×

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 1.7 Beta Is Faster And Smaller

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the working-nicely-here dept.

Mozilla 738

ccady writes "Mozilla 1.7 beta is out. Not too many new features, but "Mozilla 1.7 size and performance have improved dramatically with this release. When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size." I'll be downloading it."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

738 comments

The HATE WINDOWS Campaign Celebrates! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629748)

windows (452268) [slashdot.org] is hated by no one?!

It is your duty as a Slashdot reader to officially and formally hate windows. [slashdot.org] Slashdot is impure until windows' freaks outnumber it's fans! Strike down this vile evil corporate monster today! Show it how much you hate it. Do Slashdot a favor and bloat windows' freaks [slashdot.org] list!

Celebrate Our Success!

Our founder, users.pl [slashdot.org], has enjoyed great success in persuading brave moderators to promote our cause. Both [slashdot.org] posts [slashdot.org] were modded back to -1 in short order, but make sure you metamod our positive moderations as fair and the negative moderations as unfair! Do not let our brave supporters' efforts be shot down by windows loving Nazis!

users.pl has gained public support in other areas as well, gaining nearly unanimous moderator support in a posting [slashdot.org] promoting the benefits of open source. Waves of people have already joined our cause [slashdot.org] causing windows' freaks list to inflate rapidly. In response to our onslaught, windows has posted a frantic and angry journal entry [slashdot.org] criticizing no less than all of Slashdot for it's open source zealotry! Surely, as faithful readers of Slashdot and loving supporters of open source you will not let this blasphemy continue! Make windows your foe [slashdot.org] today! Every Slashdot account counts!

Oh no, there goes Tokyo... (5, Funny)

kentyman (568826) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629750)

Go Go Mozilla!

Re:Oh no, there goes Tokyo... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629774)

Maybe if the name was Mojira...

C'mon man, this is Slashdot! Your intimate knowledge of Japanese monster movies must go beyond the insipid surface that only uncultured Americans know of!

Re:Oh no, there goes Tokyo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629797)

I think that it's Blue Oyster Cult's "Godzilla" being referred to...

Re:Oh no, there goes Tokyo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629901)

Or even blue oyster cult songs...

Some people

Mozilla 1.6 (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629752)

Wow, I got here first using 1.6. Looks like some people will need 1.7 to get here faster next time

Re:Mozilla 1.6 (-1, Interesting)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629805)

Obligatory Poll:

Browser of choice?

MSIE [calcgames.org]
Mozilla [calcgames.org]
Opera [calcgames.org]
Netscape [calcgames.org]
Konqueror [calcgames.org]
Galeon [calcgames.org]
DA [calcgames.org]
curl [calcgames.org]
Mediapartners-Google [calcgames.org]
Avant Browser/contype/NSPlayer [calcgames.org]

Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 9.4).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 9.4).

Re:Mozilla 1.6 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629826)

could you please stop spamming /. with your polls?

Re:Mozilla 1.6 (2, Interesting)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | about 10 years ago | (#8629849)

i wouldn't consider it spamming... it's a lot easier to vote in a poll than to post a comment... i find it interesting to learn what everyone on /. (and other websites) think about certain issues, such as what browser they use. I've already learned something from this poll -- so far more people have voted mozilla than MSIE, which absolutely surprises me. I always thought it was just a vocal minority that used Mozilla, but I suppose i might be wrong. (then again maybe the ones who use mozilla got here faster than the ones who use IE)

Re:Mozilla 1.6 (-1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629871)

Mark him as foe and change your settings to make him display below your threshold.

that way the rest of us who like his polls do not have to deal with the few of you who do not

Not fair (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629809)

I got here so fast using konqueror that the server hadn't even recorded my post by the time I left.

MNG? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629753)

But does it have MNG support?

Re:MNG? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629783)

No. In fact, they had to take out PNG support to get the speed increase.

Slashdot-GO! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629754)

"Not too many new features, but "Mozilla 1.7 size and performance have improved dramatically with this release. When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size." I'll be downloading it.""

Not if we get there first.

Yeah well, (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629755)

It's still a dinosaur to me.

Mookore 2004 is faster and fatter (-1)

MooKore 2004 (737557) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629756)

Than the GNAA! FP using Konqueror you sick fucks!

Re:Mookore 2004 is faster and fatter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629790)

Oh. You failed it, dude. Face it... the Lizard is faster than Konqueror, even though KHTML is a schnazzy piece of work.

This is why I dropped Netscape (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629761)

This is why I stopped using Netscape: each version was much larger, much slower, and much less reliable.

How can something with the same kernel, and the same ancestry go the other way: Mozilla actually improves as it evolves.

On the one hand, the dodo. On the other hand, the road-runner.

Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629837)

On the one hand, the dodo. On the other hand, the road-runner.

And in a crash-hole between them, the coyote.

Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629842)

"Mozilla actually improves as it evolves."
windows user huh?

Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (3, Informative)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 10 years ago | (#8629881)

How can something with the same kernel, and the same ancestry go the other way: Mozilla actually improves as it evolves.

Mozilla is a descendant, of sorts, of the Netscape 4 browser. OTOH, it doesn't have any real inherited code--and Netscape 6 and 7 were just repackaged Mozilla that did, AFAIK, get smaller and faster with each iternation, just like Moz did.

Re:This is why I dropped Netscape (5, Informative)

vocaro (569257) | about 10 years ago | (#8629908)

How can something with the same kernel, and the same ancestry go the other way: Mozilla actually improves as it evolves.

Because it doesn't have the same kernel.

Back in 1998, when Netscape released their code, the open-source community soon realized that they would have to throw much of it away and start from scratch. By throwing out the cruft that had been building up since Netscape 1.0, the Mozilla team was able to build a better browser...eventually. (Check out this BBC article [bbc.co.uk] for a nice pre-history of Mozilla.)

yes, but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629762)

how many % faster in downloading though?

Yes, it is smaller and better (2, Insightful)

ericdano (113424) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629765)

Yes, Mozilla is developing quite nicely. It's my browser and email of choice. No more IE for me on my Windows XP system. And, of course, Mozilla runs on other systems as well, such as Mac OS X.

When was the last time IE was updated????

Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (5, Insightful)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629781)

When was the last time Mozilla had a 90%+ market share.

I use Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird too - they're my favorites. But I can't build for Mozilla. I have to build for IE. My clients use IE, the visitors use IE and that makes it the standard (even though it doesn't follow the "standards").

It's an uphill battle, I'm afraid. That said, I'll be downloading this new version ASAP.

Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (4, Insightful)

ericdano (113424) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629812)

Sad, but true. However, once one tries Mozilla, IE looks old and lame in comparison. I mean, Tabbed browsing is the best. Plus, you don't have VB tied into Mozilla like it is with IE, so, the virus issue is limited somewhat...

Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629835)

But I can't build for Mozilla. I have to build for IE.

Why can't you build for both?

Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | about 10 years ago | (#8629898)

Mozilla makes a hell of an effort to meet W3C recommendations, and support the "standards." IE, however, does not follow these nearly as well. There are a lot of things that IE support but others don't (or vice-versa).

The Mozilla Forums are full of these examples.

Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (5, Insightful)

walter_kovacs (763951) | about 10 years ago | (#8629885)

It's a never ending circle - designers who don't know anything about web standards and have only ever used IE make sites that only work in IE - people try a new browser like Mozilla, and see that their favourite sites are "broken" in the new browser (when really it's because the sites were built to work around the non-compliant IE) - so they go back to IE... That said I've found Firefox does a pretty good job of rendering most pages well.

Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (4, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | about 10 years ago | (#8629889)

I code to the standards first and then verify it looks right with both IE and Mozilla (and Opera, and Lynx, and Konquerer). If something doesn't work with both I either remove it, tweak it until it's right, or use something like XSLT to generate the proper HTML for the given browser. It's more effort but it generally results in better code all around. If it's just CSS that is the problem I just have the site choose the desired stylesheet based on the browser used or let the user choose their own stylesheet from a list.

IE's CSS support has gotten better in recent releases but it's still not on par with Mozilla's support. For most things though it seems good enough to just use standard HTML/CSS without any IEisms. IE still isn't very PNG friendly though which is an ongoing annoyance for me.

Overall though it's not really a problem to just code to the standard. Coding to IE is problematic because it's a standard that changes with each release.

Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629902)

Wrong, W3C sets the standard and their browser is the standard. You do not have to use superstandard methods like activeX to make a working webpage, so don't.
IE is not a standard, and won't be unless Microsoft buys it's way into being a standards organization.

Re:Yes, it is smaller and better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629787)

> When was the last time IE was updated????

doesnt that get daily security fixes? or is it the holes that get found daily?..i forgot

A point each way. (5, Interesting)

irokitt (663593) | about 10 years ago | (#8629850)

IE is not expected to see a major revision until Longhorn ships in 2006-2007. It is rumored that the Longhorn version will have tabbed browsing and some kind of pop-up blocking. This would probably be accomplished via the MSN toolbar, which is similar to the Google toolbar but with that *other* search engine.

But the truth is that IE has so much of the market share that revisions don't matter. People tend to use whatever came with their system, even if it is older and came with IE 5. If Microsoft didn't push the patches, quite a few people would be using these older version even now.
BTW, I'm using Firefox.

Who fucking cares (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629768)

Mozilla has a small marketshare, practically no one uses it, and finally Long Live IE!

Re:Who fucking cares (5, Insightful)

MikeCapone (693319) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629799)

Mozilla has a small marketshare, practically no one uses it, and finally Long Live IE!

True.

Intelligence also has a small marketshare...

Re:Who fucking cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629853)

You do a good job at projecting an elitist attitude. This does nothing good for the open source movement...

Re:Who fucking cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629882)

Please sir, don't feed the trolls.

Re:Who fucking cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629900)

Worst Score 5 Insightful post ever...

Re:Who fucking cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629808)

IE also has a small market share. Most of the galaxy runs Chrxylchos as their web browser. Of course you wouldn't know, but seeing as how you've never been abducted by aliens you are hardly qualified to dispute this.

Re:Who fucking cares (1)

Jexx Dragon (733193) | about 10 years ago | (#8629866)

Mozilla does have a smaller market share (actully no marketshare). So does Linux, so does OS/2 (I think people still use it), so does My Aunt's homemade soup, hell, so do trucks (at least here). That dosent mean the alternitive is better.

I won't be downloading it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629770)

I don't use the main Mozilla package anymore. Too much bloat. I'll wait until Firebird 0.9

vs. nightly download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629777)

How in sync is the "beta" with the nightly download? Which is better for helping them test?

Firefox improved? (1)

Safrax (697056) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629786)

Has firefox gotten the mozilla improvements yet?

Re:Firefox improved? (3, Informative)

yusufg (3239) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629804)

yes, firefox is nothing without the underlying Gecko engine. Shortly firefox will branch on the Mozilla 1.7 branch, it is very likely that Mozilla 1.8-1.9 will have much faster page rendering that Firefox 1.0. See bugzilla for the bugs targetted for 1.8alpha

Re:Firefox improved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629883)

"See bugzilla for the bugs targetted for 1.8alpha"

Why would anyone want to plan bugs in a release?

Re:Firefox improved? (4, Informative)

SimplexO (537908) | about 10 years ago | (#8629824)

Firefox will get the speed improvements, but since Firefox is already smaller and uses less, it won't be as significant (I think it is 3%?).

They basically rewrote the string implementation and it is "better faster stronger" than before.

So yeah, Firefox 0.9 will get a speed improvement too. (You can also grab a nightly. They have the improvements -- and more bugs.)

P.S. Also new in Mozilla 1.6 is the ability to block websites from hijacking your context menu (right click menu) in the browser. Yay!

5%? (1, Interesting)

AnonymousCowheart (646429) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629789)

5% decrease in binary size? According to Mozilla's site [mozilla.org] it says:
"Mozilla's binary size has been decreased almost 2% since Mozilla 1.6."
Is the binary size in the summary from a different version?
One thing that I'd like to see mozilla mail do, is have the address book open, like in thunderbird. I don't even use the address book in mozilla since it's such a pain. Am I just missing something?

Re:5%? (1)

Quino (613400) | about 10 years ago | (#8629845)

You're looking at the wrong release.

The page for 1.7 beta does indeed say 5% reduction in binary size.

Re:5%? (1)

thryllkill (52874) | about 10 years ago | (#8629858)

Perhaps the actuall percent in difference is different for different platforms? Maybe the webpage is using Megabytes of difference, and the poster is using kilobytes of difference... you know the whole 1MB != 1000 kb er... 1024... er which ever the hard drive manufacturers use to confuse me...

Compared to IE.... (5, Funny)

MarauderJr (201947) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629791)

The next service pack of Internet Explorer plans to have longer load times, more crashes, and open a few more exploits into a Windows system.

Modzilla keeps getting better all the time.

Actually... (0, Funny)

twoslice (457793) | about 10 years ago | (#8629873)

That should read

The next service pack of Internet Explorer plans to have 25% longer load times, 120% more crashes, and open 58% more exploits into a Windows system.

5% smaller binary size.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629792)

hm.. so it's still gigantic then..

Firefox (0, Redundant)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629794)

And Firefox [texturizer.net] is many percentage points faster than Mozilla. Many many many. And renders better. And has a cooler download manager. Oh, did I mention it's faster?

And for more fun, read your mail and news with Thunderbird [texturizer.net]. It's faster, too.

Re:Firefox (3, Informative)

yusufg (3239) | about 10 years ago | (#8629827)

How can firefox render better, it has the same rendering engine as Mozilla, are you comparing the same Mozilla version as the one which firefox is based on
e.g, Mozilla 1.6-Firefox 0.8
Mozilla 1.5-Firefox 0.7

Remeber firefox will branch soon from the 1.7 release, so far a while, Mozilla (aka Seamonkey) will have rendering fixes/speedups and Firefox won't have it till it returns back to the trunk sometime after 1.0 is released

Re:Firefox (1)

thryllkill (52874) | about 10 years ago | (#8629831)

Since firefox is based on mozilla, will these size and speed enhancments trickle down into the firefox browser?

As it is firefox is pretty fast, maybe the next version will display pages before I think to click on the links... ;o)

Re:Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629851)

However, if you use both, the combined size is bigger than Mozilla.

Re:Firefox (0)

typhoonius (611834) | about 10 years ago | (#8629884)

Mozilla with the quicklaunch on is much, much faster than Firefox. I use Firefox, but I'm curious why it doesn't have a quicklaunch feature.

Or you could use FireFox (0, Redundant)

OneNonly (55197) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629795)

If you only want a web browser - Mozilla FireFox [mozilla.org] is already *much* faster than the standard Mozilla... Fast enough to run on a Windoze box!

Re:Or you could use FireFox (1)

fhic (214533) | about 10 years ago | (#8629855)

Perhaps I spend to much time in a Windoze world, but I like having everything installable from one big honkin' exe file that I can pop onto my USB dongle. Moz, plus a couple of the essential XPIs, and I wander around dispensing open-source goodness to the multitudes! :-)

Re:Or you could use FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629899)

I use both FireFox and Mozilla.

FireFox is not much faster. In fact, with lots of tabs, it seems slower than Mozilla with lots of tabs.

The worst thing is that FireFox will crash if my machine is heavily loaded. Mozilla (or any other ap -- this isn't a hardware issue) won't.

There are some other small issues also. If I type a search term in the URL bar of Mozilla, I can hit down arrow and send it to google; that doesn't work in FireFox.

Basically, FireFox seems to me like the buggy Mozilla of 2 years ago, but faster than Mozilla was then.

Durr! (1)

rylin (688457) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629798)

what a tremendous increase!
not only is the application speed increased, but i'm seeing an increase of SEVERAL HUNDRED PER CENT in terms of download times for the new release shortly after the story hit /.! :P

My only gripe about Mozilla.... (1)

raindown (234236) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629800)

is the fact that the icons in the browser/mail client (the only things I really use) are ugly looking.. and while I know I can download themes.. they should take the icons from Firefox and Thunderbird and incorporate them.

Firefox on windows does have a couple issues with crashing on phpBB reply boxes.. which is why I use Mozilla when I'm not using linux.

All in all, go Mozilla!

Re:My only gripe about Mozilla.... (1)

walter_kovacs (763951) | about 10 years ago | (#8629904)

They should definitely improve the default theme with the phoenicity one - a lot of new users will have their first impression formed by the look and feel of the browser rahter than just the functionality. Firefox and Thunderbird look pretty slick - Mozilla just looks like a 90s Netscape throwback.

noticeable? (3, Insightful)

davids-world.com (551216) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629803)

I seriously doubt that a performance improvement 10% is even noticeable to the user. It's great that Mozilla is trying to catch up with fast browse-only alternatives like Safari, Konqueror and also the Gecko-based browsers, but you can't seriously speak of 'dramatic' improvements.

In other news... (4, Funny)

cperciva (102828) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629810)

When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Lynx is 99% faster at startup, 99% faster at window open time, has 50% faster pageloading times, and is 90% smaller in binary size.

In all seriousness, it's easy to improve figures like this just by removing features.

Re:In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629869)

Uh, what features have been removed from mozilla? With regards to lynx, I know it does run on linux, but, does it support jpg, gif, png...i could go on.....

In all seriousness, it's easy to make statements with no intellect

This is Mozilla we're talking about. (1, Troll)

Dlugar (124619) | about 10 years ago | (#8629874)

When you're talking about Mozilla, removing features could very well be a good thing.

Dlugar

Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8629811)

Why use Mozilla over firefox?

Dramatically faster?? (5, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 9 years ago | (#8629813)

The fastest speed up is not even 10%. That's about an extra 0.01 tits/second. Want more speedup than that.

Re:Dramatically faster?? (3, Insightful)

B.D.Mills (18626) | about 10 years ago | (#8629892)

This is obviously some new use of the word "dramatically" that I am not familiar with.

When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size.

It might be just you and me, but single-digit percentage increases in performance isn't "dramatic". It's more like "scarcely noticeable".

Thanks Moz Team. (3, Insightful)

pararox (706523) | about 10 years ago | (#8629818)

I'm really impressed, and very much appreciative, of the amount of effort the Mozilla team has put forth over the years. I switched to Mozilla some 4 or 5 years ago, and haven't looked back since. The rapidity of development is truly astounding -- thanks girls and guys!

That having been said, I've been dissapointed with the latest iteration of the Mozilla browser. I've found 1.6 to be rather slow (autocomplete lags, for example), bug prone and (if I'm correct) java support is still on the fritz.

I'm liable to switch over to FireFox (or whatever it's called this week), except the Preference Toolbar (on which I'm hooked like a crack addiction) still does not function in this stripped down version of the Moz browser.

Anyway, I look forward to this newest version; really, I just wanted to express, in this post, my thanks for the effort put forth by the whole Moz team.

Regards,

=pararox=

good for mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629821)

whenever i decide to give lynx a rest and look at the pretty pics online, i always use mozilla. not nearly as clunky or top-heavy as IE. if it's gotten even faster, i may just get up to the present day and use it as my main browser. :-)

Faster loading times (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 10 years ago | (#8629823)

By that I take it to mean that the parsing and rendering of pages is faster, not that there's some trickery to download data faster. Every little helps I guess though.

Help me out (1, Interesting)

Gyorg_Lavode (520114) | about 10 years ago | (#8629828)

Ok. So, mozilla was supposed to addopt the phoenix/firebird/firefox code right? Did they do that already? If so, why are the developed separately? If so, what advantage does firefox offer, or is it just a fork of the code?

Mozilla is good... (5, Insightful)

Lakedemon (761375) | about 10 years ago | (#8629832)

I just love it and tab-browsing but there is still room for improvement:
A resume feature in the download manager would be a nice start...

I was about time ... (1)

InodoroPereyra (514794) | about 10 years ago | (#8629833)

... for software projects to give actual figures when they talk about performance gains in new releases. Even though these figures are always relative, it is better than just saying "increased performance".

And also, what a good looking, clean design for the README page [mozilla.org]. Kudos !!!.

Kerberos Support (4, Informative)

CNeb96 (60366) | about 10 years ago | (#8629838)

It now support's SSO HTTP Authentication using GSSAPI Kerberos. Similiar MS's implementation of SPNEGO in IE. See bug 17578 in bugzilla for more information.

This is compatible with both IIS, and mod_authkerb for apache.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/modauthkerb/

Next the plan is to make kerberos support more general so it can be used for other protocol's like IMAP.

5% faster than 1.6, but.. (4, Insightful)

edxwelch (600979) | about 10 years ago | (#8629839)

How much faster in comparision to other releases? What I want to know is if Mozilla is progressively getting faster, or is this just to compensate for performance regressions when they went from 1.4 - 1.5, etc.

Yet... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629840)

it's still 20% slower than Firefox.

5% 8% 9%?? (2, Insightful)

greppling (601175) | about 10 years ago | (#8629841)

Oh my god. An old rule of thumb is that the user experience is noticeably better if the performance doubles. That may be an overstatement, but how on earth should 7% faster startup make a difference for daily work?

Of course, it's nice to see they are going in the right direction, but I suppose it will take me a while until I have made up for the time following the link and downloading it (not to speak of the time it cost to post this comment :P) by the increased productivity...

No diffirent then the last release (3, Interesting)

Jexx Dragon (733193) | about 10 years ago | (#8629843)

I've been using Mozilla since 0.4 or 0.5, can't quite remember which. It's always been the best, and keeps getting better (tabs anyone?). Every release gets faster, and most get smaller, though not all.

Mozilla Vs Firefox (4, Informative)

colinramsay (603167) | about 10 years ago | (#8629846)

Seeing as Firefox is getting most of the press these days it's important to realise that the full suite is still moving along nicely. They are addressing criticisms well - a redesign of the cookie manager and speed increases are reflective of the fight against bloat and complexity.

And don't forget, changes to the suite are picked up by Firefox since FF is based off the same source tree. So a lot of work here will affect the mini-moz too....

Mozilla and Firefox (1)

Maxim Kovalenko (764126) | about 10 years ago | (#8629860)

While I applaud the increase in performance on the Mozilla 1.7 beta...it seems to me to be a waste of effort. In my opinion Firefox is ready for primetime now, and according to Mozilla will be the defacto browser anyway. You already have a Porsche guys...you don't need to hand build a Camry because your bored.

All those stats... yet no memory useage counts? (3, Interesting)

WoTG (610710) | about 10 years ago | (#8629864)

Anyone know if memory use has gotten any more efficient? I still find Moz to be a bit high in memory useage. It's not a problem if when it's up and browsing, but if I flipped to another application for awhile, and Moz gets paged out to disk, the delay to switch back to Moz is a little annoying. At least on my relatively slow by today's standards, WinXP box.

On a related note, is it just me, or does Moz get paged out a LOT quicker than many other apps? Is it playing "too" nice somehow?

Mozillamatic.js (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629876)

// Mozillamaitc, get IE lusers to install Mozilla

if (navigator.appName == "Microsoft Internet Explorer")
{
alert("Warning! Internet Explorer is banned from this site")
if confirm("Would you like to install a REAL web browser?")
{
location.href=http://www.mozilla.or g
}
else {location.href=http://www.goat.cx
}
else (location.href=http://www.goat.cx
}

Re:Mozillamatic.js (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629894)

More like my-site-will-remain-obscure-amatic.

I'm using it right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629893)

Just got it. It's boner central.

Back button slow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8629896)

Why is the back button in Mozilla so slow compared to IE or Opera? Is it reloading the page from the network or something? It should be instant, loaded from the in-memory cache.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...