Beta
×

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!

Mozilla 0.9.3 Released

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the faster-slashdot-fix dept.

Mozilla 418

nexex writes: "Shamelessly ripped from Mozilla.org, "Talkback data shows that recent 0.9.2 branch builds are more stable than Netscape 4.78 and we expect even better results for 0.9.3. Now is the time to try Mozilla again if you've been waiting for stability to improve." Translation: Mozilla is better than ever. Get your copy here."

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

What about the *mailer*? (2, Insightful)

BillyGoatThree (324006) | more than 13 years ago | (#2109571)

I've been using Mozilla as my main browser for months. 0.9.2 is great (except for a tendency to crash while writing a K5 diary for some reason). But the mailer absolutely *sucks*. I've never seen anything so slow. It takes literally a full minute (or more!) to do "compose....type addresses, type subject". Has that improved at all?

Mozilla is finally useable! (1)

Todd1 (149242) | more than 13 years ago | (#2109650)

I've been using Mozilla for around 6 months now and subjecting my girlfried to it. I was ready to admit defeat until the latest version came along. E-mail is finally stable, and the program works great. The only problem I still have is with plugins. Many plugins assume you're running IE or Netscape, so they look for those directories and don't give you the option to choose the Mozilla plugins directory. If I remember correctly, Quicktime is an offender of this. What you need to do is keep Netscape on your system so plugins will install and then copy the plugins to Mozilla's directory. Very annoying, but I hope it will go away with increasesd support for Mozilla. The browser war isn't over!

web based installer quite nice (1)

Mr.Phil (128836) | more than 13 years ago | (#2111226)

I have last tried Moz at the 0.9.1 release, and used RPMS at that. I downloaded the tar.gz installer and ran that this time after removing the rpms. What a great installer! Quite impressed. I so far, it seems to be stable on the pages that kill Konqueror, but we'll see how it works in the next few days.

BTW, this was posted with 0.9.3.

Why not use the same installer? (3, Insightful)

generic-man (33649) | more than 13 years ago | (#2111997)

I happen to like the download-on-demand installer, where you pick the components you want to download and install. The odd thing about this is that it's completely tied to the version available when you click "download installer." The Mozilla installer for build 2000073108 looks and works exactly like the one for build 2000073109, but each one has the version number pre-written in the .ini file. Can't there be an option "download latest version" instead? That way, instead of downloading and untar'ing a new installer every day, I can just run it every day and let the installer I already have do the work.

Does this affect galeon? [STUPID NEWBIE QUESTION] (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2112421)

If i have a recent version of Galeon.. and i download this new Mozilla.. will i have to download a new version of Galeon for it to work with Mozilla 0.9.3? Or will the html rendering bits magically fit together, and stuff, as one would hope they would? Just making sure.

(This is just hypothetical, since i never got around to getting Galeon to *compile*, because Galeon wants versions of the Gnome libraries 0.0.1 better than the version i have installed.. and i can't seem to figure out how to tell apt-get to get those updated libraries for me without upgrading all the way to Woody.. and compiling is slow. But i am curious. Mozilla 0.8.x and Netscape 4 just too slow to be usable on my poor old 75-mhz macintosh 7200, and 0.8.x crashed a *lot*, and it would be nice to have something to use regularly other than w3m. :) )

Oh, whatever. Thanks!

Word of caution to existing Mozilla users... (5, Informative)

Caduceus1 (178942) | more than 13 years ago | (#2113264)

Don't dump 0.9.3 over a 0.9.2 Windows installation - things get pretty funky because something isn't compatible.

I got around it by blowing away the existing Mozilla folder and then unpacking the new one fresh.

Re:Word of caution to existing Mozilla users... (2)

iceT (68610) | more than 13 years ago | (#2112704)

RPM's seem to work great under Linux... (RH 7.1)

5 minutes so far, Seems good!

Re:Word of caution to existing Mozilla users... (5, Informative)

baptiste (256004) | more than 13 years ago | (#2115312)

I got around it by blowing away the existing Mozilla folder and then unpacking the new one fresh

Which is exactly what you are supposed to do - there are disclaimers all over Mozilla.org asking you NOT to install over old version during hte beta due to teh problems that arise

Re:Word of caution to existing Mozilla users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2116601)

&gt Don't dump 0.9.3 over a 0.9.2 Windows installation - things get pretty funky because something isn't compatible.

you mean dump 0.9.2 over a 0.9.3 installation?

Re:Word of caution to existing Mozilla users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2116184)

No, dipshit! Read what he's posting. Don't install 0.9.3 over an existing 0.9.2 area.

Re:Word of caution to existing Mozilla users... (2)

cetan (61150) | more than 13 years ago | (#2134200)

I think it's always a good idea, if one is not using the installer, to unzip the build to a new directory . I keep 3 directories on my machine for mozilla:

Current Release
Previous Release (to compair)
Nightly

The current and previous releases both have different profiles for a little bit but then I merge them and just have 2 total profiles: nightly and release. This may seem like a lot of work, but it's been very usefull.

Re:Word of caution to existing Mozilla users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2136031)

This is a known issue, and for Mac folks as well: delete the Mozilla folder in /documents, as well as the Mozila Registry from /System Folder/preferences.

Geez, I just read that back. I've been spending far too much time is OS X! :)

Re:Word of caution to existing Mozilla users... (1)

Caduceus1 (178942) | more than 13 years ago | (#2111245)

Yeah, NOW I see that line in the Release Notes... :^)

Version numbers (1)

Runt-Abu (471363) | more than 13 years ago | (#2113265)

Just out of sheer curiosity, if a "normal" numbering system (v1, v2, v3...) was applied to each build what version would this now be?

Re:Version numbers (1)

Dios (83038) | more than 13 years ago | (#2113709)

Notice that in our numbering system .9 comes before 1.0. (and 2+2=4).

So, this is version .9.3.2 (which is less than 1, so it is pre 1.0).

Or in Windoze Speak, its Mozilla Aug 3, 2001 ;)

But that doesn't mean it isn't good stuff.

Re:Version numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2119058)

v0.9.3, a public alpha for version 1.0 of Mozilla.

Mozilla is a re-write of the browser knows as "Netscape", and has never been released as a stable product. (Netscape 6.x cannot be considered stable).

Re:Version numbers (1)

AX.25 (310140) | more than 13 years ago | (#2132022)

Same as Microsoft. This would be the 2000 version, next version is XP.

Mozilla is nice, but my browser of choice (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2114388)

Is Goatzilla.

It renders every page inside of a frame with the giver at the top, and the receiver at the bottom.

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] g
o / \ [slashdot.org] \ [slashdot.org] / \ o
a| | [slashdot.org] \ | [slashdot.org] | a
t| `. [slashdot.org] | | [slashdot.org] : t
s` | [slashdot.org] | \| [slashdot.org] | s
e \ | / [slashdot.org] / \\\ --__ \\ : e
x \ \/ _--~~ [slashdot.org] ~--__| \ | x
* \ \_-~ [slashdot.org] ~-_\ | *
g \_ \ _.--------.______\| | g
o \ [slashdot.org] \______// [slashdot.org] _ [slashdot.org] ___ [slashdot.org] _ (_(__> [slashdot.org] \ | [slashdot.org] o
a \ . C ___) ______ (_(____> | / a
t /\ | C ____)/ \ (_____> |_/ t
s / /\| C_____) | (___> / \ s
e | ( _C_____)\______/ // _/ / \ e
x | \ |__ \\_________// (__/ | x
* | \ \____) `---- --' [slashdot.org] | *
g | \_ ___\ /_ _/ | g
o | [slashdot.org] / [slashdot.org] | | [slashdot.org] \ | o
a | [slashdot.org] | / [slashdot.org] \ \ [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] | a
t | [slashdot.org] / / | [slashdot.org] | \ |t
s | / / \__/\___/ | |s
e | / / [slashdot.org] | | | [slashdot.org] |e
x | | [slashdot.org] | | [slashdot.org] | |x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

And it's FAST (2, Informative)

bconway (63464) | more than 13 years ago | (#2114474)

I'm thoroughly impressed, at this point Mozilla never crashes on me, and rendering is instantaneous. Great job, guys!

Resolved issues? (1)

pjdepasq (214609) | more than 13 years ago | (#2116001)

I can't seem to find my way around their bug system, but I'm wondering if these issues are fixed, or anyone else is having similar woes... (Moz 0.9.2, G6-300Mhz, Mandrake 8.1)

1) Closing the mail window takes about 1 min (G6-300 machine).

2) Some menu items are present (copy/paste) but don't work

3) Any support (ever?) for Roaming Access? I loved that in Netscape and hope they'll put it back into Mozilla...

Stable indeed! (1)

CSC (31551) | more than 13 years ago | (#2118776)

I just left 4.78 behind last week and switched ot Mozilla as my main browser. I just wish it had an option to double-buffer on X Window, as my work machine is a bit sluggish and redraw is painful when dragging windows around and such.

Re:Stable indeed! (1)

chegosaurus (98703) | more than 13 years ago | (#2109665)

> I just wish it had an option to double-buffer on X Window

It does, if you compile it yourself.

./configure --disable-double-buffer

Re:Stable indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2116602)

Perhaps Opera [opera.com] is what you're looking for. It's small and fast and has double buffering.

Re:Stable indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2122819)

I use mozilla as my main browser, but I still use 4.x mail because I can then run mail as a separate program without anything breaking. I also set proxy to localhost:666 in 4.x and disabled all HTML mail misfeatures (javascript, autoloading of images).

AA rendering? (1)

wct (45593) | more than 13 years ago | (#2120057)

Any word when anti-aliased text rendering is going to be incorporated into the *nix versions?

profiles and mozilla ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2120282)

anyone know how i can get mozilla to run with default settings without touching my home directory ? i.e. not invoking the profile management crap that start just before it loads.

Re:profiles and mozilla ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2121054)

you cant

theres no -noprofile option on the command line.

profiles suck.

ha (0, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 13 years ago | (#2120326)

"more stable than Netscape"? It's almost the year 2002, and that's the best Mozilla has done so far?

1st download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2120637)

maybe for rpm versioon

Great Job, Guys (1)

CodingFiend (236675) | more than 13 years ago | (#2121143)

Even though they're progressing slower than some want, I think it's an incredible achievement. Way to go!

galeon (1)

stmpynode (123891) | more than 13 years ago | (#2121744)

i've recently been using galeon instead of netscape and mozilla. anyone here have any experiences with it?

What about flash and quicktime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2122136)

it's quick and clean, but will it play flash and quicktime?

Re:What about flash and quicktime (1)

Oo.et.oO (6530) | more than 13 years ago | (#2122818)

w32: yes

Not to complain... (1)

sanemind (155251) | more than 13 years ago | (#2126443)

But I wish they would have non-talkback binaries available for linux. Sure, I can build it myself and configure that off ...but last time I ran a complete mozzila build, it took hours [I still have a slow old 400Mhz [and, let's face it, moz is -huge-], and used almost a gig of diskspace. Yah, should have disabled debugging symbols, I know... ; )

Re:Not to complain... (1)

vondo (303621) | more than 13 years ago | (#2111006)

You should try using the installer and not installing the talkback portion.

Out of curiousity, why don't you want to use talkback. It's my understanding that the statistics collected with it have made considerable improvements to stability since 0.9.1.

I now keep a browser window up for 4-5 days before closing it to recover some of the memory. WAY better than 4.7 in my opinion.

Re:Not to complain... (2)

BroadbandBradley (237267) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133146)

non-talkback builds? just get a nightly, I always go that route and it hardly ever bites back. Nightly build directory: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/ mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz

Re:Not to complain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2134751)

Use the installer package and do a custom install, then de-select the talkback during installation.

Wow (1)

jammer 4 (34274) | more than 13 years ago | (#2134369)

I've been trying Mozilla on and off since it's first milestone builds, and holy schmekies this is the best and most stable one yet. I'm so totally impressed. Still trying sites to see about compatibility, but so far it seems really good with new standards.

umm... no full installer? (0)

nuhonda (256188) | more than 13 years ago | (#2134370)

am i alone here?
the win32 full installer is not available,
forcing me to use the other "try and download me if you can" version?.
that sucks

-geometry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2134956)

Ever since I've switched from NS to Mozilla, I've been missing the ability to set the window geometries. Netscape lets you do it with X resources and -geometry of course. Mozilla appears to support neither.

So, every time i pop open another window (button 2 - happens a lot...), I have to tell my WM where to put it, since the existing window is already eating most of the screen. If Mozilla told the WM the geometry, it would just pop open by itself with no interaction from me, just like Netscape.

So, am I missing something, or do they really have a problem supporting -geometry?

It is just me (1, Troll)

sandidge (150265) | more than 13 years ago | (#2137623)

Or are they never going to get to the Mozilla 1.0 stage? I know version numbers really don't matter in the grand scheme of things since they are pretty arbitrary in any meaning aside from "This version came after this previous one." However, I'm fully expecting to see Mozilla 0.9.9.9.9.9.9.999.9.9.5 one of these days.

Stable? (2)

aallan (68633) | more than 13 years ago | (#2138203)


While I have Mozilla 0.9 installed I've found myself dropping back to using Netscape 4.77 most of the time. So I jumped at the chance to try out the new 0.9.3 [mozilla.org] build, maybe it puts right all the things that make me uncomfortable with Mozilla!?

So I have a look at mozilla.org [mozilla.org] and see that there are some nice spiffy new binary RPMs [mozilla.org] available for RH7.x, excellent, don't even have to bother compiling it. Download and install, open a new window, rehash, and, err...

% mozilla
/usr/bin/mozilla: line 156: 3018 Segmentation fault (core dumped)
$MOZ_PROGRAM -remote "openurl(about:blank,new-window)" 2>/dev/null >/dev/null
Error sending command.
%

Oh well, I guess I'm going to have to compile it after all...

Al.

Still slower (2, Informative)

SiliconJesus (1407) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139892)

I'm hoping that this version starts to work faster than previous versions. I've done some simple benchmarking of IE vs Netscape vs Mozilla on both Windows (2000 Advanced Server and 98) as well as Solaris 9 2/01 build. I click open up a new page in the browser that's not cached, and start the stopwatch. I do this for all 3 browsers for the same site. Not surprisingly IE spanks Netscape / Mozilla on both Microsoft platforms, but it also ourperforms them on Solaris. I really like a lot of the mozilla stuff, and if they can get the speed down, its going to be the premier web browser. As of right now, Lynx is the only browser faster than IE.

I'm going to download the new Mozilla build in the next few days, I still have my fingers crossed.

Re:Still slower (1)

The_Flames (184659) | more than 13 years ago | (#2109889)

What about opera???

Wrong (2)

GauteL (29207) | more than 13 years ago | (#2111625)

Opera and Galeon are both faster than IE. They actually start up about as fast as IE, without being preloaded on login.

Try Galeon or SkipStone! (2, Interesting)

gmz (320638) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133432)

Yeah, on my P5@200MHz, Mozilla is *slow*. I don't have IE, but if you want a fast browser on UNIX, try Galeon or SkipStone [muhri.net] ; they both use Mozilla's embedded rendering component, and esp. the latter is nearly as fast as Lynx (really! ;)

Interesting bug (5, Interesting)

wiredog (43288) | more than 13 years ago | (#2141472)

Mozilla requires glibc 2.1 or later. (Bug 44787)

The question is, why is this called a bug? It seems that requiring glibc 2.1 is fairly common in other programs. Library dependencies are normal, as later versions have APIs that earlier ones lacked, and expected. (Also, annoying if you are not warned, but here we are)

So, why is a dependency a bug?

Re:Interesting bug (5, Informative)

ChrisCampbell47 (181542) | more than 13 years ago | (#2134262)

Why is [requiring glibc 2.1+] a bug?

Because they use Bugzilla to track all issues with Mozilla. Since people complain daily about the symptoms that turn out to be glibc problems, it's best to include the info in the bug report and just point people there.

That's also the place to debate the issue.

There are plenty of "bugs" that aren't, including feature-requests, user error, bad HTML/websites (e.g. the TLS mess), et cetera.

Re:Interesting bug (1)

Daeron (4056) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147528)

Ok ... Maybe they should have said Mozilla on LINUX requires GLIBC-2.1 ... I For Sure do NOT want to have to install that beast on my FreeBSD or NetBSD systems e.g. That would be just outright Gross.

Re:Interesting bug (1)

Majix (139279) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147577)

Things like this, not really bugs, are often also submitted into Bugzilla because it creates a place where you can hold a public discussion about them.

As a professional web developer... (1, Interesting)

disc-chord (232893) | more than 13 years ago | (#2141473)

I cringe every time I read one of these storys. We have already had a browser war, let us not have a second one... or god help me, I will take hostages this time. Seriously though guys, what is the need for this program to exsist other than to cause new problems and incompatibilites? I don't think Mozilla will ever be a widely accepted browser that I will have to write pages that are compatible with it, but if these attempts to make the "Uber-Browser" continue eventually someone will pull it off. Then we (web developers) will need to start supporting it, which will cause M$ to become even more aggressive in the browser market. Perhaps those of you so intent on making browsers could find something else to make that we don't need.

Re:As a professional web developer... (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 13 years ago | (#2112229)

Also as a professional Web developer -- fuck off and die, Microsoft lackey. We need more and better browsers because we don't need Microsoft (or anyone else) to take over the Web. As for incompatibility ... do you know what the word "standards" means? If there's incompatibility, it's due almost entirely to your beloved IE, not the open-source and standards-compliant Mozilla.

With the possible exception of my text editor, I use my browser more than any other application on my machine. "Don't need?" What the hell kind of developer are you? Oh, wait a minute, maybe you're one of those people who slaps together slow, buggy code in FrontPage and calls himself a "Web developer," when in fact you wouldn't know good HTML if it bit you in the ass.

the whole point is.... (1)

4n0nym0u$ C0w4rd (471100) | more than 13 years ago | (#2116930)

to get away from Microsoft. I really hate Microsoft, IMHO their products are over-rated and extremely buggy and their business practices make me sick. Microsoft basically destroyed Netscape (which at one time a much better browser) using their monopoly powers and I have a feeling if they become the only browser supplier they are going to tie their browser to their ISP (they've already started to) making MSN the only option for stable web-browsing. Then simply make MSN even more incompatible with Linux (does anyone know how to configure ppp on linux (in console) to support the knew MSN Explorer style MSN ?) and make it exremely hard to get online with Linux. That is why I am glad there are competing browsers, as long as they have to compete with the others MS can't do anything that may anger their browser users yet.

Re:As a professional web developer... (1)

Frequanaut (135988) | more than 13 years ago | (#2127501)


I cringe whenever someone says something like that.

1) Choice is a good thing.
2) Write your pages to W3c standards.
3) Last I heard MS wasn't building IE for Linux

Re:As a professional web developer... (1)

Oo.et.oO (6530) | more than 13 years ago | (#2134647)

i'd call you an amatuer developer based on your very ignorant comments.

one of the most important goals of mozilla is to be 100% standards compliant. read: NOT ie broken compliant.

i'm not an MS hater. but i hate what ie has done to web development and i can't stand using it. i frankly just do not patronize sites that are broken in a standards compliant browser. If i can't see the page in mozilla in windows at least it's just not worth my time or money.
i think mozilla is still very broken, but i'll still use it over IE anyday. Opera on the other hand is the uber-browser right now i think (for win32)

Re:As a professional web developer... (0)

disc-chord (232893) | more than 13 years ago | (#2134999)

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm [upsdell.com]
Untill these numbers change, Microsoft can do whatever it likes... and I don't need to worry about some 0.25% of average users using Mozilla.

Re:As a professional web developer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2114739)

It's understandable you would think that way, but personally I find it strange that the web developer community would tell their customers and visitors which browser software they should use.

I mean, when you drive on public streets, the city government doesn't tell you that you should be driving a Toyota. When you buy an audio CD from Sony, it doesn't say that you have to use Sony CD players to play it. The choice is up to the users/consumers. So why is the web so different?

Let your visitors choose what they use. Don't choose a browser for them. And the only way to do that is to support W3C standards.

I'm sure that IE and Mozilla (and Konquerer, Opera) are standard-compliant enough that you can write pages that works in all of them. I'm an amateur web developer, and I do that. Why can't you?

Re:As a professional web developer... (1)

Oo.et.oO (6530) | more than 13 years ago | (#2132023)

you can show me statistics all day. it doesn't make them ACCURATE.
i understand your catering to IE as it makes your job easier IF YOU USE MS tools.
code toward W3C standards and then you don't have to worry. because you don't exclude ANYone unless they are using SUBstandard products.

the web community (of which we are all members) needs to learn to embrace standards to promote the industry. Not just cater to those in power, whoever they may be. If those in power chose to embrace standards then the choice is easy. IBM (just one example) taught us long ago that trying to use market clout to force "standards" is BAD for business and the industry in general.

Re:As a professional web developer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2134752)

Yeah, developing all kinds of computer stuff would be soooo easy if there was only one standard for hardware and software.

Re:As a professional web developer... (1)

Daeron (4056) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135120)

> Seriously though guys, what is the need for this program to exsist other than to cause new problems and incompatibilites?

Ever considered the possibility (i know it must sound rediculous) that there actually ARE people out there that do NOT use Wintendo(TM) as their Operating System ... and who DO want to have a decent browser that DOES support todays W3C standards like CSS2 etc.

Re:As a professional web developer... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2133148)

I tracked OSes on a website I ran for a while, and, ignoring the webbots (who appeared as "unknown OS") Windows 2000 was the most popular OS, followed by Windows 98, then Windows NT.

So, no, I would say that it's safe to say that if you don't use Windows, you can fuck off.

(PS: If you OSS browser jackasses want to get support, calling your OS "X11" isn't going to work - about 0% (something like five Konq hits) of all hits were from the fabulous X11 Operating System.)

Re:As a professional web developer... (0)

disc-chord (232893) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147529)

You're right this does sound rediculous.

Okay, nice, but how does it relate to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2141477)

...Konqueror?

Re:Okay, nice, but how does it relate to... (3, Informative)

GauteL (29207) | more than 13 years ago | (#2134199)

Pros:
  • Much better rendering engine
  • More fault tolerant
  • Better support for java and other plugins
  • More stable
  • Multi-platform
  • Requires fewer external libraries
  • Supports both Qt and Gtk+

Cons:
  • A bit slower
  • Uses more memory (some of it is a drawback on "Requires fewer external libraries"
  • Doesn't integrate that well with a desktop (void if you do not use KDE)
  • Does not have GUI-counterpart for some of the advanced configuration options


The slower-bit is offset if you use Galeon as a frontend. Which buys you a lot of speed, and somewhat better desktop-integration, on the expense of portability and library-count.

Both Mozilla and Konqueror are good browsers, but Mozilla is more technologically advanced, and the portability issue means a lot for it's acceptance and possible market-share.

Java stability? (1)

HerrGlock (141750) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142900)

That has been the Achilles heel of Netscape for a while on Linux now, even with the plugins from SUN. I liked Mozilla before but it was SLOW and I can deal with a killall netscape or three a day if it's faster than what mozilla has to offer.

Off to try it.

DanH

Re:Java stability? (-1)

David Kurtzberg (462323) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139901)

Java is not stable, period. That's why everyone is switching to ActiveX for applets, and soon C# for other things.

Dig (4, Redundant)

Majix (139279) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142901)

I like it. It doesn't crash. It renders pages quickly and correctly. In Windows I can use the "-turbo" command line switch to get IE like startup speed (I hope this makes it to the Linux builds too). But the biggest improvement over 0.9.2 is in my opinion that a window that is done loading doesn't steal my focus any longer! Previously you couldn't really have a lot of browser windows open because they constantly kept stealing the focus from each other.

I also like that you can open a link in a new window with the middle button. It's always worked like that on Linux, but it now also works in Windows. It's definitely ready for daily use IMHO.

New Mozilla even on Mac great! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2142902)

I'm currently running the new Mozilla under MacOS 9.1 and ist really rocks! No crashes until now and way faster surfing as in IE. Can't wait for the BeOS port...

that strange history problem/bug? (1)

Oo.et.oO (6530) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147395)

i have been consistantly getting a strange problem in NT 4.0 (work, no choice)
where if i go to google. and then click on a choice after searching, sometimes it'll try to access that page in the google.com domain. IOW: it'll just tack the path on the end of the present domain name.
it's uber weird and no one else seems to be having this trouble. i'm wondering if it's something weird with out firewall. but netscrape 4.7x works just fine.

i also get a strange "ho hum" on the front of the source sometimes (all the source is there, but ho hum only shows up rendered as it is before the html start tag).

anyone know anything about these occurances?
i reported them but heard no followups and can't even find the bugs i reported.

comments?

Not late at all... (2)

SmileyBen (56580) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147530)

Could we please, just once, not have all the dull 'This is late posts'. I could understand them if in the time between Netscape 4 and 6 IE had leapt ahead, and left Netscape in the dust, but the fact is there have been minimal facelifts in that time. In fact, every time someone says 'But IE isn't stable!!!' and someone says 'IE5.5 / 6 is very stable' they just prove the point, that Mozilla is up to speed with the current iteration of browsers. And with the speed (and yes, it is there) of improvement recently of Mozilla, I have every confidence that built on these secure, stable foundations, whatever they come up with next (e.g. 2.0) will be way ahead.

So sit back, download, and enjoy!

LiveConnect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2147531)

I just wish LiveConnect would work properly - apparently it won't until Java 1.4 is released. This sucks, because it has a lot of potential - imagine just drag-n-dropping arbitrary JavaBeans like 3d-graphing JApplets and stock ticker readers onto a web page in Composer, and having them become part of the page - then just "wire them together" with javascript. !.3 /1.4 beans and Applets make all this possible, and are so far ahead of 1.1 it's not funny.

interesting to note (1)

linuxpng (314861) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147562)

that SOCKS support is finally working. That would be SOCKS4 and SOCKS5. I wish more linux browsers incorperated SOCKS support (read konq)

better than Netscape 4.87? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2147586)

Wake up
the competition is already at version 6

Mozilla 0.9.3 for Sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2118593)

Surprise, surprise... no binaries for Solaris.

I never got 0.9.2 to work on my Sun Blade and now I've got to wait for someone to compile the 0.9.3.

Re:better than Netscape 4.87? (1)

RetsamYthgimla (458392) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135101)

Why don't you wake up? Did it ever occur to you that they compared it to 4.78 instead of 6.0 to make a point?!? They were comparing stability, not features. And 6.0 is about as stable as ununoctium! Except that we have proof that Netscape 6.0 was successfully created.

Re:better than Netscape 4.87? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2126283)

I wouldn't describe the creation of Netscape 6.0 as successful... -- this was not a troll, mearely a statement of my own ideas, possibly towards a humorous end...

Stop this guy! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2141476)

GWB is killing the Earth [boston.com] !

So what? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2111005)

Get your ass to Mars.

Re:better than Netscape 4.87? (1)

Evil Grinn (223934) | more than 13 years ago | (#2149558)

Except that we have proof that Netscape 6.0 was successfully created

I assumed he was talking about MSIE 6.0.

switching to (2, Redundant)

mrphish697 (219802) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147695)

I'm thinking of switching to Mozilla. I'm interested in the basics. How is it on blocking pop-over/pop-under ads?

Re:switching to (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 13 years ago | (#2126286)

Switching to Mozilla you get an extra bonnus. That is: IPv6 support. That is a feature that is missing a a good many browsers (like Netscape).

Who the hell is moderating this story???? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2135121)

How can post number 4 be redundant??

Re:switching to (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2141475)

It works just fine. There were a few good links to it in the Yellow Links article, recently.

Test pop-up blocking here. (-1)

David Kurtzberg (462323) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142899)

If you can see this site [comp-u-geek.net] the blocking is not working right.

Re:Test pop-up blocking here. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2126444)

I see a picture of you sucking some other guy. And an uncaught exception in mozilla's JavaScript console.

Looks good.

Re:Test pop-up blocking here. (-1)

David Kurtzberg (462323) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133779)

Actually, it is me who is getting sucked, and that other guy is Jon Katz.

Re:Test pop-up blocking here. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2139735)

ass...

Re:switching to (0)

Oo.et.oO (6530) | more than 13 years ago | (#2145455)

it's not geared to that. if you want to do that. just turn off javascript. although it's not always an option.

i use junkbuster and then at least the ad doesn't come up. the window still does, but only when javascript is on (which i leave off unless i'm talking to my bank or ordering stuff)

Re:switching to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2148393)

What about doing your homeworks and reading the latest /. on that topic.?

This is one of the *many* posts explaining that the last few days [slashdot.org]

Cheers,

--fred

I have one request for Mozilla... (1)

jtseng (4054) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147735)

Maybe it's been resolved with this new release or maybe it's because the software is still beta... But could someone PLEASE reduce Mozilla's memory footprint? I just find it rediculous to have a browser start up and immediately suck up 30MB worth of memory.

Re:I have one request for Mozilla... (1)

Nodatadj (28279) | more than 13 years ago | (#2122767)

Doing an RSS - Share on the top output says that Mozilla is only using about 18 meg.

911 ndj 16 0 31012 30M 12372 R 1.5 16.2 0:36 mozilla-bin

(30-12 in case you hadn't worked it out)

Re:I have one request for Mozilla... (1)

AX.25 (310140) | more than 13 years ago | (#2141479)

I run mozilla on Linux and Windows. I have no complaints about it's memory use. As a matter of fact IE can and will end up using just as much memory as Mozilla if it stays up long enough. So all I can say is: Memories cheap dude. Buy some today!

More stable than Netscape 4.78? (5, Funny)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 13 years ago | (#2147773)

Talkback data shows that recent 0.9.2 branch builds are more stable than Netscape 4.78

That isn't saying much. It is my experience that nitroglycerin is more stable than any version of Netscape 4.xx.

Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2142565)

I just installed 4.78 on my computer last night. I couldn't believe how fast it was after getting used to using IE. You are right, it's not the stablest thing, but it works FAST and it loads up fast.

OS X (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2148376)

How much later does the Mac OS X port usually take? I had thought they would code in Carbon to release on both Mac OS 9 and X at the same time...

Re:OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2109886)

> How much later does the Mac OS X port usually take?

You can get the trunk Fizzilla nightly at:

wget -c http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest- trunk/mozilla-macosX-trunk.sit.bin

It sorta works (I'm posting with it), as long as you don't do mail and news, and have a lot of gotchas.

Check macosx newsgroup at news.mozilla.org to see if there will be a branch build.

> I had thought they would code in Carbon to release on both Mac OS 9 and X at the same time...

Not stable enough yet. The carbon app is Fizzilla. I suppose that Fizzilla will replace OS9 build at a time. But it is definitely not ready.

Cheers,

--fred

Windows, too (2)

digitect (217483) | more than 13 years ago | (#2148378)

This may be the one enabling both my wife and I to chuck the famous IE/Outlook Express combo.

A lot of attention on this site has been on the Linux, etc. platforms, but Mozilla 9.2 on Windows is pretty good, too. Still not quite as fast as IE, but with the Enable Quick Launch feature checked, Mozilla is finally becoming competitive. Perhaps 9.3 will be about equal.

And the Modern theme is very nice and durable, which makes IE look very tired. Great work by all involved!

Re:Windows, too (2, Funny)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 13 years ago | (#2115021)

And the Modern theme is very nice and durable, which makes IE look very tired. Great work by all involved!

Just wait until you see IE 6 in XP - it is so much nicer than the "Modern" theme. With all the Luna goodness (minus the messed-up scrollbars - haven't tried RC1, might be fixed), it's really quite a pretty browser.

MUCH nicer looking than Mozilla, more colorful, better CSS support (well - as far as I can tell, I haven't done a detailed analysis, but so far I haven't run into too many bugs) - P3P support, image blocking support - it's really nice.

NS6 doesn't stand a chance against IE6.

Broken images (1)

jmathijs (37172) | more than 13 years ago | (#2149675)

Hopefully this version allows me to
turn off the 'hide missing images' feature.
Anybody got a clue? Couldn't find it in 0.9.2.
This browser rocks!

fp (-1, Offtopic)

s0meguy (265470) | more than 13 years ago | (#2156093)

oh yeah
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?