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 Jumps on 'Lean Browser' Bandwagon

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the but-it-doesn't-runs-on-osx dept.

Mozilla 675

fader writes "Following in the footsteps of fast (and often fantastic) wrappers around Gecko (the Mozilla rendering engine), Mozilla has just released their own lightweight browser, Phoenix. Only Phoenix will still use XUL, the cross-platform markup language used for the current Mozilla interface. Will it still be fast enough to overcome the final gripe about Mozilla, namely that it's just too slow?"

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

My cock is lean (-1, Offtopic)

gazbo (517111) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318290)

Maybe I need those pills I get emailed about?

Shut the fuck up. (-1)

Salad Shooter (600065) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318335)

You are such a shithead.

Gripe (5, Insightful)

MagPulse (316) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318301)

My main gripe is that it doesn't look or act like my other Windows applications. The buttons are different sizes, the keyboard shortcuts aren't the same, and a lot of other things I don't want to think about. If they can skin/change Mozilla's behavior to act just like IE, they'll have a lot of converts.

Re:Gripe (-1, Offtopic)

technix4beos (471838) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318312)

So what are you waiting for?

Re:Gripe (-1, Flamebait)

MagPulse (316) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318323)

I'm busy with more interesting things than browsers, and IE works well enough.

Re:Gripe (-1, Flamebait)

Captain Pedantic (531610) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318363)

So why are you griping about this, instead of doing something else more interesting?

I've had enough of shits like you (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318397)

Maybe he's on his lunch break. Or maybe that "more interesting" project is compiling, and he's reading Slashdot as it compiles. Maybe he has mental block, and is reading Slashdot to let his brain relax (Careful, don't read for too long, or permanent damage may occure).

Really, people like yourself really fuck me off. You jump on someone as soon as they complain, with a corus of "Why don't you fix it?" and "Fix it yourself!", as though everyone else in the world has a whole bunch of spare time to examine, understand and fix the code for your little pet project. Yeah, thats the one.

Get of your god damn high horse. When was the last time you did something that directly benefited the Open Source community? I mean, apart from imparting your insightful wisdows like "So why are you griping about this, instead of doing something else more interesting?" Why arn't you doing something more interesting?

Re:I've had enough of shits like you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318461)

I thought it was a valid point... He posted several times in a browser-related discussion about how he could care less about browsers.

He is obviously silly.

Re:Gripe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318367)

Yea and if the mac change to a windows interface, we would all switch to them...

Couldn't resist, But there are skins that look like IE. The main grip I had about netscape was it took forever to load and left memory when it closed. This has been taken care of and I use Mozilla only now.

The only complaint I have now is no docking tool bars, the current tool bars are clumsey and take up way to much room. IE has a much better toolbars.

Just my 2 cents

Re:Gripe (1)

fredrik70 (161208) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318521)

try the lo-fi theme and hide the personal toolbar, very nice IMHO.

Re:Gripe (0)

bheerssen (534014) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318373)

np, here you go []

Re:Gripe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318390)

This skin is pretty good but far from perfect. There are a lot of things that still need to be changed. Like remapping Ctrl-L to ALT-D, etc...

This could be a start (-1, Redundant)

cheezycrust (138235) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318375)

I don't know if they have changed the shortcuts too, but there is an IE skin [] for Mozilla.

Re:Gripe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318377)

Yeah, damn, if they're going to give a release a number as high as 0.1, they ought to make it work exactly the way you want it to...

Re:Gripe (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318385)

The Mozilla IE Theme [] looks pretty much like IE to me, and I'm using IE regularly.

Of course won't solve the shortcut problems and if it's not customizable by editing some file (anyone know?), then I hope the Mozilla team will have that in 1.3 or so.

Re:Gripe (0)

blibbleblobble (526872) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318446)

"My main gripe is that it doesn't look or act like my other Windows applications"

F.F.S., get the IE skin [] , it's not that hard

Re:Gripe (3, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318456)

Part of the issue is Microsoft have changed the UI so many damned times that there is no consistency unless every piece of software is contemporary. IE has *never* been consistent with contemporary software.

At least Mozilla tries to fit in. If you run it in Classic mode Mozilla looks and behaves much like any other Win32 application. On XP, it even renders widgets with the theme engine.

As for keyboard shortcuts, Mozilla shares a large set of shortcuts with IE (e.g. cut, copy, paste, find, new window etc.), but if you're a power user the mind boggles why you'd want to use IE anyway. Mozilla has considerably more keyboard shortcuts (and shock horror) some of them are indispensible such as being able to Find Next by hitting Ctrl+G. Why IE doesn't have a Find Next shortcut is a total mystery to me. Outlook Express is particularly hopeless when it comes to shortcuts.

Why not just use I.E.? (2, Interesting)

blixel (158224) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318462)

If I.E. does what you want, then why do you feel the need to switch?

Re:Gripe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318467)

FYI Mozilla is *not* a windows application. And even if it mozilla was a win-app the hotkeys used by IE (i do mean IE not windows) arent exactly standard. Even microsoft cant keep the hotkeys standard across all microsoft applicaions. Lets just assume that all hotkeys are equal though, why should mozilla developers spend development time shooting at the moving target that is windows? It seems like it would be much more productive to spend the time shooting at the industry standard targets, those which are slightly less mobile and shared across multiple platforms.

Re:Gripe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318469)

My main gripe is that I can't find the source code (yet). I dislike binaries.

mozilla slow? (-1, Offtopic)

TechnoVooDooDaddy (470187) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318305)

hmm... have you used IE? unless you've got an extra 256mb of ram, IE is doggin'

Re:mozilla slow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318360)

You are out of your mind. IE works just fine on all our 64 meg machines. Perhaps you're thinking of Netscape, which crashes every 5 minutes with 64 meg?

Until Phoenix has javascript, it's useless.

Re:mozilla slow? (1)

oval_pants (602266) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318362)

Uhm. Don't mean to be a flamer or be flamed, however IE has always been my browser of choice.
Not quite sure about "doggin". I have a Celery 500 with 128megs of ram...No real problem. The load up time is a heck of a lot less than that of Mozilla. If Mozilla could load up that fast and not crash as frequently as it did (I did use an older 1.0 version, but still...first impressions) than I would still be using it today. I'm not a big fan of M$, but I use it for what I need and it works. I tried an alternative and was turned off immediately.

Less hype, more product.

Re:mozilla slow? (1)

freeefalln (541648) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318364)

maybe you're on a old ass computer, but IE6.0 works great on my 366mhz celeron with only 128mb ram. much faster than mozilla.

Re:mozilla slow? (-1, Troll)

LordYUK (552359) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318372)

Yes, Mozilla is generally slower than IE. And I have a 1.7 p4 with 1024 megs of ram. Mozilla is lots slower than IE. I still like it better, though, because of the tabbed browsing. That alone is enough to keep me using it.

Re:mozilla slow? (3, Insightful)

aurelian (551052) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318433)

I still like it better, though, because of the tabbed browsing. That alone is enough to keep me using it.

Agreed - that and the javascript preferences (no unrequested windows and no messing with the status bar text)

However it's not just the speed, it's the mammoth amount of memory it hogs aswell. I'm all for a smaller browser. Ditch the composer, the mail client & address book.. I might be switching to phoenix if they can keep the size down.

IE "cheats". Don't use startup time as a benchmark (3, Informative)

StupidKatz (467476) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318465)

IE on Windows loads itself during startup. (Apparently, there's an option for Mozilla to behave this way, too, but WHY??) This gives the illusion that IE is extremely fast during startup, when in fact, it has been running and consuming resources since bootup.

Now, have both browsers try to render a hideously large, long, tabled page like and popular article here set to -1, Nested, and see how THAT test goes. Even my favorite browser, Opera 6, craps out a lot on that. :( I'd use Mozilla exclusively, except that it lacks the ability to trap any spawned windows inside the initial Mozilla instance as a tab. Sigh.

Re:mozilla slow? (4, Informative)

nachoman (87476) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318402)

On my windows computer I'm just comparing phoenix to IE... (650MHz, 128MB Ram)

IE launchs pretty much instantaneously because it's always running... 0.5-1 second.

Phoenix launches in about 1.5 seconds

I don't know about you, but I'm willing to wait an extra second for phoenix. It seems to have everything I need for standard browsing.

Re:mozilla slow? (1, Informative)

Eightlines (536572) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318442)

You've neglected to recognize that IE is actually launched when the OS boots. When you call on it to load its already in memory so it loads faster.

You should install the Moz Quicklaunch to put it on the same footing before you claim it doesn't load fast enough.

Re:mozilla slow? (1)

rocjoe71 (545053) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318497)

Don't forget, because of the intertwining of IE and Windows' API's most of IE is already loaded by the time the OS is booted up.

I agree, it's worth the extra 1000 milliseconds to get Moz up and running-- And I don't hear anyone complaining about actual rendering of web pages as it's as lean and mean and accurate as anything else out there since 0.9.8.

Re:mozilla slow? (1)

forsetti (158019) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318408)

Celeron 400MHz, 128 MB RAM -- Mozilla MUCH faster, if you use the pre-load utiility thing-a-ma-bobber...
Without the preload thingy, IE loads much faster.

Either way, once loaded, Mozilla renders HTML compliant pages MUCH faster,
But, IE renders pages with Flash and Java ('specially M$ optimized J++) faster.....

Re:mozilla slow? (1)

teslatug (543527) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318420)

Have you ever tried using a browser on a 486 with 16MB at 640x480x256? IE (5.x) is the only modern browser that will run tolerably.


Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318481)

Re:mozilla slow? (1)

RevDobbs (313888) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318523)

That's what I'm rocking back at home... minus 8MB of RAM. And my prefered broser is lynx, with Mosaic a close second, thank-you-very-much.

Re:mozilla slow? (1)

JohnnyBigodes (609498) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318421)

I presume you're talking about IE 6, which does enter my category of bloatware... I've got a P3-450 with 256Mb and IE 5 runs just fine, has ran fine with 128Mb (on Windows 2000).

Disclaimer: I use Mozilla 99% of the time. I love tabs, but I'm the first to admit that its' HTML/interface rendering is sloooow.

Mac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318316)

No OS X Version? Lame.

Re:Mac? (3, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318346)

Erm, OS X already has Chimera [] .

Re:Mac? (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318496)

Not offtopic at all.

Chimera is really the best choice as a lean browser on OS X. Mozilla itself is okay, but you have to install it on a Apple partition and you cannot install it on a Unix partition (why is beyond me). Chimera on the other had is fast, small, looks good, is consistent with Mac OS X an is very stable. (Well, since the 0.4 version, before 0.4 it crashed hourly).

That's what *I* call a lean browser, and thus the parent poster is *not* offtopic.

Step in the right direction (3, Insightful)

explosionhead (574066) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318320)

If Gecko based browsers want to become a bit more common place, they have to give a bit of an obvious advantage to Mr. Average Windows user, or else theres no incentive to stop using IE.
Compliance with the relevant standards means nothing to Mr. Average, he just wants his browser to open quick and render faster to get to his pr0n.

Remember past mistakes please (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318322)

Part of why Netscape's whole browser development scheme when down the tube and had to start anew was because they kept programming lose and fast... putting features before fixing bugs.
I know they must be under pressure to add features; someone is paying their wages. But increasingly there are important bugs that just aren't being fixed. Please learn from the past, it may look like a time saver, but it costs more than it is worth in the long run.

slow? (5, Informative)

pipeb0mb (60758) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318327)

i don't find mozilla slow an any platform...os x, winxp or linux. i've recently begun installing it on my friedns and families PCs also, and it's snappy as can be!

Snappy with a snappy CPU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318357)

Your friedns and family don't have sub Pentium 2s do they :)

Only for x86??? (2, Insightful)

hoytt (469787) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318330)

It seems this build is only targeted to x86 (both Windows and Linux). Does any one know if there are plans to expand the compatibilty to other platforms? I mean we have Chimera 0.5.0 for OS X now, but the more compatible browsers the better.

Re:Only for x86??? Probably better that way..... (1)

jerkyjunkmail (590408) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318417)

It's probably better that way. I would rather have chimera using the native cocoa GUI than the cross-platform GUI. Instead of developer's spending time on a Mac OS X version of Phoenix I'd rather see them lend a hand to Chimera Essentially Chimera and Phoenix would be somewhat redundant projects, for Mac OS X that is. In the end the core is still the same, gecko.

I timed it (4, Informative)

Publicus (415536) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318331)

If you allow Mozilla to load itself into memory for faster startup times (only fair considering IE does it without asking) you'll find that you can get a page loaded faster with mozilla.

I tried it using both browsers on the same site with my machine at work. The difference was on the order of seconds...

IE is junk compared to mozilla. Also, the Orbit theme rocks! Take a look here [] .

problems with fast loading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318370)

I have had problems (bugs) that were fixed by disabling the loading into memory quick start feature. The sad thing is that I really would like to put that feature back, but can't until the bug is fixed. I agree that it is muuuuuuch faster however.

Re:I timed it (0)

oojah (113006) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318374)

Also, the Orbit theme rocks!

Pish. Pinball all the way ;)


Re:I timed it (2, Informative)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318414)

I can leisurely launch IE and visit a webpage before Mozilla launches. I mean, I can hit start, run, type in "iexplore", load the default page, click on the location bar, type in my page and load it -- all before Mozilla launches.

Mozilla is the only application I have ever known under Windows to regularly produce the "This application has stopped responding.." window just because it is taking so long to shut a window.

Once it is up and running it is fine. Windows will swap it out, and it takes a good half-minute to pull out of swap, but otherwise it is fine.

Despite this pitiful performance on every Windows 2000 (or NT) platform I have tried(it doesn't do this to me on Linux, and doesn't do it nearly as badly on Win98.), I still use it as my primary browser.

Trust me, it is not my machine, nor is it the dozens of other machines I have tried it on. My Win2k system is the fastest machine I have.

Re:I timed it (2, Informative)

Photon Ghoul (14932) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318447)

I've never had the "this application has stopped responding" with a 1.0+ version of Mozilla. I do get it all of the time with Internet/Windows Explorer. Odd that.


Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318504)

Re:I timed it (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318441)

Yeah but b/c I can't see any .asp pages I have a hard time using my online banking correctly, applying for jobs, and viewing a lot of imbedded video.

Unfortunatly for me, the first two items are VERY important. I have to view those pages on my laptop instead. It's very annoying.

Re:I timed it (2, Informative)

Photon Ghoul (14932) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318470)

I view ASP pages in Mozilla all of the time. Just so you know, ASP is something that the server processes, which then sends you a page that is rendered in your browser.

How is Mozilla keeping you from viewing ASP pages?

Re:I timed it (5, Funny)

crawling_chaos (23007) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318530)

I have a hard time using my online banking correctly, applying for jobs, and viewing a lot of imbedded video

Didn't your mom warn you that looking at all the embedded video would make you go blind?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go shave my palms now...

Re:I timed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318464)

Same here with Mozilla running on a PIII 1GHz on NT4 with 256MB RAM... with the quicklaunch enabled, moz starts a lot faster, and was addicted to it in a few days.

some other things...
!! mouse gestures !!
I'm so addicted to this that I even try to close other windows with an 'L' gesture.
!! no popup windows if you don't ask for them !!
although I'm not using hotmail so often anymore

Now this even makes me consider switching to linux for my main PC

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318337)

What road/highway is this [] and what are the towns for each "milstone" along it?

Light Weight (4, Insightful)

skrowl (100307) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318341)

How is an 8 MB install file light weight or lean? Opera is only 3.4 megs! Load times are still slow, but not nearly as bad as regular slowzilla. DEFINITELY a step in the right direction, this is one project to keep your eye on.

Re:Light Weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318361)

.1 release? That might be a factor...

Re:Light Weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318475)

.1 release? That might be a factor...

Yeah: it's going to get bigger. It's not yet feature-complete.

Re:Light Weight (2)

SquierStrat (42516) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318405)

It is funny you say that. From my experience (YMMV) Opera is much slower. I heard how fast Opera was, so I downloaded it and watching as the images diffused before my eyes. Whereas, with Mozilla and related browsers (I normally use Galeon) and also with IE, everything is snappy. Perhaps the Gig of ram (*evil laugh*) helps in that, but should that just make Opera all that much faster too?

On the other hand, when I'm at school and I use the linux lab's ever not so fast Pentium 3 550MHz with 128mb RAM, Mozilla has a hideous load time, and Galeon's is only decent at best. However, once loaded, the page load times are just as snappy as here at the house.

As for this being a step in the right direction...
It is my understanding that the Mozilla project's main goal is to produce the browser engine. So why don't they focus on bug fixes and let people like Netscape and the Galeon project make browsers? Galeon is great (along with a few other Gecko engine browsers) and it very lightweight.

Re:Light Weight (2, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318501)

Opera is much slower. I heard how fast Opera was, so I downloaded it and watching as the images diffused before my eyes.

From what I can tell, Mozilla and the rest are constructing the page offscreen, then flipping it into view all at once. Opera seems to construct the page in pieces. With Mozilla and the like, It seems there is more delay before the page actually begins to display.

I use Opera almost exclusively, but I just downloaded Mozilla 1.1 to see if it was any better than the 1.0 prerelease I tried last. Moz 1.1 is indeed much better, faster loading, etc.

Recent versions of Opera Linux seem to crash a lot more than the 5.0 series did. With Mozilla improving so quickly, and Opera taking so long to stabilize the 6.0 series, I may start using Mozilla more.

Re:Light Weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318510)

What kind of system are you using to measure these speeds? I'm running an Athlon 1.33 and the 20-30 slashdot pages I've tried have loaded instantaneously with Phoenix.

precompiled XUL? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318347)

didn't I just read something about certain files in your profile that are basically precompiled XUL for your interface and side tabs?

If not, then wouldn't that be a good idea to cut down on the slowness? The issue with XUL as far as its benefits go are great. However, I don't think you need to interpret every time it starts. It should only check for changes. As far as rendering goes, I have noticed that the rendering seems to do too much at once. Perhaps if it took a more prioritized approach and rendered the underlying layout first, then text then media (for example) as well as allowed for the user or site author to prioritize more specifically then this slowness could at least be tolerated. an example of this would be a instructional site with graphical examples interspersed within the text. Personally I would like to see the text first. In fact, what if the site author used CSS (or XSL) stylesheets and had some for lower bandwidth or lower processing computers like handhelds. I sure would like the ability to set my browser preferences to (per site) use the text only (or low res pic I suppose) version of the stylesheet while still downloading the other crap in the background. Perhaps I could even set a preference to have it ask me when it was done pulling to re-render with the new stuff (instead of shaking the screen aroudn everytime a new pic is brought up causing me to feel like someone in an earthquake.

I am impressed with the features that Mozilla offers (and hope people start exposing more features that the reference mozilla browser did not).

Slow at what? (4, Insightful)

bdowne01 (30824) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318380)

Will it still be fast enough to overcome the final gripe about Mozilla, namely that it's just too slow?"

Slow at what?

I agree that under Linux mozilla takes forever to come up.

Under OS X its worse.

But under Windows, if allowed to load itself into memory pre-launch (which IE does. Only fair to let Mozilla do it as well) it is as fast or faster than IE.

But as far as rendering, mozilla on my computers tends to be quicker than other browsers I've tried. Under OS X, mozilla (once its loaded ;) just runs circles around IE. On Windows, it's just about the same...maybe only slightly slower. And on linux...well, I don't use anything else!

Re:Slow at what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318492)

IE doesn't load in memory if you use another shell such as Bluebox. And it's still faster than Mozilla.

Re:Slow at what? (2)

iomud (241310) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318525)

Chimera is really making great strides in osx, the nightlies i've been trying recently are really quite fast.

nice (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318382)

I just downloaded and installed it. It offers 2 things that I always wanted (without hassling to get it). Small icons and fullscreen browsing. This IMHO is worth the approx 10meg download. Very nice -- I think xp (cross-platform) should mean equal access to features too.

Good timing (2, Interesting)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318384)

Only a few minutes ago, I was looking at my IE browser at work, thinking 'If only I could have something like Galeon on Windoze'. Then up pops Pheonix. Wow! I probably won't install the 0.1 release, but hopefully we won't have to wait years for 1.0 to arrive. I'm replacing IE with Mozilla right now.


Re:Good timing (1)

distributed.karma (566687) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318436)

AFAIK Kmeleon is the 'Galeon of Windoze'.

Re:Good timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318508)

AFAIK Kmeleon is the 'Galeon of Windoze'.

AFAIK Kmeleon hasn't been updated in a year.

Re:Good timing (2, Informative)

cetan (61150) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318502)

Phoenix is based off of the 1.0 branch of code. You're already at 1.0 as far as mozilla is concerned. They call it 0.1 for the projects purposes.

hrm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318386)

I don't so much see mozilla as slow, as other browsers faster. when I use windoze =D I use IE, because like many mac things, it just plain works, and when I use linux, I try and use galeon, but the 1.1 mozilla was pretty spiffy too! long live choices and free will!!!

I can't record my time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318388)

hey! why won't my java craplets work now? I rebuilt my system recently and while I loaded the very same mozilla build, the very same java and very same plugins (shockwave and quicktime) it will either not run the applets at all or will run them so slow as to be painful... feels like trying to surf an online art gallery with a 2400 modem.


All I want... (5, Interesting)

jmu1 (183541) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318389)

is for my gtk theme to take over the Mozilla theme. Widgets and whatnot, not just color. I don't mind having buttons and layout set by moz, but I'd like an integrated feel, like it's part of the system... esp since it's the app I use most. I won't use galeon, mainly because it doesn't have some of the bells and whistles that mozilla does(that I do use).

what is Galeon missing? (1)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318427)

I won't use galeon, mainly because it doesn't have some of the bells and whistles that mozilla does(that I do use).

The only thing I've found that Mozilla has that Galeon doesn't is a few focus bugs. What's missing?

Re:what is Galeon missing? (2)

jmu1 (183541) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318457)

I'm not sure if that was meant to be a troll, but I'm replying anyway. It's been a few months since I have tried the latest galeon, but it didn't have the same control over cookies, images, passwords etc that mozilla has.

Just installed and tried it... (3, Informative)

Elledan (582730) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318398)

It feels... smoother than Mozilla, loads pages a bit faster (or at least doesn't hang for nearly a second when switching between apps while the page is loading), and it uses fewer resources:

Currently Mozilla (1.1) is using 32,852 kb of RAM, while Phoenix (phoenix.exe) is using 25,188 kb. This without any additional tabs/windows open.

There's only the fact that many, many preferences are not accessible yet (although many are enabled by default), but that is to be expected from an 0.1 release.

I'll definitely be keeping my eyes on this project :)

Re:Just installed and tried it... (0)

palmpunk (324912) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318466)

I just installed it too, but without proxy support its not doing anything for me here at the office.

Must be because I dont have a page loaded that it's taking up 8,368kb of ram.

Mozilla is contantly improving (2, Interesting)

moc.tfosorcimgllib (602636) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318400)

I remember when Netscape was beating IE for the internet browser war. Netscape became stagnant, and IE overtook them from almost nowhere, at least that is how it seemed.

Now Mozilla is constantly improving, while IE is stagnant this time. For all the people complaining Mozilla is too slow, or doesn't render right, when was the last time you tried downloading and installing the latest version?

I'm using Mozilla 1.0 right now, and it works for almost all of my web browsing. Some pages do have problems, but like I said, I'm using version 1.0, and that is ages behind 1.2 alpha which is out right now.

Re:Mozilla is contantly improving (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318482)

The differences are as follows:

1) The internet was new and the mass of users back then were more advanced than today. They realised that the internet was more than just 'this thing you get to through Windows Explorer thingymebobsit"
2) IE was on every Windows CD
3) IE was preinstalled in ~95% of computers
4) Free IE CDs were everywhere (we've all come across one at least once). There were alot of 'must use IE to work' things back then
5) IE was from a big company; branding counts and still does
6) IE had a pretty gui (well maybe not to geeks, but to most users). The guis Mozilla and Netscape were and are still too ugly
7) Microsoft got all the computing media to write about how great IE was, whereas Mozilla doesn't supply them with advertising revenue

This will look great.... (2, Funny)

gurnb (80987) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318401)

This will look great on my AMD 800 system with the 64meg (Obsolete) Video Card.

Isn't this a step in the wrong direction. Aren't new programs suppose to be bigger. (Bigger = Better) Won't this make regular Mozilla obsolete?

Why if this keeps up, Microsoft just might retool XP and release it on 3 floppy disks and call it Win 3.11!!

Mozilla jumped on this bandwagon long ago. (4, Informative)

Genady (27988) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318410)

With a little project called Chimera. Of course it's only available for Mac OS X, but the lightweight Mozilla sanctioned browser is not a new concept by any means. New to Linux and Windows, yes. New to Mozilla? No.

Who knows ? (2)

tmark (230091) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318412)

Will it still be fast enough to overcome the final gripe about Mozilla, namely that it's just too slow?

Will the next KDE/GNOME or whatever desktop finally be user-friendly enough as a MacOS, OS X or even (shudder) a Windows desktop ?

Without so much as even a beta to try, who knows until we get the product ?

Re:Who knows ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4318458)

If a Windows desktop is user friendly, then self mutilation is a legitimate hobby.

Standalone or component in new "Mozilla Suite"? (5, Interesting)

PastaAnta (513349) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318413)

Is this just YAGBB (Yet Another Gecko Based Browser) or will this be the start of a modularization of the Mozilla browser???

I am a happy user of Mozilla, but i dislike the monolithic approach of integrating browser, mailreader, newsreader, composer and you name it into one executable. What happened to the old and proven Unix approach of "Do only one thing, but do it well!"?

I hope Mozilla in the future will be split into a suite of components, that work well together and with a consistent interface.

Re:Standalone or component in new "Mozilla Suite"? (5, Funny)

Chainsaw (2302) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318506)

What happened to the old and proven Unix approach of "Do only one thing, but do it well!"?

It was destroyed with the release of Emacs, as you might have noticed. By releasing a text editor that also could control your toaster, the Unix philosophy was dead.

My complaint about Mozilla... (1, Funny)

Marijuana al-Shehi (609113) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318418) that their mascot [] looks like a horse with hydroencephalitus. Why is he red also?

Posting this with Phoenix (1, Informative)

Petronius (515525) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318426)

and it rocks!!!

I just downloaded the app for Win and took it for a spin. Very stable. Very fast. Reminds me of early versions of Opera.

Go lizzard! Go! Kill the round blue 'e'!

Proxy settings (1)

fatarfy (319180) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318437)

How do I set the proxy settings? I can't get through my companys firewall....

Here's a nice way to see Mozilla crawling... (1)

JohnnyBigodes (609498) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318444)

Just get (or make) some page with *lots* of nested tables and sub-tables. Then try switching between some other page and that one and you'll see the delay before Mozilla draws the HTML, even on a powerful PC (1.2Ghz Duron).

Screenshot (5, Informative)

Jodrell (191685) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318445)

Here's a screenshot of Phoenix [] (mirrored here [] ), if you're interested (via Google).

Navigator is fast.... (2)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318449)

In my experience (Given I have only been using Mozilla for about 2.5 years now.) Navigator installed alone is fast and stable, as soon as composer/mail/etc.. are tossed in Mozilla starts running slowly and crashing. This has become much better over time, and I have not bothered keeping a plain navigator install around since 1.0, but it is food for thought...

Tried it. (5, Informative)

DeadSea (69598) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318474)

They cut out a lot of the Mozilla's best features to make a smaller browser. There is a note in the prefs under advanced saying "your favorite features will be here soon".


  • Themes. This browser has yellow buttons that look pretty good but a bit bright. You can go in the prefs and rearrange the buttons with drag and drop or choose small icons.
  • Ability to block popups without disabling javascript.
  • Fine grained cookie management. No more "alert me" and "remember this decision".
  • Sidebar
  • Chatzilla, Mail, Composer
  • Site Navigation Bar

Still there:

  • Bookmarks and bookmarks manager
  • History
  • Javascript Conole
  • Download Manager
  • Search plugins
  • Tabbed browsing
  • Cache

Since my computer is fast enough and has enough memory to run Mozilla, I don't notice that Phoenix loads faster. An older computer with less memory would probably be a better test. Since my favorite privacy features are missing, I have no intention of switching, but if it runs faster on older computers I would recommend it for that. (Please try it on something slow and report.) It might also be appropriate for somebody who wants "just a browser" because of the lack of other applications. The lack of these applications seems to only save a couple megs of download, again I'll take the full featured Mozilla.

Proxy settings (2, Informative)

repvik (96666) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318477)

If you're behind a proxy, don't even bother downloading Phoenix. It doesn't have *any* proxy settings whatsoever.

Think I'll stick with Opera still.

Another great title (0, Troll)

billcopc (196330) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318478)

Mack Trucks launches compact car division.

Microsoft creates a portable XBox system.

Ron Jeremy goes limp.


Bookmark Sharing with Moz? (1)

Milican (58140) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318479)

Anyone know how to make Phoenix share bookmarks with old Mozilla?


FreeBSD? (1)

forsetti (158019) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318488)

When will there be a FreeBSD port?

Personally (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318499)

I find that if you can really tell the difference in speed between Mozilla or any of its descendants, then you really just need to buy a newer and faster computer.

Running Now! (1)

BinaryStorm (588673) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318509)

It is awesome. I love it. Clean and simple. No install required, everything stored in the directory structure. Finally.

System Requirements? (3, Interesting)

teslatug (543527) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318516)

I can't seem to find the system requirements anywhere. Is this browser going to be more forgiving on older computers? I doubt it since it still uses XUL, but you never know...

I recently "made the switch" (2, Interesting)

rosewood (99925) | more than 12 years ago | (#4318518)

I love everything open source, but yet I am the slashdot's troll's cliche since I use windows as my main OS, albeit a pirated version of XP. So, I figured I should at least switch to Moz. I made the commitment to try moz as my only browser for two weeks and to only use IE if I needed it.

So far, Ive been very disapointed

First, I dont know what all this hubub about tabbed browsing and mouse gestures has been. W/o a quick way to cycle through my tabs, w/o being to have a tab be automagically reloaded, w/o a keyboard shortcut to close the tab, I dont see why opening multiple windows and using the WinXP group programs feature isn't any better.

Second, the auto-scroll Moz bug has been around forever. Every time Ive been on another computer and browsed in IE, I realiz how often I use that feature. It drives me crazy not having it in Moz.

Third, maybe I can w/ a theme, but I can not quickly move and re-arrange my bars like I can in IE. Luckily there is a google bar (kinda) for moz now, but since it has to sit stacked w/ the other bars and I can not combine, I don't use it.

Fourth is rendering. I know this is due to sites doing best viewed in IE, but when I need to read a bug report on, or a story is only at, I need to be able to read it. Would it be so wrong to add in what is needed so IE pages render correctly? On top of that its very anoying when I go to some sites to be told I have to have such and such browser. Again, its the fault of the webmaster, but it screws me.

Numero cinco. Mime types. It is really anoying to click on links like .rar, .wmv, etc. and just have the file not downloaded, but opened in a new window or tab. I see where I can add such mime types, but this should be done already.

6. Form and password management. If more then one person used my computer, ever, I would think the password manager in Mozilla is great. However, I am the only user and its really anoying having to enter a password every time to save the time of entering a password. I also notice that some forms (ie the google search) do not auto fill, or show me what I have entered there in the past, even though I have that option turned on.

7. Mouse gestures were a joke. Every time I wanted to highlight something, and then copy it, the gestures decided I wanted to close Moz. I could have saved this with a modified key, but then what is the point of the gesture if I have to hit my keyboard?

8. Until I hunted it down, Moz would not let me use anything other then composer for mailto: links. This I was able to fix, but it was not cool.

9. This one seems to make no sense what-so-ever but I think is my last main complaint about Moz. Last night I wanted to download a patch from fileshack. So, I started the download in Moz and noticed I was only getting 50KB/s. Normally, I get somewhere around 300. So, I fired up explorer.exe, hit fileshack, and started another download at the same time, and downloaded it very quickly at a full 300KB/s. I tried this with different sites and different downloads (inc http and ftp), and each time Moz was comming up as one slow download.

10. One last thing that relates to this article is speed. After I have moz open and have gone through a few tabs and few windows, I check mem usage and Moz is using over 40megs and is running 20-30% cpu usage. IE never did that.

So, I dont think this is the FINAL gripe about Moz, at least not from me. Ill finish out my two weeks, but I can't wait to get back to IE. I am just as anxious to try Moz again after the next big release.

PS - A cookie import would have been a good feature too.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?