Mozilla 1.7 Beta Is Faster And Smaller 738
ccady writes "Mozilla 1.7 beta is out. Not too many new features, but "Mozilla 1.7 size and performance have improved dramatically with this release. When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size." I'll be downloading it."
Oh no, there goes Tokyo... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh no, there goes Tokyo... (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't understand this joke go listen to some Blue Oyster Cult [lyricsfreak.com]
Re:Oh no, there goes Tokyo... (Score:4, Funny)
By giving people pandering to the lowest common denominator you are only killing yourself in the long run. Please stop it Mozilla before it is to late!!!!
Mozilla 1.6 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't it stand to reason that Mozilla users are the ones that will be the most interested in reading the thread? Right-o...
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:5, Funny)
I like to play fun games with my ua string, too. One of my favourite tricks
is to claim to be running my browser on an X11 GUI on PC-DOS 3.3, but claiming
MSIE on X11 is fun too (especially, MSIE on an X11 GUI on a Microsoft OS).
Other user-agent jokes I've seen include the following:
* Claim to be running a significantly future version, (e.g., claim MSIE 11.5
or Mozilla/7.0 or use a future Gecko build date, et cetera)
* Claim to be both MSIE and Gecko in the same user-agent string
* List Emacs as the operating system
* List Klingon, Quenya, or Sanskrit as the localization language
* Claim an utterly impossible browser/OS/hardware combo, like iCab on
OpenVMS on SPARC, or, even better, claim a combination that's not only
impossible but also ancient, like NCSA Mosaic on ITS on a PDP8.
* Claim a virtual machine architecture (e.g., the z-machine, glulx,
parrot, jvm,
as your hardware architecture.
* Make wrong and incompitible version claims (e.g., start with Mozilla/2.0
and then give a 2003 Gecko build date or claim to be MSIE 6.0)
* Claim to be running on Hurd, BeOS 6, or some other vaporware.
* "NoBrowserNeeded (My TCP/IP stack is connected directly to my brain.)"
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:4, Funny)
You could make the valid contention that it's "nobodywantstouseitware," however.
Anyway, couldn't you list Emacs as the operating system, the browser, the gui, and the hardware architecture? (I'm sure that must be an extension.)
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:5, Informative)
I've heard rumors of sites rejecting non-IE browsers, but I have yet to find one myself.
I am forced to change my browser header for one site on a regular basis. The site to pay one of my credit card bills barfs without IE, it says my browser (Mozilla) is uncompatible with the site. So I use the prefbar plugin to change the browser ID to IE and everything works well. Their tech support never got back to me when I told them this. Mozilla still will not work unless I change how it reports itself to their server.
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:4, Funny)
Yes [calcgames.org]
No [calcgames.org]
Re:Mozilla 1.6 (Score:5, Funny)
It'll be dominant within months, just wait.
This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:5, Insightful)
How can something with the same kernel, and the same ancestry go the other way: Mozilla actually improves as it evolves.
On the one hand, the dodo. On the other hand, the road-runner.
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:5, Funny)
And in a crash-hole between them, the coyote.
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:4, Funny)
-fester
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:4, Informative)
Mozilla is a descendant, of sorts, of the Netscape 4 browser. OTOH, it doesn't have any real inherited code--and Netscape 6 and 7 were just repackaged Mozilla that did, AFAIK, get smaller and faster with each iternation, just like Moz did.
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:5, Informative)
How can something with the same kernel, and the same ancestry go the other way: Mozilla actually improves as it evolves.
Because it doesn't have the same kernel.
Back in 1998, when Netscape released their code, the open-source community soon realized that they would have to throw much of it away and start from scratch. By throwing out the cruft that had been building up since Netscape 1.0, the Mozilla team was able to build a better browser...eventually. (Check out this BBC article [bbc.co.uk] for a nice pre-history of Mozilla.)
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that's a bit of myth. It was really Netscape's management who dictated the rewrite, in order to accomodate the Gecko rendering engine (which was still called NGLayout or Raptor back then). Most of the Netscape/Mozilla developers (less than six months into the project, there were not many non-Netscape contributors) at the time were against the change, not because they didn't like the idea of a smaller, faster and more standards-complaint rendering engine, but because they were given a ludicrous six-month timeframe to achieve parity with Netscape Communicator 4.5.
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:5, Funny)
And this should serve as a warning to anyone else who thinks about getting stoned and posting here.
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:5, Interesting)
The slowdown from snappy to slow takes a day or two of use, and requires a restart of the browser to fix.
This happens both in mozilla and fire-fox, so it must be some internal resource leak, I guessing.
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:5, Informative)
For instance, I have a tab link that, when clicked, loads 63 comics pages at once. It significantly reduces my time spent reading comics (waiting for them to load, actually) but it's a TON of memory.
If I let my laptop hibernate and bring it back up it takes nearly 30-60 seconds to render the tab that was on top when I hibernated. After I read the first few and close a few tabs it speeds back up to its normal speed. I suspect it's more an issue with mozilla using a huge amount of memory (possibly for holding rendered versions of web pages) that is swapped out.
Using it interactively, even after having it open for several days, it's about as fast for me as when I first started it.
-Adam
Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (Score:5, Informative)
great (Score:3, Funny)
and 10% more (Score:3, Funny)
Compared to IE.... (Score:5, Funny)
Modzilla keeps getting better all the time.
noticeable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:noticeable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:noticeable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it isn't. But if few releases in a row could each make 10% improvements, the cumulative 50% improvement damn certainly is noticeable.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
In all seriousness, it's easy to improve figures like this just by removing features.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Dramatically faster?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dramatically faster?? (Score:4, Insightful)
When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size.
It might be just you and me, but single-digit percentage increases in performance isn't "dramatic". It's more like "scarcely noticeable".
Re:Dramatically faster?? (Score:4, Insightful)
but single-digit percentage increases in performance isn't "dramatic". It's more like "scarcely noticeable".
In that case, maybe... But if you follow some compiler conference papers, single digit percentage of improvement *is* a dramatic improvement.
More than that single digit, we need to either change the underlying algorithm, or do a more dramatic overhaul, or correct a resource hogging mistakes. Well, we all know that Mozilla coders aren't that sloppy, so I guess that single digit improvements are really good because they usually involve quite a lot of cutting corners squeezing out more improvements over the already tight code.
Good point .... (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks Moz Team. (Score:3, Insightful)
That having been said, I've been dissapointed with the latest iteration of the Mozilla browser. I've found 1.6 to be rather slow (autocomplete lags, for example), bug prone and (if I'm correct) java support is still on the fritz.
I'm liable to switch over to FireFox (or whatever it's called this week), except the Preference Toolbar (on which I'm hooked like a crack addiction) still does not function in this stripped down version of the Moz browser.
Anyway, I look forward to this newest version; really, I just wanted to express, in this post, my thanks for the effort put forth by the whole Moz team.
Regards,
=pararox=
Mozilla is good... (Score:5, Insightful)
A resume feature in the download manager would be a nice start...
Kerberos Support (Score:4, Informative)
This is compatible with both IIS, and mod_authkerb for apache.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/modauthkerb/
Next the plan is to make kerberos support more general so it can be used for other protocol's like IMAP.
5% faster than 1.6, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
No diffirent then the last release (Score:3, Interesting)
Mozilla Vs Firefox (Score:4, Informative)
And don't forget, changes to the suite are picked up by Firefox since FF is based off the same source tree. So a lot of work here will affect the mini-moz too....
Mozilla in the wikipedia. (Score:5, Informative)
improvement is good, but NOT dramatic (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I like Galeon and Firefox. I just need a web-browser.
Galeon (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlisted Speed Change (Score:5, Funny)
After the news is released on Slashdot, it's now 40% slower to download. :D
OS X Talkback? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:OS X Talkback? (Score:4, Informative)
I can't speak for OS X, but as for Windows, I inquired about the removal of the talkback feature in the nightly builds they had this to say about it: [mozillazine.org]
No, it's not possible to enable it. It's either built into the official builds or its not. Currently the official builds are not being built with talkback because of some talkback server issues, so there is no way to disable it. Hopefully by Firebird 0.9 all of the talkback issues will be sorted, but it's probably not going to happen for the Firebird 0.8 release.
Though if you page down it appears that we shall see it in this release of Mozilla
"The installer releases of Mozilla 1.7 Beta now include Quality Feedback Agent again, allowing users to report crashes,
Hopefully all those new bug reports will help speed up development
Re:OS X Talkback? (Score:4, Informative)
"dramatic" (Score:5, Insightful)
It would seem that the definition of "dramatic" just got marginalized. Personally I'd think of a 2x performance increase as dramatic. 1.1x is what I'd term "laudable".
Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess that makes it..... (Score:5, Funny)
I guess that makes it.....
29% Better!
-L
Camino 0.8 (Score:4, Informative)
22 January 2004: We are in the process of driving the Camino 0.8 buglist to zarro boogs. We will be branching off Mozilla 1.7 (now scheduled for April) and will release shortly after. We expect Camino 0.8 to be faster and even more solid than 0.7...
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
I use Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird too - they're my favorites. But I can't build for Mozilla. I have to build for IE. My clients use IE, the visitors use IE and that makes it the standard (even though it doesn't follow the "standards").
It's an uphill battle, I'm afraid. That said, I'll be downloading this new version ASAP.
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
If a bank site doesn't work properly in anything other than IE, I usually send them an email linking to articles about serious security holes in IE, usually including the SSL certificate one, and tell them they should tune their site to run in all browsers, as some of us are too knowledgeable to want to use something as crappy as IE for online banking.
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
that's KHTML (Score:5, Informative)
The Mozilla suite and the Firefox, K-meleon, and Camino browsers all use the Gecko engine. The Konqueror and Safari browsers use the KHTML engine. Apparently, the KHTML developers have a more pragmatic policy with respect to implementing MSHTML extensions *cough*document.all*cough* than the more standards-minded Gecko developers.
Re:that's KHTML (Score:4, Informative)
There are good reasons for not implementing that. Implementing just document.all does nothing for IE-compatibility, since you have to implement the rest of the MS Document Object Model to actually get things done. Once you do that you would have three DOM implementations, the mozilla native one, the W3C one, and the IE one. All three would have to be maintained, and you'd need to constantly chase every new release of IE (though with IE's current lethargy this is less of a problem). Also, it's impossible to have perfect IE compatibility. IE for mac was a different engine, and wasn't anymore compatible with windows IE than mozilla is. You need to not only implement the same features, but you have to implement the same bugs, the same way of responding to error conditions, the same timing of screen updating behaviors.
Gecko's design is a very good trade-off between standards and compatibility. Dave Hyatt has stated on his weblog he tries to do things the gecko way often (looking to gecko for guidance on how to do a compromise). And safari pretends to be gecko in its useragent string.
Anyway, if a site doesn't work in mozilla, you can file it as a bug. If it can be fixed in the engine without breaking standards compatibility and a lot of sites would benefit from that fix, it probably will be. Otherwise it will become an evangelism bug, and mozilla people will contact the site to advise them how to become mozilla-compatible.
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
IE's CSS support has gotten better in recent releases but it's still not on par with Mozilla's support. For most things though it seems good enough to just use standard HTML/CSS without any IEisms. IE still isn't very PNG friendly though which is an ongoing annoyance for me.
Overall though it's not really a problem to just code to the standard. Coding to IE is problematic because it's a standard that changes with each release.
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:4, Insightful)
But I also understand where MikeFM is comfing from.
The problem is everybody is laboring under the delusion that they're a fricken designer because they can recognize a nice site when they see one. Sometimes its the designer and sometimes its the client and often its both.
There's a huge gulf between being able to see that a site is good and bad and being able to produce a good site oneself. Unfortunately, once a non-pro gets his ego invested in something, he can't be objective anymore. A real pro can walk away from something he thought was great because, (a) he's there to accomplish somethign for the customer, no t just feeding his ego, (b) he knows there's plenty more where that came from and (c) he'll have a chance to try his brilliant design on the next customer.
MikeFM goes to far. There's a big differnce between realizing that most designs suck and thinking design itself sucks. Since I am not a graphic artist, when I have to design a web interface I follow three rules: (1) keep it simple (2)steal from clean designs I admire to the greatest degree compatible with [1] (3) Put as muc of the design into CSS as I can, consistent with my understandign of CSS. It pretty much guarantees acceptable mediocrity, which is pretty good for a non artist.
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:4, Interesting)
I ran into one of those yesterday on a sporting goods sales site... wrote them a nastygram quoting their rejection-page back to them, together with my browser identity, then asking whether I should expect the same kind of bullshit from their merchandise that I find in their web site design.
idiot bastards!
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
In my entire life, I have seen *one* website that used Flash in what I could consider a significantly beneficial manner, and I have seen many, many websites in my life. The website was for an MP3 player, and one could try out the interface in an embedded Flash object. The rest of the site did not use Flash. There was no equally effective way to reproduce this functionality without Flash, the functionality was clearly important to the product (the product was partly being sold based on having a good interface), and a user without Flash still had the ability to work with the rest of the website.
On the whole, I have seen so little effective use of Flash, and taking into consideration the significant drawbacks of it, that if someone asked me whether to use Flash on their site, I would feel comfortable simply saying "no". The odds of it being a good idea are so phenomenally low that it's just not worth trying.
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:4, Insightful)
You're letting your visitors down by not making the effort.
"stylish" != "good" (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take a look at your mezzoblue.com example:
* Uses inconsistent highlighting -- background rollovers (ugh) on part of the text like the "also available" websites, underline rollovers on other parts like the "Designing with Web Standards" link.
* It uses images for text in its heading. At the moment, I am sitting back fram my computer and leaning on a recliner. My face is about 1.5 to 2 times my normal viewing distance, and I use 1152x864 on a 17" monitor, which is already a high resolution. Normally, I just bump up the text size and have no problem reading a website (as do disabled people). This website's topic entries are unreadable to me, and I had to lean forward plop my face right next to the screen to read the "also available" heading. Heck, that's damned small text even for a lot of glasses-wearing older folks that I know of, with no way to work around it.
* The site uses rollover menus. I don't think I know *anyone* that likes using rollover menus -- I *really* hate it. It doesn't even use your typical old annoying rollover menu -- this has an image background or something. It took ten seconds or so for the image to load, so I had floating white text on a light blue background for a bit. It was pretty unusable.
* Widget functionality is unclear to a viewer. Once again, the analysis I've heard of rollovers holds true -- they're used by designers that have such an unintuitive design that they require the user to wave the mouse around over the interface to figure out how it works. There are rollover menus in the upper top corner. There's no visual indication that these little dinky images are, in fact, rollover menus. It wasn't until I started scanning the page with my mouse cursor that I figured it out.
* Confusingly chosen and similar visual indicators. The mezzoblue.com site uses a diagonally-upward-aiming triangle to indicate a menu (*most* of the time). For starters, this indicator is inconsistent with the common desktop use of a downward-aiming triangle to indicate a popup menu. It is also almost identical to the diagonally-downward-aiming triangle that is used to indicate a section header *on the same site*. Not only that, diagonal triangles most common use in current HCI is for a half-open expandable section of data, a convention from Mac OS. The sections look like they *might* roll up when clicked, but do not in fact do so.
* Dissimilar widgets are visually identical. If this designer *had* to make rollover menus and grokked HCI (a dubious pair of bedfellows to begin with), he'd know that one does not make widgets that operate differently but appear identical to the user. Up at the top, we have three blocks of text that appear the same (upward-diagonal triangle, text). The first two ("about", "weblog") are rollover menus. The third, "contact", is a link. When I started rolling my cursor over them, I sat and waited on this link, assuming that my browser was just slow to pop up the associated menu.
* Text colors poorly chosen for readability. Much of the text/background combinations involve two very similar shades of blue. Most of this is readable to me at my current viewing distance if I increase the size, but I know many people that would *not* be able to comfortably read such text.
Honestly, mezzoblue.com seems an excellent example of why sites should *not* be "stylish" -- when designers use "stylish" as an excuse, they're frequently making websites that are simply poorly built from an interface point of view.
Finally, as I've argued before, a lot of people making "stylish" websites with "extra zazz" are people that are familiar with the conventional way products are sold. Most products need to appear flashy, interesting, and novel just long enough for a person to impulsively choose to buy them. For conventional products, "flash" h
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:4, Insightful)
IE is not a standard, and won't be unless Microsoft buys it's way into being a standards organization.
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Funny)
Admittedly, I get most of my site's hits from Slashdot, but I find a rather pleasant mix of Gecko, Mozilla, Opera, Apple Webkit, and occasionally someone using IE. Actually, I think Google surfs my site more than anyone. (I did tell "Slurp" to take a flying leap.) Of course it does flop over to nearly 80% IE from time to time, but I've also noticed that IE users are only interested in some file named cmd.exe or root.exe, and I've never offered either of those files from this box. It must be a Microsoft thing...
Personally I'm hooked on using Firefox, but I design my pages to look good in any light. ;-)
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya know, I find that a funny statement.
I manage a software development group, and we have to build for IE too. But we also have to make sure our software works with Mozilla. And for Opera, and Mac, and everything else. We support all "modern" browsers (basicly, verions >=5)
You see, we can't really dictate a browser, and we're not interested in getting locked into one vendor product. We want to remain flexible for the future, and we want to remain reliable when a new browser hits the market.
So we support all browsers.
Happily, this is a very minor expense. In fact, as project manager, I can say with confidence that it costs us well under 1/1000th of our development budget. The only difficulty is to get contractors and new employees to use web standards.
In the end, our maintenance costs are lower, and our user satisfaction is sky high. We never ever get complaints about browser compatibility.... not even once in over 4 years of high-volume operation.
Oh yeah, and our apps look and work damned good too.
So what's the deal? What is wrong with organizations that can't support regular browsers without undo expense and difficulty???
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:4, Informative)
I run a site that's for a windows app, so there's a majority of Windows users (I'd guess almost exclusively windows actually) visiting it... you'd expect a very high IE percentage there, but I've currently got (based on ~1.2 million hits):
IE6 60%
Mozilla 11%
IE5 6%
IE5.5 2.3%
Opera7.2 1.7%
Opera7.1 0.3%
The rest is made up of sundry bots and capture scripts.
Looking at those stats... why the $$% do people target IE5 over mozilla??? (I'd love to know why IE5 is 3 times more popular than 5.5, too...)
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Informative)
15% non IE is obviously not a majority, but it's not insignificant either. Only dealing with IE would piss off 1 in every 7 visitors to your site.
Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (Score:5, Interesting)
Essentially, because MSIE butchers the standards, I know from experience that if I develop and test my code using MSIE it often barfs on anything else. If I code on Moz, because it's pretty well standards compliant, 99% of the time it works straight out of the box in IE too.
I'd still develop under Moz if that wasn't true, though. To get a context menu item that'll tell me
* What form fields are around and what values they have
* What images the page contains
* What links the page contains
saves a _lot_ of hassle. Can they please fix the bug, though, that causes a new HTTP request if I want to view the source? Why can't it just use cached HTML?
Building for Both - Lacks features (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, the Any Browser campaign says to write everything to HTML 4.01 "Strict". Use CSS for all layout. Mozilla development fits this very nicely. Check out Eric Meyer's [meyerweb.com] CSS/EDGE [meyerweb.com]. Everything at CSS/Edge fits with the "AnyBrowser" way of doing things, but yet not everything at CSS/Edge will load with Internet Explorer.
In my own less complex pages, I've found that I can make a page load /similarly/ in both, but I can't use HTML "Strict", unless Internet Explorer starts to choke (throwing everything to the left edge when I wanted it centered, etc.).
So, as the above post mentioned, you end up writing to Internet Explorer, but you loose compatability with some "text readers for the blind", lynx, etc.
Ah, but who cares if a blind person can read your web page. Well, maybe your web page isn't just a collection of photos, maybe you have something of interest. Then, you should care.
Bottom line, the user will think that you're web page is broken if it doesn't load in I.E., and you loose readers this way. So, you end up with a web page that is a little more sparse, and less feature rich than you wanted.
A point each way. (Score:5, Interesting)
But the truth is that IE has so much of the market share that revisions don't matter. People tend to use whatever came with their system, even if it is older and came with IE 5. If Microsoft didn't push the patches, quite a few people would be using these older version even now.
BTW, I'm using Firefox.
Re:A point each way. (Score:4, Informative)
Integrating MSN toolbar with IE is highly unlikely.
Re:Who fucking cares (Score:5, Insightful)
True.
Intelligence also has a small marketshare...
Re:Who fucking cares (Score:5, Interesting)
Feeding the troll:
You are right. Mozilla's marketshare isn't large. Most Windows users probably don't even know it exists. This doesn't mean they haven't used Mozilla or that Mozilla would be insignificant.
I've seen Mozilla based browsers used in several public web terminals. You will not be able to go to a fair of almost any kind without seeing mozilla used (I've been to quite a few that had little or nothing to do with computers and seen mozilla or a browser using the gecko engine used).
Mozilla will not gain a 95% marketshare today nor tomorrow, but it will gain marketshare. IE will live long, probably a time counted in decades, but Mozilla isn't going away.
I've been following Mozilla closely since milestone 16 and I started using it as my main browser arund version 0.96. Before that it was basically horrible. It was unstable, ate memory like crazy and was too slow for me to use.
Mozilla today is a different beast from the early days:
The most stable (modern) browser I've used (links is the most stable ever)
Best standards support
Getting faster by every release
Getting less resource hungry by every release
The most extendable browser around.
IE will live long but so will Mozilla. Mozilla's marketshare will grow, IE's will probably not. Mozilla is evolving fast, IE is not. Mozilla will always be free, IE might not be. Mozilla will be developed as long as anyone wants to do it or has the money to fund it, IE will not.
All I can say that I hope that the current version of IE lives long and that Microsoft keeps iproving it at the current pace. That will ensure that Mozilla will gain marketshare as it races past IE.
Long Live (the current version of) IE
Re:Firefox improved? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Firefox improved? (Score:5, Informative)
They basically rewrote the string implementation and it is "better faster stronger" than before.
So yeah, Firefox 0.9 will get a speed improvement too. (You can also grab a nightly. They have the improvements -- and more bugs.)
P.S. Also new in Mozilla 1.6 is the ability to block websites from hijacking your context menu (right click menu) in the browser. Yay!
Re:Firefox (Score:3, Informative)
e.g, Mozilla 1.6-Firefox 0.8
Mozilla 1.5-Firefox 0.7
Remeber firefox will branch soon from the 1.7 release, so far a while, Mozilla (aka Seamonkey) will have rendering fixes/speedups and Firefox won't have it till it returns back to the trunk sometime after 1.0 is released
Thunderbird... buggiest thing on earth (Score:4, Informative)
In particular:
- massive problems moving/deleting nested mail folders
- massive problems importing from another mail client (Eudora)
- seems to crash sometimes for no apparent reason
- crazy things happened with the preview pane all the time, like it would disappear at random or make itself really, really tiny and refuse to return to its former, big size
- some options tied exclusively to a particular account - e.g. filters - making the mail-checking process less transparent if you have multiple/many e-mail accounts
- seems to be trying to look a lot like Outlook, which is a shame and unnecessary
I wasn't looking for problems - I WANT to use it, and it has a lot of potential, but right now I'm not gonna use it myself and I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to any non-technical people.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:5%? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Help me out (Score:5, Informative)
Mozilla will then make Firefox it's primary browser after 1.0, and Thunderbird it's primary mail reader after 1.0. The Mozilla browser you know will still exist as "Mozilla Suite".
Re:All those stats... yet no memory useage counts? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're comparing to IE, then it's not a fair comparison since IE hides some of its memory footprint in explorer and other places and still takes up 12-25 MB for iexplore.exe.
If you're comparing to Konqueror or another KHTML or Gecko browser, then nevermind.
On a related note, is it just me, or does Moz get paged out a LOT quicker than many other apps? Is it playing "too" nice somehow?
I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but if you're using Moz under Windows then the disadvantage is that Moz plays fair. IE, MS Office, Sun Java and Adobe Acrobat Reader I've noticed hang around in RAM a long, long time after you quit using them. I suspect they have settings to stay in memory an extra long time, where I suspect Mozilla plays nice and sets itself to normal and therefore gets squeezed out by the others.
If you're talking about an X / POSIX platform, then nevermind.
who closes Mozilla? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All those stats... yet no memory useage counts? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not a secret API. It's MSHTML.DLL, which EXPLORER.EXE (since Win95+IE4 or Win98) and IEXPLORE.EXE both use. It probably uses (documented, non-secret) APIs to create shared r/w data pages for an interprocess in-memory cache. (And, to be fair, if you were writing an embeddable shared-object web browser control meant to be part of 20 apps at once, all owned by the same user, why wouldn't you?)
Re:All those stats... yet no memory useage counts? (Score:4, Informative)
It will then start about as fast as IE every next time you open it.
Re:All those stats... yet no memory useage counts? (Score:5, Interesting)
JS difference between Mozilla and MSIE (Score:5, Interesting)
Be careful when using setInterval() and setTimeout(). Mozilla 1.3 cannot use setTimeout() recursively to create the effect of setInterval() without maxing CPU usage. setInterval() works fine. If you want something to happen at regular intervals, use setInterval() to make all browsers happy.
---
One issue where the browsers are different is capturing key events:
MSIE6 requires:Mozilla1.3 works with:[addchar() is a generic function to handle the processing of each key regardless of the browser.]
[Why did Slashcode add a space within the ECODE tags?]
Luckily both sets of code can be on the same page with the KeyPress event being set correctly without testing for the browser names. I prefer the second method because it allows the code to be contained in a
To be on-topic:
Does Mozilla1.7 allow for the awful event model of MSIE? Will this code still work?