Slashdot Mirror
First Reviews of Mozilla 1.0 Roll In
Since the announcement of Mozilla 1.0's release, at least a few journalists have been quick to turn the beast over and poke its belly. Tina Gasperson's review over at NewsForge makes an interesting contrast to CNET's review; strange how they give a rating that would barely merit a "C-" after describing Mozilla's robustness, standards compliance, speed and convenience features.
this function doesn't discriminate, so it may disable pop-ups you actually want to see, such as the video pop-ups on the News.com front door.
Yeah fucking right CNET. Suck it!
From The CNET article Even stranger, both Mozilla and Netscape outran IE 6 in three of four tests.
From now on, "strange" will be defined as "something you would predict off the top of your head"
Never confuse volume with power.
Reviewer: "However, the release notes say you should not use your Netscape profiles, because you could lose your search settings or become the victim of an ever-growing bookmark file that might freeze your system. I've been using Mozilla 1.0 since the release announcement, with my Netscape profile, and haven't experienced these problems. Yet."
Release notes: "Do not share a profile between Netscape and Mozilla builds."
e.g., not in the same directly, not import, yes?
-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
First open source stuff I've used. I'm running it at home on XP and at work on NT4. Absolutely LOVE the tabs.
I think I finally found what will replace my beloved Netscape 4.7 as my browser of choice.
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.
This is what irks me. The web is supposed to be platform-neutral, not built for IE. Mozilla, IMHO is doing the right thing by not making its browser conform to the skewed standards IE has set. I say let those pages that are "built for IE" look like crap. Sooner or later, Mozilla will gain market share (we hope,) and people will have to begin building web pages that are standards-compliant not IE-compliant. Good job, Mozilla!
Hargun
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
"The bad: Incompatible with some sites built for Internet Explorer"
Uh. Well. Duh.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
Last time I checked. ChatZilla was a IRC client, not a friggin chat program to be used with AIM, ICQ, etc. While that would be something nice to add, it's already been done and I don't see why the author would mention this. IRC is much cooler than IM anyhow!
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Unless you want to read ass-kissing, don't go there.
They can even write pap about desktop Video and FireWire without even mentionning Apple existence.
They're strange that way.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Ciryon
Think I'm wrong? By contrast, PCWeek, eWeek, and lots of other industry rags tend to be more impartial, and will generally call a turd a turd and a gem a gem, not vice versa.
But then there's audience too to calculate in too. I dare say that if Microsoft were to behave nicely and come out with a superier product that was priced fairly, some one here would find something to bitch about.
www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
Not knowing a whole lot about it, it seems that my opera has (speedwise) outperformed both netscape and ie by quite a good margin
A while ago (M17?) I decided I was going to wait for 1.0 before I switched over to Mozilla.
Since then I fell in love with Opera's gestures and tabbed browsing. I think that Mozilla handles Tabs Awsomly, but that its gestures are kinda lame.
ex: in Opera I can right click hold and mouse wheel to change windows.
and can go foward and back with just the buttons (no motion). In Mozilla I am stuck with holding a button that has another function and moving the mouse, and with my spazzy hand I fail half the time succeed.
Amyway, I like Mozilla but it won't become my browser of choice anytime soon (I predict).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
For example, we struggled with sites that use a technology called positioning to put ads on their pages. In IE, those ads temporarily hide part of the page, then go away. But in our Mozilla tests, the ads sometimes permanently blocked part of the page, and we had to reload the page until we got a different, regular, nonpositioning ad.
------
The problem is not the browser...but the ad. When will these people wake up? Did you catch that TWO of their few complains centered around use of ads, or features to stop ads? When you turn pop-ups off, it may disable some aspects of cnet.com (news.com?) that you really want to use. Hehe...yeah.
The ads causing a page to be non-function is a good reason to a) stop using the site and b) send the webmaster a poltite message telling them why you will never visit their site again.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
In the CNET review,
For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.
This "criticism" seems to me to be rather absentminded. Specifically building sites for IE is a shortcoming on the developer side. And imagine a browser being criticised for rendering ads, of all things, incorrectly! Go figure. Personally I can't wait to update my RCx.
I suppose these were a couple good first-day reviews. I downloaded 1.0 yesterday and played around with it. My impressions were that for casual use, Mozilla's pretty indistinguishable from IE. But there was one thing that caught my attention that I think is of great importance, but wasn't mentioned in either review.
Not to troll, but the front end of Mozilla is ugly as sin. If this browser's going to catch on, what will matter to most mainstream users isn't pipelining, tabbed browsing, or HTML compliance, but the initial first impression of how good it looks. Say what you want about Microsoft, but they hired some standout designers to make IE look gorgeous.
Now I know that the whole point of Mozilla is the underlying technology. But for it to catch on as a browser, it needs to be every bit as pretty as IE. It'll be interesting to see if the Netscape version of 1.0 incorporates a glossy front end. For now, I know which browser I politically favor, but I also know which one I want to look at several times a day. They aren't the same.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
I like the idea of Mozilla. But a day after installing it, I'm still using IE. Why? IE is more responsive...and that's what's important to me.
I do use it at home sometimes...but only because the wife hates it, and therefore she never checks my pr0n history (heh).
Hey freaks: now you're ju
" Beyond its skins and pop-up-killing abilities, however, Mozilla 1.0 doesn't do much more for the average Web surfer than Internet Explorer does. For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla. For example, we struggled with sites that use a technology called positioning to put ads on their pages. In IE, those ads temporarily hide part of the page, then go away. But in our Mozilla tests, the ads sometimes permanently blocked part of the page, and we had to reload the page until we got a different, regular, nonpositioning ad."
I seriously doubt this has anything to do with Mozilla. More likely, the web designer used the broken standards of IE and never bothered to test it with other browsers.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
...the open source advocacy site likes an open source web browser. Color me surprised.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
After becoming an employee of a "microsoft shop" in jan, I've used nothing but m$ and its products for 99% of my development tools(officexp/winxp pro/messenger/vis studio etc) and day to day work.
So I took a chance on the posting yesterday and decided to give Mozilla a whirl. First impression wasn't that great due to the cheese splash screen on launch(which I replaced, and it actually listened to me!). However it didn't take long for me to be converted after that.
Right off the bat, I turned off 90% of pop up adds, imported my IE fav's and even gave it a new look using the themes. i was and still am truely impressed by Mozilla. I can search my bookmarks, a huge deal for me. I can tell Mozilla how to behave...and it seems to actually listen!
After realising how much I liked this new browser I suddenly became very aware of how far the 'net in general has gone down hill since IE's dominace. I realized how my work got further and further away from stds, focused on M$ and how they wanted things done. Most of all I was dissapointed how I had forgotten just how good the net as a whole used to be.
Either way, if the Moz. dev team is listening, thank you. I can once again surf in peace.
thirsty*i^2
"Ya I finished that last week, it just doesn't work"
"Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla"
What?!? So because a bunch of lazy web "developers" have written IE specific html, we should not just assume this means IE is the better browser? I think this is a really narrow-minded observation. Granted he may be right about the rendering, but it does not mean that Mozilla is not as good as IE.
Seriously, IE simply renders pages more "correctly" because it dominates the market and lazy "developers" have written IE specific code.
I guess this journalist also believes that Windows is superior to Mac OS X because there is more software available for it. Or maybe he just enjoys BSODs. Get real, this is not a fair way to compare browsers.
One last thing... can someone please show me a page link to all these pages that don't render correctly in Mozilla? I use Mozilla exclusively and have not come upon any pages in the last few months that do not work correctly with Mozilla.
Got to admit, Moz 1.0 is pretty sweet. It got a little bit faster with each release, and a lot more stable.
Now if only the Mozilla email bits would work properly. All sorts of issues there. My favorite is Mozilla crashing whenever you try to sign/encrypt any S/MIME message when you are not logged into the certificate manager. Nice.
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
MOD PARENT DOWN. It's a TROLL.
The first link is a troll. (Yeah I'll lose karma on this too but moderators, please wait for the parent to get modded down before you kill this post.)
see subject.
Soccer Goal Plans
"If you really want to chat on IRC, use an IM such as Trillian instead."
Honestly, why would anyone want to use IRC in and instant messanger? Chatzilla is an IRC client as it should be.
Don't worry to much about the 7 out of 10. They gave IE 6 the same score.
Why aren't we told when editors moderate our posts?
Mozilla is nice on MacOS X but it does not take advantage of the Quartz type smoothing like OmniWeb or Chimera. However, if you install Unsanity's haxie program called Silk, it will allow Mozilla (or IE) to use the Quartz text smoothing along with your other Carbon apps. Well worth the download and it doesn't appear to slow down the system -- which I expected. With Quartz text smoothing, MacOS X becomes the most visually appealing, web browsing platform -- which it should be.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I personally like the Enigmail plugin for OpenPGP support in the browser. Easy encryption for the masses.
Have you EVER used Mozilla? And, as the above poster mentioned, may I please have some of whatever you are smoking? A few points-
One example of this problem is Mozilla's extremely slow development cycle
Have you compared the relative quality of IE 1.0 to Mozilla 1.0? Many people are comparing IE6.0 to Mozilla 1.0 in a favorable manner...certainly comparing the 1.0 releases of both products would be silly. The "slow" dev cycle is based on an entirely different design philosophy: the code is released when it is ready, not when some arbitrary date arrives.
Mozilla has no paying customer or management to answer to, the browser suffers from innumerable problems. It's a RAM hog [...] Its default user interface emphasizes form over function [...] It does not support the current generation of Web-related standards. It's slow.
On my current machine (Win2K Pro), Mozilla is using 21,272k. I am not worried about this, as I have a gig of ram in this box. However, I have *no* other apps open (even in the tray), and currently 181meg of my memory is being used. How much of that is IE? We will never know. Obviously iexplore.exe is not all of IE, as Microsoft has repeatedly informed us that IE is integrated into the OS. As to the slowness, you would be best to go peruse the reviews linked in the article. All of them show Mozilla being at least as fast as IE. Are you sure you have your l33t Solaris box configured properly? I used Mozilla and IE (where possible) on my 7 machines, which are a mix of Win2K and various flavors of Linux, and Mozilla is the same or better than IE on every single one. As to web standards, you have no idea what you are talking about. Go read some of the info on Mozilla's web site. Mozilla is the most standards-complaint browser on the market. The problems that you see are its incomplete handling of IE-specific extensions to W3C standards.
But I think that the most laughable thing of the farse that is the Mozilla project is that no one said "no" to any feature requests [...] the project is so disorganized that basic web browser functionality was often ignored so that developers could work on their favorite "cool" features. A good example is the mail client [...] development on such a client should not have began until the browser was finished [...] I simply don't understand why Mozilla implements a completely custom widget set...
This long, ranting paragraph basically says that you would have developed Mozilla differently. Apparantly, the people who actually worked on Mozilla (it is pretty obvious that you are not a developer, but merely a whiny user) favored certain features that you do not find useful. Please bear in mind that if you do not like how Mozilla was developed, then you certainly could have lent a hand, rather than criticizing the years of hard work that the devs put into Mozilla. Provided, of course, that you can be dragged away from your "Real UNIX Work" on your "Solaris Box That Cost More Than Slashdot Makes In A Year."
And Windows users have even less reason to be impressed with Mozilla, because most of its "features" seem even more unecessary in a Windows environment. For example, the mail client is absolutely useless, because almost all Windows business users use Outlook or Outlook Express.
Hundreds of virus writers worldwide are alternately laughing or thanking you profusely for your endorsement of Outlook.
Gecko violates Windows user interface conventions, making it look more like some college student's "intro to VB let's see all of the cool buttons and colors that I can add to my app" project than an application that is actually intended for use in the real world
If you don't like how Mozilla looks, go grab a different skin. I did (Lo-Fi). I only wish that I could make the rest of Windows look like my Mozilla skin, which I find simple, clear, and easy to use. Sadly, I can't change the look and feel of my Windows machines as easily as I can the Linux ones.
Internet Explorer is superior to Mozilla
Again, I have my opinions, so do many others, but I really think you should do some research before stating them as fact. Go read the reviews linked in the article.
Mozilla has also lost on the UNIX platform. Internet Explorer is faster and more standards compliant
Could you please provide a link to the GNU/Linux binaries for IE? Oh, wait, by UNIX you mean Solaris...and of course, Solaris is taking over the desktop market.
In all honesty, this reply has been a complete waste of my time. You are obviously trolling here, more interested in spewing invectives about Mozilla than any useful discussion. In reality, noone is even going to see your reply, as it will be moderated down below 1. However, I hope that you will indeed take the time to reconsider your opinions and maintain a bit more of an open mind concerning your software.
"Sooner or later, Mozilla will gain market share (we hope,) and people will have to begin building web pages that are standards-compliant not IE-compliant."
:-)
Sir, on the one hand, I think it is commendable that you believe so strongly in the platform-independant Internet. That is the way it is supposed to be, and IE's standard skewing is regrettable. That skewing is now the reality, however, and there is no way Joe User will keep Mozilla installed for more than 5 min once he sees that his pages look different - and standards compliance be damned. The average user wants their pages to look pretty. If mozilla doesn't do that, even in the name of standards compliance, most people will not use it. The only way to gain market share is to support the IE standards.
For now.
But if Mozilla does grow more popular, then there's no reason it couldn't take a page from IE's book, and slowly stop supporting IE "Standards" in new releases. Once the user base for Mozilla is large enough - and remember, a period of IE compliance IS needed for this to happen - then if Mozilla starts adopting strict standards compliance, IE might be forced to follow suit. Might.
It worked for microsoft - could it work here?
I'm the stranger...posting to
Actually, they gave it the same rating as they gave IE 6, Netscape 7 PR 1, Netscape 6.1, and one more than Opera 6. So in reality, Mozilla ranked as well as the "best" browsers from MS.
Not true... Mozilla allows for faster turn-around times for security patches and updates. Cookies and images can be disabled in actual Emails, something outlook or outlook express fails to do.
In a security consience world, Mozilla is probably better in security than IE, since Mozilla isn't apart of the OS itself! Granted, Mozilla will have a few security holes, but who would you rather fix them? Microsoft with a 4 week turnaround time, or Mozilla with usually a 1-2 day turnaround.
I love this quote right at the start of the review:
/home/tina/mozilla-installer. I entered the directory, changed to superuser because I want the rest of my family to be able to use Mozilla, too, and typed sh mozilla-installer. The GUI interface came up, and I accepted the default installation directory: /usr/local/mozilla. If you're the only one who uses your computer, you could just install it in /home/your_home/mozilla.
First, the basics. Mozilla and Netscape mirror each other in ease of installation with an idiot-proof GUI installer. I just downloaded the installer in a tar.gz format. Unpacked into my home directory, the files went into
Heh, that's a whole heck of a lot of steps just to get to the GUI installer. Isn't there anything available for Linux that would provide the functionality of something like a self-extracting ZIP file on Windows?
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
Use what you want. Don't submit to any Slashdot propaganda which tells you that you need to run a free operating system to be cool.
Uh oh! So Mozilla allows the users to see content without seeing the pop-up and pop-under adds. If we are to believe the Replay TV lawsuit then Mozilla is a tool which allows users to "steal" content. Sounds like a DMCA violation as well.
Let's sit back and watch as the lawsuits start rolling in.
Mozilla 1.0 is out, and the release notes say:
"Supported XML W3C Recommendations
SVG"
"The standards Mozilla 1.0 supports include:
SVG"
but there is no SVG support in 1.0. Ze-ro.
Check this post for some more info.
peace, love, respect
it uses 3 times the memory space as IE. I thought it was supposed to be more efficient?
Yes... Do you know why??? Because most of IE is integrated into the explorer UI. Most of the bulk of Internet Explorer lies there. When you fire up mozilla, it has to start everything, the rendering engine, its own UI, etc. If you take that into account, Mozilla is far more efficient. Think of it this way: take the time that it takes the explorer shell to start and add the time that it takes for IE to start. Also, add the memory usage. Then compare to mozilla. Have a nice day.
The coolest thing in mozilla is that I can associate a bookmark with a keyword (even just a letter or two), and go to that bookmark through the URL bar with that keyword, even with search terms.
% s
E.g. I have this bookmark for dictionary.com:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=
For keyword, I have it set to 'd'. I can lookup a word by typing "d " on the url bar, and hitting enter.
I do similar things for Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=%s), for IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/Find?select=All&for=%s), and especially for various customer searches with our database search engine at work.
This feature saves me TONS of time every day. This alone is enough to keep me using Mozilla as long as it remains stable.
Then you add in the oft-mentioned tabbed browsing, popup blocking, standards compliancy, skinnability, programmability, etc., and it just gets better.
And don't forget, the perfect complement to tabbed browsing -- saving a group of bookmarks as one item ! Perfect.
And what about how much more consistently Mozilla handles links for new windows? MSIE has two shitty behaviors to choose from, which drive me crazy. Either you open up a page in a new window each time , or it tries to re-use windows that are already open, usually picking the one I don't want. Even when clicking on bookmarks, it uses this bizarre behavior. I don't know when they added this 'feature', but it drove me bonkerz.
Jeez, I haven't even gotten to the email client! All the things that drive me nuts in Outlook/Outlook Express are fixed in Mozilla's mail client. It only lacks a couple things I like (Eudora's "redirect" ability, for one).
Finally a mail client that lets me use IMAP without constantly reminding me that I'm looking at a remote message. (What's this outlook crap with drawing a line through a deleted message? I like for the message to disappear, and the focus to move to the next message... thanks mozilla.)
Not perfect, but mozilla is getting there.
"And like that
3 is definatly a video driver issue.
I've had the same thing with many programs under ATI video cards. Seems it has something to do with specific drawing methods.
I've not seen in with mozilla, but many a time I've lost the X in all windows to a green and black mess.
Rod Taylor
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For keyword, I have it set to 'd'. I can lookup a word by typing "d " on the url bar, and hitting enter.
Whoops, that should have said "d [word]". You type d, then the word you want to lookup, hit enter.
"And like that
It's a RAM hog. It's slow.
You can cut down the amount of RAM usage by going to Preferences->Advanced->Cache and then reduce the memory cache. Personally, I find its memory usage quite acceptable (I watch the virtual memory usage as well as the physical memory usage). I've heard that IE hides much of its mem usage. But I guess you're on a Solaris box so this is probably not the case for you.
(You may have noticed that I seem fixated on Mozilla's slowness. [...] I have a Sun workstation that cost more money than Slashdot earns in a year. On this workstation, Internet Explorer takes x seconds to load, Netscape 4 takes 2x seconds to load, and Mozilla takes 15x (!!) seconds to load.
You're comparing browser load times? If so, that's not a really an important issue, though I find Mozilla loads fast even without the preloading feature. What's important is page rendering times. According to the CNET article, Mozilla was faster in 3 or 4 tests (granted they don't go into detail and talk about other tests).
In any case do want you want. Continue to use IE exclusively if you please. But many of us are going to be giving Mozilla and Mozilla-based browsers a chance. It has something that IE will most likely never have: it is completely customizable in that we have the source code.
The web 'standards' are the ones that everyone agreed that they would implement. There is this thing, called the W3C that the companies in question, Netscape, MS, and whomever else wanted to say got together and decided to agree that there was a way to do things like style sheets and DOM, etc...
MS has not implemented them, which is their right, they don't have to. Trying to emulate them will only cause their stranglehold to increase, not decrease. Mozilla is a better browser, but not because it renders HTML faster, but because it actaully does MORE then IE does.
there are numerous wierd little bugs in every browser that might occur on a specific platform under certain conditions -- Mozilla relies on people who find such bugs to report them so thay can be fixed...
if you found a bug in a pre-release version of the browser and didn't report it - you have no right to complain!
My understanding is that since IE is so integrated into the OS, a lot of the DLLs that it uses are already loaded with the operating system, so the apparent memory footprint of IE isn't quite what you see; there's a lot that's behind the scenes. Which is one of the reasons why Windows is so bloated.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The BBC has a story on the 1.0 release of mozilla, including the background of Mozilla and the principles of OpenSource.
It seems to be a generally favourable overview: "Mozilla is quick, stable, and virtually free of the default links to manufacturers' products that feature so prominently in commercial browsers". Also mentioned is the recent release of OpenOffice. Includes some quotes from Mitchell Baker of mozilla.org.
Chris
...the help documentation filled out before release. A 1.0 release shouldn't have vast gaping holes in the docs that say "Information to be filled in". There are actual things I'd like to know. For instance, is there a way to switch between tabs, using the keyboard? If I can't, it's arguably faster to have multiple windows open and cycle through them that way.
It's all well and good that the browser has lots of features. They're pretty useless if I can't figure out how to use them.
Odd, Cnet used the classic skin in its screenshot --- big buttons with big text. Cnet notes: "Mozilla comes with two skins, or interface designs. The default is the so-called Classic, which makes Mozilla look an awful lot like Netscape Navigator 4.x."
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am really sure the default skin for Mozilla is modern, which is much prettier than Classic.
I know this is just a screenshot, but first impressions may be important for an IE user who is learning Mozilla for the first-time via Cnet reviews.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
I use Mandrake and I'm using the packaged installer for Mozilla, partially because the last time I checked the mozilla mdk RPM (1.0-rc2 I think), it required an update of 30-something packages. This, on a newly-installed Mandrake 8.2 system. That is NOT necessary just to install the latest copy of Mozilla.
Quite the contary to your post, I believe the installer version of Mozilla is much more conveinent than the RPM version. It installs the entire application in one folder (/usr/local/mozilla), which you can quickly remove if you need to.
Needless to say, there is a version of the Mozilla installer that includes all of the components (at a sizable 12.5MB download), where you can pick and choose components (I bypassed the mail client and Chatzilla). I still have Mozilla-0.9.8 installed as an RPM (as Nautilus and several other programs require it being there), but I never run that version anymore. 1.0 is all I need.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
First off, I don't use Chatzilla, but from what I read, it gave me no info. on Chatzilla itself.
:)
The editor reviews Chatzilla as a IM client? You can't really compare. That's like saying, "Computers suck, they don't cut my lawn well". It would have been wiser to perhaps compare Chatzilla to say, BitchX (my IRC client of choice), or XChat or *another IRC client* ???
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
Mozilla is at the core of NS nowadays, right? IIRC, AOL plans on replacing IE with NS as the default web browser (since, uh, they own it). That right there would catapult the NS/Mozilla user base in to the multi-millions, and possibly force web authors to use the actual standards.
Who knows, maybe that's just wishful thinking.
BlackGriffen
chat client doesn't work with the big commercial IM systems, including ICQ, Yahoo IM, AOL IM, and Windows Messenger
Three words for CNET: Apples and Oranges.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Who decided to drop the spell checker facilities? The spellchecker wasn't dropped. Netscape bought there spellchecker from someone else, so they couldn't release the source to it. There is a working spellchecker, but it hasn't been merged into Mozilla's source tree yet. See bug 56301 for more details as well.
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
Would MS publish this standard? How long before they sould stop publishing it in order force people to use IE?
UNIX/Linux Consulting
At work, web access is controlled by a Microsoft proxy server. The MS proxy server requires NTLM authentication support. Guess how many browsers support NTLM? (See also: how many Internet browsers has Microsoft released?)
Given that there is and has been PLENTY of information on the NTLM-over-HTTP authentication process, it is inexcusable for a 1.0 browser to not have support for this protocol.
Nathan
Now I haven't used Mozilla 1.0 extensively yet, what with it just having come out, but I can tell you that Netscape 6 and espically 4 have problems of just rendering HTML WRONG. Some examples:
I was designing a site and, as I'm won't to do, doing the whole thing in a text editor and using IE to look at it. Now because my intention was compatibility, I strictly adhered to the HTML spec (using the W3's validator to check myself) and used only tags I knew that both IE and Netscape implemented. The result was broken in Netscape. It was a 3 column, expanding design somewhat similar to Slashdot's. The code was 100% compliant and rendered properly in IE 4, IE 5 and Opera (don't remember what the current version was then). In Netscape 4.7, half the right hand column failed ot display. It to a real hack ofa workaround to make it display properly on Netscape and still maintain standards compliance.
Or another time, I was messing around with CSS and managed to create a neat little script that did text dropshadows. It took the length of the text based on font type and size (it only worked with one font) and calculated the correct offset for the top text. It worked really nice. Now I figured a neat trick like this was bound to be broken on anything but IE 6 since that was what I designed it for. To my plesant supprise it wasn't, it rendered great on IE 5 and 6 for both Mac and PC. Not on Netscape 4.7 or 6, however. The alignment was all off. Worse, it was off by different amounts on different platforms. I ended up just canning the idea.
The problem I've had with Netscape up to this point is that many of the standard they impliment, they impliment WRONG. Now since I haven't used Mozilla much for design checking (I quit doing web design) I can't speak for it's release, but NEtscape 6 which was based form it's code still had some massive problems.
Actually, if you compare Mozilla's memory usage to that of explorer.exe, Mozilla is still a bigger memory hog, even when Explorer is running the entire shell in addition to HTML rendering.
Viewing CNN's home page I found Mozilla taking around 16M and Explorer.exe around 15M. Those are total allocated memory sizes, not working set.
Three times is a bit out, but it is definitely less memory efficient.
To me it seems slightly more stable, but it's handling of Bookmarks annoys me enough to stop me from using it as my default browser. I far prefer the Drag/Drop ability you have on the IE menu.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
We need to find an ISP willing to distribute Mozilla instead of IE.
Thirty percent of people who connect to the Internet do so through America Online. After AOL's contract with Microsoft (bundling IE in exchange for bundling an AOL icon on the desktop) expired, AOL switched CompuServe to Gecko, and the next version of the AOL client is headed that way as well (AOL keyword: beta).
Will I retire or break 10K?
... is it's standards compliance.
Try the cool demos, using nothing but fully w3c-compliant HTML/CSS code.
Try that with IE. Honestly, IE still won't even support transpartent PNG's, effectively rendering (no pun intended) it useless as a serious web browser. No matter how popular it is.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Hell, it stole the idea of rendering HTML from others. Who cares? Use the browser you like.
karma capped
It's strange that I've not managed to find a site that Mozilla can't render correctly for the last six months or so. Do C|Net's reviews get to use a different version or something?
Any commercial website that does not operate correctly on non-IE browsers is cutting a swathe out of its customer base. This is why you will be hard pushed to find any. It really is that simple.
Beyond its skins and pop-up-killing abilities, however, Mozilla 1.0 doesn't do much more for the average Web surfer than Internet Explorer does.
A strange complaint, when these two features alone massively enhance the usability of the product. I simply cannot use IE anymore, rather like the majority of apps that last had any new meaningful features added circa 1996. The Mozilla Organisation at least seems to value the end user over the Spam/Web-advertising lobby, unlike some.
As for CNET: It's sad that these people call themselves journalists. Oh well.
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
In this case, response times are irrelevant - someone using the vulnerable Mozilla still wouldn't know about the update as we speak.
Hey, some of us web developers get bitched at when we tell our clients (in house people in my case), that we don't need or want super fancy graphics, flash animiation, distracting backgrounds, and an overall "geocities" kind of feel.
There's a lot of people in this world that think that's what the web should look like apparently.
*sigh* Every time we manage to convince one management type not to look at the web as a publication, but as a whole different medium with it's own set of rules, mores, norms... well, we get a new one that doesn't have a clue. "Why can't we force page breaks in HTML? How come we can't use this spiffy font? Why can't we just make all of our table images? How come it doesn't look the same on *MY* screen? ") *SIGH*
I'd like to mention the possibility to create a bookmark for a group of pages, that you have currently open in separate tabs. Just open several tabs, load one of your favourite news sites in each of them, and create a bookmark, and check the "File as group" checkbox to be able to open all of them in one single mouseclick. I love it.
karma capped
Of course, when you get down to it, it basically renders Web pages. So at a glance, there's not a lot of difference. Once you use it for a while though, you start to notice subtle things, like it crashes less often. I've been using the Moz since they began the .9.X releases, and I really like it, though there are some annoying bugs still, like squished lines of text in some windows (such as the text window I'm using to compose this message), and the fact that there are still IE specific pages out there that will never render "correctly" in a non-MS browser is something I don't think we will ever get around.
There are lots of new preferences too. I haven't tried the pop-up blocker, but that would be REALLY nice!
Another huge feature is the fact that the underlying rendering engine is modular, and can be embedded into other applications. This way, you get a lot of the same advantages that Microsoft claims when it integrates its browser "into the OS", such as uniformity of behavior between many different applications that all have to now deal with HTML and XML, without having to sell your soul to the OS vendor.
(I'm thinking of swapping Mozilla in to replace the old version of NS that my wife is using, without telling her, and seeing if she notices a difference... ;-)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Or perhaps, lynx
Your Servant, B. Baggins
[The fact that Mozilla does not rely on the vendor's Standard Template Library implementation is] why Mozilla is such a bloated piece of NIH.
Mozilla uses its own template library because some vendors' implementations of the C++ standard library are hopelessly outdated or broken, and without its own template library, Mozilla could not run on those C++ implementations. GNU libstdc++ is not as ubiquitous as we'd like.
Will I retire or break 10K?
CNET complaining that it doesn't render pages built for IE is a bit stupid. Blame the page designers, there's no real reason for any half decent web designer to build a site like that (I should know, I am one).
I've gone through a whole series of different web browsers on Windows, OS X and Linux over the years. On Linux, I'd choose Mozilla 1.0 without hesitation, clearly the best.
On Mac OS X, I stick with IE5. Omniweb, despite everybody saying it's brilliant, just doesn't do it for me. All the fonts are overly anti-aliased, and if you switch off anti-aliasing, they look rough. It also does strange things with simple tables and images on some pages. Chimera is almost there, fast, but still lacking a lot of features. Once it gets there, it'll be great. IE5 is slow, but it renders pages correctly, and 10.1.5 of X really helps with it's scroll speed on my Powerbook.
Windows 2000, IE6 is the no-brainer. And even with Moz out, it still is I'm afraid. The fact is, IE6 never crashes for me. Neither did IE5, on any of the Win2K machines I use. It never appears slow, renders every page I visit perfectly, gives me the font sizes I like, doesn't overly anti-alias text and for our internal office systems lets me do fun things with <div> tags. Where's the reason not to use it, other than for those who hate MS? I've never found any IE security hole to be a problem (how many people are going to be using Gopher links these days?) so I don't see that as a major selling point (and neither will the rest of the general public). And Moz's open-source status won't make it free from issues like that either, despite what people might think, just go look for known open-source security holes. There are lots. Apache, mySQL, PHP and more have all had them.
But in the end, Moz does a lot of things right, tabbed browsing is great (Opera may have had it first, but Opera never rendered pages for me as well as Moz does), the page rendering is almost always on par with IE6, as is the speed. I'm not a fan of the interface and I hate skins (pointless, useless things, just design an interface that looks good and works in the first place), but generally I was very impressed with it. Stupid things like forgetting the section I was last in when I go back to the Preferences, or continuously adding my shacknews password details to the store every time I posted, resulting in it asking me to keep selecting which username I wanted to use marred the experience somewhat.
What the Moz developers need to do now is stop copying every other browser out there, so they're not missing features, and start changing people's perception of how a browser should work to start with. Give people a reason to change. Think outside of the box. There's not been much change in the way a browser works since TBL created the web, even if HTML and the way people use the web has changed significantly. I'm interested to see if Apple do indeed produce an iWeb application (as is currently rumoured) because they would probably try something different.
Mozilla is still on my machine, but for now, I don't see much reason to switch.
Right now:
explorer.exe + iexplore.exe = 15,776 Kb
mozilla.exe = 14,908 Kb
You need to remember that Internet Explorer is nothing without its Explorer integration.
You can kill IE and keep the Windows Explorer, but not the opposite. Mozilla was designed to fit more than the Windows OS and therefore doesn't have as many dependiences on the Windows Explorer.
Btw, explorer.exe alone = 6,340 Kb right now. That's about 2 times, so not even when measuring with IE in favor, that facts isn't always right.
Finally note: I'm right now using 2 tabs in Mozilla and a *single* IE window, so I wasn't even favoring Mozilla...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Uh. Well. Duh.
Why is it so obvious that Mozilla wouldn't do a good job of displaying sites designed for IE? You'd think it was one of the primary goals for Moz. Otherwise, the only hope for a standards compliant web comes from Oepra and Konqueror.
Its pretty simple:
Libraries are counted against a process' memory allocation, as are inproc COM servers and the like.
I think you are grasping at straws here.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Yes I really wish people would look at the source too... if anyone took a look at the source of the example URL for the bug you mention, they might realize that the list item tag was opened and then closed, before the content.
You can't blame the browser for incompetent web design. IE has always been more forgiving in regard to poorly formed html, but that's not necessarily a good thing -- it's just a thumbs up to writing sloppy html.
Oh well.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Well, this post seems to indicate that mozilla had tabbed browsing before Opera . I'm not sure about it's accuracy since I've only tried Opera 6 but the majority of the moderators and comments seem to support it.
For what it's worth, gestured mouse operations is hardly a new concept either.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
As a web designer who uses OS X, I have no allegiance to M$ at all, especially IE. But I didn't really think the article was that biased, to be honest. I don't know very much about Mozilla, and it broke down the feature set pretty nicely.
Granted, the comment about rendering differently than IE was just dumb, as anyone who knows anything about standards would tell you. And anyone with intelligence will see through his pandering News.com comment anyway.
But I'm not sure I'm seeing the "C-" grade. Could it be you're all just a little too close to it, like an artist having his painting criticized? I think it seemed like he liked it for a 1.0 release and he'd like to see some usability improvements so the general public could get down and dirty with it. Maybe it's not fair to compare it to IE6, but that's life. Anyone who's looking for a different browser or just open-minded will get the feeling that this is a viable alternative, and at least you don't have to pay for it like Opera, while getting similar features.
Bottom line: I downloaded it and I'll check it out.
(regarding IE 6): "If you're a Netscape 6.1 fan, don't bother to switch."
Huh??
So, do this translate to the following scores then?
IE 6: 7 of 10.
Moz 0.9.3 / Netscape 6.1: 7 of 10.
Moz 1.0: (surprise!) 7 of 10.
Is that because the browser demands have increased somehow? I don't think so, since the web looks to be demanding more or less the same since IE 6 (or IE 5 for that matter...) was released. I have no other explanation for this than their reviewers either don't do in depth tests or are simply poor enough to not notice progress.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
There are two different kinds of people who might use Mozilla/Gecko.
First, the informed user who checks several browsers, decides opon their technical merits and chooses Mozilla because it's superior. They are usually well qualified to distinguish between a browser bug and a defunct HTML design.
Second, those who have it installed by default. They may curse at the browser because it doesn't render sites exactly like IE down to the pixel, but they don't have the ability to change the browser anyway.
And with the inclusion of Mozilla in AOL, the second group will be big enough anyway.
Name a browser other than IE that supports NTLM authentication. I'm curious....
People speak of incompatibilities with IE-specific sites and mozilla. I don't know about the rest of you, but would you mind giving me some sites that wont render correctly? I have failed to find any sites that do not render adaquately (by adaquately, I mean sites that get the job done... i.e. microsoft.com, when viewed in Mozilla, doesn't show those drop-down menus, yet it doesn't hinder my ability to traverse the site and find what I am looking for. The same applies to nvidia's site.) Since most of the sites that I encounter use PHP, as any good site should, I never have any problems. Because of this, I feel that negative judgement on mozilla, based on the fact that some reviewer visits totally obscure pages that idiots wrote to save time, is simply unwarrented and misguided. This judgement should not be passed on Mozilla nor on Microsoft or IE. It should be passed on the 'developers' who write code that is browser-specific, non-standards compliant, and to be simply put, garbage.
Here are some simple instructions to do it:
First of all, download the installer to /usr/local. Gzip -d and untar it - this will create the mozilla-installer directory. Then from that directory, run mozilla-installer and pick the components you want and begin the install. Mozilla gets installed into /usr/local/mozilla. Mozilla will try to start up automatically, but exit it as soon as you can.
Now do the following:
mkdir
cp -r
cd
mv mozilla mozilla-xremote-client
mv lib*
rm -r
cp -r *
cp -r
ldconfig
Then finally, edit the file
progname=$0
curdir=`dirname $progname`
Immediately after this, add a line:
curdir=/usr/lib/mozilla
And there you have it. If there are any problems, try deleting ~/.mozilla to create a new profile (back it up first though).
The problem is actually Windows, in that most versions do not know what a zip file is. I think that only recently there is unzip software included in Windows and tied to explorer.
This software, included in Windows ME and Windows XP, is called "Compressed Folders". It provides functions nearly identical to those of WinZip and WinRAR.
That makes the self-extracting zipfile offer no more functionality over a conventional zip file.
Unlike a vanilla compressed folder (.tar.gz, .zip, .rar, etc), a self-extracting archive (.exe, .rpm, .deb, etc) can automatically run the extracted setup.exe application that copies the components where they go and registers them with the operating system.
Will I retire or break 10K?
For example, the mail client is absolutely useless, because almost all Windows business users use Outlook or Outlook Express.
...ever since Netscape shat out that awful 4.x source code so many years ago.
The browser is absolutely useless too, because all Windows business users use Internet Explorer.
Uhhhh....
Seriously, if you don't need the mail client, that's why you have the option of not installing it. I, however, enjoy having a cross-platform client that works the same way on every system I use it on - something that Microsoft will never give me (they have trouble getting software to work the same way on one platform, let alone four).
Yep, that's why the Mozilla team threw it away and started over.
Kindly crawl back under the rock from whence you came.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You could try this
Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
I think part of the reason why it takes so much effore to write a (complete) browser is that there are so many W3C standards and they are so complicated. I mean, they are great for the end user to write pages in because it's really easy (if your browser supports them, of course), but even CSS2 is pages upon pages, nobody fully supports it yet, and it's four years old! Perhaps these standards are just too much? Even "simple" HTML is bizarre and overly complex by having things like headers and paragraphs that you can do in DIV's with CSS now. XHTML replaces it, but they leave in all the HTML stuff for compatibility. Of course, my favorite is that XML is an ugly re-invention of LISP s-expressions. I.e., you could write <HTML body="whtie">etc etc</HTML> or in an S-expression it would be: (HTML (@BODY whtie) etc etc), consume less space, and be easier to parse as well.
That's just for static pages...don't get me started on javascript (version incompatibilites), document object models, java, visual basic scripts...
Got friends?
This is open source, dude, so fix the bugs yourself.
Let me compile it without paying $3000 for Visual Studio.
I just tried to install Mozilla 1.0 on a virgin XP Pro box, and when I try to make it the default browser, Mozilla freezes. Does anyone have any suggestions? Would it help if I uninstalled, put in an earlier RC and then upgraded?
IE will run fine without the explorer.exe shell running dumbass. Lower memory usage and faster performance comes from moving certain functions/objects right into the Win32 API.
Mozilla is basically an OS running on top of an OS. It has its own native widget set, its own Cross-platform Component Object Model (XPCOM), god knows what else (check the source) and people wonder why it is dog slow?
Mozilla is FATware. That is what you get for re-inventing the wheel.
I use it for my email
The UNIX and Unix-workalike browser market is essentially non-existant, and I can tell you that those of us who use UNIX for real work (as opposed to pirating MP3s and DVDs and other Taco-esque activities) would have appreciated a fast, standards-compliant browser with the Navigator 4.08 GUI and featureset much more than we appreciate the slow, RAM hog piece of unprofessional garbage that Mozilla has taken way too long to produce.
Funny, I use a unix box (linux and solaris) to "do real work" and I find mozilla to be a damn fine browser. I've been using it since the first public release days (.7.x?) when I had to compile it myself to use it under solaris. Even then, when it had far less features and wasn't super stable, I preferred to to IE.
Mozilla has also lost on the UNIX platform. Internet Explorer is faster and more standards compliant. Ironically, it's also a much better UNIX application. By the way, did you know that Microsoft includes CDE icons with the IE/UNIX distribution? That's class.
Bwah ha ha! IE under Solaris is one of the most unstable apps I've ever seen under solaris. It's one of the few apps that can be counted on to take down an X session or just hang the whole session. We had several people trying it under several different solaris versions (from 2.5.1 from way back in the day to 8 these days) and everyone that tries it hates it!
Better unix app? My ass! Sure, and NT is a better unix than unix.
Fuck you all.
Thanks but no thanks.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
"Strange how they give a rating that would barely merit a "C-"..."
Did this guy even read the entire story he was submitting on? Lets review.
"Mozilla 1.0 doesn't do much more for the average Web surfer than Internet Explorer does"
"But in our Mozilla tests, the ads sometimes permanently blocked part of the page"
"Unfortunately, IRC client apps aren't very user friendly, and the same goes for Chatzilla"
"Chatzilla doesn't offer much help, either"
"instead of closing just the debugger window, it closed all of our Mozilla browser windows, as well--definitely not the behavior we expected or wanted."
...Not to mention it placed first in only one of the XP Pro tests (mixed text and graphics)
I'm not a huge fan of IE, but it's the standard at this point in time. According to the author's of the review, it just doesn't do enough to topple the standard or convince people to defect from everybodies favorite comapany in droves. maybe the C- rating was a little hard, but surely not as inconcievable as this obvious Mozilla fanboy thinks.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Oh, and sometimes when I look in the task manager under windows after completely thinking I closed mozilla, I'll still see mozilla.exe running, and have to kill it from the process manager in windows 2000.
:)
It is truely an annoyance. I suggest you do the same with explorer.exe.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
You seem to be rather ignorant of how software libre works. The way proprietary software works is that new features are added when enough people complain that the feature is not added.
The way software libre works is that a new feature is added when someone submits a patch which implements the feature in question.
If this particular feature is important to you, please start coding. You have already found the documentation which describes how this particular authentication works. That is a good start.
Now, if you have a patch which implements this feature and the Mozilla development team isn't taking the patch, that is a different story.
And, oh. Is there any particular reason you are not directly nor indirectly sharing your real name with us? When people start using anonymous IDs like "gblues", instead of their real names, that makes me thank that such people are engaging in actions which they are not accountable for.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Sounds like a request to be put on Bugzilla don't it?
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.
It's tantamount to saying, "For one thing, Mozilla doesn't use a big 'e' for it's icon."
If a site is designed to reder only IE, and other browers don't render, this shouldn't come as a big shock to anyone....
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
I'm not flaming mad over this review like some others, but this seems silly. Am I missing something, or wouldn't it be much easier to simply click the close-box and close the ads instead of reloading the page over and over again? In fact, many of the ads don't go away in IE but pop behind the main page. In those cases I prefer that the ads stay on top so I can click them closed that much easier.
I just disable "move or resize existing windows" and "raise or lower windows" in Mozilla and I've been happy. I'm afraid to disable some of the other stuff because I suspect that some legit sites use some of the features.
Move on. There's nothing to see here.
How is that for Embrace & Extend (TM)?
They are simply doing the embracing part. They aren't extending them in proprietary ways, which is what Microsoft is faulted for.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Can anyone reproduce this? I tried several pages on nytimes.com and nothing popped up for me.
I normally have NS4 and IE5 on my AthXP1700 system. Both work fine. NS4 is faster than IE5 in normal cases, but sometimes it decides to 'think' about a webpage (maybe with crappy JS?) for a few minutes before letting me get back to work.
I didn't like IE5 because I can't ctrl-tab across pages.
Now we have Mozilla, and on MY system, it's slower than both. Maybe I'm used to things happening immediately when I click a button. Moz just seems to 'think' about every action a while first.
Plus it loses the ctrl-tab ability, not to mention all the other usability issues that kept me with NS4 rather than to use IE5.
So, I guess in this age of eye-candy, Mozilla is king ("ooh look-skins!"). Anyone with wrist pain can get stuffed eh?
Back to NS4 and waiting for Mozilla 2.
"save link as"
has become
"save link target as"
barf. this is IE-speak
"Never bullshit a bullshitter" All That Jazz
I'm running the exact same thing, you're right, it does look better than anything else I've used. Unfortunately the gdkxft patch which debian includes in their Mozilla builds probably isn't ever going to make it into the main mozilla tree, and moreover it mangles some characters unacceptably. Now, whenever Mozilla gets ported to GTK 2.0, that will be fun...
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
When I read your message, I happened to have 6 instances of Mozilla with a total of 17 tabs running under Windows XP. (Don't hassle me about this; I have to support my customers, and I am wrestling with the bugs and insufficiencies in XP.)
I added a bookmark in one of the instances and then started a 7th instance of Mozilla. The bookmark was still there, and the history was there too. So maybe the bug you have found is specific to your situation in some way.
I wonder if they pass that string directly to sprintf or whatever.. (and yes, I'm too lazy to find out for myself)
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Users would just switch to IE to get rid of the "error messages."
I'm the stranger...posting to
1) 95/98/ME/NT/2K/XP Which Standard?
2) Windows widgets don't exist on Linux i386, Linux PPC, Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, OS/2, Solaris, FreeBSD, Irix, BeOS, HPUX, BSD/OS, etc. However, Mozilla looks the same on all.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
RE: Mozilla 1.0 review. Is it just a coincidence or does dear old Rex's comment about CSS positioning not doing the same things as IE does mostly involve just one site that I know of: ZDNet, the tabloid of web news articles, owned by dear old Rex's company?
And talking about Mozilla being complex, I suppose if entering a URL or clicking on a link is complex then I must agree. And how does this relate to wading through IE's security settings and not having a clue as to what they do.
I think they all need to make a special browser for you Rex. The irony is that with Mozilla, that is possible.
View / Apply Themes / Get New Themes
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
:)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"instead of closing just the debugger window, it closed all of our Mozilla browser windows, as well--definitely not the behavior we expected or wanted."
...Not to mention it placed first in only one of the XP Pro tests (mixed text and graphics)
File->Quit - always (and has always) closed the application. Had they clicked File->Close, only the debugger would have closed. See how the common user interface helps even the most ignorant of newbies. (Well, except you and the reviewer.)
Except that you got it backwards. 100 was the best score. (Didn't you think it was weird that one browser ALWAYS scored a 100?) IE only won once. Mozilla based browsers won the rest.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Some of the code nytimes uses:
function pop_me_up(pURL,features){
new_window = window.open
(pURL, "popup_window", features);
new_window.focus();
}
function pop_me_up2(pURL,name,features){
new_window = window.open
(pURL,name,features);
new_window.focus();
Libraries are counted against a process' memory allocation, as are inproc COM servers and the like.
...
However, there are some facts at which we should look (using my PIII 800Mhz Dell Laptop with 128MB memory.
1) Task manager says 150MB of system memory are currently in use.
2) Total of MB used in all running processes listed in Task Manager ~ 70MB.
3) Only one application is running, Mozilla ~ 13MB.
What libraries and INPROC Com Servers are we missing? What is Windows hiding? What the FUCK is wasting 80MB of memory?
To truly figure out what's going on we could simply check the Windows Source
DOH!
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Well, there's the sidebar, for one, and the tabs, everything under the tools menu, everything under the 'Window' menu that relates to email, newsgroups, irc, html page editing..
Mozilla does a lot more than IE does. As some have pointed out, in so doing, it helps maintain the original vision of Netscape as a tool to wrest the center of gravity away from Microsoft's API's and towards the panoply of open network standards.
That does make it a meatier enchilada than some IE users may be used to.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
I wonder if they pass that string directly to sprintf or whatever.. (and yes, I'm too lazy to find out for myself)
Why, are you planning on running a buffer overflow attack on yourself?
"And like that
Virtually the sole reason I've moved from the wonderful Opera browser to Mozilla: the 'Managers'. All these are found in the Tools dropdown menu.
:)
:)
Form Manager: store all your personal information in Mozilla (name, address, cc#, etc.) -- all password protected if you so desire (also very configurable) -- then when you have to fill a form in, click Edit->Fill In Form. Ahhh.. finally
Password Manager: like the form manager, but remembers your login/password(s) on a per-site basis, and auto-fills them in for you when you return next. Also protected by a (master) password if you see fit.
Cookie Manager and Image Manager: browse and edit your cookie list, and restrict which images are shown in your browser as you see fit.
Download Manager: not quite as cool as Opera's transfer window, but keeps all of your downloads in one convenient window -- enough with the zillion individual download popups, I say!!
Mozilla is almost everything I want in a browser. The only thing I'm still wanting is the "remember where I was browsing" feature of Opera. While Moz does tabs, it doesn't remember which were open for you and reopen them upon your next session (and it also has a known issue with the preference which makes new windows open new tabs instead). Here's to hoping such features get implemented in the near future!
You are right! There are 6 Mozilla icons in the taskbar, but only 1 Mozilla.exe in the processes list.
But that's slicker than I thought! Less memory usage that way. I think Mozilla is a lot better than most people have yet come to realize.
I wasn't being defensive about Windows XP. I was saving a lot of people the bother of posting their complaints. *grin*
I'm surprised that after 473 comments, no one has brought up the extremely dubious statistic that:
Because since IE browsers now hold around around 97 percent of the browser market, many developers design sites that cater to IE's various standards.
Cnet kindly provides a link to a tiny blurb promoting a net-metric site which gives that dubious figure.
Seems like a convenient FUD.
Am I doing something stupid, or does Mozilla 1.0 stop rendering a page at the first control-L (page-break) character?
This causes me no end of grief since most/all/many RFCs contain embedded RFC characters - meaning I can't read them (e.g. rfc2060).
Before I create a bugzilla account and report back there, can anyone reading here tell me if I'm missing a config setting/doing something stupid/etc.
ta.
Has anyone else experienced the strangeness that is the about:mozilla page (Mozilla users only obviously)? I accessed this page using 1.0 RC3, after noticing the About Mozilla tag leads to the url "about:", not "about:mozilla"
>there has never been a .1-.5. the first point release was .6 which Netscape 6 was based on. Fruity troll.
who cares, whether it was 0.1, or 0.6. I built the thing for myself before 0.6, but that does not matter. Anyway, the experience I and probably many others got during the years remains the same. It is my pure feeling on Mozilla, I don't like that I have to have that opinion, but that's exacly how I see it at the moment.
I've been told that soon about:config will be fast, and you'll be able to edit settings from it as well. Mondo cool :)
I've used Mozilla on a number of Windoze and Linux systems, and it always seems to be the most bloated, slowest browser. On my Athlon 1.2Ghz with half a gig of ram, it's close, but not quite. Admittedly, IE has a big advantage being integrated in the OS, but still... On some of the "smaller" computers I have to use (100-500Mhz range, 128 or fewer megs of RAM), it's downright unusable. Compare that to Opera, which is just fine on a Pentium 166 Linux box with 64 megs of ram and pokey-slow hard drives. How can all the other browsers justify their bloat when Opera can do almost everything useful in such a tiny space?
Where are people pulling these benchmarks from that say Mozilla is so fast? Is it the only thing running on the system? Do they not consider start-up time important (i.e. when opening up lots of windows)?
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
1) How does Task Manager say 150M is in use? Is it the "Commit Charge" or are you calculating from total physical memory and available physical memory?
2) What are you using to tally the memory used? My guess is the "Memory Usage" column which corresponds to the working set of the process. However, the real column to look at is "VM Size" which tallies the total allocations for the process.
3) Don't be so naive as to think only one application is running. There are at least 20 processes running on your average Windows box on startup. You should be able to verify this easily using Task Manager.
You aren't missing any libs and inproc COM servers. Windows isn't hiding anything. It's just the failure of the user (in this case you) to understand the data presented. The difference of 80M is more than likely the difference between the working sets and the total VM size of the processes.
There's no need to "look at the source". It's perfectly well documented. Perhaps you just need to RTFM?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Great! Read my earlier post about this. Note that Mozilla and Opera operate the same, if Opera works as you say.
I haven't been able to figure out how to get Opera to open multiple windows, and therefore assumed it didn't. Could you explain how?
Note that the mail client in Mozilla is able to compose HTML. It's good, clean HTML, without the junk inserted by MS Word or MS Frontpage. The Opera mail client does not support HMTL composition.
As I write this, I have Opera open with 29 tabs (research on web hosting providers), and 6 windows of Mozilla with a total of 17 tabs (research in other areas). Both browsers are excellent.
I didn't know about dragging and dropping tabs in Opera, because I didn't know about the possibility of more than one window.
How does Task Manager say 150M is in use? Is it the "Commit Charge" or are you calculating from total physical memory and available physical memory?
On Win2k at the bottom of Task Manger, there's a thing we like to call the Status Bar. It has a field with the text: Mem Usage 150,321KB. It matches the Total value in Commit Charge. No FM to R there, just look at the screen.
What are you using to tally the memory used? My guess is the "Memory Usage" column which corresponds to the working set of the process. However, the real column to look at is "VM Size" which tallies the total allocations for the process.
Obviously, VM Size, I don't know why I didn't look at that "not chosen by default" column. Oh, but it still fell 40MB short of the total. Probably still not the "real" column to look at. There are about 20 more columns that can be viewed, let me know which one is the "real" column.
Don't be so naive as to think only one application is running. There are at least 20 processes running on your average Windows box on startup. You should be able to verify this easily using Task Manager.
See, when a user starts a program it's usually referred to as an "application" and typically shows up in Task Manager under the "Applications" tab. Still with me? Then, when the OS starts a program, or an "application" starts a helper program, those are called "processes". They typically show up on the "Processes" tab of Task Manager. Your FM that you Rd probably didn't cover that, did it?
The difference of 80M is more than likely the difference between the working sets and the total VM size of the processes.
Nope, VM Size was still missing 40MB. Any more guesses? Because, you ARE guessing.
Perhaps you just need to RTFM?
Actually, I do have a copy of the Task Manager User's Guide (who doesn't?). I bought it on Amazon.com, used from somebody who'd never read it. (For those in our audience who are slow, this is a reference to throx who felt that if he/she through a few technical sounding words around it would seem like he/she knew something. Sadly, he/she does not.)
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Don't worry, it's just looking at your User-Agent string :-) The script looks at the date on the Gecko tag.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Ok, ignoring all your smart-arse comments and still trying to help you understand Win2k's VM system. I'm not sure if you are actually interested or just trying to bash Microsoft now, but what the hell - I'll try to help anyway.
The best "manual" I'd recommend for this stuff is "Inside Windows 2000", or even looking over the Platform SDK. There's a lot of info there about how the VM system works and what the performance counters exported by it mean.
On Win2k at the bottom of Task Manger, there's a thing we like to call the Status Bar. It has a field with the text: Mem Usage 150,321KB. It matches the Total value in Commit Charge.
That number is the total amount of memory used by the OS and all applications, yes.
Obviously, VM Size, I don't know why I didn't look at that "not chosen by default" column. Oh, but it still fell 40MB short of the total. Probably still not the "real" column to look at. There are about 20 more columns that can be viewed, let me know which one is the "real" column.
VM Size is the "real" column. The Memory Usage column is the real amount of RAM the process is using which is generally more realvent to users and hence selected by default. I'm sorry you feel angry that you selected the wrong column.
VM Size falls short of the total because it is actually reporting the "Private Bytes" figure from the performance counters. This number excludes a few things. Shoot me an email if you want me to explain further, but chapter 7 of Inside Windows 2000 goes into a lot of detail on this.
See, when a user starts a program it's usually referred to as an "application" and typically shows up in Task Manager under the "Applications" tab. Still with me? Then, when the OS starts a program, or an "application" starts a helper program, those are called "processes". They typically show up on the "Processes" tab of Task Manager. Your FM that you Rd probably didn't cover that, did it?
You are wrong, and I'm not sure where you got that description from - it's just bizarre. An "Application" in the context of Task Manager is simply a top level window. It means nothing. In fact for every "Application" in the first tab there is a process in the second tab which is running - just right click on the app and choose "Go To Process". Processes are a core OS object which contains a virtual memory space, some system resources and at least one thread of execution. They are the base objects which are used to manage memory (exactly the same as on Linux).
Nope, VM Size was still missing 40MB. Any more guesses? Because, you ARE guessing.
No, I'm not guessing. I was just skipping the details on exactly what the VM Size column doesn't include. To summarize though, it misses all the kernel memory and any shared VM pages.
Actually, I do have a copy of the Task Manager User's Guide (who doesn't?). I bought it on Amazon.com, used from somebody who'd never read it. (For those in our audience who are slow, this is a reference to throx who felt that if he/she through a few technical sounding words around it would seem like he/she knew something. Sadly, he/she does not.)
I have the strange feeling that I know a little more about OS architecture than you do, give your strange explanation of Applications and Processes. There's several different "Manuals" you can read and I'm guessing you haven't read any of the ones I've suggested?
Given this thread is so old, I'll send you a copy via email. Hope you appreciate the help.
:-)
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means