Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Reviews Mozilla
Aglassis writes "This Ars Technica review gives mozilla 1.0 an overall score of 7/10 (9 for Gecko and 6 for the browser). The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL. Overall they say that mozilla would make a good substitute for IE 6 but there is no major reason to switch over."
Poor understandnig of XUL or not, if it doesn't feel like a Windows application, then it just *doesnt* feel like a Windows application. I agree with the author's opinion on that. I am a happy mozilla user at home on my Linux box, but I am not about to switch IE to Mozilla on my windows machine here at work, theres really no reason aside from maybe curtailing javascript annoyances (popups, resizes, etc)
siri
...but there is no major reason to switch over.
Secirity Problems perhaps? Given the number os severe security issues that have been found in IE over the years, I would have thought this would have been a pretty major reason to switch!
Disclaimer: I meant what I thought, not what I wrote! What? You can't read my Mind? Oh dear!
... along with built-in privacy features that work very good. Even ad-blocking via "do not download more images from this server" which is simply outstanding.
:-P
I'd actually use it over IE if it was more stable. Yeah, you heard right. IE is actually more stable for me for some reason.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Unless you are a web designer who wants to make sure that his site looks correctly when viewed with a browser that adheres to STANDARDS, or unless you are a person who believes that the web should be easy to navigate and not overwhelmed with pop-up advertisements, or unless you believe that you should have the ability to modify the code to your browser for timely fixes to security flaws. Nope, no major reasons there....
I'd say there's several major reasons to switch.. the fact that you can block pop up advertising is a major reason. The fact that is has far superior cookie and password management is a major reason. The fact that it has a better email and usenet client (than OE) is a major reason.
No major reasons? According to who, Billy?
The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL.
You're joking, right? XUL is an interface/component application based on XML allright. But that has nothing to with the cited usability problems. The Open Source community simply has to stop saying things like 'yeah the user interface is bad, but if you complain about it openly it shows that you don't really understand the XYZWhatever+ architecture!' Stop accepting things like they are, change the world (of software) now!
Mozilla 1.0 is 'getting there'.
Support for flash / shockwave is decent.
Frontpage-generated pages still distort often.
Java works great (better than IE).
At leasts it beats opera on stability and functionality, plus it's (banner)free.
With Linux, I guess it's your best choice, with Windows, frontpage makes the difference, not IE.
This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL Why is it a poor understanding for the reviewers ? This is one of the reasons that techies have a bad name the "I know best" attitude that pervades our industry. I like Mozilla, I use Mozilla, I like it because it works and because of the way its navigation works. BUT if you are used to Windows and not an old school Unix person then it is different to the rest of the windows applications you use so it is a valid comment. Now its not difficult to fix by having the Windows Theme be one of the default installed themes so Mozilla looks the same as the rest of Windows. Get off your high horse and think about why looking like everything else is good for the majority of users who don't want the power and control that Gecko and Mozilla offer, they just want a Browser that looks like the other applications they use. Minimise the "suprise" factor and maximise the uptake.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
XUL has nothing to do with it.
They like the engine. It's the default interface that 99% of users will be using that they have problems with, and I think that's a valid point.
XUL makes it possible to do a lot of cool interface things, and it is definitely a Good Thing For Mozilla, but it doesn't really matter when the default interface is slow and sucks.
Heck, most people never even change their startup page, much less program a new *interface*
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Basically, the author goes from "Here's all the cool stuff Gecko can do." to "...but it doesn't look like IE and some pages don't detect it properly."
Is that Mozilla's fault? Moz works better and behaves more reliably than any cross-platform GUI program I can think of.
More than that, its unique features (image permissions, javascript controls) barely rate a passing mention by the author. Those are killer features. I'd hate to use a browser that didn't have them.
I felt that the author - and most people writing browser comparisons right now - was too heavily biased by IE-related experiences; I thought he was writing more toward "This is what IE does and this is how Moz is different" rather than an actual browser review.
Try using IE and Moz over a 28.8kpbs internet connection and THEN tell me which you like better.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL.
Uh, why can't the problem just be that Mozilla's user interface is not very good? I'm sorry, but there's a reason why there are multiple Mozdev projects to build browsers without Mozilla's cumbersome interface, why Dave Hyatt and mpt have savaged the current interface.
Why can't some people accept the fact that Mozilla's UI needs a lot of work?
They say the interface was unflexible, non-standard, and yes, didn't look like the native interface.
At the very least you must concede that the interface IS non-standard and does NOT look like the native interface.
So, we conclude that:
> This was probably due to a poor understanding
> by the authors of XUL.
Explain?!?
They make a valid point. It's true regardless of the technologies involved. So you claim that they are wrong due to ignorance of XUL? I would claim that you were wrong due to ignorance of logic.
Justin Dubs
1.) Tabbed Browsing
2.) No more popups
3.) Better Security
Reasons to still use IE on occasion:
1.) Poor support for common technologies (like the JRE: it runs but it don't run for long (2-3 hours and it goes down hard)).
2.) Poor support for common but non-standard features (Like layers). Even Qmailadmin doesn't work well with Mozilla.
3.) Idiot web designers that refuse to let you view their page/application unless you have one of their approved browsers (Like Webtrends).
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Using a browser other than IE is voting for an open, interoperable internet.
the thing is, casual users don't give a damn about all that stuff.
The worst problem with the current internet landscape is the proliferation of "table-based" layouts.
But what does view source reveal?
<!-- CONTENT TABLE --><TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0">
<TR>
Look no further than the HTML header for the culprit:
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"><meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
Now that they have recognized the problem, are they or their resident Microsoft weenie going to fix it? Probably not.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this...
/. community, the number of reported security bugs is going to go up as they find, fix and disclose the problems. Everybody laughs and points at all the holes, but the result is better software.
IE has had more than it's share of security problems, but who says Mozilla won't? Despite being closed source, IE's had a lot more eyes on it, for a lot longer. This may change over time, but Mozilla is a "1.0" release, and from a security perspective, it's usually better to go with a more mature application. As the continual release of vulnerabilities against both open source and closed source software demonstrates, being O.S. is no security panacea.
Plus, has it occured to anyone that the rash of security "problems" from MS might be due to the fact that they really are getting serious about security over there.? Seems like a catch-22 to me... if they are doing the "right thing" as is defined by the
One of the negative points was that Mozilla does not look like a Windows app. I shall ignore the existence of the IE skin for now.
However, what I will mention is software such as QuickTime player, RealOne, MusicMatch Jukebox, and literally anything written in Java. None of these use the MFC toolkit (not the widgets, anyway) nor do they follow the theme of the widgets in WinXP.
Many people complain that Linux apps don't fit together because QT != GTK != Motif etc. However, it is commonplace in Windows apps for larger development outfits to use their own widget sets, and nobody bats an eyelid.
As a simple example, I use Mozilla with the excellent Orbit-Retro theme. My dad can't figure it out. So, I switch to the IE theme. The layout is identical, but the look/feel of the widgets is more 'windows like'. Suddenly he's right at home.
Perhaps the comment should have read 'doesn't look like any of the windows apps we're used to'
The fact that it has a better email and usenet client (than OE) is a major reason.
You have to be joking. I'm a Mozilla advocate, but even I admit the mail client is a piece of trash.
The interface is inconsistent, and it doesn't make it obvious what is going on at any one time. There's nothing like the big 'Send/Recv' button in OE, and when you collect mail, you have no idea what's going on.
The folders are sloppily managed, and the news reader is certainly worse.
Sure, it doesn't automatically open attachments or spread viruses around.. but the user experience is more important than security to me! It's a program I have to use for hours every day!
mogorific carpentry experiments
I also dislike the Windows style interface, but as a trained human-computer interface designer, I can state that interface consistency is important to even intermediate and advanced users. Interface consistency means you have to learn less, which means you learn faster. You can also start building motor reflexes for use of an application faster if it is more consistent. Why is "properties" always the last menu item in a context menu in Windows? Why is the "help" menu always the last menu item on the menu bar? Because if you always no that's where it is, it takes less time for you to find it, thus making YOU faster.
This is a major detractor to most cross-platform toolkits. Apps in Windows should look like Windows apps, Apps in MacOS should look like MacOS apps, Apps in KDE should look like KDE apps, etc. It helps the user immesurably, and makes learning applications more follow the power law of practice.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
My one complaint about Mozilla, and Netscape 6, the absolute dirth of useable plugins for popular things like Shockwave, Flash, and Quicktime. Additionally, there does not appear to be any effort being put forth to rectify this situation. This gives me little hope of ever seeing extensions for things like DjVu, a supremely excellent format for distributing scanned documents across the web. (Ya gotta appreciate a format that gives better reproduction than PDF at 20% to 30% of the file size.)
Personally, I think that the broad use of Shockwave, Flash, and Quicktime warrant the ability of the browser to handle those formats natively. Don't write them into the browser kernel but, DO provide separate, replaceable, upgradeable extensions that ship with the browser distribution.
Give Mozilla the ability to handle the most commonly used file formats and I'll be able to convert everybody I know over to it.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
It's not supposed to look like a windows app. Mozilla is supposed to be OS independent. It's an internet platform with a consistent user interface across multiple platforms. If you don't like that, stick to windows, IE and its exploits.
The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL.
Oh yeah, his observations are invalid because he doesn't know about XUL. You know what? Not many people know or care about XUL. What they want is a browser that looks consistent with the rest of their applications on their particular OS. Your comment is invalid.
No, I do not have the time to personally check out the Mozilla code, but a lot of business would.
At developer rates? When they can have IE (supported by MS?) for free?
Everything always boils down to probability, and with Microsoft you PROBABLY WILL get burned sometime or another.
I'd call *this* FUD.
Actually fonts in Mozilla 1.1b on OSX 10.1.5 or greater look great. I agree with everything else you say though. It doesn't matter if M$ have achieved their advantage in an "unfair" way. The average person doesn't care. In fact I've spoken to many people who are actively looking forward to the day when Mozilla dies so they only have to worry about designing their pages for IE.
I use Mozilla on OS X for lots of reasons, but I have never understood why it has to be a single monolithic app. Why should I load up the e-mail client when I want to use the browser (or vice versa).
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Even ad-blocking via "do not download more images from this server" which is simply outstanding.
I think they need a "do not download anything from this server" option and another option to include a list of the usual suspects.
Lol. Whats your problem with the Mozilla UI? Cuz (unlike Crazybrowser) you can CHANGE it. Hell, you can change anything in Moz. Another thing. I have almost never seen reasons on why Moz has a "crappy" UI. Aome people say it, but amlmost none of them can say why its crappy. I say its preconception.
To paraphrase Richard Stallman: Why can't we talk about freedom? Why don't any of these reviews make any effort to explain mozilla's licensing and why users should care about it? (Mozilla has a license that allows multiple companies to make competing implementations, and that gives users rights instead of making draconian restrictions. This is an important different that ordinary users can appreciate.)
I can understand why reviewers would feel they should mainly focus on features and the user interface. But to overlook these huge licensing issues completely, to not factor them into the final rating at all, is to ignore a huge glaring difference between mozilla and the competition.
--Bruce F.
[...] but there is no major reason to switch over.
Ha! Here are 8 reasons to start with. 16 more if you're using IE 5.5.
What does this mean? Folks who have never used anything besides windows before, have no problem using, say, gedit on my linux box...as another user said in a comment, which got a +5 I might add, the user isn't interested in how the product is designed, or what GUI is used, as long as it presents information - he agreed with Ar's statement. My sister, who was my test subject, didn't know that gedit was written using gtk, she didn't care! She merely typed up a quick text document...
If mozilla for windows (I've never used it, but do use Galeon on the linux box) has buttons, scroll bars, uses the wheel on the wheel mouse, and if cut-and-paste works, who cares!!
How does Ars feel about Java apps, using the Ice GUI (or something similar, forget what it's called, it's the light GUI)?? I have zero problem using anything which was made using Swing, and again, although my sister doesn't know what Swing is, she can still use LimeWire.
Is anyone going to tell me that winamp/xmms or some version of the quicktime movie player, along with some dvd players, etc., which are supposed to look like components in a stereo rack, are any better?? But, even these are usable, once you figure out where the frell to click.
Now, older linux versions of netscape, or xman perhaps - those, while having GUIs, are enough to bugger someone...
I also disagree with the notion that IE is more polished - I always feel as if I've lost of my computer while using IE, and not only because of pop-ups. Maybe I'm just a control freak.
hey, now
what about kmeleon?
it may not have had an update since last october, and I may never have tried it, but it's gecko with native windows widgets and even designed to look and act like IE.
I am sure that they could use some help...
That kind of project (though perhaps with some more attentive/dedicated people behind it) is the one we need to have a stronger opponent to IE. And no, Opera just doesn't cut it for mainstream audiences; banners==bad
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Most people know text zoom and it is indeed a very handy feature...
But when using Bookmarklets in Mozilla, you can have all sorts of handy functions just one mouse-click away on your personal toolbar!
The most usefull bookmarklet in my opinion is 'zoom image in. As I work with a big resolution for graphical work, lot's of things tend to get renderd rather small when browsing. It's understandable, but still an anoyance. So when I discovered Image zoom I was, as you can imagine, absolutely delighted!
And since Mozilla 1.1b, Mozilla has REALLY speeded up and is wonderfull to use.
And as for Mozilla's GUI;
If you want integration you should use Galeon on Linux and K-Meleon on Windows. They are actually intended for end-user usage, Mozilla is just for test purposes!
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.