Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla 1.7 Beta Is Faster And Smaller
ccady writes "Mozilla 1.7 beta is out. Not too many new features, but "Mozilla 1.7 size and performance have improved dramatically with this release. When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size." I'll be downloading it."
Go Go Mozilla!
You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
Wow, I got here first using 1.6. Looks like some people will need 1.7 to get here faster next time
But does it have MNG support?
"Not too many new features, but "Mozilla 1.7 size and performance have improved dramatically with this release. When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size." I'll be downloading it.""
Not if we get there first.
This is why I stopped using Netscape: each version was much larger, much slower, and much less reliable.
How can something with the same kernel, and the same ancestry go the other way: Mozilla actually improves as it evolves.
On the one hand, the dodo. On the other hand, the road-runner.
When was the last time IE was updated????
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
I hear its got 20% more zilla too!
Statistics than you'll ever need...
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Has firefox gotten the mozilla improvements yet?
5% decrease in binary size? According to Mozilla's site it says:
"Mozilla's binary size has been decreased almost 2% since Mozilla 1.6."
Is the binary size in the summary from a different version?
One thing that I'd like to see mozilla mail do, is have the address book open, like in thunderbird. I don't even use the address book in mozilla since it's such a pain. Am I just missing something?
The next service pack of Internet Explorer plans to have longer load times, more crashes, and open a few more exploits into a Windows system.
Modzilla keeps getting better all the time.
what a tremendous increase! /.! :P
not only is the application speed increased, but i'm seeing an increase of SEVERAL HUNDRED PER CENT in terms of download times for the new release shortly after the story hit
Mozilla has a small marketshare, practically no one uses it, and finally Long Live IE!
True.
Intelligence also has a small marketshare...
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
is the fact that the icons in the browser/mail client (the only things I really use) are ugly looking.. and while I know I can download themes.. they should take the icons from Firefox and Thunderbird and incorporate them.
Firefox on windows does have a couple issues with crashing on phpBB reply boxes.. which is why I use Mozilla when I'm not using linux.
All in all, go Mozilla!
I seriously doubt that a performance improvement 10% is even noticeable to the user. It's great that Mozilla is trying to catch up with fast browse-only alternatives like Safari, Konqueror and also the Gecko-based browsers, but you can't seriously speak of 'dramatic' improvements.
I got here so fast using konqueror that the server hadn't even recorded my post by the time I left.
When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Lynx is 99% faster at startup, 99% faster at window open time, has 50% faster pageloading times, and is 90% smaller in binary size.
In all seriousness, it's easy to improve figures like this just by removing features.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
The fastest speed up is not even 10%. That's about an extra 0.01 tits/second. Want more speedup than that.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I'm really impressed, and very much appreciative, of the amount of effort the Mozilla team has put forth over the years. I switched to Mozilla some 4 or 5 years ago, and haven't looked back since. The rapidity of development is truly astounding -- thanks girls and guys!
That having been said, I've been dissapointed with the latest iteration of the Mozilla browser. I've found 1.6 to be rather slow (autocomplete lags, for example), bug prone and (if I'm correct) java support is still on the fritz.
I'm liable to switch over to FireFox (or whatever it's called this week), except the Preference Toolbar (on which I'm hooked like a crack addiction) still does not function in this stripped down version of the Moz browser.
Anyway, I look forward to this newest version; really, I just wanted to express, in this post, my thanks for the effort put forth by the whole Moz team.
Regards,
=pararox=
By that I take it to mean that the parsing and rendering of pages is faster, not that there's some trickery to download data faster. Every little helps I guess though.
How can firefox render better, it has the same rendering engine as Mozilla, are you comparing the same Mozilla version as the one which firefox is based on
e.g, Mozilla 1.6-Firefox 0.8
Mozilla 1.5-Firefox 0.7
Remeber firefox will branch soon from the 1.7 release, so far a while, Mozilla (aka Seamonkey) will have rendering fixes/speedups and Firefox won't have it till it returns back to the trunk sometime after 1.0 is released
Ok. So, mozilla was supposed to addopt the phoenix/firebird/firefox code right? Did they do that already? If so, why are the developed separately? If so, what advantage does firefox offer, or is it just a fork of the code?
I do security
Since firefox is based on mozilla, will these size and speed enhancments trickle down into the firefox browser?
;o)
As it is firefox is pretty fast, maybe the next version will display pages before I think to click on the links...
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
I just love it and tab-browsing but there is still room for improvement:
A resume feature in the download manager would be a nice start...
And also, what a good looking, clean design for the README page. Kudos !!!.
It now support's SSO HTTP Authentication using GSSAPI Kerberos. Similiar MS's implementation of SPNEGO in IE. See bug 17578 in bugzilla for more information.
This is compatible with both IIS, and mod_authkerb for apache.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/modauthkerb/
Next the plan is to make kerberos support more general so it can be used for other protocol's like IMAP.
How much faster in comparision to other releases? What I want to know is if Mozilla is progressively getting faster, or is this just to compensate for performance regressions when they went from 1.4 - 1.5, etc.
Of course, it's nice to see they are going in the right direction, but I suppose it will take me a while until I have made up for the time following the link and downloading it (not to speak of the time it cost to post this comment :P) by the increased productivity...
I've been using Mozilla since 0.4 or 0.5, can't quite remember which. It's always been the best, and keeps getting better (tabs anyone?). Every release gets faster, and most get smaller, though not all.
I don't have time to comment my code, the program is late already.
Seeing as Firefox is getting most of the press these days it's important to realise that the full suite is still moving along nicely. They are addressing criticisms well - a redesign of the cookie manager and speed increases are reflective of the fight against bloat and complexity.
And don't forget, changes to the suite are picked up by Firefox since FF is based off the same source tree. So a lot of work here will affect the mini-moz too....
Free iPods - now in the UK!
IE is not expected to see a major revision until Longhorn ships in 2006-2007. It is rumored that the Longhorn version will have tabbed browsing and some kind of pop-up blocking. This would probably be accomplished via the MSN toolbar, which is similar to the Google toolbar but with that *other* search engine.
But the truth is that IE has so much of the market share that revisions don't matter. People tend to use whatever came with their system, even if it is older and came with IE 5. If Microsoft didn't push the patches, quite a few people would be using these older version even now.
BTW, I'm using Firefox.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Perhaps I spend to much time in a Windoze world, but I like having everything installable from one big honkin' exe file that I can pop onto my USB dongle. Moz, plus a couple of the essential XPIs, and I wander around dispensing open-source goodness to the multitudes! :-)
While I applaud the increase in performance on the Mozilla 1.7 beta...it seems to me to be a waste of effort. In my opinion Firefox is ready for primetime now, and according to Mozilla will be the defacto browser anyway. You already have a Porsche guys...you don't need to hand build a Camry because your bored.
Requiem
Anyone know if memory use has gotten any more efficient? I still find Moz to be a bit high in memory useage. It's not a problem if when it's up and browsing, but if I flipped to another application for awhile, and Moz gets paged out to disk, the delay to switch back to Moz is a little annoying. At least on my relatively slow by today's standards, WinXP box.
On a related note, is it just me, or does Moz get paged out a LOT quicker than many other apps? Is it playing "too" nice somehow?
Mozilla does have a smaller market share (actully no marketshare). So does Linux, so does OS/2 (I think people still use it), so does My Aunt's homemade soup, hell, so do trucks (at least here). That dosent mean the alternitive is better.
I don't have time to comment my code, the program is late already.
When you're talking about Mozilla, removing features could very well be a good thing.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
Of course. And stupidity is a monopoly that the government has deep ties in.
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
More like my-site-will-remain-obscure-amatic.
For detailed information aboutMozilla, read all about it in the wikipedia.
So except I use Internet Explorer AND wish to install Mozilla i will get to see a nice ass. You'd better check your code honey :)
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
I've been using FireFox for a few days and I must say that the old version of FireBird I have installed seems much nicer to me... I don't know what exactly, but there really aren't many improvements I can put my finger on, and FireFox seems to load a bit slower and have fewer options.
Maybe it's just my brain though...
Read Pynchon.
No-one is going to notice a 10% improvement. It is a non-factor. You need to double performance to make a noticeable difference. Granted, if they keep on improving by 10% each release, it will eventually be really good, but don't call a 10% improvement "dramatic" (or whatever the original author called it).
Personally, I like Galeon and Firefox. I just need a web-browser.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
That's about an extra 0.01 tits/second.
You're saying... extra tits/second as an improvement unit? My mind is distorted.... ;)
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
The latest Galeon is out too. Version 1.3.14. Works with Mozilla 1.4 through 1.7b and trunk. Loads pretty fast too;) For those of you who don't know, galeon is a browser based on mozilla, for gnome-but ofcourse works in other wm's too.
After the news is released on Slashdot, it's now 40% slower to download. :D
My blog
Feeding the troll:
You are right. Mozilla's marketshare isn't large. Most Windows users probably don't even know it exists. This doesn't mean they haven't used Mozilla or that Mozilla would be insignificant.
I've seen Mozilla based browsers used in several public web terminals. You will not be able to go to a fair of almost any kind without seeing mozilla used (I've been to quite a few that had little or nothing to do with computers and seen mozilla or a browser using the gecko engine used).
Mozilla will not gain a 95% marketshare today nor tomorrow, but it will gain marketshare. IE will live long, probably a time counted in decades, but Mozilla isn't going away.
I've been following Mozilla closely since milestone 16 and I started using it as my main browser arund version 0.96. Before that it was basically horrible. It was unstable, ate memory like crazy and was too slow for me to use.
Mozilla today is a different beast from the early days:
The most stable (modern) browser I've used (links is the most stable ever)
Best standards support
Getting faster by every release
Getting less resource hungry by every release
The most extendable browser around.
IE will live long but so will Mozilla. Mozilla's marketshare will grow, IE's will probably not. Mozilla is evolving fast, IE is not. Mozilla will always be free, IE might not be. Mozilla will be developed as long as anyone wants to do it or has the money to fund it, IE will not.
All I can say that I hope that the current version of IE lives long and that Microsoft keeps iproving it at the current pace. That will ensure that Mozilla will gain marketshare as it races past IE.
Long Live (the current version of) IE
Mozilla has a built-in email program - if that's important to you, then that's one reason to use Moz instead of FireFox. Me? I toggle between using Safari and FireFox. FireFox was indeed faster than Safari 1.0, but with Safari 1.2, I'd say both browsers feel about the same, speedwise. Anyone have benchmarks?
Bob
The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
I tried Thunderbird for a few days last week... it was so riddled with bugs I found it unusable.
In particular:
- massive problems moving/deleting nested mail folders
- massive problems importing from another mail client (Eudora)
- seems to crash sometimes for no apparent reason
- crazy things happened with the preview pane all the time, like it would disappear at random or make itself really, really tiny and refuse to return to its former, big size
- some options tied exclusively to a particular account - e.g. filters - making the mail-checking process less transparent if you have multiple/many e-mail accounts
- seems to be trying to look a lot like Outlook, which is a shame and unnecessary
I wasn't looking for problems - I WANT to use it, and it has a lot of potential, but right now I'm not gonna use it myself and I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to any non-technical people.
Read Pynchon.
Firefox/Thunderbird separately are LOADS faster than the mozilla suite could ever be.
I don't even know why they still make it. What's the difference other than Firefox/Thunderbird are faster?
I think its called firefox or something else now, my mind can not remember.
Anyway I know it was a fork of mozilla 1.0 and it is much smaller and faster. Highly recommended for older systems.
I remember the Mozilla project commented on remerging the 2 projects back together in the 2.x series for something small, light, and fast.
Could this version incorporate some of the firefox or phoenix code?
http://saveie6.com/
Does anybody know why they stopped putting Talkback into the OS X pre-release versions since 1.6 alpha? I thought that was supposed to help them find crashing bugs. Kind of hard to do when you forget to put it in there in the first place.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
The developers consider quicklaunch functionality to be a hack.
Post pictures. (wink)
Back when I designed graphics accelerators for a living we did a whole bunch of work trying to figure out what 'faster' ment - at least from a subjective point of view - turns out if you graph actual performance to subjective performance there's sort of an S curve, on the left it's dog slow and people are just annoyed, on the right it's so fast people don't notice performance is an issue at all and in the middle there's a vaguely exponential region where if every time you make things ten times faster they think it got better, maybe by a subjective factor of 2 .... 10% is in the noise .... unless your UI is in that far left dog-slow region
The one thing mozilla ismissing now is the old splash screen (the fire-breathing lizard). I liked the old icon too. I wish they would bring back that splash screen (or a version of it), the new yellow one is just ugly.
I don't have time to comment my code, the program is late already.
Makes my workstation (AthlonXP +1800) slow as mollasis. As it is I have apache, mysql, cygwin stuff, MS-SQL server, winamp, and quicktime load at startup.
IT takes over a minute before my machine usable after I log in. I took out mozilla and noticed boot time improved.
I wish software developers would not try to load everything in startup.
http://saveie6.com/
And Firefox is many percentage points faster than Mozilla. Many many many.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. It starts up a bit faster, but that's it.
And renders better.
Bullshit again. They both use the same frickin' rendering engine and RENDER JUST THE SAME.
And has a cooler download manager.
I'll grant you this one.
Oh, did I mention it's faster?
Did I mention you talk a lot of shit?
99% less than IE does
Of course I am. see:
That's what I'm comparing to, and firefox and thunderbird are SIGNIFICANTLY faster than mozilla.How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
FireFox.. what's the big deal.
Not sure how you can say it's *much* faster. I must say I've noticed little to no speed difference, anywhere. I'm not really using a slow computer though.
As for your Windows jibe - Mozilla's interface responds much, much faster on Windows than on Linux. I musn't be the only one who sees this. I can't get over how slow the menus and dialogs feel on Linux! You can't even mouseover the menus.. File, Edit, View.. without them lagging. Never been a fan of the cross-platform UI stuff.
Also I noticed in FireFox 0.8 on Linux (not sure about previous versions, don't use it much) that in dialogs, the Cancel button is on the left, and the OK button is on the right. Why on earth was this decision made? Weird. Kept clicking OK to Cancel.
So I just install Mozilla without any of the other components.
Are these speed / size / page-load figures accurate for the binaries with the debugging code still in?
If so then these performance gains will be even better once the debugging stuff's taken out for production. Will they not?
C-x C-s C-x k
Dear Mozilla developers:
.mozilla directory for individual users, and in the mozilla directory in /etc, and couldn't find any file to edit to change the context menus.
Please adjust the context menu when right clicking on a tab, so that "close other tabs" is further away from "close tab".
I got bit in the ass again by this. I don't know if it is the slowness, or whatever it is, but when right clicking on a tab, the tab/window and menu sometimes move a bit as I'm selecting "close tab" (or I just miss), and I end up closing "other tabs" by mistake. It's not so much a problem on windows, I'm guessing, but on Linux, where I run for weeks at a time without a reboot, I tend to have quite a few tabs open at a time. And going back to the sites is not an option, as some of the tabs contain news, which has changed hours or days later even though the url is the same.
Is it possible to include an option in the preferences menu (under tabbed browsing) to add/eliminate/reconfigure the context menus? I tried looking in the
Another request: After going to a web page, if I want to save that page later, the browser goes to the web site to get the page again. This is a problem under two circumstances: If offline, and if the page has changed. I had a news page that I wanted to save, that was sitting on my desktop for a few days and I didn't get a chance for unrelated reasons to save it earlier. When I did save it, it saved the updated page, which carried a different news story at the same url as the old story. While wgetting the page again for saving may have its advantages, there should be an option of saving the page from the temporary file created to view the original page, not getting the page again to save it. Something like "save from cache" (and this needs to work even if cache is set to 0 mb, the file is still temporarily created somewhere if cache is set to 0 mb in the preferences menu) in the same area as "save html only" and "save web page complete" would be the proper place I believe (but still retaining the other choices, not substituting them).
I'm writing this here, instead of submitting it as a feature request or bug because I tried submitting this same feature request and others (and a couple of bugs that someone else fixed anyway) a while back (more than six months), but the submission area is sooo confusing and covers so many areas that I couldn't figure it out, and abandoned the submission the few times I did try. Sorry, but it is too complicated for me.
Thanks for the work on Mozilla to everyone! I use it regularly because Konqueror (my first choice) lacks the "save web page complete" choice, and mangles the tvguide listings (yeah, I'm sure the tvguide page doesn't conform to w3c, but Mozilla works, Konqueror doesn't, on that particular page, so I have no choice), and Konqueror still crashes on me.
Basically, the Any Browser campaign says to write everything to HTML 4.01 "Strict". Use CSS for all layout. Mozilla development fits this very nicely. Check out Eric Meyer's CSS/EDGE. Everything at CSS/Edge fits with the "AnyBrowser" way of doing things, but yet not everything at CSS/Edge will load with Internet Explorer.
In my own less complex pages, I've found that I can make a page load /similarly/ in both, but I can't use HTML "Strict", unless Internet Explorer starts to choke (throwing everything to the left edge when I wanted it centered, etc.).
So, as the above post mentioned, you end up writing to Internet Explorer, but you loose compatability with some "text readers for the blind", lynx, etc.
Ah, but who cares if a blind person can read your web page. Well, maybe your web page isn't just a collection of photos, maybe you have something of interest. Then, you should care.
Bottom line, the user will think that you're web page is broken if it doesn't load in I.E., and you loose readers this way. So, you end up with a web page that is a little more sparse, and less feature rich than you wanted.
OK, I'm glad there's a new Mozilla release, and I'm glad it's a little faster, but calling the 5% - 9% increases "dramatic" is a little much, don't ya think?
I don't know if less than ten percent improvement in the abovementioned categories qualifies as "dramatic" but it is noticeable compared to 1.6.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If you really want small and fast, w3m 0.5 is out as well.
Dig up a bit in the forums. I'm using a Athlon XP optimized build (with all that black magic voodoo compiler switches). If you have the hardware to support it, you can REALLY feel the difference.
You like the download manager? Blah, I like the plain mozilla one. Is anyone of the same opinion, and if so, can you recommend any new download management plugins?
//Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
It would seem that the definition of "dramatic" just got marginalized. Personally I'd think of a 2x performance increase as dramatic. 1.1x is what I'd term "laudable".
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
This is the reason why I keep directing people to use Mozilla and Firefox instead of IE or OE (Outlook Express*). I set my parents up with Netscape when it was good (ie, before AOL bought them) and with Mozilla more recently for an update. The people I give this too never go back to IE or Netscape 6/7. Mozilla is gaining.
Slow and stead wins the race.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
You will not be able to go to a fair of almost any kind without seeing mozilla used (I've been to quite a few that had little or nothing to do with computers and seen mozilla or a browser using the gecko engine used).
You, my friend, have obviously not been to the Bandera County Rodeo and Fair. Absolutely no Mozillas to be found, though there are some nice heifers!
Oh, did I mention the mozdev googlebar doesn't work on firefox?
And no, being able type words in and have a google search done on them does not count as all the functionality of the googlebar.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
When I switch users on WinXP, moz definately takes the longest of any app to become responsive again. Sometimes it's like 20 seconds or more, which is a freakin eternity when you're sitting there waiting to get a webpage. More memory in my machine definately helps, though the machine crashes like crazy with that extra memory (which is another issue again).
J
I've been using Opera for about 3 years now. For around 98% of the sites I visit, Opera does a fine and dandy job. But what about the 2% that require IE?
Right-click. Open document in Explorer.
The point is that even at 90% market share they're not invincible. The key is to convince people to use Firefox for general usage, to which it is superb. When enough people do this more sites will start using designing their websites for Firefox.
Ya, it's an uphill battle, but it's not the sheer rock face you make it out to be.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
I assume these speed changes will be transferred over to Firefox as well, since it uses the Mozilla code base. That will likely make Firefox amazingly fast, since it's already faster than the stock Mozilla.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
You can always customize your mozilla splash screen by placing a file named "Mozilla.bmp" in your mozilla directory.
Link to some splash screens you can download:
here
"Software is like sex: it's better when it's free."
"And Firefox is many percentage points faster than Mozilla. Many many many."
Whoa! My head is exploding with data!
Try to be a little more general in the future.
--Richard
As mentioned in this Footnotes article, the new Mozilla supports smb:// browsing through gnome-vfs, and the integration with your GTK2 theme has improved.
Life is offtopic.
Every time I use a different web browser, whether its Mozilla/Seamonkey, Firefox, Opera, or even IE on Windows, I'm sure it feels faster than whatever I was using before. It doesn't matter what it is or how slow it is (unless it is really, really slow, like old Mozilla versions -- but even with them, I had myself convinced that some versons were dramatically improved from the last one, when they really weren't).
This was bothering me the last time I was playing around with Firefox. There is no reason for there to be any difference in rendering performance at all between any Gecko browsers using the same version of the rendering engine. A different user interface will not change that.
I decided to test this for certain. I got Seamonkey, Firefox, Galeon, and Epiphany, all running of of the same Mozilla version (okay, Firefox was actually a somewhat newer trunk snapshot, and had some optimizations, so if anything it should have been faster). I opened them at the same time, and in sequence, went to the same sites and watched them render. I loaded sites repeatedly from cache, and tried other sites I knew weren't cached. There was no difference at all. Every time I thought I noticed a difference, I went back to the other browser and loaded the same thing. It took the same amount of time.
I didn't see a "many percentage point" difference. All of the percentage points of difference were within the margin of error of my ability to distinguish differences in time, and while that could be a problem, all of the things I checked took long enough on my computer that if there were a significant proportional difference between browsers, it would manifest itself as a subjectively perceptible slowdown.
As for rendering, if you see any rendering quality differences between gecko browsers you need to check your font/screen dpi settings, because they ought to be exactly alike.
Firefox might be a nice browser, and it has its merits in terms of UI feel and features, but it won't succeed by being faster than Mozilla/Seamonkey, because it isn't.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
I guess that makes it.....
29% Better!
-L
Don't Panic.
One of the little nasties I found out using Mozilla.
Javascript with timers. The way things are right now, using even one, unless it's VERY tightly coded, will drive CPU utilization up to 100% and just keep it there.... Even when tightly coded, it still eats a massive amount of CPU time.
With Opera, and other non-IE browsers, there's a small hit on system resources, but nothing CLOSE to what Mozilla/Firebird(/fox) have.
With IE, there's barely a bump in CPU utilization.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Basically, that 6% of ie5 users are either lazy win2k users, people using servers with incompetent admins, people using ie on linux who just don't give a shit what version they use so long as they have a working ie in their WINE environment, or people using ie "for the moment" because the goddamn website won't let them in with mozilla.
Cursed brain... I will get you yet.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
cooler download manager? firebird had a good download manager, if lacking a few options.
firefox's is just annoying, for one it's an ugly copycat of microsoft UI, and the way it's set it's non intuitive.
give me back my download manager damnit!
considering that Mozilla was so damn slow to start out with, it's not really that great. Maybe significant from a programming point of view, but not from the pov of the end user. The end user, such as myself, wants "the internet" -- along with everything else -- to load instantaneously.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Camino 0.8 is on the way too.
22 January 2004: We are in the process of driving the Camino 0.8 buglist to zarro boogs. We will be branching off Mozilla 1.7 (now scheduled for April) and will release shortly after. We expect Camino 0.8 to be faster and even more solid than 0.7...
Sure you can. Just design and code for standards, and make sure you do it in such a way that IE isn't too badly broken. It's quite doable. Cheers!
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size.
Now with 200% more statistics!
Okay - Firefox I understand. Lots of people just need a browser at work, for instance. But to be honest, if I need an email program I probably need a browser. What's the advantage of a standalone email client?
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
if(update == patch) February 7th? Update for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (KB831167) [microsoft.com]. Of course, I don't think this really counts. =P
Some pages have links in them for "back" "forward" "up" and such in a standardized way. Some browsers support toolbars to navigate these. Is it too much to ask that a browser prefetch the next page?
With a little help from me, I have gotten 10 or so Windows users at work to start using Mozilla, and one of them even tried out Firefox before I did! However, on the down side, I haven't gotten any of them to try Linux, though several have said "they should". I might just burn Knoppix to CD for them and hand it out.
./ , then it can do the rest of the work ( converting )for me. :)
Anyway, IE does have greater "marketshare", but all it took me was a few nudges to get Windows users to switch. Now if I can just get them to change their homepage to
All this from a former MCSE who though Microsoft was the end-all be all and Linux was just a flash in the pan...
I can't afford a sig!
i would assume they meant on equivalent hardware.
Jeremy
I agree the default settings are pretty nasty, but have you actually downloaded anything with IE? It's completely different!
The Mozilla suite and the Firefox, K-meleon, and Camino browsers all use the Gecko engine. The Konqueror and Safari browsers use the KHTML engine. Apparently, the KHTML developers have a more pragmatic policy with respect to implementing MSHTML extensions *cough*document.all*cough* than the more standards-minded Gecko developers.
I think this puts the Memory discussion in perspective. If you really need small footprint for real systems concerns. There is plenty of specialized browsers out there. Opera embedded being one of them.
Help fight continental drift.
I keep switching between the two. Thunderbird currently seems to have less dangerous bugs.
In only a matter of seconds, I'm not going to notice less than a 10% improvement on an application's speed. With something like Photoshop, maybe that would matter.
Of course, I'll download it anyway, because I always update my browsers upon full (non-beta) releases. Just waiting on the full 1.7 release...
edit>preferences>advanced>cache
See how much space you have allocated to cache.
If it's 0 then there you go. If not then i don't know, i'm just here for the free hat.
So when will these changed be added to Firefox? Of course these optimization could be coming from Firefox. Anyone know one way or the other?
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Mozilla does support prefetching for select <link> targets, but not enough sites seem to use <link>.
The reason they never go back to IE is because they DON'T CARE WHAT BROWSER THEY ARE USING as long as it works.
Which is the same reason everyone uses IE, and why it will remain the market leader indefinitely.
The differences between the browsers are mostly academic to the end user, and in real-life, IE is the most compatible, since everyone has to design to it in one way or another.
You do a good job at projecting an elitist attitude. This does nothing good for the open source movement...
I'm not a OSS politician; I don't care much for having a wooden tongue.
Anyway, I didn't mean it as in "mozilla users are intelligent", I meant it as in: "It's not because something is a minority that it's not worth supporting."
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
your comment reminds me of a sig I've seen around here somewhere. Something to the effect of "Open source is about communism as much as is the phase 'for the people, by the people, and of the people'".
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
Be careful when using setInterval() and setTimeout(). Mozilla 1.3 cannot use setTimeout() recursively to create the effect of setInterval() without maxing CPU usage. setInterval() works fine. If you want something to happen at regular intervals, use setInterval() to make all browsers happy.
---
One issue where the browsers are different is capturing key events:
MSIE6 requires:Mozilla1.3 works with:[addchar() is a generic function to handle the processing of each key regardless of the browser.]
[Why did Slashcode add a space within the ECODE tags?]
Luckily both sets of code can be on the same page with the KeyPress event being set correctly without testing for the browser names. I prefer the second method because it allows the code to be contained in a
To be on-topic:
Does Mozilla1.7 allow for the awful event model of MSIE? Will this code still work?
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Develop your web pages to The Web Standards and not to a Program's Standard!! The application will change from version to version in possibly undocumented ways, but the web stardard will always be documented. Any diviation in IE from the web standard should be considered a software bug.
And so the beast became agile. The unbelievers fell silent and the followers of
Mammon were left behind. The beast had been improved and awaited the release of
the great FireFox.
from The Book of Mozilla, 1:7b
(Red Letter Edition)
IIRC, mozilla seems to want to use its own .ldif which is whacked and doesn't quite work with *other* clients (like OS X Address Book, and..gah..Outlook)
Maybe I'm missing something, but it'd be nice if Mozilla's LDAP implementation would work a lil' better.
(Yes, I checked Google.. I'm not the only one that thinks the LDAP implementation is a bit wonky)
I followed the link to the article.
I couldn't find anything about what those percents mean.......ie how many seconds faster on what kind of hardware.
Its a step in the right direction though
The browser in it's present form seems to be a mature technology, and the improvements you mention increasingly marginalized, a smaller footprint is interesting technically, but rendering a page miliseconds faster than the competition won't set anyone's heart to pounding.
Wait - what sort of person quits Mozilla after firing it up? I usually have at least five Mozilla windows open. The only time I have no Mozilla window open is immediately after a reboot. I suspect that for most users, Mozilla's absolute paging behavior (what happens when you quit it entirely) is a non-issue except how it handles the creation and destruction of additional windows beyond a certain low number.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
The bug that affected tikiwiki and sometimes slashdot seems to be fixed. This makes it much more useable. Kerberos auth also important.
=== GOOD ===
My "bank" (https://www.usafcu-onlineusa.org/) has always worked great with Mozilla. USAFCU is a credit union with a highly technical membership (includes employees of Unisys), and actually cares about its "customers". (Credit unions do not have customers; every account is for a share holder.)
MyCheckFree.com works in Mozilla. It is a bill-paying website required for PECO Energy, unless you like snail-mailing checks. PECO is rather backwards, and does not have the ability to automatically withdraw from credit cards or bank accounts.
Yahoo, Google, Dictionary.com, IBM, Dilbert.com, and even Microsoft.com work well with Mozilla.
=== BAD ===
A few weeks ago, ZDNet.com started doing weird things in Mozilla1.3. The tables/layers in the menus do not line up and content can be on top of other content. The article text is usually fine.
Mapquest is useless with my Mozilla settings. It may be my setting for loading images. I use maps.yahoo.com instead.
Hotmail.com also has the issue with images. I am afraid to change it because I do not want to load images for spam. The images are specified using the IP Address. Do later versions of Mozilla have "Allow images from this server"?
[My main PC still uses Mozilla1.3. I have later versions on other PCs, because I install the latest version when I (re)build a PC, but my main PC has been stable for some time.]
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
If that freaks you out, perhaps you should read what this loon says about the symbology your Apple!
Now, I will concede you this point; if the logo were, say, goatse, I would probably look for another browser too... but while that would be very offensive to most people, I just don't see how their current image is too divisive.
i think it's called ..... firefox?
/. comments i downloaded opera and am loving it.
also, from other
I don't think it really affects Firefox too much. They'll be out with Firefox 1.0 probably by summer or near the start of fall, I assume.
The author goes on to say improvement rages from 5% to 9%. Is 5% to 9% a dramatic improvement?? I don't think so... I agree that its a move towards betterment... but Dramatic??? No!!!
What do you say people?
-ItsME
well plently of people have suffered under communism and continue to this day. Has nothing to do with open source, just mozilla. Heck, i write open source apps (hosted on sf.net no less) however, go ask a jew to use software where the logo is a Nazi stlye swastika and i think you will understand how the logo is deivisive. The swastika may be a harmless symbol of eastern religion but in context (nazi stly swastika) it means something else. Red star witha yellow border and workers around it looks like something else (as compared to the texaco red star). Do you see my point?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Mozilla 1.7 size and performance have improved dramatically with this release. When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size.
Dramatically? I don't know about you, but an 8% increase in speed and 5% decrease in size doesn't seem very dramatic to me. Mozilla is okay, but still fels like a truck compared to Opera.
RMN
~~~
Does this have anything to do with Firefox's string changes which reduced the code and increased speed by about 5%?
I keep my web browser up for *weeks* sometimes.
If I'm working on a number of projects on different desktops, there's no reason to close all my windows and then reload all of them each day.
Plus, (Mozilla, at least) doesn't have the ability to store all the URLs and window positions that I'm at as Opera does, so it would be a significant inconvenience.
May we never see th
What bank do you use that Mozilla doesn't work with?
Seriously, that's *awful*.
May we never see th
- Do later versions of Mozilla have "Allow images from this server"?
Yes. I'm using 1.4 (so behind the times aren't I?). There are radio buttons for "no imgages, images from originating server only, all images" as well as a "manage permissions" button where you can set up special image rules on a site by site basis.What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Congratulations to the Mozilla Team! They remind us that a new version does not need to have new features. A new version should be a better implementation of the earlier one, faster, smaller, more optimized, running on less powerful computers. I'd love to see this concept in other applications also.
...and everyone knows it. :) KDE is obsessed with becoming Windows. They even integrated the HTML browser and file browser--there is *absolutely no point* in doing that, and now I have to wait through seconds of lag time to open simple folders.
All the volunteer effort in the world and what do we do? We make another UNIX. Then we make another Windows on top of it!
I disagree. I've yet to find one person who raves about how "stylish" and "good-looking" a web site is an then points to a website that isn't a pain in the ass to use.
Let's take a look at your mezzoblue.com example:
* Uses inconsistent highlighting -- background rollovers (ugh) on part of the text like the "also available" websites, underline rollovers on other parts like the "Designing with Web Standards" link.
* It uses images for text in its heading. At the moment, I am sitting back fram my computer and leaning on a recliner. My face is about 1.5 to 2 times my normal viewing distance, and I use 1152x864 on a 17" monitor, which is already a high resolution. Normally, I just bump up the text size and have no problem reading a website (as do disabled people). This website's topic entries are unreadable to me, and I had to lean forward plop my face right next to the screen to read the "also available" heading. Heck, that's damned small text even for a lot of glasses-wearing older folks that I know of, with no way to work around it.
* The site uses rollover menus. I don't think I know *anyone* that likes using rollover menus -- I *really* hate it. It doesn't even use your typical old annoying rollover menu -- this has an image background or something. It took ten seconds or so for the image to load, so I had floating white text on a light blue background for a bit. It was pretty unusable.
* Widget functionality is unclear to a viewer. Once again, the analysis I've heard of rollovers holds true -- they're used by designers that have such an unintuitive design that they require the user to wave the mouse around over the interface to figure out how it works. There are rollover menus in the upper top corner. There's no visual indication that these little dinky images are, in fact, rollover menus. It wasn't until I started scanning the page with my mouse cursor that I figured it out.
* Confusingly chosen and similar visual indicators. The mezzoblue.com site uses a diagonally-upward-aiming triangle to indicate a menu (*most* of the time). For starters, this indicator is inconsistent with the common desktop use of a downward-aiming triangle to indicate a popup menu. It is also almost identical to the diagonally-downward-aiming triangle that is used to indicate a section header *on the same site*. Not only that, diagonal triangles most common use in current HCI is for a half-open expandable section of data, a convention from Mac OS. The sections look like they *might* roll up when clicked, but do not in fact do so.
* Dissimilar widgets are visually identical. If this designer *had* to make rollover menus and grokked HCI (a dubious pair of bedfellows to begin with), he'd know that one does not make widgets that operate differently but appear identical to the user. Up at the top, we have three blocks of text that appear the same (upward-diagonal triangle, text). The first two ("about", "weblog") are rollover menus. The third, "contact", is a link. When I started rolling my cursor over them, I sat and waited on this link, assuming that my browser was just slow to pop up the associated menu.
* Text colors poorly chosen for readability. Much of the text/background combinations involve two very similar shades of blue. Most of this is readable to me at my current viewing distance if I increase the size, but I know many people that would *not* be able to comfortably read such text.
Honestly, mezzoblue.com seems an excellent example of why sites should *not* be "stylish" -- when designers use "stylish" as an excuse, they're frequently making websites that are simply poorly built from an interface point of view.
Finally, as I've argued before, a lot of people making "stylish" websites with "extra zazz" are people that are familiar with the conventional way products are sold. Most products need to appear flashy, interesting, and novel just long enough for a person to impulsively choose to buy them. For conventional products, "flash" h
May we never see th
Keep in mind that my writeup was done based on something like thirty seconds of actual use and staying only on the main page. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of problems with the site, just a set of examples why using a similar approach on a website is not a good idea.
May we never see th
If you double-click on each download in the Download Manager, you'll get access to pause/resume features. That feature has been there for while. Of course, in the Firefox Download Manager these features are shown up front.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
The Google Zeitgeist shows their current visitor breakdown as a graph. It isn't labeled, but by breaking it down and determining which pixel the lines fall on at the end, the percentages look like this:
Internet Explorer (5/5.5/6): 89%
Mozilla/Netscape (5/6/7): 5%
Unknown/Other: 6%
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Notepad or vi works great for editing html :-)
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
You all might snicker at the single-digit speed improvements in the latest release, but I just upgraded from 1.2 to 1.7 and the difference is not only noticable, it's unbelievable! Especially the startup time, must be a quarter of what it previously was (no preloading in memory under linux, startup times for mozilla used to be awful)
The GUI is also much snappier.
I see good days ahead for Mozilla. A few days ago, a non-techie friend of mine saw me using Firefox and inquired about it. Once he installed it and saw the tabbing, pop-up blocking, speed, and skinnability, he immediately set it as his default browser. Though IE is the most common right now, people will find about the quality of Mozilla sooner or later. Actually, who cares? Even if they don't, I and all my friends still get to use a superb browser
TerraIM - my pet AIM client project.
That sounds very interesting, gotta try it out (PowerBook + G5 DP). Although I have another issue with Mozilla on Linux though.
:-)
When accessing shockwave/flash pages, Mozilla (and Netscape, and Opera) crashes on me rather frequently. It happens atleast a couple of time every business day. I just copied the plugins from the standard Netscape 7.1 distribution.
Are there any other shockwave/flash plugins that I can use that dont bring my browser down all the time ? Any hints/tricks/tips greatly appreciated! (Apart from trying out Mozilla 1.7
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
...they want the program to be "just" a browser, if you want mail you use another program which is "just" a mailreader (thunderbird), and if you want IRC do not use anything mozilla at all, the chatzilla client was more a proof of concept than a useable product. BitchX is the way forward on Linux/Unix, on windows you could do a lot worse than mIRC.
I stopped using moz long ago because I didn't like the slugishness when compared to IE, I only left IE when I switched to Firebird/fox and haven't looked back.
I am NaN
i think it must be cuz those speed increases are similar to the speed gain they mentioned in the bugzilla.
I dont know quite what went wrong, but Mozilla's development just spiralled upwards into features and bloat year ago. That is bad considering its the only really free standalone browser. If youre running say NetBSD on some exotic hardware, or Solaris on x86, or something not mainstream, youre really stuck with Mozilla unless you can get around the overhead of KDE/GNOME and use their browsers.
Mozilla firebird/thunderbird has caught most peoples attention and can be far more popular than mozilla if it didnt crash so much. For now, people with exotic setups will have to use lynx, keep trying mozilla and firebird intermittently and turn back to Windows or Linux on x86 when they get frustrated. I do wonder whose interests is Mozilla serving anyway with such extreme bloat.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Since the last version, computers have become 10% faster
Yeah that's right! I'm sure I read that in a benchmark somewhere... computers in general, 10% faster since the last version of Mozilla.
What?
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Of course, the position on this curve changes depending on your environment.
On a brand-new machine, you're on the far right, so this is unnoticeable. "Not worth the effort".
On a P-90, you're on the far left - your loading time just fell from 2 hours to 1:45. "Still not good enough".
On a P2-300, Mozilla has just become useable. That 10% was important.
Usage patterns are also relevant - if you have a 60-tab bookmark (like a previous poster), then shaving 10% off the loading time for each tab is a massive saving.
I expect that a number of users will find this speed increase useful.
I had the impression that you could store your bookmarks etc in LDAP, is this not so?
I can't quite understand why Mozilla needs to use 40-100 MB. It would be interesting to see what that memory is actually used for. Images are normally fairly small, and can't take up *that* much. HTML source shouldn't account for much. Where does the memory go?
Well, I am waiting for the next version of the Mozilla Firefox 0.9 (or 1.0) or standalone version of the browser from Mozilla coz I don't need that extra programs hooked upto my browser
So with Mozilla getting Gtk+ themes and speed, will Firefox ever succeed it? When?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Grab the program from: www.proxomitron.info
Then grab the best filter set for it here: www.jd5000.net
The nice thing is, not only will it prevent popups, it'll tell you WHAT it killed. Makes it easy to work out what the weird popup is. I'd wager it's some form of JavaScript code which is written in stealth fashion to obfuscate it's true nature.
Hope this helps!
Visceral Psyche Films
CSS2 and Mozilla (not I.E.) can do full roll-over menus without the help of scripting. But this does NOTHING on I.E. Similarly, microsoft.com has menus (in black, top right of screen) that do nothing unless I.E. is loading them).
If your boss/client wants menus like that, then there is no choice but to break the Any Browser campaign (which I believe in), and use JavaScript (or Server Side Includes) to create different pages for different browsers - again, breaking many browsers that spoof their headers, or otherwise lie (Opera, "MSIE Compatible").
Even though I do use Mozilla (thus my interest),if you have not downloaded it yet, how did you come by such numbers? Oh marketing....... And if this is a beta copy would it not be reasonable to suggest that these numbers are on the low end? Just curious.
A few months back, one of our sales staff had a problem. His computer just wasn't working properly by any stretch of the imagination. After a few minutes investigation, I realized that he'd manages to corrupt his install of IE.
This is a good sales guy (Listens to IT, good to work with, nice guy) and I didn't want to subject him to the downtime of a complete reinstall, but the IE upgrade app didn't work. (Kept crashing)
So I ran Spambot on the computer to clean things up a little (Adaware wouldn't run, as it apparently uses some of the IE rendering components to display it's interface) and put (then) Thunderbird on his PC.
I told him briefly what Mozilla and Thunderbird were, installed the tabbed browsing plugin and told him I would try to download the full install of IE 6 and come back. He understood Thunderbird to be a temporary measure.
Later in the day, I have IE reinstalled and his computer running just fine.
Fast forward two months to this past Friday. Our newest web developer and I are discussing browsers, and he's wishing all the NON IE browsers would die so he could just develop for one platform.
In comes said sales guy and starts taking the developer to task, raving about Mozilla. It turns out he's been using thunderbird as his main browser ever since I installed it, and only uses IE when a site doesn't work in Thunderbird (He still hasn't upgraded from the version I installed).
Don't you love it when a technology proves itself on it's own merits?
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
My Bad. I installed FIREbird on his computer, not Thunderbird
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
I have this problem under NT4, Win2k and WinXP. Win98 didn't have the problem, and Linux doesn't appear to have it either.
If you open up the Task Manager and watch the virtual memory size and memory usage, Firefox (or any variant of Mozilla to date), will show a HUGE amount of VM space. Right now Firefox shows a VM size of ~70MB, current "memory usage" of ~43MB. If I start working with a different app, Windows will spot those inactive memory pages and swap them out. The "memory usage" will slowly fall on Firefox... down to maybe 2MB.
It is classic, predictable and boring application behaviour. Mozilla is a pig for RAM. This isn't a problem if it doesn't get paged out, but when it does, your machine will have to bring up tens of megabytes of swapped out and fragmented pages to re-render the page you've kept in the background.
So when I click on Firefox, it can take over 60 seconds (real stopwatch seconds) for it to pull back from my notebook's 4800rpm drive and reach the foreground...
Note that that is a lot longer than it takes to launch the app.
If there are memory leaks in Mozilla, they're too small for me to notice or worry about, but this swap behaviour is horrible... so much so, that I include it as a caveat when mentioning Mozilla to people, and I've even considered going to IE (I've can honestly say I've never been a regular IE user)... but when I'm on the phone with somebody at work, and I need to look something up, explaining to them that my machine is pulling the browser out of swap is unproductive and embarassing... sometimes I launch IE just to get to the site more quickly.
The hibernation doesn't really click with what I'm describing though. Hibernation brings back the full hibernation file to active RAM... if Mozilla wasn't swapped out before, it won't be swapped out afterwards.
Why NT/2k/XP? If you watch them, they all use similar memory management patterns. Even if you're not using all the available system RAM, they'll swap out inactive pages to increase space for caching drive activity.
For example: right now I have about 7MB available system RAM... a 70MB disk cache, and 564MB allocated on a system with 256MB of RAM. There is 70MB worth of RAM paged out in order to keep a big fat disk cache.
Anyways, watch those memory numbers as your HDD thrashes bringing back Mozilla... it is painfully obvious what is happening. Mozilla is a pig for RAM, and NT & kin are swapping it out.
I could "fix" this by putting ~768MB of RAM in my machine and turning off swap/paging space... but that doesn't bode well for the supieriority of Mozilla/Firefox/whatever.
Does anyone have a trick to tweak the memory management characteristics of Windows?
Not too many new features? Implementation of CSS3 opacity is a pretty nifty deal. I've been looking forward to it for a long time.
Constitutionally Correct
I think you're confusing Windows with a desktop that's attractive to the majority of desktop users.
No, I'm not. Windows is not an attractive desktop. Nor is KDE.
We're changing the world, and we're providing users with freedom. They will never accept that freedom unless our software is easy to use.
KDE is not easy to use. I could list paragraphs of flaws, and most of them stem from the copying of Windows and its metaphors.
If you're tempted to upgrade, read the 'new issues' section first:
h tm l#new-issues
http://mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.7b/README.
The 'Web services are not working in Mozilla 1.7 Beta' is a major show-stopper for me.
Firefox *is* faster than Mozilla 1.6 (and Galeon using Mozilla 1.6). Try loading a large page like http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/ libc.html
When loading in Mozilla, my CPU usage was at 100% for 22 seconds. When loading in Firefox, 100% CPU usage lasted for 16 seconds.
Sorry, that is not enough. I use 1.3, you use 1.4, and I remember checking this in 1.5.
A good security system for images would be to start with "No images" or "Images from originating server only". Then have a list of approved servers using "Allow images from this server."
No version of Mozilla I have used has implemented this properly.
You can "Block images from this server", but that is backwards security. To use this "security" feature, you must start by accepting all images, then block the offensive ones. That offers no protection when using web mail for spam, because you will load the image once (verifying your email address is valid), and may not even know there was an invisible image that needs to be blocked. And spammers will just change the "image" server for each email in case you did block the last server.
You should block everything, then approve allowed servers. Mozilla cannot block all images and then only allow images from approved servers.
I default to allowing the images for originating server only. With Hotmail, I need the ability to allow images for server 207.68.164.24. I do not believe this is possible, but I will check Mozilla1.7 when it is released.
===
Also, why does "View Image" open the image into a new page? The current page already has a location dedicated to where that image belongs. For many cases, the image will only make sense if shown in the context of the page it was to be used. Using "View Image" loses that context.
In Hotmail, the images are used for navigation. Without the images, it is very difficult to discover which empty spot means "go to next email" and which means "delete this email".
For news articles, I want the ability to see the accompanying image, even if it is on a different server, without losing the security for all servers. I want to see the image above the blurb that explains the image, not on a separate page.
===
I sent these ideas to Mozilla feedback back in the 1.1 timeframe. I wish I had the time to become a Mozilla developer, but that will not happen this year. Someone already familiar with the code and the data storage should be able to implement the first change in less than a week (not including QA.) I cannot estimate what it would take to add "View Image in current location on page" without studying the code, but the ability to redraw the page with the additional image should be simple. How did this poor interface survive at least 4 releases? (Make that 6 major releases if these issues are not fixed in 1.7.)
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
By your argument, you could scale a one day's effort that increased performance by a measly 1% and claim a 38-fold increase over the year.
I mean, really...
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
@ Opera's install is one third the size of Moz's. And has been the faster browser for several years now. *shrugs*
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Sun, on Win32 at least.
It would complain, for some reason. Oh, and it would also crash if your UA was too long... 20-something characters IIRC.
...and the reply was planted to make people take the "advice", which you correctly pointed out as equally stupid.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
At the time when I first found out about it, it was either a IE5.0 work-alike, or Netscape 4.
I used MSIE 5.0 until I got Moz 1.0 to work on the Solaris box. IE5.0 was about 10 times faster and crashed less than the Solaris-bundled Netscape (imagine that!).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
If you disable java and plugins, both MSIE and Mozilla seem to work fine for days on end without issue. This is on two different types of machine with a modest amount of RAM (256MB).
As soon as you let java or flash run, and open up a few links to some PDF files, everything tends to go to shit.
I don't really blame MSIE or Mozilla for this, but the API the plugin and the browser use to communicate, and maybe the plug-in writers themselves.
I should be able to hit the "stop" button in my browser and have the plugin receive an event that makes it stop what it's doing and release resources. It's just common sense.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON