| 1:27 pm on Apr 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Outstanding. Thank you!
| 3:44 am on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Just finished downloading RC1 and so far I'm very pleased. The Mozilla team has come a very long way since Netscape 6.0. If only aol would have waited awhile longer to release 6.0 more people might be using it.
| 4:02 am on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I just wonder what version CompuServe 7.0 is based on.
Hopefully it's a newer Mozilla!
| 4:35 am on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Been running for a full day now, since I saw bobriggs' post yesterday. Haven't had a crash yet, and I am very impressed. Thank you Mozilla guys!
There is an encryption button in the mail application so that people can send digitally encrypted/signed emails. I've not yet tried that feature yet since I don't have a x509 personal certificate. Tried to go to Thawte to get a certificate yesterday, but their server crashed in the middle of registration... Well.
| 6:29 am on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm amazed at the speedup from the previous few builds.
| 12:03 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Just upgraded...wow! It's like everything Internet Explorer should be, and better because it runs on Linux!
| 3:34 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Uh... can someone please post a URL for downloading?
| 4:28 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Here you go: [mozilla.org...]
| 6:01 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Downloaded and installed. Definately fixed some problems from the previous version.
One thing that I don't like in this newer version is that it no longer has the option to "Open Frame in New Window." Bummer.
Other then that, I love it!
| 6:12 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Open Frame in New Window
At least in the Linux version, that point has been moved to a "This Frame" submenu of the context menu.
| 6:27 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks bird -- "the utopian dreamer" ;)
| 6:30 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Very very fast, I like it a lot.
| 6:36 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Lets not go over board NFFC - it's still a pig in slop compared to Opera or IE. I just tried to run it again on the 2nd machine (650duron/128meg) and it wasn't a pleasant experience. 21 seconds to load.
| 6:48 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
hehe, ah load time. Slower without the preloader but when it's up, rapid. I judge speed by the what's new full listings pages at Y!
| 7:07 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I've had several opportunities to use the "Talk Back" feature since downloading. Been surfing with Opera, IE6 and Mozilla... where one goes, the others follow. I don't have to mention who leads, do I?
Still, a welcomed improvement though.
| 7:09 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yeah. I just checked task manager in WIN2K. It takes a little over 19MB for the quicklaunch to stay in memory. This could probably vary depending on whether or not it loads plugins and whatever other options are loaded.
Cheap if you're going to stick with it and have 128MB or more I think.
| 11:47 pm on Apr 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
1. 20MB of memory is virtually nothing on modern computers. I have a graph of my RAM in my system tray and I could barely notice the RAM indicator bar rise when the Mozilla pre-loader was active.
However, I also have older computers like a Pentium166 in use. It has 32MB of RAM. I wouldn't even consider Mozilla on that platform. However, I'm all over K-Meleon.
2. Am I the only one who considers a keyboard really slow and likes to use keyboard commands for everything and am really put off that Mozilla doesn't behave like a normal Windows app (alt,space doesn't open app menu, etc.)
| 2:11 am on Apr 24, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It is a fantastic piece of software. Anyone play with the wysiwyg lately? It is getting more sophisticated. On a lesser note, this thing has some very attractive themes. It's rendering is incredibly fast. WOW!
Linux version = 18MB
| 7:33 pm on Apr 24, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Installation is smooth, works a whole lot faster than NS4 and faster than NS6, that's for sure. But program load is almost 30 seconds -- not acceptable. Using Quicklaunch east 28M or memory -- incredible..and useless.
On to render testing...
| 7:43 pm on Apr 24, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Automatic Java and Flash installation
Hi! I have created a page that with an automatic Java and Flash installation [mazinger.technisys.com.ar].
Flash works for Linux, Windows and Solaris. Java only works for Windows for now. What I have done is to package these things in .xpi (XPInstall, the install technology from Mozilla) files.
| 9:31 pm on Apr 24, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have been using latest versions of Opera and Mozilla for the last few days side-by-side.
Opera is slightly quicker to 'do things' but believe it or not, has crashed more than Mozilla on my XP system. This could be statistically irrelevant as I was viewing sites with loads of nasty Java stuff and didn't view the same sites on each browser.
Mozilla still wins for me because of the password manager.
The small differences in loading and rendering are nothing compared to typing user names and passwords every time I want to check a customers stats - which is many times per session.
IE6 seems ugly and clunky compared to either of these.
| 10:39 pm on Apr 24, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Really? IE6 seems clunky?
I think the same thing about Opera/Mozilla because I find their user interfaces far less customizable then Internet Explorer's. And that's why I continue to use IE/Win as my default browser. Not because Microsoft illegally includes it in the OS, but because, for my purposes, it's the best browser on any platform (except IE/Mac).
This is how I configure my browser: [rideauhs.com...]
Note that such a compact and feature-rich interface isn't possible in either Opera or Netscape/Mozilla.
P.S. I typed this in Mozilla and it made me realize a couple other reasons why I don't use the browser: 1. It doesn't support CTRL+down/up to navigate around paragraphs in a text edit form. 2. If you press right at the end of a text edit form, it returns you to the top of the form which screws up text selecting and is a long-standing bug.
| 11:06 pm on Apr 24, 2002 (gmt 0)|
So you agree with the 'Ugly' bit then :) (Sorry, couldn't resist)
The 'clunky' hits me every time I need to change anything on IE6 - 'horses for courses' I guess.
The only way I can stomach IE6 for any length of time is with one of the freeware 'tabbed browsing' front ends.
| 11:21 pm on Apr 24, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sure, IE is ugly when compared to the other browsers since it doesn't support their visual extras like per-application skinning. However, I've never liked that sort of stuff (except with Winamp for some reason ... :)
I didn't know there was much to change with IE. There aren't nearly the number of options that there are with Mozilla. There pretty much diametrically opposed in that Mozilla allows for *everything* to be changed while IE offer very little flexibility.
But IE's defaults work for me.
They're all good browsers, and it really comes down to personal differences and the way that you're used to using computers more than anything else.
| 1:37 am on Apr 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
There are just some reasons that IE does not work for me. Security bugs. The recent Back Button security hole? Now I won't use IE to browse anything but my own intranet.
Bookmark management. Does anyone find it especially difficult to organise their bookmarks in IE? Maybe there are some 3rd party applications that ease this pain, but I just find Moz and Opera much easier to manage when you have hundreds of items.
Proper CSS2 and PNG support. I really want to use those 32-bit PNGs with alpha channel on my web sites! However I need to put up IE users like I used to put up NN4.x users.
Multi-platform support. I need that One Browser to rule them all! I've been using NN4 and Moz since '95 on Win32, MacOS, Linux, Solaris and OSF1. They provide me a consistent look 'n' feel across the platforms.
| 2:51 am on Apr 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I can appreciate your position, scotty. This is my opinion.
- Here in both Canada, Netscape4 usage is still around 25% of all browsers. In the U.S. it's still above 10%. It's only in worldwide statistics that it is at really low levels since virtually nobody in mainland Europe or Asia uses it. Because of the very large number of Netscape4 users (I think Canada is the second-highest in the world, per capita) in my country, I continue to design my pages around that browser's limits.
- I achieve cross-browser CSS2 support from IE5+/Win through these scripts: [and.doxdesk.com...] Hence, I design pages using valid CSS2 and they work in more than 90% of all browsers.
- I love IE's drag-and-drop right in the menu and rename by right-clicking bookmark management. It is one of the major reasons that I haven't switched to Mozilla. Simple bookmark management can be achieved right in the bookmark menu without even opening a different window, what could be simpler? And, when I want to do complex bookmark manipulation, I open the favorites folder in Explorer and use all of the powerful tools that I normally use on files on my bookmarks.
- Mozilla's greatest strength, IMO, is its cross-platform support. If it weren't for Mozilla's cross-platform design, there's no way that OSs like OS/2 or BeOS or a myriad of other OSs would have nearly as good browsers as Mozilla. If I used a myriad of platforms, I'd likely use Mozilla. However, I only use Win32 at home/work/school/friends. The only time I ever use *nix is as a server OS that I don't browse from.
Finally, security. Please explain this to me, because I've never understood about the need for security. I only visit "major" web pages like the New York Times or smaller websites that are from reputable sources. I feel confident that such sites aren't going to include any malicous scripts in their pages. Really, unless you frequent hackerz/warez sites, are you really likely to sumnle across a page that exploits one of these security problems?
Yes, IE has a terrible record with regards to security. They really should do a significantly better job with regards to secuirty. Share-sourcing the entire code-base would be an excellent start, IMO. However, what is the likelyhood of anyone being affected by the IE security vulnerabilities? Specifically with regards to the back button issue, what is the likelyhood that you are following a link from a trusted site/local computer file to a malicous site?
| 4:52 pm on Apr 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>>I achieve cross-browser CSS2 support...
>>>I open the favorites folder in Explorer and use all of the powerful tools...
That's because the bookmarks on IE are symlinks, special files (.lnk). They take more disk space that they should and (surprise) represent a security hazard waiting to happen. Oh, has happened. They're easier to manipulate, tought. Emulation with a parser on the xml file that mozilla uses would be welcome.
>>>The only time I ever use *nix is as a server OS that I don't browse from...
Don't say that you'll never be browsing on a *nix machine. Maybe you'll visit a friend, or work on specialized environments. Who knows.
>>>Please explain this to me, because I've never understood about the need for security...
You'll understand the first time that a rogue ActiveX script changes your homepage :)
| 8:06 pm on Apr 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I did have a problem with a rogue ActiveX script once, come to think of it. It installed a bunch of programs on my computer and randomly scattered files around my hard drive and changed my start page. But it was on a page from an "untrustworthy" source. Come to think of it, I'm not sure if it exploited a security hole (IMO, unlikely) or tricked me into clicking an "accept" button for that script instead of what I thought would be something else.
I've been browsing the web for 8 years and that's happened once. And I learned from it and played around with my security settings. However, I take your point - certainly if it happened to me more regularly, then I'd certainly consider security to be a much bigger issue than I do today.
I'm the sort of person who never ran a virus program for about 8 years until I got 1 virus. I now run an anti-virus program.
Thanks, y'all. And I hope that my previous post didn't appear to be too troll-like.