Weekend Discussion

Friday June 30th, 2000

The weekend discussion returns, with a simple question:

What's your impression of Mozilla's status at this point? Progressing nicely? Faltering? Are you using Mozilla? If not, what needs to be changed before you start using it full time? Try to be specific, and offer constructive criticism and advice. It would be nice if the Mozilla developers could gather some useful information from the discussion. If you haven't tried out a recent nightly build, take one for a spin before you comment.

#1 What Mozilla needs...

by exis

Friday June 30th, 2000 8:44 AM

I'm planning on using it full-time once email filters are fully implemented and working. Also... as someone who does web design on a regular basis, it'd be nice to have 8-bit .png alpha implemented on Windoze by the next milestone.

- Bart

#32 Re: What Mozilla needs...

by brista

Friday June 30th, 2000 3:51 PM

exis, have you sent in an enhancement bug report form at Mozilla for the 8-Bit Alpha PNG Support. That's how it will get done easiest.

#33 Re: What Mozilla needs...

by brista

Friday June 30th, 2000 3:52 PM

exis, have you sent in an enhancement bug report form at Mozilla for the 8-Bit Alpha PNG Support. That's how it will get done easiest.

#51 Re: Re: What Mozilla needs...

by exis

Saturday July 1st, 2000 1:14 AM

Oh, it's already in there and being worked on. No point submitting it again.


#2 it's okay

by mattdm

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:04 AM

I've been building Mozilla daily (on Linux) for a while now. I usually build it first thing in the morning, and use it until it does something too annoying, and then I switch back to Navigator. This usually takes about an hour.

Mozilla generally works well, but the overall feel is still not solid. And it's still noticably slower than Navigator (even with debug of and optimizations on.)

And hey, here's a bug right now -- I'm typing at the end of this text box, and what I type is invisible to me until the line scrolls, at which point it appears. So please pardon any typos. :)

#3 Maximize windows

by phil

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:06 AM

I'd like there to be an option to have Mozilla windows behave like 4.x did. This is where, if you maximize a window, all windows from then on are maximized. And when you close and reopen it's maximized.

I tend to open a lot of windows, and it's annoying to have to keep maximizing them, or when the new window is the size of the screen but a. not maximized b. cascaded off the screen.

I think that if this was implemented it would ease my transition to Mozilla full-time :)

#13 Re: Maximize windows

by sidr

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:28 AM

Mozilla should start remembering window state somwehere around Milestone 21 - see bug 20847

#61 Vote for bug 20847

by dave532

Saturday July 1st, 2000 10:18 AM

Hopefully we'll be able to get this fixed sooner if we all vote for bug 20847, this bug needs fixing because it affects usability for those people who often browse with maximised windows.

#4 XSLT, XLink and maybe SVG

by msergeant

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:08 AM

Mozilla needs to get XSLT into the next milestone, and definitely into Netscape's public release. I was at XML DevCon this week (I gave a couple of talks there), and an awful lot of people are asking when mozilla is going to get XSLT support (I gave my presentations on Mozilla - I think I was the only one doing that).

So definitely XSLT support - its really vital to be able to compete with MSIE on this level (and when I say compete, I really just mean to be able to offer the same content to both MSIE and Mozilla - and yes I'm well aware of the MSIE XSLT problems).

SVG is just a nice-to-have. I'm sure it will be available as a plugin very quickly anyway (Adobe's Netscape plugin doesn't work AFAIK). I'd like to be able to do my presentations in SVG rather than HTML because it scales so much better (you never know what resolution the conference's projectors are going to be able to cope with).

Having said all that, I'm using Mozilla every day now. But the developers I know (Hard core XML developers) want to see XSLT badly. I'd also like to see XLink as its an incredibly cool technology (although not a w3c recommendation yet).

#75 Re: XSLT, XLink and maybe SVG

by jab

Saturday July 1st, 2000 6:00 PM

On the SVG front, the Adobe SVG plugin works fine on recent builds. There is work being done on the internal SVG support, but it's a substantial project.

#109 Re: XSLT, XLink and maybe SVG

by pirat

Monday July 3rd, 2000 10:56 PM

XSLT > exactly the same for "XML Europe 2000" three weeks ago.

#5 UI a piecs of crap

by petejc

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:15 AM

Sorry guys, the UI is still a total piece of crap. The xp widgets suck. It is all like a flimsy toy. I can't take it seriously as a professional application. If i load in the preferences panel, it shouldn't take like three seconds for the right panel to appear. If i click on the urlbar it shouldn't take 3 seconds for it to focus.

There is way to much unnescessary css being loaded into each component. The xul source looks like one big sloppy disorganized mess. The UI seems to be getting worse not better.

Posted with 4.x so i can read what i am typing.

This post is just a little tough love. ;-)


#40 Re: UI a piecs of crap

by markpeak

Friday June 30th, 2000 8:05 PM

>There is way to much unnescessary css >being loaded into each component. The >xul source > looks like one big sloppy disorganized >mess. The UI seems to be getting worse >not better.

absolutely agree with you. the way to config UI must easy as WinAmp Skin or X-Window Manager Skin.

#43 Re: UI a piecs of crap

by Ben_Goodger

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:41 PM

"There is way to much unnescessary css being loaded into each component. The xul source looks like one big sloppy disorganized mess. The UI seems to be getting worse not better."

Given the changes made in the past few months to the front end these claims surprise me. I figured our implementation is slowly getting better.

Please file any specific issues you find with code implementation in the FE against either me ( and I'll either fix it if it's a valid complaint or forward to the correct owner.

Also note that our FE *is* complex code-wise, but that's because we're building a suite of applications.

#66 Re: Re: UI a piecs of crap

by petejc

Saturday July 1st, 2000 2:08 PM

"Given the changes made in the past few months to the front end these claims surprise me. I figured our implementation is slowly getting better. "

Don't get me wrong Ben. It is and it isn't. Your work has greatly improved the UI. However, nothing is currently on a pro level and at this point, it should be. It is sloppy, nonconforming (in a bad way) and toyish. This is *not* because of xpfe and xptoolkit. It in my opinion is a matter of not taking things to the level of high detail needed for a serious professional looking/feeling application. I am speaking holistically about the UI. It is a common sense observation. If i have to report a bug about this, then that's a problem. It means that there is something wrong on the perception level.

Mozilla can be so much more. I am just pushing to see the excellence the UI deserves.


#69 Re: Re: Re: UI a piecs of crap

by Ben_Goodger

Saturday July 1st, 2000 4:58 PM

I wasn't referring so much to your UI critiques as to your technical ones. I am aware that there are flaws in various aspects of the UI of our FE. UI is a much more abstract issue than "this code is bad" and requires a lot more attention. To make dealing with these issues easier, several of us have been rationalising our FE code over the past few months (the initiative is starting to ramp up now). One of the first things we did was to eliminate duplicate style sheet loading and optimise style rules in performance critical situations. I'd be most interested to know if dupe CSS loading has crept back in, or where more bad style rules exist. These are the bugs I want filed.

#70 Re: Re: UI a piecs of crap

by wolfseyn

Saturday July 1st, 2000 5:09 PM

I think the UI looks great. It has improved a lot and has gotten better with age. I can't see how anyone can find it getting worse. However, I can see how someone would think it is too, umm, 'fun'. I think the Classic skin will help with this, but I think some people are hoping for a brand new Mozilla-exclusive skin. Well, what are they waiting for? Make your own!

Posted with Mozilla build 2000062608

#96 Re: UI a piecs of crap

by jonde

Monday July 3rd, 2000 1:31 AM

I agree with you 100%. Somehow it feels kinda stupid to re-make widgets like scrollbars, as they're already done and work much better than XP. If this all would 'work', it would be great, as skins could use their own scrollbars. Or do the skins need to dig so deep in the UI? Still Mozilla is great thing, but Netscape PR1 gives really bad impression to people IMHO. Mozilla could be much more professional, and if it wants to succeed it's necessary that everything works VERY well. I really like Mozilla, but there are lots of little things, that keep me turning to 4.x. It's a good, promising, pre-beta-application that I'd use, if it would work.

#6 Hombanking still impossible

by tri

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:30 AM

I'll use Mozilla, as soon I can do all I do with Netscape.

Until now, I wasn't able to do homebanking with Mozilla at It was impossible to install the needed plugin. Two weeks ago, they changed the layout of the homepage. Now, I can't get the menu-bar on the left :(

I think, Mozilla will be a good thing in near future


#7 very good so far

by PhiSch

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:34 AM

hi all, i download the nightly builds ever night. I realy love them and use them almost for my everyday surfing. What I dislike most is the PopUp Window that comes up when there is a form on a website where i have entered multible Usernames. I like it the way IE does (drop down menue) or maybe have a menue coming up in the Taskbar. I also don't like the "onMouseOverEffect" on buttons and other form fields. Rendering seems to be OK so far, but sometimes the page flashes (i think Mozilla renders it a few times). Mozlla still has problems with some websites i visit frequently (InternetWorld: MSN: All in all, rendering could be a bit faster. Oh, and cache is still not working well - it looks like Mozilla loads the page again when i hit the back button.

All in all, good job!

I still like Mozilla.


#8 Thoughts on the browser...

by cyd

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:46 AM

I've been using the nightly builds of Mozilla for the past few months, since the M15 milestone. It's progressed very well since then.

The M16 release was very impressive. For the first time, most of the basic elements that make a usable web browser were present. Mozilla loaded up within a reasonable amount of time (more quickly than Netscape, in fact.) Scrolling was smooth. Most importantly, html was rendered *very* quickly. IMHO, Netscape ought to have waited for M16 for its preview release :-)

The two main complaints I had were its frequent segfaulting and the broken ftp. The M17 nightlies have gone a long way toward fixing both problems. Stability, while not perfect, has made great improvements in a short period of time - kudos to the developers for this. Ftp is finally useable, despite some remaining hiccups.

There are still a number of rough edges - most glaringly, setting preferences and browsing the filesystem. I'd mildly surprised that these UI-related bugs have survived for so long.

The main concern I have with M17 is that the speed has deteriorated - webpages take a *significantly* longer time to load than in M16. Has anyone else come across this?

Still, things are falling into place very nicely. It's not merely usable now - it's actually a viable browser, and becoming better by the day. Can't wait for 1.0.

Hopefully, someone will eventually hack out a scaled-down, Opera-like version of the Mozilla browser. Now that would be sweet :-)

#9 Re: Thoughts on the browser...

by johnlar

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:54 AM

Well, generally they way a milestone works is when the milestone tree opens that have a few weeks to throw in all the code and bugfix it. Then it closes for new code and they work on restabilizing it and fixing the bugs. Untill its as/more stable and fast than the previous milestone, even with new features. Then they release, and start a new tree:)

#10 optimistic on Linux

by edstrom

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:06 AM

Its looking pretty good. Progress has been pretty rapid over the past few months, from M10 onward. The core works reliably for what I do and its a lot faster than it was. Still slow, but its been catching up.

My one unfullfilled desire at this point is a functional Java component.

#11 Ying and Yang

by lobotomy42

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:27 AM

I'm sort of split down the middle on Mozilla at this point. On the one hand, there are a lot of way cool things about Mozilla - like the fact that it can do all this fancy CSS,XML,Whatever-Fancy-Language-You-Can-Think-Of-ML stuff that totally runs circles around gen 4 browsers and even surpasses IE5 in places. Also, I've seen a lot of great ideas here, like the way the interface is *totally* customizable (not easily, but still doable) and the searchy-sidebar panel thingy which lets me get multiple results from various engines (although more variety would be nice.)

BUt on the other hand, it still has some very basic problems that prevent me from relying on it totally...Like the aforementioned absence of Java, plus the fact that it still sin't too terribly stable and has totally random bugs everynn now and then, like the fact that I can't really see what I'm typing right now. A list of things I would like to see before this browser is finished would be: - Java(The plugin tends to go haywire somtimes) support & XSL support - More stability & speed - A lot of bugs fixed. - Maybe an autocomplete feature like IE5, but that's of a slightly lower priority


by DLPierson

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:28 AM

I've been playing with Mozilla for a few milestones (and nightlys) now and am starting to use it (6/29) as my main browser on Linux.

Unfortunately my main work is still on Windows for a couple of months. The main problem with my switching from IE5 to Mozilla there is lack of information on how to convert my very large set of bookmarks over (I'm managing them with Compass now, which supports conversion to Netscape, but that seems to be different). I'd also like to figure out how to blow away the blasted set of default bookmarks and never see them again as I try out new milestones and nightlys.

I'm sure I could figure out all of this given enough time, but I just don't have that right now.

#37 Re: Bookmarks

by baffoni

Friday June 30th, 2000 6:38 PM

I've heard of software called "bookmark converter" - doing a search, I found it at - it should be able to convert your IE favorites to Netscape Bookmarks, then you can import them into Mozilla.

#44 Converting to mozilla

by johnlar

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:15 PM

Well, you said you can convert your bookmarks to Netscape using "Compass", in that case all you have to do is run the mozilla profile manager and select the old profile and it will convert everything for you.

#14 I try to use it...

by basic

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:29 AM

Well I try to use Mozilla. Really! I do. Sometimes do some bug verifying too. But the thing is that most of the time I only have access to a win98 with 32MB of RAM. Mozilla crawls like a turtle rather than a lizard on this machine. How much faster can Mozilla get (I don't really mind the slow loading time)? If the overall performance and memory footprint will improve to at least NS4.x level I'd use it as my main browser.

#15 Standards support rocks.

by andrewmeier

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:49 AM

I'm clad to see my pages render the way says they should render when using Mozilla.

I use Mozilla on and off depending on how annoying any particular day's build is.

Some issues I really would love to have resolved:

SEGFAULT on large PNG files...sux

UI slow and buggy. My custom CSS for mozilla make the UI fly and behave properly. The default CSS for the interface needs a ton of cleanup.

The back button goes to the previous URL rather than the previous browser state. That is not a problem for HTML but using Mozilla on CGI's sux when you want to hit the back button to go to the previous state of the CGI.

Reload page does not reload images. Reloading the URL of an image does not reload the image. Clearing the cache and reloading the image will not reload the image. For site developers it would be nice to have mozilla reload images so we can see the changes made.

Documentation. I tried to add the drop shadow effect for CSS and couldn't decipher where to make the changes in the code. Is there a flow chart or outline of how Mozilla works and what each source file does??

Mozilla is going to rock the web. Let's get this baby to 1.0!

#23 Image Caching

by abram

Friday June 30th, 2000 1:13 PM

Let me tell you that the "always use images from cache" feature described above is very frustrating. This is me working on page design in Mozilla:

Edit image. Save image. Exit Mozilla. rm -r ~/.mozilla. restart Mozilla. Go back to the page. Repeat as neccessary.

So I would just love to see that bug fixed.


#121 fix will be in soon

by doron

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 1:57 AM

the image cache issue is very known, and the imagelib people are working on it. "Clearing the cache and reloading the image will not reload the image."

not true, it works for me.clearing cache will cause mozilla to reload all the html and the images

fyi, the frame back/forwad issue is fixed, the code will be activiated in the next few days

#133 Thanks for the info.

by andrewmeier

Friday July 7th, 2000 11:18 AM

It's great to know that the back/forward issues may be working soon and the caching bugs are being worked on.

I know it loks like there more complaints than good things being said about mozilla but thats only because mozilla will be the first browser that doesn't suck. The community just wants to see it done right. I for one wish I had more time to contribute rather than just point out shortcomings.

(I am finally starting to groc mozilla's code tree -- I think I'll be able to add CSS dropshadows. Now I just need to figure out how to submit a patch.)

#16 Slow and leaky

by hymie

Friday June 30th, 2000 11:00 AM

I try to use Mozilla under Linux, downloading the nightly builds every once in a while. I find its feel to be noticeably slower than Netscape. The preferences interface is slow and ugly, and I'm not convinced that the preferences are always saved. And worst of all, it leaks memory like a sieve. I run lavaps, and watch the blobs representing Mozilla grow larger and larger until I finally have to kill the program off to avoid using up all memory (although this isn't much different from Netscape itself).

#17 Editor

by briank

Friday June 30th, 2000 11:08 AM

I'd like to hear people's views on and ideas for the Editor. Is it usable for you? What features do you like / dislike? Would you use it as a basis for your own editing application? Let me know -Brian

#29 Re: Editor

by VanL

Friday June 30th, 2000 3:19 PM

I have 2 1/2 problems with the editor:

1. It erases your javascript in the head. A header like this ( substituting - for angle brackets):

-html- -head- -title- Mypage -/title- -script language="javascript"-

some javascript here function foo function bar function baz

-/script- -/head- -body- ...etc

Turns out like this after you save it:

-html- -head- -title- Mypage -/title- -script language="javascript"- -/script- -/head- -body- ...etc

2. It unformats your html so that it is mostly in a big block. It should at least leave existing formatting. I wouldn't mind seeing it go the other way, tho -- a format button in mozilla that would nicely format and indent your html.

2.5 This is related to 2. It also makes your document absolutely HTML 4.0 compliant, even if it wasn't so originally. This includes closing all -img- tags, adding -tbody- tags, etc. Once again, I like having nice, compliant html, but once in a while you should have the option to write below the spec.

#41 Re: Editor

by markpeak

Friday June 30th, 2000 8:30 PM

I want Sidebar in Editor that can show the property of object that I insert in the page (link, image and more). Like PhotoShop that have Layer Window or Tools Window for the tools property.

another are Frame Editor and Form.

#18 very good but improvable

by NikoP

Friday June 30th, 2000 11:14 AM

I've been trying Mozilla for a few months, M11 the first time, since M13 regularly. The progress was very rapid until now. You can use it to browse every day with it. It is my standard-browser, but for some pages like I can't use it. But most this is a script-problem which sees: a NS browser 4.x or higher and then there are layers used. A few things are ugly: - back/forward in frames (but I heard that it'll soon be soluted :-) - no "File Bookmark..." (but there'll also be a fix in near future) - the performance loading images, loading the browser itself and its components!

#19 Speed

by dave_e

Friday June 30th, 2000 11:27 AM

Mozilla may be as fast or faster than 4.x when you're using a dual PII with half a gig of ram, it isn't however when you're still on a k6-200 with 64mb. It would be nice if more bug crunching time was put towards the speed and optimisation bugs.

#38 Re: Speed

by wolfseyn

Friday June 30th, 2000 6:41 PM

I agree. I've got 128 megs of ram with an Athlon 500 and it is very easy to forget how slow Mozilla really is. I would think, getting closer to nsbeta2 it would be much faster than it is.

Anyone got some spare 486sx's? we could give 'em to every bugzilla member to test with, maybe then we'd see some improvment!

#52 486

by basic

Saturday July 1st, 2000 2:18 AM

I don't think that is nessasary. All you need is to limit RAM to about 32 MB max and a Pentium/Cyrix/K6/Winchip CPU. If that is not "slow" enough, try 16 MB.


... if it still runs too fast try running Mozilla in the background ... :-Þ

#20 Here's my list

by sremick

Friday June 30th, 2000 12:32 PM

Ok here's my list of issues with Mozilla that keep me from using it 100%. I've been dying to get these off my chest:

1) Bookmark system hardly works (folders simply don't) 2) Mozilla hangs randomly (not a crash) and I have to end task 3) UI is slow as death 4) Bugs with forms 5) Bugs with Javascript 6) Obscene memory footprint (30-50MB) 7) PSM won't remember settings, so I always get those pop-up windows warning me about this and that. 8) Conflict with McAfee VirusScan that occurs a few times a day, forcing me to end task on Mozilla. 9) Having Mozilla running occasionally locks up other programs, which are released as soon as you close Mozilla. 10) Scrolling w/ wheel mouse sometimes causes Mozilla to continue scrolling in that direction (even though you've stopped turning the wheel), until it hits the top/bottom of the page. It's as if it gets "stuck". And scrolling is just slow as death anyways.

I do not use Mozilla for mail, news, or HTML editing. Nor will I be using it for IRC, instant messenging, tying my shoes, or making coffee.

[Posted w/ 4.72 so I can see what I'm typing]

#21 Wow, volatile subject this one

by Kovu

Friday June 30th, 2000 12:34 PM

I think Moz is going strong. I think indeed that it's the most successful open source effort since Linux.

#30 Re: Wow, volatile subject this one

by gwalla

Friday June 30th, 2000 3:37 PM

Most successful open source effort since Linux? I don't know about that...I think a case could be made for Apache. Or the Perl interpreter. Both are widely used (Apache especially...IIRC the majority of websites are served by Apache), and both have large developer bases.

Mozilla is small potatoes compared to these projects.

If you meant to say "will become the most successful open source effort since Linux", it's hard to tell at this point, but here's hoping!

#22 Stability and Release.

by jelwell

Friday June 30th, 2000 12:43 PM

All I want to see is Stability and a Release. I could care less about alpha png transparency, XSLT, and all these features that everyone wants. Get a stable browser, with a decent gecko engine - release that, and *then* add all these other doodads. I remember when .x series was released, jpg support! wow. We've got support for so much built into mozilla, let's push it out the door in a stable, usable fashion. Let's kill redesign of implementations - Can you say massive regressions due to the tree widget redesign, or any other redesign? I knew you could.

I'm all for something that works good enough that I can install it on my Mother's computer. She's not going to miss alpha transparancy support if it doesn't make it into the first cut. Joseph Elwell. A Bitter Old Man.

#28 The truth about redesigns.

by FrodoB

Friday June 30th, 2000 3:01 PM

Typically, the only times redesigns of implementations are done is when the old implementation is shoddy or a performance bottleneck. They don't redesign just for the sake of redesigning. :)

#36 Re: The truth about redesigns.

by petejc

Friday June 30th, 2000 6:26 PM

lingering for a bit too long. I hope we are over the design and architecture last hurtle and can start moving towards stability quickly and decisively. This technology is to awesome to let it be kept under hood for much longer.


#24 Mozilla Progress

by George

Friday June 30th, 2000 2:42 PM

Hi, i've been using mozilla since M14, but haven't used an M17 nightly so far. So, far these are my comments on the Linux version. 1)Speed. I know it's already been said, but filesystem browsing and Preferences are terrible. 2)Bookmarks. I hear this is being worked on though. 3)History. Alright, but any chance of an IE style one? As a sidebar option possibly? 4) Will the editor ever do frames? I'd like it to be my only editor, and thats alll thats missing. Thats it really, and roll on M17!

#25 Problems

by davidecsdcom

Friday June 30th, 2000 2:46 PM

The most glaring problems with Mozilla is a) the lack of Java on Linux and b) the lack of mail filters. I think I'm one of the few out there who actually liked the mail client on NS 4.X and the fact that I can't filter out the four mailing lists I'm on to their respective mail folders is a killer.

#26 Re: Problems

by davidecsdcom

Friday June 30th, 2000 2:48 PM

I say this 'cause I really, REALLY want to be able to punch the monkey...

#27 3 Basic Items - or Why I Don't Use Mozilla

by crfrey

Friday June 30th, 2000 2:56 PM

1. Roaming Profiles. I use computers in 3 different locations a day and I want my preferences, bookmarks etc.

2. Strong Crypto. SSL for protecting credit card data and S/MIME for encrypted e-mail.

3. LDAP. LDAP-based addressing as in 4.7+.

Until these features are there IE will kick Mozilla's ass up and down the street on Windows and I'm stuck with 4.7 on UNIX.

Why release a 1.0 if it doesn't support half the features from the 4.x?

#34 Re: 3 Basic Items - or Why I Don't Use Mozilla

by brista

Friday June 30th, 2000 4:02 PM

You're claims aren't entirely accurate. SSL is a doable thing by installing the PSM 1.1 from IPlanet (Sun-Netscape Alliance). This gets you the SSL you want. It's also a short download on 56K Dialup.

#39 Re: Re: 3 Basic Items - or Why I Don't Use Mozilla

by crfrey

Friday June 30th, 2000 7:01 PM

I am aware of the PSM.

I have tried using it. It needs to be integrated and it needs to be de-bugged.

SSL is not the only requirement.

Its insane to release a browser on the Internet that does not provide a strong encryption capability.

#53 Re: Re: Re: 3 Basic Items - or Why I Don't Use Moz

by basic

Saturday July 1st, 2000 2:24 AM

It is being debugged, check bugzilla for the bugs. As for integration, I would disagree. Having PSM as a seperate module is the best thing given that there are people who wouldn't want it and current (but soon to be obsolete?) patent problems.

#79 Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 Basic Items - or Why I Don't Use

by crfrey

Saturday July 1st, 2000 9:48 PM

Yes, but the average user doesn't understand the difference. Builds for distribution have to have this in there.

Anyway, this is sniping over one of the items I mentioned and a problem that a lot of open source projects are going to continue having.

#98 PSM will be integrated?

by leafdigital

Monday July 3rd, 2000 7:51 AM

In Netscape builds, PSM will be integrated; it should just work.

As for S/MIME... ugh. Wish they'd support a proper encrypted mail standard.

I have to admit I don't even know what "LDAP addressing" would do, and given that I just coded (here at work) an authentication system that hooks up to an LDAP-based server this might be slightly alarming, but. :>


#54 Re: Re: Re: 3 Basic Items - or Why I Don't Use Moz

by basic

Saturday July 1st, 2000 2:25 AM

It is being debugged, check bugzilla for the bugs. As for integration, I would disagree. Having PSM as a seperate module is the best thing given that there are people who wouldn't want it and current (but soon to be obsolete?) patent problems.

#82 Bad News

by benb

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 9:55 AM

Neither Roaming, nor S/MIME, nor LDPA are planned for NS6.

They *might* be included in Moz1.0, we didn't even define goals for it.

#92 Re: Bad News

by crfrey

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 6:55 PM

One of the problems for Roaming and LDAP is that since they were released in the 4.5+ branches, they were never released in the open source build.

A lot of the code may be fairly transferable, but right now we can't even see it.

If you have any input into the goals for Mozilla 1.0+, I would say S/MIME then Roaming and then LDAP in terms of priorities.

As for NS6, are we ever actually going to see it and will anyone care?

#102 roaming

by mattdm

Monday July 3rd, 2000 8:45 AM

It's okay -- the 4.x implementation is less than ideal. See bug #17917.

#103 Roaming = RFE 17917

by mattdm

Monday July 3rd, 2000 8:47 AM

Vote for bug #17917.

#31 Crashes

by WillyWonka

Friday June 30th, 2000 3:49 PM

Mozilla still crashes way too much. Its a new crash every day.

I like surprises, but not this type. Its still no where near good enough to release. Give it a half-year or so and it should be stable though. But they'll probably release it too early... based on Netscape's track record.

#35 Multibyte Character is too large

by ryuzi

Friday June 30th, 2000 5:23 PM

mozilla's default character size is 16pt,and it is too large than that of NC's.

if there is no probrem to use more less size,it should be changed.At least 14pt.

#42 Great Backend; POOR UI

by xkalibur

Friday June 30th, 2000 9:22 PM

I consider Mozilla to still be in that "we're working on the backend so the UI still sucks" stage, even though I admit I don't keep up development-wise so I'm probably wrong. But it just seems that way. Web pages load great and fast now, and scrolling seems to be fine. What keeps me from using it full-time? The USER INTERFACE. I'm still convinced that XUL or whatever is a good thing, but damn there has to be someway to speed stuff up, or else I don't ever see Mozilla being totally accepted. A few days ago I tried for the first time to use email with Mozilla, and was heart-broken at how long stuff takes to show up. And we all know how slow the preferences panel is. Bottom line to me: better, FASTER UI, now. Someone wake up and realize the Aphrodite package is such a better chrome and should be rolled in (besides the fact that they can't seem to integrate back/forward history... ugh).

#45 Re: Great Backend; POOR UI

by johnlar

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:27 PM

Whats truly funny, is that according to rumor, most of the mozilla team is realizing that the new classic style skin is much faster and generally better than the modern skin they have been using. But suppositivly the Suits for some reason demand that they keep the modern skin.. shrugs. While I know that the suits can't really make demands upon mozilla, they can still attach the modern skin to Netscape 6.0 no matter what is released on mozilla. The hope is that the new improvments in classic will change their minds.

#55 Re: Re: Great Backend; POOR UI

by basic

Saturday July 1st, 2000 2:31 AM

Does anyone know why the classic skin is faster than the modern skin?

#60 Re: Re: Re: Great Backend; POOR UI

by johnlar

Saturday July 1st, 2000 9:35 AM

I would guess its because the modern skin evolved along side with XUL, I'd be willing to bet that if they trashed it and remade it to look the same it would be much smoother.

#63 Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Backend; POOR UI

by basic

Saturday July 1st, 2000 12:50 PM

My impression was that the difference between the "modern" skin and and the classic skin was just css+images. How could that make the "classic" skin faster?

#65 Re: Great Backend; POOR UI

by WillyWonka

Saturday July 1st, 2000 1:41 PM

"How could that make the "classic" skin faster?"

I think pretty much the only difference between the 2 is one uses images for the buttons and backgrounds, where as the classic skin uses flat colours.

I know I switched to the classic skin and have sort of forgotten about the modern skin myself. I didn't even realize it until I downloaded moz at work and it came up with the modern skin which I switched immediatly. :)

#78 Re: Re: Re: Great Backend; POOR UI

by Ben_Goodger

Saturday July 1st, 2000 7:33 PM

The classic skin, by virtue of its simpler visual design, has fewer style rules. Also, the style rules for classic are being carefully designed to be performant from the ground up, rather than trying to achieve a look and optimising later.

#46 Based on Netscape PR1...

by Mike_S

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:33 PM

The last build I used was Netscape PR1. Two things kill it for me.

1) It's disgustingly obese. It places like 2000 files on the hard drive and takes longer to install then my OS. 2) The launch time very long. I understand it's been improved a bit in later builds.

The UI of course is so flexible it's not even worth mentioning and Gecko itself had very good performance though it had some rendering flaws.

Is the huge file count a sacrafice of XUL or will those be reduced into a few compressed archives or something towards completetion? I'm still looking forward to a release but after house keeping my computer I'm in no rush play with dev software :)

#47 Re: Based on Netscape PR1...

by FrodoB

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:47 PM

They'll be packaged in .jar files, not as 2000 separate files. I'm not sure when this'll be implemented (should be beta 3 or earlier; maybe beta 2). .jar files are basically .zip files with a different extension (they have other uses in Java 2, but Netscape's implementation doesn't include the manifest information of the .jar format in Java 2 to my knowledge).

#48 basically needs speed and stability

by archen

Friday June 30th, 2000 10:55 PM

Think the most important thing is speed in stability as far as a browser is concerned. For me, I'd also like to see a much leaner browser. I think maybe as Microsoft continues to spiral out of control with bloat, perhaps people would turn to mozilla as an alternative. I've got a P133, with 48Megs of RAM, and Mozilla basically crawls. Granted it whips up html pages in a flash, but is it really worth it if the rest of my computer drags? (God forbid if I'm playing an mp3 and I have a paint program open at the same time as Mozilla).

Mozilla is really a great browser otherwise. There are a few odds and ends problems but they'll eventually be fixed.

Last but not least... once the browser gets fixed, someone needs to work on the entire e-mail disaster area. It works, but barely. If Netscape has done anything right, it's Messenger, and I'd hate to see it turn to crap.

#50 Re: basically needs speed and stability

by bartd

Saturday July 1st, 2000 12:04 AM

Amen, especially the piece about the mail client. I spent equal amts of time in web browser and mail client, and the mail client is so slow it's unusable. Dying to switch to Mozilla, but pls kick some life into the mailer. Love what you guys are building!

#56 Re: basically needs speed and stability

by wyoung

Saturday July 1st, 2000 5:26 AM

I'm using a P100, with 80MB RAM, Win95 OSR2, and Mozilla crawls. Last build I used was the PR1. It would seem that most people are using horribly fast computers, and as such, who cares how slow it is? I for one, DO!

I'm using IE5.01 at the moment, and that's simply because it loads up faster and renders faster than Netscape 4.61 (I think?)

Back to Mozilla... UI is slow, load time is slow, thousands of small files installed (massive problems for me when I usually run with less than 30MB free on the hard drive after the install), memory requirements should come down so I can use the computer for something else, etc.

I'm still supporting the project, but I'd really love to see some real large improvements in the memory requirements, and load speed, etc, before I use it on a daily basis.

And, I hope that I don't end up eating my words when Mozilla finally gets to an official release version and it turns out to be _slower_ than IE... I'm hate for that to happen.. ;P

#57 Re: Re: basically needs speed and stability

by danielhill

Saturday July 1st, 2000 8:32 AM

Hear hear. At work, I use a PIII/666 with NT 4 and 128mb RAM. Mozilla works like a charm. Just as fast as IE, and leaves 4.x for dead.

I come home, on my 6x86/120 with Win98 and 32mb RAM, it is virtually unusable. Too much RAM consumption, rendering speed is horrible, UI is sluggish.

I think the programmers need a reality check; not everyone uses a 1GHz. I think AOL bought the programmers new computers and dumped the "old" Pentiums.

How can Mozilla be expected to work on tiny embedded devices, when my big clunky PC can't run it properly?

And don't get me started on the Linux version; it is totally unusable on my home box under Linux (then again, Linux and GNOME is near-unusable)

#49 Almost but not quite!

by ipotting

Friday June 30th, 2000 11:58 PM

I use Mozilla every day. It's the first browser I open and I use it till it crashes.

The two things that prompt me to open up a session of N4.7 are: 1) PSM does not seem to work. I can't visit my bank's website and veiw my accounts. 2) Preferences seems to have no effect.

Fix these two things and there would be enough of a browser to prevent the need for me to open another. I'm sure this will happen in due time.

#58 When It's Ready...

by Chewey

Saturday July 1st, 2000 9:22 AM

Well I've been using Mozilla since nightlies egan appearing. Right now the main thing that's keeping me from using it full time is proxy authentication (it comes and goes), and bookmarks (which I'm noticing in recent builds is getting better). Since all I use Mozilla for is browsing, I'm 95% there.

#59 Too slow on MacOS

by mbrubeck

Saturday July 1st, 2000 9:33 AM

I have switched to Mozilla as my main web browser for Linux; I now find it more stable and at least as fast as Communicator 4. On the same machine under MacOS, however, I find it intolerably slow -- noticeably slower than Communicator, and much much slower than IE 5. I expect that a lack of MacOS developers is at the root of the problem, as usual with open source projects. Unfortunately I can't afford Mac development tools myself.

<p>Somehow, Microsoft's IE 5 for MacOS team managed to make a browser that is fast, fits in extremely well with Mac interface expectations, and is generally a functional, highly useable product -- better than its Windows cousin. Without major optimization and UI improvements, Mozilla-based browsers will have a hard time competing against it on MacOS.

#85 Re: right on

by doode

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 11:08 AM

i couldn't have said it better

#62 Why so surprised?

by bjensen

Saturday July 1st, 2000 11:18 AM


The negative public consensus regarding Mozilla is mainly towards it's UI. The XUL implemented UI is a joke, continues to be a source of problems, and unless a native UI is constructed then this ill-fated mechanism will be it's down fall.

In addition to to the poor performance, even the default skin is a complete eye sore. The other skins? They're just window dressing... nothing the majority of people would ever use.

Hate to say it... but I told you so... over a year ago.


#64 Re: Why so surprised?

by basic

Saturday July 1st, 2000 12:52 PM

So I guess you are predicting the doom of Mozilla? ;-Þ

#125 UI Non-problem

by damian

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 10:04 AM

Mozilla was designed so that the rendering engine can easily be embedded in any application. Making a native UI for Mozilla is trivial. In fact, it is already being done by the guys at Eazel, who are making a Mozilla component for the new file manager/ browser for the Gnome desktop. It still uses XUL scrollbars for now. XUL may not integrate very well with your applications right now, but it is definitely the best solution for Mozilla's cross-platform development at this stage. After Mozilla's API stabilizes, expect to see programs using Mozilla's browsing engine and native UIs on almost every platform.

#68 Re: Why so surprised?

by simifilm

Saturday July 1st, 2000 3:55 PM

I have to agree. UI is ugly as hell, slow and uncomfortable.

#71 Re: Why so surprised?

by petejc

Saturday July 1st, 2000 5:24 PM

"and unless a native UI is constructed then this ill-fated mechanism will be it's down fall."

This is pure bullshit. XUL and xptoolkit can be as fast as a native UI. I know this for a fact. The current bad implementation and UI design is the real problem *not* XPFE and mozilla's architecture. In fact, native UI's are a thing of the past i assure you.

XPFE and XUL will go down in history as Mozilla's greatest assetes. Mark my words.


#73 Re: Re: Why so surprised?

by arnoudb

Saturday July 1st, 2000 5:46 PM

"XUL and xptoolkit can be as fast as a native UI. I know this for a fact."

This may be true, I don't know, but I'd like to know why this is not the case then, right now?

#74 Re: Re: Re: Why so surprised?

by basic

Saturday July 1st, 2000 5:56 PM

I don't know about what you are talking about, but the only thing that makes Mozilla slow right now that I know of is the bloat and "leaks" problems that it has. I have run it on a 128MB win32 system and found it to be as fast as native UI (on a 32MB system is a different thing altogather).

Even on a 32MB win32 system, I find that as long as I use only one browser window and don't try to start mailnews, the UI is as fast as native UI for the first 5 webpages I visit.

#76 I'm not surprised.

by mikem2

Saturday July 1st, 2000 7:14 PM

" I'd like to know why this is not the case then"

Because it's not true, the original poster was on the money regarding the flawed UI. Just about everywhere I go that's the biggest complaint above all else: THE KLUNKY UI!

Unless mozilla starts changing some things it's future is rather bleak.


#114 Re: Re: Why so surprised?

by lubricated

Tuesday July 4th, 2000 11:47 AM

it can never be as fast as native. it will always take up more ram, there is no way around that. the native stuff is always already in ram. the mozilla stuff is added on. You will never use as little ram. Plus this stuff stinks. No user cares that you are using the xptoolkit and xml, or whatever slow crap. fast native widgets were the way to go, but mozilla wanted to be cool.

#115 Re: Re: Re: Why so surprised?

by FrodoB

Tuesday July 4th, 2000 4:16 PM

Yep. Mozilla wanted to be cool by supporting platforms other than Windows. The sad fact is that Mozilla would not be on Linux or Mac (to say nothing of the ports supported by groups outside Netscape, because the code would be Windows-specific) if the move to non-native widgets had not been made. You can like the decision to change, or you can hate it. But it's what had to be done. Another Windows only browser, even an open-source one that supports the latest standards, is not something that the world needed, and anyone who thinks so probably has never used anything but Windows.

That having been said, I'm keeping a tab on Matthew Thomas's effort to get native widgets working in XUL. If native widgets improve to the point where they work fine in CSS (even IE doesn't use native widgets; they just use widgets that look a lot like native), maybe the change back to native can be managed.

#116 Re: Re: Re: Re: Why so surprised?

by bjensen

Tuesday July 4th, 2000 7:59 PM

Oh come on, Mark... you don't need an XP UI to make an app for multiple platforms. There are many apps who's core are cross platform while their UI's are native.


#123 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why so surprised?

by FrodoB

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 9:05 AM

They weren't my words, Bruce. They were Mike Pinkerton's, one of the head Mac weenies at Netscape. He said very plainly (and Chris Nelson can confirm this) at one of the chat sessions that Netscape would not have had resources allocated to development on any non-Windows platform if the UI hadn't been made XP. It's a decision from the suits that the programmers would not have liked but would have had to go along with.

#72 Re: Why so surprised?

by petejc

Saturday July 1st, 2000 5:31 PM

"and unless a native UI is constructed then this ill-fated mechanism will be it's down fall."

This is pure bullshit. XUL and xptoolkit can be as fast as a native UI. I know this for a fact. The current bad implementation and UI design is the real problem *not* XPFE and mozilla's architecture. In fact, native UI's are a thing of the past i assure you.

XPFE and XUL will go down in history as Mozilla's greatest assetes. Mark my words.


#87 Re: Re: Why so surprised?

by bjensen

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 11:45 AM

"XUL and xptoolkit can be as fast as a native UI"

"In fact, native UI's are a thing of the past i assure you"

"XPFE and XUL will go down in history as Mozilla's greatest assetes. Mark my words"

All of the above... is pure bullsh*t.

#67 Opinions From a Potential Major Corporate User...

by TonyG

Saturday July 1st, 2000 2:09 PM

Hi. I work for a Major US based Merchant bank as Senior Developer within the Technology side of the business. One of our remits it to provide architecture and strategy direction for the whole of Europe, Middle East and Africa. This includes deciding on the web browser installed on thousands and thousands of workstations.

Currently the business supports Netscape 4.08+ and IE 4.01+. Both browsers are old now and major upgrades are desparately needed.

On Friday the 30th of June I was asked a simple question. " Is Netscape 6 ready to go because we can package it up for an SMS drop in the next few weeks, on all the PCs in the regions."

It would have been irresponsible of me to have said anything other than "its not ready".

Right, now I'm gonna let of some steam here as I have kept it to myself for YEARS. I have been doing my best to block the clamouring hoards calling for the business to totally scrap Netscape and move to a single browser base using - you guessed it - IE5. I tell you, it is getting harder and harder every day to convince people that IE5 only is not a good thing.

Ok steam off, constructive remarks.

First and foremost, we absolutely , absolutely MUST get an accetable, released browser out in the world. Not a Netscape-rushed-to-market but-full-of-holes browser but a stable, fast lean, mean killer. Statement of the obvious? Maybe, but it needs to be a mantra. This browser is taking years to come out. If this pace is maintained, have the standards that Gecko supports will have been superceded. No one can hand on heart disagree with that. I know all the reasons for it up to now as I have been a devoted Netscape advocate - and latterly Mozilla advocate - since the source code was released.

I will leave others to elaborate on the problems with Mail and Composer. It is the browser that is crucial to me.

The UI is too rough. If the suits in Netscape think this is gonna do anything other than drive away potential users then perhaps it is time Netsape gave up the ghost and became an entry in the history books. It is slow to load, buggy as a buggy thing and devoid of any of the features most users take for granted. If you want to know what these features are then get IE5 on win32 and look at its interface. That is what you need. Nice to see Ben Goodger is using the IE style forward/back buttons in the classic skin.

A memory footprint the size of king Kong and a ridiculously slow load time needs to be resolved. Gecko used to load like a flash and it used to run fine on low spec PCs. Now it needs shed loads of RAM and CPU speed to run at something approximating NS4+ speeds. NS4 is years old. Moz/NS6 has to run faster than it as a minimum entry point.

The rendering engine has also slowed down a great deal. Pages used to snap in like lightning. Now they take longer.

Bookmarks are often unstable. I personally believe the layout model and feature spec is spot on. What is wrong is that it is slow to reflow and often half the options dont work.

XSLT is something as a developer I would love to see but as a user I can live without. However, I guess the superb work being done to get Transformix into PR2 or Moz 1.0 is running concurrently so it makes sense to go for it.

Basically I believe the feature list required of a 21st century browser is largely in place within Mozila but it needs a lot of polishing and a few additions based on what IE4-5 offers. Specifically I am thinking of coolbars/customisable toolbars, a decent history browser, good print support, full screen mode and tighter integration with other desktop packages.

The great work done by Adam Locke to get ActiveX support into Mozilla is a move in the right direction. Mozilla needs to at least be able to load the likes of Excel or Word in a browser window as Netscape 4 can partially do.

The forward/back buttons need to be totally and consistently co-ordinated with the location box and history.

Auto complete for URLs is here now but it doesnt always allow work properly. It has never been linked to history as it currently only seems to auto complete addresses entered in the current session. Cosmetically I think it have a drop down portion that is always the same width as the text field used for locations. It is coming along though.

Auto proxy is a must for me. I haven't been able to use Mozilla nightlies for over a week when in work because this is broken. It has worked in the past so hopefully it will be fixed permanently.

Sorry if this is down beat. On a more positive note I believe Mozilla has the potential to rock the internet. Developpers are dying for a styandards compliant browser and Moz is the leader. Just get it out before MS do what they do best and steal your thunder...

#94 Re: Opinions From a Potential Major Corporate User

by gwalla

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 11:09 PM

> On Friday the 30th of June I was > asked a simple question. " Is > Netscape 6 ready to go because we can > package it up for an SMS drop in the > next few weeks, on all the PCs in the > regions."

Netscape 6 is still beta. Why did they want to bundle beta software?

#97 Re: Re: Opinions From a Potential Major Corporate

by TonyG

Monday July 3rd, 2000 6:11 AM

They didn't know the state of play with Netscape 6, which is why I was asked if it was ready.

#111 Re: Re: Re: Opinions From a Potential Major Corpor

by gwalla

Tuesday July 4th, 2000 1:56 AM

In that case you could have just told them "Sorry, it's still in beta." No need to test it for readiness--it's known to be an unfinished product.

#77 Feature Bloat

by jawbone

Saturday July 1st, 2000 7:17 PM

My main question about Mozilla's development is this: why is it being force-fed the features of a fifth-generation browser before it's even usable? There are so many useless features being shoved onto the codebase, that memory leaks will never be eliminated. They're just getting buried in more features. Mozilla doesn't need features to compete; who's it competing with? Mozilla is supposed to be a non-profit undertaking, so why is it concerned about marketshare-garnering features?

#80 Mozilla's non profit. Netscape's a company.

by jesusX

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 1:04 AM

Mozilla was created by Netscape. Mozilla is currently the browser BY Netscape. In spite of all the carping about being this and that, is a breeding ground for innovation in the browser space supported by Netscape. There are other companies chipping in with feature support (RedHat, Intel, IBM), but the vast majority of Mozilla contributors are Netscape employees, and Mozilla's direction is being set by Netscape's executive leadership.

Now, quite honestly, I see nothing wrong with that. Not a damn thing. Sure, I disagree with some choices, but guess what, I CAN CHANGE THEM! I can take the source, change what I don't like, and Wham, Bam, Thank you Lizard, I have what I wanted. Not only is Netscape creating a truly original, next-generation browser and over all Internet platform, they're giving it away, soup to nuts. Or in this case, bits to bytes. I can DL a Netscape branded browser (when this is all done and a release is made), or I can DL a Mozilla branded browser, or I can grab the source, and put together my own BoobzBrand browser.

Yes, Netscape is a big corporation. Yes, Netscape is one of the many tentacles of AOL. But guess what, that's OK! It's actually not immoral to make money! But the idea of corporations making profits has somehow gotten tied up in how they do that, and the bad things it can bring. But I for one don't hate Bill Gates for his 50 billion dollars (although I do like being able to say 50 and not 80 any more!), I hate the crap he pulled to get it and the damage he's done.

And I don't hate Netscape for wanting Mozilla to be very marketable with neato spiffy features like AOL Mail integration, or AIM integration, or Winamp/Netscape Radio. They want to garner marketshare, to help push their over all brand and make money. I do the same thing. And any programmer who has put his name on his software, or a designer who has a link to his own business from all his customer's site to his, that's all the same in the end as NEtscape pushing their brand. That's what Capitalism is all about, and that's what Democracy is meant to do, protect rights to do your own thing. And that's why we have laws about how to stop folks who get too pushy. Even Big Billy got a rude awakening, just like AT&T, Nelson Rockefeller (Standard Oil), and various railroads 150 years ago.

Right now, Mozilla is NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME, because it's NOT DONE! When you put a frozen dinner in the microwave, do you stop the microwave half way through and wonder why it's not hot? Do you get to work in the morning, and wonder why you're not already done for the day? No! Things in the universe take time! And whining and moaning about why it's not 100% stable and feature complete months before it's done is stupid.

Just because it's moderately useable doesn't mean it's done. And rather than crying about it, try working towards that goal. When it IS done, THEN it will be stable.

Oh, and to answer the question in short form: If it's not got any features that other browsers have, what's the point in using it? If you want a featureless browser, there are still copies of NS1 and 2 out there in the ether. Go have a ball.

#83 You missed my point

by jawbone

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 10:00 AM

You missed my point completely. I'm not complaining about Netscape the corporation making a golly-gee-whiz browser. That's their option. But that crap shouldn't be in the Mozilla tree if it's bad for Mozilla, and at this point, I say it is. Running Mozilla on my computer, it consumes about 40M of RAM immediately, and can grow twice as large in minutes. I'm not complaining about it not being feature-complete, I'm complaining about it being given those features before it's ready.

It seems to me that a reasonable approach would have been to aim for a reasonable subset of functionality, say equivalent to NS 3. Once there, squish all the bugs and memory leaks, and *then* start adding more features.

I don't mind Netscape making profits. I *do* mind when that affects Mozilla detrimentally, as it seems to be in this case (IMO, anyway). I don't care about Netscape's browser, and I'll never use it. I *do* care about Mozilla's browser, and I think it's time the leadership started putting's priorities ahead of Netscape's feature needs.

#90 I got the point, but...

by jesusX

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 3:45 PM

But right now, Mozilla is still a Netscape project. Only when we see a branch for NS6 Final will Mozilla start to migrate towards the community's needs. And once there's a Mozilla 1.0 final, then it really will be a community effort in majority. That's when Netscape will take the backseat in Mozilla development.

#91 I hope you're right...

by jawbone

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 6:45 PM

All I can say is I hope you're right. With Netscape leading the project, it's making all the same mistakes Netscape has made in the past. Well, at least there's always GtkHTML and Nautilus, just in case...

#84 Re: Mozilla's non profit. Netscape's a company.

by FrodoB

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 10:50 AM

>just like ... Nelson Rockefeller (Standard Oil), and various railroads 150 years ago.

This is nit-picking, and completely off-topic, but.... It was John Rockefeller (Nelson Rockefeller was Gerald Ford's vice president). :) And the railroads really weren't penalized (to say nothing of the fact that the Continental Railroad was completed only 131 years ago); Standard Oil got it for monopolizing horizontally (controlling every step of the process, from oil to laying track to engine production, etc.). The Sherman Antitrust Act was only passed a little over 100 years ago. :)

(Sorry. I'm a history buff. ;) )

#89 D'OH!

by jesusX

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 3:30 PM

I'm a history buff too. And I _KNEW_ there was something wrong with that Rockefeller name, but it was late. =-]

I think I may have accidentally "upgraded" my mental fact-checking program with a Microsoft version that came with Win98. ;-]

#81 back/forward

by billi_kid

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 2:28 AM

NS 4.xx have the coolest back/forward buttons i can't see any reasons to change layout. Do you know why so many peoples still used buggy NS 4.xx ,becouse it's look very good. SO i see here that mozilla drop nicesest from NS 4.xx, and get worst.

#86 Re: back/forward

by samfish

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 11:15 AM

This is exactly why I like NS4. The interface is really clean and friendly. The default interface on Mozilla is horrible. It's ugly, looks like something for either children or the visually impaired and is really ugly (yes, I know I said that earlier).

#88 what it needs

by tvinci

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 11:58 AM

1) Have SSL working in build 2) right click on location w/ menus of copy & paste 3) Have the automatic proxy settings work or just have the manual's non proxy for certain domains work

#93 What's Really Sad

by Metrol

Sunday July 2nd, 2000 8:42 PM

I'm sitting here reading Mozillazine with nearly flawless rendering, good speed, and fully open source. Darn near 90% of what I want from a browser.

Too bad that what I'm reading with is the old KFM from the KDE desktop. Oh sure, I know that it doesn't even do a fraction of what Mozilla is capable of. Thing is though, it renders basic HTML one hell of a lot better than any of the nightly builds have ever done.

With IE on Windows and Konquerer on Linux all the cross platform widget stuff just isn't feeling as important as it once did. Possibly a good idea over a year ago, but that was over a year ago. The web has moved on and the relevance of Mozilla along with it.

#107 Re: What's Really Sad

by basic

Monday July 3rd, 2000 7:21 PM

Yeah its true that XP-widgets might be a thing of the past for browsers, BUT!! For an XP-App it is still needed. Now all Mozilla has to do is beef up performance!

#95 Before the final beta my advice is . . .

by IndpdntMind

Monday July 3rd, 2000 12:37 AM

Before the final beta my advice is to: 1. Make the "classic skin" immitate the genuine classic skin of NS 4 almost completely. 2. Push to make the performance and stability as excellent as possible. 3. Kill all the bugs you can.

In my opinion this will probably make the transition from NS 4 to NS 6 much easier for the consumer and the web products the browser is used in will be that much more exceptional.

As a previous Netscape browser user I want a browser that looks like a Netscape product.

#99 I'm wait for good mail and ldap support

by pabloa

Monday July 3rd, 2000 7:56 AM

I'm wait for good mail and ldap support. I use Ns4.x for mail and browsing. I need this funcionality to make mozilla my default browser.

#129 Re: I'm wait for good mail and ldap support

by Metrol

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 7:40 PM

You can pretty much cancel any plans to upgrade. Even though Mozilla seems to be putting in significant resources to make sure it's compatible with AOL's proprietary mail system, LDAP has been officially deemed dead for Moz 1.0. I also require LDAP for my E-Mail, and for the E-Mail at everyone at my office. Yeah, I'm pretty upset with this. What really gets me going is the efforts being put forth for AOL's crap, while an open standard like LDAP hits the scrap heap. I spent a health amount of time working in detailed bug reports, and debating this with developers on the newsgroups as well. Can you say total IE dominance into 2002?

#130 Re: Re: I'm wait for good mail and ldap support

by basic

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 7:57 PM

Hmm... if LDAP is dead, what is this LDAP compile option I recently heard about on the newsgroups?

#132 Re: Re: Re: I'm wait for good mail and ldap suppor

by FrodoB

Thursday July 6th, 2000 2:10 PM

Last I heard (which was about two days ago), dmose is working on LDAP. It's compilable (if not yet usable; I'm not sure what stage of development it's at) on at least Mac (I would imagine Windows and Linux as well; I'm just not sure how ;) ). It sounds like something he's going to try to get in ASAP....

#134 Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm wait for good mail and ldap su

by basic

Friday July 7th, 2000 11:58 AM

Saw this couple of days ago:

LDAP in the Mozilla browser status news://

#100 Not bad, but...

by leafdigital

Monday July 3rd, 2000 8:04 AM

Ignoring the bugs (I'm using nightly builds), I think the browser is pretty hot now. I did just see it running on Linux though - damn it's slow. On Win32, it seems fine.

The "turn off ads" facility (right-click and "block this image") is awesome. With that feature they might even pick up users from IE. The cookie manager in general is a good feature. Nothing else is really impressive enough to pull IE users, so I hope those features are promoted.

However, almost everything is working now - it just needs to be reliable (by which I mean, as well as bugs being fixed, that menu items shouldn't shift size when you mouseover them; nor should miscellaneous links on some pages; drag-and-drop of links should work every time, instead of some of the time) and integrated (by which I mean, proper Java and PSM out of the box, also the other standard plug-ins).

Finally, the "classic" skin needs to be finished (location box doesn't seem to be done yet, a few other things seem somewhat ropey) and made default. Or another skin needs to be designed, perhaps somewhere between the two - less clunky than those 4.x-style buttons, default status bar, etc etc, but less adventurous than purple circles. I.e., I know this sucks, but it has to be grey. :) Aphrodite is a good model.

Those are the things that need doing before it could be released to users. However, some things need doing from a web developer point of view. In particular, PNG (gamma support works - cool, no more Mac/PC colour differences! - but transparency STILL doesn't). SVG would also be *really* nice since Adobe's plugin is a bit of a dog, but if native support can't be done, I hope a working version of the dog plugin can also be integrated..

As for XSLT.... ugh. Mozilla supports XML+CSS, which is by far the better route for XML presentation. Leave transformations to the back-end.


#101 I'm wait for good mail and ldap support

by pabloa

Monday July 3rd, 2000 8:31 AM

I'm wait for good mail and ldap support. I use Ns4.x for mail and browsing. I need this funcionality to make mozilla my default browser.

#104 Helper apps

by vondo

Monday July 3rd, 2000 9:20 AM

For me, the major thing keeping Mozilla from replacing Navigator, if not Communicator is that helper apps have to work. My work frequently requires that I open up Postscript and PDF files through the browser, so this is a absolute must for me to use Mozilla as my browser.

Strangely I didn't see anyone even mention this, so maybe I'm missing something in M16.

#105 vast improvement

by richardshaw

Monday July 3rd, 2000 1:10 PM

I've been looking at Mozilla since M7 and I can rightly say there has been a vast improvement.

I would like to see, a beefed up version of viewer.exe that came with early builds that supports JS, and a few more essentials, it was just so damn fast.

I would also like to know just how much speed Mozilla can gain, its getting better but is still fairly poor on my P200. A percentage figure would be nice.

#106 The Alpha and Omega is the UI

by bongo

Monday July 3rd, 2000 6:44 PM

I certainly hope the message is getting through that the ugliness of the present UI is going to be a major handicap to Mozilla's wider acceptance unless it is changed pronto. Users shouldn't have to apply a skin before they get something that looks better than than something designed in Warsaw in 1972. As many have said before, currently the best browser interface is IE5 for Mac. It's a model of understated elegance and beauty. What I find fascinating is how each browser has its own user 'feel', like driving a car.

With regard to this, here's my experience...

On Mac, Netscape is still the fastest and delivers a smooth ride like a Jaguar.

IE is slightly slower (except on the backbutton), and the 'feel' is rather like a rather heavy Cadillac.

The remarkable iCab is as fast as Netscape, and feels kind of light, like riding in an aluminium Mini Minor.

Mozilla is painfully slow and jerky in loading on a modem connection, and the feel is the heaviest - like an armoured personnel carrier with bad tracks.

#108 My favorite new feature...

by wolfseyn

Monday July 3rd, 2000 7:53 PM

Open link in new window. Switch back to first window and mouseover on the link you just opened. It magically changes to the 'Visited' color! I think the way Mozilla must improve is to be able to work with the least amount f memory possible. Right now it is slow with 64 megs It would be reall cool if it could work well with 8! Faster, Faster, Faster!

#112 Faster, Faster, Faster!!

by basic

Tuesday July 4th, 2000 2:13 AM

I second that! I'll like to see it run as fast as (if not faster than) NS4 on 64MB RAM in M18, 32MB RAM in M19 and 16MB in M20 (hopefully). I wouldn't expect Moz to run in 8MB except for a browser only version, but I don't think a real browser only version is possible for NS6/Moz1.0 . Maybe Moz1.1/1.5?

#113 Re: Faster, Faster, Faster!!

by FrodoB

Tuesday July 4th, 2000 8:53 AM

What exactly do you define as browser only? With Ender Lite and Gecko, plus the UI, it should be possible (and probably is, in the installers; I'm just not sure whether the installer is using Ender Lite yet) to make a browser-only version....

Or did you mean something else?

#118 8 Megabytes

by Tanyel

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 1:17 AM

The three of you are obviously not Windows users.

#119 Re: 8 Megabytes

by basic

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 1:32 AM

I am a Windows user! I have setup a Win95 on a 486 8MB machine before. I know it is slow and can hardly run anything on it ( only able to play freecell and use wordpad ). But I believe that Mozilla can be made to run in such low memory conditions when memory usage is optimum and low memory handling code is in place.

#120 Re: Re: Faster, Faster, Faster!!

by basic

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 1:37 AM

Is Ender Lite a real replacement for Ender? I was under the impression that Ender Lite only cuts down the memory usage in the browser and the UI when a form was involved, but Ender was still needed. So are you saying that Ender can now be removed from the code and the browser will still work?

#124 Re: Re: Re: Faster, Faster, Faster!!

by FrodoB

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 9:07 AM

Insofar as I can tell (and DON'T quote me on this), Ender Lite is an instance of Ender without a native widget or any formatting. I don't think they're separable right now, but I would imagine that is the future plan.

#126 Re: Re: Re: Re: Faster, Faster, Faster!!

by basic

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 12:55 PM

Thanks for clarifying. So a browser only build would still include ender. I doubt it would run on a 8MB machine.

#127 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Faster, Faster, Faster!!

by FrodoB

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 1:50 PM

Sure it will.... You just need 6 or 7 terabytes of swap. Of course, considering that that would cost thousands of times more than the extra RAM.... ;)

#128 LOL!!!

by basic

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 5:46 PM

Funny! Actually with low memory handling code, Mozilla should be able to run in 8MB. It is just a matter of how fast or how slow it will be. I'm figuring that a browser only build with minimum editing capabilities should be able run in a 3-4MB RAM + swap space. Sure it wouldn't run as smooth, but it should be bearable.

#110 What does Mozilla need?

by samfish

Tuesday July 4th, 2000 12:43 AM

Mozilla NEEDS to do everything 4.x can do, but better. It needs to be as fast as 4.x is or FASTER. It Needs to be much more stable than 4.x is. Once all of these things are taken care of it's time to add all the whiz-bang features, but the other things should be a priority. Unfortunately, it appears everyone is puting their pet features into the programs, and trying to make Mozilla into some kind of super programming platform thing, but first of all it need to be a good browser. Right now it's not.

I've been hoping that everything will start to come together, but it's starting to look doubtful.

#117 keep going

by matt

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 12:07 AM

Mozilla is great and needs to keep going in a new direction and not be compared to other, older browsers where an html DTD is hard coded in them. The days of html are over. We need a browser that parses XML and uses style sheets properly. We want a lean mean fighting machine.

#122 Proxy and stability

by lahaine

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 8:00 AM

I donwload the daily build at least every week and I think that mozilla is on the way. But some problems prevent me from using it on a daily basis : the first one is the annoying proxy password bug (mozilla does not make the difference between a proxy password and a web password) and the second one is the memory leaks that force to stop mozilla after few minutes. I think that the mozilla team should focus on bugs and stability points before adding new features. Most people only wants a usable browser, and we all know that features will come

#131 good, but...

by tssr

Wednesday July 5th, 2000 9:56 PM

i've been testing Mozilla builds since M9 and I've seen the progressions in the UI and other features..

personally, I like the browser, and the fact that it (i'm running M16) is as reliable as Internet Explorer 5, but the browser has certain flaws...

1. the UI and the widgets! it is nice but it is confusing to new users... perhaps it may be hard to change this at this stage, but UI widgets like buttons should resemble the OS, and the gfx scrollbars should be taken out... (normal scrollbars should be default)

2. plugin support -- where are the music plugins? shockwave? PDF?

3. speed -- especially on Mac OS -- Mac users expect low system requirements so the browser should be streamlined to run faster to compete with Mac IE 5 which is the BEST browser I've seen in a long time.

#135 Throbbers broken?

by evlg

Monday July 10th, 2000 6:30 AM

I showed M16 to my girlfriend, and overall she liked it, but she did have one question: why can't the throbbers work properly?

It was very frustrating to her to click on a link in an Yahoo email or on a web page and sit there with no indication the browser was doing anything, only to discover a few seconds later that the page was mostly loading.

The throbber in the upper right corner consistently fails to move on a link being clicked, and the little progress bar in the lower left corner does the same thing. Is anyone working on this?

#136 make a "mozilla light"

by Sparkster

Wednesday July 12th, 2000 4:29 AM

hello! i wrote a lot of text a few minutes ago with mozilla m16, i thought it would be really faster than m15.. but then i opened a second window and my system got totally stucked.. i wanted to close the second windows and hit the "quit" button... my text was gone :(

this monkey is way to lame! even compared to netscape 4.7 and i thought it would be lame enough!

i guess there should be something changed. i have to suggestions.. (PLEASE give me some respones to them).

1) make a "mozilla light" version. this should be, what the navigator was compared to the communicator. make a webbrowser only. no email, no news no nothing, give it a FAST and clean gui. remove this sidebar and all this stuff no one needs to simply browse a website!

2) this maybe more interesting (to me ;)) concentrate development on the gecko engine. make it fast.. make it bugfree.. make it standards compatible.. make it ROCK! and then give everybody the chance to develop their own webbrowser, using the same engine. there could be alot of different developer teams working on gecko versions vor win32, gtk and Qt guis. there could be something for everybody! and of course could continue developing the mozilla project. galeon ( shows, that it's possible and that it's good. i don't know if server are any legal issues? it seems to be allowed to use the mozilla headers to use the gecko engine in own projects. what about changing this code? is it totaly free and opensource? cause if it's allowed to change the code, there could be browsers with a reduced gecko engine to improve performance. please give me some feedback :)

- spark