Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netscape 6 Vs. 4.7x

Hemos posted more than 13 years ago | from the taking-the-time-to-load-things-up dept.

Netscape 364

rafa writes "Linuxworld has an informal comparison between Netscape 6, Mozilla, Opera and Netscape 4.7 with focus on resource usage. It reflects what I've been experiencing with Mozilla." A lot of this is well known, but the article does a good job of bringing it all together.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:Using top to count memory usage? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#590036)

fork() makes a process, not a thread


Processes are big, threads are small

Wrong. On Linux, the only difference is that threads share file descriptors and memory mappings, and processes do not.

If it's forking all the time, then it may be too bloaty anyway!

Very wrong. fork() copies a few kernel structures, but the entire user-space memory area is shared until the process overwrites it. Since a process overwrites only a small fraction of its dataspace and none of its code space, a pair of forked processes takes almost no extra memory compared to a single process. From a memory standpoint, forks are almost free.

Netscape is a pig. Period. It's not fork's fault or clone's fault. Netscape takes a ton of memory, takes a long time to swap in its 30+ shared libraries, takes more time to parse its XML user interface, and consistently leaks memory the entire time you use it.

Netscape is the worst browser for Linux, except for all of the others...

It's Simply Ahead of Its Time (1)

EverCode (60025) | more than 13 years ago | (#590037)

The thing that is always overlooked about Mozilla (and Netscape 6 even) that is it built to run on MODERN computers. These benchmarks are on an AMD K6-2, and to be honest, that is outdated hardware when it comes to new software.

People do not seriously complain about the next Quake not running well on their old computer, and people are just going to have to face the fact that Mozilla is not designed to run well on those old machines too.

Mozilla is a cutting edge piece of software that will also be the foundation for new, cutting-edge, cross-platform applications. Let me say that again: Mozilla is going to be a software platform! That is futuristic stuff, and if Moore's law holds up, Mozilla's "bloat" will not matter anymore real soon.

IE might have locked up today's P!!!s, but the next generation of PCs is all open, whether it comes to web browsers, or OSes.

Re:Programmers Make Computers Slower Year by Year (2)

dbarclay10 (70443) | more than 13 years ago | (#590040)

You're right. "user" could mean "manager", "client", "boss", "spouse", or even "user" ;)

But I think I got my idea across.


Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)

Re:Stupid Buttons (2)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 13 years ago | (#590041)

Fullscreen browsing would be nice too... I can't express my disappointment that despite all the bloat, such a simple feature isn't there.

BTW, if you do a side-by-side comparison of the screen real-estate of NS4 with text-only menus to the graphical icons of NS6, 4.7 still takes up more space (including the shortcut bar).

Although the stupid double-thickness bar running along the bottom with no information in it (and no method to turn it off) brings NS 6 back into the lead of space wastage. You can turn off that stupid bar in 4.7 with CTRL-ALT-S.

I can't believe I'm defending Netscape 4. I hated it when it came out. It was a bloated peice of buggy crap. The only saving grace was that IE4 wsa so horrifically unstable and would shred the OS.

Now IE is quite stable, and comparitively lightweight. I still can't bring myself to use it, but it is certianly technically superior in almost every way.

Re:Programmers Make Computers Slower Year by Year (5)

amccall (24406) | more than 13 years ago | (#590043)

More features? Or bad programming combined with bad languages?

Years ago the WordPerfect for Windows 5.1 was released. A WYSIWYG word processer that ran with 8 mb ram, and about 40 meg hard drive space. The fact is: there is no reason that WinME should take 550 Meg alone on my hard drive.

I'll grant you that features creep in, and users demand more and more and more features. But, newer programming classes fail to teach students some very basic important things. And what I speak of, is the often repeated line, that I've heard spoken in the classroom, and by a great many professional programmers, "RAM is cheap."

Coding is taking less and less effort, not more. Any fool with a copy of Visual Basic or Visual C++, can create a passible text editor. Compare this to the days of hand optimized assembly, where one must stretch the processor beyond its current capabilies, getting every ounce of RAM out as possible. Intelligent, well thought out designs, were the only way you could create a solution that would run well.

Now, Linux is one of the few enviroments where talented programmers have joined together to create something nice. In terms of requirements, the Linux world is moving at a much slower pace than most other industries. It is actually possible to runt the latest version of slack on a 486DX4-100 with 24 mb of ram, use an older version of netscape(or mozilla), and have things feel a bit slow, but the system be usable. This was the configuration of my Compaq laptop, which I used until I sold a week ago. :P

But their is much software where, the often repeated statement, "RAM is cheap", pops up. Even in Linux. I find the whole situation disgusting myself. One should not justify not thinking fully through a program with this qualification. Clever algorithems, thoughtfull code, and interesting tricks are no longer allowed. Coding has begun to become something for the braindead. And the sad thing is, that many corporations will hire these pimple faced teen VB programmers that have no knowledge of algorithem analysis, and have little to know experience writing anything else than yet another Visual Basic Calculator.

Re:Lack of LDAP support (1)

skt (248449) | more than 13 years ago | (#590045)

I couldn't find it in a two week old nightly of mozilla. But maybe the options for adding an ldap directory is hidden somewhere since it's still in development. I downloaded the binary on their website, not the source. Does anybody know where you can add these directories?

Re:Here is a link to download NCSA Mosaic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#590046)

Dammit. I was actually trying to compile Mosaic 1.2 on my Linux-PPC (it's a tangerine) tonight (I got a nightly build and wanted to compare myself, this before even heading over to /.)...anyway, after downloading and installing lesstif, linking some system file that got lost during installation, it came back and said that there were no rules to make one of the libWWW files or something and it puked error 1 on me :(

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Not fair!! (1)

vectus (193351) | more than 13 years ago | (#590053)

Being open source, Mozilla will continually improve, and now that it is in the public domain and anyone can try and improve it and understand how it will affect the final product, it will improve quicker than if it were still being developed. I'm sure it has its flaws, but in a year or so, it will kick some serious microsoft ass once again

Re:forst netscape post! (2)

blue trane (110704) | more than 13 years ago | (#590055)

I'm more productive on linux because it's such a pain to surf the web using netscape.

Ill stick with Mozilla (1)

DaSyonic (238637) | more than 13 years ago | (#590056)

The mozilla daily builds (with PSM and Java from netscape 6's FTP site) gives me all the function of Netscape 6 without all the Netscape kludge. I prefer the daily builds over the milestones due to my dislike with the current milestone (M18)

Re:Not fair!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#590058)

Mozilla wil continue to have pointless features added while bloat and bugs are ignored.

Say what you mean.

Re:Comparison in one line (1)

bdigit (132070) | more than 13 years ago | (#590059)

ok for some reason the less than sign got knocked out in between the parentheses

Gag reflex... (1)

1nt3lx (124618) | more than 13 years ago | (#590060)

When I tried the first beta release of Netscape 6 I really had to surpress the gag reflex. I understand there is a big competition to revolutionize the interface, but come on. That is just insane. Maybe the enormous buttons should be defaulted to a feature related to "Accessability Options."

That is also to say that I use IE 5 at work simply because it loads faster and the sites involved in my research are "optimized" for the latest browser features. (i.e. won't look right in Netscape 4.7.)

This is seriously a major issue in my mind. I am actually finding Konquerer to be the browser I use when at home. Too bad it wasn't included in this.

Don't ask me, I don't know.

Using top to count memory usage? (5)

srichman (231122) | more than 13 years ago | (#590139)

Uh, doesn't adding memory totals from top give an inaccurate picture of real memory usage because it counts shared pages multiple times?

E.g., if I fork() (which is pretty much the same as making a new thread in the Linux world), all the text pages that are shared will be listed under the memory total for both the parent and child process in top. If I sum the memory usages, then, I'm counting the shared pages twice.

Which can give an unfair appraisal of the memory hunger of a multithreaded program.

It's about time! (2)

Flavio (12072) | more than 13 years ago | (#590141)

It's about time someone said that!

I've been using NS6 since it was released and even though I hadn't used Mozilla for more than 20 minutes before then, I've downloaded nightly builds at least twice a month since... well, since nightly builds started, I suppose.

other than what the author mentioned, 3 things bother me a lot:

1. the amount of time it takes for a new window to open up, be that a navigator, composer or "new message" window.
2. the fact you can't minimize the file download window, despite the fact this has been in bugzilla for more than a year
3. the window positioning. new windows don't get put into the right places in Linux, and in Windows a new window is never maximized.

Well, those are my complaints.


yay! (5)

vsync64 (155958) | more than 13 years ago | (#590143)

Okay, now that my First Post! is out of the way...

Quite honestly, I've recently decided that NCSA Mosaic is still the best browser out there. I've got an x86 box at work, so I downloaded the (statically linked, thank goodness) binary and messed around with it.

Whoa. Nostalgia trip.

Thing is, though, it's got so many things that newer browsers don't even bother with. Like making clicked links dashed instead of solid underlined. (Kinda relevant for those color-blind users mentioned a while back.) And allowing you to select fonts for each heading level (don't think it's in that version, but I remember doing that in Mosaic on Solaris). And letting you quickly flip between a fontset for the whole document.

Oh yeah, and Mosaic is fast. Maybe that's because it focuses all its resources toward actually displaying HTML, and not trying to turn itself into some kind of sick Turing machine/security hole.

A few updates would be nice... Cookies, SSL, maybe style sheets. But overall, I just wish people would bother to consider all the "accessability features" and "performance enhancements" that always existed, but were simply forgotten.

Netscape 6 Interface (1)

Adam9 (93947) | more than 13 years ago | (#590155)

Admittedly, I haven't tried the latest Netscape 6 Release, howevr from when I tried their beta, the interface seemed a lot like NeoPlanet [] . It could be one big coincidence, or that they wanted to try to re-design their interface without spending the effort to be creative. Anyways, until Netscape comes out with some outstanding feature which makes it worth the time to download and install, I'll stay away from it.

Lack of LDAP support (1)

Mnemia (218659) | more than 13 years ago | (#590157)

I have to say that the one feature I really miss the most from 4.7x is support for LDAP directories. I don't really know that much about mozilla, but I thought I heard that this hadn't made it in yet. Any word on when it will be available?

Re:yay! (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#590158)

You can do the stuff you mentioned with a user-set style sheet. At least, you can in IE - not sure about NS or Moz.

Netscape 6 unstable (1)

infara (209189) | more than 13 years ago | (#590170)

I've had a lot of trouble with Netscape 6. It seems to me that it's quite unstable, and it's hard to get plugins and launchers to work right on RedHat 7. Anyone else had similar trouble?

Memory usage (2)

Roy Ward (14216) | more than 13 years ago | (#590173)

Is it possible that pages being stored in memory (as suggested by the memory use going up as more pages are browsed) happened because the memory was available? Might it do something sensible on a memory starved system (like tossing the cached pages out of memory)?

Of course, even if this is the case it is still not good - disk caching would be far better.

Or better yet, stick with a less bloated browser.

Top (2)

Alatar (227876) | more than 13 years ago | (#590181)

While I love top to death, isn't it a pretty crappy way to measure memory usage? I mean, top is just a quick-and-dirty tool, not one for serious analysis. Of course, the article writer claims that his tests are 'in no way scientific', and yet has no problem concluding his article by recommending against the use of Netscape 6.

maybe, but... (2)

Tridus (79566) | more than 13 years ago | (#590183)

From my experiences with Netscape/Mozilla in the Windows world, the results (aka Netscape 6 being huge and getting bigger and bigger and bigger) are consistant with what it does in Windows. After an hour of browsing, I can run a report on a 300k record database in Access 2000, chart something from a remote odbc source in Excel 2000, and be typing this very message in Opera (or IE5, I have a lot of ram leeway right now), and still use less ram then Netscape 6 takes to show the slashdot frontpage (and doing nothing else).

It really is quite pathetic, Netscape must be in bed with a Ram maker.

Is Netscape/Mozilla too bloated? (1)

alteridem (46954) | more than 13 years ago | (#590186)

One of the major reasons I switched to IE on my windows boxes is because Netscape was so bloody slow in loading and was a hog. I have no love of M$ products, but in this case I prefer to get work done than wait for a bloated product to load. On my linux boxes, I've been using Netscape 4 for some time and have been very happy with it (compared to the alternatives.) It was still slow, but bearable. I upgraded to 6 recently and it is just painful. The linux box I usually use is a fast box with lots of memory, but Netscape 6 still takes forever to load!

So, I think that if Netscape/Mozilla is going to succeed, the developers need to start concentrating on efficiency rather than feature bloat. Don't get me wrong, the skins are way cool, but what is it costing us?

Now that Opera [] has a linux beta out, I may have to go back to it even though I don't like the user interface. At least it loads when I want it to instead of when it feels like getting around to it.

Mozilla vs Netscape (2)

Muggins the Mad (27719) | more than 13 years ago | (#590188)

The thing I find most interesting is that the
Mozilla nightlies are significantly better than
Netscape 6. Even the ones from around the release date.

NS4.75 is faster and smaller, but (for me) much
less stable and it can't render pages at all well.

I don't care how quick it is when it still crashes several times a day. (Under Win98 and Mandrake7.2)

NS6 is pretty but sooo slow. I find it quite useable under Windows, but the Linux version just crawls.

However, I'm finding the Mozilla nightlies quite wonderful - haven't had a crash for months, and although the startup time is terrible, once it's loaded it's quite useable.

I still think there's room for a lightweight standards compliant browser *only* though. Galeon seems promising for that. Maybe a Galeon based on M19 will be what I want.

Konqueror (KDE2) is nice, but once you take the KDE bloat into account, using it just for the web browser is a bit much. And I've still had crashes from it.

- Muggins the Mad

i have 1 BIG issue with netscape 6 (1)

Cybersonic (7113) | more than 13 years ago | (#590189)

the biggest problem i have with the browser, is the speed of the drop downs, and overall UI...

its very slow compared to every other app on my system (gnome or kde)... i realize the UI rendering system is nice and scriptable and all... BUT... at least Galeon makes it quite usable...

I sadly have to agree (2)

Ledge (24267) | more than 13 years ago | (#590191)

As I followed the Mozilla Milestones upward I was truly hopeful that when Netscape 6 final came around, it would be a good product. Sadly, as is the case far too often with software today, it should still be in its beta stages. I mean lets be serious. This thing is an attrocious resource hog. It has many VERY annoying bugs. (Locks up a lot on the least bit challenging pages, like the ones at!!!), shows phantom new messages in the inbox, etc.) I truly like the format of the software, the mail and news interface is nice, but the bugs are more than I can handle. My main gripe is just the fact that they consider this a major release. Come on, you've waited this long since the last version, why distribute this now?

Worst thing is.... (1)

g0rath (259613) | more than 13 years ago | (#590199)

I have to write even more javascript to make sure I am compatible with all browsers.

<LAYER> no longer works, sliently dies
you can't reference elements the same way

but that's ok, I need more work to do anyways. Hey, maybe I can convince our Web designers that JavaScript is of the devil.

And then I wake up

Mozilla for Windows (2)

atomic pixie (258251) | more than 13 years ago | (#590203)

Is Mozilla now the only thing standing between IE and total world domination!?

Well, maybe not quite, but it's looking more and more that way. I would rather not use a Microsoft product, but I'm not rabbidly opposed to it. What I am opposed to is a browser monopoly.

If Microsoft is allowed to hold on to a near monopoly on web browsers, they will hold too much influence on the future course of the web - influence that no single company should have. The Mozilla project is more important than ever, not to screw over Microsoft, but to keep competition on the web, forcing company's to turn to standards bodies and not simply do as they please.

Re:Not fair!! (1)

fougasse (79656) | more than 13 years ago | (#590205)

OK, let's see:

- Open source or not, all software is expected to continually improve. Trust me, Microsoft has many programmers currently working on improving IE. How is Mozilla any different? Anyway, this review was about Netscape 6.0, which is out and final.

- Mozilla has been in the public domain for something like two years now.

argh (1)

blowhole (155935) | more than 13 years ago | (#590208)

The only saving grace of N6 is the improved CSS 2 support. Though nothing to write home about (compared to the superior IE5.5), at least it finally does onMouseOver's. Woohoo!

Performance-wise, on my Win2k dev machine at work, N6 seems to load faster than 4.75. Mebbe I'm just hallucinating but 4.75 takes forever at that splash screen.

Re:Using top to count memory usage? (1)

Chris Hind (176717) | more than 13 years ago | (#590211)

fork() makes a process, not a thread (I may be wrong -- please be gentle). Processes are big, threads are small. If it's forking all the time, then it may be too bloaty anyway! (of course, this is an assumption, only a good profiler and a lot of hard work will tell you for sure...)

Re:Memory usage (1)

srichman (231122) | more than 13 years ago | (#590215)

disk caching would be far better

Why? Virtual memory is your disk caching. If you have your preferences set to refetch cached pages each time your run Netscape (like most people do), then it seems to me that disk caching just wastes hard drive space between browsing sessions.

Set your memory cache to 40M and marvel at the wonders of modern operating systems...

Re:Not fair!! (1)

Chris Hind (176717) | more than 13 years ago | (#590219)

isn't .net about abandoning the browser (too damn thin) and moving back to fat(tish) clients? of course, this was what java said it could do too...

Re:Using top to count memory usage? (3)

srichman (231122) | more than 13 years ago | (#590244)

In general, this is true: threads share a memory space and other things that processes do not. A process is an independently executing instance of a program; a thread is a sequence of execution within a process.

In the Linux world, though, process creation (fork) and thread creation are both built on top of a Linux-specific system call called clone() that has arguments that specify what you resources (file descriptors, data pages, etc.) you want shared between the new and parent process/thread and what you want duplicated. This is why, in Linux, threads have their own process IDs and show up separately in process listings. And in top.

review reviews, please (1)

mighty jebus (247173) | more than 13 years ago | (#590248)

I called the first test the
Startup Test: it times how long it takes a particular program to start and display its
first page. I timed each program on its second startup so there would be no delay
from copying initial preferences and such.

Except that, the second time something starts in linux, unless you do something to interfere, it will load straight from RAM, especially on a 256MB box, thanks to linux's extremely aggressive buffer/cache setup.

Re:yay! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#590263)

all i have to say to you is metamod []

Re:Lack of LDAP support (2)

skt (248449) | more than 13 years ago | (#590267)

I think a lot of corporations are waiting for this feature that have implemented ldap directories. We can't switch to NS6 until there is support in ldap either. The last I heard, it will take a long time [] . I figure by the time they support ldap in messenger, my computer will be fast enough to run NS6 :)

Until then, we'll stick with NS4.76 and Netscape calendar I'm sure...

Am I the only one who doesnt like mozilla (1)

Squarewav (241189) | more than 13 years ago | (#590272)

or ns6 for that matter, wile it has improved over the past few months. the product has this wierd cheap port feal to it, almost like its running its own OS under windows/linux (almost a java feeling). Im guessing that its supposed to be that way so its ported easyer to other platforms. but even then it apears the only 2 os's that work well with it are Windows/Linux. the BeOS version has to be rewritten from scratch almost becouse of memory problems(from what I understand)and I dont know whatever happend to the QNX port. but I would much rather have a native app or even a ported app made native (like ns4.x or opera) hopefully the KDE browser will get better in time, Im assuming it will (but we all know how long it takes for a kde relese ;)

Re:Worst thing is.... (1)

Mr_Icon (124425) | more than 13 years ago | (#590273)

This is marked informative?

Look, LAYER was evil incarnate. I'm very glad it was dropped. Now you actually have a browser from Netscape that follows the standards and a uniform DOM layout.

When was the last time you visited I suggest you do that to see just why Mozilla doesn't do layers any more and why all of a sudden you have to <gasp> learn DOM.

Re:Not fair!! (2)

atrowe (209484) | more than 13 years ago | (#590275)

"we all know how much we want linux to become windows"

That'll never happen, Windows has a good browser []

Programmers Make Computers Slower Year by Year (4)

goingware (85213) | more than 13 years ago | (#590277)

Even while our friends at Intel, Motorola and IBM do the most amazing things to speed up computer hardware (and don't forget our friends at Adaptec with the blazing 29160 SCSI Ultra160 Host Bus Adapter), programmers consistently work harder year after year to steal from the end user the gains that they might otherwise have from purchasing new hardware.

This leads to the ridiculous situation that an old computer runs slower and slower as new software is loaded on it, until you finally have to buy a new one just to run at all.

It's not just that you have the perception that your computer of old is running slower than the new computers because it was less zippy when you bought it, but because the regressive performance dehancements of operating systems and bloated applications really do make your computers run slower.

Note that I used to run SlackWare and Apache on a 100 MHz 486, serving up web pages (admittedly with a light load) while I used X at its console - and it worked fine. But when I loaded Windows 95 on it it was dog slow. There's no question of running Windows 98.

I had a 233 MHz Pentium II with 32 MB of Ram that I ran BeOS 3 for Pentium on. It worked great - I shipped Spellswell for BeOS Intel with this. But when BeOS 4 came out and they switched to Elf format, I had to upgrade to 96 MB because I couldn't run a compile and read my email at the same time.

Later I installed a near-final beta of Windows 2000 server on this machine. I intended to use it to develop a Java GUI app under CodeWarrior for Windows. To get the machine to run at all - not even running CodeWarrior - I had to add another 128 MB of RAM for a total of 224 MB. The machine was dog slow even after the memory upgrade.

There is no excuse for this. New features should not come at the expense of performance, and each new release of both operating systems and applications should be both faster and take up less space, not more. If substantial new features have been added then there may be cause for a little more code size but certainly not what we see in practice, such as what was listed in the Netscape 6 review.

Why does this happen?

One thing is because programmers are lazy, and if their code runs slow they assume the user will just get a faster machine. But friends, the user wants to buy fast hardware so they can actually run fast, not just so they can run at all.

Pressure to ship a commercial product makes managers fail to support efforts to do substantial performance tuning, especially tuning that is not localized but would require substantial rearchitecture.

And finally a lot of people just don't know how to architect or code. I think we could all benefit from learning and writing some assembly, so we could really understand what our software is doing.

Maybe then we could strip out some of the thick layers of software bureaucracy that lies between the user and his cpu.

Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc

Re:i'm bored (1)

srichman (231122) | more than 13 years ago | (#590279)

Considering the register's called AH, I'd guess he's writing x86 assembly.

In Intel assembly, MOV's destination parameter is on the left. This is switched compared to most of the Unix world. And the 68k world.

Re:Is Netscape/Mozilla too bloated? (1)

skt (248449) | more than 13 years ago | (#590280)

Opera is VERY fast. The UI really does suck and the rendering wasn't that great either. But it's proprietary software with huge restrictions. Heh, I thought that when I downloaded the tarball that I'd have the source. Instead it was just a crippled binary with a timebomb :(

Netscape missed the boat (3)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 13 years ago | (#590282)

Netscape would have been better served by enhancing the Mozilla preject in the key areas it is lacking (speed, bugs) rather than adding tons of useless marketing features.

Netscape _was_ a "champion" of OSS and a leader in the anti-MS compaign. Their key followers held their torch because of these things. Too bad they spend their effort alienating their strongest supporters.

I hope you're right... (5)

driehuis (138692) | more than 13 years ago | (#590293)

Mozilla is, in a way, a very succesful open source project, which attracted lots of really talented outside contributors. And indeed, a lot of attention is being paid to reducing bloat at the moment.

Unfortunately, a number of design decisions were errrr less than optimal. The XUL user interface language seems to have a big impact on performance. And leaving aside whether one likes the UI or not, the fact that it behaves different than other apps on any given platform also leaves a lot to be desired (to Mozilla's defense, both Microsoft and Apple have gone down the tubes in this area as well, for example, I'm abhorred by Windows 2000's "browser like" clicking, where a single click will open a file rather than selecting it, and it isn't particularly obvious when it behaves the old way or the new).

Anyway, to be able to fix something in Mozilla requires a significant investment of time on the part of the contributor. In the first Mozilla releases, which were based on the 4.x user interface, I could usually locate something I want to fix in an acceptable amount of time. Now, with the overhaul and the complete switch to C++, I spend hours grovelling through the thing, usually without coming up with an answer.

So, open source or not, Mozilla's improvement still hinges in great part on the full time developers, who live and breath that code base. For me, and I think for a lot of other contributors, it has just become too complex.

I have high hopes for its evolution over time, but it won't be soon that it will be as fast as 4.x. It will be interesting to see how spinoffs like Galeon will handle leveraging functionality from Mozilla. Time will tell whether XUL will become a boon to browser extension development, or remain a drag on the UI performance...

Re:Mozilla vs Netscape (2)

jameslore (219771) | more than 13 years ago | (#590297)

The NS 6 branch came off the tree about a month before release (if I remember correctly), so it's about 6 weeks behind Mozilla now.

As for Mozilla nightlies, I'm using them as my main browser now, and current start up time is 4 seconds (5 seconds for 4.75, under Win2k).

Konqueror is nice, but doesn't seem to have full ECMAScript support yet, or doesn't support the DOM properly - I havn't had time to look into it really. Nice thought. Opera has a nasty interface, KMeleon seems to have dissapeared - anyone else game to try a Galeon style browser for Win32?

Re:Not fair!! (2)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 13 years ago | (#590299)

M$'s .NET is about thinning down the client as much as possible, not fattening it. The first iteration of Java (I do mean first, not 1.02) let you download applets or executables and run them locally making basically a thin client structure. .NET can be be exemplified I suppose with the MSN Explorer. Half of its features are stored on your system locally but to really do anything you need to be plugged into the internet. MSN Explorer just looks like a distributed app though, it connects to the net mostly through HTTP and lets ASP do most oh the work. In any case .NET is about thin clients with a runtime on them that interperates P-code into something that resembled applications.

Re:Why I don't use it (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 13 years ago | (#590301)

Maybe at the moment, but there are two linked efforts underway to improve support for OS X (an OS that isn't even out yet). Firstly, it's being Carbonized and secondly, there is work to make a hybrid browser - use Quartz for the rendering and Unix for the TCP/IP. Full info is here [] . In other words, Mozilla is coming to OS X. This is a minor miracle considering how Apple have done their very best to ignore Mozilla.

Mozilla slow? (2)

Dante Aliegri (119831) | more than 13 years ago | (#590309)

What people often realize is that mozilla isn't slow.
If you run just the rendering core, its *very* fast.
However, it doesn't have all the "nice" features like history, etc... but this shows that
where they really need to speed up is in a relativly minor area, which is why it will be done in 2 Milestones, while its take 18 to get here.
(M20 is the first "release" for people that don't know..)

Re:Lack of LDAP support (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 13 years ago | (#590310)

Last I heard it was in Mozilla, but Netscape decided to leave it out for what ever reason.

KDE IMAP client? (2)

update() (217397) | more than 13 years ago | (#590313)

In fact, I was very happy about the Mail and News programs because Linux does not have any good KDE IMAP email clients. Before you get up in arms, I am talking about a product that is as feature rich as something like Eudora. Yes, Evolution for GNOME is a good start, but it is still very much a beta product.

It's not clear to me what that even means, but it suggests a point that's lost on a lot of users, including journalists who really should know better.

KDE and Gnome offer desktops as well as a collection of apps -- but you can use the apps with either desktop. I keep reading comments like "I used to use Gnome because of gimp, but then I switched to KDE for Konqueror. When Evolution comes out, I'll probably switch back to Gnome." It's not like you're choosing a religion! Kmail, xchat, grip, Konqueror, Nautilus -- use what you like. There's no need to choose one or the other. For crying out loud, that's why each desktop puts the other guys' apps in the desktop menu!

Stupid Buttons (2)

pheonix (14223) | more than 13 years ago | (#590316)

Am I the only one who HATES the button size in NS6? I mean, in 4.7x, you could opt to do away with the icon part of the Back,Forward,Home, etc. buttons, but I can't find a way to do so with 6. I have valuable screen real-estate taken up by pretty pictures that I don't want.

Damn, I'm making myself blind with resolution so tiny I'm lucky to see what I'm typing for the extra few pixels, and they pull this crap?

Re:Programmers Make Computers Slower Year by Year (2)

bugg (65930) | more than 13 years ago | (#590318)

Two comments.

One, the solution to your "problem" can be easily solved by not upgrading. There's noone forcing you to use BeOS 4 over BeOS 3, and you can run Netscape 2.x for all we care. Now it's true that sometimes there are security fixes that aren't backported, but oh well. You have to make a comprimise: Life is full of them.

Two, learning assembly isn't the solution to the problem you describe. In the world of PCs, especially in standard desktop programs, portability and ease of maintence is more important than the bit of performance gained from asm. Hence it makes sense to use a language such as C, C++, or even LISP or Java. Now, I see that you're saying that learning asm is valuable to being able to write good code in any of the languages, as learning how the processor moves bits around is educational. That's true only to a very, very small degree. You have to remember that different processors calculate things differently. Your "Optimized C" may improve perfmorance on x86 by 10%, but watch it tank on a PPC or SPARC. There's a good reason for the abstraction afforded to you by C, and it's not just portability. It's the concept of being able to write code to be readable and portable, without significant regard to the processor it's running on. So while it doesn't hurt to learn the basics, such as it will take a few instruction overhead to change the position of executing (function call) or a few instructions to manipulate some bytes, anything beyond that and you'll have programmers writing worse code.

My experience with asm is limited, mind you. I've done work with Z80 microcontrollers on FOX Trainers (the big black things) and that's roughly it for authoring asm. I've read some x86 asm, and I don't have much interest in it. I've also read some PIC asm, and probably will learn it soon enough. But I do know enough asm to write good C from my experience with a Z80; a processor who's instruction set can't easily be compared to that of x86.

So remember kids: C isn't asm, and don't treat it as such!

It's not just lazy developers (3)

vanguard (102038) | more than 13 years ago | (#590321)

Okay, I've read your comments twice and I see where you're coming from. Sometimes software is slow because developers have coded or designed it poorly because they were lazy or incompetant.

However, that's almost never the case where I'm working (where I'd rather not mention). I work with some absolutely gifted technical peers who are sometimes forced to release crap because of deadlines. I also work with guys who have become drones who pump out crappy software that does it's job because they are only measured on (1) did you hit your deadline (2) did it meet the functional spec.

It's not lazy coders (usually). It's a misguided reward system built by managers that don't know the first thing about software development. They fail to grasp that maintaining this terrible software will cost a fortune in the future.

So before you blame the programmer for being lazy, consider what he's working against.


Konquerer! (2)

Adam Wiggins (349) | more than 13 years ago | (#590322)

I hate to harp, but Konquerer would have blown away all the browsers in this test had they bothered to include it. Galleon and other Mozilla-based browsers wouldn't have been bad either. If load time and memory footprint is what you're interested in, Netscape and Mozilla are definitely NOT the right browser for you.

Not supported (1)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 13 years ago | (#590323)

Though nothing to write home about (compared to the superior IE5.5)

Superior? This is good, considering that IE 5.5 trashes the networking DLLs on Windows 95 (because, say M$, Windows 95 is no longer supported <conspiracy tone=evil> why does it install on '95 at all? Scumbags!</conspiracy>) and 5.5sp1 occasionally knackers the name services on at least Windows 2000. Umm... security? Let's not go there.

Mozilla is still slow, although you can do some amazing things with it using XUL and friends. NS6, however, is even slower and buggier. So much for ``flagship'' status. Konqueror, although still obviously beta, absolutely hammers NS6. Even ``testbed'' browsers like Amaya are comparable, which is pretty disgraceful. I use Konqueror for most things, and occasionally Mozilla (M18). Both are useable (although I wish Mozilla didn't look so much like NS), both have taken a definitely encouraging direction, both are improving faster than IE. So: the future's so bright I've gotta adjust my gamma.

Re:Programmers Make Computers Slower Year by Year (1)

Maurice (114520) | more than 13 years ago | (#590324)

I run Win2K on a Pentium2/233 with 256 MB RAM. It works fine. It's only slow for certain processing intensive stuff. KDE and Gnome are much much slower on this same machine.

Re:Not fair!! (1)

eastMike (194827) | more than 13 years ago | (#590326)

Well, I HATE to agree with this, but I kinda have to. At least to say IE's better than netscape anyway. Since the 4.0's have been out, ns has fallen way behind. Remember the days when we laughed when somebody mentioned IE? Now (as a devloper), I hate netscape. Just about everyone at my work feels the same way too. I had really high hopes for mozilla and ns6, but I've tried the new ns6 and I've been trying the mozilla builds, and I am pretty disappointed. IE actually does what I want it to. NS is just a pain.

I still like netscape in general, and I use it as my default browser. But from a development standpoint, I really wish it'd come around and at least try to do what IE can do.

I'm not in bed with m$ or anything...don't get me wrong. A lot of things about IE irritate me, as a user, not as a developer. This is why ns is still my default browser.

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."

Re:Sexzilla (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 13 years ago | (#590327)

One of the main reasons NS4 is so poor is that Netscape has had to make sure that different huge codebases did the same thing on several platforms. Now they have just a cross-platform framework that allows them to write one browser codebase that runs on many platforms and moving to a new platform needs to just have the framework ported not the whole huge Communicator package. I agree about theming though, it seems a bit unnecessary although the reasoning is that corporations can now have their own browser theme for their employees. What the hell, at least it's here now and real competition can resume, especially when AOL uses NS instead of IE (God that's bad, needing AOL to save the browser market).

NS6 Plugin problems (1)

blach (25515) | more than 13 years ago | (#590328)

Netscape REALLY dropped the ball with NS6 -- at least on linux ; I haven't tried other plats.

But anyway, when someone uses any kind of plugin, esp shockwave or one for MIDI "music", NS6 just sucks. It keeps popping up little boxes asking if you want to auto-download the plugin (which of course isn't available). But the stupid part? THE GUI FREEZES UNTIL YOU CLICK OK OR CANCEL. And sometimes more than one box pops up at the same time and you have to figure out which one to click first.

If you don't believe me, try:
and wait a few.

Or WORSE, try
Try to send a card with midi music on it. It pops up that damn box EVERYTIME you enter a new character in one of the text boxes.

I mean it's just plain ridiculous. I won't even go into the ugly UI or slowness issues here. Sad to see that IE is *truly* the faster and superior browser.


Re:KDE IMAP client? (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 13 years ago | (#590329)

Actually, I think what he's implying is that he uses KDE as his desktop, so therefore KDE applications are his first choice (no need to have two toolkits in memory, consistant look and feel etc).
But as he said there's no KDE IMAP mail client, the next choice would then be any other IMAP capable mail client, and as he said Evolution has a way to go yet.

I'm in a similar situation at work, I have to use Communicator 4.7 because there's no other GUI IMAP capable mail client for linux.
I had high hopes for Netscape 6, but the mail interface is painfully slow, and there's no support for roaming profiles or LDAP address books.

So it's going to be a long time before our organisation makes the switch.

Re:Netscape missed the boat (3)

DrXym (126579) | more than 13 years ago | (#590335)

Netscape != Mozilla. The number 1 priority with Mozilla developers (and that includes Netscape engineers) at the moment is reducing the bloat and improving performance.

Most of the problems boil down to:

  1. Packaging. The ~100 Mozilla DLLs should be condensed to 30 or so to reduce the per-DLL memory overhead.
  2. Loading unecessary services. A lot of XPCOM objects are created at startup when their creation could be deferred until they are actually needed.
  3. Boundless and untuned caches. Mozilla caches a lot of stuff and tweaks to the cache settings can dramatically affect memory consumption.
  4. Memory leaks. Leakage is pretty flat (in the browser anyway) but there is still work to be done here, especially tracking down refcounting problems.
  5. Inefficient structures. Certain structures hold onto more data than is absolutely necessary such as those to do with stylesheets.
All of these things are being worked on but don't represent anything that can't be fixed. Mozilla (and therefore the next version of Netscape) will benefit from these changes.

Re:Programmers Make Computers Slower Year by Year (4)

dbarclay10 (70443) | more than 13 years ago | (#590337)

I understand what you mean, but you also don't understand a lot of things. I'll try to correct you a point for point basis.

programmers consistently work harder year after year to steal from the end user

I think we both know that developers arn't laughing maniacally, saying, "Haha! They'll never be able to run this!"

Note that I used to run SlackWare and Apache on a 100 MHz 486, serving up web pages (admittedly with a light load) while I used X at its console - and it worked fine. But when I loaded Windows 95 on it it was dog slow. There's no question of running Windows 98.

Don't compare apples to oranges. Windows 95/98 had a lot more things running that Slackware did, even if you didn't see them running. *You* may not have used them, but a lot of people would have.

Okay, anyways, I'm just going to skip ahead a bit. We all know that when you install the latest versions of software, it usually slows your computer down. Now on to the meat.

One thing is because programmers are lazy, and if their code runs slow they assume the user will just get a faster machine.

Well, are you a developer? If so, then you know what you say isn't true. If you arn't a developer, you must not know many of them. Users literally scream for new features, and the developer has to implement them, and FAST. It's not laziness as you should well know, it's priorities. Most users would rather a burgeoning web browser support cookies, rather than run 10% faster. Just go ahead and ask any user(who knows what cookies are), and they'll agree.

The fact is, that you're partially right. A hundred new features shouldn't significantly slow down a program if those features are not used. However, it WILL take up more space on your hard drive - there is absolutely no way around it, short of having a CD custom-made with the software compiled to exactly your specifications.

Now, unless you're going to go around to software projects and modularize their code(which was probably never meant to be modularized in the first place), I suggest you speak better of programmers. Especially Open Source/Free Software programmers who have graciously donated their time and effort to bring you, the ever so poor end user, a usable product.


Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)

Re:Programmers Make Computers Slower Year by Year (2)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 13 years ago | (#590338)

And finally a lot of people just don't know how to architect or code. I think we could all benefit from learning and writing some assembly, so we could really understand what our software is doing.

Maybe then we could strip out some of the thick layers of software bureaucracy that lies between the user and his cpu.

Great idea! The programs would be faster, but they'd take four times as long to ship, "just like in the good old days."

I like it!

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Re:argh (2)

roca (43122) | more than 13 years ago | (#590340)

Actually, Mozilla/Netscape6's support for CSS *standards* (as opposed to Microsoft "extensions") is far better than in WinIE 5.5. See, e.g.,

There's a difference? (1)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 13 years ago | (#590342)

Netscape 4.7 Netscape 6
Unstable Unstable
Weak interface Weak interface
Bloated Bloated
Weak security Weak security
Slow Slow

Need I go on? Netscape is a joke. AOL keeps the name going as it makes marketing iPlanet easier, but is afraid to make Netscape too good. Make Netscape too, good, AOL users will want it integrated into AOL. Take Netscape out of AOL, Microsoft leaves AOL out of Windows.

The worst part is the dedication of the Mozilla programmers. Those people keep sinking tons of time and effort into Mozilla, hoping to improve Netscape. Imagine what we might get if all of that talent were dedicated to producing something totally new.

Re:Not fair!! (3)

atrowe (209484) | more than 13 years ago | (#590343)

That (-1, Troll) moderation is not fair. Just because my post goes against the slashbot groupthink, doesn't mean it's not a completely valid argument that deserves merit. I'm not exactly a MS fan either. They have commited some selfish, devious acts in the past, and their bundling IE with Windows was almost surely intended to defeat competition, but the fact is: MSIE is the best browser out there. It has a smaller footprint, a better user interface, and displays complex sites better than Netscape Mozilla. I used to use Netscape as my default browser as well, but haven't since around 4.0. It is simply not logical to waste my time downloading an inferior browser through my 56k pipe.

uh... hello... (1)

ywwg (20925) | more than 13 years ago | (#590344)

MY GOD! A new program requires MORE system resources than its two-year old predecessor??? what is the world coming to???

Good thing Bill G has an ego or IE would rule (3)

WillAffleck (42386) | more than 13 years ago | (#590345)

Seriously, if those guys at MSFT didn't hate Linux, they'd just crank out a (slower, less capable) version of IE for Linux, and stomp all over Netscape.

Yeah, I know, many /. hate MSFT, but not all Linux users hate MSFT, it's just an OS to them.

Sexzilla (1)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 13 years ago | (#590346)

Netscape's browser has gone downhill since they started calling it Communicator. It theoretically allowed you to communicate but only if you could do so in the 20 minute time span between it launching and crashing. I loved Netscape 3 although it supported the fucking blink tag. When Compared to IE3 Netscape whomped all ass in a pretty hands down sort of way. Both companies splooged out a 4.0 release of their respective products and use folks in userland were left looking for a good browser. Communicator took the decent backbone of Navigator and stuck way too much barely-out-of-beta shit onto it which horribly reduced its stability. Then along comes Mozilla, Netscape had already decided not to use system APIs for their browser because they were just too damn cool. Then Mozilla tries to come up with an entirely new component framework? It is fairly cool from a technical aspect, separating the display almost entirely from the application's real work. This however should NOT be the component system used in a production level product which Netscape has done with their 6.0 release. Wow, I can rescript the interface entirely displaying neat pictures and putting the buttons in different places. Thats just genital mutilation when the underlying code of the system can't render HTML properly and when it does takes up 4+ GB of RAM. NS6 loads up an entire component framework and layout engine just to run. That is fucking overkill for a signle application. Netscape should have put some arrogance aside and just used native APIs. Loading a whole new API to run a single app is like making your dialog boxes system modal.

Re:Using top to count memory usage? (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#590347)

Uh, doesn't adding memory totals from top give an inaccurate picture of real memory usage

Yes, absolutely it does. 4.7 is not multithreaded. The reviewer has no clue and the review is utterly pointless since it focuses almost exclusively on the memory question.

The reviewer must be one of those web "designer" types.

This is only a story because organizations, Linuxworld and Slashdot, are run by technologically illiterates. Really disgusted with the level of professionalism around here.

Anyway, I use nightly builds of mozilla and prefer them to Netscape 4.7 My machine will thrash a lot sooner with 4.7 than it will with mozilla.

That being said, Mozilla still sucks on Linux compared to W2K and solaris. I suspect it has something to do with silly linuxthreads which, of course, Linus will never change because he wrote them and they are therefore ...

B E S T T H R E A D S E V E R.

Re:Programmers Make Computers Slower Year by Year (1)

bugg (65930) | more than 13 years ago | (#590348)

I don't know where you got the figure that much of Excel's calculation engine is written in asm. I'd like to see that.

Secondly, the calculation routines in a spreadsheet are not time-critical enough to the point where they should be written in asm. A good C compiler would write nearly as good code provided a fine math library and a not-braindead-programmer. And remember, the actual FP calculations that may go on in a spreadsheet pale in comparison to those that go on say, in Doom.

Now, yes there are times for asm, but on the PC they are quite rare (high performance 3D modelling engines) and can usually be done in C and yield roughly equal performance with a good compiler. But to say that we should learn asm to write better programs is absurd.

Re:Mozilla vs Netscape (1)

jrcamp (150032) | more than 13 years ago | (#590349)

Kmeleon [] has dissapeared? I think not. Version .2 [] just came out [] on November 27, 2000.

Final releases based on alpha code suck. (1)

Cardhore (216574) | more than 13 years ago | (#590350)

Thank god they didn't release a 5.0.

Re:NS6 Plugin problems (5)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 13 years ago | (#590351)

Netscape dropped LiveConnect, which is the way Netscape plugins comminicated with Javascript. They say that old plugins that require LiveConnect will "fail silently". They are correct, assumming that your definition of "fail silently" under Windows NT is "attempt to access a NULL pointer and crash the application".

They have a replacement for LiveConnect. It is almost completely undocumented. There is no SDK.

Geez, if I were a plugin developer, I'd be way pissed, and would hesitate to bother supporting Netscape 6.

Oh wait, I am a plugin developer.

My websites don't kill mozilla/ns6 (1)

spauldo (118058) | more than 13 years ago | (#590352)

I use ns6 on my 2000 box at work, and mozilla at home. Being a (sort of) web guy, I keep ns4 and ie (at work, no 'doze at home) around just to test pages with.

I read a lot of comics, and with ns4, the browser dies all the freakin' time because of the stupid doubleclick and other banner ad companies' trackers. It's rediculous. I've got a button on my gnome bar set to 'killall -9 netscape ; rm /home/spauldo/.netscape/lock' because of this.

Mozilla and ns6 both have no problems with this. I could set up junkbuster, but it's just easier this way.

Re:Sexzilla (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 13 years ago | (#590353)

Theming was basically a byproduct of something else entirely. Since Mozilla includes an XML parser and layout engine, it seemed to make sense to write the interface in XML (since that's a lot less painful than doing it in C++). As a side effect, the interface is not compiled into the app and can be changed at will.

Re:I hope you're right... (1)

Zico (14255) | more than 13 years ago | (#590354)

I'm abhorred by Windows 2000's "browser like" clicking, where a single click will open a file rather than selecting it

If you're so abhorred by it, why did you change the behavior from the default, which uses double clicks for opening files? That's like getting a new TV, changing the SAP selector to "Spanish," then coming here and complaining that you're abhorred that Sony brand TVs don't play your shows in English.


Re:Netscape 6 unstable (1)

Necron69 (35644) | more than 13 years ago | (#590355)

I couldn't agree more. Netscape 6 crashed or hung a dozen times in the first ten minutes I used it on RH 7.0.

Back to Konqueror.

- Necron69

Re:Is Netscape/Mozilla too bloated? (3)

ca1v1n (135902) | more than 13 years ago | (#590358)

IE is fast because it's already loaded on boot. That's (part of) the reason why everything is slower in windows.

Re:Comparison in one line (1)

lscoughlin (71054) | more than 13 years ago | (#590359)

The unfortunate thing here is... you're wrong. IE is currently the model browser.

Nothing beats it.

Re:Stupid Buttons (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 13 years ago | (#590361)

Change the skin then. Basically the button size is dictated by the theme so if you're not happy with the default one then use one which is lighter. Check out the Netscape theme site and [] for more themes.

Re:Stupid Buttons (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 13 years ago | (#590362)

Netscape theme site is here

Re:Am I the only one who doesnt like mozilla (2)

roca (43122) | more than 13 years ago | (#590364)

I don't know what you're talking about with BeOS. The BeOS, Photon (QNX) and OS/2 ports work on just the same level as the Win32/Mac/Linux/UNIX ports: they need an implementation of the GFX graphics layer, the NSPR OS interface and some miscellaneous stuff like finding the location of user preferences, and then you're done. None of these ports have required any changes to the UI or to the layout engine. (Although there's a lot of work going on building "Mac-like" and "Win-like" themes to make people on those platforms happy.)

In the BeOS port they are having to restructure the way the DLLs are organised, because BeOS has a colossal kernel bug that causes it to explode trying to handle all Mozilla's modules.

Startup time (1)

nd (20186) | more than 13 years ago | (#590366)

The startup time for Netscape 6 is ridiculously more than that of the Mozilla nightly he used. This doesn't suprise me because Netscape 6 uses the Java plugin. This plugin is loaded at startup and would probably add 10 seconds (yes, it's that substantial) to the startup time on that test machine.

Mozilla nightlies don't include the Java plugin.

Re:Stupid Buttons (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 13 years ago | (#590367)

Hmm weird Slashdot doesn't like the NS theme site link so here it is as text -

Re:Stupid Buttons (1)

HerrNewton (39310) | more than 13 years ago | (#590368)

You'd like IE 5.0 for the Mac. You can collapse the navigation down to the left side of the window, taking up only about 25px of horiztontal screen real estate. It's really quite handy. Check out a screendump [] .


Re:Programmers Make Computers Slower Year by Year (2)

rkent (73434) | more than 13 years ago | (#590369)

Users literally scream for new features, and the developer has to implement them, and FAST

Well, the client screams for new features, at least. Many times the end user is shown a feature and says, "oh, your program can do THAT? I never knew!" Of course, this assumes being a consultant. Maybe replace "client" with "manager," I don't know.

Re:uh... hello... (1)

multriha (206019) | more than 13 years ago | (#590370)

The point is that the new program doesn't do much if anything more than the old one did, or atleast as far as the things you want it to do. All i wanted was out of netscape was to render a page, javascript, maybe java on occasion. 4.7 did that. A complete rewrite should make the browser smaller and quicker at doing that. The problem is that they weren't happy with just that.

Re:yay! (2)

roca (43122) | more than 13 years ago | (#590371)

NS6/Mozilla also support user style sheets. And since they support the full CSS2 selector syntax, they're even more powerful than in IE...

Re:Not fair!! (2)

BZ (40346) | more than 13 years ago | (#590372)

Which helps those of us who are dealing with a multi-platform environment oh so much.

I tend to spend most of computer time using Irix, Solaris, and Linux. While one can claim that IE runs on solaris, the IE port to solaris is a joke. There are no Irix or Linux ports.

If microsoft would port its oh-so-wonderful browser to a system on which I could actually use it, I would actually bother to see how it is. Until they do, that browser is useless to me.

Re:I hope you're right... (1)

penguinboy (35085) | more than 13 years ago | (#590373)

for example, I'm abhorred by Windows 2000's "browser like" clicking, where a single click will open a file rather than selecting it, and it isn't particularly obvious when it behaves the old way or the new

To set things straight:

1. This is not the default behavior in Win2k - the default is to use single-click to select and double-click to open. The option to use single-click to open and point to select does of course exist.

2. This feature is not new to Win2k - it has existed since 98 (and was not the default then, either).

Re:It's about time! (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 13 years ago | (#590374)

> 3. the window positioning. new windows don't get > put into the right places in Linux, and in > Windows a new window is never maximized. The former may be a problem with your windowmanager -- I've never seen that problem.

There is a bug filed on the latter. And it's being actively worked on.

It's all about Gecko (1)

astrosmash (3561) | more than 13 years ago | (#590385)

The really depressing thing is that, as far as resource usage is concerned, Mozilla is probably as good as it's going to get (Minus the leaks, or course)

I say this, because I think that Gecko does a far better job of managing resources than IE with respect to complex dynamic HTML, scripting, and emulating atandard user interface.

The memory usage of the Mozilla broswer (not mail) is pretty consistent now, although there still are some leaks. It will kick an at about 8-10MB and perhaps creap up to 16-20MB by the end of the day.

IE will typically use 4-5 MB for normal browsing, which is good (Same as embedded Gecko). However, IE turns into an absolute pig once it starts to render dynamic content, and emulate normal user interfaces, like what Gecko has to do all of the time. Blox [] is a good example, and a very neat site (some of it even works with Nav4.7) Take IE here and watch it ballon to 20-40 MB.

Comparing how Gecko and IE handle dynamic content, I would say Gecko does a damn fine job of it, and I doubt it could get any better

And that sucks, because a 30MB process makes for a real lousy mail reader. Actually, that really sucks, because I love the new mail reader in Mozilla, but I can't use it.

I've got 256MB of RAM, so you might think that 30MB Isn't such a bad thing. The problem is that if Mozilla get swapped out of memory(most likely because I've just run a build) It takes literally 10-15 seconds for Mozilla to swap back in (on NT), just so I can check my mail! Nav4.7, which I do use as my mail reader and primary browser, takes up about 8 MB, and takes about 2 seconds to swap back in.

I think that the only way Mozilla will be able to curb it's resource usage, WRT swapping, is to allow Mozilla run multiple isolated processes for mail, composer, etc. That way, you're dealing with perhaps a few 8MB processes instead of one giant 30+ MB process. And, you wouldn't have to worry about a crash taking down your entire session.

Re:Is Netscape/Mozilla too bloated? (1)

rigau (122636) | more than 13 years ago | (#590387)

IE on mac os is pretty fast too though so it might not be entirely a IE Windows thing. but what do i know?

Re:Using top to count memory usage? (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 13 years ago | (#590389)

". 4.7 is not multithreaded"

I'm looking at Netscape 4.7 in the Win2K taskmgr. It currently has 8 threads running.

Mozilla/NS6 is 16X SLOWER than NS4.x (2)

mojo-raisin (223411) | more than 13 years ago | (#590392)

Mozilla/NS6 are slow. I keep reading about it being fast... but I don't get it. At least on my PII 400 running Debian/Woody.

First off. Everything is ............ lagged - Bring up preferences, browsing menus, opening a new browser window.... EVERYTHING.

Secondly. Rendering speed: I Do Not See It. Here is a quantitative test:

Try to load a simple html file from the hard drive (/usr/doc/glibc-doc/libc.html in debian/woody) that is 3.4MB. It takes over 145 seconds (current Mozilla and NS6 same results)!!! On 4.76, the same file loads in under 9 seconds.

Searches for text within a loaded file are also rediculously slow in Mozilla/NS6. On a long file, the closer you get to the bottom of the document, the longer the searches take! It can take many seconds for a search to advance just one line of text in a big document.

Netscape 6 = memory sieve (2)

Malc (1751) | more than 13 years ago | (#590394)

I left Netscape 6 running for a few days. Every 12 hrs it had grown another meg or two of memory, whether or not I'd touched it. This is using the taskmgr in Win2K.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?