
Re:Nightly builds? (Score:2)
Phoenix is quite usable (Score:4, Interesting)
Why can't they arleady do this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why can't they arleady do this? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why can't they arleady do this? (Score:3, Informative)
Once Mozilla & Phoenix are started and running side by side I don't see much difference. Phoenix is somewhat faster but I appreciate the richness of Mozilla, which does my mail/news/browsing from a single app.
There's room in the world for both of course, and Phoenix might find a use in situations where people don't need a mail/news client or some of the more complex features in Mozilla.
so are we going to have an anouncement... (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/24/121
must be a slow news day...
And like a phoenix... (Score:2, Funny)
Faster? On what OS? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure it uses RAM, but so does IE, and not in "IEXPLORE.EXE" either - most of that code is integrated right into the Windows Explorer code.
A lot of people who have claimed Mozilla is "too big and slow" have never used a 1.0+ build I would assume, or are trying to compare Moz for Linux (which is =much= slower than it's Windows counterpart), with Moz for Windows.
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:2)
When you are comparing browser rendering speeds, which sites are you using?
These days, with the exception of download times, the rendering times are nearly instantaneous. How can you get much faster than that, and does it really matter?
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Loading large tables and large quanity of images (thumbnails) are slower than IE. Download pre-buffering actually becomes a problem when you download large files, due to it downloading in your temp dir, then moving the file after its completed. Boris Zbarsky said a fix might land in around 1.3'ish http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12992
There are a few other slow downs in mozilla, but most are thread releated. 1 active tab can freeze mozilla, etc.. (I would like to see downloads spawn into a seperate process...)
That being said, the Mozilla developers are top notch in fixing bugs and user interaction. They have always been kind in replying and educating the users.
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Me too. It's mostly UI slowness. When I type into the URL box, I don't expect latency!
Another thing is the terribly jerky scrolling.
I use Opera. Main things I Opera has that Mozilla lacks, IMO... UI snappiness, smooth scrolling, and the ability to magnify web pages. Don't reply that you can change the font sizes of the web pages, unless you have used Opera's magnify, you won't know what I mean. Opera changes not just the fonts, but magnifies *everything*... graphics, flash plugins, anything. This is a real boon for accessibility, or for people like me that have good vision but hate to squint to read tiny web pages.
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:5, Informative)
In the most recent versions of both browsers I just opened the most recent MySQL manual - over 2MB of HTML in one file. My machine's a Duron 750 with 512MB, running Win2k. I timed rendering speed only - the file is served locally, and the browsers already started - I navigated to the file from a link on an otherwise blank (local) page. I timed from when I clicked the link:
- IE: 1.5 seconds
- Mozilla: 8 seconds
In short, Mozilla has a long way to go before it renders pages faster than IE.(This is a repost of an earlier comment [slashdot.org] of mine).
I've seen this too. (Score:2)
Nowadays, while Moz is pretty snappy, IE hands it's ass to Moz in sheer render speed. Don't ask me what changed, I have no idea. I've noticed this from a P200/48mb RAM laptop running win98se to a P4/2000 w/256mb or RAM running WinXP.
I still use Mozilla for everything I can, though.
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically, I am sure browsers render different pages at different speeds due to the way their rendering engines work. It is kind of like the old color inkjet printers. Some of them could due full color pictures very well on the right paper, but when it came to black text they really sucked.
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:5, Informative)
For general web browsing on my cable connection Moz is always just as faster and sometimes faster than IE.
Lets take a real world example shall we.
I just loaded foxnews.com on IE it took about 6.25 seconds to load. On Moz it took about 4.5. Oh, IE will do its best by throwing whatever meager bits of code it get up first, but the entire page loads faster in Mozilla.
www.time.com Mozilla 4 seconds, IE 5 seconds.
www.merck.com Mozilla 4.5, IE 4.75
The point is your example is a red herring.
"the difference in rendering speed alone is incredible - IE kicks Moz's ass."
Apparantly not.
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is that?
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:3, Insightful)
[...]
As is hinted at by your use of the word virtually here, these things are not 'native' behaviours because X doesn't have such things. Now I agree with you that Mozilla does the wrong things here, XUL is one of my least favourite inventions ever, but it is innocent of the particular charge you bring here. Bringing along their own, non-native toolkit doesn't hit performance under X the same way it does Windows or Mac, because X doesn't have any native toolkit anyway - it's toolkit agnostic from the getgo, whether the app uses XUL or GTK or QT or what have you makes no difference!
On other systems that do have native toolkits you would get a performance boost by using them - but on X there just is no such thing. XUL can and should take blame for the crummy usability factors, but not for performance under X.
The real reason, or at least the main one (there are doubtless lots of smaller issues involved) is that X does rendering slower than Windows, other things being equal, because the video routines don't run at the kernel level. You pay a small price in performance for robustness, simple as that.
Re:Faster? On what OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does everyone keep knocking XUL. Everything I have seen about it tells me _this_ is the way I want to be developing web apps. No more screwing around with DHTML menus, and Javascript trees that don't expand/collapse properly. Yes, its not cross-browser, but it is completely cross-platform.
And its really capable of being more than just a web application framework, but a real distributed app framework. This thing is the answer to the client side of
Fire up Mozilla or Phoenix and spend some time at http://www.xulplanet.com/tutorials/xultu/ or browse the list at http://www.mozdev.org/projects.html
Also, O'Reilly has already devoted a whole section to Mozilla XUL/XPCOM development (http://www.oreillynet.com/mozilla/).
XUL/XPCOM has bindings for Perl and Python, by the way. This is one bandwagon I don't mind jumping on, personally. Much more fun than
Faster on Windows. (Score:3)
This ignores the obvious argument that this only addresses launch times and rendering ignores the still noticably sluggish widgets. I wonder why somebody didn't just integrate gecko with these components? Create an ActiveX gecko to use instead of MSHTML.DLL, use standard Windows toolbars (because we all know how sucessful Xul was) and add in the other good features of Mozilla, like pop up blocking and security.
Mozilla, in the form of an ActiveX control (Score:5, Informative)
Create an ActiveX gecko to use instead of MSHTML.DLL
As you said, the IE engine is an ActiveX control. Here's a Gecko ActiveX control [www.iol.ie], and it even comes with a program that patches programs that embed IE so that they embed Gecko instead.
But ActiveX will get you nowhere on the other (non-Windows) platforms tnat Moz supports. Therefore, an ActiveX based Gecko browser for Windows should really be a separate project.
Unfortunately... (Score:4, Funny)
Yuck. (Score:3, Funny)
Why in the name of God's green earth can't we get a decent browser built?!
We can write software to manage checkbooks, to run space shuttles, to even serve more porn than the world ever needs.
But we can't get a decent browser out the door.
Why? Why is this?
ARGH!
Every one has its problems:
Netscape (1.x through 4.x) - Buggy, never rendered quite right
IE - Sucktitude. Security holes you can drive a truck through.
Mozilla - Bloated mess. Too many damned options & features. Typical open source project -- so many features, it doesn't work right for anyone.
OmniWeb - has potential, compatible with 3 websites.
Opera - small, lean, advertises all over the damned place. Compatible with a few more web pages than OmniWeb.
Why can't we get this right??
Sorry for the rant, it's just frustrating! I don't care much about the speed (isn't that why we have supersonic processors? So we can write sh_ty code and not worry?) but it needs to WORK. Reliably. Every time.
As it is, I have *3* browsers I use regularly. OmniWeb, IE and Mozilla. Some things render correctly in each
ARGH! And now we're going to build another half-step child of Mozilla? Like the world needs _THAT_?
--NBVB
Re:Yuck. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/chimer a/
Has GUI as nice as OmniWeb and a Gecko rendering engine.
It rocks.
Re:Yuck. (Score:2)
Re:Yuck. (Score:2)
Think of it as Mozilla forking, but the fork being blessed by mozilla.org. It was clear in the runup to 1.0 that there were tensions within the project; running forks internally keeps the developers happy and interested, and produces interesting things that can be adapted to the main trunk.
(Or, as is their goal, to replace the main trunk.)
Re:Yuck. (Score:2)
And best of all, it's FREE (beer and speech)
I think we actually do have a browser worth it's salt.
Re:Yuck. (Score:5, Informative)
But we can't get a decent browser out the door.
Why? Why is this?
Because a browser that does what you want it to do is significantly more complex than any of the three examples you gave.
Re:Yuck. (Score:5, Funny)
Significantly more complex? It's a fucking COMPILER. It shouldn't DO anything other than make source code into binaries. That's it. No garbage collection. No pretty GUI tools. Compile programs. And compile ALL of them that are even close. I don't want to know if the program's source code isn't perfect. I don't want to know if it isn't up to the "ANSI standard". I don't give a shit. Just let me run the program, and let it run quickly and correctly. I don't know about you, but the current version of Visual Basic does this flawlessly for me, and is fast as hell. I'm happy.
Re:Yuck. (Score:2)
Part of the problem with those pages not rendering correctly is how the HTML WYSIWYG editors doing a terrible job of constructing pages.
We could go out and claim that all of the browser projects ought to be able to handle it but I don't think that's fair.
The W3C sets the standards. The browsers should meet those on the rendering side, the editors should meet it on the development side. Fair is fair, and I think we could name a few companies that haven't been playing nice on this one...
Let's see, who's got their foot in the WYSIWYG market and the browser market...
Project Page (Score:4, Informative)
Phoenix vs. Galeon (Score:2)
On the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)
And I download the daily release every night.
-
by the time it's done... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:by the time it's done... (Score:3, Informative)
But why not just use Dillo (Score:5, Interesting)
It's small, (300K), fast, and free. What else could you possibly want?
Standards compliance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you'll also need an entire quirks engine that mimics IE 5. Good luck!
What about the Konq? (Score:2)
I'm of course a bit biased, since I've been glued to KDE since the 3.x revisions, and Konq has been able to handle everything I threw at it. It's wicked fast, and totally W3C compliant. Antialiased fonts are a doddle, and of course, with the new KDE 3.1 beta's, there is tabbed browsing.
It has been awhile since the latest Konq has been reviewed.
(Disclaimer: I think moz-based browsers are fine. I use Chimera and Mozilla almost exclusively on my mac. But when I'm messing with my Solaris, BSD and Linux boxen, I tend to always go for Konqueror)
Re:What about the Konq? (Score:3, Interesting)
When we were working on the Mozilla 1.0 Start Page [mozilla.org], we wrote it to standards, then saw what that broke. Gecko, Konqueror and Opera do very well indeed, but there are little things - e.g, see how you get the switchable stylesheets in Mozilla but not in Konqueror? That's to work around a bug in Konq. (Yes, we reported it.) Little stuff.
(IE 6 does fairly well, but its PNG gamma is all fscked-up. Read http://mozilla.org/start/1.0/detect-problems.js [mozilla.org] - that PNG-shuffling function is entirely to work around the detailed horror of trying to work around IE's diseased nature ...)
the myth of the lightweight browser (Score:5, Insightful)
You can even see this in the posts that are showing up here already. People are saying, "wow, this looks great, as soon as it has x I'll switch over from Mozilla," "all it needs is y and IE is history," and "this is z away from beating Opera." But, of course, x != y != z, and the end result is a browser that is unusable for just about everyone.
What these teams don't realize is that the web is used for so many different things today that designing a small, general-purpose web browser is all but impossible. A web browser, if it is complete, is by definition a large, complex system. Microsoft and Mozilla have accepted this. It's time for the rest of us to do so as well.
Re:the myth of the lightweight browser (Score:2)
In terms of what it can render, standards support, etc, it's exactly the same as the Mozilla browser (i.e., pretty much top of the class).
Re:the myth of the lightweight browser (Score:2, Insightful)
do you want mouse gestures? (y/n)
do you want tabbed windows? (y/n)
do you want control over javascript behavior? (y/n)
and you can probably think of even better examples. why hasn't this been done? and if it has been done, how come i haven't seen it from under my rock?
Re:the myth of the lightweight browser (Score:2, Insightful)
HTML was originally intended as a lightweight markup language that was far simpler than SGML. As time has passed, the language has expanded to support more and more features that graphic-happy developers and marketers have demanded.
Eventually, we'll all be running browsers that use a language more complicated than SGML ever was. Then, somebody will create a new markup language, designed to be lightweight and perhaps facilitate communications, and everybody will switch to it. And then the designers will start demanding new features...
So, really, it's the destiny of every application (browser or otherwise) to bloat and grow (open-source or not) until it's unusuable and then be replaced by something faster and better.
Much like governments - but I'll stop there.
-Elentar
Re:the myth of the lightweight browser (Score:5, Informative)
A small snippet from the FAQ: Phoenix FAQ [mozilla.org]
Dude, that's bad time management (Score:3, Flamebait)
You'd probably end up with a good thirty seconds more at the end of your day to kick back and enjoy.
Re:Dude, that's bad time management (Score:2)
Migration of Plugins (Score:2)
JOhn
Tabs vs. MDI (Score:3, Informative)
I really prefer Opera's MDI windows. Because I am able to view more than one windows at a time but still can hide/restore all the windows with a single click. I just like it to move my "surfing workspace" around quite fast (i.e. with ONE click) but still have the advantages of "normal" windows.
Re:Tabs vs. MDI (Score:3, Interesting)
They're both MDI, though - "multiple document interface". They just accomplish the same goal in different ways
That being said, most people absolutely abhor window-in-window MDI.
Not faster... (Score:4, Informative)
I downloaded it to test on my amd 333 64mb laptop, but it is still too slow for me to use.
However, it's a little more usable in this laptop than mozilla itself.
I want a fast, small browser with tabs, java, javascript, flash and saving passwords. There isn't any right now, being Opera the closest one. Problems: adware, no password saving.
My review (Score:4, Informative)
Gone but planned:
Still there:
Most of the stuff that is gone but planned just has a broken UI. You can set the prefs if you want to edit your javascript config files or copy the config files from your mozilla directory. Exceptions are the sidebar and the site navigation bar which need to be written. This information comes from my 5 minute review [slashdot.org] of the browser that I posted last time and the followup comments to it. (My apologies to Asa for getting a few of the details wrong in my first review)
don't install everything (Score:4, Interesting)
If its a really really fast browser you want... (Score:3, Funny)
Mozilla and Phoenix slow doing XSLT (Score:2, Informative)
Just downloaded it (Score:4, Interesting)
Pheonix is the only browser that has come close to tempting me away from IE!
All i can say is, its fantastic. Small, lightweight. Has jsut the features i use, and is clean as well.
It even makes fonts look good etc. I think ill be sticking for the time being, and i will certainly be following the development closely from now on!
Re:Just downloaded it (Score:4, Informative)
IE is a good browser, but as a web developer for web development, shame on you for not using Mozilla. :)
Jason.
Impressive (Score:2)
Finally feels faster than IE (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're running Win32, you can use StrokeIT [mousegestures.com] for mouse gestures on this otherwise feature-lite browser.
If you want speed.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I could imagine you need browser to find information about something - text based browsers are more than sufficient for that task. Besides it's a pleasure to read clear console text (with custom font set, of course
Of course it's nice to look at pictures of pretty girls once in a while - I do that too, but for that purpose mozilla / konqueror is more than good enough. The point is - ascii text browsers are the best if you are surfing to get some pure information about something.
MozUpdate (shameless self-promotion) (Score:4, Informative)
nice clean browser (Score:3, Insightful)
Good one Calvin (Score:3, Funny)
Bwahahahaha ! Now that put a smile on my face.
(title borrowed from one of my favorite lines from a PJ's episode)
Please change the UI (Score:4, Interesting)
While I agree with a previous poster in that the "light browser" is really a myth and Phoenix will eventually get bloated and there is nothing wrong with that, I also think that the real advantage of Phoenix is that they can improve the old and not so intuitive User Interface that Mozilla inherited from Netscape.
Mozilla, and for that matter Netscape >= 6, was designed as we know from the ground up with a greatly improved, new codebase. But they kept the same UI to make sure the old users wouldn't freak out. I won't argue whether that was a good decision. But I think that Phoenix has nothing to inherit and should go ahead and put all the effort on an improved UI. That by itself will make the effort worthwhile.
My 1.99 cts
Evidence Microsoft isn't involved in this project (Score:4, Funny)
Do everything possible to minimize the build size.
Targeted for Phoenix 0.3 according to Bugzilla.
Browser times (Score:3, Interesting)
* Mozilla - I never use. Way too slow. Takes around 30 secs to open up a browser window first time. Still slow after that on my machine
* K-Meleon - used to use this instead of IE when (a) I wanted something fast and (b) on sites that crash IE (quite a few on my machine). It loads first time in the same time as a preloaded IE. Lightening fast
* Phoenix - definately replacement for above. Loads around 10secs first time but after that it's instantaneous (as opposed to IE still taking around 4 secs each new window).
I'll be gradually moving all my bookmarks from IE to Phoenix and using that for all my browsing, keeping IE for testing the sites I work on and the occasional site that Phoenix doesn't render (if I ever find one). I am *very* impressed with Phoenix.
Phillip.
Re:Faster than Galeon / Skipstone? (Score:3, Informative)
I like it too, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, let me say how I tested it. I am running Gentoo linux on a PIII-500, which is lucky enough to have someone who distributed the source to it for us. So I compiled it and started trying to use it.
My previous browser was (and now is again) Galeon.
Everything worked pretty well: I downloaded mouse gestures (and then changed permissions so that they would work without being root), and advanced tabbed browsing, and was generally impressed.
But then I checked on the speed thing that everyone touts by
1) Opening a bunch of tabs and switching between them.
2) Going back and forward rapidly in the browser history
3) Running some javascript animations
Then I ran gnome-system-monitor (which can detect threads, unlike top), and checked on the memory requirements.
Know what I found with all of this? Its seems to run the same speed as galeon. It takes about 25MB on my system, and runs about the same speed.
Now, both of these two do run faster and with smaller memory requirements than Mozilla, but...we should probably compare it to all Mozilla variations to see if its doing something unique in the open source world.
The reason I switched back to galeon is because Galeon has all of the features that Phoenix does, PLUS it has smart bookmarks (so that you can search google, freshmeat, dogpile, slackware, etc).
Anti-aliased fonts? Heres how... (Score:5, Informative)
Edit the file defaults/pref/unix.js at about line 230.
Change
pref("font.FreeType2.enable", false);
to
pref("font.FreeType2.enable", true);
And there you go!.
You probably should also tinker with font.antialias.min,
font.scale.tt_bitmap.dark_text.min and font.scale.tt_bitmap.dark_text.gain until the fonts look good to you.