Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Phoenix 0.5 Has Arrived

Posted by timothy on from the halfway-there dept.

mattrix was among the legion of readers to submit news that "Phoenix 0.5 (Naples) has been released. New stuff since 0.4 includes multiple homepages, download fixes, history, size, memory, accessibility and performance improvements and more. Get it now for Windows or GNU/Linux (i686). Background info: Phoenix is a web browser based on the Mozilla engine, but smaller and faster than Mozilla Navigator." Multi-tab startup page seems worth the upgrade to me, all else aside.

11 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Name change by Cheesy+Fool · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wasn't the name supposed to be changed for this release?

    --

    Hail to the king, baby!
    1. Re:Name change by cioxx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, according to their forums, last time I checked the poll was split 60/40 in keeping the name Phoenix and battling it out with Phoenix Technologies for rights to use the name.

      I would guess either a) They are waiting to change the name with 0.6 -or- b) They are testing the patience of Phoenix Technologies ;)

      Either way, I don't like the idiotic request from PT. It's not like these two are competing technologies. And phoenix is a generic word. What are they going to do next? Patent the word "Technologies"?

      In any event. Phoenix is a straight up IE killer, and it's all that matters.

  2. nice browser, but still too big by g4dget · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Phoenix is a nice browser. But it's still an 8.9M download for Linux. Does XUL really have that much overhead? How far can this be squeezed down?

    1. Re:nice browser, but still too big by yobbo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yet the windows installer is about 6MB. Instead of asking about the overhead of XUL, perhaps you should ask about the overhead of linux ports?

      Don't get me wrong - I don't use windows at all. But builds of mozilla and phoenix ports are consistently larger than their windows counterparts. Why?

  3. Pheonix vs Mozilla on Win32 (I prefer mozilla) by j2gEEk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The reason i prefer mozilla on win32 is quicklaunch. With quicklaunch enabled in my system tray, it launches significantly quicker than even pheonix. If pheonix was quicklaunch enabled (heck, the code's already there, right?), it would be my browser of choice on w32. Until then, I'll stick with the "big mo".

    Jake

    1. Re:Pheonix vs Mozilla on Win32 (I prefer mozilla) by JanneM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is not intended as a flame or anything, but what is the point of quicklaunch, really? I realize it must be important in Win32, as so many people are talking about it. I mean, I start things like Phoenix and Evolution, and then have them running continuously, until I need to reboot or restart phoenix due to a memory leak or something - it's usually running for weeks at a time.

      My guess is that the work pattern is different on a Win32 desktop, and that you normally start an app, use it, then close it before you start another. Is it due to the lack of virtual desktops, or some other UI-related issue? I would not think it's resources, as Windows should swap out unused apps just like other OS:s.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:Pheonix vs Mozilla on Win32 (I prefer mozilla) by thing12 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This is not intended as a flame or anything, but what is the point of quicklaunch, really? I realize it must be important in Win32, as so many people are talking about it. I mean, I start things like Phoenix and Evolution, and then have them running continuously, until I need to reboot or restart phoenix due to a memory leak or something - it's usually running for weeks at a time.

      Yep, exactly... people are whining because Mozilla doesn't start as fast as IE because its binary is 2x the size and actually takes much longer to be loaded off disk. Quicklaunch just adds that same amount of delay to the startup time after you log into your computer by preloading the massive binary. Phoenix on the other hand seems to take about as long to load the first time from a cold boot as IE does. And if you already have pheonix loaded it takes steps to speed it up even more and spawns a new thread from the existing browser.

      My guess is that the work pattern is different on a Win32 desktop, and that you normally start an app, use it, then close it before you start another. Is it due to the lack of virtual desktops, or some other UI-related issue? I would not think it's resources, as Windows should swap out unused apps just like other OS:s.

      My guess is that you're right about the work pattern. In older versions of windows resource handling was so poor that it seemed common to close apps when you weren't using them - of course this is all fixed now - but here's the rub: with quicklaunch enabled you aren't even conserving resources by closing Mozilla! Also worth noting is that virtual desktops are available as a powertoy for XP... but again the work pattern issue rises - people don't know how to use a modern system effectively.

      Who knows, maybe people will wise up eventually.

  4. Differences from K-Meleon Browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting



    Could someone enlighten me to any differences between this broskwer and The K Meleon Browser? I have been using the latter a lot recently and am wondering why phoenix gets so much more press..

    1. Re:Differences from K-Meleon Browser? by C14L · · Score: 5, Interesting

      and am wondering why phoenix gets so much more press.

      IIRC KM was almost dead for quite a time. Both browsers are more or less the same. Phoenix uses XUL for its interface, KM doesn't. KM uses its own scripting that is very easy to do, so KM becomes easily costumizable by everybody. I use Phoenix now, because KM repeatedly crashed, and it corrupted also my bookmarks-file (especially letters like ä, ö, ü, etc and arabic or chinese characters were rendered unreadable (I use one bookmark-file for all browsers).

  5. Re:So let me get this straight... by thing12 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Is this to say that Mozilla is already considered bloated and people are asking for a stripped-down version like Phoenix? Just goes to show there are some people you can never make happy.

    The Mozilla project's goal is not to make a browser for end users. It's essentially a technology preview. Always has been - always will be. It shows off Gecko, XUL, the portable runtime, and a few other nifty things. Phoenix is an implementation of all that technology; it shares a common codebase but there are massive changes and additions that make it a new and separate project. All this work has made Phoenix an excellent replacement for Internet Explorer on any version of Windows -- Mozilla isn't.

    The one thing I wish someone would write is a XUL based file manager. Something on the order of Phoenix. That's all that needs to be added really and you could mostly leave explorer unused on a Windows box. It would be nice to be able to use the same user interface to do things on Windows/Linux/Unix/Mac/etc... Microsoft was worried about Netscape becoming the desktop, and it could still happen.

  6. Re:Windows/Linux sizes? by asa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just what is it that makes the Linux apps so much bigger (openoffice.org also springs to mind)?

    A number of reasons. One reason is that the msvc++ compiler can make a smaller (disk and memory footprint) and faster Phoenix binary than it's linux counterpart.Another reason is that there are code and compatability issues that prevent us from statically compiling more of the linux binary like we do for windows.

    --Asa