Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Firebird 0.7.1 Released For Mac OS X

Posted by timothy on from the sense-of-urgency dept.

An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine is reporting that Mozilla Firebird 0.7.1 has been released for Mac OS X only. The release - coming just over a week since the last one - fixes a number of bugs that made 0.7 frankly unusable on Macs. There's more info in the release notes. All MacBeards should upgrade immediately."

8 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Serious Question by Llywelyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there any reason to use FireBird over Safari?

    Choice is a good thing, of course, but what are the advantages/disadvantages?

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    1. Re:Serious Question by bat'ka+makhno · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's interesting, the one complaint I have about Mozilla on MacOS X is lack of support for Java 1.4.1 applets. Mozilla is stuck using the 1.3.1 default, even if 1.4.1 is available on the machine. That bug's been open for months now, still without resolution. Safari supports 1.4.1, but, as the parent says, it is quite quirky. As an example, Hushmail doesn't work with either Mozilla's 1.3.1 or Safari's 1.4.1.

      Maybe it's not an issue in Panther anymore. I'll check once I get it.

  2. Re:Serious Question - advatages by hrbrmstr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I Just tried 0.7.1 and it is definitely faster for the sites I go to. It's especially faster for SSL sites (that's a big Safari complaint I have - SSL is s...l...o...w; Ive whined about it before on /.).

    I use Firebird/Mozilla on WinXP/2K/2K3, Linux, BSD and Solaris and would love to see Camino base itself off of the Firebird fork and make it more Mac-like, but, until Safari get's an SLL clue, I'll take the fast rendering, good SSL performance and standards' compliance that seem to be there with 0.7.1.

    One other thing it has over Safari is the ability to *not* wait for the whole stupid page to load before continuing. It's not a problem on all sites, but it happens more oft than not, again, especially on SSL sites.

    Lastly, the best thing about it is that it doesn't use the brushed metal theme (it was nice for a while, but it really grates on ya over time).

    I still don't know why Apple threw the KHTML folks the bone when they should have supported Mozilla.

    --
    Mind the gap...
  3. Serious Question #2: Firebird verus Camino by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like camino, is there any reason to use firebird? What features does it have, not have. My basic usage is: safari, unless safari dont work right, then I use camino. last resort IE for those evil webpages.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  4. Re:Serious Question - advatages by Ster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    KHTML was chosen over Mozilla because it was smaller, which means it was easier for them to learn, extend, and test. Look back at the press releases and articles from back in January 2003, when the Safari beta was released; they go into their reasoning for choosing one KHTML over Mozilla.

    -Ster

  5. Re:Serious Question - advatages by hrbrmstr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The question was directed at performance. I realize Mac folks (I am one, but I don't use one exclusively) tend to value other things besides performance, but I would think that having decent SSL speed would have been a big motivating factor.

    I have a dual-G4 tower (867MHz) with 1.5GB RAM and just cannot believe Apple didn't bother to get that part done better.

    --
    Mind the gap...
  6. True, but its not quite that bad by michaelggreer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the pinstripe webpage:
    "The Pinstripe theme uses an API provided by Mozilla called nsTheme to draw the widgets. This API allows Pinstripe to draw the widgets and some backgrounds using the Mac's Appearance Manager. So the operating system draws most of the theme."
    So, its somewhat native in drawing, even if not precisely like Camino (fully native widgets). The page says that Windows and Linux are not supported because of this.

  7. Re:Serious Question - advatages by prockcore · · Score: 3, Interesting


    One other thing it has over Safari is the ability to *not* wait for the whole stupid page to load before continuing.

    I was testing out some progress-bar code and I've discovered that Safari has a 16k buffer. It will wait until the buffer is full, then draw, then fill the buffer again.

    So in order to make my progress bar update on safari, I'd have to send 16k worth of spaces every time the bar moves.

    In comparison, IE and Mozilla will draw the page as soon as it receives a closing body tag.