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!

Phoenix 0.5 Has Arrived

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the halfway-there dept.

Mozilla 346

mattrix was among the legion of readers to submit news that "Phoenix 0.5 (Naples) has been released. New stuff since 0.4 includes multiple homepages, download fixes, history, size, memory, accessibility and performance improvements and more. Get it now for Windows or GNU/Linux (i686). Background info: Phoenix is a web browser based on the Mozilla engine, but smaller and faster than Mozilla Navigator." Multi-tab startup page seems worth the upgrade to me, all else aside.

cancel ×

346 comments

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

In Soviet Russia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837228)

Phoenix arrives you.

I'm still waiting... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837230)

I'm still waiting for an Amiga port of Mozilla... ...

Re:I'm still waiting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837250)

I'm still waiting for an -amiga- fullstop.

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837232)

fp

(testing my new dsl connection)

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837245)

You failed. Ask for a refund

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837265)

I'm sorry, we do not give refunds for failure through stupidity. You should have read section 3, Paragraph 6 subsection 1 which states : NO REFUNDS FOR FAILURE OF SERVICE DUE TO EXCESSIVE STUPIDITY.

SHould you care to break your DSL connection in another manner, please ensure that it is novel and not addressed in the customer service agreement.

YOU FAILED AGAIN!

woot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837234)

Fenix Down.

Name change (4, Interesting)

Cheesy Fool (530943) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837236)

Wasn't the name supposed to be changed for this release?

Re:Name change (5, Interesting)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837354)

Well, according to their forums, last time I checked the poll was split 60/40 in keeping the name Phoenix and battling it out with Phoenix Technologies for rights to use the name.

I would guess either a) They are waiting to change the name with 0.6 -or- b) They are testing the patience of Phoenix Technologies [phoenix.com] ;)

Either way, I don't like the idiotic request from PT. It's not like these two are competing technologies. And phoenix is a generic word. What are they going to do next? Patent the word "Technologies"?

In any event. Phoenix is a straight up IE killer, and it's all that matters.

Phoenix Technologies makes a web browser (5, Insightful)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837385)

It's not like these two are competing technologies.

Actually, they are. Phoenix FirstView Connect [phoenix.com] is a stripped-down web browser. Mozilla.org Phoenix is a stripped-down web browser.

Phoenix is a straight up IE killer

And Phoenix Technologies' product is a straight up Pocket IE killer. So will be Gecko, once the Weenies [mozilla.org] reduce its footprint.

FUCK YOU ALL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837237)

fuck you you stupid bastard cock sucking twerps with lhtjd slkjf dslf;jkf jdskfl dljkf;ds; lkdlkjfdflkdf ldfjk;ld lfdsjfd ;jkdf jkdkjl fdjk kl; f d;kflj;dkj f;dk fj F^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ lfkjduijf df kjdfkjld fldjklfdljk ;fdjf kldjs lfl fjkl dl dlkflk a.......................

Re:FUCK YOU ALL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837246)

He dies and fell on his keyboard.

He will be sorelly missed.

Re:F*** YOU ALL (0, Offtopic)

oo7tushar (311912) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837249)

I'm pretty sure the Fenix down will come in handy for that.

multi tab startup (0, Offtopic)

oo7tushar (311912) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837244)

most def...I fully agree that it's a good idea.

Get it and make your life a bit easier.

Play Beep Boop and win chocolate (it's for a study) [tushar.cx]

Re:multi tab startup (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837279)

I don't care that they think they'd be competing with Chimera, there *NEEDS* to be a Mac OS X version that's keeping up with development.

On that platform we need MORE browsers, not fewer, in the hopes that ONE will actually be good: fast, stable, compatible, and feature complete.

Mozilla is feature riddled but has compatibility issues (TrekBBS.com; MS using propietary plug-in format for WMP on Mac OS) and S-L-O-W. Chimera is fast, not entirely stable, but lacking features or their poorly implemented (History, Location bar).

Re:multi tab startup (2, Insightful)

oo7tushar (311912) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837340)

what you say is one of great importance...Mozilla is slow because of varying factors and they need to be dealt with. But more importantly (as you stated) there needs to be updated versions for all OSes.

Problem being that there's a finite number of monkies that can code at a given time on a finite number of computers of which few are Macs :(

Performance improvements (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837247)

From the changelog:
"Performance improvements

0.5 is certainly our fastest release ever. You might especially notice a boost if you have a blank page (about:blank) as your homepage."

Does this mean that Phoenix renders a blank page faster than any other browser?

Re:Performance improvements (5, Funny)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837299)

"Does this mean that Phoenix renders a blank page faster than any other browser?"

On a P4 3.06GHz (with SMT enabled), Radeon 9700 pro, 1GB PC2700, 18GB Cheetah X15 15,000 RPM SCSI hard drive, the Opera browser rendered a blank page 0.00000000234 nanoseconds faster than Phoenix 0.5. I suppose this means there's room for improvement before 0.6 in the blank page rendering benchmark.

Re:Performance improvements (5, Insightful)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837304)

Yeah, it doesn't have to check with windows update first, so it can get right down to business.

Re:Performance improvements (2)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837374)

I know that you were aiming for "Funny", but in all seriousness, Phoenix is little bit behind in loadtime from IE 5.5/6.x on 2000/XP when dealing with launching the browser at first.

But given the tabbed browsing, it gains a 10-fold speed advantage over IE when time is concerned.

Once phoenix.exe shows up in the services, the loadtime beats IE. It's just the fist instance which is a bit slow. (Note that i'm not talking about page rendering time, rather than the browser loadtime set to about:mozilla for the homepage parameter)

Finally (0)

luuc (595203) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837253)

I guess the wait was due to Mozilla 1.2 coming out a little later than expected.

I use this at home and college all the time, so this is great news.

So let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837254)

Is this to say that Mozilla is already considered bloated and people are asking for a stripped-down version like Phoenix? Just goes to show there are some people you can never make happy.

Re:So let me get this straight... (2, Insightful)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837296)

I want a bolated browser when it suits me, and a stripped down "lite" version when it suits me as well. It's about choice, it's about innovation, and it's about using the product that fits your needs.
You probably won't want mozilla on an embedded device, but Phoenix will suit your needs. Plus Mozilla has been the testing ground for the coding practices, technology and design of Phoenix.
Why not have both?

Re:So let me get this straight... (5, Interesting)

thing12 (45050) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837316)

Is this to say that Mozilla is already considered bloated and people are asking for a stripped-down version like Phoenix? Just goes to show there are some people you can never make happy.

The Mozilla project's goal is not to make a browser for end users. It's essentially a technology preview. Always has been - always will be. It shows off Gecko, XUL, the portable runtime, and a few other nifty things. Phoenix is an implementation of all that technology; it shares a common codebase but there are massive changes and additions that make it a new and separate project. All this work has made Phoenix an excellent replacement for Internet Explorer on any version of Windows -- Mozilla isn't.

The one thing I wish someone would write is a XUL based file manager. Something on the order of Phoenix. That's all that needs to be added really and you could mostly leave explorer unused on a Windows box. It would be nice to be able to use the same user interface to do things on Windows/Linux/Unix/Mac/etc... Microsoft was worried about Netscape becoming the desktop, and it could still happen.

Phoenix vs Chimera (1)

everyplace (527571) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837256)

Phoenix really is a fantastic browser as they go. Very quick, and at least for me it has been quite reliable.

I still like some features of Chimera better though, for example the drawer for bookmarks, but things like the tabbed browsing and gestures extensions more than make up for it.

Re:Phoenix vs Chimera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837402)

I use chimera 100% now, but I wonder what I would do if I had a working build of phoenix. Someone did build version 4, but it crashed on startup.

I'm still hopefull that chimera uses more of cocoa's widget set. Spell check in text fields would be awesome. Also, some form of autocomplete. Finally, a search field in the toolbar for google.

Where? (4, Funny)

rutger21 (132630) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837260)

New stuff since 0.4 includes multiple homepages

So, where are Phoenix' other homepages?

Re:Where? (5, Informative)

thing12 (45050) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837273)

So, where are Phoenix' other homepages?

Tools/Preferences/General/Location(s):

You can enter the URL's separated by pipes (|). Or just click 'Use current page(s)' when you have your tab set open to the pages you want. It's way cool.

just unzipped.. (3, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837263)

..(win32) over the earlier (0.4) release.
nothing fscked up.

seems to work just as nice as before.

great job.

if somebody is still holding back.. try it, you'll be glad, especially if you like to have your browser SIMPLE & FAST.

Re:just unzipped.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837336)

but not stable, unfortunately. it continues to crash on complicated / poorly written pages for me. it would be a great browser if they could only make it more robust. as of now, kmeleon is still more useable even if it doesn't look or feel as nice.

Re:just unzipped.. (5, Insightful)

thing12 (45050) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837357)

but not stable, unfortunately. it continues to crash on complicated / poorly written pages for me

Examples? Bug Reports?

If you don't tell anyone, it will never get fixed.

Re:just unzipped.. (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837356)

If you like your browser simple and fast try Phoenix. However if you want SIMPLE and FAST then Dillo [cipsga.org.br] is the one to go for. Though perhaps not on Win32.

Re:just unzipped.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837363)

if somebody is still holding back.. try it, you'll be glad, especially if you like to have your browser SIMPLE & FAST.


I do, that is why I use IE. My home page is About:Blank and why in the world would I need multiple About:blank home pages.


Soemtimes less is more and I really wish they would stop adding useless features to web browsers. How about a webbrowser which only has forward, back, stop, refresh, address line and bookmarks.

No thanks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837264)

I think Ill wait for version .07

where are all the news items about IE & their releases?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837266)

Phoenix improves YOU!

nice browser, but still too big (5, Interesting)

g4dget (579145) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837267)

Phoenix is a nice browser. But it's still an 8.9M download for Linux. Does XUL really have that much overhead? How far can this be squeezed down?

Re:nice browser, but still too big (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837284)

Madame, I feel your pain 8.9 is way too big.

Re:nice browser, but still too big (5, Interesting)

yobbo (324595) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837346)

Yet the windows installer is about 6MB. Instead of asking about the overhead of XUL, perhaps you should ask about the overhead of linux ports?

Don't get me wrong - I don't use windows at all. But builds of mozilla and phoenix ports are consistently larger than their windows counterparts. Why?

Linux statically links GTK+ (2, Informative)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837399)

But builds of mozilla and phoenix ports are consistently larger than their windows counterparts. Why?

The Linux port of Mozilla statically links GTK+ and Glib.

Re:nice browser, but still too big (3, Informative)

zapfie (560589) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837366)

Uh, from the readme:

No, we have plenty more to trim out and we're slowly getting to it. Our current targets are 5mb for Windows and between 7 and 8mb for Linux, but these are just guesses. It's entirely possible that we'll beat those (case in point: we had previously targetted 6mb for Windows).

There is a reason they are called readmes... :)

Re:nice browser, but still too big (0)

mcbridematt (544099) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837373)

8.9 meg is due to all the Static linking. It would be smaller if you compile your own dyamic link port

Static? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837410)

I like to keep static away from my box.

But wait for Konqueror 3.1. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837269)

It is the most advanced web browser on the planet! Its a hell of a lot faster than gecko based browsers will ever be thanks to KHTML! When it finally releases with kde 3.1 (its delayed at the moment) you be typing su -c "rpm -e mozilla" from the integrated terminal.

Re:But wait for Konqueror 3.1. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837398)

Yeah, right.

Damn (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837271)

Where is the damned option for "single browser navigation"? And the cookies manager? Also, the damned drag-and-drop toolbar customizer sucks a lot (put the useragent extension there and you'll get pissed off). Why can't they have something like the so-nice javascript shell (http://www.squarefree.com/shell/)? Fuck, why all software need to have some stupidity inside? That said, it has replaced mozilla on my machine.

Galeon (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837277)

Does anyone use Galeon any more, when Phoenix does the same thing so much better? Just curious.

Re:Galeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837322)

I heard Gary Coleman and that guy that played JJ on good times still run it.

Re:Galeon (1)

neotokyo (465238) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837447)

Im still using galeon. Mainly because I like my smart-bookmarks. I have a lot of aliases for customized searching (gg - google, ebay, fm - freshmeat, rpm - rpmfind ... etc. I use 'j' and 'k' from vi to move the page up and down which in phoenix is now interpreted in their type-ahead search feature. In galeon I have a close-tab X on each tab, not at the end. On new tab creation it can insert right next to my current tab instead of at the end.

I dont know that Phoenix does anything 'so much better' more like as-good-as... at least for what I need when I browse.

If you quit using galeon, what was missing/broken ?

Hum... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837281)

Wasn't this version of Phoenix supposed to include a name change [slashdot.org] ?

Name Change? (3, Interesting)

reidbold (55120) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837282)

I though we were supposed to see the debut of the new name for .5, what gives?

Re:Name Change? (2, Informative)

Simon Lyngshede (623138) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837315)

If you read the Phoenix FAQ you'll seen that they where allowed to release 0.5 as Phoenix, because it was already planned at the time Phoenix (the BIOS people) began complaining. Name change is due for the next release.

Re:Name Change? (1)

reidbold (55120) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837331)

Ah, thanks.

This is the last Phoenix (3, Informative)

SILIZIUMM (241333) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837328)

As it's said on http://mozillazine.org/ [mozillazine.org] :


0.5 will be the last release to be called Phoenix. Version 0.6, expected in January, will have a new name. And they really mean it this time.

Re:This is the last Phoenix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837393)

And the next version will be called

    • TheBrowserFormerlyKnownAsPhoenix v0.6

And it will have a really kewl icon

Re:This is the last Phoenix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837427)

I hope the name chosen uses phonetic spelling.
The name "Phoenix" is annoying to some non-English language speakers (like myself).

Re:Name Change? (2, Informative)

mattrix2k (632351) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837338)

Basically the name change has been delayed until 0.6.

From the FAQ [mozilla.org] :
I kept hearing that you were changing the name from Phoenix to something else. What happened?

That was just a giant publicity stunt. We've observed that in the past, the open-source community has instinctively favored David when big corporations complain of trademark infringement. We wanted to cash in on this sympathy by asking the community to send us money to fight the legal battle (obviously we'd really spend it on cool stuff), but with all the taxing issues and whatnot we decided to can the idea.

Uhhhh...really?

No, not really. This isn't like an action flick where the evil madman reveals the intricacies of his plans to hostages and then leaves them alone with a bomb set to detonate in like 10 hours. When we're ripping you off, we won't explain how in the FAQ. The truth is that we'd already had this 0.5 released planned for awhile, so it was okay to release under the Phoenix name. But under no circumstances will any future release be called Phoenix.

icons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837287)

You know what's missing from Phoenix that's stopping me from replacing IE entirely on Windows XP?

Decent icons. No, seriously. Do proper (ie. a picture of a phoenix) 48x48, 32x32 and 16x16 icons for it, put them in the .exe instead of those cruddy Mozilla ones and I'll gladly use the thing. As it is, it makes my Start menu and desktop look awful.

Re:icons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837312)

Something like this? [kdelook.org]

Re:icons (3, Interesting)

thing12 (45050) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837343)

Decent icons. No, seriously. Do proper (ie. a picture of a phoenix)

They're changing the name, maybe after that happens? Maybe for the 1.0 release? Who knows when they're going to change the icon... why the hell does it matter?

But more importantly: you can use any icon you want. Make a shortcut to the Phoenix exe. Then open properties and simply click the 'Change Icon...' button and find one that suits you.

Re:icons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837412)

thank you, captain obvious, how would i ever figure out how to do really stupidly easy windows things without you?

now, for some bonus points, how do i change icons in kde? gnome? perhaps then you'd like to tell me just how the fuck i'm supposed to reorganise my programs menu in either.

what? it's harder to explain stuff in linux than windows? no shit, slashdot.

Free software for creating ICO images (3, Interesting)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837440)

you can use any icon you want. Make a shortcut to the Ph??n?x exe. Then open properties and simply click the 'Change Icon...' button and find one that suits you.

But why does this Google query [google.com] turn up a whole bunch of $20-$30 products before this GPL tool for windows and linux [winterdrache.de] ?

wow (1)

in_ur_face (177250) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837289)

just got it, downloaded before /. effect! This is excellent, by far * > current bloat ware such as IE, current Moz.

Phoenix forums, themes and extensions (5, Informative)

h2so4 (33298) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837297)

The best place to discuss Phoenix is at the Mozillazine Phoenix forums [mozillazine.org] .

Extensions are available here [texturizer.net] -- including radial context and mouse gestures.

Themes are available here [texturizer.net] and there's a beautiful page of similar-but-different themes here [freewebz.com] .

What About Scrolling? (2)

kingkade (584184) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837408)

Anybody, not have scrolling work with this release (using a laptop touchpad in win32, if that makes a difference)?

Themes... (4, Informative)

breon.halling (235909) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837302)

And don't forget to head on over to themes.mozdev.org [mozdev.org] for some tasty chrome! Orbit 3+1 is my personal favourite.

Pheonix vs Mozilla on Win32 (I prefer mozilla) (5, Interesting)

j2gEEk (467944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837307)

The reason i prefer mozilla on win32 is quicklaunch. With quicklaunch enabled in my system tray, it launches significantly quicker than even pheonix. If pheonix was quicklaunch enabled (heck, the code's already there, right?), it would be my browser of choice on w32. Until then, I'll stick with the "big mo".

Jake

Re:Pheonix vs Mozilla on Win32 (I prefer mozilla) (2)

bencc99 (100555) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837318)

The reason i prefer mozilla on win32 is quicklaunch

That's my major reason for preferring mozilla too. The other personal gripe is mozillas ctrl-enter in the addressbar for opening a site in a new tab has been removed from phoenix since 0.4.

Re:Pheonix vs Mozilla on Win32 (I prefer mozilla) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837339)

what you need quicklaunch when phoenix starts as fast as(quicklaunched/sort of, rite?) internet explorer, or anything else?

(i can't imagine using quicklaunch on any system that was slow enough for the load time of phoenix to matter)

Open New Tab (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837344)

The other personal gripe is mozillas ctrl-enter in the addressbar for opening a site in a new tab has been removed from phoenix since 0.4.

You can do the same thing with alt-enter in Phoenix.

Re:Pheonix vs Mozilla on Win32 (I prefer mozilla) (4, Interesting)

JanneM (7445) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837347)

This is not intended as a flame or anything, but what is the point of quicklaunch, really? I realize it must be important in Win32, as so many people are talking about it. I mean, I start things like Phoenix and Evolution, and then have them running continuously, until I need to reboot or restart phoenix due to a memory leak or something - it's usually running for weeks at a time.

My guess is that the work pattern is different on a Win32 desktop, and that you normally start an app, use it, then close it before you start another. Is it due to the lack of virtual desktops, or some other UI-related issue? I would not think it's resources, as Windows should swap out unused apps just like other OS:s.

Re:Pheonix vs Mozilla on Win32 (I prefer mozilla) (1)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837371)

Internet Explorer is an integrated part of the desktop, therefore it is inherently faster than any other programs. It does the same thing with less work. Mozilla overcame the slow loading times by loading the heavy-duty parts into memory, so it doesn't have to load everything at the first invocation of the program..

It's not just you. (2)

eddy (18759) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837386)

The work pattern needn't be any different on Win32. I don't get this fixation with startup times either. My preference is Opera, and I usually start it once per boot. Then I have it running.

The nice thing about Opera though, is should I decide to shut it down, it will come up -- when I run it the next time -- in the exact same status as when I shut it down, including positioning inside documents. Can moz/phoenix do that yet? That's a pretty important feature to me.

Also, there's no lack of virtual desktops, should one want them. They're even included in the nVidia graphics drivers nowadays, so there's a nontrivial amount of people who _could_ use virtual desktops on Win32 without the need to switch "explorer" or install any extra software whatsoever.

Re:Pheonix vs Mozilla on Win32 (I prefer mozilla) (4, Interesting)

thing12 (45050) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837429)

This is not intended as a flame or anything, but what is the point of quicklaunch, really? I realize it must be important in Win32, as so many people are talking about it. I mean, I start things like Phoenix and Evolution, and then have them running continuously, until I need to reboot or restart phoenix due to a memory leak or something - it's usually running for weeks at a time.

Yep, exactly... people are whining because Mozilla doesn't start as fast as IE because its binary is 2x the size and actually takes much longer to be loaded off disk. Quicklaunch just adds that same amount of delay to the startup time after you log into your computer by preloading the massive binary. Phoenix on the other hand seems to take about as long to load the first time from a cold boot as IE does. And if you already have pheonix loaded it takes steps to speed it up even more and spawns a new thread from the existing browser.

My guess is that the work pattern is different on a Win32 desktop, and that you normally start an app, use it, then close it before you start another. Is it due to the lack of virtual desktops, or some other UI-related issue? I would not think it's resources, as Windows should swap out unused apps just like other OS:s.

My guess is that you're right about the work pattern. In older versions of windows resource handling was so poor that it seemed common to close apps when you weren't using them - of course this is all fixed now - but here's the rub: with quicklaunch enabled you aren't even conserving resources by closing Mozilla! Also worth noting is that virtual desktops are available as a powertoy for XP... but again the work pattern issue rises - people don't know how to use a modern system effectively.

Who knows, maybe people will wise up eventually.

Differences from K-Meleon Browser? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837308)



Could someone enlighten me to any differences between this broskwer and The K Meleon [sourceforge.net] Browser? I have been using the latter a lot recently and am wondering why phoenix gets so much more press..

Re:Differences from K-Meleon Browser? (5, Interesting)

C14L (622656) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837391)

and am wondering why phoenix gets so much more press.

IIRC KM was almost dead for quite a time. Both browsers are more or less the same. Phoenix uses XUL for its interface, KM doesn't. KM uses its own scripting that is very easy to do, so KM becomes easily costumizable by everybody. I use Phoenix now, because KM repeatedly crashed, and it corrupted also my bookmarks-file (especially letters like ä, ö, ü, etc and arabic or chinese characters were rendered unreadable (I use one bookmark-file for all browsers).

Bah! (-1, Troll)

mehfu (451236) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837309)

This is lukewarm news. I submitted this story before I went to bed last night, and it was rejected. By now it's old.

I can't see a reason for more than two start pages, could someone enlighten me?

--

Re:Bah! (1)

reidbold (55120) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837323)

Sure, when I open up my trusty browser i see this [newnoise.ca] . So now I get the ability to have the browser open up to all of those pages automatically, instead of me having to go and middle click on all of 'em.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837326)

If you were a troll, when you start up you can have slashdot on one page, and have a page filled with goatse.cx links ready to cut and paste with! But trolls would rather struggle with single paned IE!

Re:Bah! (0, Offtopic)

vasah20 (530238) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837372)

I can't see a reason for more than two start pages, could someone enlighten me?

Easy - it's efficiency. We're talking about twice the porn at half the cost.

Wait... if you factor in the /. effect... and if my math is correct...

[buys stock in Jergens hand lotion]

I'M GONNA MAKE MILLIONS!!!

Clean up the skins mess for christ sake (4, Insightful)

joshv (13017) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837310)

I wish the mozilla team would clean up the skins mess . I downloaded 1.2 recently and couldn't get a single downloaded skin to work. The same happened when I last downloaded phoenix a few weeks ago. I though the idea behind the 1.x release was to stabilize the APIs. If so, why is it so damned hard to have skins that work across multiple releases?

-josh

Best Browser (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837311)

I absolutly LOVE Phoenix and have turned on most of my friends and family to it. At first it was just the pop-up blocking, but then I noticed a bunch of little things. The way tabs open in the background was counter-intuitive at first, but I couldn't go back now. Sites with flash just display a message in the page that allows me to download flash if I want, they don't jump up and harrass me. It's the little stuff like that that open source software has that propriatary software doesn't. Thank you Phoenix team!

Mike

You mean Linux. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837313)

Only fags call it GNU/Linux.

It's not faster than Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837324)

I've been using (and building) Mozilla and Phoenix for some time, and they're absolutely the same speed at rendering pages for me. That makes a lot of sense since Moz and Ph are built from the same source. I don't understand how people can say that phoenix is so much faster. I suspect it's all placebo effect.

What's Mozilla On? (5, Funny)

Lu Xun (615093) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837325)

With the steady increase in computer power (led by the Moore company I believe) and larger disk drive space, why does anyone need a SMALLER browser? I had to upgrade my memory when I bought WinXP - that's how I knew it was better than the OLD windows. I think Mozilla should concentrate on their browser better, like making the GUI translucent, including the latest version of Flash, and packaging those handy (and FREE!) software packages that speed up your internet connection. For myself, I'll stick with IE - the browser that gets BIGGER all the time, and therefore BETTER.

(remove tongue from cheek)

Re:What's Mozilla On? (2)

jeti (105266) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837358)

Well - there's more than PCs out there.
Embedded systems are getting powerful
enough to run something like Phoenix.

Re:What's Mozilla On? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837416)

ALso why do people hate ads so much? They are showing me products that *I* want to *BUY*. Plus my computer can handle way more ads than before because of the added power. If you got it, why not flaunt it? That's what I say, anyway

Re:What's Mozilla On? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837423)

Moore's Law is broken on my systems. My computers' power and harddrive sizes remain constant. Please tell me where to get the patch to fix in on my machines as I couldn't find it on google.

Re:What's Mozilla On? (1)

Kircle (564389) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837433)

I believe you are referring to Nathan's First Law: Software is a gas; it expands to fill its container. So in the future, you should expect Notepad to expand to require 1GB of RAM. Stop complaining and be happy. It's only going to get better and better! :)

Anti-Aliased Fonts for Phoenix on Linux/i386 (5, Informative)

pryan (169593) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837333)

If you want to use anti-aliased fonts with Phoenix 0.5 on Linux for x86, you can grab pre-built Xft-enabled binaries.

Xft Enabled RPMs and tarballs [ragweed.net] built under RedHat 8.

Xft Enabled tarball [mspencer.net] built under Debian unstable.

If you aren't running RedHat 8 or Debian unstable, then you may have to do some work to get these pre-built binaries to run.

I am running the Debian unstable Xft-enabled Phoenix 0.5 binary. It works just fine, and looks ever so good.

Other Debian packages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837448)

Are there other 'normal' phoenix debian packages available somewhere? I looked under unstable, and they weren't there. I'm running a mostly 'testing'-branch system, and would prefer to run a mostly standard-version of phoenix without mucking around with xft stuff.

So if you know who's hosting debs for phoenix, please lemme know. thanks.

Zoom level problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837361)

Is the zoom level problem already solved?

Hit "CRTL -" for about seven times and you will see the mess.

what does phoenix look like? (2)

fferreres (525414) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837364)

Never been able to see a screenshot, ok i am curious and still happy with galeon. But i'd like to see if it will please my eyes or not in case i give it a shot.

Re:what does phoenix look like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837417)

Screenshot! [fsc-pc.de]

Re:what does phoenix look like? (2, Informative)

jdkincad (576359) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837436)

OK. Here [mtu.edu] is a shot of 0.4 with bookmarks toolbar as it looks out of the box.

Re:what does phoenix look like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837439)

It can look like anything you want :-) see the themes page:

http://texturizer.net/phoenix/themes.html

Startup is definitely faster (1)

Runny (613231) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837394)

There is a very noticeable improvement in the startup time (I use a blank home page). The startup time is the primary reason that I just haven't yet been able to give up IE for simple, single-page browsing, but this release may make it worthwhile to finally cross over.

Importing bookmarks. (1)

shakey_deal (602291) | more than 11 years ago | (#4837418)

Phoenix is nice but since it cannot import opera bookmarks, what good is it to me? To steal marketshare from other browsers it should be able to import more than IE bookmarks.

Yankee-centric yet again :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4837451)

Phoenix 0.5 for Windows fucks about with your printer paper size, completely ignoring your default settings, and reverting to the "Letter" paper size every time it is invoked. That is totally crap if you're a European using something like a LaserJet 4V, which requires manual intervention when the wrong paper size is sent to it. We had this crap with earlier editions of Mozilla, too, so there's no excuse. Phoenix 0.4 worked fine.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?